Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 389–410 | Cite as

Children’s morphological awareness and reading ability

  • John R. KirbyEmail author
  • S. Hélène Deacon
  • Peter N. Bowers
  • Leah Izenberg
  • Lesly Wade-Woolley
  • Rauno Parrila
Article

Abstract

We investigated the effects of morphological awareness on five measures of reading in 103 children from Grades 1 to 3. Morphological awareness was assessed with a word analogy task that included a wide range of morphological transformations. Results indicated that the new measure had satisfactory reliability, and that morphological awareness was a significant predictor of word reading accuracy and speed, pseudoword reading accuracy, text reading speed, and reading comprehension, after controlling the effects of verbal and nonverbal ability and phonological awareness. Morphological awareness also explained variance in reading comprehension after further controlling word reading. We conclude that morphological awareness has important roles in word reading and reading comprehension, and we suggest that it should be included more frequently in assessments and instruction.

Keywords

Morphological awareness Reading Word analogy Phonological awareness Reading comprehension 

References

  1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58 (Serial No. 238).Google Scholar
  3. Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.Google Scholar
  4. 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, 144–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brittain, M. (1970). Inflectional performance and early reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 6, 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlisle, J. F. (1988). Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth, and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlisle, J. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 189–209). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24, 291–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlisle, J. F., & Nomanbhoy, D. M. (1993). Phonological and morphological awareness in first graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C. A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 428–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlisle, J. F., Stone, C. A., & Katz, L. A. (2001). The effect of phonological transparency on reading derived words. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 249–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, Z., Sanchez, R. P., & Campbell, T. (1997). From beyond to within their grasp: The rudiments of analogical problem solving in 10- and 13-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 33, 790–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, E. (1982). The young word maker: A case study of innovation in the child’s lexicon. In E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 390–425). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. (2004). Morphological awareness: Just “more phonological”? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deacon, S. H., Parrila, R., & Kirby, J. R. (2008). A review of the evidence on morphological processing in dyslexics and poor readers: A strength or weakness? In F. Manis, A. Fawcett, G. Reid, & L. Siegel (Eds.), Sage handbook of dyslexia (pp. 212–237). USA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Deacon, S. H., Wade-Woolley, L., & Kirby, J. R. (2009). Flexibility in young second-language learners: Examining the language specificity of orthographic processing. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, Minnesota: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  20. Elbro, C., & Arnbak, E. (1996). The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 209–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Empirisoft Corporation. (2002). DirectRT research software (v2002). New York: Empirisoft.Google Scholar
  22. Goswami, U. (1995). Transitive relational mappings in 3- and 4-year-olds: The analogy of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Child Development, 66, 877–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kemp, N. (2006). Children’s spelling of base, inflected, and derived words: Links with morphological awareness. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 737–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuo, L., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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, 134–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (Eds.). (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Bindman, M. (1997a). Children’s understanding of the connection between grammar and spelling. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 219–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Bindman, M. (1997b). Morphological spelling strategies: Developmental stages and processes. Developmental Psychology, 33, 637–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parrila, R. K., Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Nurmi, J.-E., & Kirby, J. R. (2005). Development of individual differences in reading: Results from longitudinal studies in English and Finnish. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rabin, J., & Deacon, H. (2008). The representation of morphologically complex words in the developing lexicon. Journal of Child Language, 35, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raven, J. C. (1965). Coloured progressive matrices test. London: Lewis.Google Scholar
  34. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Oxford, England: Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  35. Roman, A. A., Kirby, J. R., Parrila, R. K., Wade-Woolley, L., & Deacon, S. H. (2009). Toward a comprehensive view of the skills involved in word reading in Grades 4, 6, and 8. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 96–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roth, L., Lai, S., White, B., & Kirby, J. R. (2006). Orthographic and morphological processing as predictors of reading achievement. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  37. Shankweiler, D., Crain, S., Katz, L., Fowler, A. E., Liberman, A. E., Brady, S. A., et al. (1995). Cognitive profiles of reading-disabled children: Comparison of language skills in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Psychological Science, 6, 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relationship between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 219–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tabachnick, B. C., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  40. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. W., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency (TOWRE). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  41. Tyler, A., & Nagy, W. (1989). The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED Inc.Google Scholar
  43. Wiederholt, J. K., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). GORT 4—gray oral reading tests. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. Woodcock, R. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery tests–revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • John R. Kirby
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Hélène Deacon
    • 2
  • Peter N. Bowers
    • 1
  • Leah Izenberg
    • 1
  • Lesly Wade-Woolley
    • 1
  • Rauno Parrila
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Dalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  3. 3.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations