Muhammad Abubaker MA Eng AF 1st

7/24/2019 Muhammad Abubaker MA Eng AF 1st

1/87

tock Exchanges of

Pakistan

Waleed Haider

ROLL NO. L-422

National University of Modern Language,

Lahore Ca!us

2"#$-2"#%

&u'itted to( )rof. &aifullah

1


2/87

*a+ulty of nglish Language, Literature !!lied Linguisti+s

N/0ONL UN01R&0/ O* MO3RN LNU&

0&L

0n !artial fulfilent of the Re5uireents for the 3egree of

M&/R O* R/&

0N

NL0&H L0/R/UR L0NU0&/0C&

6NUR, 2"#%

/CH0N O* 1OC7ULR /HROUH

MOR)HOLO

&u'itted 7y( Muhaad 'u'a8er Roll 9(.#2:;2

2

N/0ONL UN01R&0/ O* MO3RN

LNU&

*CUL/ O* NL0&H L0/R/UR,

LNU ))L03 L0NU0&/0C&


3/87

M nglish Literature Linguisti+s

Ms. Hafsa Karamat

Name of Internal Supervisor Signatures

Ms. Farrukh Shah

Name of External Supervisor Signatures

Muhammad Kashif Jalil

Name of H.O.. Signatures

!rig. "#$ Muhammad %kram Khan

Name of #egional ire&tor Signatures

ate'(((((((((((

3


4/87

R&RCHR


5/87

C=NOWL3MN/&

First and foremost) in the name of %llah the Most -ra&ious and the

Most Mer&iful) I thank %%H "Su*hana /a 0aala$ for endo,ing me

,ith health) patien&e) and kno,ledge to &omplete this ,ork

%lhamdulillah.

/ithout the guidan&e and dire&tion of several important

individuals this thesis ,ould never have *een &ompleted) Spe&ial

appre&iation goes to m+ supervisor) Ms. Hafsa Kramat for her supervision

and &onstant support.

I ,ould also like to thank Sir Irfan !ashir for his &ontri*utions to

the resear&h pro&ess. His kno,ledge and experien&e ,ere ver+ helpful in

designing the data &olle&tion tools and fa&ilitating the re&ruitment pro&ess.

I parti&ularl+ ,ish to a&kno,ledge m+ thanks and sin&ere

appre&iation to pro&edure and su*mitted the thesis on time due to head of

English department Sir #ao Kashif for his innovative guidan&e and

friendl+ &o1operation at various stages of the resear&h ,ork.

Finall+ I ,ould thank to m+ parents for their support.

MUHMM3 7U7=R

5


6/87

/7L O* CON/N/&

#. Cha!ter #( 0ntrodu+tion>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. 22.21Introdu&tion........................................................................ 3

2.31Statement of the 4ro*lem5555555555555 62.71#esear&h O*8e&tives555555555555555 6

2.91#esear&h :uestions555555555555555. 6

2.;1H+pothesis555555555555555555.. 6

2.1imitations555555555555555555. 2=

2. Cha!ter 2( Literature Revie?>>>>>>>>>>>... ##

3.21/hat is Morpholog+? 55555555555555 233.31 Morpholog+ and @o&a*ular+ earning5555555 2;

3.71 Morpholog+ and @o&a*ular+ Instru&tion555555 2A3.91 Blassroom Instru&tion in Morpholog+5555555. 373.;1 !enefits of Morpholog+ Instru&tion55555555. 3;

3.1 Helping 4rimar+ Students earn a*out #oots5555. 73

3.A1 0ea&hing atin and -reek /ord #oots5555555 793.61 Morphologi&al %,areness and @o&a*ular+ Kno,ledge5 79

3.2=1 @o&a*ular+ -ro,th55555555555555 9=

$. Cha!ter $( Resear+h Methodology>>>>>>>>>... 4:

7.214opulation of the Stud+5555555555555. 9A

7.31Sample of the Stud+55555555555555.. 9A

7.71#esear&h 0ool55555555555555555. 967.914ro&edure of Stud+555555555555555. 96

7.;1ata %nal+sis55555555555555555.. 96

4. Cha!ter 4( 3ata nalysis>>>>>>>>>>>>>> %"

%. Cha!ter %( Con+lusion>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @;

;.21 H+pothesis !ased Findings........................................... >=

;.31#e&ommendations555555555555555.. >2;.71Bon&luding #emarks55555555555555.. >3

7i'liogra!hy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. :4

!!endiA

6


7/87

7&/RC/

0he stud+ C0ea&hing of @o&a*ular+ through Morpholog+D ,as

administered to test ,hether learning of students improves or not. 0his

experimental stud+ aimed to &ontri*ute in tea&hing approa&hes in 4akistan.

0he resear&her tried to &he&k its feasi*ilit+ in 4akistani &lassrooms. For

this purpose ;= students of 6 th&lass ,ere sele&ted and distri*uted in t,o

groups experimental group and &ontrolled group. 0,o tests ,ere

administered. First test ,as administered *efore starting the instru&tions

and se&ond test ,as administered after instru&tion of fifteen da+s.

Experimental group ,as taught via morphologi&al stru&tures and later ,as

taught ,ith normal approa&h *eing applied in 4akistani &ontext. 0he

s&ores ,ere &ompared *+ taking differen&e of s&ores via "a1*$ approa&h.

%fter anal+ing all results) it ,as o*served that tea&her tea&hes stem root

or *ase ,ords to the students and identifies them and make them familiar

to the use of these ,ords in speaking and ,riting of the students. 0he+

*e&ome more profi&ient in their language. /ith the help of tea&hing of

vo&a*ular+ espe&iall+ through suffixes) prefixes and affixes the+ &an

enhan&e their lexi&on.

7


8/87

1

CH)/R #

0N/RO3UC/0ON


9/87

2

#.# 0ntrodu+tion

@o&a*ular+ is one of the language skills &ru&ial for fluent language

use "Nation) 2667$. @o&a*ular+ sie is an indi&ator of ho, ,ell the se&ond

language "3$ learners &an perform a&ademi& language skills su&h as)

reading) listening) and ,riting "!ear) Invernii) 0empleton and Johnston)

3==A 0reiman G Basar) 266


10/87

3

a,areness is defined as the a*ilit+ to use the kno,ledge of ,ord formation

rules and the pairings *et,een sounds and meanings "Kuo G

%nderson)3==


11/87

4

relationship *et,een morphologi&al a,areness and reading ma+ *e

re&ipro&al or dire&tional "Bhung and Hu) 3==>) Kuo and %nderson) 3==


12/87

5

develop the needed vo&a*ular+ kno,ledge) learners should *e exposed to

various extensive readings) *e taught individual ,ords expli&itl+) and

taught strategies to unlo&k ,ord meaning) and have their ,ord

&ons&iousness raised "a&&ording to -raves) 3==9)&omponents of

vo&a*ular+ instru&tion$. 0he &on&ern of the present stud+ is the third

&omponent' vo&a*ular+1 learning strategies) parti&ularl+ those related to

morphologi&al a,areness and the resulting morphologi&al anal+sis "the

realiation of morphologi&al a,areness$. espite the re&ognied potential

of morphologi&al a,areness for vo&a*ular+ leaning) little resear&h to date

has fo&used on morphologi&al a,areness and its relationship to vo&a*ular+

sie "Singson) Mahon+) Mann) 3=== Barlisle and Fleming)3==7$. 0he

nexus *et,een morphologi&al a,areness and vo&a*ular+ sie must *e

empiri&all+ esta*lished *efore proposing that morphologi&al a,areness *e

in&orporated in the vo&a*ular+ learning strategies taught in the se&ondar+

s&hool &lassroom. %lthough morphologi&al anal+sis is not the onl+

strateg+ tea&ha*le to enhan&e learners vo&a*ular+ sie) it is a potential

learning strateg+ that seems parti&ularl+ useful for the learners ,hen

attempting to ta&kle the meanings of ne, ,ords.

@o&a*ular+ is a fundamental &omponent of a language. @o&a*ular+

is a ,e* of ,ords &olle&tion of ,ords) &luster of ,ords ,hi&h someone

familiar ,ith them. 0o learn a se&ond or foreign language it is ne&essar+ to


13/87

6

learn adeuate vo&a*ular+. @o&a*ular+ learning is a gradual pro&ess ,e

&an learn it &ontinuousl+ ,ith the passage of time. % standers and great

deal of vo&a*ular+ is ne&essar+ for speaking) listening) and ,riting and

espe&iall+ reading. anguage is used as medium of sharing our sentiments)

emotions ,e &an sa+ that language is a mode of &ommuni&ation and to

make its use effe&tive it is ne&essar+ to learn vo&a*ular+.

Extensive vo&a*ular+ pla+s a vital role in learning se&ond language

or target language. In ea&h and ever+ language of the ,orld has its

parti&ular set of ,ords and *od+ of ,ords. English language has a

morphophonemi& language *e&ause it has its spe&ial phonologi&al and

morphologi&al pattern and interrelationship "@enek+) 2666$.

Barlisle "3==7a$ pointed out that familiar ,ord parts &an fa&ilitate

language learning &ompared to learning ea&h &omplex ,ord in isolation.

0his) ho,ever) &an onl+ o&&ur ,hen students re&ognie morphemes ,ithin

&omplex ,ords.

4ressle+) isne+) and %nderson "3==>$ revie,ed the eviden&e for

the value of tea&hing internal &ontext &ues "morphologi&al ,ord parts$ for

vo&a*ular+ development. %lthough the+ des&ri*ed the eviden&e so far as

thin and euivo&al "4ressle+et al.) 3==>) p 329$ the+ reported that there

,as some eviden&e that tea&hing a*out morphemes &an improve &hildrens

and adults a*ilit+ to infer the meanings of ,ords.


14/87

7

Nunes) !r+ant) and Olson "3==7$ and !r+ant "3==


15/87

8

ever+ senten&e the+ do not have an+ idea of Suffixes or 4refixes. For

example) the stem CsignD the learners do not have idea to use prefixes and

suffixes of this stem. Su&h as'

#esign %ssignments

Signed Signif+

Signature Signing

%ssign Signal

0he+ onl+ kno, a*out the stem ,ords *e&ause of ,hi&h the+ have

ver+ inadeuate vo&a*ular+ and ,hen this stem is &hanged *+ suffixes and

prefixes) the learners do not understand the meaning or usage of this stem.

a&k of vo&a*ular+ is a ma8or defi&ien&+ in se&ond language learning due

to this fla, the learners of se&ond language do not learn the language

properl+.

If the learners of se&ond language have some idea of prefixes and

suffixes) the+ do not use them appropriatel+. 0he+ do not have the idea

and kno,ledge of stems final) single and silent CeD. 0he+ do not remove

this final) single and silent CeD *efore adding suffixes. Su&h as CmakeD and

C&ir&leD *oth are stem ,e &an &hange these through suffixes for example

making and &ir&ling. 0his pro&ess involves morphologi&al anal+sis in

,hi&h learners *reak &omplex ,ords into &onstituent meaning elements

&alled morphemes "*ases) prefixes) and suffixes$.


16/87

9

#.2 &tateent of the )ro'le

@o&a*ular+ is integral part of an+ language tea&hing learning

a&tivit+. 0here are various ,a+s of vo&a*ular+ tea&hing in ES &lass. 0his

resear&h ,ill explore the effe&t of tea&hing vo&a*ular+ through

morphologi&al rules.

#.$ Resear+h O'Be+tives

0o find out the effe&tiveness of morphologi&al rules in tea&hing

of vo&a*ular+ at se&ondar+ level

0o give re&ommendations to the tea&hers of English using

morphologi&al rules in tea&hing vo&a*ular+

#.4 Resear+h uestions

/hat is the effe&tiveness of morphologi&al rules in tea&hing of

vo&a*ular+ at se&ondar+ level?

Ho, morphologi&al rules &an *e used *+ se&ondar+ s&hool

tea&hers in tea&hing vo&a*ular+?

#.% Hy!othesis

2. 0here is signifi&ant differen&e *et,een mean s&ores of the students

taught through using morphologi&al rules and the students not

taught through morphologi&al rules.

3. 0here is signifi&ant differen&e *et,een mean s&ores of pre test and

post test of the experimental group.


17/87

10

7. 0here is signifi&ant differen&e *et,een mean s&ores of pre test and

post test of the &ontrol group.

#.@ &ignifi+an+e

0his stud+ ,ill *e helpful for'

0he tea&hers of English as the+ ,ill *e a*le to tea&h

vo&a*ular+ through morphologi&al rules.

0he students as the+ ,ill *e a*le to develop an a,areness of

morphologi&al rules. 0his ans,er ,ill help them to develop

and use vo&a*ular+ in a *etter and s+stemati& ,a+.

#.: Liitations

ue to time &onstraints and finan&ial issues the stud+ ,ill *e

&onfined on se&ondar+ s&hools of ahore. 0his stud+ is limited to the

tea&hing of vo&a*ular+ through morphologi&al rules *ased on infle&tional

and derivational suffixes.


18/87

11

CH)/R 2

L0/R/UR R10W


19/87

12

2.# What is Mor!hologyD

Morpholog+ manages the inner stru&ture of ,ords.

Morphologi&al guidelines tag ho, ne, ,ords and ,ord stru&tures are

shaped and &apa&it+ as ex&ess standards regarding existing &omplex ,ords

in the vo&a*ular+. Morpholog+ is &onseuentl+ vital for the portra+al of

diale&ts and the h+pothesis of pun&tuation." -eert !ooi8. 3=23$

Morphology refers to the stud+ of forms. inguisti&s

morphology refers to the stud+ of ,ords) their internal stru&ture and the

mental pro&ess that are involved in ,ord formation "%rnoff and Fudeman)

3==;) O-rad+) Buman) 266>$. It is 5 the stud+ of the hierar&hi&al and

relational aspe&ts of ,ords and the operation on lexi&al items a&&ording to

,ord formation rules to produ&e other lexi&al items "eong and

4arkinson) 266;) p. 37>$.

0raditionall+) a ,ord &an *e divided into the minimal

linguisti& units that *ear meanings or grammati&al fun&tions "i.e.

morphemes$. In line ,ith the traditional definition) Boates "2666$

identifies four &riteria of ,hat it takes to *e a morpheme. % morpheme

should have a meaning or fun&tion) re&ur in other ,ords ,ith a related

meaning "e.g. un1 in unbelievable and unhappy$) and *e involved in a


20/87

13

pattern of inter&hange "e.g. L est in longest &an *e su*stituted ,ith another

morpheme su&h as) 1 er$.

Morphemes &an *e &lassified as free or *ound. Simpl+)free

morphemes are those that &an exist in their o,n "e.g. book in notebooks$)

,hereas bound morphemes&annot "e.g. Ls in notebooks$ "Boates) 2666$.

0he ,ord reestablishments &an *e *roken into four morphemes' re1)

establish) 1ment) 1s.Establish is &alled the root.

0he root is the &ore of a ,ord to ,hi&h other morphologi&al

units are atta&hed.Establish &an also *e astem "i.e. a *ase morpheme to

,hi&h other elements are atta&hed$. % stem &an *e simple "establish$ or

&omplex "establishment$.Re1 and L ment and Ls are &alled affixes. %ffixes

&an appear in the forms of'

prefixes "e.g. re1$' *ound morphemes that are atta&hed in front of a

stem.

suffixes "e.g. Ls$' *ound morphemes that are atta&hed at the end of

a stem. &ir&umfixes' *ound morphemes that are atta&hed simultaneousl+

*efore and after the stem "not appli&a*le to English language$. infixes' *ound morphemes that are atta&hed in the middle of a stem

"not in English$.


21/87

14

Morphemes are further &ategoried into lexical morphemes

"e.g. 1full) 1ness) et&$ or grammatical morphemes "e.g. Led) 1s$.

-rammati&al morphemes are part of inflectional morphology that

underlies the pro&esses involved in *uilding grammati&al ,ord forms.

/ords that &ontain infle&tion are &alled inflected words "e.g. larger)

willing) biggest) bottles) et&$ exi&al morphemes are part of derivational

morphology that is &on&erned ,ith the pro&esses involved in *uilding

lexi&al ,ord forms "Boates) 2666$. erivational morphemes are of t,o

t+pes' &lass 2 and 3. Blass 2 morphemes trigger &hanges to the *ase andP

or &hanges to stress assignment "e.g. L ity in sanity) 1 ive in productive$

,hile &lass 3 morphemes do not "e.g. L ness in promptness) 1less in

hairless$ "O-rad+) Buman) 266>$. /ords that &ontain derivation are

&alled derivatives or derived words "e.g. dehumanize) unsatisfactory) et&$.

0he stud+ of morpholog+ has *een approa&hed *+ t,o

&omplementar+ approa&hes' anal+ti& and s+ntheti& "see %rnoff and

Fudeman) 3==;$. 0hese approa&hes refle&t t,o dimensions of learners

morphologi&al kno,ledge of ,ord formation. 0he anal+ti& approa&h is

&on&erned ,ith morpheme identifi&ation or *reaking ,ords do,n into its

meaningful &omponents. For example) notebooks &an *e re&ognied as

note1book1s. earners &an segment different meaningful &hunks that

&onstitute a ,ord "M&1!ride1Bhang et al.) 3==;$.


22/87

15

2.2 Mor!hology and 1o+a'ulary Learning

Morpholog+ is ,idel+ held to *e part of the explanation for

ho, &hildren learn so man+ ,ords that the+ ,ere never expli&itl+ taught

"e.g.) %nglin) 2667 Barlisle G Fleming) 3==7 Barlisle) 3==> Nag+ G

%nderson) 26A9 0aft G Kougious) 3==9$. %nglin "2667$ des&ri*ed

morphologi&al pro*lem solving as a pro&ess *+ ,hi&h the meaning of

previousl+ unkno,n &omplex ,ords &an *e de&iphered. 0his pro&ess

involves morphologi&al anal+sis in ,hi&h learners *reak &omplex ,ords

into &onstituent meaning elements &alled morphemes "*ases) prefixes) and

suffixes$. % s+nthesis of the meaning of those &omponent morphemes

provides &ues to the meaning of a previousl+ unkno,n ,ord. Nag+ and

%nderson "26A9$ estimated that a*out $ investigated the extent to ,hi&h untaught

morphologi&al kno,ledge &ould a&&ount for the in&reases evident in

&hildrens vo&a*ular+ that far ex&eeded the num*er of ,ords expli&itl+

taught. 0he+ found eviden&e of transfer of ,ord kno,ledge from taught


23/87

16

,ords to untaught derivations of those ,ords. %nglin "2667$ suggested

that morphologi&al pro*lem solving is in part responsi*le for the rapid

gro,th in the kno,ledge of the meaning of derivations *et,een -rade 7

and ;.

#esear&hers have *egun to investigate the effe&ts of expli&it

instru&tion a*out morpholog+ "e.g.) !aumann et al.) 3==3) !aumann)

Ed,ards) !oland) Ole8nik) G Kameenui) 3==7 Barlisle) 3==>$. Nunes)

!r+ant) and Olson "3==7$) Nunes and !r+ant "3==


24/87

17

isolation. 0his) ho,ever) &an onl+ o&&ur ,hen students re&ognie

morphemes ,ithin &omplex ,ords. In a stud+ ,ith third and fifth grade

students) Barlisle "3===$ sho,ed that learners are less a*le to re&ognie

morphologi&al &ues in shift ,ords that have &hanges in pronun&iation

andPor spelling due to suffixing patterns a&ross related forms. /ritten

morpholog+ links large ,ord families ,ith &on&rete meaning elements via

a s+stem of &onsistent &ompounding and affixing patterns. It is an

empiri&al uestion ,hether expli&it instru&tion a*out ho, this s+stem

,orks ,ould help &hildren make *etter use of relativel+ transparent

&onne&tions for independent vo&a*ular+ learning. Su&h instru&tion &ould

also help &hildren *+ making it easier for them to re&ognie morphologi&al

&ues in shift ,ords. Barlisle "3==7*$ &ommented) eaving morphologi&al

anal+sis to *e dis&overed *+ students on their o,n means that those ,ho

are not inherentl+ linguisti&all+ savv+ are likel+ to *e left *ehind their

peers in the development of vo&a*ular+) ,ord reading and &omprehension)

and spelling "p. 723$. So far) ho,ever) morpholog+ remains a resour&e of

meaning &ues that has *een poorl+ exploited *+ expli&it instru&tion and is

onl+ *eginning to *e investigated experimentall+ "Nunes G !r+ant) 3==


25/87

18

2.$ Mor!hology and 1o+a'ulary 0nstru+tion

4ressle+) isne+) and %nderson "3==>$ revie,ed the

eviden&e for the value of tea&hing internal &ontext &ues "morphologi&al

,ord parts$ for vo&a*ular+ development. %lthough the+ des&ri*ed the

eviden&e so far as thin and euivo&al "4ressle+ et al.) 3==>) p 329$ the+

reported that there ,as some eviden&e that tea&hing a*out morphemes &an

improve &hildrens and adults a*ilit+ to infer the meanings of ,ords.

-raves and Hammond "26A=$ taught -rade > students the

meaning of prefixes in the &ontext of one set of vo&a*ular+ ,ords. 0hose

students ,ere a*le to generalie the kno,ledge to ne, vo&a*ular+ ,ords.

0he vo&a*ular+ intervention *+ !aumann et al. "3==3$ in&orporated

morpholog+ instru&tion that taught the meaning of eight &ommon prefix

families. Morphologi&al instru&tion produ&ed large immediate effe&ts for

deriving the meaning of morphologi&all+ de&iphera*le instru&ted ,ords

&ompared to a &omparison group ,ho re&eived vo&a*ular+ instru&tion

a*out learning ,ords from "non1morphologi&al$ &ontext &ues) and to a

&ontrol group) *ut dela+ed effe&ts ,ere small. 0here ,ere no instru&tional

effe&ts on dela+ed transfer tests. In a follo, up intervention) !aumann et

al.) "3==7$ used the &ontext of so&ial studies text*ook lessons in the

&lassroom to &ompare the effe&ts of vo&a*ular+ instru&tion ,hi&h


26/87

19

integrated tea&hing a*out external &ontext &ues and morphologi&al

instru&tion "MB$ ,ith the effe&ts of instru&tion of text*ook vo&a*ular+

"0@$.

0he morphologi&al instru&tion in this stud+ fo&used on

prefixes and suffixes and ho, to use the meaning of these ,ord parts in

&on8un&tion ,ith root ,ords "*ase ,ords$ to learn the meaning of ne,

vo&a*ular+ ,ords. MB students ,ere more skilled than 0@ students at

inferring the meanings of morphologi&all+ de&iphera*le ,ords on a

dela+ed test *ut not an immediate test. 0hese studies provide eviden&e of

moderate to small effe&ts on ,ord learning skills through morphologi&al

instru&tion.

0he &urrent stud+ ,as designed to address the need for

,ord stru&ture kno,ledge to learn *oth taught and untaught ,ords) and

motivation to use that kno,ledge) *+ means of a pro*lem1solving

orientation. 0ea&hing students to dis&over spelling meaning &onne&tions

*et,een ,ords via a stru&tured inuir+) pro*lem1solving approa&h ,as

intended to motivate &hildren to see stud+ing ,ord stru&ture as an

interesting) engaging a&tivit+ in a&&ordan&e ,ith resear&hers ,ho

en&ourage the development of ,ord &ons&iousness "e.g.) -raves) 3==


27/87

20

representations of the ,ord stru&ture of morphologi&al families ,ere used

to redu&e students ,orking memor+ load *+ presenting the integrated

stru&ture and meaning of sets of ,ords instead of presenting those

&onne&ted ,ords one at a time.

0he instru&tional design of this intervention differs from

the studies noted a*ove in terms of "a$ the detail of morphologi&al &ontent

studied) and "*$ ho, that &ontent ,as integrated ,ith and dependent on

tea&hing morphologi&al pro*lem solving. 0his intervention did not fo&us

on tea&hing a spe&ifi& set of prefixes as did -raves "3==9$) or even a

parti&ular set of *ases) prefixes) and suffixes like the studies of !aumann

et al. "3==3) 3==7$. Instead) this instru&tion used sets of morphologi&all+

related ,ords to tea&h ho, to find meaning &ues in &onsistent spelling

patterns. 0ools su&h as the ,ord matrix and ,ord sum "des&ri*ed *elo,$

,ere used to investigate morphologi&al ,ord families to guide learning

ho, a relativel+ small num*er of meaningful ,ord elementsQmorphemes

Qform a large num*er of ,ords and ho, these morphemes ,ithin

&omplex ,ords &an give &lues to ,ord meanings. Students ,ere taught

a*out morphologi&al elements) suffixing patterns) and morphologi&al

pro*lem solving skills to help them dis&ern morphemes not onl+ in

transparent ,ords *ut also in shift ,ords) in ,hi&h orthographi& shifts due


28/87

21

to suffixing patterns or pronun&iation shifts might hinder morphologi&al

a,areness.

Morpholog+ relates to the segmenting of ,ords into affixes

"prefixes and suffixes$ and roots or *ase ,ords) and the origins of ,ords.

Rnderstanding that ,ords &onne&ted *+ meaning &an *e &onne&ted *+

spelling &an *e &riti&al to expanding a students vo&a*ular+. Further) parts

of ,ords "affixes$ &an have separate meanings that &an transform or morph

,ord meaning. 0he sound seuen&es) letter patterns) and morphemes

depend) to a large extent) on ,ord origin "Henr+) 3==7$.

Rnderstanding the meaning of prefixes) suffixes) and roots

enhan&es the &omprehension of text *eing read. 0he manipulation of

affixes &an impa&t the part of spee&h that a ,ord denotes. Having this

kno,ledge enhan&es text &omprehension as ,ell. ire&t instru&tion of

morpholog+ is an effe&tive means to help ,ith understanding and appl+ing

,ord stru&ture for de&oding) spelling) and vo&a*ular+ stud+ "/ilson)

3==;$. Spe&ifi&all+) students &an *e taught strategies to segment or

manipulate ,ords a&&ording to their affixes and roots. %s a result)

students ma+ *e a*le to re&ognie an unfamiliar ,ord simpl+ *+

identif+ing the affixes and the remaining *ase ,ord or root "Barreker)

3==;$.


29/87

22

0ext*ooks and student ,ritings in the earl+ grades t+pi&all+

use ,ords of %nglo1Saxon origin. 0+pi&all+) these ,ords are one1 to t,o1

s+lla*le) high1freuen&+ ,ords "!erninger G /olf) 3==6$. 0ext*ooks and

student ,ritings in the upper grades more freuentl+ use ,ords of atin

and -reek origin. In addition) the num*er of s+lla*les in these ,ords

in&reases and uniue spelling patterns emerge. 0herefore) the

re&ommended instru&tional seuen&e for tea&hing ,ord origins) affixes)

and roots is %nglo1Saxon *efore atin and -reek.

Morpholog+ is an essential su*field of linguisti&s.

-enerall+) it aims to des&ri*e the stru&tures of ,ords and patterns of ,ord

formation in a language. Spe&ifi&all+) it aims to "i$ pin do,n the prin&iples

for relating the form and meaning of morphologi&al expressions) "ii$

explain ho, the morphologi&al units are integrated and the resulting

formations interpreted) and "iii$ sho, ho, morphologi&al units are

organied in the lexi&onin terms of affinit+ and &ontrast. 0he stud+ of

morpholog+ un&overs the lexi&al resour&es of language) helps speakers to

a&uire the skills of using them &reativel+) and &onseuentl+ express their

thoughts and emotions ,ith elouen&e. "Teki Hama,and) Morpholog+ in

English' /ord Formation in Bognitive -rammar. Bontinuum) 3=22$
http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/lexiconterm.htmhttp://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/lexiconterm.htmhttp://grammar.about.com/od/e/g/eloquencetrem.htmhttp://grammar.about.com/od/e/g/eloquencetrem.htmhttp://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/lexiconterm.htm


30/87

23

2.4 Classroo 0nstru+tion in Mor!hology

4rin&e "3==6$suggested four main instru&tional strategies

from esauxs ,ork ,ith morpholog+'

Morpholog+ should *e taught as a distin&t &omponent of a

vo&a*ular+ improvement program throughout the upper elementar+ +ears.

Morpholog+ should *e taught as a &ognitive strateg+ to *e learned. In

order to *reak a ,ord do,n into morphemes) students must &omplete the

follo,ing four steps'

#e&ognie that the+ do not kno, the ,ord.

%nal+e the ,ord for re&ognia*le morphemes) *oth in the roots

and suffixes. 0hink of a possi*le meaning *ased upon the parts of the ,ord.

Bhe&k the meaning of the ,ord against the &ontext of the reading.

Students also need to understand the use of prefixes) suffixes) and

roots) and ho, ,ords get transformed. Students ,ho have kno,ledge of Spanish &an use &ognates) ,ords

that share a &ommon origin.

% multisensor+1guided dis&over+ approa&h) as ,ell as the

use of anaffix &ard de&k) are re&ommended for tea&hing affixes. Rsing

this approa&h) the tea&her reads a series of derivatives that have a &ommon

trait "e.g.) 8o+ful) &areful) helpful) gra&eful) &heerful$. 0he students

Cdis&overD the similar sounds and then visuall+ dis&over the sound1s+m*ol
http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/teaching/TC102-407.htmlhttp://www.latinamericalinks.com/spanish_cognates.htmhttp://www.fcrr.org/FAIR_Search_Tool/PDFs/4-5AP_018.pdfhttp://www.fcrr.org/FAIR_Search_Tool/PDFs/4-5AP_018.pdfhttp://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/teaching/TC102-407.htmlhttp://www.latinamericalinks.com/spanish_cognates.htmhttp://www.fcrr.org/FAIR_Search_Tool/PDFs/4-5AP_018.pdf


31/87

24

&orresponden&e. 0he similar sounds and letters are then identified as a

prefix or suffix) and the student ver*alies these dis&overies to an&hor the

learning. 0he tea&her ,rites the affix on a &ard that is added to the affix

&ard de&k that is revie,ed in a s+stemati& manner) dail+) ,eekl+) and

periodi&all+ thereafter "Barreker) 3==;$.

Uoshimoto "3==6$ suggested the use of a folda*le model for

the stud+ of affixes and roots. In the example sho,n in Figure 2) the root

CportD ,as used as the &entral fo&us) and ad8ustments ,ere made to the

prefixes and suffixes added. Ce1port1mentD ,as &reated in the photo

model. Other arrangements that might *e &reated *+ sliding the inserts to

ne, positions in&lude Ctrans1port1ationD and Cim1port1an&e.D

% num*er of mat&hing and memor+ games ma+ *e found

on the Florida Benter for #eading #esear&h ,e*site "follo, the link

a*ove$. 0emplates are in&luded ,ith dire&tions for assem*l+. 0he games

in&lude %ffix Bon&entration 1 an a&tivit+ that involves mat&hing affix and

meaning Meaningful %ffixes 1 a folda*le to assem*le ,ith affixes) roots)

and definitions /ord isse&t 1 an a&tivit+ that involves dis&ussion and

dis&over+ ,ith partners and Make It Meaningful 1 an a&tivit+ that

involves an affix and root meaning dis&over+ ,ithin the &ontext of a

senten&e.


32/87

25

2.% 7enefits of Mor!hology 0nstru+tion

Students ,ho understand ho, ,ords are formed *+

&om*ining prefixes) suffixes) and roots tend to have larger vo&a*ularies

and *etter reading &omprehension than peers ,ithout su&h kno,ledge and

skills "4rin&e) 3==6$. Nag+ "3==>$ proposed that the tea&hing

morphologi&al a,areness and de&oding in s&hool ma+ *e the ,a+ to

narro, the a&hievement gap for &hildren ,hose families differ in

edu&ation and in&ome levels) and ethni& or ra&ial *a&kgrounds. % deep

and full kno,ledge and understanding of vo&a*ular+ ,ill improve

out&omes for students ,ho struggle.

It goes ,ithout uestion that vo&a*ular+) a readers

kno,ledge of the meaning of ,ords and &on&epts) is &entral to su&&ess in

reading "National #eading 4anel) 3===$. Studies and revie,s of resear&h

over the past three de&ades have sho,n that the sie and depth of

elementar+ students vo&a*ular+ is asso&iated ,ith profi&ien&+ in reading

&omprehension and that instru&tion to in&rease readers vo&a*ular+ results

in higher levels of reading &omprehension "e.g.) !aumann) Barr1Ed,ards)

Font) 0ereshinski) Kameenui) G Ole8nik) 3==3 !e&k) 4erfetti) G

M&Keo,n) 2633 Kameenui) Barnine) G Fres&hi) 26A3 Stahl G

Fair*anks) 26A


33/87

26

Uet) despite the promise of vo&a*ular+ instru&tion to

improve elementar+ students reading) &onsensus a*out instru&tional

approa&hes is la&king. %lthough Stahl and Fair*anks suggest that) C5

some methods of vo&a*ular+ instru&tion ma+ *e more effe&tive than

othersD "p. >7$) the National #eading 4anel "3===$ notes that) C/hile

mu&h is kno,n a*out the importan&e of vo&a*ular+ to su&&ess in reading)

there is little resear&h on *est methodsD "p. 2>$. Moreover) the realit+ of

the &lassroom is that tea&hers are generall+ not familiar and not

&omforta*le ,ith an+thing more than di&tionar+ definitions and the use of

senten&e &ontext to tea&h vo&a*ular+ "!erne G !la&ho,i&) 3==6

!la&ho,i&) 26A> !loodgood G 4a&ifi&i) 3==9$. !ased on their findings)

!loodgood and 4a&ifi&i suggest that tea&hers need to *e introdu&ed to ne,

approa&hes to ,ord stud+ in order to *uild their C5 kno,ledge *ase and

implementation strategies.D "p.3;7$.0his paper attempts to address this

situation *+ making the &ase for a ver+ produ&tive) effi&ient) and engaging

approa&h to vo&a*ular+ and the stud+ of ,ords.

Fo&us on Meaningful /ord 4atterns One vo&a*ular+

instru&tion method that has not traditionall+ *een asso&iated ,ith the

elementar+ grades is a morphologi&al approa&h L more spe&ifi&all+) an

approa&h that taps into the fa&t that a signifi&ant num*er of ,ords)

parti&ularl+ a&ademi& ,ords) in English are derived from atin and -reek.


34/87

27

/h+ atin and -reek? Modern English vo&a*ular+ "as ,ell as Spanish)

Fren&h) Italian) and the other #oman&e languages$ is thoroughl+ grounded

in atin and -reek.

0o grasp the importan&e and impa&t of atin and -reek in

English &onsider the follo,ing fa&ts "%uthor) 3==A$'

V Most of the a&ademi& ,ords in English "e.g.) math and s&ien&e ,ords$

are derived from atin and -reek.

V Most of the more &hallenging multis+lla*i& ,ords in English are derived

from atin and -reek.

V % single atin or -reek root or affix ",ord pattern$ &an *e found in and

aid in the understanding "as ,ell as de&oding and en&oding$ of 3= or more

English ,ords.

V Sin&e Spanish is also a atin1*ased language) atin "and -reek$ &an *e

used as a *ridge to help Spanish speaking students use kno,ledge of their

native language to learn English.

Blearl+) the stud+ of atin and -reek linguisti& patterns

offers an approa&h to take vo&a*ular+ to a deeper and more expansive

level. %n+one ,ho has ever taken atin in high s&hool soon realies ho,

the English lexi&on has *een influen&ed *+ atin. Kno,ledge of atin and


35/87

28

-reek roots in&reases our a*ilit+ to understand English ,ords. Kno,ing

that tra&e) tra&t) tra&k means to pull) dra, or drag &an help students

understand ,ords su&h as tra&k) tra&tor) tra&tion) retra&t) detra&t) a*stra&t)

&ontra&t) &ontra&tion) intra&ta*le) protra&tor) tra&e) retra&e) and man+ more.

Ho,ever) the exploration of atin and -reek need not *e

limited to the se&ondar+ grades as it has in the past. Indeed) ,e feel that

elementar+ students) *eginning in the primar+ grades) &an *enefit from a

guided stud+ of atin and -reek roots. In fa&t) resear&h has demonstrated

that man+ roots and affixes) in&luding those of atin and -reek origin) &an

readil+ *e learned in the primar+ grades "!iemiller) 3==; Mountain) 3==;

4orter1Bollier) 3=2=$.

Other studies have demonstrated the promise of tea&hing

atin and -reek roots in the intermediate grades "!aumann et al.) 3==3

Barlisle) 3=== Kieffer G esaux) 3==>$. In their studies !aumann and

&olleagues note that students ,ere a*le to use their kno,ledge of

Cmorphemi& elements5. 0o infer meanings of untaught ,ordsD "p. 2>=$

and Barlisle &on&ludes that Cthe morpholog+ measures together

&ontri*uted to reading &omprehension. 0he relationships ,ere parti&ularl+

strong for the fifth graders *ut it is note,orth+ that the+ ,ere signifi&ant

for third graders ,ho are presuma*l+ still learning *asi& strategies for


36/87

29

re&ogniing pol+s+lla*i& ,ords in printD "p. 2A7$. Kieffer and esaux

&on&lude that CStudents understanding of morpholog+ ,as a *etter

predi&tor of reading &omprehension than their vo&a*ular+ levelD "p. 27A$.

0he+ also found that morpholog+ ,as as important for E students in

&ontri*uting to &omprehension as it ,as for native English speakers.

% atin1-reek *ased approa&h to vo&a*ular+ instru&tion

appears to *e a useful ,a+ to provide instru&tion that meets diverse

students needs. English language learners) for example) have *een

identified as the largest gro,ing population in %meri&an s&hools "Fl+nn G

Hill) 3==;$. !e&ause so man+ of these &hildren speak first languages

semanti&all+ em*edded in the atin lexi&on "e.g.) Spanish$) enhan&ing this

linguisti& &onne&tion &an a&&elerate students vo&a*ular+ gro,th

"!la&ho,i&) Fisher) Ogle G /atts10affe) 3==


37/87

30

students meet 2=)=== ne, ,ords in their reading alone and that s&hool

texts used in grades 716 &ontain approximatel+ AA);== distin&t ,ord

families. % ma8orit+ of the ne, ,ords en&ountered in these texts ,ill *e of

-reek and atin origin. % tea&her in the Mountain "3==;$ stud+ summed

up the potential of a atin1-reek approa&h to vo&a*ular+ ,ith the

follo,ing uote' CMorphemi& anal+sis ma+ *e one ,a+ to narro, the gap

*et,een the vo&a*ular+ haves and the have notsD "p. >99$.

#e&entl+) !la&ho,i& et al. "3==$. !la&ho,i&

and her &olleagues "3==


38/87

31

2.@ What Roots to /ea+hD

0here has never *een a s&ientifi&all+1*ased identifi&ation of

rimes appropriate for tea&hing students at various grade levels) or an

identifi&ation of the order in ,hi&h the rimes should *e taught. 0ea&hers

and &urri&ulum developers rel+ on professional kno,ledge to make those

determinations. Similarl+) there exists no s&ientifi&all+1*ased identifi&ation

of atin1-reek ,ord roots ,orth tea&hing or order of presentation. Rntil

su&h an identifi&ation is made) expert opinion must *e relied upon.

0he 0a*le presents ,hat ,e *elieve) *ased on our o,n

expertise and experien&e) are the most useful and appropriate roots ,orth

tea&hing in the elementar+ grades "%uthor) 3==A$. /e developed these lists

from revie,s of language arts and &ontent area materials identifi&ation of

roots that appear most freuentl+ in English) and identifi&ation of roots

that have the greatest utilit+ for primar+) intermediate) and middle grades.

0he roots have also *een validated *+ a group of pra&ti&ing tea&hers ,ho

have used them instru&tionall+ ,ith their students. 0hese lists of roots are

meant neither to *e mandator+ nor exhaustive. /e provide them simpl+ as

a starting point for dis&ussing and developing an English vo&a*ular+

&urri&ulum *ased on atin1-reek ,ord roots. %uthor "3==>$ provide more

detailed and &omprehensive listing of roots *+ grade level.


39/87

32

2.: Hel!ing )riary &tudents Learn a'out Roots

%ll primar+1level reading instru&tion in&ludes attention to

phoni&s or ,ord de&oding. Bhildren learn to Clook insideD of ,ords for

familiar letters) ,ord families) et&. 0ea&hers &an use this foundation as a

platform to help students learn a*out ,ord rootsQprefixes) suffixes) and

*ase ,ords. 0hat is) tea&hers &an help &hildren learn to CDlook insideD of

,ords for familiar meanings in addition to familiar sounds.

%ttention to &ompound ,ords offers an eas+ ,a+ to help

&hildren make the sound1to meaning shift. 0ea&hers should start ,ith

familiar) t,o1s+lla*le &ompound ,ords su&h as bedroom, birthday) or

football. Students &an learn to look for t,o ,ords ,ithin ea&h &ompound

,ord. 0he tea&her &an unders&ore that the t,o ,ords in ea&h &ompound

&ontri*ute to meaning) ,ith the *ase meaning ordinaril+ found in the

se&ond ,ord' /hat do ,e &all a room ,here a bed is? /hat do ,e &all a

ball that +ou &an ki&k ,ith +our foot? %fter &hildren develop fa&ilit+ ,ith

familiar t,o1,ord &ompounds) the tea&her &an introdu&e three1s+lla*le

&ompound ,ords) su&h as stor+*ook or fingernail) and invite &hildren to

look for meaning ,ithin these longer ,ords.

Bommon prefixes) su&h as un- ) &an provide the next step in

helping &hildren move from sound to meaning. %gain) tea&hers ,ant to


40/87

33

sele&t ,ords that are familiar' unwrap, unhappy, unzip) or unbend and

eventuall+ shift to more &hallenging ,ords' unalike, unchanged,

unanswered. :uestions like these &an help &hildren look for letter

&om*inations that) although not ,ords *+ themselves) still &arr+ meaning'

If Cun1D means Cnot)D ,hat does Cunhapp+D mean? If Cun1D means Cnot)D

,hat does Cun&hangedD mean? Eas+ suffixes "e.g.)-er, -est Wmore) mostP

ver+X ful, -less Wfull of) ,ithoutX$ &an *e introdu&ed next) in a similar

manner.

0hese pro&edures *uild a,areness that units ,ithin ,ords

&an &ontain meaning as ,ell as sound) an a,areness that allo,s students

to add a Csemanti& unitD approa&h to their vo&a*ular+ repertoires. 0he+

learn ho, to Cget insideD ,ords and look for units that &arr+ meaning.

0he+ learn to look for roots and to think a*out ho, the different parts of a

,ord "*eginning) middle) end L or L prefix) *ase) suffix$ all ,ork together

to generate meaning.

2.E /ea+hing Latin and ree8 Word Roots

-iven the limited amount of time availa*le for vo&a*ular+

instru&tion) tea&hers might fo&us on one to t,o roots per ,eek through 2=1

2; minute1 sessions three to five times per ,eek. In the follo,ing se&tion

,e present a sampling of three instru&tional approa&hes for tea&hing atin1


41/87

34

-reek roots. 0he first a&tivit+ is a super* ,a+ to introdu&e a root) the

se&ond is an ex&ellent reinfor&ement a&tivit+) and the third is a &reative

extension a&tivit+. % more &omprehensive and detailed presentation of

instru&tional methods &an *e found in reek and!atin Roots" #eys to

$uilding %ocabulary "%uthor) 3==A$.

2.; Mor!hologi+al ?areness and 1o+a'ulary =no?ledge

0he role of morpholog+ in vo&a*ular+ kno,ledge is ,ell

do&umented. Man+ studies sho, the *enefi&iar+ affe&t of utiliing

morphologi&al information "i.e. morphologi&al a,areness$ in determining

,ord meaning "e.g. #a+mond) Matti) Maria) 3===$) and therefore in

maximiing vo&a*ular+ threshold "Sandra) 2669 /+so&ki and Jenkins)

26A>$. !elo, is a dis&ussion on the nature of morphologi&al a,areness

follo,ed *+ a dis&ussion of the morphologi&al a,areness and its

relationship to vo&a*ular+ gro,th.

Morphologi&al a,areness refers to the learners kno,ledge

of morphemes and morphemi& stru&ture) allo,ing them to refle&t and

manipulate morphologi&al stru&ture of ,ords "Barlisle) 266; Barlisle G

Stone) 3==7$. %,areness of infle&tional forms is gained earlier than

a,areness of derivational forms "Barlisle and Stone) 3==7$. 0he &onstru&t

of morphologi&al a,areness has *een extended to entail other


42/87

35

su*&omponents "orthographi&) semanti& aspe&ts$ "Kuo and %nderson)

3==


43/87

36

Some resear&hers have explored the nexus *et,een morphologi&al

a,areness and reading &omprehension and vo&a*ular+ kno,ledge

independentl+ of phonologi&al a,areness "e.g. Barlisle) 3=== Fo,ler and

i*erman) 266; Mahon+ et al.) 3=== $) ,hereas others &ompared the

effe&t of morphologi&al a,areness ,ith the effe&t of phonologi&al

a,areness on promoting reading skills and profi&ien&+ after &ontrolling

for short1 term memor+ and vo&a*ular+ "M&!ride1 Bhang) 3==; Singson

et al.) 3===$ and for ver*al and nonver*al intelligen&e "ea&on G Kir*+)

3==9$. In the present stud+) morphologi&al a,areness is addressed

independentl+ of phonologi&al a,areness ho,ever) this stud+ does not

propose that phonologi&al a,areness is &ompletel+ deta&hed from

morphologi&al a,areness.

% &onsidera*le num*er of studies have a&&entuated that

morphologi&al a,areness is a predi&tor of some language skills su&h as)

understanding the spelling s+stem "Fo,ler and i*erman) 266; !ear)

Invernii) 0empleton) G Johnston) 3==9 0reiman G Basar) 266


44/87

37

helps developing reading profi&ien&+. 0he su*seuent se&tions provide an

a&&ount of the role of morphologi&al a,areness in vo&a*ular+ kno,ledge.

@o&a*ular+ sie refers to the num*er of ,ords of ,hi&h

some aspe&t of meaning is kno,n to the learners. @o&a*ular+ sie is

&ontrasted to vo&a*ular+ depth that refers to ho, ,ell a ,ord is kno,n.

0he &urrent stud+ &apitalies on vo&a*ular+ sie rather than vo&a*ular+

depth. 0he amount of &hildrens exposure to derivatives "see section '()()

for definitions of derivatives and derivation$ is &onsidera*le. Nag+)

Os*orn) /insor and OFlahavan "2669$ estimates that 9)=== ,ords out of

2=)=== ,ords en&ountered *+ fifth graders in RS are derived from

freuent ,ords. In the same vein) 27)=== out of 7=)=== ,ords en&ountered

*+ high s&hool students are derivatives "!iemiller) 3==9$.

Uet) the estimation of vo&a*ular+ sie varies from one

stud+ to another a&&ording to the &riteria for defining a ,ord) sour&e of

,ord pool) and ,ord sampling. For instan&e) %nna G Te&hmeisters

"2662$ stud+ indi&ates that the vo&a*ular+ sie of &ollege students ,ere

2)>== ,ords as the resear&hers define a ,ord as lemmas) or di&tionar+

main entr+ and) therefore) the derived ,ords are not &onsidered as part of

the vo&a*ular+ sie.


45/87

38

0hose estimations are &onsistent ,ith %nglins "2667$ stud+

of vo&a*ular+ kno,ledge gro,th among first and fifth graders. She and

other resear&hers "e.g. see Barlisle) 266; Singson) Mahon+ and Mann)

3===' experiment 2$ report that the gro,th of derivatives in&reases three

times &ompared to the gro,th of root ,ords among the &hildren. 0his &an

*e as&ri*ed to the in&reasing a,areness of internal stru&ture of ,ords as

readings *e&ome more sophisti&ated. Nag+ and S&ott "266=$ &ondu&ted a

stud+ of students ,ord s&hemas on seventh and tenth graders and

undergraduate students. %ll are asked to rate the plausi*ilit+ of 6 /hite) 4o,er G /hite) 26A6 /+so&ki G Jenkins 26A>$.

Sandra "2669$ points out that morpholog+ &an pla+ an important role in

developing pol+morphemi& vo&a*ular+ and in retaining their meaning.

earners vo&a*ular+ rapid gro,th is greatl+ attri*uted to their a*ilit+ to

appl+ ,ord formation rules "/+so&ki G Jenkins) 26A>$. earners ,ho

understand the meaning of adapt are likel+ to understand adaptive)

adaptable and adaptation *+ means of morpheme identifi&ation and

morpheme s+nthesis.

% num*er of studies sho, that learners are a*le to use their

kno,ledge of morphologi&al units "affixes) roots$ to extra&t meaning of

&omplex ,ords the+ en&ounter. %s eviden&ed in the follo,ing studies)

these &omplex ,ords are parsed into smaller) more understanda*le units of

meanings.

-ordon "26A6$ and Barlisle and Stone "3==7$ found that

high stem freuen&+ auditor+ primes fa&ilitate &hildrens lexi&al de&ision


48/87

41

of lo,1 freuen&+ suffixed ,ords) ,hi&h manifests that learners deal

,ith &omplex ,ords anal+ti&all+. 4rofi&ient readers appl+ anal+ti& rules to

lo, freuen&+ &omplex ,ords) espe&iall+ ,hen the stem freuen&+ is high

"Kat) #exer) ukatela) 2662$. /+so&ki and Jenkins "26A>$ investigated

,hether forth) sixth and eighth graders use morphologi&al anal+sis to

arrive to the meaning of &omplex ,ords. Students are given a training

session of a set ,ords t,o ,eeks prior to the test. 0he+ are tested on some

,ords related and unrelated to the ,ords in the training session. 0he

resear&hers found that the students perform *etter in the related ,ords) and

that learners understand ne, meanings *+ morphologi&al generaliation of

those ,ords sharing the roots.

Similarl+) Barlisle "3===$ examined the relationship

*et,een third and fifth graders a,areness of morphologi&al stru&ture and

defining meanings of &omplex ,ords) and the relationship *et,een

morphologi&al a,areness and reading and &omprehension. He

administered tests of &omplex ,ord reading) morphologi&al stru&ture and

&omplex ,ord meanings. 0he results indi&ate that morphologi&al

a,areness) for *oth grades) is &orrelated ,ith the a*ilit+ to define &omplex

,ords) and that some aspe&ts of morphologi&al a,areness are asso&iated

,ith reading &omprehension. Ho,ever) the fifth graders outperform the

third graders as the+ have more +ears of exposure to &omplex ,ords. 4oor


49/87

42

readers) on the other hand) have *een found to *e less sensitive to

morphologi&al relations that fa&ilitate lexi&al de&ision) and less effi&ient in

pro&essing derivative ,ords "eong G 4arkinson) 266;$.

Sin&e students are &onfront a ver+ large amount of &omplex

,ords in their a&ademi& reading and sin&e &omplex ,ords are anal+a*le

into smaller meanings) it makes sense that morphologi&al a,areness is

used as a strateg+ for unlo&king meaning of ne,l+ en&ountered ,ords.

!esides) morphologi&al a,areness is related to various language skills

"spelling) vo&a*ular+) and reading$. !elo, is an ela*oration on the

relationship *et,een morphologi&al a,areness and vo&a*ular+ kno,ledge

and reading profi&ien&+.

0here are a num*er of studies that sho, that expli&it

instru&tion on affixes and roots help the elementar+ graders to unlo&k the

meaning of ne,l+ en&ountered ,ords "!aumann) Ed,ards) !oland)

Ole8nik) G Kameenui) 3==7 !aumann et al.) 3==3$. !aumann et al.

"3==7$ investigated the impa&t of instru&tion on morphologi&al and

&ontextual anal+sis "MB$ vs. text*ook vo&a*ular+ instru&tion "0@$ on fifth

graders a*ilities to de&ipher meaning of unfamiliar ,ords. 0he instru&tion

,as part of so&ial studies lessons. 0he results indi&ate that the MB

students outperformed the 0@ students in inferring meaning of unfamiliar)


50/87

43

&omplex ,ords. Earl+ instru&tion on morphologi&al units is advised *+

some resear&hers su&h as %nglin "2667$ and !iemiller "3==9$. Similarl+)

Morin "3==7$ studied the impa&t of derivational morpholog+ instru&tion

on developing re&eptive and produ&tive vo&a*ular+ kno,ledge in the &ase

of Spanish *eginner learners at &ollege level. Morin &ompared the

performan&e of a &ontrol group and an experimental group in the first

semester and the se&ond semester. 0hree tests ,ere administered'

vo&a*ular+ kno,ledge test) produ&tive kno,ledge test and re&eptive

kno,ledge test. 0he results indi&ate that morphologi&al instru&tion is a

*enefit in produ&tive and re&eptive vo&a*ular+ kno,ledge) espe&iall+ for

se&ond semester learners. Morphologi&al instru&tion also helps in learning

ne, unfamiliar ,ords) and therefore) in&reasing vo&a*ular+ sie. eong

"2666$ re&ommends earl+ expli&it instru&tion of transformation rules)

,ord formation rules and morphologi&al stru&ture. Morphologi&al anal+sis

instru&tion proved to *e effe&tive.

0here are num*er of methods for the instru&tion of

morphologi&al anal+sis. For example) disassem*ling and reassem*ling

,ords is one of the MB methods in ,hi&h learners are trained on ho, to

&hunk meaningful parts of &omplex ,ords and use those parts to &reate

ne, ,ords "Ed,ards) Font) !aumann) G !oland) 3==9$. %nother method

is dire&t instru&tion ,ith posters "-raves) 3==9$. 0his method is more


51/87

44

suita*le for &hildren learners ,here stems and highlighted affixes are

presented on posters along ,ith pi&tures. 0he method of affixes removal

and repla&ement &an used to introdu&e morphologi&al anal+sis to adult

learners. isassem*ling and reassem*ling ,ords is &on&erned ,ith

disse&ting &omplex ,ords into small meaningful units) finding the

meaning of stem and affixes) and finall+ reassem*ling the meaningful

parts to &ome up ,ith ne, &omplex ,ords. In this sense) morphemi&

anal+sis instru&tion &an make the learners to independentl+ learn ne,

vo&a*ular+ and to take the &harge of their o,n vo&a*ular+ developmentQ

autonom+.

Overall) resear&h sho,ed that tea&hing morphologi&al units

expli&itl+ is effe&tive in deriving the learners to unlo&k &omplex ,ord

meaning. 0ea&hing morphologi&al information &an *e done ,ith various

,a+s su&h as) morphologi&al anal+sis and posters of affixes and related

,ord pi&tures. 0ea&hers should utilie the methods that *etter suit the

students level and needs. !efore de&iding ,hether the learners need an

expli&it morphologi&al anal+sis to *oost their vo&a*ular+ sie) the

learners morphologi&al a,areness and their vo&a*ular+ sie should *e

investigated.


52/87

45

0he potential of motivating students to engage in a&tive

pro&essing tasks ,ith ,ords through instru&tion ,hi&h emphasies

pro*lem solving of ,ord stru&ture &ues rather than memoriation is

another reason for investigating morphologi&al instru&tion. Fo&using on

morpholog+ introdu&es order to the English spelling s+stem) ,hi&h *rings

,ith it the possi*ilit+ of using pro*lem solving to investigate ,hat

0empleton "3==9$ des&ri*ed as the vo&a*ular+1spelling &onne&tion.

Stud+ing ,ords through one1at1a1time memoriation &hara&teries mu&h

of spelling instru&tion) *ut it fails to motivate man+ &hildren to learn a*out

,ords "Fres&h) 3==>$.

Students ,ho *egin to understand morphologi&al stru&ture

&an find ordered spelling and meaning &ues in ,ords that morphologi&all+

una,are students &ould onl+ assume are irregular. "e.g.) *us+Pi ? ness ?

*usiness do ? es ? does$. @o&a*ular+ instru&tion &an involve meaning1

ri&h) a&tive pro&essing) and learning experien&es ,ithout addressing

morpholog+. Ho,ever) neither the shallo, *ut ,ide instru&tion

en&ouraged *+ resear&hers su&h as !iemiller "3==9$ nor the ri&h *ut

narro, instru&tion re&ommended *+ others su&h as !e&k) M&Keo,n) G

Ku&an "3==3$) offers students the generative spelling kno,ledge that

provides the *asis for expli&it a,areness and understanding of

morpholog+) ,hi&h) in turn) ma+ guide the s+stemati& gro,th of


53/87

46

vo&a*ular+ kno,ledge "0empleton) 3==9) p. 23=$. Su&h instru&tion ma+

*ring a dou*le *enefit of "a$ generative ,ord stru&ture kno,ledge) and "*$

motivation to attend &losel+ to ,ords.

Finall+) morpholog+ &an *e used to get a *etter insight as to

ho, linguisti& rules fun&tion in language per&eption and produ&tion) and

ho, linguisti& kno,ledge is mentall+ represented. !oth ps+&hologi&al and

histori&al eviden&e thro, light on this issue. 0hus) morpholog+ &ontri*utes

to the ,ider goals of &ognitive s&ien&e that explores the &ognitive a*ilities

of human *eings "4art @$.

0he next &hapter des&ri*es the present stud+) parti&ipants)

resear&h instruments) pro&edure and data anal+sis.


54/87

47

CH)/R $

R&RCH M/HO3OLO


55/87

48

#esear&h is a s+stemati& and &ontrolled pro&ess to dis&over and

investigate truth. 0his resear&h stud+ is experimental in nature and mode.

0he resear&hers ma8or purpose and main fo&us is to find and des&ri*e the

enhan&ement of vo&a*ular+ through pre1fixes) suffixes and affixes.

$.# )o!ulation of the &tudy

0he target population &onsists of fift+ students from grade 6 th of

:ai -rammar High s&hool) ahore. %ll the parti&ipants of stud+ had

re&eived the formal edu&ation of English at s&hools at least seven to eight

+ears. 0he students of *oth arts and s&ien&e groups are in&luded in the

stud+.

$.2 &a!le of the &tudy

0he next important step for &olle&ting data from the students is

sampling. 0he resear&her took t,o groups &ontrol and experimental) ea&h

group &onsists of 3; students.

)re-/est and )ost-/est

-roups names No. of students

Bontrolled group 3;

Experimental group 3;


56/87

49

$.$ Resear+h /ool

4re and post a&hievement tests ,ere administered as a resear&h

tool. !oth the pre1test and post1test ,ere *ased on fill in the *lanks items.

0here ,ere fift+ *lanks given to the students follo,ed *+ a root ,ord ea&h

of ,hi&h ,as to fill in the light of infle&tional and derivational suffixes.

Out of fift+) t,ent+ five ,ere sele&ted for pre1test and t,ent+ five ,ere for

post test. #oot ,ords ,hi&h ,ere pla&ed at the end of ea&h senten&e and

the students filled a&&ordingl+.

$.4 )ro+edure of &tudy

0he resear&her took a pre1test from *oth &ontrol and experimental

groups *efore giving treatment. %fter taking pre1test from *oth groups the

resear&her taught for fifteen da+s in the s&hool to experimental group

,hile using morphologi&al rules as a tea&hing strateg+ and to &ontrol

group ,ithout using morphologi&al rules. %fter tea&hing fifteen da+s the

resear&her took a post1test from *oth groups &ontrol and experimental as

,ell.

$.% 3ata nalysis

%fter taking tests the resear&her &he&ked the test t,i&e and

a,arded num*er to ea&h students. 0he data ,as presented in the form of

ta*les. 0o test h+pothesis) *oth paired sample and independent sample t1

tests ,ere applied.


57/87

50

CH)/R 4

3/ NL&0&


58/87

51

es&riptive and inferential statisti&s ,ere &al&ulated to anal+e

data *+ using S4SS. @er+ first resear&her emplo+ed paired sample t1 test to

&ompare the results for &omparison ,ithin groups and then independent

sample t1 test to &ompare the results of &ontrol group ,ith experimental

group.


59/87

52

/a'le #

Mar8s o'tained in )re and )ost tests 'y +ontrol grou!

&tudent no. )re-/est )ost-test 3ifferen+e

2 2= 22 2

3 6 2= 2

7 2= 23 3

9 23 22 12

; 2= 2= =

< 22 22 =

> > 2= 7

A 22 27 3

6 6 6 =

2= A 2= 3

22 22 22 =

23 23 27 2

27 6 6 =

29 2= 22 2

2; A 22 7

2< 2= 2= =

2> 22 23 2

2A 27 23 12

26 6 6 =

3= 23 23 =32 = 27 27

33 > 22 9

37 22 A 17

39 22 29 7

3; 29 22 17

0otal 39; 3>9 36

0a*le 2 sho,s pre test and post test s&ores of &ontrol group. In pre test the

groups got 39; s&ores and in post test 3>9 s&ores. 0here is a differen&e of

36 s&ores *et,een pre and post test.


60/87

53

/a'le 2

Mar8s o'tained in )re and )ost /est 'y eA!eriental grou!

&tudent no. )re-/est )ost-test 3ifferen+e

2 27 2; 3

3 6 2> A

7 22 29 7

9 27 2A ;

; 2= 3= 2=

< 23 32 6

> 23 26 >

A 29 2< 36 A 2< A

2= 27 2; 3

22 2= 2A A

23 2= 33 23

27 6 3= 22

29 22 26 A

2; A 3= 23

2< 22 33 22

2> 27 26 32 29

37 23 3= A

39 2= 26 6

3; 27 3= >

0otal 3>2 9>2 3==

0a*le 3 sho,s pre test and post test s&ores of experimental group.

In pre test the groups got 3>2 s&ores and in post test 9>2 s&ores. 0here is a

differen&e of 3== s&ores *et,een pre and post test.


61/87

54

/a'le $

Co!arison of )re test of Control and A!eriental grou!s

&tudent no. )re-/est of

Control

)re-/est of

A!eriental

3ifferen+e

2 2= 27 7

3 6 6 =

7 2= 22 2

9 23 27 2

; 2= 2= =

< 22 23 2

> > 23 ;

A 22 29 76 6 A 12

2= A 27 ;

22 22 2= 12

23 23 2= 13

27 6 6 =

29 2= 22 2

2; A A =

2< 2= 22 2

2> 22 27 3

2A 27 29 2

26 6 6 =

3= 23 22 12

32 = A A

33 > > =

37 22 23 2

39 22 2= 12

3; 29 27 12

0otal 39; 3>2 3


62/87

55

0a*le 7 sho,s the &omparison of pre tests of &ontrol and

experimental groups. In pre test the &ontrol group got 39; s&ores and

experimental group 3>2 s&ores. 0here is a differen&e of 3< s&ores *et,een

pre tests of *oth groups.


63/87

56

/a'le 4

Co!arison of )ost test of Control and A!eriental grou!s

&tudent

no.

)ost-/est of

+ontrol

)ost-/est of

A!eriental

3ifferen+

e2 22 2; 9

3 2= 2> >

7 23 29 3

9 22 2A >

; 2= 3= 2=

< 22 32 2=

> 2= 26 6

A 27 2< 7

6 6 2< >

2= 2= 2; ;

22 22 2A >

23 27 33 6

27 6 3= 22

29 22 26 A

2; 22 3= 6

2< 2= 33 23

2> 23 26 >

2A 23 2A

32 27 33 6

33 22 32 2=

37 A 3= 23

39 29 26 ;

3; 22 3= 6

0otal 3>9 9>2 26>


64/87

57

0a*le 9 sho,s the &omparison of post tests of &ontrol and

experimental groups. In post test the &ontrol group got 3>9 s&ores and

experimental group 9>2 s&ores. 0here is a differen&e of 26> s&ores

*et,een post tests of *oth groups.


65/87

58

/a'le %

3ifferen+e 'et?een the Mean &+ores of )retest and )ost-test of

Control rou!

)aired &a!les &tatisti+s

Mean N

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 pretest of Control Group 9.8000 25 2.606 .5!5"1

post test of Control Group 10.9600 25 1."51 .291"!

0his ta*le sho,s mean s&ore of pretest and post1test of &ontrolled

group of the stud+ that is 6.A and post1test 2=.6< respe&tivel+. ifferen&e

in mean s&ores is 2.2< that sho,s ver+ little &hange in s&ores. It is inferred

that there ,as no signifi&ant development in learning of the &ontrolled

group of su*8e&ts.


66/87

59

/a'le @

Co!arison 'et?een the Mean &+ores of )retest and )ost-test of

Control rou!

)aired &a!les /est

Paired Differen#es $ df

Si%. &2'

tailed(

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95) Confiden#e

*nterval of t+e

Differen#e

,o-er pper

Pair

1

pretest of

Control Group '

post test of

Control Group

'

1.160002.99555 .59911 '2.!9650 .0650

'

1.9!6

2

".065

0a*le < sho,s the results of paired sample t1test of &ontrol group.

01value is 2.67< ,hi&h and P value is =.


67/87

60

/a'le :

3ifferen+e 'et?een the Mean &+ores of )retest and )ost-test of

A!eriental rou!

)aired &a!les &tatisti+s

Mean N

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Pair 2 pre test of E/periental

Group10.8"00 25 2.0!"0 ."069"

post test of e/periental

Group18.8"00 25 2.285"6 ."509

0his ta*le sho,s mean s&ore of pretest and post1test of

experimental group of the stud+ that is 2=.A9 and post1test 2A.A9

respe&tivel+. ifferen&e in mean s&ores is A that sho, dominant &hange in

s&ores. It is inferred that there ,as signifi&ant &hange in learning of the

experimental group of su*8e&ts.


68/87

61

/a'le E

Co!arison 'et?een the Mean &+ores of )retest and )ost-test of

A!eriental rou!

)aired &a!les /est

Paired Differen#es $ df

Si%.

&2'

tailed(

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95) Confiden#e

*nterval of t+e

Differen#e

,o-er pper

Pair

2

pre test of

E/periental

Group ' post test

of e/periental

Group

'

8.00000!.582!6 .16" '9."8! '6.5212

'

11.1662" .000

0a*le A sho,s the results of paired sample t test of &ontrol group.

Pvalue is =.== that is lo,er than signifi&ant level =.=; that approves the

h+pothesis) C0here is signifi&ant differen&e in s&ores of pretest and post1

test of the parti&ipants of experimental groupD. It is inferred that there is

signifi&ant development in learning of su*8e&ts of experimental group.


69/87

62


70/87

63

/a'le ;

Nu'er of the &tudents and Mean of &+ore in 7oth Control and

A!eriental rou!s

rou! &tatisti+s

Group N Mean

Pretest Controlled Group 25 9.8000

E/perient Group 25 10.8"00

0his ta*le sho,s mean s&ore of pretest of &ontrol and Experimental

group of the stud+ that is 6.A and 2=.A9 respe&tivel+. 0his sho,s that there

is no signifi&an&e differen&e in aptitude of *oth the groups.


71/87

64

0his ta*le sho,s the evenes 0est for Eualit+ of @arian&es that

assumes that pretest s&ores of &ontrolled and experimental groups var+

signifi&antl+. P value =.236 ,hi&h is more than signifi&an&e level =.=;)

disapproves the assumption

/a'le #"

Co!arison 'et?een the Mean &+ores of )retest of A!eriental and

Control rou!s

0nde!endent &a!les /est

,evenes

$est for

Eualit3 of

4arian#es t'test for Eualit3 of Means

Si%. $ df

Si%.

&2'

tailed(

Mean

Differen#e

Std. Error

Differen#e

95)

Confiden#e

*nterval of t+e

Differen#e

,o-er pper

Pretes

t

Eual

varian#es

assued

.029 .865

'

1.5"

6

"8 .129 '1.0"000 .6251'

2.!921.!121

Eual

varian#es

not

assued

'

1.5"

6

"".9

0.129 '1.0"000 .6251

'

2.!9"68.!1"68


72/87

65

/a'le ##

3ifferen+e 'et?een the Mean &+ores of )ost-test of A!eriental and

Control rou!s

rou! &tatisti+s

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Posttest Control Group 25 10.9600 1."51 .291"!

E/perient Group 25 18.8"00 2.285"6 ."509

0his ta*le sho,s mean s&ore of posttest of &ontrolled and Experimental

group of the stud+ that is 2=.6< and 2A.A9 respe&tivel+. 0his sho,s that

there is signifi&an&e progress in learning aptitude of *oth the groups.


73/87

66

/a'le #2

Co!arison 'et?een the Mean &+ores of )ost-test of A!eriental and

Control rou!s

0nde!endent &a!les /est

,evenes

$est for

Eualit3 of

4arian#es t'test for Eualit3 of Means

Si%. $ df

Si%.

&2'

tailed

(

Mean

Differen#

e

Std.

Error

Differe

n#e

95) Confiden#e

*nterval of t+e

Differen#e

,o-er pper

Posttest Eual

varian#es

assued

".692 .0!5 '1".5!6 "8 .000 '.88000 .5"209 '8.96995 '6.9005

Eual

varian#es

not

assued

'1".5!6 "0."5 .000 '.88000 .5"209 '8.9"99 '6.8501

0his ta*le sho,s the evenes 0est for Eualit+ of @arian&es that assumes

that post1test s&ores of &ontrolled and experimental groups var+

signifi&antl+. P value =.== ,hi&h is less than signifi&an&e level =.=;

approves the assumption.


74/87

67

%&&ording to #esear&hers o*servation after getting pre test

and post test s&ores of &ontrol group. In pre test the groups got

39; s&ores and in post test 3>9 s&ores. 0here is a differen&e of

36 s&ores *et,een pre and post test.

%&&ording to #esear&hers o*servation after getting pre test

and post test s&ores of experimental group. In pre test the

groups got 3>2 s&ores and in post test 9>2 s&ores. 0here is a

differen&e of 3== s&ores *et,een pre and post test.

%&&ording to #esear&hers o*servation after getting the

&omparison of pre tests of &ontrol and experimental groups. In

pre test the &ontrol group got 39; s&ores and experimental

group 3>2 s&ores. 0here is a differen&e of 3< s&ores *et,een

pre tests of *oth groups. %&&ording to #esear&hers o*servation after getting the

&omparison of post tests of &ontrol and experimental groups. In

post test the &ontrol group got 3>9 s&ores and experimental

group 9>2 s&ores. 0here is a differen&e of 26> s&ores *et,een

post tests of *oth groups. %&&ording to #esear&hers o*servation after getting mean s&ore

of pretest and post1test of &ontrolled group of the stud+ that is

6.A and post1test 2=.6< respe&tivel+. ifferen&e in mean s&ores

is 2.2< that sho,s ver+ little &hange in s&ores. It is inferred that


75/87

68

there ,as no signifi&ant development in learning of the

&ontrolled group of su*8e&ts.

%&&ording to #esear&hers o*servation after getting the results

of paired sample t1test of &ontrol group. 01value is 2.67< ,hi&h

andPvalue is =.


76/87

69

6.A and 2=.A9 respe&tivel+. 0his sho,s that there is no

signifi&an&e differen&e in aptitude of *oth the groups.

%&&ording to #esear&hers o*servation after getting the

evenes 0est for Eualit+ of @arian&es that assumes that

pretest s&ores of &ontrolled and experimental groups var+

signifi&antl+. P value =.A


77/87

70

CH)/R %

CONCLU&0ON


78/87

71

%.# Hy!othesis 7ased *indings

On the *ases of data anal+sis follo,ing findings has *een dra,n'

2. First h+pothesis C0here is signifi&ant differen&e *et,een mean

s&ores of the students taught through using morphologi&al rules

and the students not taught through morphologi&al rulesD is

a&&epted *e&ause ta*le 23 sho,s the evenes 0est for Eualit+ of

@arian&es that assumes that post test s&ores of &ontrolled and

experimental groups var+ signifi&antl+ P value =.== ,hi&h is less

than signifi&an&e level =.=; approves the assumption.3. Se&ond h+pothesis C0here is signifi&ant differen&e *et,een mean

s&ores of pre test and post test of the experimental groupD is

approved *e&ause ta*le A sho,s the results of paired sample t test

of &ontrol group.Pvalue is =.== that is lo,er than signifi&ant level

=.=; that approves the h+pothesis) C0here is signifi&ant differen&e

in s&ores of pretest and post1test of the parti&ipants of experimental

groupD. It is inferred that there is signifi&ant development in

learning of su*8e&ts of experimental group.

7. 0hird h+pothesis C0here is signifi&ant differen&e *et,een mean

s&ores of pre test and post test of the &ontrol groupD is disapproved

*e&ause 0a*le < sho,s the results of paired sample t1test of &ontrol

group. 01value is 2.67< ,hi&h and P value is =.


79/87

72

%.2 Re+oendations

0he resear&her re&ommends the follo,ing for the future

resear&hers of the same field of stud+'

It is re&ommended to the resear&hers ,ho are interested to

&ondu&t on tea&hing of vo&a*ular+ through morphologi&al rules

as tea&hing strateg+) should in&rease the duration of treatment

from fifteen da+s to at least one month.

Effe&tiveness of morphologi&al rules as tea&hing strateg+

should *e explored at primar+ level as ,ell.

Students of higher level ma+ produ&e *etter results in stud+

*ased on tea&hing via morphologi&al stru&tures.

Higher the population) maximum relia*ilit+. 0o get more

relia*le and more generalia*le results the future resear&her

should take maximum possi*le population as resear&h sample

and resear&h population. !igger sample ,ill *e *est for

relia*ilit+ of results at long run.

0his stud+ ,as organied in small period of time. So one level

,as taken for experimental group and &ontrolled group. 0he

stud+ ,ill *e *est relia*le if it ,ill *e administered in long run.

It &an also distri*ute experimental group and &ontrolled


80/87

73

a&&ording to levels i.e. se&ondar+) higher se&ondar+ and

graduation. %nd the &orrelate the results to get results.

@o&a*ular+ is an essential part of an+ language. So language

should *e taught ,ith a lot of pra&ti&e and drilling. 4ra&ti&e

makes a man perfe&t) so it is ne&essar+ for the tea&hers to tea&h

vo&a*ular+ through drilling and pra&ti&e. Student should also

learn vo&a*ular+ *+ doing lot of pra&ti&e to make them

effi&ient.

%.$ Con+luding Rear8s

It is o*served that vo&a*ular+ &an *e improved through

morphologi&al rules. It is ver+ helpful in initial stages of learning a

language *+ a learner to improve his vo&a*ular+. It is o*served that if

tea&her tea&hes stem root or *ias ,ords to the students and identifies them

and make familiar to their use in their speaking and ,riting. 0he+ *e&ome

more profi&ient in their language. /ith the help of tea&hing of vo&a*ular+

espe&iall+ through derivational and infle&tional suffixes the+ &an enhan&e

their vo&a*ular+ ,idespread. 0his stud+ &lears that vo&a*ular+ tea&hing

through derivational and infle&tional suffixes is ver+ helpful for the

improvement of students skill in their target language. If a student has


81/87

74

onl+ a stem ,ord *+ the tea&hing of vo&a*ular+ espe&iall+ through

derivational and infle&tional suffixes he &an attain a lot of vo&a*ular+.


82/87

75

707L0OR)H

%nglin) J.M. %ocabulary development" * morphological analysis(

Monographs of the +ociety for Research in hild evelopment)

;A"2=$) v12


83/87

76

a&uisition' 0he state of the art. Ne, Uork' Bam*ridge Rniversit+

4ress.26A3.

!o,ers) 4. G Kir*+) J. "3==62( Effects of morphological instruction on

vocabulary ac&uisition( 3ournal of Reading and 0riting. #etrieved

online >131=6.s

!o,ers) 4. G Kir*+) J( Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary

ac&uisition(Journal of #eading and /riting. #etrieved online >131

=6. 3==6.

!o,ers) 4. N.) Kir*+) J.#.) G ea&on) S. H. "in press$. Effe&ts of

morphologi&al instru&tion on litera&+' % meta1anal+sis. 0o *e

pu*lished in S&ientifi& Studies of #eading.!r+son) !. .he Mother .ongue" English and 4ow it ot .hat 0ay. Ne,

Uork' %von !ooks. 266=.

Barlisle) J. F. Morphology matters in learning to read" * commentary(

#eading 4s+&holog+) 39"7$) 3621733. 3==7. Barlisle) J. F. "3==>$.

Fostering morphologi&al pro&essing) vo&a*ular+ development) and

reading &omprehension. In #. K.

Ediger) Marlo,. "2666$.Reading and vocabulary development. Journal of

Instru&tional 4s+&holog+) 3


84/87

!!endiA

)re-/est

Student Name((((((((((((((((((((((((

Blass((((((((((((((( #ollY(((((((((((((((

ate)(((P(((P(((((( 0ea&hers signature (((((((((((((

0otal Marks' 3; 0ime' 3; Minutes

)ut the ?ord in 'ra+8ets into the +orre+t for. ou ?ill have to use

suffiAes.

2. 0he+ en8o+ed su&&ess on a s&ale ((((((((((*+ an+ previous

pop group. "paralleled$

3. She pla+s the violin ,ith great (((((((((. "express$7. Stand ,ith +our feet ,ide(((((. "part$

9. He ,ould never do an+thing to (((((((( the lives of his

&hildren. "danger$

;. 0he ne, tea&her had failed to ((((((((an+ sort of dis&ipline.

"for&e$


85/87

23. /ere living in an ((((((( ,orld. "perfe&t$

27. Our neigh*ors have al,a+s *een ver+ (((((( to,ards us.

"friend$29. ont &ook vegeta*les for too long 1 the+ll lose all

their((((((((. "good$2;. I value her (((((( a*ove an+thing else. "friend$

2


86/87

)ost /est

Student Name((((((((((((((((((((((((

Blass((((((((((((((( #ollY(((((((((((((((

ate)(((P(((P(((((( 0ea&hers Signature (((((((((((((

0otal Marks' 3; 0ime' 3; Minutes

)ut the ?ord in 'ra+8ets into the +orre+t for. ou ?ill have to use

suffiAes.

2. Its a s&hool for(((((((((((((((( gifted &hildren. "musi&$

3. o the exer&ises serve an+(((((((((( purpose? "use$7. 0heres uite a (((((((((((of tooth*rushes in the *athroom.

"&olle&t$

9. 0he ,orld &hanged rapidl+ after the ((((((((((of the phone.

"invent$

;. He invasion on land ,as supported *+ (((((((((( in the air.

"*om*$


87/87

29. /ith a (((((((((((sigh she folded the letter and put it a,a+.

"sorro,$

2;. /e had a (((((((((( time ,ith them. "love$2

Muhammad Abubaker MA Eng AF 1st

Documents

Transcript of Muhammad Abubaker MA Eng AF 1st