Running head: Morphological Awareness 1

A Synthesis: Morphological Awareness Interventions and the Effects on Literacy Outcomes

Stacie P. Brady

George Mason University

Morphological Awareness 2

Abstract

This article synthesized eight morphological awareness intervention studies conducted in English

with students in kindergarten through 12th grade between 2006 to 2018. The studies identified

focused on the effects of morphological awareness intervention on literacy outcomes of students

at-risk for reading difficulties. There were eight studies analyzed and synthesized with a total of

419 participants ranging from kindergarten to eight grades. All eight of the studies used a

pre/post-test design to determine growth within morphological awareness as well as the assessed

areas of literacy, reading, spelling, and vocabulary. Results indicate that morphological

instruction, including short term interventions, is beneficial to students at-risk for future reading

difficulties.
Morphological Awareness 3

A Synthesis: Morphological Awareness Interventions and Literacy Outcomes

Learning to read is a complex task requiring the use of a variety of skills including

decoding, fluency, vocabulary, relating content to prior knowledge, applying comprehension

strategies, and monitoring understanding (Edmonds et al., 2009). The reader must have specific

cognitive, motivational, and linguistic capabilities to employ while reading in order to

comprehend written text. Research suggests that a range of tools such as vocabulary, syntactic,

and morphological knowledge is required for reading comprehension (Hagen, Melby-Lervag, &

Lervag, 2017). Efficient readers competently use these complex comprehension skills to read for

a variety of purposes and extract information with little effort. Using these literacy skills, such

as reading, spelling, and vocabulary effectively is critical for academic success (Snow, 2002).

However, students at-risk for future reading difficulties may struggle to become efficient readers.

Minority students, students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and English language

learners are often considered at-risk students (Logan & Petscher, 2010). Another category of

students that may struggle to read are students with a disability. Reading difficulties are a

common characteristic of students classified as having a learning disability (Cortiella &

Horowitz, 2014).

Morphological Awareness

At-risk students or students with disabilities that are progressing slowly in reading may

benefit from a morphological awareness intervention which connects decoding with

comprehension (Katz & Carlisle, 2009). Morphological awareness (MA) is the skill of

identifying and purposefully manipulating morphemes, which are the smallest semantic and

grammatical units in language (Apel & Henbest, 2016). Morphemes include simple whole word

units such as “cat” and base words with affixes, such as “boat” in “boats”, “zip in unzip”, and
Morphological Awareness 4

“swim in swimming”. Affixes, which include prefixes and suffixes, can be inflectional or

derivational morphemes. Inflectional morphemes convert base words by modifying time,

number, possession or comparison such as adding “-ing” to “jump” to create “jumping”.

Inflectional morphemes do not change the grammatical category of the word, for example

“jump” and “jumping” both continue as verbs. Derivational morphemes alter base words by

modifying their meaning and changing their grammatical category such as adding -er to sing to

form the new word singer (Apel, Brimo, Diehm, & Apel, 2013).

Limited knowledge of MA may be an obstacle to word learning and reading

comprehension, ultimately negatively affecting success in reading and academic achievement.

Morphological instruction may benefit students with limited MA by increasing word knowledge

leading to reading more efficiently (Brown, Lignugaris, & Forbush, 2016.

Morphological Awareness and Literacy

The English language is considered a morphophonemic language because it is

represented by words with units of sound, phonemes, and meaning morphemes (Reed, 2008)

Although researchers have established that morphological awareness affects students’ academic

skills, few studies have investigated the effects of a morphological awareness intervention with

students that struggle with word knowledge and reading comprehension (Brimo, 2016).

MA is an important literacy skill to address because it contributes to the word level

reading beyond concepts of phonological awareness. MA skills are linked to students’ literacy

abilities such as word reading, spelling, and vocabulary *LM-(article says comprehension)

abilities (Apel, et al., 2013). Morphology assists readers with segmenting unfamiliar, complex

words into parts, such as identifying the base word and affixes to determine the meaning (Apel &
Morphological Awareness 5

Henbest, 2016). Students who struggle with literacy may benefit from explicit instruction of

MA.

In one case study, for example, Katz and Carlisle (2009) focused on the improvement of

reading morphologically complex words and inferring their meaning when reading passages.

Three students in fourth grade who struggled with language and reading were chosen to

participate. After completing a twelve-week intervention, all three students displayed

improvement with word reading and comprehension. Katz and Carlisle’s (2009) research

suggests that reading programs that provide instruction on how to analyze more complex words

in texts and teach inferring meaning leads to improved comprehension skills. However, typical

classroom instruction does not always include explicit instruction on the manipulation of

morphological properties of words (Brimo, 2016). Brown et al. (2016) further stated that

research regarding evidence for using a morphological instruction approach in the classroom is

limited.

In 2008, Reed examined and synthesized seven correlational and morphological

intervention research studies. Results indicated that all studies analyzed had a range of effect

sizes from negative to positive (-.93 to 9.13) on literacy skills. Reed’s research suggests that

morphological knowledge may be generalized to increase a student’s word reading level and

therefore exposure to more complex vocabulary. Reed further indicated that more research with

MA needs to be completed to determine the impact of morphology on literacy.

Goodwin and Ahn (2010) conducted a meta-analysis focusing on the effects on literacy

skills, such as word reading accuracy and vocabulary development, of specific morphological

interventions. The meta-analysis examined studies that addressed ways to improve literacy

achievement for struggling readers, poor spellers, and students with learning/reading disabilities.
Morphological Awareness 6

They analyzed seventeen studies and identified interventions that utilized sixteen different

morphologic instructional strategies such as affix and root word construction, building words

with morphemes, and compound word instruction. To analyze seventeen studies, Goodwin and

Ahn (2010) coded the studies and examined several characteristics including the type of reading

instruction and the measure of literacy achievement. They noted a correlation between

morphological interventions and an increase in positive literacy outcomes in students who

struggle to read efficiently. After careful analysis of their data they discovered that many

curricula are lacking in direct, explicit morphological instruction that can improve both

phonological and morphological awareness, as well as, spelling and vocabulary. The variability

in morphological interventions reviewed in this research hinders the determination of the effect

size because of the differences across studies. Goodwin and Ahn (2010) recommended that

morphological instruction be included in both remediation and instruction for struggling readers.

Bowers, Kirby, and Deacon (2010) completed a meta-analysis of twenty-two studies that

focused on morphological interventions in multiple languages. The meta-analysis results

indicated that morphological instruction had a positive influence on students’ literacy skills such

as reading, spelling and vocabulary skills, especially those of struggling readers. The analysis

also revealed a need for more experimental research regarding morphological instruction.

Additionally, Bowers and colleagues (2010) stated that interpreting results across languages

should be done with caution because oral and written language features differ and may affect the

synthesized results. These researchers recommended that morphological instruction may be

more effective when infused into the curriculum instead of implemented as short-term

intervention.

Morphological Awareness Intervention

Morphological Awareness 7

Morphological instruction positively influences literacy achievement in many literacy

areas (Goodwin & Ahn, 2010). Morphology intervention affects reading in two ways: (a) as part

of the lexicon, morphology impacts word reading skills in the relationship between

morphological awareness and reading comprehension; and (b) as part of the linguistic system,

morphology affects reading comprehension directly (Deacon, Keiffer, & Laroche, 2014).

Synthesis and meta-analysis reveal a wide variety of morphological interventions. Common

interventions that were identified during this study were affix lessons, word sorts, and applied

pattern activities.

Affix lessons may include activities such as an introduction to an affix, listening

activities, word sorting, and writing activities. During the introduction activity, the educator

introduces an affix such as plural “s”. Students then listen to words containing plural “s” and

others with the plural “s” and identify the words with the plural “s”. A word sorting activity may

contain pictures or words and the students can sort them into categories with an affix and those

without an affix. During applied pattern activities, such as writing activities, students can circle

the words that contain an affix or complete a spelling activity (Wolter & Green, 2013).

Research studies indicate that morphology intervention positively affects many aspects of

literacy, LM->such as reading, spelling, and vocabulary (Reed, 2008). Due to the research

findings and the lack of morphological intervention research, more intervention research is

warranted (Apel, et al. 2013). Additional research could also examine which type of

morphological intervention is the most effective and beneficial to a specific population of

students such as students at-risk or students with a disability. This literature review will analyze

the types of morphological interventions that have been used to attempt to increase literacy

outcomes in students that struggle with reading, including students with a disability. The
Morphological Awareness 8

purpose of this review is to determine whether explicit morphological awareness intervention

may improve reading, spelling, and vocabulary outcomes for struggling readers. The following

research questions will be addressed: Does morphological awareness intervention affect reading,

spelling, and vocabulary outcomes of struggling readers? If so, which aspects of morphological

awareness intervention produce positive effects on reading, spelling, and vocabulary outcomes of

students struggling with reading?

Method

Data Collection

The current literature review examined morphological awareness intervention that

influenced literacy outcomes. A search was conducted on the following four databases:

Academic Search Complete, Education Research Complete, PsycInfo, and ERIC between the

years 2006 to present. To perform this search, the following key terms were used in various

combinations: morphology, affix, intervention, reading comprehension, morphological

instruction, struggling reader, morphological awareness, morphological skills, morphological

awareness skills, and instruction. In addition, ancestry, descendent, and hand searches were also

completed to find additional relevant research. Ancestry searches were conducted using Apel

and Henbest, (2016), Deacon, et al., (2014), and Wolter, Wood, and D’zatko, (2009). To

complete a descendant search, the database Education Research Complete was used for the

article Deacon et al., (2014), as well as, Nagy, Carlisle, and Goodwin, (2013). To conclude the

intervention research study search, a hand search was used for the Journal of Language

Disabilities from the year 2013 to 2017. During the process of identifying research focused on

morphological intervention, several articles conducting literature reviews were identified,

Morphological Awareness 9

including literature syntheses by Reed (2008), Bowers et al. (2010), as well as, a meta-analysis

by Goodwin and Ahn (2010).

Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion

The literature search for morphological awareness and literacy skills research studies was

conducted using four criteria for inclusion. First, all studies utilized experimental research to

evaluate the effectiveness of morphological awareness intervention and literacy. Additionally,

only articles published after 2006 were selected to expand upon research by Reed (2008).

Reed’s study focused on research regarding morphological interventions and effects on reading

outcomes from 1986 to 2006. Third, the current synthesis expanded upon Reed’s research by

including struggling readers that have been identified as reading below grade level. Lastly,

studies were included that focused only on participants in grades kindergarten through 12th

grade. Studies were excluded if the participants were in post-secondary school.

Data Analysis

Nine experimental studies were coded using an adapted code sheet from a previous

synthesis (Reed, 2008). Data were collected on participants (grade, exceptionality), design, and

characteristics (e.g. intervention and outcomes). Table 1 displays features from the intervention

studies including participants characteristics and design characteristics. Intervention

information, findings, and outcomes were included in Table 2.

Three of the studies were randomly selected for evaluation by a second reader to establish

coding reliability. Discrepancies were discussed and were resolved before analyzing data.

Information from all code sheets was then organized in Tables 1 and 2 to summarize the studies.

Results and Discussion

Morphological Awareness 10

Eight articles met the criteria to be included in this literature review. The articles were

published between 2009 and 2018 in the following journals: Language, Speech, and Hearing

Services in Schools, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Communication Disorders Quarterly,

Education and Treatment of Children, and Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. Across

the studies, there were 409 students ranging from kindergarten to eighth grade that had been

identified by their schools as having a learning disability or literacy learning difficulties, at-risk,

poor spellers, struggling readers, reading below grade level, or had an IEP addressing reading.

In each of the studies, the participants received a morphological intervention to assist with

reading outcomes, such as reading, spelling and vocabulary. However, the studies used a variety

of explicit instructional techniques as the independent variable including affix and root word

lessons with a variety of activities including word sorts, word building, applied pattern activities,

and reading comprehension strategies. Eight of the studies used a group design with a pretesting

assessment prior to intervention and then post testing following intervention. Two of the studies

used multiple groups. Results are discussed by literacy skill outcome; reading (six studies),

spelling (four studies), and vocabulary (two studies).

Reading Outcomes

Of the eight studies examined for this synthesis six addressed the effects of

morphological awareness on student’s reading outcomes. Reading outcomes included word-

level reading, comprehension, accuracy, rate, and pseudo-word reading. Apel et al. (2013)

studied the effects of a nine-week morphological intervention program focused on affixes and

base words using a pre-post-test design with students in kindergarten through second grade. The

affix lessons consisted of four activities: listening, word-sorting, verbal production of the target

affixes. The researchers noted growth in reading skills within the nine-week intervention period.
Morphological Awareness 11

First and second graders demonstrated medium effect size (ds = .53 and .70) in reading

comprehension. Kindergarteners scores on phonemic awareness demonstrated medium effect

sizes (d = .58).

Apel and Diehm (2013) conducted an eight-week intervention study to investigate

morphological awareness and reading skills with 181 kindergarten, first, and second grade

students at risk for reading failure. The MA intervention activities consisted of an introduction

to the identified affixes followed by a listening activity, word sorting, and verbal production.

The first and second graders also completed a writing activity that involved circling words with

targeted affixes. The morphological awareness abilities of the students receiving intervention

increased when compared to the control group. The first and second grade students

demonstrated small gains with reading comprehension (ds = .26 and .28). Kindergarten students

demonstrated no practical gains (d= 0.00). The researchers found that students who began the

intervention with the lowest reading scores demonstrated the greatest improvement.

Denston, Everatt, Parkhill, and Marriot (2018) completed two studies with 36 fourth

through sixth grade students with literacy learning difficulties. The studies used a pre and

posttest intervention design focused on explicit decoding and morphological awareness. After

students were placed in small learning groups, they completed morphological decoding activities

during the intervention sessions. Both studies revealed gains in reading accuracy,

comprehension, and rate. They used the Supplementary Test of Achievement in Reading (STAR)

for pre and post-testing. (LM->Not sure what effect size to use) Results indicated that students

were able to generalize the gains in reading accuracy and reading comprehension.

Good, Lance, and Rainey (2015) conducted a study with sixteen students diagnosed with

a language impairment in third grade. The focus of the study was to examine the effects of
Morphological Awareness 12

explicit morphological awareness on student’s reading, spelling, and vocabulary abilities.

During the reading portion of the small group instruction, students sorted words based upon

target affixes. Good et al. (2015) reported no significant difference (partial Eta2 =.003) between

reading-taught and not-taught words. Post-test results indicated an increase in reading accuracy

which demonstrated the student’s ability to generalization the strategies introduced.

Kirk and Gillon (2009) investigated the effects of an integrated morphological

intervention on student’s reading abilities using a reading probe. Participants were between eight

and eleven years old. The morphological intervention was combined with other forms of

linguistic instruction including phonology, orthography, syntax, and semantics. Sixteen

participants with spelling difficulties were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group.

The participants received approximately 20 intervention sessions. Kirk and Gillon (2009)

reported large effect size for reading and spelling (f = 2.55). The reading probe identified that,

generalization occurred with taught words but not to the same degree of not-taught words.

Wolter and Dilworth (2013) study included groups focused on: phonology and

orthography, as well as, morphology awareness. Participants included 43 first grade students.

Compared with the other group, the morphology focused group performed better on standardized

measures of reading. A large effect size was also noted for the morphological awareness

treatment group (d= .76) for sight word reading. The students in the morphology intervention

group demonstrated significantly improved reading comprehension with a large effect size (d=

1.49). Overall, the studies indicate improvement in many areas of reading (e.g. comprehension

and word-level reading) with the use of a morphological intervention.

Spelling Outcomes
Morphological Awareness 13

Eight articles were reviewed for this synthesis. Of the eight studies, four examined the

effects of morphological awareness effects on student’s spelling outcomes. Brimo (2016)

conducted a study with MA intervention and the effects on spelling. Participants included

thirteen students in 3rd grade. The study took place over ten weeks with students diagnosed with

a reading disorder. Brimo’s (2016) post-test results, following the ten-week intervention,

revealed that explicit morphological instruction without including specific spelling strategies did

not improve spelling ability of affixes and multimorphemic words (d = 0.28). Brimo (2016)

noted that the study had a small sample size and low power.

Good’s et al. (2015) morphological intervention addressed spelling through the use of

segmenting with letter blocks. Participants included sixteen 3rd grade students diagnosed with a

language impairment. Intervention included the use of word sorts, spelling instruction, and a

review. The researchers identified no significant main effect (partial Eta2 =.002). A significant

main effect for time was reported (partial Eta 2 = .706). No interaction effect was noted between

items, time, and group (partial Eta2 = .000). The lack of interaction effects indicated there was

no difference in spelling-taught or spelling-not- taught words, but generalization was noted and

identified by the increase in spelling accuracy.

Kirk and Gillon (2009) studied the effects of an integrated morphological intervention on

students spelling abilities using a spelling probe. The participants included 16 students ranging

from eight to eleven years of age who demonstrated spelling difficulties. Participants were

randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. The experimental group completed MA

activities using multiple linguistic factors simultaneously. Intervention tasks included picture

and word sorting activities, prompted spelling ranging from simple to more complex words. A

significant effect size (f = 2.82) was noted between pre and postintervention. Generalization
Morphological Awareness 14

with spelling was noted by the postintervention difference between taught words and not-taught

words.

Wolter and Dilworth (2013) focused their intervention on twenty students in the second

grade with spelling deficits. The students completed nine intervention sessions. They designed

their study using two intervention groups: phonological and orthographical, as well as, a

morphological group. Using the post-test standardized measure, TWS-4; students in the

morphological awareness group appeared to significantly improve in spelling (partial Eta2 = .51)

with a medium effect (d = .66). Using non-standardized spelling measures, the morphological

awareness group appeared to significantly improve in spelling and a large effect size was found

(d= .85). During the third spelling post-test, morphological pattern spelling task revealed

significant improvement in spelling (partial Eta2 = .92) and a large effect size was found (d =

.06).

Three of the four studies that examined the effects of morphology awareness on spelling

outcomes revealed that spelling can be improved by increasing morphological awareness,

specifically including spelling tasks within the morphological awareness intervention.

Generalization of intervention techniques was noted in two of the four studies.

Vocabulary Outcomes

Limited vocabulary is a substantial obstacle to success in reading and academic

achievement. Morphological vocabulary instructional approach may benefit students with

vocabulary deficits by improving their word knowledge and reading comprehension (Brown et

al. 2016). Two of the ten articles examined analyzed effects of morphological awareness and

vocabulary outcomes. The study designed by Good et al. (2015) focused on identifying effects

of morphological intervention on literacy outcomes, including vocabulary, with students with

Morphological Awareness 15

language impairments. Good et al. (2015) found that the experimental group of students were

able to generalize the strategies learned. With the vocabulary measures, an improvement was

noted on taught words and untaught words for the experimental group. This increase is reflective

of the high post-treatment differences. Good et al. (2015) noted that explicit morphological

intervention is a “promising” (p. 150) type of instruction for improving the literacy and language

skills of children with language impairments.

Ramirez, Walton, and Roberts (2013) explored the differences in the effects of

morphological intervention with kindergarteners with varying abilities. Ramirez’s et al. (2013)

study consisted of three groups of students. Students were grouped according to their ability

level. The researchers identified that the students with the greatest needs were most able to

benefit from this instruction. Strong gains in vocabulary were noted (partial Eta2 =.53).

Ramirez et al. (2013) reported that morphological awareness and vocabulary instruction can be

combined since they are related, as evidenced by the gains noted for morphological awareness

being moderately associated with the gains in vocabulary. The two studies identified for this

synthesis reported that morphological instruction is beneficial to increasing language and literacy

skills, including vocabulary, especially in students with the greatest needs.

Discussion

The research questions that guided this literature review regarding MA intervention and

literacy outcomes are addressed in all the articles. With regard to the first research question,

does morphological awareness intervention affect reading, spelling and vocabulary outcomes of

struggling readers? All eight of the articles identified an area of literacy that was positively

affected by the MA intervention including explicit intervention, as well as, MA instruction that

has been integrated with other forms of linguistic awareness. The interventions primarily
Morphological Awareness 16

utilized small group instruction that took place over a relatively short period of time,

approximately nine to thirty-nine sessions. All eight of the studies included populations of

readers at-risk for future reading difficulties or identified with a disability such as a language or

reading impairment.

The second research question that guided this literature synthesis refers to the different

aspects of morphological awareness intervention that affected literacy outcomes. Three areas of

literacy were addressed in this synthesis: reading, spelling, and vocabulary. Apel et al. (2013)

identified that their results were similar to the previous research completed by Vadasy, Sanders,

and Peyton (2006). Both studies indicated that integrated MA intervention produced positive

gains in word-level reading and reading comprehension. Brimo’s (2016) research supports

Amback and Elbro’s study in 2000. Both studies addressed the explicit intervention of MA with

the activities of segmenting, listening, and producing morphemes which led to an increase in

morphological awareness with student’s with reading disabilities. Wolter and Dilworth (2013)

support the findings of Berninger, Nagy, Carlisle, Thomson, Hoffer, and Abbott, et al. (2003)

and Kirk and Gilllon (2009). Three of these studies support MA intervention using a

multilinguistic approach. Three of the studies in this synthesis support a variety of MA

interventions that have been researched previously, including integrated, explicit, and a

multilinguistic approach to increasing morphological awareness to increase literacy outcomes.

Additionally, three of the eight articles addressed generalization of the skills learned

through the MA intervention. Good et al. (2015) and Kirk and Gillion (2009) noted that students

were able to generalize strategies to read untaught words. Denston et al. (2018) used the

standardized Test of Achievement in Reading (STAR) as a post-test and revealed gains in literacy

outcomes following intervention.

Morphological Awareness 17

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

Focusing on morphological awareness intervention, this synthesis expanded upon the

research provided in a synthesis completed by Reed in 2008. This research synthesis focused on

the effects of MA on the literacy outcomes of students at risk for reading failure. MA

interventions focused on a variety of literacy areas including reading, spelling, and vocabulary.

and reading. Although this synthesis determined that MA instruction can benefit students at-risk

for future reading difficulties there are several limitations noted, including a limited number of

studies reviewed, sample size and configuration of groups within the studies, and the

interventionist who implemented the treatments.

Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, eight studies using a group experimental

design were identified. Although the studies examined a variety of literacy outcomes and

morphological intervention strategies, a minimal amount of studies were identified and

examined. The small number of studies available to be reviewed demonstrates the need for more

experimental research in the area of morphology intervention or instruction and the effects on

literacy outcomes.

Additionally, it is noted that seven of the eight studies reviewed used researchers or

research assistants to implement the study and often with a script. While this provides fidelity

within the treatment, the use of a script is not typical of the classroom setting and limits the

ability to generalize the intervention to other environments.

Within the studies reviewed, the researchers identified several limitations. For example,

within the eight articles examined, three reported using a small sample size including Brimo

(2016), Good et al. (2015), and Kirk and Gillion (2013). Using a small sample size limits

generalization to a larger more diverse population. Another area of concern that was noted by
Morphological Awareness 18

the researchers was the need for research within a wider age group population. In four of the

eight studies participants included one grade level. Researchers suggested that a longitudinal

study to determine the long-term effects of MA intervention on literacy outcomes would be

beneficial to the knowledge base.

Running head: Morphological Awareness 19

Table 1

Features of intervention studies

Study Study Designs N Grade Duration Person Intended outcome type

or Age Implementing

1. Apel, Brimo, Diehm, treatment/ pre- 61-at risk K,1,2 9 weeks Undergrad, reading comprehension

& Apel (2013) posttest (4 x week, 25 graduate students,

Feasibility study: comparison min.) former teachers,

pre/posttest no teacher assistants

control group

2. Apel & Diehm treatment/ pre- 151-st K,1,2 8 weeks graduate students reading comprehension

(2013) posttest risk (4 x week, 25 morphological awareness

Randomly assigned comparison min.)

intervention and

control group.
Morphological Awareness 20

3. Brimo (2016) treatment/ pre- 10 - LD 3 10 weeks graduate students reading comprehension

Intervention and posttest (3x week, 25 spelling

control group comparison min.)

multiple

groups

4. Denston, Everatt, treatment/ pre- 36 - LD 4,5,6 39 sessions, researcher reading comprehension,

Parkhill, & Marriot posttest (4x week, 30 rate, accuracy

(2018) comparison min)

5. Good, Lance, & treatment/ pre- 16- LI 3 20 sessions researcher reading

Rainey (2015) posttest spelling

Intervention and comparison vocabulary

control group

6. Kirk & Gillon treatment 16- SD 8-11 31 sessions researcher reading

(2009) groups y.o. (2x week 45 spelling

Experimental min.)
Morphological Awareness 21

7. Ramirez, Walton, & treatment/ pre- 108- at K 24 sessions teacher morphological

Roberts (2013) posttest risk (30 minutes awareness

Experimental comparison each) vocabulary

multiple

groups

8. Wolter & Dilworth treatment/ pre- 20- SD 2 9 days researchers/ reading comprehension

(2013) posttest (90 min) graduate assistants sight word

Experimental comparison reading

spelling

multiple

groups

Note. LD-learning dis abilities, LLD-literacy learning difficulties, RD- reading disability, SD- spelling deficit, LI-language

impairment
Morphological Awareness 22

Table 2

Outcomes by Intervention Type and Design

Intervention Measure Findings/Results

Apel, Brimo, Diehm, and Apel 4 MA researcher designed tasks: Rehit, All 3 grade levels demonstrated statistically and

(2013) Relatives, Affix identification, spelling clinically significant gains in morphological

 Affix lessons: multimorphemic words (SMW) awarenss skills led to significant gains on literacy

identification, sorting, CTOPP, TOWRE, TOSREC, CELF-4 measures. Rehit k ES=2.19. 1st ES= 1.72, 2 ES=

written activity, affix 1.03; Relatives k ES=21.11. 1st ES= 0.97, 2 ES=

book, review 0.66; Affix 1st ES= 2.30, 2 ES= 2.15; Spelling 1st

ES= 2.08, 2 ES= 1.34; CTOPP k ES=0.74. 1st ES=

0.65, 2 ES= 0.3; TOWRE: word identification k

ES=0.77. 1st ES= 0.55, 2 ES= 0.41; TOWRE:

Decoding k ES=0.97. 1st ES= 0.29, 2 ES= 0.44;

TOSREC 1st ES= 0.57, 2 ES= 0.87; CELF-4 K

ES=0.11, 1st ES= .32, 2nd ES= 0.17

Morphological Awareness 23

Apel and Diehm (2013) 4 MA researcher designed tasks: Rehit, Rehit K ES=1.26, 1st ES= 0.67, 2nd ES= 0.86

 Affix lesson: Relatives, Affix identification, spelling Relatives K ES=0.82, 1st ES= 0.41, 2nd ES= 1.07

identification, sorting, multimorphemic words (SMW), Spelling Multimorphemic Words 1st ES= 0.82, 2nd

say it another way TOWRE, TOSREC ES= -0.03

activity, story, review Affix Identification 1st ES= 2.54, 2nd ES= 1.52

TOWRE: Sight Word Efficiency K ES=0.0, 1st ES=

0.11, 2nd ES= 0.12

TOWRE: Phonemic Decoding Efficiency K ES=-

0.0, 1st ES= -0.39, 2nd ES= 0.28

Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and

Comprehension 1st ES= 0.26, 2nd ES= 0.14

Brimo (2016) 4 MA researcher designed tasks: Rehit, Rehit ES= 2.58

 Affix lesson: listen, sort, Relatives, Affix identification, spelling Relatives ES= 1.71

produce (say it another multimorphemic words (SMW) Affix identification ES= 0.48

way), identify, write, WJTA-3, CTOPP, WISC-4, Spelling multimorphic words ES= 0.28

review
Morphological Awareness 24

Denston, Everatt, Parkhill, and 3 MA researcher designed tasks: Reading gains in all areas (accuracy,

Marriot (2018) morphological awareness judgement, comprehension, rate, and fluency)

 SevenPlus (decoding, morpho-syntactic task, morphological Burt - Eta2 = .83

vocabulary, fluency) awareness word analogy task, NARA-Acc - Eta2 = .43

 Moat’s strategy (2010) Burt Reading Test-New Zealand Edition, NARA-Comp - v2 = .70

Neale Analysis of Reading Ability NARA-Rate - Eta2 = .41

(NARA), STAR, MA - Eta2 = .37

MP-MS - Eta2 = .56

MP-WA - Eta2 = .45

Good, Lance, and Rainey Researcher designed vocabulary, Reading ES= .58

(2015) spelling, and reading tasks. Spelling ES= .247

 Word sorts, spelling Vocabulary ES=.621

instruction

Kirk and Gillon (2009) Test of Spelling-4th. Ed., TONI-3, Larsen Reading ES= 2.55

 Word patterns, sorting, Verbal Intelligence-3, CELF-4 (subtests:

spelling Concepts and Following Directions, Spelling ES= 2.82

Morphological Awareness 25

Word Structure, Recalling Sentences, and

Formulated Sentences, Basic Skills

Cluster of WRMT-R

Ramirez, Walton, Roberts Making Words, EVT-2 morphological awareness strong significant gains

(2013) (making words) ES= .61

 Compound words vocabulary strong significant gains ES= .53

Wolter and Dilworth (2013) WRMT-R word attack, WRMT-R Word Reading comprehension (d=.02)

 Word sorts, word ID, WRMT-R passage comprehension, Sight word reading significant gains

building, applied pattern Standardized spelling TSW-4, Non- (d= .29)

activities, reading standardized orthographic spelling and Spelling small effect size (d=.85)

comprehension morphological spelling

strategies
Running head: Morphological Awareness 26

References

*Apel, K., Brimo, D., Diehm, E., and Apel, L. (2013). Morphological awareness intervention

with kindergartners and first- and second- grade students from low socioeconomic status

homes: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 161-

173. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2012/12-0042)

*Apel, K., & Diehn, E. (2014). Morphological awareness intervention with kindergarteners and

first and second grade students from low SES homes: A small efficacy study. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 65-75. doi: 10.1177/0022219413509964

Apel, K., & Henbest, V. S. (2016). Affix meaning knowledge in first through third grade

students. Language, Speech, and Hearing Sciences in Schools, 47, 148-156. doi:

10.1044/2016_LSHSS-15-0050

Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on

literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research,

80(2), 144-179. doi: 10.3102/0034654309359353

*Brimo, D. (2016). Evaluating the effectiveness of a morphological awareness intervention: A

pilot study. Communications Disorders Quarterly, 38(1), 35-45. doi:

10.1177/15257401156045920

Brown, S. H., Lignugaris, K. B. & Forbush, D. E. (2016). The effects of morphemic vocabulary

instruction on prefix vocabulary and sentence comprehension for middle school students

with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 39(3), 301-338. doi:

10.1353/etc.2016.001

Cortiella, C. & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The State of Learning Disabilities: Facts, Trends and

Emerging Issues. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities

Morphological Awareness 27

Deacon, S. H., Keiffer, M. J., & Laroche, A. (2014). The relation between morphological

awareness and reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading 18(6), 432-451. doi:

10.1080?10888438.2014.926907

*Denston, A., Everatt, J., Parkhill, F., & Marriot, C. (2018). Morphology: Is it a means by which

teachers can foster literacy development in older primary students with literacy learning

difficulties? Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 41(2), 94-102. Retrieved from

http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http:/search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true=ehh&

AN=129632503&site=ehost-live

Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J. Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., &

Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading

comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research,

79, 262-300. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325998

*Good, J. E., Lance, D. M., & Rainey, J. (2015). The effects of morphological awareness

training on reading, spelling, and vocabulary skills. Communication Disorders Quarterly

36(3), 142-151. doi: 10.1177/152574011454817

Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on

literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annuals of Dyslexia 60, 183-

208. doi: 10.1007/s11881-010-0041-x

Hagen, A. M., Melby-Lervag, M., & Lervag, A. (2017). Improving language comprehension in

preschool children with language difficulties: A cluster randomized trial. The Journal of

Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(10), 1132-1140. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12762

Morphological Awareness 28

Katz, L. A. & Carlisle, J. F. (2009). Teaching students with reading difficulties to be close

readers: A feasibility study. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 40(3),

325-340. doi: 10/1044/0161-1461(2009/07-0096)

*Kirk, C. & Gillon, G. T., (2009). Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for

improving literacy. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 40(3), 341-351.

doi:

Logan, J. A. & Petscher, Y. (2010). School profiles of at-risk student concentration: Differential

growth in oral reading fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 163-186. doi:

10.1016/j.jsp.2009.12.002

Nagy, W. E., Carlisle, J. F. & Goodwin, A. P. (2014). Morphological knowledge and literacy

acquisition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 3-12. doi:

10.1177/0022219413509967

*Ramirez, G., Walton, P., & Roberts, W. (2013). Morphological awareness and vocabulary

development among kindergarteners with different ability levels. Journal of Learning

Disabilities 47(1), 54-64. doi: 10.1177/0022219413509970

Reed, D. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology intervention and effects on reading outcomes for

students in grades K-12. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(1), 36-49. doi:

10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00261

Snow, Catherine. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward on R &D Program in Reading

Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation Retrieved from

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1465.html

Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2006). Paraeducator-supplemented instruction in

structural analysis with text reading practice for second and third graders at risk for
Morphological Awareness 29

reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 365-378. doi:

10.1177/07419325060270060601

*Wolter, J. A., & Dilworth, V. (2013). The effects of a multilinguistic morphological awareness

approach for improving language and literacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities 47(1), 76-

85. doi: 10.1177/0022219413509972

Wolter, J. A., & Green, L. (2013). Morphological awareness intervention in school-age children

with language and literacy deficits a case study. Topics in Language Disorders, 33(1),

27-41. doi: 10.1097/TLD.0b013e318280f5aa

Wolter, J. A., Wood, A., D’zatko, K. W. (2009) The influence of morphological awareness on

the literacy development of first-grade children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services

in Schools 40, 286-298. doi: 0161-1461/09/4003-0286