![]() This clinical focus article aims to provide speech-language pathologists with applicable tasks to measure MA and strategies to guide explicit morphological instruction. For English learners (ELs), instruction should focus on improving MA, semantic awareness, and orthographic processing, which in turn would exert a positive influence on reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. While MA aids in the development of decoding fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension, explicit morphological instruction does not occur regularly in reading intervention. MA supports reading acquisition and development beyond other predictors of reading, such as phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, and rapid automatic naming to name a few. ![]() This clinical focus article will highlight the importance and role of morphological awareness (MA) across orthographies, in particular, the role it plays in reading development, specifically with bilingual populations. Findings from this study suggest that students with decoding deficits may benefit from morphological instruction and those who demonstrate low response to initial morphological instruction or have weak verbal comprehension and verbal working memory abilities could be risk for failing to acquire morphological instruction as expected. Furthermore, two cognitive variables, verbal working memory and comprehension, were predictive of performance on morphological tasks after accounting for initial response to instruction. A series of regression analyses showed that initial response to instruction, compared to other cognitive and language variables, predicted the most variance in students' morphological skills with prefixes. ![]() Thirty-nine third-grade students with decoding deficits were assessed on five independent variables identified as critical predictors of future performance on morphological tasks. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which initial response to morphological awareness instruction, along with specific language and cognitive variables (i.e., phonological awareness, rapid naming, orthographic knowledge/awareness, verbal comprehension, working memory), predicts responsiveness to morphological awareness instruction for third-grade students who were at risk for reading disabilities. Our focus is primarily upon English, the language on which most of the research has been conducted, but we supply examples in French and other languages.Ĭhildren with weak decoding skills often struggle to learn multisyllabic words during reading instruction. Our sense is that the science is solid enough for practice to proceed, but that more science is required. This final section is firmly based on the existing research, but in its details it is somewhat speculative, because detailed studies of many instructional aspects have yet to be performed. In the final section, we draw conclusions for the design of instruction. We address when morphological instruction should be introduced, for whom such instruction is most suited, and how it should be introduced with respect to other aspects of literacy instruction. In the second section we review the literature on morphological instruction, making use of several recent meta-analyses we focus specifically on the effects on vocabulary learning, spelling, and reading. In the first, on the background to instruction, we make the logical argument that children and their teachers need to be informed about the fundamental morphological nature of their language, consider the varieties of morphological knowledge and awareness, and briefly review the literature showing that morphological awareness is positively associated with vocabulary, spelling, and reading. Our goal in this chapter is to draw implications for classroom practice from the research on morphological instruction.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |