Morphology—A Gateway to Advanced Language: Meta-Analysis of Morphological Knowledge in Language-Minority Children

Abstract

Knowledge about the smallest meaningful units of language, morphemes, is crucial for vocabulary and reading comprehension. This meta-analysis of 43 studies examined differences in morphological knowledge in the societal language between language-minority and language-majority children. There was a moderate to large mean group difference in morphological knowledge in favor of the language-majority children. Studies that examined inflectional knowledge (walk–walked, rose–roses) reported larger differences than studies that examined knowledge of derivations (coexist, serious) and compounds (bluebird, highlight). Studies that used oral tests and tests of expressive language reported larger differences than studies that used written tests and tests of receptive language. These findings show that morphology is an area of weakness in language-minority children. Paired with the evidence that morphological instruction improves general language ability and reading comprehension, the results suggest that morphology could be an essential component in language interventions for language-minority children.

Effectiveness of a Classroom‐Implemented, App‐Based Morphology Program for Language‐Minority Students: Examining Latent Language‐Literacy Profiles and Contextual Factors as Moderators

“…There were systematic differences in initial language and literacy skills in the societal language between students with LMA and LM backgrounds. Group differences in favor of LMA students were large for receptive and productive vocabulary and small for word reading fluency, reflecting the pattern found in previous meta-analyses (e.g., Bratlie et al, 2021;Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014). Moreover, there were moderate differences in spelling in favor of LMA students.…”

“…These studies need to consider group differences in intervention effectiveness in relation to the specific content of the intervention. For example, students with LM backgrounds may have greater needs for individually tailored programs when interventions target meaning‐based skills, which has been shown to be an area of weakness for many LM students (Bratlie et al 2021; Melby‐Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014; Silverman et al, 2020), than when interventions target code‐based skills.…”

“…Studies have shown that morphological knowledge makes a unique longitudinal contribution to LM children's oral and written vocabulary (Goodwin, 2011;Luo et al, 2018), and a strong relationship exists between rates of growth in these two skills (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012a). A recent meta-analysis (Bratlie et al, 2021) reported a moderate to large mean group difference in morphological knowledge between LM and LMA children. These findings suggest that examining the effects of morphological instruction for LM students is critical.…”

“…However, LM students as a group tend to receive less exposure to societal language, which in turn may place them at risk of linguistic and academic difficulties (Prevoo et al., 2016). Although LM students are likely to catch up with their monolingual peers in code‐related skills, such as decoding, LM children typically perform more poorly than their language‐majority (LMA) peers on tasks assessing meaning‐based (i.e., semantic and grammatical) language skills in the societal language (Bratlie et al, 2021; Melby‐Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014). This gap in meaning‐based language skills is often substantial, averaging 1 standard deviation in recent meta‐analyses (Bratlie et al, 2021; Melby‐Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014).…”

“…Although LM students are likely to catch up with their monolingual peers in code‐related skills, such as decoding, LM children typically perform more poorly than their language‐majority (LMA) peers on tasks assessing meaning‐based (i.e., semantic and grammatical) language skills in the societal language (Bratlie et al, 2021; Melby‐Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014). This gap in meaning‐based language skills is often substantial, averaging 1 standard deviation in recent meta‐analyses (Bratlie et al, 2021; Melby‐Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014). Meaning‐based language skills underpin literacy development, influence content learning, and, consequently, affect many aspects of academic success (Hulme et al, 2020).…”