Effects of instruction in morphology on reading Peter N. Bowers, Queen’s University John R. Kirby, Queen’s University and S. Hélène Deacon, Dalhousie University.

Effects of instruction in morphology on reading Peter N. Bowers, Queen’s University John R. Kirby, Queen’s University and S. Hélène Deacon, Dalhousie University Supported by the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Outline What is morphology? How is it involved in reading? Correlational evidence Potential benefits of learning morphology Meta-analysis of instructional studies Conclusions

What is morphology? Morphemes are the smallest units of meaning in words (oral or written): un+help+ful, walk+ed –Inflections: walk, walks, walked … (change grammatical case) –Derivations: sign, signal, design … (change part of speech) –Compounds: deadline, airport, bottleneck …

What is morphology? Morphemes are the smallest units of meaning in words (oral or written): un+help+ful, walk+ed –Inflections: walk, walks, walked … (change grammatical case) –Derivations: sign, signal, design … (change part of speech) –Compounds: deadline, airport, bottleneck … Morphological awareness is the“conscious awareness of the morphemic structure of words and (the) … ability to reflect on and manipulate that structure” (Carlisle, 1995, p.194).

How is morphology related to reading? Semantics Orthography Phonology Provides clues to pronunciation, spelling, syntax and meaning

How is morphology related to reading? Semantics Orthography Phonology Provides clues to pronunciation, spelling, syntax and meaning In English, orthographic representation of morphemes more stable than grapheme-phoneme correspondences

How is morphology related to reading? Semantics Orthography Phonology Provides clues to pronunciation, spelling, syntax and meaning In English, orthographic representation of morphemes more stable than grapheme-phoneme correspondences Clarifies reading-spelling relationships

How is morphology related to reading? Semantics Orthography Phonology Provides clues to pronunciation, spelling, syntax and meaning In English, orthographic representation of morphemes more stable than grapheme-phoneme correspondences Clarifies reading-spelling relationships Marks meaningful orthographic patterns

How is morphology related to reading? Semantics Orthography Phonology Provides clues to pronunciation, spelling, syntax and meaning In English, orthographic representation of morphemes more stable than grapheme-phoneme correspondences Clarifies reading-spelling relationships Marks meaningful orthographic patterns Binds semantics, orthography, and phonology

How is morphology related to reading? Semantics Orthography Phonology Provides clues to pronunciation, syntax, spelling and meaning In English, orthographic representation of morphemes more stable than grapheme-phoneme correspondences Clarifies reading-spelling relationships Marks meaningful orthographic patterns Binds semantics, orthography, and phonology Morphology

How is morphology related to reading? Semantics Orthography Phonology Morphology Binds semantics, orthography, and phonology heal + ed  healed heal + er  healer heal + th  health un + heal + th + y  unhealthy heal + th + y/i + est  healthiest Morphological Matrix (Ramsden, 2001) un heal s ing ed er thy er est ly ness

How is morphology related to reading? Semantics Orthography Phonology Morphology Binds semantics, orthography, and phonology heal + ed  healed heal + er  healer heal + th  health un + heal + th + y  unhealthy heal + th + y/i + est  healthiest Morphological Matrix (Ramsden, 2001) un heal s ing ed er thy er est ly ness / ɛ / /i/

How is morphology related to reading? Semantics Orthography Phonology Morphology Binds semantics, orthography, and phonology / ɛ / /i/ Morphology and orthographic phonology are interrelated: The grapheme choices for the word need to represent the pronunciations of all the words that base builds (e.g. and ). The digraph that can represent the necessary pronunciations, but the cannot. The unrelated base word spelled marks its distinct meaning from with a distinct spelling.

Correlational evidence Morphological awareness is correlated with and predicts word reading and reading comprehension

Correlational evidence Morphological awareness is correlated with and predicts word reading and reading comprehension Continues to predict after controlling factors such as intelligence, vocabulary, phonological awareness, naming speed, orthographic processing –Deacon & Kirby, 2004, Applied Psycholinguistics –Roman, et al., 2009, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology –Kirby, Geier & Deacon, 2009, Society for the Scientific Study of Reading

Correlational evidence Morphological awareness is correlated with and predicts word reading and reading comprehension Continues to predict after controlling factors such as intelligence, vocabulary, phonological awareness, naming speed, orthographic processing –Deacon & Kirby, 2004, Applied Psycholinguistics –Roman, et al., 2009, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology –Kirby, Geier & Deacon, 2009, Society for the Scientific Study of Reading Demonstrated with various kinds of morphological measures

Potential benefits of learning morphology May promote higher quality lexical representations (Perfetti, 2007) facilitating access to words & meanings during reading (Carlisle & Katz, 2009) Semantics Orthography Phonology Morphology

5 Features of Lexical Quality (Perfetti, 2007) Orthography; Phonology; Grammar; Meaning & Constituent Binding Potential benefits of learning morphology May promote higher quality lexical representations (Perfetti, 2007) facilitating access to words & meanings during reading (Carlisle & Katz, 2009) Semantics Orthography Phonology

5 Features of Lexical Quality (Perfetti, 2007) Orthography; Phonology; Grammar; Meaning & Constituent Binding Potential benefits of learning morphology May promote higher quality lexical representations (Perfetti, 2007) facilitating access to words & meanings during reading (Carlisle & Katz, 2009) Semantics Orthography Phonology Morphology “…the degree to which the first four features are bound together.” (Perfetti, 2007, p. 360)

Morphology 5 Features of Lexical Quality (Perfetti, 2007) Orthography; Phonology; Grammar; Meaning & Constituent Binding Potential benefits of learning morphology May promote higher quality lexical representations (Perfetti, 2007) facilitating access to words & meanings during reading (Carlisle & Katz, 2009) Semantics Orthography Phonology “…the degree to which the first four features are bound together.” (Perfetti, 2007, p. 360)

Potential benefits of learning morphology May promote higher quality lexical representations (Perfetti, 2007) facilitating access to words & meanings during reading (Carlisle & Katz, 2009) May make spelling more predictable (especially English)

Potential benefits of learning morphology May promote higher quality lexical representations (Perfetti, 2007) facilitating access to words & meanings during reading (Carlisle & Katz, 2009) May make spelling more predictable (especially English) May be an area of relative advantage for children with weak phonological processing

Potential benefits of learning morphology May promote higher quality lexical representations (Perfetti, 2007) facilitating access to words & meanings during reading (Carlisle & Katz, 2009) May make spelling more predictable (especially English) May be an area of relative advantage for children with weak phonological processing untaught vs. explicitly taught morphological knowledge?

Meta-analysis of instructional studies Selection criteria: 1.Published in English by December 7, 2009 2.Intervention in languages using Roman alphabet 3.Elementary school students (preschool to Grade 8) 4.Instruction about any element of oral or written morphology 5.At least one third of the instruction was focused on morphology 6.Reported literacy outcome measures (including morphological measures) with means and standard deviations for comparison 7.Used an experimental and control/comparison group. 22 studies (18 in English, 2 in Norwegian, 1 in Danish, 1 in Dutch) 2,652 students

Effect sizes Effect size statistic is Cohen’s d –the difference between the mean posttest score of the treatment group and that of the comparison group, divided by the pooled standard deviation –an effect size of 1 represents a difference of 1 standard deviation between the treatment and comparison groups Cohen’s (1988) general benchmarks: 0.2 small, 0.5 medium, 0.8 large Hattie’s (2009): 0.2 small, 0.4 medium, 0.6 large

Overall Effects of Morphological Instruction Linguistic Category of Outcome Variable Sub-Lexical Lexical Supra- Lexical MorphologicalNon-Morph. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Overall d 0.650.510.340.080.410.120.28-0.08 SD0.720.550.370.340.480.470.260.30 Count371126229375129

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Ability Linguistic Category of Outcome Variable Sub-Lexical Lexical Supra- Lexical MorphologicalNon-Morph. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Less Able Readers d 0.991.250.630.250.570.240.670.39 SD0.870.270.540.510.540.480.560 Count9357241561 Undifferentiated Readers d 0.650.240.270.000.400.080.27-0.15 SD0.770.310.290.200.500.460.560.23 Count3082115726098

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Ability Linguistic Category of Outcome Variable Sub-Lexical Lexical Supra- Lexical MorphologicalNon-Morph. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Less Able Readers d 0.991.250.630.250.570.240.670.39 SD0.870.270.540.510.540.480.560 Count9357241561 Undifferentiated Readers d 0.650.240.270.000.400.080.27-0.15 SD0.770.310.290.200.500.460.560.23 Count3082115726098 Effects stronger for less able children; possible confound of group size

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Age Linguistic Category of Outcome Variable Sub-Lexical Lexical Supra- Lexical MorphologicalNon-Morph. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Preschool to Grade 2 d 1.241.250.49-0.160.57-0.070.27-0.22 SD0.410.270.440.160.480.170.140.22 Count23107191175 Grade 3 to Grade 8 d 0.620.24 0.200.370.150.290.08 SD0.720.310.280.350. 480.490.400.29 Count3581615746454

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Age Linguistic Category of Outcome Variable Sub-Lexical Lexical Supra- Lexical MorphologicalNon-Morph. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Preschool to Grade 2 d 1.241.250.49-0.160.57-0.070.27-0.22 SD0.410.270.440.160.480.170.140.22 Count23107191175 Grade 3 to Grade 8 d 0.620.24 0.200.370.150.290.08 SD0.720.310.280.350.480.490.400.29 Count3581615746454 Effects usually stronger for younger children

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Integration Linguistic Category of Outcome Variable Sub-Lexical Lexical Supra- Lexical MorphologicalNon-Morph. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Integrated Instruction d 0.551.250.490.270.460.220.370.39 SD0.580.270.380.530.450.520.21-- Count53127312821 Isolated Instruction d 0.670.240.200.000.380.050.26-0.15 SD0.740.31 0.200.500.440.280.23 Count32814156246108

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Integration Linguistic Category of Outcome Variable Sub-Lexical Lexical Supra- Lexical MorphologicalNon-Morph. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Integrated Instruction d 0.551.250.490.270.460.220.370.39 SD0.580.270.380.530.450.520.21-- Count53127312821 Isolated Instruction d 0.670.240.200.000.380.050.26-0.15 SD0.740.31 0.200.500.440.280.23 Count32814156246108 Effects usually stronger with integration

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Literacy Outcomes (Lexical Layer) Linguistic Category of Outcome Variable ReadingSpellingVocabulary Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Overall d 0.410.050.490.050.350.20 SD0.450.320.480.370.510.60 Count39342193432

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Literacy Outcomes (Lexical Layer) Linguistic Category of Outcome Variable ReadingSpellingVocabulary Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Exp. vs. Cont. Exp.vs. Alt. Treat. Overall d 0.410.050.490.050.350.20 SD0.450.320.480.370.510.60 Count39342193432 Effects similar across outcomes

Conclusions Morphological instruction is effective –Effects variable Not surprising, given variable methods, newness, and lack of standard curriculum –More effective with less able or younger participants –More effective when integrated with other aspects of literacy instruction (binding) May have a role in vocabulary development –Bowers & Kirby (2010), Reading and Writing –Motivate interest in words -- Increase “word consciousness” (Stahl & Nagy, 2006) Replace other forms of instruction (e.g., phonological)? NO !! Combine and integrate!

Thank you! Study to be published in June Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & S. H. Deacon. (in press). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80(2). peterbowers1@mac.com

Characteristics of Morphological Instruction # of studies Oral morphology only 4 Oral and written morphology 15 Targeted consistent spelling of morphemes despite phonological shifts 4 Targeted patterns of orthographic shifts in suffixing patterns 8 Explicit link of morphology and grammar 3 Surprisingly few

Characteristics of Morphological Instruction: Tasks # of studies Morphological analysis 22 Morphological synthesis 11 Morphological recognition: sorting / selecting 7 Morphological production: cloze / analogy 5 Morphological analysis with morphological ‘foils’ (e.g. is there a re- prefix in renter?) 4 Morphological problem-solving 6 Surprisingly few Potential for motivation, engaging intelligence

Linguistic Category of Outcome Total # of outcomes in E vs. AT comparisons Alternative Treatments Phonological Explicit Vocabulary Non-Morpholgical, Sublexical Outcomes 2216-- Lexical 753132 Supra-Lexical 953 “In general, the ATs represented established intervention methods with a record of positive outcomes, rather than placebo- like attempts to control for instructional time and teacher attention that were not expected to produce positive results. Performing equivalently to these ATs would indicate that morphological instruction is as successful as other more established methods” Bowers, Kirby, & Deacon, 2010, p. 19-20.

Effects of instruction in morphology on reading Peter N. Bowers, Queen’s University John R. Kirby, Queen’s University and S. Hélène Deacon, Dalhousie University.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Effects of instruction in morphology on reading Peter N. Bowers, Queen’s University John R. Kirby, Queen’s University and S. Hélène Deacon, Dalhousie University."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Effects of instruction in morphology on reading Peter N. Bowers, Queen’s University John R. Kirby, Queen’s University and S. Hélène Deacon, Dalhousie University.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Effects of instruction in morphology on reading Peter N. Bowers, Queen’s University John R. Kirby, Queen’s University and S. Hélène Deacon, Dalhousie University."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback