This study tested the effects of teaching high school students with learning disabilities (LD) and other students enrolled in general education classes a morphemic analysis strategy for analyzing and predicting the meaning of words. A comparison-group design was used with random assignment of three intact classes to each of two conditions: (a) the Word Mapping condition, where students learned the morphological analysis strategy; and (b) the Vocabulary LINCing condition, where students learned a mnemonic strategy. Three other classes were used to establish a norm for knowledge of targeted words. Students in both strategy groups and students with and without disabilities learned their respective strategy and the meaning of taught words. Word Mapping students with and without disabilities earned higher scores on a test of morphological analysis than students in the other groups. Thus, students were able to learn generative and non-generative vocabulary strategies and could apply a generative strategy to analyze and create meaning for unknown words, an important skill while reading assignments and taking reading tests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnglinJ. M.MillerG. A.WakefieldP. C. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58 (Serial No. 238), 1–186.
2.
BaumannJ. F.EdwardsE. C.BolandE. C.OlejnikS.Kame'enuiE. J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects on instruction in morphology and context on fifth-grade students' ability to derive and infer word meanings. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 447–494.
3.
BaumannJ. F.Kame'enuiE. J. (2004). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
4.
BiemillerA.SlonimM. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498–520.
5.
BlachowiczC.FisherP. (2000). Vocabulary instruction. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 3 (pp. 503–523). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
BryantD. P.GoodwinM.BryantB.HigginsK. (2003). Vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 117–128.
7.
CattsH. W.KamhiA. G. (1999). Language and language disorders. Boston, MA: Allyn St Bacon.
8.
DeshlerD. D.HockM. F. (2007). Adolescent literacy: Where we are, where we need to go. In PressleyM.BillmanA. K.PerryK. H.ReffittK. E.ReynoldsJ. M. (Eds.), Shaping literacy achievement: Research we have, research we need. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
9.
EbbersS. M.DentonC. A. (2008). A root awakening: Vocabulary instruction for older students with reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23 (2), 90–102.
10.
EllisE. S. (1992). The Vocabulary (LINCS) Strategy. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
11.
FillmerH. T. (1977). A generative vocabulary program for grades 4-6. The Elementary School Journal, 78 (1), 53–58.
12.
GravesM. F. (1986). Vocabulary learning and instruction. In RothkopfE. Z. (Ed.), Review of research in education, Vol. 13 (pp. 49–89). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
13.
GravesM. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
14.
HarrisM. L. (2007). The effects of strategic morphological analysis instruction on the vocabulary performance of secondary students with and without disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
15.
HockM. F.BrasseurI. F.DeshlerD. D.CattsH. W.MarquisJ.MarkC. A.StriblingJ. W. (2009). What is the reading component skill profile of adolescent struggling readers in urban schools?Learning Disability Quarterly, 32 (1), 21–38.
16.
JenkinsJ. R.MatlockB.SlocumT. A. (1989). Two approaches to vocabulary instruction: The teaching of individual word meanings and practice in deriving word meaning from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 215–235. Retrieved from PROVIDE URL.
17.
JitendraA. K.EdwardsL. L.SacksG.JacobsonL. A. (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322.
18.
KamilM. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
19.
MarzanoR. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development.
20.
McCardleP.ChhabraV. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
21.
MooreB.MooreM. (1997). NTC's dictionary of Greek and Latin origins: A comprehensive guide to the classical origins of English words. Chicago, IL: NTC Publishing Group.
22.
NagyW. E. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive. In HiebertE. H.KamilM. L. (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
NagyW. E.AndersonR. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English?Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330. Retrieved from PROVIDE URL.
24.
NagyW. E.BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 134–147.
25.
NagyW. E.DiakidoyI. N.AndersonR. C. (1993). The acquisition of morphology: Learning the contribution of suffixes to the meanings of derivatives. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 155–170.
26.
NagyW. E.HermanP. A. (1987). Depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In McKeownM. G.CurtisM. E. (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
NagyW. E.ScottJ. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP.PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 3 (pp. 269–284). New York, NY: Longman.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
31.
OttermanL. M. (1955). The value of teaching prefixes and word-roots. Journal of Educational Research, 48, 611–615.
32.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.
33.
ReedD. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K-12. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23 (1), 36–49.
34.
SirlesC. (1997). Root awakenings: Vocabulary development using classical word roots. Champaign, IL: Stripes Publishing.
35.
SnowC.PorcheM. V.TaborsP. O.HarrisS. R. (2007). Is literacy enough? Pathways to academic success for adolescents. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
36.
SpencerA. (2001). Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
37.
StahlS. A. (1999). Vocabulary development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
38.
StahlS. A.FairbanksM. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110.
39.
StahlS. A.NagyW. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
WhiteT. G.PowerM. A.WhiteS. (1989). Morphological analysis: Implications for teaching and understanding vocabulary growth. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 283–304.
41.
WhiteT. G.SowellJ.YanagiharaA. (1989). Teaching elementary students to use word-part clues. The Reading Teacher, 302–308.
