Effects of instruction in morphology on reading Peter N. Bowers, Queen’s University John R. Kirby,...

Effects of instruction in morphology on reading

Peter N. Bowers, Queen’s UniversityJohn 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


Semantics



• In English, orthographic representation of morphemes more stable than grapheme-phoneme correspondences


Semantics




• Clarifies reading-spelling relationships


Semantics




• Clarifies reading-spelling relationships• Marks meaningful orthographic patterns


Semantics




• Clarifies reading-spelling relationships• Marks meaningful orthographic patterns• Binds semantics, orthography, and phonology


Semantics


• Provides clues to pronunciation, syntax, spelling and meaning


• Clarifies reading-spelling relationships• Marks meaningful orthographic patterns• Binds semantics, orthography, and phonology

Morphology


Semantics

Orthography PhonologyMorphology

• Binds semantics, orthography, and phonology

heal + ed healedheal + er healerheal + th healthun + heal + th + y unhealthyheal + th + y/i + est healthiest

Morphological Matrix (Ramsden, 2001)

un heal

singeder

th y

erestlyness


Semantics



heal + ed healedheal + er healerheal + th healthun + heal + th + y unhealthyheal + th + y/i + est healthiest

Morphological Matrix (Ramsden, 2001)

un heal

singeder

th y

erestlyness

<ea> /ɛ/

<ee> /i/ <heal>

<health>


Semantics



<ea> /ɛ/

<ee> /i/ <heal>

<health>Morphology and orthographic phonology are interrelated:

The grapheme choices for the word <heal> need to represent the pronunciations of all the words that base builds (e.g. <healing> and <health>). The <ea> digraph that can represent the necessary pronunciations, but the <ee> cannot. The unrelated base word spelled <heel> marks its distinct meaning from <heal> with a distinct spelling.

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



• 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


Morphology

5 Features of Lexical Quality (Perfetti, 2007)

Orthography; Phonology; Grammar; Meaning

& Constituent Binding



Semantics







Semantics


“…the degree to which the first four features are bound together.”

(Perfetti, 2007, p. 360)

Morphology






Semantics


“…the degree to which the first four features are bound together.”

(Perfetti, 2007, p. 360)



• May make spelling more predictable (especially English)




• May be an area of relative advantage for children with weak phonological processing




• 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, 20092. 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-LexicalLexical

Supra-LexicalMorphological Non-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 0.65 0.51 0.34 0.08 0.41 0.12 0.28 -0.08

SD 0.72 0.55 0.37 0.34 0.48 0.47 0.26 0.30

Count 37 11 26 22 93 75 12 9

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Ability

Linguistic Category of Outcome VariableSub-Lexical

LexicalSupra-LexicalMorphological Non-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 0.99 1.25 0.63 0.25 0.57 0.24 0.67 0.39

SD 0.87 0.27 0.54 0.51 0.54 0.48 0.56 0

Count 9 3 5 7 24 15 6 1

Undifferentiated Readers

d 0.65 0.24 0.27 0.00 0.40 0.08 0.27 -0.15

SD 0.77 0.31 0.29 0.20 0.50 0.46 0.56 0.23

Count 30 8 21 15 72 60 9 8

Effects of Morphological Instruction by AbilityLinguistic Category of Outcome Variable

Sub-LexicalLexical

Supra-LexicalMorphological Non-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 0.99 1.25 0.63 0.25 0.57 0.24 0.67 0.39

SD 0.87 0.27 0.54 0.51 0.54 0.48 0.56 0

Count 9 3 5 7 24 15 6 1

Undifferentiated Readers

d 0.65 0.24 0.27 0.00 0.40 0.08 0.27 -0.15

SD 0.77 0.31 0.29 0.20 0.50 0.46 0.56 0.23

Count 30 8 21 15 72 60 9 8

Effects stronger for less able children; possible confound of group size

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Age



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 1.24 1.25 0.49 -0.16 0.57 -0.07 0.27 -0.22

SD 0.41 0.27 0.44 0.16 0.48 0.17 0.14 0.22

Count 2 3 10 7 19 11 7 5

Grade 3 to Grade 8

d 0.62 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.37 0.15 0.29 0.08

SD 0.72 0.31 0.28 0.35 0. 48 0.49 0.40 0.29

Count 35 8 16 15 74 64 5 4

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Age



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 1.24 1.25 0.49 -0.16 0.57 -0.07 0.27 -0.22

SD 0.41 0.27 0.44 0.16 0.48 0.17 0.14 0.22

Count 2 3 10 7 19 11 7 5

Grade 3 to Grade 8

d 0.62 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.37 0.15 0.29 0.08

SD 0.72 0.31 0.28 0.35 0.48 0.49 0.40 0.29

Count 35 8 16 15 74 64 5 4

Effects usually stronger for younger children

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Integration



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 0.55 1.25 0.49 0.27 0.46 0.22 0.37 0.39

SD 0.58 0.27 0.38 0.53 0.45 0.52 0.21 --

Count 5 3 12 7 31 28 2 1

Isolated Instruction

d 0.67 0.24 0.20 0.00 0.38 0.05 0.26 -0.15

SD 0.74 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.50 0.44 0.28 0.23

Count 32 8 14 15 62 46 10 8

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Integration



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 0.55 1.25 0.49 0.27 0.46 0.22 0.37 0.39

SD 0.58 0.27 0.38 0.53 0.45 0.52 0.21 --

Count 5 3 12 7 31 28 2 1

Isolated Instruction

d 0.67 0.24 0.20 0.00 0.38 0.05 0.26 -0.15

SD 0.74 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.50 0.44 0.28 0.23

Count 32 8 14 15 62 46 10 8

Effects usually stronger with integration

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Literacy Outcomes (Lexical Layer)


Reading Spelling Vocabulary

Exp.vs.

Cont.

Exp.vs. Alt. Treat.

Exp.vs.

Cont.

Exp.vs. Alt. Treat.

Exp.vs.

Cont.

Exp.vs. Alt. Treat.

Overall

d 0.41 0.05 0.49 0.05 0.35 0.20

SD 0.45 0.32 0.48 0.37 0.51 0.60

Count 39 34 21 9 34 32

Effects of Morphological Instruction by Literacy Outcomes (Lexical Layer)


Reading Spelling Vocabulary

Exp.vs.

Cont.

Exp.vs. Alt. Treat.

Exp.vs.

Cont.

Exp.vs. Alt. Treat.

Exp.vs.

Cont.

Exp.vs. Alt. Treat.

Overall

d 0.41 0.05 0.49 0.05 0.35 0.20

SD 0.45 0.32 0.48 0.37 0.51 0.60

Count 39 34 21 9 34 32

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).

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Characteristics of Morphological Instruction # of studies

Oral morphology only 4Oral and written morphology 15Targeted consistent spelling of morphemes despite phonological shifts 4

Targeted patterns of orthographic shifts in suffixing patterns 8Explicit link of morphology and grammar 3

Surprisingly few

Characteristics of Morphological Instruction: Tasks # of studies

Morphological analysis 22Morphological synthesis 11Morphological recognition: sorting / selecting 7Morphological production: cloze / analogy 5Morphological 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

PhonologicalExplicit

Vocabulary

Non-Morpholgical, Sublexical Outcomes 22 16 --

Lexical 75 31 32Supra-Lexical 9 5 3

“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,...

Documents

Transcript of Effects of instruction in morphology on reading Peter N. Bowers, Queen’s University John R. Kirby,...