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
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 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
How is morphology related to reading?
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
<ea> /ɛ/
<ee> /i/ <heal>
<health>
How is morphology related to reading?
Semantics
Orthography PhonologyMorphology
• Binds semantics, orthography, and phonology
<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
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 PhonologyMorphology
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 PhonologyMorphology
“…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, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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)
Linguistic Category of Outcome Variable
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)
Linguistic Category of Outcome Variable
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).
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.