Download - Dissertation defense trussell 2.28.2014
THE EFFECT OF MORPHOGRAPHIC INSTRUCTION ON THE MORPHOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SKILLS OF DEAF/HARD OF HEARING STUDENTS
Jessica Trussell, M.Ed
Dissertation Defense
February 27, 2014
Delayed morphographic
knowledge (Gaustad, 1986; Guastad,
Kelly, Payne, & Lylak, 2002)
Affects meaning-oriented decoding (Carlisle, 2003)
Obstacle to reading
comprehension (McCadle, Scarbourough & Katts,
2001)
Theoretical Framework
Lexical Quality Hypothesis (Perfetti & Hart, 2001)
Extension of LaBerge and Samuel’s (1974) Information Processing in Reading theory
Purpose
Expand the knowledge base onMorphographic word analysis for DHH
studentsEffective practices to increase
morphographic knowledge and possibly develop meaning-oriented decoding skills
Research Questions
o What effect does morphographic instruction have on the morphographic analysis skills of DHH students with a second to fourth grade reading level? o What effect does this instruction have on their affix
knowledge?o If gains are made in morphographic knowledge, will
that knowledge generalize to untaught words? o If gains are made in morphographic knowledge, will
that knowledge maintain over time?
Participants
Name Grade Agea
Unaided at
1000HZ(L/R) (dB)
Preferred Communication
Mode Amp.Language in home
Megan 5th 10;2 65/65Sign/
Speech HA English
Sienna 5th 10;0 90/CISign/
SpeechHA &
CI English
Brian 4th 9;3 70/50Sign/
Speech HAEnglish &
Cambodian
Note. a =Age expressed in years;months; L= Left; R = Right, dB = Decibel; Amp. = Amplification; CI=Cochlear implant; HA=Hearing aid.
Setting
Public school setting in the northwestern United StatesSelf-contained/resource classroom (K-6th)
○ 2 Teachers of the d/Deaf/hard of hearing○ 11 DHH students
Small group instructionTotal communication philosophy
Study SettingDHH classroomKidney table with 3 chairsIndividual instruction
Research design
Multiprobe multiple baseline single case design across students (Kennedy, 2005)
Why single case?
Morphographic intervention research design
Several phases (Phase A, B, C, D, and E)Three tiers (i.e., student participants)
Phase A- Baseline for all students○ She demonstrated a minimum of 5 consecutive
data points with a mean score of 20% or less correct responses out of ten possible responses on the baseline probe
○ Student 2 and 3 were administered probes○ Minimum of 5 probes with 3 of those probes
occurring consecutively prior to intervention with a mean score of 20% or less correct responsesMeasure example
Morphographic intervention research design
Phase B & D- Interventionminimum of 5 data points with a score of 80% or
better correct responses out of five possible responses for 3 out of 4 consecutive data points
OR 20% or less on the repeated measure for a
maximum of ten sessions Data collection will cease after the student
participant meets mastery criteria○ Measure example
Morphographic intervention research design
Phase C- Generalizationa score between 0% and 80% on the probe,
the student entered intervention for the second set of words
ORa score above 80% the data collection
ceased and maintenance was collected after 10 sessions
Morphographic intervention research design
Phase E- Maintenance10 sessions with no interaction with the
intervention materialsBaseline/generalization/maintenance probe
administered
Materials
Pretest MaterialsResearcher created pretest
○ Morphographic analysis of possible target words
○ Base word knowledgeWoodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement
(WJ III: Woodcock, McGrew, Mather, & Shrank, 2001)
○ letter/ word identification ○ passage comprehension
Morphemic Awareness Test (Luetke, Stryker, & McLean, 2013)
Materials Intervention Measures
Baseline/generalization/maintenance probes
Intervention repeated measure Intervention Materials
10 Lessons10 Student workbook pages10 Visual organizer pages example
Word Sets Ten multi-morphographic words taught
all the words had two morphographs two words had eighth to nine letter words three words had ten to twelve letter words (Harris et al., 2011)
Intervention Week 1 Intervention Week 2assistant biannual
mythology adduct
amoral actually
section difference
dental gullible
Independent and Dependent Variable
Morphogr
aphic instruction
Teacher/ researcher implemented20 minutes, 5 days a week, 2 weeksScripted lessons and planned practiceIndividual instruction
Morphogr
aphic word analy
sis
Correctly dissecting target words through permanent product
Procedures
1. Teacher participant training
2. Study scheduled with teacher participants
3. WJ-III, Morphemic Awareness Test and Pretest administered to all student participants
4. Classroom observations completed
5. Baseline data collection
6. First intervention phase data collection
7. Generalization data collection
8. Second intervention phase data collection
9. Maintenance data collection
10. Social validity measures given
Fidelity and Reliability
Assessment sessionsFidelity- 97% (range = 78 % to 100%)Reliability- 97% (range= 86% to 100%)
Intervention sessionsFidelity- 93% (range = 90% to 98%)Reliability- 90% (range = 87% to 93%)
Permanent product scoring100% 100%
Pre-intervention Results
Student Grade
WJ-IIILetter/Word
ID a
WJ-III ReadingComp a
Morphemic Awareness
Scoreb
Megan 5th 3.8 3.4 70%Sienna 5th 4.4 3.1 91%Brian 4th 3.0 2.1 45%
Note. a = grade equivalency expressed in grade level.months; b = percentage correct out of 33 test items, WJ-III = Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement, ID = identification; Comp = Comprehension
Data analysis
Student levelStability (Kazdin, 2011)
LevelTrendImmediacy of effectPercentage of overlapping dataConsistency
- Kratchowell et. al, 2010
Stu
dent
Par
ticip
ants
’ Gra
phs
Social Validity- Students
Statement Mean rating
I liked learning about morphographs. 4.3
Learning about morphographs was fun. 3.7
I can break apart words now. 4.7
I would recommend learning about morphographs to a friend.
3.0
I learned a lot about morphographs. 4.7
I can use what I learned about morphographs in other classes at school.
3.7
Social Validity -Teacher Agreed
Easy to implementAppropriateWould like to continue
IndifferentAligned with literacy goals for the studentsBenefitted the students
ChangesPrefer small group instruction
Discussion Functional relation established
Supports Nunes et. al., 2010 DI implemented to teach a literacy skill
Supports Trezek & Malgrem (2005) and Trezek & Wang (2006)
Matching affixesSupports Ensor & Koller (1997) as well as Plessow-
Wolfson & Epstein (2005) Visual organizer
Supports Easterbrooks & Stoner (2006) Megan’s Baseline
Strategy use
Limitations
Sample size Experimental control in the school
environment Scripted lessons Age of participants Derived word forms did not change
spelling
Next Steps…
Replications and group design studies Use of more flexible lesson types Implement with younger students Teach rules to combine morphographs
(Harris et. al., 2011) Small group instruction Longer intervention
Conclusion
More research needs to be conducted Morphographic instruction improves
morphographic analysis skills DHH students require explicit, teacher-
led instruction Morphographic decoding may be a
viable decoding strategy Delay could be ameliorated
References Carlisle, J. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 169–190. Easterbrooks, S. R., & Stoner, M. (2006). Using a visual tool to increase adjectives in written language of students who
are deaf or hard of hearing. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(2), 95–109. doi:10.1177/15257401060270020701 Ensor, & Koller. (1997). The effect of the method of repeated readings on the reading rate and word recognition
accuracy of deaf adolescents. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(2), 61–70. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15579836
Gaustad, M. (1986). Longitudinal effects of manual English instruction on deaf children’s morphological skills. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 101–127.
Gaustad, M., Kelly, R., Payne, J., & Lylak, E. (2002). Deaf and hearing students’ morphological knowledge applied to printed English. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(5), 5–21.
Harris, M., Schumaker, J., & Deshler, D. (2011). The effects of strategic morphological analysis instruction on the vocabulary performance of secondary students with and without disabilites. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 34(1), 17–33.
Kennedy, C. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive
Psychology, 6(2), 293-323. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/cognitive-psychology/ McCardle, P., Scarborough, H. S., & Catts, H. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children’s reading
difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(4), 230–239. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00023 Nunes, T., Burman, D., Evans, D., & Bell, D. (2010). Writing a language that you can’t hear. In N. Brunswick, S.
McDougall, & P. de Mornay Davies (Eds.), Reading and dyslexia in different orthographies (pp. 109–126). New York: Psychology Press.
Plessow-Wolfson, S., & Epstein, F. (2005). The experience of story reading: deaf children and hearing mothers’ interactions at story time. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(4), 369–78. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16466192
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–214). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Trezek, B., & Malmgren, K. W. (2005). The efficacy of utilizing a phonics treatment package with middle school deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(3), 256–71. doi:10.1093/deafed/eni028
Trezek, B., & Wang, Y. (2006). Implications of utilizing a phonics-based reading curriculum with children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(2), 202–13. doi:10.1093/deafed/enj031