Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth‐grade students

Baumann, James F.; Edwards, Elizabeth Carr; Font, George; Tereshinski, Cathleen A.; Kameenui, Edward J.; Olejnik, Stephen

doi:10.1598/rrq.37.2.3

Cited by 164 publications

(169 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

156

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The metaanalysis described here synthesizes results from morphological interventions that have examined the effect of instruction both with participants identified with reading difficulties (e.g., Arnbak & Elbro, 2000;Tyler, Lewis, Haskill, & Tolbert, 2003) and spelling difficulties (e.g., Kirk & Gillon, 2009) and with undifferentiated participants (e.g., Baumann et al, 2002;Baumann et al, 2003;Bowers & Kirby, 2006, in press). We investigate results from instructional studies with age groups from preschool (e.g., Lyster, 1998Lyster, , 2002 to upper elementary (e.g., Robinson & Hesse, 1981) and across a variety of languages (English, Danish, Dutch, and Norwegian).…”

Section: Current Morphological Instruction Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the instruction in all of the studies in our sample targeted affixes, but 8 of the 21 studies targeted bases or stems. The nature of affixes is that they attach to bases and stems, so studies that chose to focus on instruction about affixes (e.g., Baumann et al, 2002;Baumann et al, 2003) also addressed bases during instruction, but our table reflects the fact that the main target of instruction for those studies was affixes. The information in Table 2 is provided for descriptive purposes.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effects of Morphological Instruction on Literacy Skills

Bowers

Kirby

Deacon

2010

Review of Educational Research

457

365

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors reviewed all peer-reviewed studies with participants from preschool to Grade 8 for this meta-analysis of morphological interventions. They identified 22 applicable studies. Instructional effects (Cohen’s d) were averaged by linguistic outcome categories (morphological sublexical, nonmorphological sublexical, lexical, and supralexical) and comparison group (experimental group vs. control or experimental group vs. alternative training). The authors investigated the effects of morphological instruction (a) on reading, spelling, vocabulary, and morphological skills, (b) for less able readers versus undifferentiated samples, (c) for younger versus older students, and (d) in combination with instruction of other literacy skills or in isolation. Results indicate that (a) morphological instruction benefits learners, (b) it brings particular benefits for less able readers, (c) it is no less effective for younger students, and (d) it is more effective when combined with other aspects of literacy instruction. Implications of these findings are discussed in light of current educational practice and theory.

show abstract

Section: Current Morphological Instruction Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Morphological Instruction on Literacy Skills

Bowers

Kirby

Deacon

2010

Review of Educational Research

457

365

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Estos programas generalmente presentan una combinación de aprendizaje incidental y de instrucción directa que incorpora a la enseñanza de palabras individuales, la enseñanza de estrategias de aprendizaje léxico para la inferencia del significado de las palabras desconocidas, y que proporciona múltiples oportunidades para el descubrimiento de nuevas palabras en textos reales (Baumann, Edwards, Font, Tereshinski, Kame'enui y Olejnik 2002;Beck, McKeown y Omanson 1987;Carlo et al 2004). …”

Section: Enseñanza Efectiva Del Vocabulariounclassified

“…Esto se logró mediante la participación de los alumnos en la exploración de los diferentes significados de las palabras y las asociaciones entre palabras, lo cual se llevó a cabo de forma repetida a lo largo del estudio. Baumann et al (2002) también mostraron que la instrucción mediante la ayuda del contexto resultaba eficaz para que los estudiantes de nivel, una mejora del conocimiento del vocabulario y de la comprensión de lectura en inglés en el transcurso de un período de intervención de 15 semanas, en comparación con un grupo de estudiantes de control que no habían sido adiestrados mediante dicho programa, con tamaños del efecto de ,34 y ,08 (eta cuadrada), respectivamente. Sin embargo, debido a que no se examinaron las habilidades de lectoescritura en español, no se puede determinar si la intervención tuvo algún impacto en las habilidades de lectoescritura en español de los estudiantes bilingües.…”

Section: Enseñanza Efectiva Del Vocabulariounclassified

Desarrollo de la lectoescritura en español en alumnos bilingües

Arteagoitia¹,

Perdomo²,

Fidelman³

2016

IO/OR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It remains an open question whether proper training in CVA can make it an effective addition to the reader's arsenal of techniques for improving reading comprehension (for positive evidence, see Fukkink & De Glopper 1998, Kuhn & Stahl 1998, Swanborn & De Glopper 1999, Baumann et al 2002.…”

Section: 224mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual vocabulary acquisition: from algorithm to curriculum

Rapaport

Kibby

IEMC '03 Proceedings. Managing Technologically Driven Organizations: The Human Side of Innovation and Change (IEEE Cat. No.03CH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deliberate contextual vocabulary acquisition (CVA) is a reader's ability to figure out a (not the) meaning for an unknown word from its "context", without external sources of help such as dictionaries or people. The appropriate context for such CVA is the "belief-revised integration" of the reader's prior knowledge with the reader's "internalization" of the text. We discuss unwarranted assumptions behind some classic objections to CVA, and present and defend a computational theory of CVA that we have adapted to a new classroom curriculum designed to help students use CVA to improve their reading comprehension. Running head: Contextual Vocabulary Acquisition Keywords:Artificial Intelligence, Education, Linguistics, Philosophy; Instruction, Language acquisition, Language understanding, Learning, Reasoning, Semantics; Knowledge representation, Logic, Symbolic computational modeling. 2 A Computational Theory of Contextual Vocabulary AcquisitionReaders often don't-or don't want to-look up unfamiliar words "in the dictionary". Sometimes, they don't realize that a word is unfamiliar, reading past it as if it weren't there: Even "skilled readers" skip "about one-third of the words" (Brysbaert et al. 2005), and words that are highly likely to be chosen in a cloze task are skipped more than others (Rayner & Well 1996); paradoxically, "children may misread or ignore unfamiliar words without jeopardizing comprehension" (Bowey & Muller 2005, citing Share 1999. Other times, readers realize that they don't understand a word but are too lazy (or embarrassed) to do anything about it: Perhaps-discouraged by previous, unsuccessful attempts to look words up-they hope that the word isn't important and won't be used again.Or they might be curious as to what the unfamiliar word might mean, i.e., what the author had in mind when using it. If no one is around to ask, or if the only people around don't know the word, then the reader can look it up in "the" dictionary. But what if no dictionary is handy? Or the only one doesn't contain the word? Or it does, but the definition seems inappropriate for the context, or is unhelpful? With the exception of learner's dictionaries designed primarily for ESL readers, dictionaries are often difficult to use and their definitions difficult to interpret (Miller 1985(Miller , 1986Miller & Gildea 1985;Rapaport & Kibby 2007).Alternatively, readers can "figure it out" from the "context". We call this "contextual vocabulary acquisition" (CVA). Just as giving a person a fish feeds them for a day, but teaching them to fish feeds them for a lifetime, so giving a reader a definition tells them one word's meaning, but teaching them CVA enables them to become better readers. We make four principal claims: (1) If "[t]exts ... are ... the soil in which word-meaning understandings are grown" (Wieland 2008), then the reader's prior knowledge is the water enabling that growth. (2) A procedure for successful CVA can be expressed in terms so precise that it can be programmed into a computer and (3) taught to h...

show abstract

Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth‐grade students

Cited by 164 publications

References 36 publications

The Effects of Morphological Instruction on Literacy Skills

The Effects of Morphological Instruction on Literacy Skills

Desarrollo de la lectoescritura en español en alumnos bilingües

Contextual vocabulary acquisition: from algorithm to curriculum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About