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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Review of educational research 2010-06, Vol.80 (2), p.144-179 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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 |