Edited by:
Reviewed by:
*Correspondence:
This article was submitted to Language Sciences, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
This study set out to examine the effects of a morpheme-based training on reading and spelling in fifth and sixth graders (
The role of morphological processing in lexical access has been repeatedly shown in studies of different languages and orthographies (e.g.,
And indeed, studies of skilled readers indicate that morphological decomposition is an integral part of word processing. Methods addressing this aspect usually apply different morphological manipulations on the presentation of printed material.
One more widely used method in the study of morphological processing in word recognition is the priming task, in which visually (e.g.,
However, findings are less consistent in studies of reading disabled participants (e.g.,
Studies on morphological instruction have indeed shown positive effects on literacy skills, and in speakers of different languages (
The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of a morpheme-based training on literacy performance, while adding to previous studies on morphological interventions in three respects: in the type of intervention provided, in the language and orthography examined, and in the characteristics of the population in focus. As far as the first respect is concerned, previously studied interventions focused on teaching participants explicit morphological rules and strategies. These provided, for example, instruction on morphological components and rules for combining them into words, instruction on linking morphemes to their grammatical functions, and introduction of word families and of strategies for identifying words by analogies (
An additional aspect referring to the type of intervention provided is that many of the previous studies applied several strategies of morphological instruction (
The second addition of the current study refers to the language and orthography tested. In the present study, the effect of the morpheme-based training was examined in the German language. A Hebrew version of the same morpheme-based training was recently tested in the framework of a pilot examination among Hebrew speakers with a reading disability (
Finally, the current study adds to previous intervention studies by focusing on a group of children struggling with literacy skills, who also have a migration background. The vast majority of studies on reading and writing addressed participants with a reading disability or readers with other developmental disabilities (e.g., language deficits), who usually speak the language of instruction as their first language. Until recently, reading disability was diagnosed when significant difficulties in accuracy and fluency in word recognition, decoding and/or spelling, were identified (DSM IV;
Notably, of the various aspects involved in having a migration background (e.g., socio-economic status, parents’ level of education) an exposure to a language at home, which is not the language of instruction in school, appears to be a critical factor. In most countries surveyed in the Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA] (
The following research question was examined: what are the effects of a morpheme-based training, designed to train fast morphological analysis in word processing, on different literacy skills in a group of children struggling with literacy acquisition, and to whom the language of instruction is not their mother tongue. The hypotheses were as follows: (1) considering the important role found for morphological analysis in word processing, a general positive effect of the morpheme-based training was expected on literacy performance. (2) At the same time, in line with previous studies on morphological interventions (
Children in the fifth and sixth grades (
In line with the definition applied at the PISA surveys (e.g.,
Participants were divided between two training groups: the one received the morpheme-based training (
Considering that, general ability has an influence on almost any cognitive task, and in order to verify similar general ability of the two groups, two tests were administered as approximations for non-verbal and verbal general abilities. The first was the “ZVT” (a number-connecting test.
Another background measure, which was administered in order to verify similar skills of the two groups, was the SLRT II decoding test (
A Word Disruption Task was administered, which was a variation of the task previously used by
The task was administered individually. In each session, participants were presented with three word lists printed on three separate pages, which they were asked to read out aloud. Each list was presented under one of the following three conditions: (1) A no-separation condition. Words were presented with two identical non-orthographic symbols attached to their beginning and end (i.e., the symbols did not disrupt the sequence of letters in the words, e.g., #getanzt#, meaning “danced”). (2) A morphological separation condition. The pre- and suffix were separated by the non-orthographic symbols from the word-stem (ge#kauf#t, meaning “bought”). (3) A non-morphological separation condition. The symbols separated the words into three orthographic units, which did not convey a meaning (get#räu#mt, meaning “dreamt”), thereby violating the sequence of the morphemes’ letters. In trying to isolate the morphological factor in this task, and in order to reduce possible effects of visual differences between the morphological separation condition and this condition, the two symbols were integrated into the words in a location, which was as close as possible to their location in the morphological separation condition. Notably, integrating the symbols according to a different linguistic principle (such as between phonemes or syllables) would have created a visual difference between the morphological condition and the non-morphological condition (as more than two symbols would have been integrated into at least some of the words). Therefore, the segmentation of the non-morphological condition was guided by the location of the symbols, which created a random segmentation as far as the linguistic structure of the words is concerned.
Reading performance in the first condition was taken as a base-line measure of word reading fluency, to which reading under the two other conditions was compared. Similar reading proficiency in the no-separation condition and the morphological-condition would suggest that morphological analysis is integrated into the reading routine. Reduced word reading fluency in the morphological condition compared to the no-separation condition would suggest that morphological analysis is not carried out as part of the reader’s word recognition routine. The non-morphological separation condition was taken as a control condition, in order to examine whether the violation of the sequence of letters of the morphemes in each word created a disruption in word reading rate.
Each of the three word-lists appeared in all of these conditions across three testing times (administered before and after training, see
An example of words presented in the Word Disruption Task in the three testing times.
No-separation | Morphological- separation | Non-morphological separation (disruption of the words’ morphemes) | |
---|---|---|---|
Time 1 | #getanzt# | ge#kauf#t | get#räu#mt |
Time 2 | #geträumt# | ge#tanz#t | gek#au#ft |
Time 3 | #gekauft# | ge#träum#t | get#an#zt |
Fluency in reading of words was measured in three tests, which examined different levels of possible generalization effects of the trainings. These included the reading of trained words, the reading of untrained words which share morphological structures with the words appearing in training, and the reading of words in a standardized word reading fluency test.
Three parallel lists of words were created by sampling 291 items from the total items appearing in training. Due to time constraints, not all items presented in training could be included in this task. Therefore, randomly selected items were included from each morphological form which appeared in training (regularly inflected forms,
The test was created by compiling three parallel word lists, comprising 97 words each (see examples in Table
The subtest of word reading efficiency from the SLRT II (
The standardized “Leseverständnistest für Erst- bis Sechstklässler” (ELFE 1–6;
As in the case of the word reading tests, three spelling tests were administered in each testing session, in order to examine the extent of possible effects of generalization. The tests included: spelling of trained words, spelling of untrained words which shared morphological structures with trained items, and a standardized spelling test. The tests were administered individually in a pencil and paper form.
Three parallel lists of words were created by sampling 126 items from the total items included in training (none of the items were shared with the items presented in the word reading tasks, see examples in Table
Three parallel word lists were compiled, including 42 items each (none of the items were shared with the items presented in the word reading tasks, see examples in Table
As there was no available standardized spelling test with norms for both fifth and sixth graders at the time of administration, different aged-matched standardized tests were used for participants in the two grade levels. The two tests were administered in groups in a pencil and paper form. The “Diagnostischer Rechtschreibtest für fünfte Klassen,” DRT 5 (diagnostic of spelling for fifth graders,
Two training programs were developed, in a form of a computerized visual lexical decision task, in which words and pseudoword were presented at the center of a computer screen, one after the other. The training was programed using the E-Prime software (
Examples of the two training programs: (1) morpheme-based training. (2) Control training. The two programs consisted of a lexical decision task, in which the presentation of an orthographic unit within a word was restricted in time- the word-stem in the morpheme-based training and a non-morphological unit in the control training. The rest of the letters in each word remained on screen until response. Each stimulus (word/pseudoword) was followed by a blank screen appearing for 1000 ms (inter-stimulus interval, ISI) and by a screen with a forward mask consisting of 6 asterisk marks appearing for 500 ms.
Morpheme-based training: The duration of presentation of the word-stem of each stimulus was restricted. The rest of the letters (pre- and suffixes) and small dashes replacing the letters of the word-stems, remained on screen until response (e.g., the word
Control training: As time-constraints in themselves were found to enhance reading performance (
The two training programs included the same items: verbal inflections and noun derivations of various frequencies (ranging from rare to highly frequent according to the dlexDB,
In order to take into account variation between participants in reading rate, the duration of presentation of the units manipulated in the two programs was set individually using a similar method to the one previously applied by
As a repeated lexical decision task was expected to have an exhaustive effect on participants, other very short tasks were added between blocks, with the purpose of keeping participants interested and involved in the training sessions. The tasks included one to two questions presented after each block, such as different trivia questions, inquiry on personal views on school and learning, and questions concerning the items presented in previous blocks (e.g., did you notice any kind of animal name in the previous block?). The same questions were presented in the two training programs.
Training was carried out in small groups, while each child worked individually on a computer. Experimenters supervised the training, and verified that the tasks were understood and followed by the children. The background tests and the pre-training reading and spelling tests were administered in one meeting, which ended with the first training session. Eleven additional sessions of training followed thereafter (administered within about 4 weeks). The individually administered post-training reading and spelling tests were presented right after the last training session. The post-training tests administered in groups (ELFE 1-6, DRT 5, and RST 6-7) were presented to the children 1–2 days after the last training session. These group tests were also administered in separate days. An additional series of post-tests were administered one month after training, in order to examine whether effects were maintained (
Description of the experimental procedure.
It should be noted, that as three testing sessions were planned, and within a rather short time frame, the use of the same test forms in all testing sessions, may have resulted in effects of retesting, including possible ceiling effects. In order to avoid this possibility, three parallel versions of tests were created for the tasks developed in the present study, and one of the criteria for choosing a standardized task was that it would have parallel forms. Although parallel forms may reduce effects of retesting, some influence of the different items presented in each testing time (and even when items are carefully matched) cannot be ruled out. In an attempt to reduce this possibility, the three versions of each test were presented in a counterbalanced manner across participants and testing points (for example, one participants was tested with version 1 at Time 1, with version 2 at Time 2 and with version 3 at Time 3. The next participant was tested with version 3 at Time 1, with version 1 at Time 2 and with version 2 at Time 3. Another participant was then tested with version 2 at Time 1, version 3 at Time 2, and with version 1 at Time 3).
It was first examined whether the two groups differed in any of the measures prior to the intervention. Performance in the background measures is presented in
Background information on the two groups of participants (mean age, non-verbal and verbal IQ, and decoding scores, standard deviations in parentheses).
Morpheme-based | Control | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
training | training | |||
Age in years | 11.24 (0.93) | 11.25 (0.94) | -0.030 | 0.976 |
ZVT IQ score | 98.67 (11.07) | 98.04 (14.14) | 0.169 | 0.867 |
Vocabulary standardized score | 8.67 (2.14) | 8.52 (2.64) | 0.207 | 0.837 |
Decoding (items decoded correctly in 1 minute) | 39.83 (11.00) | 41.70 (10.66) | -0.589 | 0.559 |
Comparison of performance in the reading and spelling tests at Time 1 testing between the two groups.
Word Disruption: no-separation condition | -3.67 | 0.715 |
Word Disruption: Morphological separation | -0.913 | 0.367 |
Word Disruption: Non-morphological separation | -0.644 | 0.523 |
Word Disruption: Difference between the no-separation condition and the morphological condition | 0.803 | 0.426 |
Word Disruption: Difference between the no-separation condition and the non-morphological condition | -0.073 | 0.942 |
Spelling of trained words | -1.180 | 0.245 |
Spelling of untrained words | -1.014 | 0.316 |
Spelling in a standardized test | -0.594 | 0.556 |
Reading of trained words | -1.248 | 0.219 |
Reading of untrained words | -1.005 | 0.320 |
Reading of words in a standardized test | -0.716 | 0.478 |
Reading fluency and comprehension | -1.175 | 0.246 |
Mean performance (words per minute, standard deviations in parentheses) of the two groups in the Word Disruption Task across the three testing times (T1, T2, T3).
Morpheme-based training |
Control training |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | |
No-separation | 33.46 (11.20) | 45.22 (16.68) | 41.88 (12.21) | 33.93 (15.20) | 42.65 (15.00) | 43.34 (15.03) |
Morphological separation | 27.99 (8.58) | 41.19 (11.50) | 43.69 (11.91) | 30.05 (10.44) | 37.01 (12.09) | 39.46 (10.67) |
Non-morphological separation | 19.35 (5.23) | 23.13 (7.38) | 26.81 (7.20) | 20.16 (8.05) | 26.25 (7.34) | 28.45 (8.34) |
Difference no- separation and morphological separation | 5.99 (9.67) | 2.68 (8.70) | -1.83 (8.71) | 2.95 (7.10) | 4.10 (7.09) | 3.17 (5.73) |
Difference no- separation and non-morphological separation | 13.75 (9.98) | 21.14 (16.62) | 15.49 (9.95) | 13.38 (8.76) | 15.21 (9.97) | 15.41 (9.35) |
Mean performance of the two groups (standard deviations in parentheses) in the spelling tests across the three testing times (T1, T2, T3).
Morpheme-based training |
Control training |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | |
Spelling of trained words (accuracy) | 16.06 (4.08) | 21.17 (4.82) | 20.52 (4.77) | 18.02 (5.61) | 20.59 (6.51) | 19.61 (6.04) |
Spelling of untrained words (accuracy) | 19.33 (3.99) | 22.17 (5.31) | 24.38 (4.45) | 21.09 (6.57) | 22.25 (6.85) | 22.77 (6.83) |
Spelling in a standardized test (PR scores) | 25.50 (22.79) | 38.65 (26.05) | 40.15 (26.21) | 30.89 (27.27) | 38.97 (21.50) | 35.42 (26.53) |
Mean performance of the two groups (standard deviations in parentheses) in the reading tests across the three testing times (T1, T2, T3).
Morpheme-based training |
Control training |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | |
Reading of trained words (words per minute) | 34.89 (14.57) | 42.75 (17.15) | 39.95 (16.85) | 36.78 (13.01) | 43.33 (16.01) | 43.86 (19.04) |
Reading of untrained words (words per minute) | 35.66 (15.14) | 42.60 (17.20) | 39.16 (16.38) | 36.46 (12.96) | 43.09 (16.24) | 43.11 (19.38) |
Reading of words in a standardized test (words per minute) | 64.88 (15.40) | 71.42 (16.48) | 70.08 (14.45) | 66.78 (17.42) | 71.83 (17.71) | 73.57 (19.41) |
Reading fluency and comprehension (Z scores) | -1.18 (0.42) | -0.48 (0.55) | -0.26 (0.55) | -0.98 (0.74) | -0.21 (0.81) | 0.08 (0.87) |
In order to examine whether the manipulation applied in the Word Disruption Task had its expected effect (disruption in word reading fluency) regardless of training, we compared performance in the three conditions of presentation (morphological, non-morphological, and no-separation) prior to the interventions. A repeated measure ANOVA was carried out with performance in the three conditions of presentation at Time 1 as a within-participant factor, and group (morpheme-based training and control training) as a between participant factor. A main effect for condition of presentation was obtained [
Next the main question of this study was addressed, i.e., what are the effects of the training programs on the different literacy skills tested. To this end, 3 × 2 repeated measure ANOVA analyses were carried out, with testing time as a within-participant factor (with three levels: Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3), and group as a between-participant factor (with two levels: morpheme-based training and control training). The results of these analyses appear in Table
First, it was examined whether the participants improved in terms of word reading fluency within each condition of presentation in the Word Disruption Task. The 3 × 2 repeated measure ANOVAs indicated main effects for testing time in all conditions [no-separation:
In order to examine whether the symbols in the morphological and the non-morphological conditions interfered with word reading fluency across the three testing times, two mean difference measures of word reading fluency were calculated: the one between the no-separation condition and the morphological condition, and the other between the no-separation condition and the non-morphological condition. These were separately calculated for each testing time. Repeated measure ANOVAs with testing time as a within-participant factor and group as a between-participant factor were carried out on these measure. A main effect was found for the difference between the no-separation condition and the non-morphological condition [
The 3 × 2 repeated measure ANOVA analysis indicated a main effect for testing time [
The 3 × 2 repeated measure ANOVA analysis indicated a main effect for testing time [
The 3 × 2 repeated measure ANOVA analysis indicated a main effect for testing time [
The 3 × 2 repeated measure ANOVA analysis indicated a main effect for testing time [
The 3 × 2 repeated measure ANOVA analysis indicated a main effect for testing time [
The 3 × 2 repeated measure ANOVA analysis indicated a main effect for testing time [
The 3 × 2 repeated measure ANOVA analysis indicated a main effect for testing time [
This study set out to examine the effects of a computerized morpheme-based training on reading and writing skills in fifth and sixth graders, who struggle with literacy skills and speak a language other than the language of instruction (German) at home. In line with the study’s predictions, the morpheme-based training contributed beyond the control training to a number of basic literacy skills (morphological analysis in word recognition and access to orthographic representations in spelling), but not to reading fluency and comprehension.
First the results of the Word Disruption Task are discussed –a task designed to examine whether morphological analysis is carried out as a process of word recognition. The comparison between the three conditions of this task at Time 1 (i.e., prior to training) confirmed that the non-orthographic symbols integrated in between the words’ letters created an interference in word reading fluency (compared to the no-separation condition). Furthermore, the results indicate that the interference was the largest when the sequence of the morphemes’ letters within words was violated (i.e., in the non-morphological condition). The present results converge with the results reported by
The analysis examining the effects of the training programs on performance in the Word Disruption Task indicated that both groups improved in word reading fluency across the three testing times in all conditions (no-separation, morphological separation, and non-morphological separation). However, an interaction between testing time and group was found only in the morphological condition, and the results suggest a larger improvement in word reading fluency in the group receiving the morpheme-based training. This may indicate that following training, this group benefited more than the control group from the separation between words’ morphemes. An interaction between testing time and group was also obtained in the measure representing the difference in word reading fluency between the no-separation condition and the morphological condition. Further analysis suggests that the disruption caused by the symbols separating the words into their morphemes was reduced (between T1 and T3) only in the group receiving the morpheme-based training. As there was practically no disruption in word reading fluency in this group by the third testing time, morphological analysis may have been integrated into the process of word recognition (at least in the case of reading the morphological structures included in this task). These findings are in line with previous studies examining the effects of different strategies of morphological instruction on morphological knowledge and awareness (
A main effect for testing time was also found in the measure representing the difference between the no-separation condition and the non-morphological condition, while the Bonferroni pair-wise comparisons indicated that the interference in word reading fluency tended to increase from T1 to T2. These results suggest that as word reading fluency improved in both groups, the non-morphological separation condition interfered with fluency in reading to a larger extent. Although there was no significant interaction between testing time and group in this difference measure, the means suggest that the interference increased mainly in the group receiving the morpheme-based training (from T1 to T2). As this group was trained to quickly locate the core morphological units of words, the violation of the sequence of letters within morphemes in the non-morphological condition may have interfered with the process of word recognition of this group in particular.
Next spelling is discussed. The ANOVA analysis of spelling of trained items showed an interaction between testing time and group. The means in
Two levels of effects of generalization were further tested: generalization to spelling of untrained word-stems (integrated into trained pre- and suffixes) and generalization to spelling in a standardized test. The analysis of the spelling test of untrained word-stems showed an interaction between testing time and group, while the analysis carried out separately on each group indicated a significant improvement only in the group receiving the morpheme-based training and that this effect was maintained in T3. Hence, a partial effect of generalization can be concluded. The examination whether the effects of the morpheme-based training extend to the spelling of untrained morphological structures resulted in a marginal significant interaction between testing time and group in the standardized spelling test. Although the subsequent ANOVA analyses, carried out separately on each group, indicated a main effect for testing time in both groups, the
The improvement in spelling following the morpheme-based training is in line with the results of the pilot study, which examined the same training technique in readers of Hebrew (
The ANOVA analyses of the measures of reading fluency and comprehension indicated a main effect for testing time, with no interaction between testing time and group. The means in
Yet the lack of effect of the morphological training on reading comprehension requires further consideration, in view of correlations reported between morphological skills and reading comprehension (e.g.,
Three possible factors, which were shared by the two groups (and cannot be disentangled in this study), may then explain the gains obtained in reading fluency and comprehension. These are re-testing, involvement in reading tasks and the imposing of time constraints on reading. Of these factors, the involvement of time constraints in the two trainings deserves further attention. This factor has been repeatedly shown to have a positive impact on fluency in reading and under certain conditions –on comprehension (
Practical implications of the current results are further considered. The analysis of the Word Disruption Task at Time 1 suggests that the skill of morphological analysis in reading was available to the children prior to training, at least to some extent. Nonetheless, the further training of the same skill produced positive effects on spelling. These results stand well in line with studies of other populations, which indicate that morphological skills are both available to participants who struggle with literacy skills, and should be further addressed as a means of promoting literacy acquisition.
This study has several limitations. First, the Word Disruption Task included only words sharing the same morphological structures (pre-and suffixes) as the words appearing in training. Therefore, this task does not allow concluding whether the improvement found in morphological decomposition following the morpheme-based training extends to untrained morphological structures. Second, the trainings were designed in the form of an experimental task, with the aim of isolating as much as possible the effect of the morphological manipulation. Consequently, the trainings did not include elements expected to enhance motivation, as this factor in itself may have an influence on performance. When considering the application of the training procedure offered here in field work, methods enhancing students’ involvement in the tasks should be considered (e.g., integrating the morphological manipulation as part of a game). Third, the current study examined a group of children struggling with literacy skills, who also have a migration background. The question whether the program tested here is also relevant to children with a developmental reading disability (and who do not have a migration background) remains open. Fourth, the study included several tasks, which were designed for this study, and these were examined in a rather small sample. A larger sample, in addition to the examination of these tasks in a group of typical readers (with or without a migration background) would have provided stronger results. Fifth, in the present study we referred to the aspect of the language spoken at home as an inclusion criterion, as this aspect of migration background was suggested to be related to poor literacy skills (
The results indicate that participants receiving the morpheme-based training improved the ability to analyze words into their constituting morphemes, and suggest that they integrated this process into their word recognition routine (at least in reading the morphological structures trained). The results also indicate an improvement in the ability to access word representations in spelling, and these effects extended to untrained material. At the same time, there was no benefit of the morpheme-based training over the control training in measures of reading fluency and comprehension.
IB-K planned and carried out the study, analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. MH supervised the study.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: