We examined the relation of morphological awareness with language and literacy skills, namely phonological awareness, orthographic awareness, vocabulary, word reading, spelling, text reading fluency, and reading comprehension. We also examined potential moderators of the relations (grade level, orthographic depth of language, receptive vs. productive morphological awareness, inflectional vs. derivational vs. compound morphological awareness, and L1/L2 status). After systematic search, a total of 232 articles (965 unique samples, N = 49,936 participants, and 2,765 effect sizes in 17 languages) met inclusion criteria. Morphological awareness was, on average, moderately related to phonological awareness (r = .41), orthographic awareness (r = .39), vocabulary (r = .50), word reading (r = .49), spelling (r = .48), text reading fluency (r = .53), and reading comprehension (r = .54). Importantly, morphological awareness had a stronger relation with word reading in orthographically deep languages (.52) than in orthographically shallow languages (.38). The relation with vocabulary was stronger for upper elementary grades than for primary grades. The magnitude of the relation also varied by the nature of morphological awareness: productive morphological awareness had a stronger relation with phonological awareness and vocabulary than receptive morphological awareness; derivational morphological awareness had a stronger relation with vocabulary and word reading compared to inflectional morphological awareness; and compound morphological awareness had a weaker relation with phonological awareness but a stronger relation with vocabulary compared to inflectional morphological awareness. These results underscore the importance of morphological awareness in language and literacy skills, and reveal a nuanced and precise picture of their relations.

Online synchronous collaborative writing in the classroom benefits learning, but how can teachers provide support before, during, and after students write together?

No abstract

No abstract

We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate reading-writing relations. Beyond the overall relation, we systematically investigated moderation of the relation as a function of linguistic grain size (word reading and spelling versus reading comprehension and written composition), measurement of reading comprehension (e.g., multiple choice, open-ended, cloze), and written composition (e.g., writing quality, writing productivity, writing fluency, writing syntax), and developmental phase of reading and writing (grade levels as a proxy). A total of 395 studies (k = 2,265, N = 120,669) met inclusion criteria. Overall, reading and writing were strongly related (r = .72). However, the relation differed depending on the subskills of reading and writing such that word reading and spelling were strongly related (r =.82) whereas reading comprehension and written composition were moderately related (r =.44). In addition, the word reading-spelling relation was stronger for primary-grade students (r =.82) than for university students/adults (r =.69). The relation of reading comprehension with written composition differed depending on measurement of reading comprehension and written composition—reading comprehension measured by multiple choice and open-ended tasks had a stronger relation with writing quality than reading comprehension measured by oral retell tasks; and reading comprehension had moderate relations with writing quality, writing vocabulary, writing syntax, and writing conventions but had weak relations with writing productivity and writing fluency. Relations tended to be stronger when reliability was higher, and the relation between word reading and spelling was stronger for alphabetic languages (r = .83) than for Chinese (r = .71). These results add important nuances about the nature of relations between reading and writing.