Loading…

The Effects of Morphological Instruction on Literacy Skills: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The authors reviewed all peer-reviewed studies with participants from preschool to Grade 8 for this meta-analysis of morphological interventions. They identified 22 applicable studies. Instructional effects (Cohen's d) were averaged by linguistic outcome categories (morphological sublexical, no...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Review of educational research 2010-06, Vol.80 (2), p.144-179
Main Authors: Bowers, Peter N., Kirby, John R., Deacon, S. Hélène
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c304t-f014f17d3582465659fa62669e08c2268320f440b123f793ad1bc4f439db1bb93
container_end_page 179
container_issue 2
container_start_page 144
container_title Review of educational research
container_volume 80
creator Bowers, Peter N.
Kirby, John R.
Deacon, S. Hélène
description The authors reviewed all peer-reviewed studies with participants from preschool to Grade 8 for this meta-analysis of morphological interventions. They identified 22 applicable studies. Instructional effects (Cohen's d) were averaged by linguistic outcome categories (morphological sublexical, nonmorphological sublexical, lexical, and supralexical) and comparison group (experimental group vs. control or experimental group vs. alternative training). The authors investigated the effects of morphological instruction (a) on reading, spelling, vocabulary, and morphological skills, (b) for less able readers versus undifferentiated samples, (c) for younger versus older students, and (d) in combination with instruction of other literacy skills or in isolation. Results indicate that (a) morphological instruction benefits learners, (b) it brings particular benefits for less able readers, (c) it is no less effective for younger students, and (d) it is more effective when combined with other aspects of literacy instruction. Implications of these findings are discussed in light of current educational practice and theory.
doi_str_mv 10.3102/0034654309359353
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_521587764</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ889128</ericid><jstor_id>40658460</jstor_id><sage_id>10.3102_0034654309359353</sage_id><sourcerecordid>40658460</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c304t-f014f17d3582465659fa62669e08c2268320f440b123f793ad1bc4f439db1bb93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKt3DwrB--rkY9Ndb0WqViqCredlN03a1G1Tk6zSf2-WlQoehIE5vM88kwxC5wSuGQF6A8C4SDmDnKWx2AHqkdgTAlwcol4bJ21-jE68XwEQKjLaQ9VsqfBIayWDx1bjZ-u2S1vbhZFljccbH1wjg7EbHGtignKl3OHpu6lrf4uHeLrzQa3LYCR-VZ9GfbWSEJ0dGxqnTtGRLmuvzn56H73dj2Z3j8nk5WF8N5wkkgEPiQbCNRnMWZrR-BOR5roUVIhcQSZpfC2joDmHilCmBzkr56SSXHOWzytSVTnro6vOu3X2o1E-FCvbuE1cWaSUpNlgIHiEoIOks947pYutM-vS7QoCRXvI4u8h48hFN6KckXt89JRlOaFZjJMu9uVC_a78R3fZ8SsfrNv7OIg04wLYN4w2hAE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>521587764</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Effects of Morphological Instruction on Literacy Skills: A Systematic Review of the Literature</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>ERIC</source><source>SAGE</source><creator>Bowers, Peter N. ; Kirby, John R. ; Deacon, S. Hélène</creator><creatorcontrib>Bowers, Peter N. ; Kirby, John R. ; Deacon, S. Hélène</creatorcontrib><description>The authors reviewed all peer-reviewed studies with participants from preschool to Grade 8 for this meta-analysis of morphological interventions. They identified 22 applicable studies. Instructional effects (Cohen's d) were averaged by linguistic outcome categories (morphological sublexical, nonmorphological sublexical, lexical, and supralexical) and comparison group (experimental group vs. control or experimental group vs. alternative training). The authors investigated the effects of morphological instruction (a) on reading, spelling, vocabulary, and morphological skills, (b) for less able readers versus undifferentiated samples, (c) for younger versus older students, and (d) in combination with instruction of other literacy skills or in isolation. Results indicate that (a) morphological instruction benefits learners, (b) it brings particular benefits for less able readers, (c) it is no less effective for younger students, and (d) it is more effective when combined with other aspects of literacy instruction. Implications of these findings are discussed in light of current educational practice and theory.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0034-6543</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1935-1046</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3102/0034654309359353</identifier><identifier>CODEN: REDRAB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Age Differences ; Educational Practices ; Elementary School Students ; Experimental Groups ; Grade 8 ; Linguistic morphology ; Linguistics ; Literacy ; Literature reviews ; Meta Analysis ; Morphemes ; Morphological analysis ; Morphology ; Morphology (Languages) ; Orthographies ; Outcomes of Education ; Peer Evaluation ; Preschool children ; Preschool education ; Pretests Posttests ; Quality of education ; Reading Achievement ; Reading Comprehension ; Reading Instruction ; Spelling ; Systematic review ; Teaching ; Vocabulary ; Word Recognition ; Words</subject><ispartof>Review of educational research, 2010-06, Vol.80 (2), p.144-179</ispartof><rights>2010 American Educational Research Association</rights><rights>2010 AERA</rights><rights>Copyright American Educational Research Association Jun 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c304t-f014f17d3582465659fa62669e08c2268320f440b123f793ad1bc4f439db1bb93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40658460$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/40658460$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,58238,58471,79364</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ889128$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bowers, Peter N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirby, John R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deacon, S. Hélène</creatorcontrib><title>The Effects of Morphological Instruction on Literacy Skills: A Systematic Review of the Literature</title><title>Review of educational research</title><description>The authors reviewed all peer-reviewed studies with participants from preschool to Grade 8 for this meta-analysis of morphological interventions. They identified 22 applicable studies. Instructional effects (Cohen's d) were averaged by linguistic outcome categories (morphological sublexical, nonmorphological sublexical, lexical, and supralexical) and comparison group (experimental group vs. control or experimental group vs. alternative training). The authors investigated the effects of morphological instruction (a) on reading, spelling, vocabulary, and morphological skills, (b) for less able readers versus undifferentiated samples, (c) for younger versus older students, and (d) in combination with instruction of other literacy skills or in isolation. Results indicate that (a) morphological instruction benefits learners, (b) it brings particular benefits for less able readers, (c) it is no less effective for younger students, and (d) it is more effective when combined with other aspects of literacy instruction. Implications of these findings are discussed in light of current educational practice and theory.</description><subject>Age Differences</subject><subject>Educational Practices</subject><subject>Elementary School Students</subject><subject>Experimental Groups</subject><subject>Grade 8</subject><subject>Linguistic morphology</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Meta Analysis</subject><subject>Morphemes</subject><subject>Morphological analysis</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Morphology (Languages)</subject><subject>Orthographies</subject><subject>Outcomes of Education</subject><subject>Peer Evaluation</subject><subject>Preschool children</subject><subject>Preschool education</subject><subject>Pretests Posttests</subject><subject>Quality of education</subject><subject>Reading Achievement</subject><subject>Reading Comprehension</subject><subject>Reading Instruction</subject><subject>Spelling</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Teaching</subject><subject>Vocabulary</subject><subject>Word Recognition</subject><subject>Words</subject><issn>0034-6543</issn><issn>1935-1046</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKt3DwrB--rkY9Ndb0WqViqCredlN03a1G1Tk6zSf2-WlQoehIE5vM88kwxC5wSuGQF6A8C4SDmDnKWx2AHqkdgTAlwcol4bJ21-jE68XwEQKjLaQ9VsqfBIayWDx1bjZ-u2S1vbhZFljccbH1wjg7EbHGtignKl3OHpu6lrf4uHeLrzQa3LYCR-VZ9GfbWSEJ0dGxqnTtGRLmuvzn56H73dj2Z3j8nk5WF8N5wkkgEPiQbCNRnMWZrR-BOR5roUVIhcQSZpfC2joDmHilCmBzkr56SSXHOWzytSVTnro6vOu3X2o1E-FCvbuE1cWaSUpNlgIHiEoIOks947pYutM-vS7QoCRXvI4u8h48hFN6KckXt89JRlOaFZjJMu9uVC_a78R3fZ8SsfrNv7OIg04wLYN4w2hAE</recordid><startdate>20100601</startdate><enddate>20100601</enddate><creator>Bowers, Peter N.</creator><creator>Kirby, John R.</creator><creator>Deacon, S. Hélène</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>American Educational Research Association</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100601</creationdate><title>The Effects of Morphological Instruction on Literacy Skills: A Systematic Review of the Literature</title><author>Bowers, Peter N. ; Kirby, John R. ; Deacon, S. Hélène</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c304t-f014f17d3582465659fa62669e08c2268320f440b123f793ad1bc4f439db1bb93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Age Differences</topic><topic>Educational Practices</topic><topic>Elementary School Students</topic><topic>Experimental Groups</topic><topic>Grade 8</topic><topic>Linguistic morphology</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Meta Analysis</topic><topic>Morphemes</topic><topic>Morphological analysis</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Morphology (Languages)</topic><topic>Orthographies</topic><topic>Outcomes of Education</topic><topic>Peer Evaluation</topic><topic>Preschool children</topic><topic>Preschool education</topic><topic>Pretests Posttests</topic><topic>Quality of education</topic><topic>Reading Achievement</topic><topic>Reading Comprehension</topic><topic>Reading Instruction</topic><topic>Spelling</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Teaching</topic><topic>Vocabulary</topic><topic>Word Recognition</topic><topic>Words</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bowers, Peter N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirby, John R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deacon, S. Hélène</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Review of educational research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bowers, Peter N.</au><au>Kirby, John R.</au><au>Deacon, S. Hélène</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ889128</ericid><atitle>The Effects of Morphological Instruction on Literacy Skills: A Systematic Review of the Literature</atitle><jtitle>Review of educational research</jtitle><date>2010-06-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>80</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>144</spage><epage>179</epage><pages>144-179</pages><issn>0034-6543</issn><eissn>1935-1046</eissn><coden>REDRAB</coden><abstract>The authors reviewed all peer-reviewed studies with participants from preschool to Grade 8 for this meta-analysis of morphological interventions. They identified 22 applicable studies. Instructional effects (Cohen's d) were averaged by linguistic outcome categories (morphological sublexical, nonmorphological sublexical, lexical, and supralexical) and comparison group (experimental group vs. control or experimental group vs. alternative training). The authors investigated the effects of morphological instruction (a) on reading, spelling, vocabulary, and morphological skills, (b) for less able readers versus undifferentiated samples, (c) for younger versus older students, and (d) in combination with instruction of other literacy skills or in isolation. Results indicate that (a) morphological instruction benefits learners, (b) it brings particular benefits for less able readers, (c) it is no less effective for younger students, and (d) it is more effective when combined with other aspects of literacy instruction. Implications of these findings are discussed in light of current educational practice and theory.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.3102/0034654309359353</doi><tpages>36</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0034-6543
ispartof Review of educational research, 2010-06, Vol.80 (2), p.144-179
issn 0034-6543
1935-1046
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_521587764
source JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; ERIC; SAGE
subjects Age Differences
Educational Practices
Elementary School Students
Experimental Groups
Grade 8
Linguistic morphology
Linguistics
Literacy
Literature reviews
Meta Analysis
Morphemes
Morphological analysis
Morphology
Morphology (Languages)
Orthographies
Outcomes of Education
Peer Evaluation
Preschool children
Preschool education
Pretests Posttests
Quality of education
Reading Achievement
Reading Comprehension
Reading Instruction
Spelling
Systematic review
Teaching
Vocabulary
Word Recognition
Words
title The Effects of Morphological Instruction on Literacy Skills: A Systematic Review of the Literature
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T15%3A13%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Effects%20of%20Morphological%20Instruction%20on%20Literacy%20Skills:%20A%20Systematic%20Review%20of%20the%20Literature&rft.jtitle=Review%20of%20educational%20research&rft.au=Bowers,%20Peter%20N.&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=144&rft.epage=179&rft.pages=144-179&rft.issn=0034-6543&rft.eissn=1935-1046&rft.coden=REDRAB&rft_id=info:doi/10.3102/0034654309359353&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E40658460%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c304t-f014f17d3582465659fa62669e08c2268320f440b123f793ad1bc4f439db1bb93%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=521587764&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ889128&rft_jstor_id=40658460&rft_sage_id=10.3102_0034654309359353&rfr_iscdi=true