Contrasting Direct Instruction in Morphological Decoding and Morphological Inquiry-Analysis Interventions in Grade 3 Children With Poor Morphological Awareness

Abstract

We report on a school-based randomized control trial study comparing two morphological interventions with untaught controls: one focusing on direct instruction targeting print morphological decoding (direct decoding condition) and the other on inquiry-focused pedagogy using oral morphological analysis (inquiry-analysis condition). We identified 63 Grade 3 children with below-average morphological awareness following screening (from N = 163). This sub-sample showed average pseudoword decoding but poor language and word reading abilities. Following a 13-week supplemental intervention randomized within the 63 children, results showed a statistically significant main effect of intervention on standardized reading vocabulary measures at immediate post-test in the direct decoding condition. Pre-test morphological awareness moderated reading vocabulary effects for the untaught control group. Statistically significant moderation of growth in sentence comprehension at post- by pre-test morphological awareness was also evident in the inquiry-analysis condition. Universal screening for below-average morphological awareness followed by inquiry-based or direct instruction interventions focusing on the meaning dimensions of morphemes may be modestly efficacious for supporting reading vocabulary and sentence comprehension in such at risk learners, potentially aiding school-wide literacy improvement.

Keywords

decoding English intervention morphological awareness reading

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al Otaiba

Fuchs

(2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy interventions: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325020230050501

Anglin

J. M.

(1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(10), i–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166112

Apel

Brimo

Diehm

Apel

(2013). Morphological awareness intervention with kindergartners and first- and second-grade students from low socioeconomic status homes: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461

Apel

Diehm

(2013). Morphological awareness intervention with kindergarteners and first and second grade students from low SES homes: A small efficacy study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509964

Arnbak

Elbro

(2010). The effects of morphological awareness training on the reading and spelling skills of young dyslexics. Scandinavian Journal of Education Research, 44, 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830050154485

Bowers

P. N.

Kirby

J. R.

(2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9172-z

Bowers

P. N.

Kirby

J. R.

Deacon

S. H.

(2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353

Bradley

Bryant

P. E.

(1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read. Nature, 301, 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1038/301419a0

Bryant

P. E.

Bradley

(1985). Children’s reading problems. Blackwell.

10.

Carlisle

J. F.

(1988). Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth, and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400007839

11.

Carlisle

J. F.

(2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12, 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604

12.

Carlisle

J. F.

(2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 464–487. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.5

13.

Crosson

McKeown

Lei

Zhao

Patrick

Brown

Shen

(2021). Morphological analysis skill and academic vocabulary knowledge are malleable through intervention and may contribute to reading comprehension for multilingual adolescents. Journal of Research in Reading, 44, 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12323

14.

Cunningham

A. M.

(2013). Phonics they use (6th ed.). Pearson.

15.

Deacon

S. H.

Tong

Francis

(2017). The relationship of morphological analysis and morphological decoding to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12056

16.

Ehri

L. C.

(2015). How children learn to read words. In Pollatsek

Treiman

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 293–310). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324576.013.19

17.

Fletcher

J. M.

Savage

R. S.

Vaughn

(2021). A commentary on Bowers (2020) and the role of phonics instruction in reading. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1249–1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09580-8

18.

Frost

Grainger

Rastle

(2005). Current issues in morphological processing: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/0169096044000287

19.

Fugate

M. H.

(2003). Review of the group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation. In Plak

B. S.

Impara

J. C.

Spies

R. A.

(Eds.), The fifteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 425–429). The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

20.

Galuschka

Görgen

Kalmar

Haberstroh

Schmalz

Schulte-Körne

(2020). Effectiveness of spelling interventions for learners with dyslexia: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Educational Psychologist, 55, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1659794

21.

Georgiou

Savage

Dunn

Bowers

Parrila

(2021). Examining the effects of structured word inquiry on the reading and spelling skills of persistently poor grade 3 readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 44, 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12325

22.

Goodwin

A. P.

Ahn

(2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/s11881-010-0041-x

23.

Goodwin

A. P.

Ahn

(2013). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(4), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.689791

24.

Griffiths

Stuart

(2013). Reviewing evidence-based practice for pupils with dyslexia and literacy difficulties. Journal of Research in Reading, 36, 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01495.x

25.

Henbest

V. S.

Apel

(2017). Effective word reading instruction: What does the evidence tell us? Communication Disorders Quarterly, 39, 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740116685183

26.

Hox

J. J.

(2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). Routledge.

27.

Kieffer

M. J.

Lesaux

N. K.

(2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.2.3

28.

Kirby

J. R.

Bowers

P. N.

(2017). Morphological instruction and literacy: Binding phonological, orthographic, and semantic features of words. In Cain

Compton

D. L.

Parrila

R. K.

(Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 437–462). John Benjamins.

29.

Kuo

L. J.

Anderson

R. C.

(2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3

30.

Lam

Chen

Deacon

S. H.

(2020). The role of awareness of cross-language suffix correspondences in second-language reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.257

31.

Levesque

K. C.

Breadmore

H. L.

Deacon

H. S.

(2021). How morphology impacts reading and spelling: Advancing the role of morphology in models of literacy development. Journal of Research in Reading, 44, 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12313

32.

Levesque

K. C.

Deacon

S. H.

(2022). Clarifying links to literacy: How does morphological awareness support children’s word reading development? Applied Psycholinguistics, 43, 921–943. https://www.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716422000194

33.

Levesque

K. C.

Kieffer

M. J.

Deacon

S. H.

(2017). Morphological awareness and reading comprehension: Examining mediating factors. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.02.015

34.

Levesque

K. C.

Kieffer

M. J.

Deacon

S. H.

(2019). Inferring meaning from meaningful Parts: The contributions of morphological skills to the development of children’s reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 54, 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.219

35.

Manolitsis

Georgiou

Inoue

Parrila

(2019). Are morphological awareness and literacy skills reciprocally related? Evidence from a cross-linguistic study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 1362–1381. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000354

36.

Mathes

P. G.

Denton

C. A.

Fletcher

J. M.

Anthony

J. L.

Francis

D. J.

Schatschneider

(2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2

37.

McCutchen

Logan

Biangardi-Orpe

(2009). Making meaning: Children’s sensitivity to morphological information during word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 360–376.

38.

Morris

S. B.

(2008). Estimating effect sizes from the pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059

39.

Nation

(2009). Form-meaning links in the development of visual word recognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364, 2665–3674. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0119

40.

Nunes

Bryant

Olsson

(2003). Learning morphological and phonological spelling rules: An intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0703_6

41.

Perfetti

C. A.

(2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730

42.

Perfetti

C. A.

Stafura

(2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687

43.

Plaut

D. C.

McClelland

J. L.

Seidenberg

M. S.

Patterson

(1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.56

44.

Rastle

(2019). The place of morphology in learning to read. Cortex, 116, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.02.008

45.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. SAGE.

46.

Rayner

Foorman

B. R.

Perfetti

C. A.

Pesetsky

Seidenberg

M. S.

(2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.00004

47.

Roman

A. A.

Kirby

J. R.

Parrila

R. K.

Wade-Woolley

Deacon

S. H.

(2009). Toward a comprehensive view of the skills involved in word reading in Grades 4, 6, and 8. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.01.004

48.

Ruan

Georgiou

G. K.

Song

Shu

(2018). Does writing system influence the associations between phonological awareness, morphological awareness, and reading? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 180–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000216

49.

Savage

R. S.

Georgiou

Parrila

Maiorino

(2018). Preventative reading interventions teaching direct mapping of graphemes in texts and set-for-variability aid at-risk learners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(3), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1427753

50.

Seymour

P. H. K.

(1997). Foundations of orthographic development. In Perfetti

C. A.

Rieben

Fayol

(Eds.), Learning to spell: Research theory and practice across languages (pp. 319–337). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.2307/417529

51.

Smith

M. W.

Brady

J. P.

Clark-Chiarelli

(2008). Early language and literacy classroom observation K-3 tool (Research ed.). Brookes.

52.

Vaughn

Capin

Scammacca

Roberts

Cirino

Fletcher

J. M.

(2019). The critical role of word reading as a predictor of response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53, 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419891412

53.

Venezky

(1999). The American way of spelling. Guilford Press.

54.

Wilkinson

G. S.

Robertson

G. J.

(2006). Wide range achievement test 4. Psychological Assessment Resources.

55.

Williams

K. T.

(2001). Group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation: Teacher’s scoring & interpretive manual. American Guidance Service.

56.

Wolter

J. A.

Dilworth

(2014). The effects of a multilinguistic morphological awareness approach for improving language and literacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509972

57.

Woodcock

R. W.

McGrew

K. S.

Mather

(2001). Woodcock Johnson III test of achievement. Riverside.

58.

Wybrow

D. P.

Hanley

(2015). Surface developmental dyslexia is as prevalent as phonological dyslexia when appropriate controls are employed. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 32(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2014.998185

59.

Yeung

S. S.

Savage

(2020). Teaching grapheme-phoneme correspondences using a direct mapping approach for at-risk second language learners: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419894563

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB