Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-3
Contrasting Direct Instruction in Morphological Decoding and Morphological Inquiry-Analysis Interventions in Grade 3 Children With Poor Morphological Awareness
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.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (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
2.
AnglinJ. 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
3.
ApelK.BrimoD.DiehmE.ApelL. (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
4.
ApelK.DiehmE. (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
5.
ArnbakE.ElbroC. (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
6.
BowersP. N.KirbyJ. 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
7.
BowersP. N.KirbyJ. R.DeaconS. 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
CarlisleJ. 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.
CarlisleJ. 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.
CarlisleJ. 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.
CrossonA.McKeownM.LeiP.ZhaoH.LiX.PatrickK.BrownK.ShenY. (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.
CunninghamA. M. (2013). Phonics they use (6th ed.). Pearson.
15.
DeaconS. H.TongX.FrancisK. (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
FletcherJ. M.SavageR. S.VaughnS. (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.
FrostR.GraingerR.RastleK. (2005). Current issues in morphological processing: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/0169096044000287
19.
FugateM. H. (2003). Review of the group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation. In PlakB. S.ImparaJ. C.SpiesR. A. (Eds.), The fifteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 425–429). The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
20.
GaluschkaK.GörgenR.KalmarJ.HaberstrohS.SchmalzX.Schulte-KörneG. (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.
GeorgiouG.SavageR.DunnK.BowersP.ParrilaR. (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.
GoodwinA. P.AhnS. (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.
GoodwinA. P.AhnS. (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.
GriffithsY.StuartM. (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.
HenbestV. S.ApelK. (2017). Effective word reading instruction: What does the evidence tell us?Communication Disorders Quarterly, 39, 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740116685183
26.
HoxJ. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). Routledge.
27.
KiefferM. J.LesauxN. 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.
KirbyJ. R.BowersP. N. (2017). Morphological instruction and literacy: Binding phonological, orthographic, and semantic features of words. In CainK.ComptonD. L.ParrilaR. K. (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 437–462). John Benjamins.
29.
KuoL. J.AndersonR. 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.
LamK.ChenX.DeaconS. 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.
LevesqueK. C.BreadmoreH. L.DeaconH. 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.
LevesqueK. C.DeaconS. 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.
LevesqueK. C.KiefferM. J.DeaconS. 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.
LevesqueK. C.KiefferM. J.DeaconS. 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.
ManolitsisG.GeorgiouG.InoueT.ParrilaR. (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.
MathesP. G.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M.AnthonyJ. L.FrancisD. J.SchatschneiderC. (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.
McCutchenD.LoganB.Biangardi-OrpeU. (2009). Making meaning: Children’s sensitivity to morphological information during word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 360–376.
38.
MorrisS. 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.
NationK. (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.
NunesT.BryantP.OlssonJ. (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
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. SAGE.
46.
RaynerK.FoormanB. R.PerfettiC. A.PesetskyD.SeidenbergM. 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.
RomanA. A.KirbyJ. R.ParrilaR. K.Wade-WoolleyL.DeaconS. 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.
RuanY.GeorgiouG. K.SongS.LiY.ShuH. (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.
SavageR. S.GeorgiouG.ParrilaR.MaiorinoK. (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.
SeymourP. H. K. (1997). Foundations of orthographic development. In PerfettiC. A.RiebenL.FayolM. (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research theory and practice across languages (pp. 319–337). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.2307/417529
51.
SmithM. W.BradyJ. P.Clark-ChiarelliN. (2008). Early language and literacy classroom observation K-3 tool (Research ed.). Brookes.
52.
VaughnS.CapinP.ScammaccaN.RobertsG.CirinoP.FletcherJ. 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.
VenezkyR. (1999). The American way of spelling. Guilford Press.
54.
WilkinsonG. S.RobertsonG. J. (2006). Wide range achievement test 4. Psychological Assessment Resources.
55.
WilliamsK. T. (2001). Group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation: Teacher’s scoring & interpretive manual. American Guidance Service.
56.
WolterJ. A.DilworthV. (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.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock Johnson III test of achievement. Riverside.
58.
WybrowD. P.HanleyR. (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.
YeungS. S.SavageR. (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.
