View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Morphological Intervention for Students with Limited Vocabulary Knowledge: Short- and Long-Term Transfer Effects

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Morphological Intervention for Students with Limited Vocabulary Knowledge: Short- and Long-Term Transfer Effects
Language: English
Authors: Gellert, Anna S., Arnbak, Elisabeth, Wischmann, Signe, Elbro, Carsten
Source: Reading Research Quarterly. Jul-Aug 2021 56(3):583-601.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 5
Intermediate Grades
Middle Schools
Descriptors: Intervention, Reading Instruction, Reading Comprehension, Instructional Effectiveness, Vocabulary Development, Morphology (Languages), Transfer of Training, Retention (Psychology), Grade 5, At Risk Students
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.325
ISSN: 0034-0553
Abstract: Students with limited vocabulary knowledge are at high risk for reading comprehension difficulties. Previous studies have found that teaching morphology may support vocabulary growth. In the present study, the authors aimed to replicate and extend these findings by investigating both immediate and long-term transfer effects to untaught words and untaught pseudowords with well-known root morphemes. Fifth-grade students (N = 332) were randomly assigned to a morphological intervention, an alternative vocabulary intervention, or a control condition. The morphological intervention was found to produce large short-term effects with respect to the students' abilities to segment and explain both taught and untaught words containing taught morphemes, and medium effects on explanations of likely meanings of pseudowords with well-known root morphemes. Medium to large effects were still present 10 months later with taught words and transfer words. Training had a small effect on reading comprehension with trained words but no effect on standard measures of reading comprehension or vocabulary.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1299885
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFLUHpRRB4JEWihEH4VsX1mAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAyKXr1ytdwrIXtKgQIBEICBmg3vvr5go4jdPhsbPreVtz9sL0Wl570sMuamMCusTfR9RsIxOiEEIExJfmzi3XnzY5elcWNTVircBBKcRGvKwEbKFhbssx3tko3WwxMhKbTDG-xzqs5-T9f6dqVWK6Kl6CBf_1pj9FF19PBxoINMMpGNGFTX47mLVtODyvAsYGN3gx5coUOjQKW3TDQSvqFfVsPeVMRU4qH-0LQ=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0151135615;[nrnu]01jul.21;2025Apr04.08:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0151135615-1">Morphological Intervention for Students With Limited Vocabulary Knowledge: Short‐ and Long‐Term Transfer Effects </title> <p>Students with limited vocabulary knowledge are at high risk for reading comprehension difficulties. Previous studies have found that teaching morphology may support vocabulary growth. In the present study, the authors aimed to replicate and extend these findings by investigating both immediate and long‐term transfer effects to untaught words and untaught pseudowords with well‐known root morphemes. Fifth‐grade students (N = 332) were randomly assigned to a morphological intervention, an alternative vocabulary intervention, or a control condition. The morphological intervention was found to produce large short‐term effects with respect to the students' abilities to segment and explain both taught and untaught words containing taught morphemes, and medium effects on explanations of likely meanings of pseudowords with well‐known root morphemes. Medium to large effects were still present 10 months later with taught words and transfer words. Training had a small effect on reading comprehension with trained words but no effect on standard measures of reading comprehension or vocabulary.</p> <p>Keywords: Vocabulary; Instructional strategies; methods and materials; Comprehension; Assessment; Linguistic; Developmental Theories; Vocabulary ‐ Morphology; Vocabulary ‐ General vocabulary; Comprehension (General); Instructional Intervention; ANOVAs; Experimental/Quasi‐experimental; Psycholinguistic; 2‐Childhood; 3‐Early adolescence</p> <p>Vocabulary is a strong predictor of reading comprehension (e.g., Quinn, Wagner, Petscher, & Lopez, 2015; Verhoeven, van Leeuwe, & Vermeer, 2011) and school performance (e.g., Schuth, Köhne, & Weinert, 2017). Unfortunately, large differences in vocabulary knowledge have been found among middle school students (e.g., Biemiller & Slonim, 2001). Direct teaching of individual word meanings appears to be insufficient to close such gaps in vocabulary knowledge, as the number of words that students with limited vocabulary must learn is probably too large to be covered by such instruction (Nagy & Hiebert, 2011). Other approaches have been suggested, such as support for wide, regular reading (e.g., Anderson & Nagy, 1992). However, the relation between vocabulary and reading comprehension is reciprocal (Verhoeven et al., 2011). This means not only that students with limited vocabulary are at risk of comprehension difficulties but also that comprehension difficulties may, in turn, deter students from reading and impede their vocabulary growth. Such vicious circles should be broken if possible. In addition to support for wide reading, efforts have been made to help students acquire more vocabulary knowledge during reading. One such approach focuses on enhanced use of context clues to understand the meaning of unknown words during reading (e.g., Baumann et al., 2002; Fukkink & de Glopper, 1998). Another approach aims to increase students' awareness of the morphological structure of unfamiliar words (e.g., Baumann et al., 2002; Bowers & Kirby, 2010). This was the main approach in the current study with students with limited vocabulary knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-2">Morphological Instruction for Vocabulary Acquisition</hd> <p>The rationale for teaching students morphological analysis rests on the fact that most words in English, Danish, and other Germanic languages consist of more than one morpheme (i.e., the minimal unit of form and meaning). Most words, particularly those of lower frequency, are composed of two or more morphemes (i.e., roots, affixes, and/or inflections; e.g., <emph>un‐think‐able</emph>, <emph>amaze‐ment</emph>). Knowing how to analyze words morphologically can help a reader figure out the possible meaning of an unknown word. When the word is unfamiliar as a whole (e.g., <emph>unamazeable</emph>, <emph>amazer</emph>), there is still a chance that at least one of its constituent morphemes is known, for example as parts of other words (e.g., <emph>amaz‐ing</emph>, <emph>believ‐able</emph>). Knowledge of the meaning of one or more of the morphemes coupled with insight into morphological structure can then lead to a qualified guess at the meaning of the unknown word.</p> <p>The texts for the middle school years are no exception when it comes to morphological complexity. The majority of the words in the texts are morphologically complex (Anglin, 1993). Nagy and Anderson (1984) estimated that 60% of the unfamiliar words that students encounter in English texts in grades 3–9 can be broken into morphemes that give substantial information about the meaning of the whole words. Juul, Nielsen, and Daugaard (2018) analyzed so‐called Tier 2 words in Danish texts for the middle grades. Tier 2 words form a layer between the most basic vocabulary (Tier 1) and domain‐specific words (Tier 3; cf. Beck & McKeown, 1985). Tier 2 words are much more common in written than in spoken language (e.g., <emph>infer</emph>, <emph>typical</emph>, <emph>division</emph>). Juul et al. found that 85% of Danish Tier 2 words are morphologically complex and that derivations (especially derivations by suffix) are the dominant type. Juul et al. also estimated that the meanings of one third of the Tier 2 words can be inferred from their constituent morphemes and that some morphological clues to the meanings can be found in another third of the Tier 2 words. In consequence, enhanced morphological abilities may support the understanding of unfamiliar words and provide a stronger basis for further vocabulary development.</p> <p>There is growing evidence for positive effects of instruction in morphology on vocabulary development, as well as word reading, spelling, and reading comprehension (Bowers, Kirby, & Deacon, 2010; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010, 2013). In a meta‐analysis of studies with school‐age students, Goodwin and Ahn (2013) found a moderate mean effect of morphology instruction on vocabulary (mean <emph>d</emph> = 0.34). Similarly, Bowers et al. (2010) found a mean effect of 0.35 on vocabulary in their meta‐analysis of studies with students from preschool to grade 8. However, when Bowers et al. included only studies in which the control groups received some alternative treatment, the mean effect size of morphology instruction on vocabulary was small (<emph>d</emph> = 0.20). It should be noted, though, that the reported mean effect sizes cover considerable variability across studies. It is possible that the proximity of the outcome measures to the trained contents would explain differences among the reported effect sizes. The present study included a range of outcome measures to shed light on the transfer from trained abilities to understanding unfamiliar words and to reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-3">A Range of Transfer Effects to Untrained Words and Reading Comprehension</hd> <p>Transfer effects that extend beyond the directly trained words are of the essence in morphological training. Without such transfer effects, morphological training would not differ from any word‐specific training. Unfortunately, there have been relatively few reports of transfer effects, and the effects are difficult to compare. This also explains why the authors of the published meta‐analyses did not report different types of transfer effects (Bowers et al., 2010; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010, 2013). In this section, we present a number of different types of transfer effects and discuss their relevance and the evidence for them.</p> <p>In theory, transfer effects can be ordered from the most proximal to the most distal. In the case of vocabulary and/or morphology training, researcher‐developed word knowledge tasks would appear toward the proximal end of the continuum and standardized comprehension tasks at the distal end (McKeown, Crosson, Moore, & Beck, 2018). One would expect proximal training effects to be relatively strong, whereas the effect size decreases as measures become more distal. Distal effects are likely to be diluted by an increasing number of untrained demands for knowledge and abilities, such as inference making, comprehension monitoring, and understanding of logical structures of texts. In the present study, we explored various transfer effects, from proximal to distal.</p> <p>The results from the relatively few studies that have investigated transfer effects are mixed. For example, Baumann et al. (2002) taught the meanings of eight common prefix families to fifth‐grade students and found large immediate effects for taught words and for untaught transfer words with taught prefixes, but no instructional effects on delayed transfer tests administered approximately five weeks after the intervention. These results indicate large immediate proximal transfer effects but no lasting transfer effects. By contrast, Nunes et al. (2006) taught morphological word attack strategies to students in grades 3–7 and found a small to moderate effect on untaught pseudowords composed of real morphemes even eight to 10 weeks later. This may indicate a delayed proximal or possibly more distal transfer. Unfortunately, from the report of the study by Nunes et al., it is unclear whether the morphemes of the transfer words were taught or untaught. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate the type of transfer and to compare the reported results with those of other studies.</p> <p>Bowers and Kirby (2010) more systematically addressed the question about how knowledge of morphemes of different types transfers to the understanding of other words. The authors examined the effects of a morphological intervention on fourth‐ and fifth‐grade students' abilities to segment and explain the meanings of morphologically complex words. Bowers and Kirby found significant effects on segmentation and explanation both for words that were taught directly and for untaught words built on bases (i.e., root morphemes that can be separate words) that were taught in the context of other derivations. However, for untaught words with untaught bases, the researchers found significant effects only on morphological segmentation assessed by means of base identification but not on explanation of these words. Thus, although the effects on morphological analysis could be generalized, the transfer effects with respect to word definition were restricted to words from the taught morphological families. The results of this study indicate significant proximal transfer effects for explanation of untaught words with taught bases, but no reliable distal effects on explanation of untaught words with untaught bases.</p> <p>Our underlying hypothesis in the present study was that morphological abilities may generalize to all words, provided that the meanings (and/or functions) of all the constituent morphemes of the words are known. This hypothesis may explain why previous studies have had variable success with transfer to words with untrained and more or less unknown morphemes. In addition, it is plausible that knowledge of some classes of morphemes is more likely to generalize across words than knowledge of others. The number of different roots (and bases) is practically unlimited, whereas suffixes belong to closed classes with only a limited number of items. Therefore, knowledge of a few taught suffixes is relatively likely to transfer to new derived words, but only as long as the root morphemes (or bases) are already known. In the present study, we investigated this possibility.</p> <p>We investigated two types of transfer at the word level. A measure of proximal transfer consisted of untrained words composed of morphemes that were all trained in other combinations in other words. For example, the root <emph>amaze</emph> had been encountered during instruction as part of the word <emph>amazing</emph>, and the suffix ‐<emph>ment</emph> had been identified during instruction in <emph>entertainment</emph>. An untrained transfer word would then be <emph>amazement</emph>.</p> <p>A more distal transfer measure was one consisting of pseudowords composed of frequent roots and (some) trained suffixes, such as derived words (e.g., <emph>cousinness</emph>) and compounds (e.g., <emph>milkshower</emph>). All the constituent morphemes of these words were supposed to be known by the students, mostly because the morphemes are words on their own or frequent parts of familiar words. This transfer measure is of particular interest because it may reveal whether morphological training can have an impact across a large number of morphologically transparent words, as long as the constituent morphemes are well known.</p> <p>Improvements in reading comprehension may be considered a further transfer effect of training in morphology. The reason is simply that comprehension is likely to improve with a better understanding of the meanings of unknown or partially unknown words during reading of a text. This reasoning is supported by correlations reported in previous studies among morphological abilities, vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension. Specifically, Nagy, Berninger, and Abbott (2006) demonstrated that morphological awareness, indexed by both derivational and inflectional tasks, accounted for unique variance in reading comprehension in English‐speaking students in grades 4–9 over and above vocabulary knowledge. Similarly, Tong, Deacon, Kirby, Cain, and Parrila (2011) found that weaknesses in derivational morphology contributed to poor reading comprehension in English‐speaking fifth graders, even when individual differences in vocabulary were controlled statistically. These findings suggest that morphological abilities may aid insight into word meanings during text reading, beyond the readers' current word knowledge. This positive influence of morphological abilities on text comprehension is also likely to occur in second‐language readers (e.g., Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2008; Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, & Kelley, 2010).</p> <p>However, possible transfer effects of gains in morphological abilities to reading comprehension should be considered distal. This is because difficulties with reading comprehension may arise for very many other reasons than unknown or partially unknown word meanings, such as poor inference making, lack of comprehension monitoring, poor grasp of the logical structures of texts, low reading motivation, or lack of access to books. Even when word knowledge is the problem, an unknown word may not be morphologically complex, and even if it is, it may not be morphologically semantically transparent. These constraints on the usefulness of morphological word analysis may help explain the mixed results on reading comprehension in previous training studies with morphology. In their meta‐analysis of morphological training with school‐age students, Goodwin and Ahn (2013) did not find a statistically significant effect of intervention on reading comprehension (mean <emph>d</emph> = 0.09). Yet, the same authors reported a small effect (mean <emph>d</emph> = 0.24) in an earlier meta‐analysis of studies of students with literacy difficulties (Goodwin & Ahn, 2010).</p> <p>Perhaps some of the variation between study outcomes has to do with the kind of reading comprehension test that was employed. Some studies used general or standardized tests to assess transfer to reading comprehension (e.g., Parel, 2006). However, transfer effects to reading comprehension have also been difficult to detect even with researcher‐developed tests containing morphologically transparent transfer words (e.g., Baumann et al., 2002). By comparison, transfer effects to reading comprehension may be more detectable with researcher‐developed tests constructed so they contain some trained words (as in the present study). Variation in outcomes may also stem from whether training included direct instruction in the uses of morphological analysis of words for text comprehension (as in the present study) or merely focused on the meanings of isolated words.</p> <p>Studies of morphological intervention for school‐age students with limited vocabulary knowledge have been relatively scarce. A few studies have included instruction in morphology as a component of a broader vocabulary intervention program for students with limited vocabulary knowledge in the language of instruction. Lesaux and colleagues (Lesaux et al., 2010; Lesaux, Kieffer, Kelley, & Harris, 2014) reported medium‐sized effects on knowledge of taught words and small effects on comprehension of text that included some taught words for linguistically diverse students. Similarly, Brinchmann, Hjetland, and Lyster (2016) reported that their multifaceted vocabulary training led to large effects on taught vocabulary and a small effect on general reading comprehension for native speakers of Norwegian with low vocabulary and reading skills. However, the multifaceted nature of these interventions precludes strong conclusions about the specific effects of the morphological component. In the present study, we employed a more specific morphological approach to ameliorating the vocabulary difficulties and poor reading comprehension of students with limited vocabulary knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-4">Long‐Term Effects</hd> <p>Most of the previous studies with school‐age students only evaluated immediate effects of morphological instruction (e.g., Bowers & Kirby, 2010; Parel, 2006). However, as mentioned earlier, a few studies included delayed posttests administered five to 10 weeks after intervention (Baumann et al., 2002; Nunes et al., 2006). The results have been mixed. A positive exception is the study reported by Lyster, Lervåg, and Hulme (2016), who evaluated the long‐term effects of morphological awareness training delivered in preschool (eight months before school entry) and found that even in grade 6, the morphological training group had significantly higher scores than an untrained control group had on a latent measure of reading comprehension. However, to the best of our knowledge, the effects of morphological instruction conducted with school‐age students have not previously been assessed more than 10 weeks after intervention. It is of interest to both researchers and practitioners to move beyond studies of shorter term effects to understand whether effects of morphological intervention for school‐age students are maintained over a longer period or whether such effects fade out over time, as seen after many other interventions (cf. Bailey, Duncan, Odgers, & Yu, 2017; Suggate, 2016). Therefore, in the present study, we included a delayed follow‐up assessment 10 months after the end of the intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-5">Aims and Hypotheses</hd> <p>We had two aims in the present study. The first was to investigate short‐term and long‐term effects of a morphological intervention program on word knowledge and reading comprehension in fifth‐grade students with limited vocabulary knowledge in the language of instruction. Students with limited vocabulary knowledge were the focus simply because they are at risk for poor reading comprehension. The second aim was to examine a range of possible transfer effects. We had three hypotheses:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In accordance with previous studies, we expected to find effects of training on the ability to segment and explain the meanings of proximal transfer words. Transfer words were composed of trained morphemes, in untaught combinations.</item> <p></p> <item> We also expected morphological training to be associated with gains in explanation of the likely meaning of distal transfer pseudowords. The transfer pseudowords were compounds and derived pseudowords composed of untrained, common root morphemes and trained suffixes.</item> <p></p> <item> We expected a distal effect on reading comprehension when some key content words had been trained, but generally smaller effects at the text level than at the word level.</item> </ulist> <p>Finally, we included standardized measures of both vocabulary and reading comprehension even though previous studies have not shown significant effects on such measures (cf. Wright & Cervetti, 2017). We did not have strong reasons to expect effects on these measures but would, of course, be pleasantly surprised to find effects.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0151135615-7">Design</hd> <p>In the study, we employed a random control trial design with two experimental conditions and a control condition. From each of 29 fifth‐grade classes, approximately 12 students with the most limited Danish vocabulary knowledge in their class were selected (<emph>N</emph> = 348). Within each class, each of the selected 12 students was randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a morphological vocabulary intervention, an alternative context‐based vocabulary intervention, or a control condition (business as usual), with approximately four students in each group. The students were assessed at pretest in grade 5, at posttest within a few weeks after the intervention, and at a delayed follow‐up assessment in grade 6 approximately 10 months after the intervention finished. An overview of the study is provided in Table 1.</p> <p>1 TableOverview of the Study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Timepoint</th><th align="left">Activity</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Grade 4 spring</td><td align="left">Screening</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grade 5 fall</td><td align="left">Pretest</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grade 5 spring</td><td align="left">Morphological intervention, context‐based intervention, or business as usual</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grade 5 spring</td><td align="left">Posttest</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grade 6 spring</td><td align="left">Follow‐up</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0151135615-8">Participants</hd> <p>To identify students with limited Danish vocabulary, we screened 29 fourth‐grade classes at 13 Danish schools with a relatively high proportion of students speaking Danish as a second language. The screening consisted of group‐based measures of receptive vocabulary and word reading and resulted in full data sets from 593 students. Based on the screening results and communication with the schools and the students' parents, 348 students with relatively limited Danish vocabulary were selected for the study following parental consent. The selection was carried out by selecting the approximately 12 students with the most limited Danish vocabulary knowledge from each of the 29 fifth‐grade classes. Students were not included in the study if screening results or school records indicated dyslexia, hearing impairment, or autism. On a measure of receptive vocabulary (a Danish translation of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test), the average score of the 348 students in the study corresponded to the norm for students 2.5 years younger (for more details, see the Results section). At posttest (at the end of grade 5), 16 of the 348 students had dropped out. Seven students moved out of the school district during the course of the project. Five students refused to take part in the pretesting, and one student did not attend school during the pretesting period. A further three students refused to participate in the intervention. Subsequent data analyses were based on the remaining 332 students with full data sets from the individually administered pre‐ and posttests: 111 students (in 29 groups) in the morphological intervention, 111 students (in 29 groups) in the context‐based intervention, and 110 students (from 28 groups) in the control condition. At follow‐up in grade 6, test results were obtained from 259 of these 332 students, as many students had left the school district or were not present at the group‐based follow‐up test.</p> <p>The average age of the 332 students was 11 years 5 months at pretest in grade 5. This is the usual age at this grade level in Danish schools where children enter grade 1 at the age of 7. Of the 332 students, 53% were girls, and 47% were boys; 48% spoke Danish as their first language, and 52% spoke Danish as their second language. The students with Danish as their second language spoke a total of 25 different first languages, of which the most common were Arabic (22%), Turkish (17%), Urdu (15%), Somali (6%), Kurdish (6%), and Albanian (6%). According to information from the schools, most of the students with Danish as their second language were born in Denmark. All students were included in mainstream classrooms. Recent immigrants were not included in the present study because they are provided with special language‐learning services and not taught in mainstream classrooms in Denmark.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-9">Interventions</hd> <p>The students in the two interventions were pulled from their classes: two separate groups of approximately four students from each class. The groups met with their instructors in a quiet room for 24 lessons of approximately 30 minutes, two days per week between January and April in grade 5. The business‐as‐usual controls received the usual instruction in the classroom during the intervention. This usual instruction, which the students in the two interventions missed, varied by time of day (e.g., Danish, math, music). Five trained speech‐language therapists were employed to deliver the intervention programs at the 13 participating schools. Both morphology and context training were delivered by the same therapist to all the training groups in each of two or three schools. The intervention programs were developed for the present study by the second and third authors. All of the lessons were scripted in manuals with detailed instructions and modeling of the procedures and strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-10">The Morphological Intervention</hd> <p>Our aim in this intervention was to help students increase their insight into the morphological structure of words so they would become better at figuring out the meanings of unfamiliar words by means of a morphological‐semantic analysis of the words. This morphological analysis strategy was taught with Danish words presented in isolation and in coherent texts.</p> <p>The syntactic and morphological structure of Danish is similar to that of English, both being Germanic languages. The Danish language contains many of the affixes found in English (e.g., <emph>mistrust</emph>/<emph>mistro</emph>, <emph>bager</emph>/<emph>baker</emph>, <emph>firing</emph>/<emph>fyring</emph>). As in English, there are two primary types of suffixes in Danish: derivational suffixes (e.g., <emph>blødlig</emph> [<emph>softly</emph>]) and inflectional suffixes (e.g., <emph>broer</emph> [<emph>bridges</emph>]). However, in Danish, compounding is more common than in English and more like in German. Compound nouns are always written as one word. Linking elements (e.g., <emph>s</emph>, <emph>e</emph>) are frequently found between parts of compounds (e.g., <emph>fabriksarbejder</emph> [<emph>factory</emph> + <emph>s</emph> + <emph>worker</emph>). In comparison with English, Danish has far fewer loan words from Latin.</p> <p>Because of the focus on morphological structure rather than the meanings of root morphemes, the program focused on Danish morphemes only and did not include Latin roots or derivations. The root morphemes in the program were of high frequency and selected to be familiar to the majority of the students (based on our experience from pilot testing of the program). The roots were themselves Tier 1 words (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2013): <emph>sko</emph> (<emph>shoe</emph>), <emph>hus</emph> (<emph>house</emph>), <emph>dag</emph> (<emph>day</emph>), <emph>løb</emph> (<emph>run</emph>), <emph>glat</emph> (<emph>smooth</emph>), and <emph>klar</emph> (<emph>clear</emph>). This focus on well‐known roots distinguished the current program from other recent programs (e.g., Crosson, McKeown, Moore, & Ye, 2019). The morphological program (24 lessons of approximately 30 minutes) focused on compound formation and affixes and was organized in two main phases: the knowledge acquisition phase (lessons 1–17) and the consolidation phase (lessons 18–24; see Table 2).</p> <p>2 TableOverview of the Morphological Program</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Phase</th><th align="left">Lesson(s)</th><th align="left">Morphological focus</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Knowledge acquisition</td><td align="left">1–5</td><td align="left">Students are introduced to basic concepts of morphology and taught to segment words into morphemes and form compound words.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">Repetition of elements from lessons 1–5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7–15</td><td align="left">Students are introduced to derivational suffixes and practice morphological analysis and synthesis with selected roots and suffixes.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">16</td><td align="left">Repetition of selected word material from lessons 7–15</td></tr><tr><td align="left">17</td><td align="left">Students are introduced to derivational prefixes and work with two examples of this type of morpheme in derived words.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Consolidation</td><td align="left">18–23</td><td align="left">Students work with the previously introduced types of morphemes in more complex words, such as compound words with derivations and words with multiple derivational affixes.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">24</td><td align="left">Repetition of selected word material from lessons 18–23</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In lessons 1–6, the students were introduced to basic concepts of morphology and lexical categories. Teaching included root morphemes, compounds with and without agglutinating elements, the distinction between real morphemes and pseudomorphemes (e.g., <emph>car</emph> in <emph>carpet</emph>), inflections, and the lexical categories nouns, verbs, and adjectives. The students were also taught to analyze words morphologically and to generate compound words using specific root morphemes.</p> <p>In lessons 7–16, the students were introduced to derivational suffixes (e.g., ‐<emph>lig</emph> [<emph>‐ly</emph>], ‐<emph>hed</emph> [‐<emph>ness</emph>], <emph>‐er</emph> [‐<emph>er</emph>]) and seven other derivations. For simplicity, practice words only contained one derivational suffix each. The lessons were organized in pairs. In each pair, new morphological material was introduced, exemplified, and trained in various activities. This was typically done in the following manner: The learning goals and activities were introduced to the students. Then, the instructor presented the students with one or two sentences written on the blackboard highlighting the morphological material of the lesson (e.g., The girl reads one or two books a week<emph>;</emph> she's an avid reader). The instructor read the sentences aloud and pointed out the target word(s) containing the morphemes of interest (i.e., <emph>read</emph> + <emph>er</emph>). Next, the students were asked to analyze the word into morphemes (i.e., point out the morphemes of the word). Then, the instructor thought aloud and walked the students through an understanding of the meaning of the derivation ‐<emph>er</emph> (the root <emph>read</emph> is the activity; if you add the suffix ‐<emph>er</emph> to the root, the word means a person who reads). Next, the instructor wrote another sentence containing a word derived with ‐<emph>er</emph> and again guided the students through the morphological analysis and the meaning of the word. Finally, the students worked alone or in pairs with activities such as (a) forming and explaining the meanings of words with verbal roots and the suffix ‐<emph>er</emph>, (b) identifying words containing the derivation ‐<emph>er</emph> from a group of words ending in ‐<emph>er</emph> (e.g., <emph>lover</emph>, <emph>killer</emph>, <emph>outer</emph>), or (c) writing sentences containing words derived with ‐<emph>er</emph>.</p> <p>In the second lesson of the pair, the students continued to analyze novel words (e.g., a car <emph>wrecker</emph>) and existing words (e.g., a bus <emph>driver</emph>) with the derivation in focus and then read a short text containing highlighted words that share the ‐<emph>er</emph> derivation. The students worked in pairs with the following set of activities:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Analyze the word into morphemes.</item> <p></p> <item> Think about the meaning of each morpheme.</item> <p></p> <item> Given this combination of morphemes, what might the word mean?</item> <p></p> <item> Does the result of your morphological analysis of the word fit into the context of the word?</item> </ulist> <p>The instructor supervised the work of the students and went through difficult words with the group as a whole. In the last lesson (<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref1">17</reflink>) of the knowledge acquisition phase, the students were introduced to two derivational prefixes, <emph>u</emph>‐ (<emph>un</emph>‐) and <emph>mis</emph>‐ (<emph>mis</emph>‐) and worked with these prefixes in combination with known roots.</p> <p>In the consolidation phase (lessons 18–24), the students worked with the previously introduced morpheme types and morphemes, but in more complex words: compound words with derivations or words with more than one derivational affix. The students were asked to analyze and explain the meanings of these words in isolation and to use morphological analysis during text reading to figure out the meanings of unknown morphologically complex words. During the consolidation phase, the words were chosen from three specific morpheme families—<emph>skriv</emph> (<emph>write</emph>), <emph>søg</emph> (<emph>look</emph>, <emph>search</emph>), and <emph>led</emph> (<emph>lead</emph>)—with many words including several of the derivational affixes previously taught in the program.</p> <p>Approximately three times during the morphological program, the students reviewed already trained compounds and derivations in activities focusing on the analysis, formation, and explanation of the morphologically complex words. During the program, each of the selected Danish roots occurred in two to 11 different compound words. Each of two selected prefixes occurred in six to 10 words, and each of 10 suffixes occurred in six to 17 words. In addition to these selected roots, prefixes, and suffixes, students worked with 32 pseudowords (with known morphemes) and with 21 to 25 complex words that all share one of the roots: <emph>skriv</emph>, <emph>led</emph>, and <emph>søg</emph>. The number of different words in the program was relatively large, approximately 300. Across all the words in the program, 20% are compounds, 60% are derivations, and 20% are compounds with or without a derivational suffix.</p> <p>The students only encountered each word a few times during the program. This means that the words encountered (taught) in the program received much less attention in the present study than in previous vocabulary interventions (e.g., Baumann, Edwards, Boland, Olejnik, & Kame'enui, 2003; Baumann et al., 2002) or in the alternative, context‐based intervention in the present study (described next). This approach was consistent with the overall aim of the morphological program and its focus on increasing the students' general insight into the morphological structure of words, rather than on teaching the meanings of individual words.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-11">The Context‐Based Intervention</hd> <p>The aim of the alternative, context‐based intervention was twofold: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>) to activate and strengthen students' knowledge of words by means of reference to other words from the same semantic fields and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>) to teach students how to derive the meanings of unfamiliar words from context. As this program is not the focus in this article, it is described only briefly here. Further details were provided by Gellert, Wischmann, and Arnbak (2019).</p> <p>The context‐based intervention combined direct teaching of meanings of semantically related words (e.g., <emph>triumph</emph>, <emph>accomplishment</emph>, <emph>gloat</emph>) from each of five semantic fields (competition, crime, discussion, work, and feelings) with instruction on context‐based strategies to infer the meanings of unfamiliar words during text reading. This 24‐lesson program was organized in two main phases:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Theory and method (lessons 1–19):</item> <p></p> <item> Building knowledge of new words within four semantic fields</item> <p></p> <item> Introduction to context clues to infer meanings of unknown words during text reading</item> <p></p> <item> Application (lessons 20–24): Practicing the use of context clues to infer meanings of unknown words within a fifth semantic field</item> </ulist> <p>For each of the four semantic fields during lessons 1–19, the students were encouraged to activate, share, and elaborate on their prior knowledge while they learned about semantic grouping of words. The instructor introduced the students to new words one at a time by writing a new word on the blackboard, pronouncing it, and having the students pronounce it as well. Then, the instructor asked questions to activate students' possible prior knowledge about the word. Finally, the students were provided with a definition of the word, a sentence including the word, and an illustration of the word.</p> <p>The students were requested to use the new words in several contexts and activities. For example, the students were asked to reflect on the meanings of the words based on questions such as these: Why would a boss in a big company be cynical? What do you think the hierarchy in your school is like? Can you draw it? In game‐like activities, the students were required to explain the new words to one another without saying the word, and the other students in the group were asked to guess the word in question.</p> <p>Another part of the program focused on teaching the students how to use context clues to infer the meanings of unknown words during text reading. With each of the first four semantic fields, the instructor introduced the students to a specific type of context clue. The main types of taught context cues were antonyms and synonyms, comparison and contrast, and cause and effect. Additional cues included hypernyms and hyponyms. The students were trained to use the clues to derive the meanings of unfamiliar words appearing in short texts along with the specific type of context clue. When the students searched texts for specified clues to figure out the meanings of unfamiliar words, they sometimes acted as word detectives. Another activity was based on cloze tasks with semantic cues in the context. During the last five lessons, the students practiced the taught context cues in the same types of activities as before but now without knowing beforehand which cues to look for.</p> <p>The students worked with 36 specific words across the five semantic fields and met each of these words several times during the program. These 36 words were selected to be unfamiliar to most of the students (based on our experience in pilot testing of the program). The majority were words with relatively broad meanings and of higher frequency in writing than in ordinary spoken language (Tier 2 words; Beck et al., 2013). None of the words trained in the context‐based intervention were included in the morphological intervention or in the tests that we employed to assess the outcomes of the morphological intervention (see the Measures subsection).</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-12">Intervention Fidelity</hd> <p>Before the onset of the interventions, the instructors were introduced to the two intervention programs and the materials. Each lesson of each program was carefully scripted. First, the instructors were provided with the materials of the context‐based program, given time to read them, and given the opportunity to ask questions. Second, the same procedure was followed for the morphological program. Third, the instructors observed the third author conducting the first lesson from each of the programs. During the interventions, the instructors and the research team met once a month to discuss the implementation of the interventions. Whenever needed, further support was provided through telephone and email contact over the course of the interventions.</p> <p>The first author observed a lesson from each of the intervention programs conducted by each of the five instructors to check fidelity to the scripts and met with each of the instructors to provide feedback. The instructors also completed logs after each lesson reporting attendance and the activities conducted. The logs and the observations indicated that the instructors were following the scripts.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-13">Measures</hd> <p>To assess the outcomes of the morphological intervention, researcher‐developed and standardized measures were administered to the students. Table 3 provides an overview.</p> <p>3 TableOverview of the Measures</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Measure</th><th align="left">Timepoint</th><th align="left">Administration</th><th align="left">Version</th><th align="left">Researcher‐developed or standardized</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Morphological segmentation</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Segmentation of taught words</td><td align="left">Pretest</td><td align="left">Individual</td><td align="left">Same at pre‐ and posttest</td><td align="left">Researcher‐developed</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Posttest</td><td align="left">Individual</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Follow‐up</td><td align="left">Group</td><td align="left">Reduced version</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Segmentation of proximal transfer words</td><td align="left">Pretest</td><td align="left">Individual</td><td align="left">Same at pre‐ and posttest</td><td align="left">Researcher‐developed</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Posttest</td><td align="left">Individual</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Follow‐up</td><td align="left">Group</td><td align="left">Reduced version</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Word knowledge</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Definition of taught words</td><td align="left">Pretest</td><td align="left">Individual</td><td align="left">Same at pre‐ and posttest</td><td align="left">Researcher‐developed</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Posttest</td><td align="left">Individual</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Follow‐up</td><td align="left">Group</td><td align="left">Reduced version</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Definition of proximal transfer words</td><td align="left">Pretest</td><td align="left">Individual</td><td align="left">Same at pre‐ and posttest</td><td align="left">Researcher‐developed</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Posttest</td><td align="left">Individual</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Follow‐up</td><td align="left">Group</td><td align="left">Reduced version</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Definition of distal transfer pseudowords</td><td align="left">Pretest</td><td align="left">Individual</td><td align="left">Parallel versions at pre‐ and posttest</td><td align="left">Researcher‐developed</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Posttest</td><td align="left">Individual</td></tr><tr><td align="left">General receptive vocabulary</td><td align="left">Pretest</td><td align="left">Individual</td><td align="left">Same at pre‐ and posttest</td><td align="left">Standardized</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Posttest</td><td align="left">Individual</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading comprehension</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Comprehension of text with some taught words</td><td align="left">Pretest</td><td align="left">Group</td><td align="left">Same at pretest, posttest, and follow‐up</td><td align="left">Researcher‐developed</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Posttest</td><td align="left">Group</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Follow‐up</td><td align="left">Group</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Standardized reading comprehension</td><td align="left">Pretest</td><td align="left">Group</td><td align="left">Same at pre‐ and posttest</td><td align="left">Standardized</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Posttest</td><td align="left">Group</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Word decoding</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Word decoding fluency (control measure)</td><td align="left">Pretest</td><td align="left">Individual</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">Researcher‐developed</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0151135615-14">Pre‐ and Posttesting</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0151135615-15">Definition and Segmentation of Taught Words</hd> <p>Measures of directly trained abilities were necessary to allow for an interpretation of transfer effects as consequences of the training. The students' abilities to explain and segment words were measured by means of 17 morphologically transparent words selected randomly among the approximately 300 derived and compound words in the program. These words were not taught in the context‐based intervention.</p> <p>Before the presentation of the test words, the examiner told the student that he or she was going to use the morphemes when defining a word and gave the student two practice items with corrective feedback. Following the practice items, the written test words were presented one at a time. The student was asked to read each word aloud and was corrected by the examiner if necessary. The student was then asked to explain the meaning of each test word orally and to segment each of the written words into meaningful units (morphemes) by inserting lines between the morphemes.</p> <p>The word definitions were scored on a scale from 0 to 2 following these criteria:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The student was awarded 2 points for responses that (a) showed a correct understanding of the test word, (b) used all the word's constituent morphemes in the same form as in the test word, and (c) maintained the correct part of speech. For example, <emph>daylight</emph> means the (natural) light of day (a noun).</item> <p></p> <item> The student was given 1.5 points for responses that (a) showed a correct understanding of the test word (b) while using all the root morphemes of the word but not maintaining the correct part of speech. For example, <emph>daylight</emph> means light up at daytime (verb).</item> <p></p> <item> The student was given 1 point for responses that showed a correct understanding of the test word but did not use all the root morphemes of the test word. For example, <emph>daylight</emph> means light of the sun.</item> <p></p> <item> The student was given 0 points if he or she gave no response or an incorrect response. For example, <emph>daylight</emph> means get up in the morning.</item> </ulist> <p>We developed these scoring criteria based on examinations of a large sample of the students' definitions and wrote a detailed manual including several examples of the scoring of students' definitions of each of the test words. University students of speech‐language pathology and linguistics were provided with this manual and scored students' definitions under the supervision of the first author. The definitions of the test words were scored separately by two raters. On average, the inter‐rater agreement was 95%. The first author resolved the disagreements.</p> <p>The score taken from the definition task was the sum of item scores. Students' segmentation scores were the number of correctly identified morphemes across all 17 words (maximum = 48). For example, the maximum score for segmentation of the word <emph>unthinkable</emph> was 3 (<emph>un</emph>/<emph>think</emph>/<emph>able</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-16">Definition and Segmentation of Proximal Transfer Words</hd> <p>Thirteen morphologically transparent transfer words were interspersed among the 17 taught words. The roots and affixes of the transfer words had all been included in the morphological intervention program, but in other combinations than in the test words. The procedure and scoring was the same for taught words and transfer words. The maximum definition score was 26, and the maximum segmentation score was 36. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for all 30 words was.72 and.71 for definitions and segmentations at pretest in the present sample.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-17">Definition of Distal Transfer Pseudowords</hd> <p>The more distal transfer effects were assessed by means of 20 untaught morphologically transparent pseudowords. Six of the pseudowords were novel compounds formed of common roots; the other 14 pseudowords were novel derivations formed by common roots and taught suffixes (and one prefix; e.g., <emph>superish</emph>, <emph>sweatable</emph>). The potential meanings could be inferred from the constituent morphemes. Before presentation of the 20 test items, the examiner explained to the student that he or she was going to try to figure out and explain the meanings of some made‐up words, and the examiner administered two practice items with corrective feedback. Parallel versions of this test were developed and used for pre‐ and posttesting, respectively. The score was the number of acceptable definitions (maximum = 20). An acceptable answer was in accordance with the standard meanings of the morphemes in existing words and with Danish morphology (i.e., well‐established ways to combine morphemes into words). For example, acceptable definitions of <emph>doggish</emph> would include dog‐like, sharing some feature or quality of dogs, the language of dogs, and from the land of dogs. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of the pretest version of this test was.69 in the present sample (students from all three conditions), and for the posttest version, it was.71 (students from the context‐based intervention and the control condition only).</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-18">General Receptive Vocabulary</hd> <p>Receptive vocabulary was assessed at both pre‐ and posttest by means of a Danish translation of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised (Dunn & Dunn, 1981; Nielsen, 2008). This translation has previously been used in Danish research projects with school‐age children (e.g., Daugaard, Cain, & Elbro, 2017; Gellert & Elbro, 2013). The student is shown four pictures and asked to point to the picture that matches a word spoken by the examiner. Testing is discontinued when the student fails to identify the correct picture in six of eight consecutive items. The score is the total number of correct responses. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of this test was.72 in the present sample at pretest (similar to results from previous Danish studies).</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-19">Reading Comprehension of Texts With Some Taught Words</hd> <p>To assess transfer effects on comprehension of text with taught words, we constructed a test including 12 text passages (approximately 800 words for all the passages). The passages were short narratives about events such as a burglary, a person getting lost, and the dismissal of employees in a workplace. The mean sentence length was 13 words. The passages contained several morphologically transparent words, of which 40 were selected among the approximately 300 words in the morphological training program. The 40 words were chosen because they carried significant semantic content that would be difficult to infer from the context alone. None of these words were taught in the context‐based intervention.</p> <p>Each passage was followed by yes/no questions constructed to require understanding of morphologically complex words in the passages, and requirements to draw inferences from written context or prior knowledge were avoided. The students were given 25 minutes to read the text passages silently and mark the correct answers to the yes/no questions. The score was the number of correct responses (maximum = 65). The same version of the test was used at pretest, posttest, and follow‐up. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was.89 in the present sample at pretest.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-20">Standardized Reading Comprehension</hd> <p>A standardized group test of text reading (Møller, 2012) was administered to the students at pre‐ and posttest. The test contains one long text (a fairy tale) of approximately 2,000 words. The text is interrupted by 38 multiple‐choice cloze items and 11 yes/no questions. Several of the items require the drawing of inferences. The students are given 25 minutes to read the text silently and mark the correct options. The score is the number of correct responses (maximum = 49). The test manual reports internal consistency reliability ranging from.90 to.96.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-21">Word‐Decoding Fluency</hd> <p>To be able to control for individual differences in decoding, pretesting included assessments of oral word and nonword reading fluency by means of 30 single, real words and 30 nonwords (Elbro & Petersen, 2004). The 30 real words are all orthographically regular and between two and nine letters long (e.g., <emph>du</emph> [<emph>you</emph>], <emph>glad</emph> [<emph>glad</emph>], <emph>kærlighed</emph> [<emph>love</emph>]). Preceded by five practice words, the 30 words are presented to the student in three separate lists of increasing difficulty. The score is the number of words read correctly per minute. The nonwords are matched individually to the real words in terms of length (number of letters) and syllable structure (e.g., <emph>tu</emph>, <emph>glod</emph>, <emph>sarløkved</emph>). The test format is the same as with the real words except that the student is told that the words are not real words. The score is the number of nonwords read correctly per minute. In previous research, these measures have demonstrated high reliability and validity (e.g., Gellert & Elbro, 2018). In the present study, word and nonword fluency correlated at.77 at pretest. To simplify analyses, the scores on these two measures were averaged into a composite measure.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-22">Follow‐Up Assessment</hd> <p>Because of resource constraints, group‐based measures were employed at the follow‐up assessment. The versions used for follow‐up testing are described here.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-23">Definition and Segmentation of Taught Words and Proximal Transfer Words</hd> <p>Twelve taught words were selected at random among the 17 words for pre‐ and posttest. Twelve proximal transfer words were interspersed among the 12 taught words (described earlier). These were the same words as at pre‐ and posttest (one word omitted).</p> <p>Following three practice items with feedback, the examiner read all 24 test words aloud, asked the students to follow along, and had the group repeat each of the test words in unison. Then, the students were given 30 minutes to explain the meanings of the 24 test words in writing and to segment the words into meaningful units (morphemes) by inserting lines between them. On lines below each word, the students were asked to write what they thought each of the words meant. During these 30 minutes, the students were allowed to ask the examiner to read some of the words aloud again. This was done to reduce the possible impact of individual differences in decoding abilities. The measures taken from these tasks (definition and segmentation) were the same as at pre‐ and posttest. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of the definition and segmentation scores for all 24 words was.81 and.80, respectively, in the present sample at the follow‐up test (students from the context‐based intervention and the control condition only). The students' definitions and segmentations of the test words were scored using the same criteria as for the pre‐ and posttest versions of this test.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-24">Reading Comprehension of Texts With Some Taught Words</hd> <p>This measure was the same as at pre‐ and posttest.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-25">General Procedure</hd> <p>The screening measures, the pre‐ and posttest measures of reading comprehension, and the follow‐up measures were administered in group settings, with approximately 12 students and two test administrators present. The screening measures were administered within one session of approximately 40 minutes. The pre‐ and posttest measures of reading comprehension and the follow‐up measures were administered in two sessions that each lasted approximately 40 minutes. The remaining measures were administered individually in quiet parts of the schools and recorded. Individual pre‐ and posttesting were conducted over two sessions each. All tests were administered by trained research assistants and trained students of speech‐language pathology or linguistics.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-26">Results</hd> <p>Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations for the students in the morphological intervention, the context‐based intervention, and the control condition on all of the measures at pre‐ and posttest. Pairwise <emph>t</emph>‐tests showed no statistically significant differences among the mean scores of the students in any of the three conditions on any of the measures at pretest. Table 5 presents correlations between all pretest measures.</p> <p>4 TableShort‐Term Training Effects: Means (and Standard Deviations) at Pre‐ and Posttest, With Effect Sizes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Measure</th><th align="left">Maximum score</th><th align="left">Morphological intervention</th><th align="left">Context‐based intervention</th><th align="left">Control condition</th><th align="left">Effects of condition (<italic>F</italic>)</th><th align="left">Effect size (Cohen's <italic>d</italic>)</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Pretest</th><th align="left">Posttest</th><th align="left">Pretest</th><th align="left">Posttest</th><th align="left">Pretest</th><th align="left">Posttest</th><th align="left">Morphological vs. context</th><th align="left">Morphological vs. control</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Segmentation of taught words</td><td align="char" char=".">48</td><td align="char" char=".">34.1 (3.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">42.8 (2.9)</td><td align="char" char=".">34.9 (3.8)</td><td align="char" char=".">35.7 (3.7)</td><td align="char" char=".">34.4 (3.5)</td><td align="char" char=".">36.1 (3.7)</td><td align="char" char=".">146.4**</td><td align="char" char=".">2.13**</td><td align="char" char=".">1.96**</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Segmentation of proximal transfer words</td><td align="char" char=".">36</td><td align="char" char=".">25.3 (3.3)</td><td align="char" char=".">32.7 (3.1)</td><td align="char" char=".">25.5 (3.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">26.6 (2.8)</td><td align="char" char=".">24.5 (3.4)</td><td align="char" char=".">26.5 (3.7)</td><td align="char" char=".">120.2**</td><td align="char" char=".">1.83**</td><td align="char" char=".">1.61**</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Definition of taught words</td><td align="char" char=".">34</td><td align="char" char=".">8.8 (3.9)</td><td align="char" char=".">14.6 (5.4)</td><td align="char" char=".">8.6 (3.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">10.4 (4.3)</td><td align="char" char=".">8.4 (3.8)</td><td align="char" char=".">10.7 (4.3)</td><td align="char" char=".">25.9**</td><td align="char" char=".">1.06**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.91**</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Definition of proximal transfer words</td><td align="char" char=".">26</td><td align="char" char=".">4.1 (3.1)</td><td align="char" char=".">8.5 (4.7)</td><td align="char" char=".">4.0 (3.0)</td><td align="char" char=".">5.0 (3.3)</td><td align="char" char=".">4.1 (2.9)</td><td align="char" char=".">5.3 (3.7)</td><td align="char" char=".">32.9**</td><td align="char" char=".">1.1**</td><td align="char" char=".">1.07**</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Definition of distal transfer pseudowords</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td><td align="char" char=".">9.7 (3.5)</td><td align="char" char=".">12.8 (3.4)</td><td align="char" char=".">9.8 (3.0)</td><td align="char" char=".">11.0 (3.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">9.5 (3.4)</td><td align="char" char=".">10.3 (3.4)</td><td align="char" char=".">19.3**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.55**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.65**</td></tr><tr><td align="left">General receptive vocabulary</td><td align="char" char=".">111</td><td align="char" char=".">43.0 (11.0)</td><td align="char" char=".">45.9 (10.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">42.7 (11.9)</td><td align="char" char=".">44.9 (12.4)</td><td align="char" char=".">43.5 (11.9)</td><td align="char" char=".">46.1 (10.9)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.5</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Comprehension of text with taught words</td><td align="char" char=".">69</td><td align="char" char=".">37.5 (8.8)</td><td align="char" char=".">41.5 (7.4)</td><td align="char" char=".">37.2 (6.5)</td><td align="char" char=".">40.0 (5.7)</td><td align="char" char=".">38.2 (7.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">40.2 (9.0)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.4*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24*</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Standardized reading comprehension</td><td align="char" char=".">49</td><td align="char" char=".">31.6 (9.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">35.2 (8.8)</td><td align="char" char=".">31.7 (8.7)</td><td align="char" char=".">35.2 (8.9)</td><td align="char" char=".">30.8 (9.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">34.1 (10.1)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.3</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 *<emph>p</emph> <.05. **<emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> <item>5 TableCorrelations Between Pretest Measures</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Measure</th><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th><th align="left">7</th><th align="left">8</th><th align="left">9</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">1. Segmentation of taught words</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Segmentation of proximal transfer words</td><td align="char" char=".">.61</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Definition of taught words</td><td align="char" char=".">.25</td><td align="char" char=".">.20</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Definition of proximal transfer words</td><td align="char" char=".">.22</td><td align="char" char=".">.18</td><td align="char" char=".">.62</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Definition of distal transfer pseudowords</td><td align="char" char=".">.14</td><td align="char" char=".">.16</td><td align="char" char=".">.45</td><td align="char" char=".">.42</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. General receptive vocabulary</td><td align="char" char=".">.17</td><td align="char" char=".">.21</td><td align="char" char=".">.40</td><td align="char" char=".">.38</td><td align="char" char=".">.35</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Comprehension of text with taught words</td><td align="char" char=".">.22</td><td align="char" char=".">.28</td><td align="char" char=".">.45</td><td align="char" char=".">.37</td><td align="char" char=".">.33</td><td align="char" char=".">.52</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">8. Standardized reading comprehension</td><td align="char" char=".">.26</td><td align="char" char=".">.27</td><td align="char" char=".">.45</td><td align="char" char=".">.44</td><td align="char" char=".">.33</td><td align="char" char=".">.52</td><td align="char" char=".">.63</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">9. Word decoding fluency</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.19</td><td align="char" char=".">.15</td><td align="char" char=".">.22</td><td align="char" char=".">.18</td><td align="char" char=".">.16</td><td align="char" char=".">.30</td><td align="char" char=".">.35</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note</p> <p>3 Correlations above.13 are significant at the <emph>p</emph> <.05 level; correlations above.15 are significant at the <emph>p</emph> <.01 level.</p> <p>As described in the Method section, the students were selected from the lower end of a screening of vocabulary knowledge at schools with a relatively large number of students with Danish as a second language. This selection bias was confirmed by the relatively low scores on the test of receptive vocabulary. The average score in the present sample was equivalent to the norm for children 2.5 years younger (Gellert & Elbro, 2013). Similarly, the mean reading comprehension score in the current sample corresponded to the 20–25th percentile in an unselected sample (Møller, 2012). On average, the second‐language learners performed significantly lower on most of the pretest measures as compared with the students speaking Danish as their first language. (Significant differences were found on four out of the six morphological measures and on the general measures of vocabulary and reading comprehension.)</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-27">Short‐Term Effects</hd> <p>We calculated the effect sizes associated with the experimental training for each of the pairwise differences between the morphological condition, the context‐based condition, and the control condition, respectively (see Table 4). Following Morris (2008), we computed each effect size estimate as the average gain score differences between student scores in the morphological condition and either the context‐based intervention or the control condition, divided by the pooled standard deviation of the pretest scores under the two conditions. We interpreted the results following Cohen's (1988) conventions of small (<emph>d</emph> = .20), medium (<emph>d</emph> = .50), and large (<emph>d</emph> = .80) effect sizes.</p> <p>We tested the significance of condition for each of the outcome measures using multilevel modeling with three levels in each model: individual students nested in taught groups (average of four students in each) nested in classes. Because students were randomly assigned to each of the three teaching conditions (groups) within each class, we expected the intraclass correlations (ICCs) associated with teaching groups to be low for all pretest measures. This expectation was confirmed by ICCs ranging from 0% to 9.6% (general receptive vocabulary). ICCs associated with variance at the class level were slightly higher, ranging from 0% to 17.4%, attesting to the relatively high homogeneity of schools in Denmark. Very similar ICCs were found at posttest at the class level, ranging from 0.5% to 17.9%, as would be expected for a design with conditions balanced across classes. In contrast, the ICCs at the teaching group level were clearly higher at posttest, ranging from 0% to 54%, with measures of morphological segmentation and word definition all above 20%. This pattern suggests that the different teaching conditions contributed to variance between teaching groups within classes but not between classes, as would be expected in the present design.</p> <p>For each outcome measure, we conducted a multilevel modeling analysis on individual posttest results, with teaching condition as a fixed effect while controlling for individual pretest scores and language status (Danish as the first or second language). Table 4 presents the significance of the fixed effects of condition and of the planned pairwise contrasts. The results closely resemble those from analyses with teaching groups as the sole unit of analysis (<emph>N</emph> = 29 for the morphological intervention, 29 for the context‐based intervention, and 28 for the control condition; not displayed).</p> <p>The study did not comprise hypotheses about the possible effects of language status (Danish as the first or second language) on intervention outcomes. Nonetheless, we addressed possible effects in additional analyses within the morphological training condition. For these analyses, we employed three‐level models on each of the posttest and follow‐up measures, with language status as a fixed factor while controlling for pretest scores and pretest vocabulary. The effect of language status did not approach significance in any of these analyses, suggesting that first‐ and second‐language learners made comparable gains in the morphological condition.</p> <p>The morphological intervention produced significantly larger gains than both the context intervention and the control condition on all measures of morphologically related word knowledge. Not surprisingly, the largest gain advantages of the students in the morphological intervention were found on segmentation of taught words (<emph>d</emph> = 2.13 and 1.96, respectively, <emph>p</emph> < .01, in comparison with the students in the context‐based intervention and the control condition) and proximal transfer words (<emph>d</emph> = 1.83 and 1.61, respectively, <emph>p</emph> < .01; see Table 4). It is worth noting that the morphological intervention produced similarly large effects on the ability to define both taught words (<emph>d</emph> = 1.06 and 0.91, respectively, <emph>p</emph> < .01) and proximal transfer words (<emph>d</emph> = 1.1 and 1.07, respectively, <emph>p</emph> < .01). To define a proximal transfer word, the student would have to transfer knowledge of morphemes in taught combinations (words) to untaught combinations (other words).</p> <p>The morphological intervention was associated with medium‐sized gain advantages with respect to the definition of distal transfer pseudowords (<emph>d</emph> = 0.55 and 0.65, respectively, <emph>p</emph> < .01). However, no significant effect was found on general receptive vocabulary (<emph>d</emph> = 0.06 and 0.04, respectively, <emph>p</emph> > .05).</p> <p>As for reading comprehension of texts with some taught words, small gains were found for the students in the morphological condition in comparison with the students in the two other conditions (<emph>d</emph> = 0.16 and 24, respectively). After Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, the students in the morphological intervention were found to gain significantly more in reading comprehension of texts with some taught words as compared with the students in the control condition (<emph>p</emph> < .05), whereas the difference found between the students in the two interventions did not reach significance (<emph>p</emph> > .05).</p> <p>No significant effect was found on standardized reading comprehension (<emph>d</emph> = 0.01 and 0.03, respectively, <emph>p</emph> > .05).</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-28">Long‐Term Effects</hd> <p>The 259 students at follow‐up in grade 6 were found to be representative for the whole sample at pretest; the 259 students did not differ significantly from the original sample on any of the pre‐ or posttests. Table 6 provides the means and standard deviations on the measures of word knowledge administered at follow‐up 10 months after the intervention. The statistical significance of the differences in outcomes across the three conditions was tested with the teaching groups as the unit of analysis in multilevel modeling analyses, as before. The analyses indicated that the students in the morphological intervention scored significantly higher than the students in the context‐based intervention and the control condition on all follow‐up measures of word knowledge where morphological abilities might play a role. Medium to large effects were found on the measures of segmentation of taught words (<emph>d</emph> = 0.81 and 0.79, respectively, <emph>p</emph> < .01) and proximal transfer words (<emph>d</emph> = 0.70 and 0.72, respectively, <emph>p</emph> < .01). A medium to large effect was also found on the definition of taught words (<emph>d</emph> = 0.71 and 0.64, respectively, <emph>p</emph> < .01). Medium effects were found on definition of proximal transfer words (<emph>d</emph> = 0.50, <emph>p</emph> < .01, and <emph>d</emph> = 0.40, <emph>p</emph> < .05). It should be noted that these effect sizes are not directly comparable to the immediate effect sizes because of the reduced test sensitivity at follow‐up (see the Materials subsection). Contrary to expectation, the students in the morphological intervention did not show significantly larger gains from pretest to follow‐up than the students in the two other conditions did on reading comprehension with texts with some taught words (<emph>d</emph> = 0.11 and 0.24, respectively, <emph>p</emph> > .05; see Table 6).</p> <p>6 TableLong‐Term Training Effects: Means (and Standard Deviations) at Pretest and Follow‐Up, With Effect Sizes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Measure</th><th align="left">Maximum score</th><th align="left">Morphological intervention</th><th align="left">Context‐based intervention</th><th align="left">Control condition</th><th align="left">Effects of condition (<italic>F</italic>)</th><th align="left">Effect size (Cohen's <italic>d</italic>)</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Pretest</th><th align="left">Follow‐up</th><th align="left">Pretest</th><th align="left">Follow‐up</th><th align="left">Pretest</th><th align="left">Follow‐up</th><th align="left">Morphological vs. context</th><th align="left">Morphological vs. control</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Segmentation of taught words</td><td align="char" char=".">36</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">28.3 (3.0)</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">25.8 (3.3)</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">26.0 (2.9)</td><td align="char" char=".">21.0<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.81<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.79<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Segmentation of proximal transfer words</td><td align="char" char=".">38</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">27.7 (4.0)</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">25.0 (3.7)</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">25.1 (3.2)</td><td align="char" char=".">21.3<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.70<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.72<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Definition of taught words</td><td align="char" char=".">24</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">11.2 (3.7)</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">8.7 (3.4)</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">8.8 (3.9)</td><td align="char" char=".">17.2<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.71<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.64<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Definition of proximal transfer words</td><td align="char" char=".">24</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">8.3 (4.4)</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">6.4 (3.6)</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char=".">6.7 (3.9)</td><td align="char" char=".">6.6<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.50<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.40<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Comprehension of text with taught words</td><td align="char" char=".">69</td><td align="char" char=".">37.7 (8.4)</td><td align="char" char=".">43.8 (7.7)</td><td align="char" char=".">36.8 (6.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">42.0 (6.7)</td><td align="char" char=".">38.6 (7.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">42.8 (8.0)</td><td align="char" char=".">1.5</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 ** <emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-29">Discussion</hd> <p>Fifth‐grade students with limited vocabulary knowledge in the language of instruction were targeted for the present study because they are greatly at risk for reading comprehension difficulties. Our first aim in this study was to investigate short‐ and long‐term effects of a morphological intervention program on the students' word knowledge and reading comprehension. Our second aim was to examine a range of possible transfer effects to different types of morphologically transparent words and to texts with some of the taught words.</p> <p>The results confirmed our first expectation that a morphological intervention program can be associated with significant gains in the ability to segment and explain the meanings of words that consist of trained morphemes in new combinations. This is an important result because it replicates previous demonstrations that middle school students can be taught morphological segmentation and synthesis skills and transfer these skills from taught words to new combinations of morphemes in untaught words. In fact, the gain in ability to explain the meanings of words with new combinations of trained morphemes may be as large as the gains with the directly trained words. As importantly, the transfer effects to words consisting of new combinations of trained morphemes were still clearly present at follow‐up 10 months after the completion of the training. To the best of our knowledge, such long‐term effects have not been reported before.</p> <p>The results further confirmed our second expectation that a morphological intervention program can produce gains in the understanding of novel, morphologically complex words with untrained but common roots. Roots such as <emph>push</emph>, <emph>shut</emph>, and <emph>orange</emph> hardly need to be taught to middle school students, so when such roots are encountered in novel combinations with suffixes (e.g., <emph>pushly</emph>, <emph>shutable</emph>, <emph>oranger</emph>), the main novel requirement is insight into the meanings (functions) of the suffixes. Such insight can be acquired within a relatively short program, with a wide potential for the understanding of morphologically complex words that the students had not come across before.</p> <p>A third and separate issue is whether and to what extent morphologically enhanced word knowledge transfers to reading comprehension. As expected, such a distal transfer effect, although small, was found in the present study. However, it was only detectable when some of the more than 300 words from the training were present in the text. At follow‐up, this transfer effect on reading comprehension was no longer significant. Perhaps a retest effect contributed to the diminished effect of the morphological training over time given that the same test of reading comprehension was employed at all three test occasions. Using the same assessment three times may also have demotivated some of the students. In addition, it is possible that the yes/no questions used for the assessment were not sensitive enough to test for the effects on reading comprehension. Precisely targeted multiple‐choice questions might have been more sensitive to possible effects.</p> <p>However, there was no significant transfer to a standardized reading comprehension test. The lack of transfer may have many causes; for example, the standard reading comprehension test contained challenging (and untaught) root morphemes, such as <emph>ham</emph> (rare Danish word for <emph>disguise</emph>) in <emph>svaneham</emph> (literally swan‐disguise, meaning disguise to look like a swan). In any case, the results from the present study are in line with the expectation that gains in morphologically supported vocabulary skills are diluted by all the other requirements for vocabulary and higher order cognitive skills in reading comprehension.</p> <p>Because vocabulary learning is a long‐term affair (cf. Nagy, 2005), a relatively short training program of 24 lessons such as ours is unlikely to make a significant impact on students' vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. However, over time, improved skills in morphological analysis can be expected to support students' vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension. This expectation is in line with the results of a recent study by Levesque, Kieffer, and Deacon (2019). These researchers followed English‐speaking students from grade 3 to grade 4 and found that the students' morphological analytic skills predicted gains in their general reading comprehension. According to Levesque et al., this is in accordance with a developmental trajectory whereby students' use of morphemes to infer the meanings of unfamiliar complex words supports the development of reading comprehension over time.</p> <p>The focus of the present study was on students with limited vocabulary knowledge in the language of instruction. Approximately half of the students spoke Danish as their second language. These students were outperformed on most of the pretest measures by their peers with Danish as their first language. However, we found no significant effects of language status once pretest performance was controlled. Hence, there was no indication that the morphological program was less suitable for students with Danish as their second language.</p> <p>As mentioned in the introduction, meta‐analyses have shown moderate mean effects of morphology instruction on vocabulary (mean <emph>d</emph> = 0.34–0.35; cf. Bowers et al., 2010; Goodwin & Ahn, 2013) and a nonsignificant mean effect of 0.09 on reading comprehension (Goodwin & Ahn, 2013). However, the meta‐analyses did not specifically report transfer effects and did not distinguish between proximal and more distal effects on vocabulary and reading comprehension. In comparison, the present morphological intervention produced large short‐term effects on definitions of taught words and proximal transfer words (<emph>d</emph> = 0.91–1.1), as well as moderate effects on definition of distal transfer pesudowords (<emph>d</emph> = 0.55–0.65), but no statistically significant effect on general receptive vocabulary (<emph>d</emph> = 0.04–0.06). In line with the mean effect reported by Goodwin and Ahn (2013), our morphological intervention produced no significant effects on the standardized test of reading comprehension (<emph>d</emph> = 0.01–0.03). However, we found a small but statistically significant short‐term effect of 0.24 on reading comprehension of texts with some taught words when we compared the students in the morphological intervention with the students in the control condition. These results suggest that outcomes of morphological training should be evaluated along a continuum from proximal to distal effects.</p> <p>Figure 1 presents a general overview of possible effects of morphological training of the kind in the present study. The figure comprises effects from the most proximal to distal ones. The continuum in Figure 1 is in accordance with the effects found in the present study and with the basic ideas behind it. The more proximal outcomes are those for which the taught morphological skills are relevant and directly applicable. Understanding words by morphological analysis is relevant when words are morphologically complex and transparent. The more proximal outcomes are those that are associated with the directly taught materials (words and morphemes), as far as they need to be taught because their meanings and/or functions are unknown.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jul21/rrq325-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq325-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 An Overview of Possible Outcomes of Morphological Training Word knowledge Segmentation of taught words Segmentation of real transfer words Understanding taught words Understanding real transfer words Understanding transfer pseudowords General vocabulary Reading comprehension Comprehension of text with taught words General reading comprehension" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0151135615-31">Limitations</hd> <p>The results of this study apply to students with limited vocabulary knowledge in the language of instruction. The vocabulary knowledge of the students was on average about 2.5 years below the age‐equivalent level. These students were selected mainly because they are at severe risk for reading comprehension difficulties, and associated constraints on vocabulary and knowledge development in the longer term. It is thus unknown whether the results will be exactly the same for an unselected sample of students in middle school.</p> <p>The selection of participants departed from the most conventional procedures in two ways: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>) To reduce resource demands while maintaining a strong database for students with low Danish vocabulary, we oversampled schools with a high proportion of second‐language learners. (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>) We selected the students with the lowest Danish vocabulary scores in each class. As for the language status of the participants, we found no indications that language status had an impact on the outcomes of the morphological intervention, once vocabulary knowledge was accounted for. As for the selection of the students with the lowest vocabulary scores from each class, this approach does not allow for conclusions about the X percentage of students with the most limited vocabulary knowledge on a national scale. However, it allows for conclusions about students whose vocabulary scores are among approximately the lowest third of their class. This rank within the class is likely to be important for both the students and their teachers on an everyday basis, irrespectively of national norms.</p> <p>The curriculum in our morphological intervention was developed specifically for students with relatively limited vocabulary, and the students were taught in small groups. Therefore, further research would be needed to investigate whether the specific findings of the present study can be generalized to regular classroom settings. However, short‐term effects of morphological instruction on words with taught bases have been demonstrated previously in regular grade 4 and grade 5 classes (Bowers & Kirby, 2010).</p> <p>Because of limited resources, the follow‐up measures of word knowledge were group based and had fewer items than the pre‐ and posttest measures. As a consequence, the follow‐up measures were not as sensitive as the pre‐ and posttest measures and may have contributed to an underestimation of the long‐term effects. However, fade‐out effects are common when the taught materials or strategies are not repeated or reinforced after completions of the intervention (cf. Bailey et al., 2017). In the present study, the instructors who taught the programs left the schools after the intervention, and no attempts were made to encourage the ordinary teachers of the classes to follow up on the intervention. Future studies may address the important questions about how effects of morphological training may be sustained and perhaps further transferred to reading comprehension after the completion of the intensive part of the training.</p> <p>A particular limitation stems from the lack of a follow‐up test of distal transfer effects to new words with untrained but common roots. Even after some fading of the intervention effects, they may have been strong enough to provide significant sustained effects 10 months later. In fact, we see no reason why effects on untrained material (known roots) should fade more rapidly than effects on taught materials. However, only future studies can tell.</p> <p>The two experimental programs were administered by the same instructors, which may be seen as a limitation, although it is commonly viewed as a strength. The instructors were certainly not blind to the purposes and contents of the training and may have favored one program over the other. However, there is no reason why the instructors would have had a preconceived preference for one program over the other. If any preference developed over the course of the training, informal reports from the instructors indicate that the context program was the more popular of the two experimental programs for both instructors and students. The activities in the context program were viewed as the more structured and engaging. In addition, no significant differences in gains between the students in the two interventions were found for the most distal transfer measures: general vocabulary and standardized reading comprehension. Such differences would have been likely to occur if strong expectancy effects had been present.</p> <p>It may come as a surprise that the students in the alternative, context‐based vocabulary intervention and the business‐as‐usual controls did not differ significantly on most of the outcome measures. Although this result is not of primary concern for the present study, it should be noted that the morphologically trained words were not part of the alternative, context‐based intervention. The present study was not aimed at a direct comparison between the effects of context‐based intervention and morphological intervention. A different set of directly taught words were employed for the context‐based intervention, and this intervention was associated with significant positive gains with those words (Gellert et al., 2019). The students' understanding of the trained words and the transfer words was not tested in supportive context. If supportive context had been present, the students in the context condition might have cracked the meanings of some of these items.</p> <p>Other researchers have documented positive effects of more multifaceted vocabulary interventions (e.g., Brinchmann et al., 2016; Lesaux et al., 2010, 2014). Indeed, Stahl and Nagy (2006) argued that vocabulary instruction should involve direct instruction in word meanings, teaching word‐learning strategies such as morphology and context clues, wide reading, and fostering word consciousness. It is possible that such a comprehensive approach would be more efficient than a specific morphological approach for ameliorating vocabulary limitations and poor reading comprehension, especially if more time was dedicated to vocabulary instruction than in the present study. However, the present study was not designed to identify the optimal approach for vocabulary instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-32">Conclusions</hd> <p>In conclusion, the present study contributes to the growing literature on the causal relation between morphological knowledge and vocabulary development in reading. Following morphological training, readers like the ones in this study will have a better chance of understanding the meanings of morphologically complex words that they have not yet come across in spoken or written language. The beneficial effects are sustained over time. Thus, the findings of the study provide a rationale for curriculum developers and teachers to include morphological analysis in small‐group instruction for students with vocabulary limitations. However, it remains to be seen whether an increase in morphological analysis and understanding has potential for the incidental learning of new word meanings during reading.</p> <hd id="AN0151135615-33">Notes</hd> <p>Financial support for this study was provided by the Danish foundation Trygfonden. We are also grateful to several master's students for their help with data collection and to the instructors, the students, and the schools for their participation.</p> <ref id="AN0151135615-34"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, R.C., & Nagy, W.E. (1992). The vocabulary conundrum. American Educator, 16 (4), 14 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anglin, J.M. (1993). Knowing versus learning words. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58 (10), 176 – 186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.1993.tb00377.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey, D., Duncan, G.J., Odgers, C.L., & Yu, W. (2017). Persistence and fadeout in the impacts of child and adolescent interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10 (1), 7 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1232459</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baumann, J.F., Edwards, E.C., Boland, E., Olejnik, S., & Kame'enui, E.J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth‐grade students' ability to derive and infer word meaning. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (2), 447 – 494. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002447</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baumann, J.F., Edwards, E.C., Font, G., Tereshinski, C.A., Kame'enui, E.J., & Olejnik, S. (2002). Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth‐grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 37 (2), 150 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.37.2.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (1985). Teaching vocabulary: Making the instruction fit the goal. Educational Perspectives, 23 (1), 11 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY : Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (3), 498 – 520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.498</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bowers, P.N., & Kirby, J.R. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading and Writing, 23 (5), 515 – 537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9172-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowers, P.N., Kirby, J.R., & Deacon, S.H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80 (2), 144 – 179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brinchmann, E.I., Hjetland, H.N., & Lyster, S.H. (2016). Lexical quality matters: Effects of word knowledge instruction on the language and literacy skills of third‐ and fourth‐grade poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 51 (2), 165 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.128</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crosson, A.C., McKeown, M.G., Moore, D.W., & Ye, F. (2019). Extending the bounds of morphology instruction: Teaching Latin roots facilitates academic word learning for English learner adolescents. Reading and Writing, 32 (3), 689 – 727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9885-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daugaard, H.T., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2017). From words to text: Inference making mediates the role of vocabulary in children's reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 30 (8), 1773 – 1788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9752-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first‐ and second‐language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38 (1), 78 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.38.1.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, D.M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–revised. Circle Pines, MN : American Guidance Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elbro, C., & Petersen, D.K. (2004). Long‐term effects of phoneme awareness and letter sound training: An intervention study with children at risk for dyslexia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (4), 660 – 670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.660</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fukkink, R.G., & de Glopper, K. (1998). Effects of instruction in deriving word meaning from context: A meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research, 68 (4), 450 – 469. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068004450</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gellert, A.S., & Elbro, C. (2013). Do experimental measures of word learning predict vocabulary development over time? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gellert, A.S., & Elbro, C. (2018). Predicting reading disabilities using dynamic assessment of decoding before and after the onset of reading instruction: A longitudinal study from kindergarten through grade 2. Annals of Dyslexia, 68 (2), 126 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-018-0159-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gellert, A.S., Wischmann, S., & Arnbak, E. (2019). Kontekst‐orienteret ordkendskabsundervisning for elever i 5. klasse med begrænset dansk ordforråd: En undersøgelse af korttids‐ og langtidseffekter [Short‐term and long‐term effects of a context‐based vocabulary intervention for fifth‐grade students with limited vocabulary knowledge]. Nydanske sprogstudier, 57, 46 – 79. https://doi.org/10.7146/nys.v1i57.117117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-010-0041-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.689791</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juul, H., Nielsen, A.‐M.V., & Daugaard, H.T. (2018). Morfologi på mellemtrinnet [Morphology in middle school]. Nydanske Sprogstudier, 54, 11 – 32. https://doi.org/10.7146/nys.v1i54.101381</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kieffer, M.J., & Lesaux, N.K. (2008). The role of derivational morphology in the reading comprehension of Spanish‐speaking English language learners. Reading and Writing, 21 (8), 783 – 804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9092-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesaux, N.K., Kieffer, M.J., Faller, S.E., & Kelley, J.G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45 (2), 196 – 228. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesaux, N.K., Kieffer, M.J., Kelley, J.G., & Harris, J.R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51 (6), 1159 – 1194. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532165</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levesque, K.C., Kieffer, M.J., & Deacon, S.H. (2019). Inferring meaning from meaningful parts: The contributions of morphological skills to the development of children's reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 54 (1), 63 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyster, S.‐A.H., Lervåg, A.O., & Hulme, C. (2016). Preschool morphological training produces long‐term improvements in reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 29 (6), 1269 – 1288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9636-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKeown, M.G., Crosson, A.C., Moore, D.W., & Beck, I.L. (2018). Word knowledge and comprehension effects of an academic vocabulary intervention for middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 55 (3), 572 – 616. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217744181h</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Møller, L. (2012). Tekstlæseprøve 7 [Test of text reading 7]. Virum, Denmark : Hogrefe Psykologisk Forlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, S.B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest‐posttest‐control group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11 (2), 364 – 386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long‐term and comprehensive. In E.H. Hiebert & M.L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 27 – 44). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W.E., & Anderson, R.C. (1984). The number of words in printed school English. Reading Research Quarterly, 19 (3), 304 – 330.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W., 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W., & Hiebert, E. (2011). Toward a theory of word selection. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 388 – 404). New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nielsen, J.B. (2008). Det mentale leksikon og testning af receptivt ordforråd: ændring af Peabodytesten [The mental lexicon and assessment of receptive vocabulary: An adaptation of the Peabody test] (Unpublished master's thesis). Copenhagen, Denmark : University of Copenhagen.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Pretzlik, U., Burman, D., Bell, D., & Gardner, S. (2006). An intervention program for classroom teaching about morphemes: Effects on the children's vocabulary. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Improving literacy by teaching morphemes (pp. 121 – 134). London, UK : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parel, R. (2006). The impact of training in morphological analysis on literacy in the primary grades. International Journal of Learning, 13 (4), 119 – 128. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v13i04/44666</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, J.M., Wagner, R.K., Petscher, Y., & Lopez, D. (2015). Developmental relations between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension: A latent change score modeling study. Child Development, 86 (1), 159 – 175. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12292</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schuth, E., Köhne, J., & Weinert, S. (2017). The influence of academic vocabulary knowledge on school performance. Learning and Instruction, 49, 157 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stahl, S.A., & Nagy, W.E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suggate, S.P. (2016). A meta‐analysis of the long‐term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49 (1), 77 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414528540</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, X., Deacon, S.H., Kirby, J.R., Cain, K., & Parrila, R. (2011). Morphological awareness: A key to understanding poor reading comprehension in English. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (3), 523 – 534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023495</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., van Leeuwe, J., & Vermeer, A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading development across the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15 (1), 8 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.536125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright, T.S., & Cervetti, G.N. (2017). A systematic review of the research on vocabulary instruction that impacts text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52 (2), 203 – 226. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.163</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Anna S. Gellert; Elisabeth Arnbak; Signe Wischmann and Carsten Elbro</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>ANNA S. GELLERT (corresponding author) is an associate professor at the Centre for Reading Research at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark; email.</p> <p>ELISABETH ARNBAK was an associate professor in the Danish School of Education at the University of Aarhus, Copenhagen, Denmark, at the time of this study and is now an independent consultant; email.</p> <p>SIGNE WISCHMANN was a research assistant at the Centre for Reading Research at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, at the time of this study and is now a research fellow in the research unit of Decibel—Patient Organisation for Children and Adolescents with Hearing Loss, Copenhagen, Denmark; email.</p> <p>CARSTEN ELBRO is a professor at the Centre for Reading Research at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark; email.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref1"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1299885
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Morphological Intervention for Students with Limited Vocabulary Knowledge: Short- and Long-Term Transfer Effects
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gellert%2C+Anna+S%2E%22">Gellert, Anna S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Arnbak%2C+Elisabeth%22">Arnbak, Elisabeth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wischmann%2C+Signe%22">Wischmann, Signe</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elbro%2C+Carsten%22">Elbro, Carsten</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. Jul-Aug 2021 56(3):583-601.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Morphology+%28Languages%29%22">Morphology (Languages)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Transfer+of+Training%22">Transfer of Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Retention+%28Psychology%29%22">Retention (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22At+Risk+Students%22">At Risk Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.325
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Students with limited vocabulary knowledge are at high risk for reading comprehension difficulties. Previous studies have found that teaching morphology may support vocabulary growth. In the present study, the authors aimed to replicate and extend these findings by investigating both immediate and long-term transfer effects to untaught words and untaught pseudowords with well-known root morphemes. Fifth-grade students (N = 332) were randomly assigned to a morphological intervention, an alternative vocabulary intervention, or a control condition. The morphological intervention was found to produce large short-term effects with respect to the students' abilities to segment and explain both taught and untaught words containing taught morphemes, and medium effects on explanations of likely meanings of pseudowords with well-known root morphemes. Medium to large effects were still present 10 months later with taught words and transfer words. Training had a small effect on reading comprehension with trained words but no effect on standard measures of reading comprehension or vocabulary.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1299885
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1299885
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.325
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 583
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Morphology (Languages)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Transfer of Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Retention (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 5
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: At Risk Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Morphological Intervention for Students with Limited Vocabulary Knowledge: Short- and Long-Term Transfer Effects
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gellert, Anna S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Arnbak, Elisabeth
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wischmann, Signe
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elbro, Carsten
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0553
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1