This quasi-experimental study compared the effects of morphemic and contextual analysis instruction (MC) with the effects of textbook vocabulary instruction (TV) that was integrated into social studies textbook lessons. The participants were 157 students in eight fifth-grade classrooms. The results indicated that (a) TV students were more successful at learning textbook vocabulary; (b) MC students were more successful at inferring the meanings of novel affixed words; (c) MC students were more successful at inferring the meanings of morphologically and contextually decipherable words on a delayed test but not on an immediate test; and (d) the groups did not differ on a comprehension measure or a social studies learning measure. The results were interpreted as support for teaching specific vocabulary and morphemic analysis, with some evidence for the efficacy of teaching contextual analysis.

S This study explored the effects of instruction in morphemic analysis (select prefixes) and contextual analysis (select context clue types). Four classes of fifth‐grade students were assigned to a morphemiconly, context‐only, or combined morphemic‐context experimental group or to an instructed control group. Following twelve 50‐minute lessons, students were tested on their ability to recall the meanings of words used to teach the morphemic and contextual analysis skills (lesson words), to infer the meanings of uninstructed words that contained taught morphemic elements or words that were embedded in text that included taught context clues (transfer words), and to comprehend text containing transfer words. The results indicated that (a) there was an immediate and delayed effect of morphemic and contextual analysis instruction for lesson words; (b) there was an immediate effect of morphemic and contextual analysis instruction for transfer words; (c) there was no evidence that instruction in morphemic or contextual analysis, either in isolation or combination, enhanced students' text comprehension; and, (d) students were generally just as effective at inferring word meanings when the morphemic and contextual analysis instruction was provided in combination as when the instruction was provided separately. Este estudio exploró los efectos de la enseñanza de análisis morfológico (seleccionar prefijos) yanálisis contextual (seleccionar pistas contextuales). Cuatro cursos de estudiantes de quinto grado fueron asignados a tres grupos experimentales: morfológico, contextual o morfológico‐contextualcombinado, o a un grupo de control. Luego de 12 clases de 20 minutos, se evaluó a los estudiantes en la capacidad para recordar los significados de las palabras usadas para enseñar habilidadesde análisis morfológico y contextual (palabras de la lección), para inferir los significados de palabras no enseñadas que contenían elementos morfológicos ya vistoso palabras contenidas en textos que incluían pistas contextuales enseñadas (palabras de transferencia) y por último, comprender textos que contenían palabras de transferencia. Los resultados indicaron que (a) hubo un efecto inmediato y diferido de la enseñanza de análisis morfológico y contextual para las palabras de la lección, (b) hubo un efectoinmediato de la enseñanza de análisis morfológico y contextual para las palabras de transferencia, (c) no se obtuvo evidencia de que la enseñanza de análisis morfológicoo contextual, ya sea en forma aislada o combinada, mejorara la comprensión de textos y (d) los estudiantes fueron igualmente eficaces para inferir los significados de las palabras cuando la enseñanzade análisis morfológico y contextual se impartió en forma aislada, que cuando se realizó en forma combinada. Diese Studie untersuchte die Unterrichtsauswirkungen in morphemischerAnalyse (Vorwort‐Auswahl) und kontextualer Analyse (Kontexthinweis‐Auswahl). Vier Klassen der fünften Stufe wurden entweder nur morphemischen, nur kontextualen, oder einer kombiniert morphemisc...

No abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of explicit instruction in think aloud as a means to promote elementary students' comprehension monitoring abilities. Sixty-six fourth-grade students were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups: (a) a Think-Aloud (TA) group, in which students were taught various comprehension monitoring strategies for reading stories (e.g., selfquestioning, prediction, retelling, rereading) through the medium of thinking aloud; (b) a Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DRTA) group, in which students were taught a predict-verify strategy for reading and responding to stories; or (c) a Directed Reading Activity (DRA) group, an instructed control, in which students engaged in a noninteractive, guided reading of stories. The primary quantitative analyses involved two planned orthogonal contrasts-effect of instruction (TA + DRTA vs. 2 x DRA) and intensity of instruction (TA vs. DRTA)-for three whole-sample dependent measures: (a) an error detection test, (b) a comprehension monitoring questionnaire, and (c) a modified cloze test. Results of effect of instruction contrasts revealed that TA and DRTA students were more skillful at comprehension monitoring than DRA students (TA + DRTA>DRA for all three measures). Results of intensity of instruction contrasts indicated that although TA-trained students had greater awareness of comprehension monitoring abilities (TA>DRTA for the questionnaire), DRTA students' performance equaled (TA = DRTA for the cloze test) or exceeded (TA

No abstract