Morphological Awareness Assessment and Intervention to Improve Language and Literacy This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

Julie A. Wolter, Ph.D., CCC-SLP1 and Frances E. Gibson, M.A., CCC-SLP1

ABSTRACT

Morphological awareness positively influences language and literacy development and may be an ideal intervention focus for improving vocabulary, sight word reading, reading decoding, and reading comprehension in students with and without language and literacy deficits. This article will provide supporting theory, research, and strategies for implementing morphological awareness intervention with students with language and literacy deficits. Additionally, functional connections are explored through the incorporation and application of morphological awareness intervention in academic literacy contexts linked to Common Core State Standards. KEYWORDS: Morphology, morphological awareness, morphological awareness

Learning Outcomes: As a result of this activity, the reader will be able to (1) recall the relevant link between morphological awareness, language, and literacy; (2) describe the research basis for morphological awareness intervention in school-aged students with and without language and literacy deficits; (3) implement morphologically based intervention for school-aged students with and without language and literacy deficits.

B

rian is a 12-year-old boy who is in sixth grade and receiving language and literacy services. Recent goals for language intervention include improving Brian’s spoken language abilities in the areas of vocabulary and complex syntax (i.e., verband noun-phrase expansion). Additionally, Brian struggles in literacy and currently demonstrates

difficulties reading and writing multisyllabic words that he considers “long” and will often guess the pronunciation and spelling of multisyllabic words based on the first few letters (e.g., reading or writing “record” for the word “recognition”). He appears to have difficulty comprehending written text, and when provided with a

1 Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Address for correspondence: Julie Wolter, Ph.D., Utah State University, 1000 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Spotlight on Adolescent and Adult Language and Literacy; Guest Editor, Karen A. Fallon, Ph.D., CCC-SLP. Semin Speech Lang 2015;36:31–41. Copyright # 2015 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel: +1(212) 584-4662. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1396444. ISSN 0734-0478.

31

SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1

grade-level reading passage and asked to answer questions about the meaning of what was read, he often will provide a response that reflects related knowledge regarding what he already knows about the subject; however, that background knowledge may not reflect the meaning of what was read in the text. Brian’s case may be similar to ones many language and literacy specialists confront on a consistent basis when working with older school-aged students with language and literacy deficits. As students progress in school, they are faced with increasing language demands, and students such as Brian may experience cumulative difficulties producing and comprehending complex language in both the spoken and written modes. Given the multiple deficit areas that may significantly affect a student such as Brian’s educational success, it is important to fully consider and provide intervention that has the potential to simultaneously improve the interrelated areas of both spoken and written language. Morphological awareness intervention is one such focus that would be appropriate for a child like Brian and has the potential to simultaneously improve semantics, syntax, reading decoding, spelling, and reading comprehension.1–3 In the following sections, we will detail the rationale and research supporting a morphological awareness intervention approach and provide examples for how such intervention can be applied when working with school-aged students.

MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS DEFINITION, DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED DEFICITS Language and literacy development are tightly interwoven skills, and the active processing of morphemes (the smallest units of linguistic meaning) is one foundational language skill that influences reading and writing success.1 Morphological awareness refers to the student’s ability to understand, analyze, and apply all levels of meaning within the form and structure of a language.2–4 It is one of several metalinguistic skills (e.g., phonological awareness) that enables students to actively reflect on the language they encounter and use in spoken and written media.1,5

2015

The two main types of morphemes are base words, or free morphemes (e.g., do, count), and affixes, or bound morphemes, which include both prefixes and suffixes (e.g., re-, un-, -er, -ing). Inflectional morphology typically refers to those specific suffixes that change plurality (e.g., -s in dogs), possession (e.g., -s in Bob’s), and tense (e.g., -ed in folded), and essentially can be described as those morphemes that modify words to fit a grammatical context. These types of morphemes appear earlier in development, and awareness of this type of morphology has been documented as early as first grade.5 Conversely, derivational morphology refers to those suffixes and prefixes that change the class of a word (e.g., changing the verb act to the noun actor). Awareness of these types of morphemes develops later, typically in about second and third grade.6 In addition, there are two main types of morphological relationships that can be described as either transparent or opaque. A morphological transformation in which the base word retains its pronunciation and spelling in the inflected or derived form is considered to have a transparent relationship.7 For example, the word swimming is transparent with its base word form of swim, because both the pronunciation and spelling of the base word remain the same. A morphological transformation in which the pronunciation or spelling of the base morpheme changes in the inflected or derived form is considered to have an opaque relationship. For example, the word fifth is opaque to its base word form of five, because changes occur in both the spelling and the pronunciation of the base word. It should not be surprising that morphemes that reflect transparent relationships are considered easier and developed earlier than those that reflect more opaque relationships.8–10 As grade level increases, students encounter an increasing number of new words that are long, occur less frequently in spoken and written language, and are morphologically complex. Indeed, 60% of new words encountered in text by school-aged children are morphologically complex.11 Thus, reflection on morphological awareness development and complexity appears to be a relevant and important area to

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

32

MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS/WOLTER, GIBSON

CONTRIBUTION OF MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS TO LANGUAGE AND LITERACY SUCCESS A growing evidence base suggests that the metalinguistic skill of morphological awareness plays an important role in the development of vocabulary, reading, and writing.1,5,12–14 Indeed, strong correlations have been found between morphological awareness and schoolaged literacy success in reading, writing, and spelling,5,15–26 and these skills appear to be especially improved by morphological awareness intervention for students with language and literacy deficits.12,27,28 Researchers document that students with language and literacy deficits appear to benefit from morphological awareness intervention.12,27 Students with language and literacy deficits lag behind their peers in knowledge and use of morphological awareness.29 Specifically, students with learning disabilities tend to: (1) continue to use less mature forms,30,31 (2) show poorer command of past tense inflections,32 (3) tend to make morphemic errors in writing,33 and (4) have difficulty learning morphological rules.34 Current research findings from three meta-analyses are encouraging in that evidence supports the effectiveness of morphological awareness intervention for improving morphological awareness and related language and literacy skills in students with reading, learning, and/or speech and language difficulties.12,13,28 Recently, Wolter and Dilworth found that morphological awareness intervention was particularly effective in an integrated approach to literacy intervention when provided with other related targets like phonological and orthographic awareness.35 Additionally, Kieffer provided some evidence that morphological awareness has potential diagnostic utility in differentiating skilled readers and struggling readers, including students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.36 Thus, strong evidence supports and suggests that intervention focused on morphological awareness should be beneficial for a population

of students with language and literacy deficits; and seemed to enhance vocabulary, word-level reading, spelling, and reading comprehension abilities.

VOCABULARY Students build their vocabulary knowledge by applying known meanings of base words and affixes to unfamiliar words.11,37 According to Ramirez et al,38 morphological awareness and vocabulary skills are reciprocally related; each skill set seems to make a unique contribution to the other. Children who are developing typically implicitly learn many new words in the classroom through the application of morphological awareness knowledge while reading. Consequently, their awareness of morphology appears to be strengthened through these experiences.1,4,11,21,39 An example of using morphological awareness as a vocabulary-learning strategy would be through the exposure to known words such as the words odor (i.e., a bad smell) and dangerous (i.e., a state of danger) supporting the inference of the new meaning of an unknown word such as odorous (i.e., a state of smelling bad).40–42 Moreover, morphologically complex words for which the semantic referent can be more readily pictured (e.g., signal) appear to be more readily produced in a morphological awareness task than those with a more abstract or less clear referent (e.g., wisdom).43 The documented importance of developing a morphological awareness vocabulary strategy is especially relevant when considering the intervention focus for students with language and literacy deficits: these students have been found to produce vocabulary and morphological forms that are less complex than typically developing peers.10,30 As such, explicit vocabulary instruction based in morphological awareness may be especially helpful for these children as studies reveal instruction focused on the awareness of word parts appears to significantly facilitate both morphological awareness and vocabulary success in this population.12,27,38

READING Morphological awareness has been shown to positively influence both decoding and

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

consider when reflecting on the links between language and literacy success.4

33

SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1

reading comprehension in school-aged students.2,26,44,45 Awareness of morphological word structure appears to aid in quick recognition and written-word pronunciation, resulting in efficient decoding of multimorphemic words.46 For example, a differentiation of sound(s) associated with the letter combination sh can be found when decoding the -sh in the base words ship and fish versus the /s/ and /h/ pronounced separately at the juncture of an affix and base word, as in the word dishonest. Awareness of morphology also allows for the differentiation and accurate decoding for an affix such as -ive in the word active versus the decoding for the letter combination that does not represent a whole suffix, as in the word survive.46 Thus, it is not surprising that researchers document morphological awareness to be uniquely related to sight word reading and decoding success in students of all language and literacy abilities.5,21,47 Additionally, the positive influence of morphological awareness on understanding vocabulary appears to support the process of reading comprehension at the text level.3,26,35 This finding appears in research that focuses on students with language and literacy deficits.35,48 Wolter and Dilworth studied a treatment that focused on improving reading comprehension for third-grade students with language and literacy deficits.35 They adding a morphological awareness component to literacy intervention centered on phonological awareness, orthographic pattern knowledge, and application of general reading comprehension strategies (e.g., predicting, summarizing, paraphrasing). Results revealed that the those students receiving the added morphological awareness intervention approach made significantly greater gains in reading comprehension than did those in the comparison intervention group. This finding supports the idea that morphological awareness may be a value-added strategy to be included in reading comprehension intervention for students with language and literacy deficits.

WRITING The English writing system is morphologically based and as such may present a challenge for students struggling with language

2015

and literacy acquisition. Without an awareness of how to apply morphological knowledge in writing, spelling errors may occur such as those in which affixes are spelled phonetically (e.g., counten for counting) or a base word and affix knowledge is not integrated in a related morphologically complex form (e.g., majishun for magician).43,49,50 Researchers have shown that typically developing students integrate morphological awareness in their spellings in the early school years,5 and morphological awareness appears to contribute uniquely to spelling success in children with speech and language deficits.13,47

MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS ASSESSMENT Despite its documented importance to language and literacy success, no standardized tasks are available to analyze morphological awareness thoroughly. However, language and literacy specialists can conduct in-depth assessments of this skill, by considering students’ differing language abilities as they relate to the aforementioned developmental factors (e.g., development, relationship transparency) associated with morphological awareness task difficulty. We will discuss how best to conduct such an evaluation for adolescent school-aged students with language literacy deficits in the following paragraphs.

Norm-Referenced Assessment Although limited in its ability to fully measure the level of morphological awareness, one commonly available standardized measure is the Morphological Completion subtest of the Test of Language Development–Primary, Fourth Edition.51 This standardized wellnormed measure provides a means to screen morphological awareness; helps to determine how some younger students perform compared with peers; and furnishes a focus for a subsequent criterion-referenced morphological awareness assessment. This subtest, however, has several limitations and is not normed for the older elementary population in its Intermediate test version, and it is mostly limited to

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

34

inflectional morphology and early developing derivational stimuli (e.g., comparatives, superlatives). Finally, the instructions for this subtest prevent the examiner from explaining the task in a way that reflects its focus on morphological awareness.. For example, the first item in this test is the following: “Yesterday I found one penny. Today I found two more_______.” Students are expected to answer with the word pennies, effectively showing their knowledge of the plural –s morpheme. When administering this subtest to students, however, we often find that they do not understand that they are expected to use the same word that is in the first sentence to complete the second sentence. As such, students may likely complete the sentence with other nonrelated words such as of those, or puppies, or aliens. These answers would be marked wrong in this standardized test but perhaps still reflect morphological awareness. Therefore, it might be appropriate for the examiner to complete an error analysis to determine whether morphological awareness is indeed applied although not given credit in the standardized score. This may help facilitate a direction for future intervention.

Criterion-Referenced Assessment Language and literacy specialists who wish to assess derivational morphological factors such as transparency will need to administer additional nonstandardized tasks. There is a wide variety of researcher-developed experimental tasks available, with the most common tasks falling into three basic categories: judgment, spoken production, and spelling tasks.52 Judgment tasks require students to decide whether two words have related meanings, (e.g., “Does the word moth have anything to do with the word mother?”). For example, Derwing designed a task where subjects were asked if one word came from another (e.g., “Do you think that fabulous comes from the word fable?”).53 Additionally, Windsor and Hwang designed an auditory judgment task that required school-aged children to discriminate among real (e.g., bothersome, columnist) and pseudoderivatives (e.g., listenate, friendment).55 Production tasks are the most common way to assess morphological awareness, and re-

searchers have developed tasks that allow for the investigation of student performance based on factors such as those mentioned above. Production tasks require students to either express a morphologically complex target word from a base word (composition task; e.g., “Teach. Ms. Smith is a _____.”), or the base word from a morphologically complex target (decomposition task; e.g., “Friendly. I want to be his _____.”). Versions by Carlisle,23 Wolter et al5 and Apel et al,52 include readily available appendices of composition tasks in their research, targeting items that are balanced for inflectional and derivational morphology as well as transparent and opaque forms. A related production task that employs pseudowords was published by Windsor,54 who adapted an oral production task of Berko’s “wug test.”55 This task utilizes pseudowords as a way to isolate student’s morphological awareness abilities; students are required to produce a derived word from a suffix and a nonsense base word. For example, an experimental picture would be shown as the examiner says, “Because the man had giz, he could touch the tail of the fish. Now the man has no giz and can’t touch the fish. He’s _____” and the expected response was gizless. Finally, whether morphological awareness production tasks might require analogical reasoning has been studied by researchers.13 Word analogies require students to complete a targeted example, at the word level (e.g., “anger: angry:: strength: _____,” or the sentence level (e.g., “Peter plays at school: Peter played at school:: Peter works at home: _____.”).3 Finally, spelling analysis can provide a linguistic tool to determine whether morphological awareness breakdowns are potentially contributing to breakdowns in literacy success (see elsewhere for full explanation43,49,50). First, a spelling sample focused on morphological awareness can be obtained and should include common words with a wide variety of base words and corresponding inflected and derivational forms. The base words and the related words should include transparent (e.g., swim to swimming) and opaque (e.g., five to fifth) relationships. If a language literacy specialist is unsure of age-appropriate words, a search of the Web can be conducted or classroom spelling books can be searched to find spelling lists by

35

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS/WOLTER, GIBSON

SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1

age. Spelling lists can also be found in the resource, Words Their Way,56 a commercially available word study curriculum that reflects language-related spelling development. Spelling errors that are morphological in nature can be those that involve the transformation of the base word to the inflected or derived form. First, misspellings may be on the affix itself (e.g., baket for baked; rugret for regret). These errors are considered morphological in nature because the spelling does not reflect the rule for spelling the suffix that is tied to meaning and not sound. For example, past tense is represented with the letter combination -ed no matter if it sounds like /t/ (e.g., hopped), /d/ (e.g., cared), or /ed/ (e.g., noted). Another morphological awareness spelling error is one in which the misspelling is due to an incorrect application of a rule for how to add an affix. For example, in the misspelling naping for napping, the spelling rule of doubling a consonant in a short-vowel word when adding the inflectional suffix -ing is not appropriately applied. In addition, a morphological spelling error can be one in which the base word is misspelled in the derived form (e.g., musishan for musician). An assessment that includes a morphological spelling analysis using the previously described considerations may provide insight into whether or not a student is applying a morphological awareness strategy in writing production and can help guide intervention focused on linking this strategy to the act of spelling (for a full explanation of a languagebased spelling assessment and intervention, see elsewhere43,49,50).

MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS INTERVENTION Across the aforementioned research, several common features of morphological awareness intervention appear to consistently result in improved language and literacy success for students with deficits in these areas.12,13,27,35,37 These common features of effective intervention include the need for an explicit intervention approach that focuses on providing students with repeated opportunities to actively reflect on and think about the meaning of base words and affixes in language and literacy

2015

contexts.12,27,28,57 In the following sections, we will further highlight, explain, and provide examples for this type of morphological awareness intervention.

Links to Common Core State Standards and Individualized Educational Plan Goals Morphological awareness treatment goals can be easily linked to national or state standards and benchmarks that target reading, writing, vocabulary, and language. For example, the English Language Arts section of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) targets vocabulary acquisition and use under the larger heading of “Language.”58 For example, a sixth-grade standard includes “determin[ing] or clarify[ing] meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grade 6 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies ” (see CCSS.ELA-LITERACY. L.6.4).58 A subordinate goal under this main goal includes “us[ing] common, grade appropriate Greek or Latin affixes and roots as clues to the meaning of a word (e.g., audience, auditory, audible) (see CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.6.4).58 Thus, a related Individualized Education Plan goal to target this standard might include the following: “The student will determine the meaning of targeted gradelevel academic English words by identifying their roots and affixes, explaining their meanings, and using them in a sentence correctly with 80% accuracy across two of three sessions.” In general, an emphasis on critical literacy skills like morphological awareness is woven throughout the CCSS at multiple levels for every grade and can be readily integrated into any language literacy education plane (see Gabig and Zaretsky for a detailed description of how morphological awareness can be integrated into core curricular standards59).

Explicit Intervention It is our opinion that any adolescent language and literacy intervention should start out with an explicit explanation and rationale for what is being done and why it is important. Adolescents will likely be more motivated to actively

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

36

engage in intervention when they understand and have a reason for doing what they are asked to do in intervention. A morphological awareness intervention approach is no exception, and treatment should begin with introducing the concept of morphological awareness and then providing a rationale emphasizing the importance of morphological awareness related to language and literacy success. For example, application of a morphological awareness strategy is a way to increase vocabulary knowledge and may result in better reading and spelling. The terminology used when explaining the concepts involved can be adjusted for the students’ cognitive levels, and language literacy specialists can either directly teach and use morphological jargon terms (e.g., suffix) or using simpler terms (e.g., word ending). An example of how to explain morphological awareness might be as follows: “We are going to learn about the meanings of word parts to become better readers and spellers. A word part at the end of a word, a suffix, can change the number of a word, such as changing the word dog to dogs, or tell when a verb happened or is happening (e.g., -ing’ means the action is

Figure 1 Sample inflectional word sort activity.

currently happening). Note that these endings are spelled the same each time you use them, even though they may sound different (e.g., hoped or wanted). Other word parts change the overall meaning of the word and how it can be used in a sentence. For example for the word teach, which could mean ‘to educate’ as in ‘She can teach,’ can be changed to the word teacher, which then means someone who educates as in the sentence ‘She is the teacher who can teach’” (see elsewhere for further other examples of explanations37).

Activities for Active Reflection on Meaning Following a rationale and explicit explanation of morphological awareness, multiple activities can and should be provided to permit active reflection on word-meaning changes due to affix additions. Two common ways to target morphemes is through word sorts and wordbuilding activities where morphological meaning connections between words can be targeted with the additional active reflection on how morphology affects spelling and the

37

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS/WOLTER, GIBSON

SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1

2015

Figure 2 Sample derivational word sort activity.

pronunciation in words.11,37,40 Word sort activities support the development of the strategy of identification and active analysis of morphological patterns among words. Figs. 1 and 2 provide examples for respective inflectional and derivational morphological word sort activities (see elsewhere for further discussion and samples of word sort activities35,37,43,60). The morphological awareness task of word building provides an ideal medium to reflect on

Figure 3 Derivational word-building activity.

and develop the strategy of inferring word meaning from the individual components of words. Fig. 3 provides an example of a derivational word-building activity. Note that in this activity, students may be encouraged to create and reflect on the meaning of both real and pseudowords. Indeed the development of pseudowords can provide an ideal tool for students to actively reflect on the meaning of affix(es) and the base word to create unique

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

38

MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS/WOLTER, GIBSON

Link to Academics Once active discussion and reflection on morphological meaning is completed, students can be explicitly taught to identify morphologically complex words in academic materials throughout class literature, spelling assignments, and content area textbooks. For example, students can then use their morphological knowledge to discern the word meanings using both the context (e.g., clues that help us figure out the meaning, and morphological reasoning by analogy) while reading a passage from a textbook. Through this process, students are provided with opportunities to practice a morphological strategy in the context in which they are regularly being required to practice this strategy (see elsewhere for samples of reading comprehension activities35,37).

CONCLUSION Morphological awareness intervention appears to be a relevant, effective approach to support language and literacy success. For students with language and literacy deficits, reflection on morphological word parts and patterns linked to language literacy contexts was found to significantly and simultaneously improve vocabulary, word-level reading, spelling, and reading comprehension skills. Thus, morphological awareness intervention that is explicit and requires active reflection on meaning may ideally improve multiple areas of language and literacy and positively impact the educational success for students such as Brian, introduced at the beginning of this article. Intervention should focus on both the recognition of meaning and patterns in words and include identification and production activities such as word sorts and word-building activities as exemplified in this article. Links to reading, spelling, and academic situations provide a functional context for students to apply their newly learned morphological awareness, aiding in generaliza-

tion and moving students closer to ultimate independence.

REFERENCES 1. Carlisle JF. Morphology matters in learning to read: a commentary. Read Psychol 2003;24(3–4): 291–322 2. Apel K, Diehm E. Morphological awareness intervention with kindergartners and first and second grade students from low SES homes: a small efficacy study. J Learn Disabil 2014;47(1):65–75 3. Tong X, Deacon SH, Cain K. Morphological and syntactic awareness in poor comprehenders: another piece of the puzzle. J Learn Disabil 2014;47(1): 22–33 4. Carlisle JF. Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: an integrative review. Read Res Q 2010;45(4):464–487 5. Wolter JA, Wood A, D’zatko KW. The influence of morphological awareness on the literacy development of first-grade children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2009;40(3):286–298 6. Kuo L, Anderson RC. Morphological awareness and learning to read: a cross-language perspective. Educ Psychol 2006;41:161–180 7. Stolz JA, Feldman LB. The role of orthographic and semantic transparency of the base morpheme in morphological processing. In: Feldman LB, ed. Morphological Aspects of Language Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1995:109–129 8. Carlisle JF, Stone CA, Katz LA. The effects of phonological transparency on reading derived words. Ann Dyslexia 2001;51(1):249–274 9. Deacon SH, Bryant P. The strength of children’s knowledge of the role of root morphemes in the spelling of derived words. J Child Lang 2005;32(2): 375–389 10. Windsor J. The role of phonological opacity in reading achievement. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000;43(1):50–61 11. Anglin JM, Miller GA, Wakefield PC. Vocabulary development: a morphological analysis.. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1993;58:1–166 12. Bowers PN, Kirby JR, Deacon SH. The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills a systematic review of the literature. Rev Educ Res 2010;80(2):144–179 13. Deacon HS. Sounds, letters and meanings: the independent influences of phonological, morphological and orthographic skills on early word reading accuracy. J Res Read 2012;35(4):456–475 14. Catts HW, Fey ME, Tomblin JB, Zhang X. A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2002;45(6):1142–1157

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

meaning, and this is related to the process required of students when reading an unknown multimorphemic word (see elsewhere for further discussion and samples of word-building activities35,37,43,60).

39

SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1

15. Carlisle JF. Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: impact on reading. Read Writ 2000;12(3):169–190 16. Binder K, Borecki C. The use of phonological, orthographic, and contextual information during reading: a comparison of adults who are learning to read and skilled adult readers. Read Writ 2008; 21(8):843–858 17. Green L. Morphology and literacy: getting our heads in the game. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2009;40(3):283–285 18. Jarmulowicz L, Hay SE, Taran VL, Ethington CA. Fitting derivational morphophonology into a developmental model of reading. Read Writ 2008; 21(3):275–297 19. Kirby JR, Desrochers A, Roth L, Lai SS. Longitudinal predictors of word reading development. Can Psychol 2008;49(2):103–110 20. McCutchen D, Green L, Abbott RD. Children’s morphological knowledge: links to literacy. Read Psychol 2008;29(4):289–314 21. Nagy W, Berninger VW, Abbott RD. Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. J Educ Psychol 2006;98(1):134–147 22. Schwiebert C, Green L, McCutchen D. The Contribution of Morphology to Reading and Spelling Achievement (ED465986). ERIC. 2002 23. Carlisle JF. Morphological Awareness and Early Reading Achievement. Morphological Aspects of Language Processing. Laurie Beth Feldman: New Jersey; 1995:189–209 24. Carlisle JF, Nomanbhoy DM. Phonological and morphological awareness in first graders. Appl Psycholinguist 1993;14(2):177–195 25. Deacon SH, Kirby JR, Casselman-Bell M. How robust is the contribution of morphological awareness to general spelling outcomes? Read Psychol 2009;30(4):301–318 26. Tong X, Deacon SH, Kirby JR, Cain K, Parrila R. Morphological awareness: a key to understanding poor reading comprehension in English. J Educ Psychol 2011;103(3):523–534 27. Goodwin AP, Ahn S. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Ann Dyslexia 2010;60(2):183–208 28. Reed DK. A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K–12. Learn Disabil Res Pract 2008;23(1): 36–49 29. Nagy WE, Carlisle JF, Goodwin AP. Morphological knowledge and literacy acquisition. J Learn Disabil 2014;47(1):3–12 30. Curtiss S, Katz W, Tallal P. Delay versus deviance in the language acquisition of languageimpaired children. J Speech Hear Res 1992; 35(2):373–383

2015

31. Moran MR, Byrne MC. Mastery of verb tense markers by normal and learning-disabled children. J Speech Hear Res 1977;20(3):529–542 32. Rubin H, Patterson PA, Kantor M. Morphological development and writing ability in children and adults. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 1991;22(4): 228–235 33. Wiig EH, Semel EM, Crouse MA. The use of English morphology by high-risk and learning disabled children. J Learn Disabil 1973;6:457–465 34. Kirby JR, Deacon SH, Bowers PN, Izenberg L, Wade-Woolley L, Parrila R. Children’s morphological awareness and reading ability. Read Writ 2012;25:389–410 35. Wolter JA, Dilworth V. The effects of a multilinguistic morphological awareness approach for improving language and literacy. J Learn Disabil 2014;47(1):76–85 36. Kieffer MJ. Morphological awareness and reading difficulties in adolescent Spanish-speaking language minority learners and their classmates. J Learn Disabil 2014;47(1):44–53 37. Wolter JA, Green L. Morphological awareness intervention in school-age children with language and literacy deficits: a case study. Top Lang Disord 2013;33(1):27–41 38. Ramirez G, Walton P, Roberts W. Morphological awareness and vocabulary development among kindergartners with different ability levels. J Learn Disabil 2014;47(1):54–64 39. Nagy WE, Anderson RC. How many words are there in printed school English? Read Res Q 1984; 19:304–330 40. Larsen JA, Nippold MA. Morphological analysis in school-age children: dynamic assessment of a word learning strategy. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2007;38(3):201–212 41. Ram G, Marinellie SA, Benigno J, McCarthy J. Morphological analysis in context versus isolation: use of a dynamic assessment task with school-age children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2013;44(1): 32–47 42. Wolter JA, Carlisle J, Goodwin A, Wagner RK. Dynamic assessment of morphological awareness in third-grade children. Paper presented at: Probing the Relationship between Morphology and Literacy: New Paths towards a Nuanced Model of Reading. Society for Scientific Studies of Reading Annual Convention; July 2012; Montreal, CA 43. Wolter JA. Spelling and word study: a speechlanguage pathologists’ guide for language-based assessment and intervention. In: Ukrainetz T, ed. Contextualized Language Assessment and Intervention. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed (in press) 44. Deacon SH, Kirby JR. Morphological awareness: just “more phonological”? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Appl Psycholinguist 2004;25(2):223–238

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

40

45. Nunes T, Bryant P, Barros R. The development of word recognition and its significance for comprehension and fluency. J Educ Psychol 2012;104(4): 959–973 46. Nunes T, Bryant P, Olsson J. Learning morphological and phonological spelling rules: an intervention study. Sci Stud Read 2003;7(3):289–307 47. Apel K, Lawrence J. Contributions of morphological awareness skills to word-level reading and spelling in first-grade children with and without speech sound disorder. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011;54(5):1312–1327 48. Morris RD, Lovett MW, Wolf M, et al. Multiplecomponent remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome. J Learn Disabil 2010; 45(2):99–127 49. Masterson J, Apel K. Monitoring progress in spelling improvement. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education 2013;20(4):140–152 50. Wolter JA, Squires K. Spelling: instructional and intervention frameworks. In: Stone CA, Silliman ER, Ehren BJ, Wallach G, eds. Handbook of Language Literacy: Development and Disorders. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2013: 602–615 51. Newcomer PL, Hammill DD. Test of Language Development: Primary. 4th ed. Austin, TX: ProEd; 2008

52. Apel K, Diehm E, Apel L. Using multiple measures of morphological awareness to measure its relation to reading. Top Lang Disord 2013;33:42–56 53. Derwing BL. Morpheme recognition and learning of rules for derivational morphology. Canadian Journal of Linguistics-Revue Canadienne De Linguistique 1976;21(1):38–66 54. Windsor J, Hwang M. Testing the generalized slowing hypothesis in specific language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999;42(5):1205–1218 55. Berko J. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 1958;14:150–177 56. Bear DR, Invernizzi M, Templeton S, Johnson F. Words Their Way: Word Study Learning and Teaching Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill; 2004 57. Goodwin A, Lipsky M, Ahn S. Word detectives: using units of meaning to support literacy. Read Teach 2012;65(7):461–470 58. Common Core State Standards Initiative. Available at: http://www.corestandards.org/. Accessed June 17, 2014 59. Gabig C, Zaretsky E. Promoting morphological awareness in children with language needs: do the Common Core State Standards pave the way? Top Lang Disord 2013;33(1):7–26 60. Wasowicz J, Apel K, Masterson JJ, Whitney A. SPELL-Links to Reading and Writing. Evanston, IL: Learning by Design, Inc.; 2004

41

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS/WOLTER, GIBSON

Copyright of Seminars in Speech & Language is the property of Thieme Medical Publishing Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.