Effectiveness of word solving: Integrating morphological problem-solving within comprehension instruction for middle school students

Abstract

This study explores the effectiveness of integrating morphological instruction within comprehension strategy instruction. Participants were 203 students (N = 117 fifth-grade; 86 sixth-grade) from four urban schools who were randomly assigned to the intervention (N = 110; morphological problem-solving within comprehension strategy instruction) or comparison condition (N = 90; comprehension strategy instruction). All students received four thirty-minute small-group guided reading sessions involving comprehension strategy instruction with students in the intervention also learning about morphological problem-solving. Results suggested the intervention versus comparison instruction was moderately more effective at supporting multiple choice and self-perceived vocabulary knowledge (g = 0.41, g = 0.47) and also morphological awareness via generation of morphologically related words (per word g = 0.51; total g = 0.69). No significant differences were noted for other literacy outcomes such as reading comprehension and word reading fluency. Interactions between intervention status and pretest scores for self-perceived vocabulary knowledge and generation of morphologically related words indicated that while the intervention was effective for all, it was particularly helpful for readers with lower pretest scores. An interaction between language background and total number of morphologically related words generated suggested that the intervention was particularly supportive of language minority youth. Implications are discussed.

Appendix: Details about intervention and comparison instruction

Instruction occurred in small groups (2–7 students) following a guided reading format that involved four 30 min instructional sessions. All instruction was scripted, although tutors were encouraged to adapt the instruction based on the needs of their students and time constraints as long as they completed the main components of the intervention. The main components were identified as (1) tutors teaching students about comprehension strategies, (2) students reading and coding use of strategies in the chosen texts using flags or sticky notes, (3) tutors coding main points (i.e., clues from the text) on the white board, (4) students and tutors either word solving (i.e., morphological problem-solving) in the intervention or defining words in the comparison condition, (5) tutors including closure to the lesson, and (6) students playing the suggested reinforcement game.

All students received comprehension instruction as part of both the intervention and comparison condition. This instruction involved research-based strategies (i.e., comprehension strategy instruction as suggested within Shanahan et al., 2010) and fit within the guidelines of the Common Core Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School, 2010). Standards that were addressed included having students cite evidence, determine the meanings of words within text, read and understand grade-level texts, and learn and use grade appropriate academic vocabulary. These standards were developed by teaching students to flag use of comprehension strategies (i.e., visualizing and making connections) while reading two content specific texts: an informational Science text To Space and Back (Ride & Okie, 1986) and a Social Studies narrative text, Rosa (Giovanni & Collier, 2006). Two sessions were spent on each text.

General components of good instruction were also prioritized such as opportunities for shared and independent reading, use of the guided-release model (i.e., tutors modeled strategies, then worked with students in using the strategies together, and then supported independent use of the strategies), a focus on motivation (i.e., we asked students to search for clues to solve cases and awarded points for clues shared), use of visuals (i.e., tutors and students coded clues from text on a whiteboard, which we called a clue chart), use of isolated word instruction & word instruction integrated within text, use of games to reinforce learning and build engagement, and a focus on transfer across subject areas. An example comparison and intervention script is available from the author. For more information, see Goodwin and Perkins (2015), which details the intervention for educators.

The intervention and comparison conditions differed because the intervention condition included morphological instruction. Specifically, students were taught to use ‘word solving’ (i.e., morphological problem-solving) as an additional reading comprehension strategy. For comparison students, challenging words were pre-taught or defined and discussed with examples and non-examples, while in the intervention condition, students word solved unfamiliar words within text by finding units of meaning they recognized within large, unfamiliar words. Those morphemes were marked (i.e., boxed or circled) and then each separate unit was defined. Next, students were encouraged to sum the meanings of the parts (i.e., put the meanings together) and then link to story context to confirm whether the new meaning made sense within the story. Tutors modeled this strategy. Then students enacted the strategy within the text, representing their word solving on sticky notes and on the white board. Sessions 1 and 2 focused on using smaller units to figure out the meaning of unfamiliar larger words, and session 3 added in the strategy of using knowledge of a larger word (i.e., astronaut = someone in space) to figure out the meaning of smaller units in other words (i.e., astro = space, so astronomy and astronomer must have something to do with space). Session 4 involved practicing both morphological problem-solving strategies, as well as the other comprehension strategies that were part of both the intervention and comparison instruction.

The other main difference between the intervention and comparison condition was the games that were used to reinforce learning. In the intervention, the games were morphological in nature. The first, Word Webbing presented students with a unit of meaning like move and asked them to write down as many morphologically related words as possible in a minute like movement, movers, remove, removable, or unmovable. The second, Find the Imposter, involved presenting students with a target word like effortlessly and then asking the student to circle all related words (i.e., words that share a root or affix like effortful, efforts, fearless) and to cross out any imposters (i.e., words that overlapped orthography, but did not share morphemes like effects or fort). The comparison students played a game Zoom where students answered questions related to the text read that allowed them to practice their comprehension strategies (i.e., students were given a quote from the text and then asked to list three things that they saw within that scene in order to practice visualizing). Students moved ahead the allotted number of spaces for each correct answer.