Printer Friendly

Morphology: Is it a means by which teachers can foster literacy development in older primary students with literacy learning difficulties?


Although many children develop the ability to read and write without any apparent difficulties, there exists a group of students for whom literacy development presents ongoing and pervasive difficulties. International statistics for reading development have indicated that large disparities exist between skilled and less skilled readers and these have been largely constant since 2001 (Mullis, Martin, Foy & Drucker, 2012; Tunmer, Chapman, Greaney, Prochnow & Arrow, 2013). The latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results, published in 2016, indicated that across member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 18% of 15-year old students were low performers in reading (OECD, 2016). Overall this equates to nearly three million students. The data also indicated that students who were low in reading were more likely to also demonstrate low progress in mathematics and science (OECD, 2016). Given that reading provides one way to access a curriculum, difficulties in the development of reading skills may thus be influential in the development (and thus performance) of additional areas of learning, a problem that may be common across many OECD countries.

The New Zealand context

New Zealand statistics also indicate that many young New Zealand students are experiencing difficulties in their literacy development. The annual monitoring report for Reading Recovery, using the 2013 school-year data, indicated that over 11,000 students participated in this program for that year (Ministry of Education Research Division, 2014). Of the students who participated in this early literacy intervention, 59% of students successfully completed Reading Recovery by demonstrating gains in their reading achievement to a similar level of their peers, while just under 10% of students were referred onwards for specialist or long-term reading support (Ministry of Education Research Division, 2014). These data suggest that difficulties in developing literacy skills extend beyond the early years of formal education for a significant number of students; however, beyond Reading Recovery there exists no nation-wide intervention that is ministry-funded for older students with LLD.

The remediation of literacy learning difficulties in students

Much of the research on the remediation of LLD in students has focused on the early intervention of these difficulties within students' formal education. This may be because research tends to suggest that the remediation of LLD in students becomes increasingly difficult once students reach Year 3 (Lyon et al., 2001; Pikulski, 1994). This may be due to the fact that over time LLD can have spin-off effects that further affect a student's ability to develop literacy skills (Stanovich, 1986), which is largely absent in early intervention programs. Stanovich (1986) also contends that individual differences in the literacy development of students with LLD may also increase as students move through the education system, likely due to the interaction effects between different aspects of literacy, such as reading ability and vocabulary. According to Wanzek et al. (2013), the cognitive demands placed on students also increase, which places additional demands on the decoding, comprehension and linguistic abilities of students.

While interventions for older students with LLD are likely to be complex, there is research which suggests that such interventions can be as effective as interventions targeted at younger students, although inconsistencies in effectiveness of the intervention are more noticeable with older cohorts of learners; e.g., effect sizes have been found to range from -0.37 to 3.34 (Vaughn et al., 2008). One reason why targeting LLD in older students may traditionally have occurred less often is due to the fact that interventions for older students are time-intensive. Vaughn and colleagues (2008) reported that interventions for older students typically lasted for between 68 and 111 hours, with duration ranging from 2 to 23 months, and session duration varying from 5 to 90 minutes in length. Overall, this suggests that remediation in older students with LLD is likely to be complex and may need to be enacted over a longer period of time, than interventions for younger students.

The role of morphology in literacy development

The English language is represented both by sound and meaning. Morphemes are the smallest units of meaning within words and includes those units of meaning that stand alone, known as free morphemes (such as parrot and hat), as well as units of meaning that need to be combined with another form in order to be meaningful. These latter morphemes are known as bound morphemes and include prefixes (un, pre, re), suffixes (ion, ful, ness), roots (duct, aud), and combining forms (aero, path, ology). The role of morphology in literacy development is well documented in literature. Research has found that children begin to develop implicit knowledge of the morphemic system early in their literacy development (Berko, 1958; Clark, as cited in Carlisle & Goodwin, 2013). Morphology has been found to play an increasingly important role as students move through their primary education. This is because students are exposed to morphologically complex words (Carlisle, 2000) and their knowledge of derived words also increases substantially between Years 4 and 6 (Anglin, 1993). In terms of literacy, morphology has been linked with the development of multiple skills that includes word reading, word recognition, vocabulary, spelling, fluency and reading comprehension (Apel & Lawrence, 2011; Apel, Wilson-Fowler, Brimo & Perrin, 2012; Kirby et al., 2012; Nagy & Anderson, 1984; Nagy, Berninger & Abbott, 2006).

Morphological awareness relates to an individual's ability to reflect on the morphemic structure of words (Wolter & Green, 2013). Individuals who develop literacy skills along the expected developmental trajectory are able to distinguish between words that sound similar (for example, elude and allude), because they attend to the structure of words at the spoken and written level (Moats, 2010). They are also more likely to recognise units of meaning within words and to apply this knowledge to not only create new words but also to understand their meaning (Moats, 2010). For example, recognising the Greek combining form graph (write/ record) enables individuals to understand the meaning of telegraph (written from afar) and grapheme (written unit of language). These individuals are also more likely to recognise morphemic units and are able to interpret unknown words by the relationship between base words or roots and their inflectional or derived forms (Apel & Lawrence, 2011). These situations include when the base words are the same but the pronunciation of the derived form differs, such as in final and finality; when base words are the same but are spelled differently, such as in happy and happiness; or when the base word and its derived word contain both aforementioned elements, known as phonological and orthographic shifts, such as in the words curious and curiosity. However, according to Wolter and Gibson (2015), the increase in exposure to increasingly complex words can lead to literacy difficulties becoming more pervasive for students with LLD. This is because students who have lesser developed reading skills are less able to identify and manipulate morphemic units within words (Fowler & Liberman, 1995). The complexity of these difficulties can be increased for students with LLD who experience difficulties not only in the production and comprehension of complex words, but also because these forms appear within written and spoken forms.

The overall effectiveness of morphological instruction

While the effects of morphological interventions have varied (see Goodwin & Ahn, 2010), most likely due to differences in research methodology and the literacy areas examined, instruction in morphology has been found to significantly improve literacy development. In their meta-analysis of morphological interventions, Goodwin and Ahn (2010) found positive effects on literacy achievement, vocabulary, reading comprehension and spelling. A mean weighted-effect size of .33 was found for morphological instruction. Furthermore, interventions containing morphological instruction were found to be effective for students struggling with LLD, although interventions containing morphological instruction were found to be more effective when part of a broader research based intervention. Significant effect sizes for interventions containing morphological instruction that lasted between 10-20 hours were found; however, interventions of less than 10 hours were not found to be significant (Goodwin & Ahn, 2010). In a later analysis, Goodwin and Ahn (2013) suggested that interventions with a small group format, along with the longer duration, would be likely to assist in the transfer of skills between word level and text level. Furthermore, interventions that focus on morphological awareness within a broader framework have been found to foster development simultaneously in multiple areas of literacy for students with LLD (Kirk & Gillon, 2009). This suggests that students with LLD may experience gains in skills not directly targeted in the intervention.

Research question

Does instruction in morphology within a broader framework influence the literacy development of children with LLD?

The context for this study

In this article, data are reported from research that included examining the influence of an intervention that contained specific and explicit instruction in morphology on the literacy development of two groups of children with LLD. From the professional observations of the first author, students with LLD are not always able to integrate meaning, syntax and visual cues when attempting to read unfamiliar words. Instead such students often rely heavily on visual cues. Additionally, few teachers engage in explicitly teaching students specific word-level skills, such as morphology, which can assist students with LLD in using visual cues to decode unfamiliar words. As such, students appear to be reliant on ineffective strategies, or skills that they are often less capable of applying, when they encounter unknown or unfamiliar words.


The study utilised a pre-/post-intervention framework. The first author worked with 36 students with LLD from Year 4 to Year 6 from a Decile 3 contributing primary school, in two studies conducted over the period of a year. In New Zealand, a contributing primary school provides education to students from Year 0/1 to Year 6. Study 1 that contained students who demonstrated very low progress in their literacy development, was carried out in the first and second school terms. Study 2 that contained students who demonstrated low progress in their literacy development, was carried out in the third and final school term. The demographic data for the students are provided in Table 1. Two students identified as Maori in each study. Five students in Study 1 and three students in Study 2 were identified by the school as eligible for Ministry of Education funding as English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), although all the participating students considered English as their primary language. Students were identified by the Deputy Principal of the participating school and were eligible for participation if they were in Years 4 to 6. The students also had to demonstrate persistent literacy learning difficulties based on the school's standardised measures of reading and writing that included the Supplementary Test of Achievement in Reading (STAR) (New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER), 2001) and the Progressive Achievement Test (PAT) (NZCER, 2008) that were administered twice yearly. Students were ineligible for inclusion if they were receiving the limited-funded school-based intervention for literacy learning difficulties. Parents and caregivers of all students provided informed consent for their child's participation in the study and all students provided personal assent to participate in the study, meeting the ethical requirements of the tertiary institution involved.

The data from the two studies came from pre-and post-intervention testing. Students were assessed on multiple aspects of literacy development. The measures included The Burt Reading Test-New Zealand Edition (Gilmore, Croft & Reid, 1981) that measured single word reading accuracy, and the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability-NARA (Neale, 1999) that measured reading accuracy, rate and comprehension. The assessment of students' morphological understandings included three tasks. Each task included two practice items and contained twenty items. The inclusion of derivational suffixes in these tasks were based on those identified by Carlisle (2000) as being familiar to students in Years 4 to 6 that included for example, -th, -er, -ion and -y. The morphological awareness judgement task that was adapted from Nagy et al. (2006) required students to make a judgement as to whether a morphological relationship existed between two words. Students were visually presented as well as read a pair of words by the researcher. The student was then asked to verbally judge with a yes or no response if a morphological relationship existed between the two words. An example of the items is provided below:

shade-shadow (Correct response: Yes. Derivational-phonological/orthographic shifts) ham-hammer (Correct response: No)

The morphological production morpho-syntactic task was adapted from Carlisle (2000). Students were read and visually presented with a target word (base word), which was immediately followed by a sentence. Students were then asked to transform the base word to produce an affixed word within a sentence level context. An example of the items is provided below:

danger: Wild animals that live in the forest can be very ... (Correct response: dangerous; derivational suffix--ous).

magic: My favourite person at the fair was the ... (Correct response: magician; derivational suffix--ian).

The morphological awareness word analogy task was adapted from Nunes, Bryant and Bindman (1997). Students were visually and orally presented with three words. The first two words contained a morphologically related pair of words. Students were asked to transform the third word to create a fourth word (and novel pair) that followed the pattern found in the first pair of words. This task measured a student's ability to transform a base word to an inflectional or derivational form at word-level. An example of the items is provided below:

work/worker, swim/ ... (Correct response: swimmer; derivational suffix -er).

celebrate/celebration, educate/ ... (Correct response: education; derivational suffix -ion).

see/saw, dance/ ... (Correct response: danced; inflectional suffix -ed)

The daily activities

Following pre-intervention assessment, students were placed in small groups, with each group receiving 30 minutes of instruction per day, with a maximum of four sessions a week. The groupings primarily occurred according to class/year level, as well as in consultation with teaching staff. Students attended a maximum of 39 sessions in each study that were taught by the first author: a trained and fully registered primary school teacher. The format of the intervention was based on SevenPlus (Marriott, 2013) that followed a decoding, vocabulary and fluency format. Students received daily practice on decoding unfamiliar words that were typically morphologically complex. In the current study, students were taught to decode using an adaption of Moats' (2010) strategy for reading longer words that contained explicit reference to morphology. The rationale for using Moats' (2010) strategy was that it enabled students to decode more complex words via larger word parts that included morphological units. According to Mann and Singson (2003), by 10 years of age, decoding is best predicted by a child's knowledge of word structure. According to Moats (2010), teaching students to decode via their morphological, orthographic and phonological understandings provided students with a set of principles by which morphologically complex words could be learned. Students first identified vowel graphemes, followed by known morphemic units and orthographic patterns of letters. Students then decoded the word from left to right using their understandings of vowel sounds and syllable structures. Students were also taught basic syllable patterns, specifically open versus closed syllables, and were encouraged to think about the sound that the word made in order to develop the ability to flex the accent of the vowel sound when decoding. Words were carefully selected for students to decode and included known morphemic units. Care was taken not to explicitly provide instruction in the words contained within the morphology assessment measures. Morphological aspects and their associated phonological and orthographic components that had been focused on within the intervention were integrated into activities. At times activities also provided opportunities to incorporate explicit instruction on novel morphemic units via short explicit activities. Examples of the activities can be found in Moats (2010) and Flanigan et al. (2011).

The instructional texts used for the study were selected from StoryBytes (Sharp Reading, 2013) because of their short composition (four paragraphs with four to six sentences per paragraph) and engaging topics. The text also formed the basis for the vocabulary and fluency components of the intervention. Both of these components were selected because they further supported the development of decoding skills in students. For vocabulary, unknown or unfamiliar words were selected from the instructional text for decoding prior to the reading of the text, which enabled explicit instruction in word-level skills to take place. This provided students with additional practice that reinforced the development of the decoding strategy, as well as providing a direct lead into the vocabulary component of the intervention, which centred on word meaning. The focus on morphology meant that word meaning was primarily related back to the morphemic units within the words (usually base words and affixes). For example, the word beautiful would be discussed according to its components of beauty--ful (full of beauty or characterised by beauty). The premise was to provide students with succinct ways to discuss complex words and to encourage the generalisation of the components to novel and known words (tearful (full of tears), fearful (full of fear), painful (full of pain), careful (full of care)), as well as orthographic and phonological shifts. It also provided an avenue for discussion around the subtleties of meaning of morphemes; for example, the suffix -ful can also refer to quantity as in the words spoonful and mouthful. These words enabled a vocabulary bank to be developed that was further reinforced via short activities.

The final component of the intervention format involved fluency. In the current study fluency was developed via a repeated reading and impress model. According to Samuels (1997), developing automaticity in a student's reading enables their attention to be given to text comprehension. The fluency component followed Samuels' (1997) three levels that included the teacher first modelling fluent reading to students, while students followed the text reading silently using personalised text cards. The second level involved the students and the teacher reading together, thus practising increasing accuracy in the reading. The final level involved automaticity with students reading sections of the text to their peers, who followed along with their text. The amount read by students varied considerably, but initially focused at the sentence level. As the intervention progressed, students often split into pairs and read paragraphs to each other. Discussion of the text was minimal as comprehension was not an explicit component of the intervention; however, any comprehension questions targeted morphemic units in order to reinforce word-level skills.

The students engaged in explicit decoding and morphological activities in each session. Not all components were focused on in every session. Decoding of new text vocabulary and discussion of unknown vocabulary were the focus of sessions where new texts were introduced, while fluency was the focus of the session once vocabulary had been explored. All groups experienced the same texts in the two studies.


To address the question of whether the literacy development of the students with LLD was influenced over the course of the intervention, comparisons were first made against the literacy development of the rest of the cohort of Year 4 to 6 students from the participating school. Due to ethical restrictions, comparisons using the measures contained within the research methodology were not possible; however, data from the school's routine assessment schedule that included two time points were provided that included the STAR (NZCER, 2001), as well as, the overall teacher judgement in reading (OTJ-R) that was carried out in accordance to National Standards that were introduced by the Ministry of Education in 2009. Descriptive statistics for Study 1 identified that the Intervention Group made positive gains between testing periods on the STAR measure (M = 2.85, SD = 1.63, pre-intervention, and M = 3.23, SD = 1.59, post-intervention), as opposed to the cohort of Year 4 to 6 students that demonstrated decreases in scores between testing periods (from M = 7.21, SD = 1.54, pre-intervention to M = 6.65, SD = 1.48, post-intervention). Both groups made similar gains in the OTJ-R data with the intervention group demonstrating a mean gain of .52 (M = 2.16, SD = .83, pre-intervention and M = 2.68, SD = .89, post-intervention), while the remaining students demonstrated a mean gain of .55 (M = 3.35, SD = .39, pre-intervention and M = 3.90, SD = .30, post-intervention). In Study 2, both groups demonstrated decreases over time in the STAR measure (intervention group: M = 5.90, SD = 1.66, pre-intervention and M = 5.20, SD = 1.55, post-intervention; comparison group: M = 7.21, SD = 1.54, pre-intervention and M = 6.65, SD = 1.48, post-intervention). In the OTJ-R measure the Intervention group made a mean gain of .31 (M = 2.88, SD = .72, pre-intervention and M = 3.19, SD = .83, post-intervention) in comparison to the mean gain of .09 (M = 3.81, SD = .39, pre-intervention and M = 3.90, SD = .30, post-intervention) demonstrated by the other students. This suggests that the level of improvements demonstrated by the students with LLD was comparable to (and in some cases greater than) the gains made by students who were progressing at or above expected levels in terms of their literacy development.

To determine whether change had occurred in specific areas of literacy for the students with LLD, paired sample t-tests were also performed. In Study 1, data analysis indicated significant differences between pre-and post-intervention assessment scores for the students with very low literacy development and this was replicated in Study 2 with the students who demonstrated low literacy development. The gains made in both studies occurred for all measures of literacy that included accuracy, comprehension, rate and morphological awareness.


The findings from the two studies indicate that students with LLD made significant gains in their literacy development over the course of the interventions. This finding has important implications for students with LLD. Firstly, while LLD in older primary students are argued to be pervasive in nature, the current studies have indicated that these difficulties are malleable to change over time and that these changes can occur in students who demonstrate very low levels of progress in their literacy development, as well as students demonstrating low levels of progress in their literacy development. The current studies suggest that the time required to foster literacy development in older students with LLD may be shorter than what is currently suggested in the literature (for example, Vaughn et al., 2008). In the two studies, students attended a maximum of 39 sessions, which equated to a maximum of 20 hours intervention time. This suggests that a short-term intervention, which could be implemented over the period of a school term, could lead to positive results for students, without placing long-term demands on schools' resources. Furthermore, this intervention was shown to be effective in a small group format, which is likely to negate the need for one-to-one intervention for many students with LLD. This also alleviates the demand on school resources.

The current study also suggests that targeting older students with LLD with a literacy intervention that includes a morphological focus may have a positive influence on their overall literacy development. It could also be suggested that exposure to the intervention decreased the risk that students experience as a result of being exposed to LLD because the intervention involved explicitly teaching students skills that included a decoding strategy that could be transferred to their classroom-based literacy based activities. The transference of skills appear to have been demonstrated in their (mainly) gains in their literacy achievement in the school-based assessment, which were comparable to those made by typically developing students. Of additional interest was the gain in reading comprehension for the students. The focus on reading comprehension throughout the intervention was minimal and was used to provide students with practice, and thus reinforcement, of newly developed morphological awareness skills. However, this finding is supported in research (Apel, Diehm & Apel, 2013; Kirby et al., 2012) that has found that focusing on words at the morphemic level facilitates the development of word-levels skills. Furthermore, the development of word-level skills has been found to foster the development of comprehension at text-level. The findings of the current study suggest that the cognitive load at word-level was reduced for students with LLD over the course of the intervention, although the different components of the intervention may have fostered the development of word-level skills differentially. The decoding and fluency components may have enabled students to apply their morphological understandings to decode morphologically complex words, while the vocabulary component may have fostered students' ability to comprehend these words.

The development of word-level skills via morphological awareness (with its associated orthographic and phonological awareness skills) is also likely to have contributed to gains in reading accuracy, which occurred both at single-word and at text-level, as well as, rate of reading. This is because developing morphological awareness means that students can decode using known morphemic units that may be larger than if decoding using other phoneme-grapheme knowledge (for example, transportation is decoded as trans, port, ation). These morphological units of knowledge may also be recognised in related words regardless of their phonological and orthographic shifts (for example, transportation, invitation, admission and protection) meaning that students may read words faster than if decoding at a phoneme-grapheme level. Overall, developing an understanding of the morphemic associations between words means that students with LLD are required to learn fewer individual words (Berninger, Abbott, Nagy & Carlisle, 2010).

For this study, the explicit focus on morphology meant that teacher knowledge of this area was fundamental. However, there is little evidence within the literature (Bowers, 2012; Moats, 2009) to indicate that explicit instruction in morphology occurs within the general classroom context. Moats (2009) reported that the greatest gaps in teacher knowledge occurred for morphology. In the New Zealand context, a lesser focus on morphology may be reflective of our education system and the emphasis placed on higher-orders skills, such as reading comprehension, especially as students move through their primary education. This suggests that teachers may be less likely to hold the knowledge required to explicitly teach morphology to students with LLD. It could also be suggested that teacher knowledge is associated with pedagogical beliefs that teachers hold, which may not extend to include morphology, which is regarded as a word-level skill. The pedagogical beliefs of teachers have been found to be an influential factor in determining how different aspects of classroom practice is taught (Rubie-Davies, 2008). The transfer of newly developed literacy skills between the intervention and classroom context may be influenced by teacher knowledge and pedagogical beliefs. This is because students may return to the classroom using a morphological and associated sound and letter pattern knowledge to decode and understand vocabulary. The feedback that students receive from teachers is likely to influence the ability and desire of students to apply their newly learned word-level skills in the classroom context. This may influence the effectiveness of the intervention in terms of fostering literacy development for students with LLD and is deserved of focus in future research.

There is no doubt that morphology is a complex area of linguistics, which cannot be taught without teacher knowledge. Morphemes are made further complex by the fact that they denote word classes, are influenced by their historical origins, and their phonological and orthographic associations. That said, the current research highlighted several areas where students demonstrated a lack of knowledge which may serve as points of interest for teachers who work with older students with LLD. Firstly, while some students could name the syllables, fewer students had an understanding of vowels (tense or long vowels, short vowels) and the role of vowels within syllables (open and closed). This influenced the students' ability to flex words when attempting to decode unknown words. Secondly, students had lesser understanding of the relationship between speech and print for inflectional suffixes, specifically for past tense marker (ed) that can be pronounced [d], [t], [id], and the plural marker (s) that can be pronounced [s], [z], [es]. For the past tense marker, once students were taught the multiple sounds, the addition of [id] to already inflected words (for example, kiss + [t] + [id]) decreased dramatically. Thirdly, students lacked knowledge of irregular past tense, which often resulted in the addition of the past tense marker to irregular verbs (for example, shut + ed and cost + ed). Focusing on these aspects early on in the intervention, via simple but explicit activities (for example, irregular past tense flashcards used in a variety of ways), cleared confusion for the students.

Concluding comments

For some students, the development of literacy skills is fraught with difficulty and these difficulties may become more pervasive as they progress through the education system. The remediation of these difficulties and the fostering of the literacy development of students with LLD is integral to ensuring that students can be successful not only in their current and future education but also within society. The current research suggests that a focus on morphology may be a useful means by which the literacy development of students with LLD can be fostered. One advantage of focusing on morphology is that research has indicated that developing morphological understandings is influential beyond increasing students' ability to read more complex words because a morphological focus is also likely to also influence the development of higher order skills, such as reading comprehension.


Anglin, J.M. (1993). Vocabulary development--A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58 (10), 1-166.

Apel, K., Diehm, E. & Apel, L. (2013). Using multiple measures of morphological awareness to assess its relation to reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 33 (1), 42-56.

Apel, K. & Lawrence, J. (2011). Contributions of morphological awareness skills to word-level reading and spelling in first-grade children with and without speech sound disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54 (5), 1312-1327.

Apel, K., Wilson-Fowler, E.B., Brimo, D. & Perrin, N.A. (2012). Metalinguistic contributions to reading and spelling in second and third grade students. Reading and Writing, 25 (6), 1283-1305.

Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Radcliffe College, Cambridge, MA.

Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Nagy, W.E. & Carlisle, J.F. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39 (2), 141-163.

Bowers, P.N. (2012). Morphological instruction in the elementary classroom. (Doctor of Philosophy), Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.

Carlisle, J.F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12 (3), 169-190.

Carlisle, J.F. & Goodwin, A.P. (2013). Morphemes matter: How morphological knowledge contributes to reading and writing. In C.A. Stone, E.R. Silliman, B.J. Ehren & G.P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (2 ed., pp. 265-282). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Flanigan, K., Hayes, L., Templeton, S., Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M. & Johnston, F. (2011). Words their way with struggling readers: Word study for reading, vocabulary, and spelling instruction, Grades 4-12. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Fowler, A.E. & Liberman, I.Y. (1995). The role of phonology and orthography in morphological awareness (L.B. Feldman Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gilmore, A., Croft, C. & Reid, N. (1981). Burt Word Reading Test. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER.

Goodwin, A.P. & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60 (2), 183-208.

Goodwin, A.P. & Ahn, S. (2013). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17 (4), 257-285.

Kirby, J.R., Deacon, S.H., Bowers, P.N., Izenberg, L., Wade-Woolley, L. & Parrila, R. (2012). Children's morphological awareness and reading ability. Reading and Writing, 25 (2), 389.

Kirk, C. & Gillon, G.T. (2009). Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for improving literacy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40 (3), 341-351.

Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Torgesen, J.K., Wood, F.B., ... Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. Rethinking Special Education for a New Century, 259-287.

Mann, V. & Singson, M. (2003). Linking morphological knowledge to English decoding ability: Large effects of little suffixes. In E. Assink & D Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex words: Cross-language studies (pp. 1-25). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kulver.

Marriott, C. (2013). Shared reading for older low progress readers. Christchurch, New Zealand.

Ministry of Education Research Division. (2014). Annual monitoring of Reading Recovery: The data for 2013. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education, Research Division.

Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing, 22 (4), 379-399.

Moats, L.C. (2010). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (2 ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Pub. Co.

Mullis, I.V., Martin, M.O., Foy, P. & Drucker, K.T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Nagy, W.E. & Anderson, R.C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19 (3), 304-330.

Nagy, W.E., Berninger, V.W. & Abbott, R.D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 134-147.

Neale, M.D. (1999). Neale analysis of reading ability (3rd ed.). Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

New Zealand Council of Educational Research. (2001). Supplementary test of achievement in reading. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

New Zealand Council of Educational Research. (2008). Progressive Achievement Test. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Nunes, T., Bryant, P. & Bindman, M. (1997). Morphological spelling strategies: Developmental stages and processes. Developmental Psychology, 33 (4), 637.

OECD. (2016). Who and where are the low-performing students? In OECD (Ed.), Low-performing students: Why they fall behind and how to help them succeed. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

Pikulski, J.J. (1994). Preventing reading failure: A review of five effective programs. The Reading Teacher, 48 (1), 30-39.

Rubie-Davies, C.M. (2008). Teacher expectations. In T. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook (pp. 254-262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Samuels, S.J. (1997). The method of repeated readings. The reading teacher, 50(5), 376-381.

Sharp Reading. (2013). StoryBytes: Formatted text for shared reading, guided reading and assessment. Christchurch, New Zealand: Sharp Reading.

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 360-407.

Tunmer, W.E., Chapman, J.W., Greaney, K.T., Prochnow, J.E. & Arrow, A.W. (2013). Why the New Zealand National Literacy Strategy has failed and what can be done about it: Evidence from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 and Reading Recovery monitoring reports. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18 (2), 139-180.

Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Denton, C.A., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., ... Romain, M.A. (2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 18 (3), 338-345.

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N.K., Metz, K., Murray, C.S., Roberts, G. & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after Grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83 (2), 163-195.

Wolter, J.A. & Gibson, F. (2015). Morphological Awareness Assessment and Intervention to Improve Language and Literacy. Semin Speech Lang, 17; 36;(1), 31-41.

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.

Amanda Denston, (1) John Everatt, (1) Faye Parkhill, (1) Chuck Marriott (2)

(1) School of Teacher Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

(2) Resource Teacher of Literacy, Kaiapoi North School, Kaiapoi, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Amanda Denston is a part-time lecturer in the School of Teacher Education and a Research Fellow for the Literacy Strand of the National Science Challenge Research project. She is interested in primary-aged children who experience difficulties in their literacy development as well as the association between literacy learning difficulties and psychosocial development.

John Everatt's work focuses on literacy acquisition and developmental learning difficulties, with a focus on dyslexia. His research focuses on individual differences and is aimed at informing procedures to support children and adults who demonstrate educational difficulties. Currently, John's research has focused on investigating the relationship between literacy and language in terms of aspects of language processing and characteristics.

Faye Parkhill has specialised in literacy education with a specific focus in the field of literacy difficulties. Recently her research has focused on the area of new literacies that included the use of media to promote engagement and literacy achievement in older school aged students and adults.

Chuck Marriott has worked within the field of early literacy difficulties for the past twenty years. Chuck currently works as a Resource Teacher of Literacy and is the Managing Director of Literacy Innovators, a New Zealand company that creates research-based programs for classrooms aimed at increasing the engagement and achievement of children with literacy difficulties.
Table 1. Demographic information for participants (Study 1, 2)

                Study 1          Study 2Age

M (SD)       9.13 (0.96)      9.36 (0.84)
Range        7:75-10:5        8:83-11:0


Female       35.0% (n = 7)    62.5% (n = 10)
Male         65.0% (n = 13)   37.5% (n = 6)
Total        100% (n = 20)    100% (n = 16)

Year Level

Year 4       45.0% (n = 9)    43.8% (n = 7)
Year 5       5.0% (n = 1)     43.8% (n = 7)
Year 6       50.0% (n = 10)   12.5% (n = 2)
Total        100% (n = 20)    100% (n = 16)

Table 2. Results for the Literacy Measures

                                  Study 1 (n = 20)

Literacy Measure       Pre-          Post-             t-test
                   intervention   intervention

Burt                  40.10          49.15        t = 10.17, p<.001
                     (10.14)        (12.65)      [[eta].sup.2] = .84

NARA-Acc              27.20          35.40        t = 9.03, p<.001
                      (9.94)         (9.55)      [[eta].sup.2] = .81

NARA-Comp             10.20          14.35        t = 5.86, p<.001
                      (3.81)         (3.76)      [[eta].sup.2] = .64

NARA-Rate             29.66          38.59        t = 5.70, p<.001
                      (8.28)         (6.52)      [[eta].sup.2] = .63

MA                    10.60          12.90         t = 2.26, p<.05
                      (3.27)         (4.28)      [[eta].sup.2] = .21

MP-MS                  8.75          11.65        t = 4.78, p<.001
                      (3.04)         (3.08)      [[eta].sup.2] =.55

MP-WA                  7.40          11.40        t = 7.96, p<.001
                      (2.46)         (2.78)      [[eta].sup.2] = .77

                                  Study 2 (n = 16)

Literacy Measure       Pre-          Post-             t-test
                   intervention   intervention

Burt                  58.31          68.75        t = 8.64, p<.001
                     (14.08)        (15.28)      [[eta].sup.2] = .83

NARA-Acc              45.88          55.25        t =  3.33, p<.05
                     (16.62)        (17.29)      [[eta].sup.2] = .43

NARA-Comp             13.00          20.38        t = 5.89, p<.001
                      (4.59)         (7.32)        [v.sup.2] = .70

NARA-Rate             53.54          57.23        t = 3.25, p<.005
                     (16.56)        (18.82)      [[eta].sup.2] = .41

MA                    14.06          17.25         t = 3.00, p<.05
                      (4.22)         (2.02)      [[eta].sup.2] = .37

MP-MS                 12.81          15.56         t = 4.33, p<.05
                      (3.17)         (1.90)      [[eta].sup.2] = .56

MP-WA                 10.44          13.75         t = 3.51, p<.05
                      (2.71)         (3.00)      [[eta].sup.2] = .45

Note: Burt = Burt Reading Test; NARA-Acc = NARA-Accuracy; NARA-Comp
= NARA-Comprehension; NARA-Rate = NARA-Rate of Reading; MA =
Morphological Awareness-Judgement; MP-MS = Morphological
Production-Morpho-Syntactic; MP-WA = Morphological Production-Word
COPYRIGHT 2018 Australian Literacy Educators' Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Denston, Amanda; Everatt, John; Parkhill, Faye; Marriott, Chuck
Publication:Australian Journal of Language and Literacy
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:8NEWZ
Date:Jun 1, 2018
Previous Article:Examining literacy demands for children during teacher-led episodes of reading aloud across the transition from Preschool to Kindergarten.
Next Article:Examining preadolescent children's engagement in out-of-school literacy and exploring opportunities for supporting literacy development.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters