Learning Disability Quarterly . © 2011 Council for Learning Disabilities2011, Vol. 34, No. 1, 17-33

WINNER OF CLD'S 2008 AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING RESEARCHThe following article was selected by CLD's Research Committee as the winner of the 2008 Award for OutstandingResearch. Presented annually, this award is designed to promote and recognize doctoral or master's level researchconducted within the last five years. Winners receive a certificate and a cash award during the J. Lee WiederholtDistinguished Lecture at the International Conference on Learning Disabilities sponsored by the Council for LearningDisabilities.

THE EFFECTS OF STRATEGIC MORPHOEOGICALANALYSIS INSTRUCTION ON THE VOCABULARY

PERFORMANCE OF SECONDARY STUDENTSWITH AND WITHOUT DISABILITIES

Monica L. Harris, Jean B. Schumaker, and Donald D. Deshler

Abstract. This study tested the effects of teaching high schoolstudents with learning disabilities (LD) and other studentsenrolled in general education classes a morphemic analysis strat-egy for analyzing and predicting the meaning of words. A com-parison-group design was used with random assignment of threeintact classes to each of two conditions: (a) the Word Mappingcondition, where students learned the morphological analysisstrategy; and (b) the Vocabulary LINCing condition, where stu-dents learned a mnemonic strategy. Three other classes were usedto establish a norm for knowledge of targeted words. Students inboth strategy groups and students with and without disabilitieslearned their respective strategy and the meaning of taught words.Word Mapping students with and without disabilities earnedhigher scores on a test of morphological analysis than students inthe other groups. Thus, students were able to learn generative andnon-generative vocabulary strategies and could apply a generativestrategy to analyze and create meaning for unknown words, animportant skill while reading assignments and taking readingtests.

MONICA L. HARRIS, Ph.D., Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan.JEAN B. SCHUMAKER, Ph.D., University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.DONALD D. DESHLER, Ph.D., University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

17

18 HARRIS ET AL.

In fhe lasf couple of decades, notable progress hasbeen made in improving fhe reading performance ofyoung sfudenfs in fhe United Sfafes (e.g., McCardle &Chhabra, 2004), especially in fhe areas of phonemicawareness and decoding skills. However, fhe same kindof progress has nof been made wifh adolescenfs(Deshler & Hock, 2007). Currently, over eighf millionadolescents have nof mastered fhe reading skills neces-sary for responding fo demanding secondary schoolrequiremenfs or competing for meaningful jobs in fheworkplace (Kamil, 2003). According fo the NationalAssessmenf of Educafional Progress (2005) results, 26%of eighth-grade sfudenfs cannot read maferial essentialfor daily living, such as road signs, newspapers, and busschedules. Overall, 68% of secondary sfudenfs scorebelow the proficient level in reading. Many of fhese sfu-denfs are sfudenfs wifh disabilifies.

One reason for fhe low reading scores of so many sfu-denfs is fhat fhey have significant deficits in vocabularyknowledge (i.e., fhey score af leasf one sfandard devia-tion below fhe mean). Students wifh disabilifies earneven lower vocabulary scores fhan ofher strugglingreaders (Hock ef al., 2009). the importance of vocabu-lary knowledge f o overall academic success, especially infhe area of reading and oral comprehension, is well doc-umented (e.g.. Caffs & Kamhi, 1999; Nagy & Scoff,2000; Snow, Porche, Tabors, & Harris, 2007; Stahl,1999). Recent reading reports (e.g.. National ReadingPanel, 2000; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002) haveemphasized fhe central role of vocabulary in studentachievemenf as well as fhe paucity of research on pro-moting vocabulary acquisifion (e.g., Sfahl & Nagy,2006).

Fortunately, a body of literature is emerging on vari-ous insfrucfional approaches fo feaching vocabulary fosfudenfs wifh high-incidence disabilifies. For example,in fheir review, Bryant, Goodwin, Bryant, and Higgins(2003) organized studies on vocabulary insfrucfion infothe following categories: computer-assisted instruction,fluency-building vocabulary-practice activities, mne-monic sfrafegy insfrucfion, and concepf enhancementinsfrucfion. Similarly, Jitendra, Edwards, Sacks, andJacobson (2004) organized vocabulary instruction undersix headings: mnemonic strafegy insfrucfion, cognitivesfrafegies insfrucfion, direct insfruction, constant fime-delay insfrucfion, acfivify-based methods, and com-pufer-assisfed insfrucfion.

For fhe purposes of fhis article, and for the sake ofsimplicity, insfrucfional approaches for feaching vocab-ulary will be characterized as either "generative" or"non-generafive" (Fillmer, 1977; Harris, 2007; Nagy,2005). Non-generafive approaches are defined here asthose designed for feaching sfudenfs fhe meaning of atargeted word wifh fhe aid of a sfrafegy and/or a device.

While the specific strategy or device may be effective forlearning fhe meaning of fhe targeted vocabulary word(and fhe sfrafegy may be generalizable by. the student toofher specifically targeted words), through fhis instruc-tional fechnique, sfudenfs do nof learn fhe meaning ofseveral words as a result of learning fhe meaning of thatone word. For example, feaching a sfudenf a mnemonic(memory) device for remembering fhe meaning of a far-gefed word (e.g., dicíaíe - fo fell or say something foranother person fo wrife down) may enable fhe sfudenffo form associations between fhe new word and famil-iar people, objects, or events in fhe student's life relatedfo fhe meaning of fhaf word (e.g., "I fold Judy Täte, fheschool secretary, what fo wrife"). This associafion helpsfhe student fo remember fhe meaning of fhe word.However, feaching such a mnemonic device does noffeach a sfudenf fhe meaning of several new words.

In contrast, a generative approach fo vocabularylearning is denned as one fhaf nof only feaches sfudenfsfhe meaning of a given word, buf also allows them founlock fhe meaning of new words fhaf are related fo fheword. For example, feaching sfudenfs fhe meaning offhe word dictate ("along wifh fhe meaning of fhe roofword diet (i.e., "fo say or falk") mighf allow a sfudenf founlock or predicf fhe meaning of many words in fheword family fhaf contains the roof word diet (e.g., dicta-tion, dictator, dictaphone, prediction).

Even though non-generafive approaches have beenshown fo be effective (e.g., Bryant ef al., 2003; Jifendraef al., 2004), fhey may nof be fhe most practicalapproaches fo use with adolescenfs who have largevocabulary deficits. Vocabulary research indicafes fhatstudents can learn approximately 10 new words perweek using fhe non-generafive methods describedabove (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). Assuming 36 weeks ina school year and strict adherence fo a schedule of 10words per week, sfudenfs might learn approximately360 new words per year. This is a relatively small num-ber compared to the number of words they need tolearn to keep pace wifh peers. For example, Anglin,Miller, and Wakefield (1993) projected fhaf a normativegroup of sfudenfs learned abouf 20,000 words betweenthird and fiffh grade. Given fhe limited vocabulary ofmost struggling learners and the thousands of wordsfhaf fhey need fo learn fo close fhe gap between fheirperformance and fhaf of fheir normally achieving peers,sfrafegies fhaf feach sfudenfs only one word at a time(and only a few words per week) lack fhe power fo buildfheir vocabulary at a sufficiently fast rate (Nagy &Anderson, 1984; Nagy & Herman, 1987).

One generative approach fhaf could potentially beused fo provide fhe kind of vocabulary insfrucfion sfu-denfs wifh learning disabilities (LD) need in order folearn the meaning of f housands of words is called mor-

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTION 19

phemic analysis instruction (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2000;Ebbers & Dentón, 2008; Graves, 1986; Nagy & Scott,2000). Morphemic analysis involves deriving the mean-ing of a word by combining the meaning of the parts ofthe word (or morphemes) (Spencer, 2001). The wordparts with meaning include (a) prefixes, (b) suffixes, and(c) roots. According to Nation (1990), morphemicanalysis involves three skills: (a) breaking a new wordinto its morphological parts, (b) connecting a meaningto each of those parts, and (c) combining the meaningsof the parts to determine the word's definition.

Morphemic analysis is thought to be a useful vocabu-lary-learning tool because, as Nagy and Scott (2000) esti-mated, "about 60 percent of the new words a studentencounters in reading are analyzable into parts that givesubstantial help in figuring out their meanings" (p.275). Some authors (Nation, 1990; Sirles, 1997) havesuggested that learning the meaning of Greek and Latinroots is critical because estimates regarding the numberof words that are derived from Greek and Latin rootsrange from approximately 50% (Moore & Moore, 1997)to as much as 65% of what is termed our academicvocabulary (Sirles). Thus, teaching one word part, like aroot (e.g., port), has the potential to enable students tounlock the meaning of many words since word familiescomprised of as many as 20 to 30 words tend to beorganized around a given root (Baumann & Kame'enui;2004; Graves, 2006; Marzano, 2004; Nagy & Anderson,1984; Nation; Stahl & Nagy, 2006; White, Power, &White, 1989).

Some descriptive studies have shown that studentsgenerally develop morphological analysis skills as theyget older (e.g., Biemiller & Slonim, 2001; Reed, 2008;White, Power, & White, 1989). For example, Anglin etal. (1993) conducted a study with 96 students in gradesone, three, and five and asked each student a series ofquestions about the meaning of words. They found thatstudent knowledge of root words, inflected words,derived words, and literal compounds significantlyincreased across the age groups as the students gotolder.

Nagy, Diakidoy, and Anderson (1993) conducted asimilar study with 630 fourth, seventh, and tenthgraders on their knowledge of derivational suffixes.Nagy et al. reported a significant main effect for grade,with older students performing significantly better thanyounger students. More recently, Nagy, Berninger, andAbbott (2006) investigated the contribution of morpho-logical awareness along with other components of read-ing (e.g., phonological memory, decoding, readingvocabulary) to literacy outcomes of 607 students ingrades four through nine. They found that morpholog-ical awareness was a significant contributor to literacyoutcomes, specifically reading comprehension. Addi-

tionally, the researchers showed that student knowl-edge of morphology was greater in students enrolled ingrade four than in younger students and continued toimprove across the grades. Unfortunately, none of theabove studies disaggregated the results for students withdisabilities from other students' results, so there is noinformation on how knowledge of these types of wordsor word parts develops in students with disabilities.

A few intervention studies conducted with students ingrades three through eight have shown that studentscan be taught to identify some morphemic elements(e.g., prefixes and roots) (Otterman, 1955) and to derivethe meaning of words using morphemic elementsQenkins, Matlock, & Slocum, 1989; White, Power, &White, 1989; White, Sowell, & Yanagihara, 1989). Inonly one study, students were taught a set of steps tofollow for morphological analysis. Baumann, Edwards,Boland, Olejnik, and Kame'enui (2003) conducted thisstudy with 157 students in 8 fifth-grade social studiesclasses. Experimental-group students received instruc-tion related to a total of eight prefixes and suffixes,along with example words to which those word partsmay be added. Students were also taught four steps foranalyzing the meaning of a word using word-part clues:

(a) look for the root word and remember its meaning,(b) look for a prefix and remember its meaning, (c) lookfor a suffix and remember its meaning, and (d) combinethe meanings to build the meaning of the whole word.The control group was taught a different set of wordsderived from their textbook. They used a dictionary tofind word meanings and completed a variety of activi-ties (e.g., semantic mapping and comparing andcontrasting words). Measures included (a) a textbookvocabulary test, (b) a morphemic transfer-word andword-part test, and (c) a vocabulary and context testrequiring morphemic analysis of word-part meanings insentences.

Students in the experimental group earned statisti-cally higher scores than students in the control groupon the morphemic transfer-word and word-part test.There was no statistically significant difference betweenthe groups with regard to inferring the meaning ofwords presented in sentences. On a delayed administra-tion of the latter test, the experimental group earnedsignificantly higher scores than the control group, buttheir mean score was only 1.8 points higher than themean score of students in the control group. Since thetwo groups of students received instruction in two dif-ferent sets of words, it is not possible to project whetherthe morphological analysis or the word sets producedthe differences.

Most of the intervention studies conducted in thisarea have employed multiple-choice measures. Nostudies have (a) focused on morphological analysis

20 HARRIS ET AL.

Tahle 1Demographic Data on Students With Disabilities (SWD)

Category NVL''

N . % N %

Total Number ofParticipants (N = 24)

GenderMaleFemale

EthnicityCaucasianAfrican Am.HispanicMulti-ethnicAm. IndianAsian

Disability Category''LDEDMROHAU

Achievement Scores(SAT-10)

VocabularyReading Comp.Total Reading

Ability Scores(WISC-III)

VPFS

10

64

351010

611

• 2

0

MeanSS (SD)

657 (21)652 (40)653 (27)

#ofstudents

77 .7

42

60.040.0

30.050.010.00.0

10.00.0

60.010.010.022.0 •

0.0

MeanPercentile

25th36th30th

MeanSS (SD)

81 (18)91 (19)85 (19)

6

• 3

3

23100.0

4

0020

MeanSS (SD)

654 (44)624 (13)633 (20)

# o fStudents

666

25

50.050.0

33.3• 50.0

16.70.00.00.0

67.00.00.0

33.00.0

MeanPercentile

25tfi13th15th

MeanSSC5D;

87 (14)88 (19)90 (13)

8

71

332000

61

001

MeanSS (SD)

692 (46)658 (40)669 (39)

# o fStudents

444

33.0

87.512.5

37.537.525.0

0.00.00.0

74.013.00.00.0

13.0

MeanPercentile

51st39th42nd

MeanSS (SD)

112(17)• 100(18)

106 (18)

Note. "WM = Word Mapping Group; •'VL = Vocabulary LINCing Group; " TO = Test-Only Group.••LD = Learning Disability; ED = Emotional Disability; MR = Mental Retardation; OH = Other Health Impairment; AU •. Autism Spectrum Disorder.

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTION 21

instruction within general education classes withheterogeneous groups of students (including studentswith disabilities), (b) disaggregated the data for stu-dents with disabilities from other students' data, (c)assessed student prediction of word meanings using anopen-ended measure, and (d) compared the effectsof generative versus non-generative vocabulary inter-ventions.

The purpose of this investigation was to develop andtest the effects of an intervention for teaching highschool students with disabilities and other studentsenrolled in heterogeneous general education Englishclasses a morphemic analysis strategy for analyzing andpredicting the meaning of words. The effects of instruc-tion in this generative strategy were tested against theeffects of teaching students a non-generative vocabu-lary-learning strategy. Targeted open-ended measureswere student strategy use, knowledge of taught words,knowledge of word parts, as well as student ability topredict the meaning of untaught words.

MethodParticipants

Participants included 230 public-school studentswhose parents had given consent for them to partici-pate in the study and who were enrolled in nine ninth-grade English classes. Two subgroups of studentsparticipated: students with disabilities (SWDs) and stu-dents without disabilities (NSWDs). SWDs were stu-dents who had active IEPs; NSWDs were students whodid not have IEPs. Stanford Achievement .Test (SAT-10)data, including vocabulary scores and reading compre-hension scores, plus demographic information werecollected from school records for all participating stu-dents (see Tables 1 and 2). In addition, IQ data werecollected for the SWDs, where available (see Table 2).

The nine classes were taught by three teachers. Twoteachers agreed to allow the first author to come intotheir six classes to teach their students and to set asideclass time for their students to participate in the exper-imental interventions. These six intact classes were ran-domly assigned to one of two groups: the WordMapping (WM) group (the generative vocabulary inter-vention) and the Vocabulary LINCS Strategy (VL) group,(the non-generative vocabulary intervention). Thethird teacher did not want her students to miss anypart of the regular curriculum and, therefore, did notparticipate in the experimental intervention, but shedid agree to allow her three classes to participate in thestudy as a normative comparison group. Her decisionwas supported by the principal. Thus, her three classesserved as the Test-Only (TO) group.

There were 10 SWDs in the WM group, 6 in the VLgroup, and 8 in the TO group (see Table 1 for their dis-

ability categories, demographic data, and test data). Themajority of these students had LD, for a total of 69NSWDs in the WM group, 73 in the VL group, and 64in the TO group. To determine any differences betweenthe three groups with regard to the data in Tables 1 and2, chi-square tests and one-way ANOVAs were con-ducted. The Pearson's chi-square results showed thatthere were no significant differences between thegroups with respect to gender, x (2) = 3.39, p = .184, orethnicity, x (lO) = 4.33, p = .931. Similarly, the one-wayANOVAs revealed no significant differences among thegroups on the vocabulary achievement standard scoreson the SAT-10 (SWDs, i (2,21) = 2.584, p = .099; NSWDs,f(2,203) = 2.329, p = .100) and full-scale scores from theWISC-III (SWDs only, ^(2,14) = 1.950, p = .l79).

SettingThe participating school district is located in an urban

midwestern community with a population of approxi-mately 124,000. The participating high school serves1,687 students, 46.1% of whom receive free or reduced-price lunches. The study took place in the students'regularly assigned general education "inclusive" class-rooms for their ninth-grade English course. These weretypical classrooms furnished with rows of desks thataccommodated between 28 and 32 students in eachclass. To aid instruction, the instructor used an over--head projector and a screen at the front of the room inaddition to chalkboards.

The Vocabulary StrategiesThe Word Mapping Strategy. The Word Mapping

Strategy (WMS), the generative morphemic analysisstrategy taught to students in the WM group, is a set ofcognitive and behavioral steps students can use to pre-dict the meanings of unknown words. The mnemonicdevice MAPS helps students learn and remember thenames of the steps. The strategy involves (a) Step 1 -breaking words into their morphemic parts (i.e., prefix,suffix, root); (b) Step 2 - attaching meaning to eachword part; (c) Step 3 - making a prediction about themeaning of the unknown word based upon the mean-ing of each part; and (d) Step 4 - checking the diction-ary for the definition.

The Word Map (Figure 1) is a graphic device used toprompt students through the steps of the strategy.Specifically, for the first step, students write the newword to be analyzed in the top box. In the next level ofboxes, they write the word parts (i.e., prefix, root, suf-fix). In the third level of boxes is space for writing themeaning of each word part during the second strategystep. The final box provides a place to predict the mean-ing of the word during the third strategy step by blend-ing the meanings of all parts together. Students canadjust the meaning of the word in this final box after

22 HARRIS ET AL.

Table 2Demographic Data on Students Without Disabilities (NSWD)

WM"Category N

VL''

N % N

Total Number ofParticipants (¡V = 206)

GenderMaleFemale

EthnicityCaucasianAfrican Am.HispanicMulti-ethnicAm. IndianAsian

Achievement Scores(SAT-10)

VocabularyReading Comp.Total Reading

69

3732

292312221

MeanSS (SD)

694 (44)679 (36)683 (34)

33

53.646.4

42.033.317.42.92.91.4

MeanPercentile

53rd56th55th

73

3142

252319510

MeanSS (SD)

689 (43)672(37)677 (36)

35

42.557.5

34.231.526.0

6.81.40

MeanPercentile

47th49th48th

64

3430

192614212

MeanSS (SD)

679 (33)670 (34)673 (31)

32

53.146.9

29.740.621.9

3.11.63.1

MeanPercentile

42nd47th45th

Note. "WM = Word Mapping Group; " VL = Vocabulary LINCing Group; T O = Test-Only Group.

fhey check ifs meaning in fhe dictionary. This final partof the strafegy allows students fo check fheir predictionsagainst a source and gather feedback for themselvesabout the accuracy of their predictions.

Vocabulary Strategy. The Vocabulary (LINCS) Strat-egy (Ellis, 1992), the non-generative vocabulary strat-egy taught in fhis study, is a set of cognitive andbehavioral steps that students can use to help memo-rize and recall the meanings of vocabulary words. Thisprocess involves the use of a set of mnemonic strategiesthat include (a) a keyword strategy, (b) a visual imagerystrategy, (c) a story strategy to link known words andinformation to new vocabulary words and fheir defini-tions, and (d) a self-testing method used while practic-

ing recalling the meaning of the word. The mnemonicdevice LINCS helps students remember the steps.

In fhe first step of the strategy, students write theword and its definition. Second, students identify aReminding Word that sounds or looks like the newword. Third, students create a LINCing Story, a state-ment or phrase that includes both the Reminding Wordand the definition. Next, students draw a picture thatincludes fhe important parts of the story. Finally, theyself-test using a procedure that helps them recall boththe word and its meaning. During this self-test proce-dure, the students say the word to themselves, think ofthe Reminding Word, think of the LINCing Story, thinkof the picture, and then remember the definition.

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTION 23

Alternatively, they do the self-test process in reverse bysaying the definition to themselves and then thinkingof the picture, the story, the Reminding Word, and thenthe original word.

As students follow the LINCS Steps, they fill in agraphic device called the LINCS Table (Ellis, 2001) (seeFigure 2). In the top half of the far-left box is a space forstudents to write the vocabulary word to be learned.Directly below that is a place for students to write aReminding Word; that is, a word that sounds or lookslike all or part of the new word. To the right of theabove-mentioned boxes is a place for students to write abrief story. Directly to the right of this box is a place forthe student to draw a picture of the story. Finally, in thebox farthest to the right is a space for writing the defi-nition of the word. Students can fold the device for useduring the self-test process so that they can see only theword or the definition,. depending on which self-testprocess they are using.

Measurement Instruments^Fidelity of Treatment Checklists. A fidelity checklist

was used to assess the quality of teacher performance inimplementing the instruction for each of the two strate-gies described above. Each checklist consisted of 10items, representing all the instructional practices associ-ated with a given strategy. Each of the items specified ateacher behavior, such as cueing students to fill in thedevice or modeling each sequential step of the strategy.One point was given for each item correctly performed.An observer used the checklist during randomly chosenclass sessions. All observed sessions were also video-taped for reliability purposes. A percentage score wascalculated for each type of instruction by dividing thenumber of points earned across all the checklists forthat instruction by the number of points available andmultiplying by 100.

Strategy-Use Tests. A Strategy-Use Test was used tomeasure student knowledge and use of the two strate-gies before and after instruction to determine whetherstudents learned what they had been taught. Studentswho learned the WMS took the Word Mapping test; stu-dents who learned the Vocabulary Strategy took theVocabulary LINCS test. Each test was comprised of twoforms (A and B), containing different words matchedacross the forms by the number of syllables per word.^A counterbalanced approach was used to control for dif-ficulty of the forms. For the pretest for each test. FormA was administered to half of the students, whereasForm B was given to the other half of the students. Forthe posttest. Form B was administered to students whocompleted Form A during the pretest; Form A wasadministered to the other half of the students. Thewords that appeared on the two tests were not the same.

nor were the words that appeared on different forms ofeach test. (The tests were designed to measure studentuse of the strategy that they learned, not their knowl-edge of the meaning of words.) The words were chosenbecause their characteristics fit the strategies used. Forexample, all the words on the Word Mapping Test hadprefixes and roots. Some had suffixes. The words on theLINCS Test had word parts for which students would beable to think of Reminding Words. All the words werewords found in textbooks related to vocabulary learningthat had been specified as difficult words.

The Word Mapping Test measured student ability touse the WMS. It consisted of 10 questions. The first sixitems provided an unknown word and required stu-dents to fill in a Word Map to (a) identify the mor-phemes in the word, (b) specify the meaning of eachmorpheme, and (c) make a prediction of each word'smeaning. The last four items required students to writethe types of morphemes, rules for morphemes, the rulesfor identifying roots, and the steps of the WMS. Thenumber of points awarded for first six items varied(range = 5 to 7 points for each), depending upon thenumber of word parts in each word; a total of 10 pointswas available for the last four items. A total of 48 pointswas possible for the whole test.

Each Vocabulary LINCS Test also included 10 ques-tions. The first six items provided LINCS Tables, eachcontaining a word and its definition. Students had torecord a Reminding Word, create a brief LINCing Story,and draw a picture for each word. The last four itemsrequired students to provide rules for creating goodReminding Words, LINCing Stories, and pictures, and towrite the steps of the Vocabulary LINCing Strategy. Thefirst six items on this test were each worth 6 points (2pts. for each part of the LINCS Table). The last four itemswere awarded a total of 11 points, for a total of 47 pointsfor the entire test. An answer key was used to score eachof the Strategy-Use Tests. The Strategy-Use score was thepercentage of points earned on a given test.

Word Knowledge Test. The Word Knowledge Testmeasured student knowledge of the 20 target words thatwere taught to both the WM and VL groups.^ All 20words contained word parts that were targeted forinstruction. They each had at least one high-frequencyGreek or Latin root and a prefix and/or a suffix. Half ofthe words had a Greek or Latin root with both a prefixand a suffix. For instructional purposes, the words weredivided into two matched lists of 10 words each (WordList #1 and #2), based on the number of word parts theycontained.

Each of 20 items on the Word Knowledge Test con-tained one of the target words and three prompts thatrequired students to (a) write any information they con-nected with the word, (b) use it in a sentence, and/or (c)

24 HARRIS ET AL.

Figure 1. The Word Map used in conjunction with fhe Word Mapping Strategy Steps.

Word

precCiction

Prefix W W Root SuffixM Step

j)re-

A step

cCict -ion

Meaning W W Meaning W Meaning

6efore to sj)eak orsay

state,quaCity,or act of

Definition

P stepI

tHe act of sj>eaking Before;

to say in advance

S ee if you are right!

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTION 25

Figure 2. Example LINCS Table.

palisades)Reininding Word

pal

( J ) LINCing Stor>'

My pal, Joe,dove from thecliff into the

I Definition

A line of steepcliffs a long ariver or ocean.

define it (Stahl, 1999). The same test served as pretestand posttest. The posttest was administered a week afterinstruction had ended. One point was given if studentswrote correct definitional information about the wordin response to any of the three prompts according to ananswer key, for a total of 20 points. A percentage scorewas calculated.

Morphological Analysis Test. The MorphologicalAnalysis Test assessed students' ability to identify wordparts within untaught words, specify the meaning ofthe word parts, and predict the meaning of the words.This single test was administered twice to all students,once before and once after instruction. It consisted of 14items, each containing a word and an accompanyingtable with columns and rows on which students couldwrite their responses. The words'* were not taught at anytime during either intervention. The table was struc-turally different from the Word Map and the LINCSTable and was not used during either intervention. Itincluded three parts: spaces for identification of wordparts, spaces for recording the meaning of word parts,and a space for predicting the unknown word's mean-ing. A range of 2-7 points could be awarded for eachitem, depending on the number of word parts in theentire word. The 14 untaught words contained wordparts that were directly taught to the students in theWM group. These same word parts were included in thewords taught to both groups, but the word parts werenot directly taught to students in the VL group. A totalof 88 points was possible. An answer key was used toscore the tests. A percentage score was calculated.

Satisfaction Questionnaires. Two satisfaction ques-tionnaires were administered to determine if the WMand VL students were satisfied with the instruction

and the strategy they had learned. Each question-naire included seven items to be rated on a 7-pointLikert scale ranging from "Completely Satisfied" (7) to"Completely Dissatisfied" (1). Example questions forthe WM group asked students how satisfied they werewith their ability to identify words' parts and theirability to predict word meaning. Example questions forthe VL group asked students to indicate how satisfiedthey were with their ability to create Reminding Wordsand to use the strategy to learn the meaning of newwords. A mean rating was calculated for each group oneach item.

Interscorer Reliability. Interscorer reliability wasdetermined by having two trained independent scorersscore a randomly selected sample (20%) of each of thetests and each of the videotape records of the observedlessons. Both the primary scorer and the reliability scor-ers were blind to the purpose of the study, the assign-ment of the students to groups, and the time of testing(pretest vs. posttest). A side-by-side item analysis wasused to determine agreements for each instrument. Onthe Fidelity Checklists, scorers agreed on 111 out of 120opportunities to agree for 93% agreement (range = 80%to 100% on individual lessons). For the Strategy-UseTests taken by the WM group, including Forms A and B,scorers agreed on 2,120 out of 2,208 total opportunitiesto agree, for a 96 percentage of agreement (range = 88%to 100% for Form A; range = 94% to 100% for Form B).For the Strategy-Use Tests taken by the VL group, scor-ers agreed on 2,153 out of 2,208 total opportunities toagree for a percentage of agreement of 97.5 (range =94% to 100% for Form A; range = 96% to 100% for FormB). On the Word Knowledge Tests, scorers agreed on 846out of 920 opportunities to agree for 94% agreement

26 HARRIS ET AL.

(range = 86% to 100% on individual tests). On theMorphological Analysis Tests, scorers agreed on 3,809out of 4,140 opportunities to agree for 92% agreement(range = 84% to 100% on individual tests).

ProceduresPretest Procedures. For the WM and VL groups,

pretests were group administered during two class peri-ods (90 minutes each) in which all participants weregiven as much time as they needed to complete thetests. The tests were administered in the followingorder: (a) Word Knowledge Test, (b) MorphologicalAnalysis Test, and (c) Strategy-Use Test. For the Test-Only control group, only two tests were administeredduring a 90-minute class period: the Word KnowledgeTest and the Morphological Analysis Test. The Strategy-Use Test, which was designed to determine whether stu-dents learned the strategy they were taught, was notgiven to the TO group since these students did notreceive instruction in either strategy.

Common Instructional Procedures. The instructionfor the WM and VL groups was carried out by the firstauthor, a certified general and special education teacherwith 10 years of teaching experience at the secondarylevel. Instruction for each group took place over 10 les-sons; each lesson was 45 minutes long, for a total of 450minutes or 7.5 hours. The lessons for each groupoccurred in three phases: (a) Phase I - Orientation, (b)Phase II - Instruction of Vocabulary Word List #1, and(c) Phase III - Instruction of Vocabulary Word List #2.

Word Mapping Instruction. During Phase I instruc-tion for the Word Mapping Strategy (Orientation), theinstructor (the first author) conducted four lessons thatfocused on the following: prefixes, suffixes, roots, andthe Word Mapping Strategy Steps. Cue cards were usedto convey information about each topic visually. Inaddition, the instructor presented the informationorally, and students were asked to fill in the blanks onnote-taking sheets. Each of the lessons included activi-ties that involved identifying morphemes and practic-ing looking up morpheme meanings. The instructordescribed and modeled the process, enlisted studenthelp in the process, and provided opportunities forgroup and individual practice using worksheets createdspecifically for each lesson's focus (e.g., finding prefixesin words in Lesson #1, finding suffixes in words inLesson #2, finding root words in Lesson #3).^ The lastlesson of this phase focused on the specific steps of theWord Mapping Strategy. The instructor used the WordMap in this lesson to introduce the sequential processfor analyzing and predicting the meaning of unknownwords and modeled what to do for each step, using anexample word.

During Phase II instruction, which lasted for three les-

sons, the steps of the Word Mapping Strategy werereviewed, and students practiced using the strategy withthe target words on Vocabulary Word List #1. Duringguided practice, the instructor displayed a blank WordMap, wrote the first word at the top of the map, andprompted students to "Map out the parts" by enteringthe prefix, suffix, and root in the appropriate boxes ontheir own blank forms of the Word Map. Students werecalled upon to contribute the word parts. After the partsof the unknown word had been mapped by the class,students were prompted to "Attack the word part mean-ings" by looking up the meaning of each part using listsof the meanings of prefixes, suffixes, and roots. As eachmeaning was found and contributed by a student, theinstructor wrote it into the appropriate box on theWord Map for students to copy. Students were thenprompted to use the meanings of all the mapped wordparts to "Predict the word's meaning" by starting withthe root and adding the meanings of the prefix andthen the suffix. The students were prompted to figureout how the meanings might fit together and to make aprediction for the definition of the whole word.Students contributed predictions and decided whichwas best; they wrote their own prediction (or the onethey liked best) on their Word Map. Finally, after theyhad made a prediction, students were prompted to "Seeif you're right!" by checking with a friend or the teacher,or by looking the word up in the dictionary. After thefour strategy steps were completed, the process wasstarted over with the next target word on the list.

Phase III instruction was.carried out like the instruc-tion during the three Phase II lessons, but now studentsapplied the strategy to target words on VocabularyWord List #2 with a partner. Typically, three to fourwords could be "mapped" during each lesson, includ-ing student practice in completing each Word Map,students working together to identify the word partsand fill in the meanings of each word part, and collab-orating in pairs to make an educated guess or predic-tion, based upon the morphological meanings derived.The class then came back together as a whole group toshare the meanings of the word parts and students' pre-dictions of the meaning of each target word, to checkthe word's meaning, and to adjust their predictions, asneeded, to align with the word's actual definition.

Vocabulary Strategy Instruction. Instruction for theVocabulary Strategy took place in three phases. Again,the instruction was provided by the first author. Duringthe Phase I instruction (Orientation), which lasted forfour lessons, the instructor used cue cards to describethe steps of the strategy. She also modeled all the strat-egy steps, enlisting student help in the process, andprovided opportunities for individual and group prac-tice using LINCS Tables and a few example words.

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTION 27

During Phase II, which lasted for three lessons, thesteps of the Vocabulary Strategy were reviewed, andLINCS Tables were made for three to four words perlesson from Vocabulary List #1 through a whole-groupguided-practice activity. The instructor displayed theLINCS Table (see Figure 2) and wrote the new word andits definition in the appropriate boxes. Students filledin their own' LINCS Tables at their desks. Next, stu-dents, as a group, "Identified a Reminding Word" bythinking of a word that sounded and/or looked like thenew word and writing it in the proper space. Then, stu-dents "Noted a LINCing Story" by using the RemindingWord and the definition of the new word to create abrief sentence or two to help them remember the mean-ing of the new word. Next, they each "Created aLINCing Picture" by drawing a picture of the story theyhad just created. Finally, students quizzed themselvesover the words using the "self-test" process.

After completing the five steps, the process wasrepeated for the next target word. After LINCS Tableswere created for the words scheduled for a given day,students quizzed each other on the words learned thusfar using the self-test procedure in two directions: self-testing forward and self-testing backward. "Self-testingforward" consisted of the following steps: say the newword, think of the Reminding Word, think of theLINCing Story, think of an image, think of the mean-ing of the new word, and check if you are correct. "Self-testing backward" consisted of saying the definitionof the new word, then thinking of the image, theLINCing Story, the Reminding Word, and the newword, respectively.

Phase III procedures were carried out in the samemanner as during Phase II but using the words onVocabulary Word List #2 and with students workingwith partners. Tj^ically, three to four words could becovered during each lesson, including student practicein completing each LINCS Table. Students collaboratedin pairs to create Reminding Words, LINCing Stories,and images for each word. Then the class came backtogether as a whole, and student volunteers shared theircreations. Students readjusted their LINCS Tables, asneeded, based on the discussion.

Test-Only Group Procedures. The TO group receivedinstruction in the traditional ninth-grade English cur-riculum without any specific instruction in vocabularystrategies. The students' regularly assigned teacher pro-vided the instruction. The teacher emphasized vocabu-lary words pertinent to what she was teaching at thetime. No specific strategy or instruction was given tohelp students learn the definitions of the words.

Posttest Procedures. Posttesting occurred in the samemanner as pretesting. Students did not have access toany word-part lists during the tests.

Research Design and Data AnalysisA pretest-posttest comparison-group design with ran-

dom assignment of three intact classes to each of twoconditions (Word Mapping Strategy or VocabularyStrategy) was employed to determine the effects ofinstruction on students' strategy use and vocabularyknowledge. A third group of three classrooms was des-ignated as a "test-only" group in order to establish anorm for knowledge of targeted words and growth overthe course of the study.

For the Strategy-Use Test, where students in the WMand VL groups took different tests, a separate repeated-measures ANO VA with one between-subjects factor(subgroup: SWDs and NSWDs) was conducted for eachstrategy group (WM and VL) to examine changes frompretest to posttest. If a two-way interaction (Subgroup xTime) was revealed at the .05 level, a separate pairedsample i-test was performed within each subgroupto determine whether gains made by the subgroupwere significant. For the other measures (the WordKnowledge Test and the Morphological Analysis Test),where students in the WM, VL, and TO groups took thesame test, a series of repeated-measures ANOVAs withtwo between-subjects factors (group [WM, VL, and TO]and subgroup [SWDs and non-SWDs]) was conducted toexamine changes from pretest to posttest.

If the three-way (Time x Subgroup x Group) interac-tion was revealed for a given test at the .05 level, a seriesof follow-up tests was conducted. First, the file was spliton "subgroup," and two repeated-measures analyseswere conducted (i.e., one for SWDs and one forNSWDs). If the Time x Group interaction was signifi-cant at the .025 level, a paired-sample i-test was con-ducted for each subgroup. The level of significance wasset at the .006 level. If the three-way interaction wasnot significant at the .05 level, 2, two-way interactions(Time X Subgroup, and Time x Group) were examined.If a two-way interaction was found to be significant atthe .25 level, further follow-up tests were conducted bysplitting the file on subgroup and utilizing paired-sam-ple t-tests. The alpha level for subgroup was set at .006.

To examine differences between the posttest scores ofthe WM, VL, and TO groups on the Word Knowledgeand Morphological Analysis Tests, a two-way ANCOVAwith two between-subjects factors (Group x Subgroup)was conducted for each measure, with the pretest scoresserving as the covariate. If a two-way interaction wasrevealed at the .05 level, the file was split on subgroup,and 2 one-way ANCOVAs were conducted: one for theSWDs and one for the NSWDs. If the main effect ofgroup was significant at the .025 level, further follow-upanalyses were conducted using a Bonferroni adjustmentfor all comparisons at the .006 level.

28 HARRIS ET AL.

ResultsFidelity of Treatment Results

Each class within each treatment group was observedthree times. A total of 2,700 minutes (45 hours total or7.5 hours per class) of instructional time was recorded.Results indicated that the instructor implemented anaverage of 96% of the required instructional behaviorsacross the WM lessons vs. an average of 98% across theVL lessons.

Group Equivalencies and Pretest ResultsPretest scores were compared across the three groups

on the tests using ANOVAs. No statistically significantdifference was found for any test: (a) Strategy-Use Test,f(l,157) = 2.55, p = .112; (b) Word Knowledge Test,^•(2,229) = .003, p = .997; and (c) Morphological AnalysisTest, P(2, 229). = 1.37,/7 = .256.

Strategy-Use Test ResultsTable 3 displays the means and standard deviations

for the pretest and posttest results for the two Strategy-Use Tests administered separately to the WM and theVL.group. With regard to the two-way interaction forthe WM group, the Time (pretest and posttest) xSubgroup (SWD and NSWD) interaction was not signif-icant, Wilks' A = .997, ^(1,77) = .20, p = .660, partial r|2= .003. However, the main effect of time (posttest vs.pretest) was found to be statistically significant, Wilks'A = .075, (1,77) = 947.03, p < .001, partial ri = .925 (alarge effect size).

With regard to the two-way interaction for the VLgroup, the Time x Subgroup interaction was not signifi-cant, Wilks' A = .995, (1,77) = .425, p = .516, partial ri= .005. The main effect of time (posttest vs. pretest) wasstatistically significant, Wilks' A = .262, F(l,77) =217.184, p < .001, partial ri = .738 (a large effect size).

Word Knowledge Test ResultsThe Word Knowledge Test Results are presented in

Table 4. With regard to changes from pretest to posttest,the three-way interaction of Time x Subgroup x Groupwas found to be significant, Wilks' A = .964, f(2,224) =4.138, p = .017, partial ri = .036 (a small effect size).When the file was split on subgroup, the Time x Groupinteraction was significant for the SWDs, 7 (2,21) =12.90, p < .001, partial TI = .563 (a large effect size), andfor the NSWDs, F(2,203) = 367.388, p < .001, partial i\^= .780 (also a large effect size).

The paired-sample i-tests revealed a significant differ-ence between the pretest and posttest scores for theSWDs in the WM group, i(9) = -6.280, p < .001, d =4.264, and for the NSWDs in the WM group, i(68)= -29.626, p < .001, d = 8.259 (both are large effectsizes). Additionally, significant differences were foundbetween the pretest and posttest scores for the SWDs in

the VL group, i(5) = -5.391, p = .003, d = 4.226, and forthe NSWDs in the VL group, i(72) = -26.879, p < .001,d = 6.299 (both are large effect sizes). No differenceswere found for the TO subgroups.

With regard to group differences on the posttestscores on the Word Knowledge Test, the two-way inter-action (Group X Subgroup) was significant, f(2,224) =4.551, p = .012, parfial if = .039 (a small effect size).When the file was split on subgroup, the main effect ofgroup was statistically significant for both the SWD sub-group, F{2,21) = 12.9, p < .001, partial ri = .563 (a largeeffect size), and the NSWD subgroup, ^(2,203) =367.388, p < .001,.partial r|2 = .784 (a large effect size).Pair-wise comparisons revealed that there was not a sig-nificant difference between the posttest scores of theSWDs in the WM group and the SWDs in the VL group,•(1,21) = .773, p = .390, partial ri = .037; however, there

was a significant difference between the posttest scoresof SWDs in the WM group and the posttest scores of theSWDS in the TO group, ^(1,21) = 24.056, p < .001, par-tial r|2 = .546 (a large effect size). Additionally, there wasa significant difference between the posttest scores ofthe SWDs in the VL group and the posttest scores of theSWDs in the TO group, ^(1,20) = 12.589, p <.O1, partialTl = .386 (a moderate effect size). Further, there was nosignificant difference between the posttest scores of theNSWDs in the WM group and the scores of the NSWDsin the VL group, ^(1,202) = .902, p = .343, partial if =.004, but a significant difference was found between thescores of the NSWDs in the WM group and the scores ofthe NSWDS in the TO group, f(l,202) = 574.539, p <.001, .partial xf- - .740 (a large effect size). Finally, therewas a significant difference between the posttest scoresof the NSWDs in the VL group and the posttest scores ofthe NSWDs in the TO group, ^(1,202) = 543.479, p<.OO1, partial if = .730 (a large effect size).

Morphological Analysis Test ResultsThe means and standard deviations for the

Morphological Analysis pretest and posttest scores arepresented in Table 4. With regard to changes betweenpretest and posttest scores, the three-way interaction ofTime (pretest to posttest) x Subgroup (SWD and NSWD)X Group (WM, VL, and TO) was significant, Wilks' A =.943, f(2,224) = 6.780, p < .01, partial TI = .057 (amedium effect size). When the file was split by sub-group, the Time x Group interaction was significant forthe SWD subgroup, Wilks' A = .613, F(2,21) = 6.630, p< .01, partial rf = .387 (a large effect size), and for theNSWD subgroup, Wilks' A = .287, (2,203) = 251.790, p< .001, partial ri = .713 (a large effect size). Paired-sam-ple i-tests revealed a significant difference between thepretest and posttest scores for the SWDs in the WMgroup, t(9) = -3.45, p < .01, d = 6.942 (a large effect size).

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTION 29

and for the NSWDs in the WM group, i(68) = -21.256,p < .001, d = 4.646. The posttest scores were signifi-cantly higher than the pretest scores in each case. Nosignificant differences were found for the subgroupswithin the VL and TO groups.

With regard to the differences between the posttestscores of the groups on the Morphological Analysis Testwhen the pretest scores served as the covariate, thetwo-way interaction of strategy group and disabilitysubgroup was significant, F{2,223) = 6.61, p = .002, par-tial ri = .06 (a medium effect size). When the file wassplit on subgroup, the main effect of strategy group forthe SWDs was significant, f(2,203) = 250.51, p < .001,partial ri^= .713 (a large effect size). Pair-wise compar-isons revealed a significant difference between theposttest scores of the SWDs in the WM group and theSWDs in the VL group, ^(1,20) = 8.599, p < .01, partial\f = .301 (a large effect size), and the SWDs in the TOgroup, ^(1,20) = 11.801, p < .01, partial ri = .371 (alarge effect size). Mean posttest scores for the WM SWDgroup were significantly higher than the mean posttestscores for the VL and TO SWD subgroups. A significantdifference was found between the NSWDs in the WMgroup versus NSWDs in the VL group, ^(1,202) =

344.281, p < .001, partial ri = .630, and versus NSWDsin the TO group, i'(l,202) = 404.275, p < .001, partial ri= .667. Again, the WM NSWDs' mean scores were sig-nificantly higher than the mean scores for the VL andthe TO NSWD groups, and the effect sizes were large.

Satisfaction Survey ResultsThe mean level of satisfaction ranged from 5.04 to

6.03 for the WM group and from 5.04 to 5.62 for theVL group on individual items. The mean overall ratingswere as follows: WM group, 5.53 (SD = 1.02), and VLgroup, 5.21 {SD = .80).

DiscussionThe results showed that both groups made significant

and comparable gains on the Strategy-Use Tests, withSWDs and NSWDs scoring above a mastery level (meanpercentage scores = 87%). Thus, the interventions wereeffective in teaching the strategies to both SWDs andNSWDs. Additionally, scores on the Word KnowledgeTest demonstrate that both interventions resulted inboth SWDs and NSWDs learning word knowledge atcomparable levels (i.e., mean percentage scores = 70%[or a "C" grade in today's schools]). Hence, both strat-egy interventions resulted in students learning the

Table 3Mean Raw Scores and Standard Deviations for the Strategy-Use TestNSWDs in the Word Mapping and Vocabulary LINCing Groups

Group and Test

Word Mapping Group& Word Mapping Test

TotalSWD (JV = 10)NSWD (JV = 69)

Vocabulary Strategy Group& Vocabulary LINCS Test

TotalSWD (N = 6)NSWD (N = 73)

PretestMeans - SD

1.41 3.14.70 1.571.51 3.30

2.24 3.42.00 .00

2.42 3.50

Note. The total number of points available on the WM Strategy-Use Test was 48; on the VL Strategy-Use Test

Taken by

Means

42.0140.3042.26

41.1435.8341.58

it was 47.

SWDs and

PosttestSD

7.387.99

• 7 . 3 1

12.2113.5312.01

30 HARRIS ET AL.

Tahle 4

Mean Raw Scores and Standard Deviations for the Word Knowledge Test and MorphologicalAnalysis Test for SWDs and NSWDs

Group and TestPretest

Means SDPosttest

Means SD

WORD KNOWLEDGE TEST

Word Mapping GroupTotal

SWD (N= 10)

NSWD (N = 69)

Vocabulary LINCS Group

TotalSWD(JV=6)NSWD (N = 73)

Test-Only GroupTotalSWD (N = 6)NSWD (N = 73)

1.08.20

1.20

1.09.67

1.12

1.07.88

1.09

1.70.42

1.78

1.371.631.41

1.452.101.37

14.4610.5015.03

14.018.83

14.44

.82

.88

.81

4.145.193.67

4.824.584.61

1.091.731.01

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS TEST

Word Mapping GroupTotalSWD (N = 10)

NSWD (N = 69)

Vocabulary LINCS GroupTotal

SWD (N = 6)

NSWD (N = 73)

Test-Only GroupTotalSWD (N = 6)NSWD (N = 73)

15.5216.9015.82

17.3916.1717.49

15.4416.8816.39

5.864.95

- 5.99

6.095.236.18

6.283.946.53

50.7636.1052.88

21.47 .18.6721.70

17.2617.5017.23

16.3716.3815.35

• 7.22

4.897.36

9.123.429.62

Note. The total number of points available on the Word Knowledge Test was 20. The total number of points available on the MorphologicalAnalysis Test was 88.

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTION 31

meaning of isolated words at a socially significant level.The results of the Morphological Analysis Test indicatethat both SWDs and NSWDs in the Word Mapping(WM) group made significant gains and scored signifi-cantly higher on the posttest than subgroups in theVocabulary LINCing (VL) and Test-Only (TO) groups.These results suggest that the WM intervention, a gen-erative vocabulary intervention, enabled students toidentify more word parts within words, identify themeanings of more word parts, and predict the meaningof more words than the VL and TO groups. On theMorphological Analysis posttest, they earned a meanraw score of 50, vs. 21 by their VL and 17 by their TOpeers. This means fhe WM group earned about 60% ofthe points available for analyzing unknown words onthe posttest vs. 18% on the pretest. Across all the tests,no significant differences were found between thegains made by the SWDs and NSWDs in the WordMapping group.

Overall, these results of the tests of student perform-ance are similar to the findings of previous studiesthat have compared the gains of students with disabil-ities with those of their nondisabled peers. Specifically,both groups can learn the strategies and content theyare explicitly taught; however, students with disabili-ties tend to score lower than students without disabili-ties.

Thus, although both interventions are equally pow-erful in teaching vocabulary strategies and word knowl-edge of isolated words, they are not comparable inteaching the meaning of word parts and how to predictthe meaning of unknown words. This is important,because students must learn large numbers of wordseach year to keep pace in academic core classes. In addi-tion, if students are able to earn a score of 50% on aword analysis test, their scores on college entrance testsand state tests may be enhanced, and their overall read-ing corriprehension may be improved.

This study represents an initial effort to investigatethe effects of teaching a strategy that students can usefor morphemic analysis and to show ifs effecfs on theperformance of SWDs and NSWDs. The study adds tothe literature by comparing the effecfs of instruction ina generative vocabulary strategy to instruction in anon-generic vocabulary strategy in an effort to identifythe contributions of each type of instruction and how

. the outcomes of the two approaches might differ.Finally, the study is the first to measure student vocab-ulary knowledge and analysis using open-ended ques-tions (previous studies have used multiple-choiceformats). This contribution is important by showingthat students learned vocabulary well enough so thatthey could write the definitions of words or write pre-dictions about the meaning of words instead of merely

recognizing them or making good guesses among a listof options.

A limitation of this study is the small number ofSWDs in each group. The investigation was restrictedby the number of students in the participating classes;not all students who were receiving special educafionservices were enrolled in the targeted English/languagearts classes in the participating school. One of the pur-poses of the study was to focus on those students withdisabilities who were receiving instruction in inclusiveclassrooms so that the effects of the intervention couldbe determined under the conditions present in thattype of setting.

The study was also restricted by the time available forinstruction and the. curriculum being taught in the ELAcourse. In addition, the block schedule imposed condi-tions that may have affected student retention of wordknowledge and strategies in a negative way. For exam-ple, students were supposed to attend two to three 90-minute classes per week; however, interruptions oftenoccurred (e.g., assemblies, snow days), resulting ininstruction being offered only once or twice a week. Afurther limitation is that students in the WM groupwere not required to learn the meaning of the affixesand roots; they had lists of these meanings during theinstruction. How well they might have performed, onthe Morphological Analysis Test if they had beenrequired to master these meanings is unclear.

Another limitation is fhat the Test-Only classes werenot randomly assigned along with the other classes tothe groups due to decisions made in the participatingschool. Nevertheless, the students were in the samegrade as the other students and attended the sameschool, so they provided a normative comparison.Their pretest scores were not differenf from fhe scoresof the students in the WM and VL groups; thus, theymight be considered a reasonable comparison group.

A further limitation is that no standardized assess-ment was used to measure vocabulary knowledge andreading comprehension. Because the intervention timewas short and the number of words and word partstaught was limited, obtaining gains on such globalmeasures was not thought to be possible. In futurestudies, use of standardized measures will be critical forunderstanding long-term intervention effects and theirpower to impact performance on measures valued bypolicy makers in making adoption decisions.

Finally, a researcher, an experienced teacher, taughtthe intervention classes. Thus, it was not possible todetermine whether the intervention can be imple-mented with fidelity by other teachers and how muchprofessional development is required to ensure qualityimplementation by others.

32 HARRIS ET AL.

Implications for Research and PracticeFuture research studies should not only include larger

numbers of SWDs in randomly assigned groups butshould also systematically vary key student attributessuch as ability, achievement, gender, English LanguageLearner (ELL) status, age, and disability. Additionally,intervention effects should be determined wheninstruction is spaced out over an extended time periodin which instruction is less concentrated and is morereflective of instructional conditions found in mostschools. For example, the interventions could be imple-mented daily over a full semester, more words (andword parts) could be taught, the students could applythe strategies ini other classes and over an extendedperiod of time, and standardized vocabulary and read-ing comprehension tests could be given at the begin-ning and end of the school year to determine effects oncommonly used group-administered assessments.Moreover, the effects of the intervention when taughtby classroom teachers need to be explored as well as theeffects of the intervention when classroom conditionsare varied such as class size and frequencies of instruc-tion (daily versus every other day vs. weekly).

To put the results of this study into. practice effec-tively, several issues need to be addressed: (a) findingways to teach the knowledge of word parts, (b) deter-mining the best conditions under which to undertake acomprehensive vocabulary-building program, (c) con-structing a manual to guide professional developmentof teachers, and (d) designing coaching procedures tosupport the implementation of WMS instruction. Onlywith these elements in place can the procedures pre-sented here be scaled up to produce the impact neededto improve the vocabulary learning of all students on anational basis.

ReferencesAnglin, J. M., Miller, G. A., & Wakefield, P. C. (1993). Vocabulary

development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of theSoc-lety for Research In Child Development, 58 (Serial No. 238),1-186.

Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C, Boland, E. C, Olejnik, S., &Kame'enui, E. J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects on instruc-tion in morphology and context on fifth-grade students' abilityto derive and infer word meanings. American EducationalResearch Journal, 40, 447-494.

Baumann, J. F., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2004). Vocabulary instruction:Research to practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Biemiller, A., & Slonim, M. (2001). Estimating root word vocabu-lary growth in normative and advantaged populations:Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition.Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498-520.

Blachowicz, C, & Fisher, P. (2000). Vocabulary instruction. In M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbookof reading research. Vol. 3 (pp. 503-523). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bryant, D. P., Goodwin, M., Bryant, B., & Higgins, K. (2003).Vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities: A

review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 117-128.

Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1999). Language and language disor-ders. Boston, MA: AUyn & Bacon.

Deshler, D. D., & Hock, M. F. (2007). Adolescent literacy: Wherewe are, where we need to go. In M. Pressley, A. K. Billman, K.H. Perry, K. E. Reffitt, & J. M. Reynolds (Eds.), Shaping literacyachieverpent: Research we have, research we need. New York, NY:Guilford Publications.

Ebbers, S. M., & Dentón, C. A. (2008). A root awakening:Vocabulary instruction for older students with reading difficul-ties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(2), 90-102.

Ellis, E. S. (1992). The Vocabulary (LINCS) Strategy. Lawrence, KS:Edge Enterprises.

Fillmer, H. T. (1977). A generative vocabulary program for grades4-6. The Elementary School Journal, 78(1), 53-58.

Graves, M. F. (1986). Vocabulary learning and instruction. In E. Z.Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of research In education. Vol. 13 (pp. 49-89). Washington, DC: American Educational ResearchAssociation.

Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Harris, M. L. (2007). The effects of strategic morphological analysisinstruction on the vocabulary performance of secondary studentswith and without disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Hock, M. F., Brasseur, 1. F., Deshler, D. D., Catts, H. W., Marquis,J., Mark, C. A., & Stribling, J. W. (2009). What is the readingcomponent skill profile of adolescent struggling readers inurban schools? Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1), 21-38.

Jenkins, J. R., Matlock, B., & Slocum, T. A. (1989). Two approachesto vocabulary instruction: The teaching of individual wordmeanings and practice in deriving word meaning from context.Reading Research Qudrterly, 24, 215-235. Retrieved from PRO-VIDE URL

Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Sacks, G., &Jacobson, L. A. (2004).What research says about vocabulary instruction for studentswith learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299-322.

Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21stcentury. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academicachievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum andDevelopment.

McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. (2004). Yfte voice of evidence in read-ing research. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Moore, B., & Moore, M. (1997). NTC's dictionary of Greek and Latinorigins: A comprehensive guide to the classical origins of Englishwords. Chicago, IL: NTC Publishing Group.

Nagy, W. E. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.),Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words arethere in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19,304-330. Retrieved from PROVIDE URL

Nagy, W. E., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006).Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacyoutcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students.Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134-147.

Nagy, W. E., Diakidoy, 1. N., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). The acqui-sition of morphology: Learning the contribution of suffixesto the meanings of derivatives. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25,155-170.

Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Depth and breadth of

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTION 33

vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition andinstruction. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The natureof vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-35). Hillsdale,'NJ: Erlbaum.

Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In R. Barr,M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D Pearson (Eds.), Handbook ofreading research. Vol. 3 (pp. 269-284). New York, NY: Longman.

Nation, I.P.S. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA:Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). The nation'sreport card. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National ReadingPanel: Teaching children to read. Bethesda, MD: National Instituteof Child Health and Human Development.

Otterman, L. M. (1955). The value of teaching prefixes and word-roots. Journal of Educational Research, 48, 611-615.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding:Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica,CA: RAND Education.

Reed, D. R. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions andeffects on reading outcomes for students in grades K-12.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(1), 36-49.

Sirles, C. (1997). Root awakenings: Vocabulary development usingclassical word roots. Champaign, IL: Stripes Publishing.

Snow, C, Porche, M. V., Tabors, P. O., & Harris, S. R. (2007). /5 lit-eracy enough? Pathways to academic success for adolescents.Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Spencer, A. (2001). Morphological theory: An introduction to wordstructure in generative grammar. Oxford, UK: BlackwellPublishers.

Stahl, S. A. (1999). Vocabulary developrnent. Cambridge, MA:Brookline Books.

Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabularyinstruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of EducationalResearch, 56, 72-110.

Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

White, T. G., Power, M. A., & White, S. (1989). Morphologicalanalysis: Implications for teaching and understanding vocabu-lary growth. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 283-304.

White, T. G., Sowell, J., & Yanagihara, A. (1989). Teaching ele-mentary students to use word-part clues. The Reading Teacher,302-308.

Author NotesParts of this research study were made possible by LeadershipPreparation grant #H325D020019 from the Office of SpecialEducation Programs. The authors assume full responsibility for thecontents of the article.

^For more information on the measureihent instruments and theinstrurrients themselves, see Harris (2007).

^The words on the Strategy-Use Tests (Word Mapping - Forms A &B; Vocabulary LINCing - Forms A & B) include the following: WM:constrain, resurgence, intercede, assiduous, adjudicate, beneficiary,ascribe, misnomer, magnitude, euphoria, intractable, claustrophobia;VL: entreat, memento, vilify, tutelage, negligible, indefatigable, depict,confidant, brevity, assemblage, reparation, ignominious.

^The 20 target words on the Word Knowledge Test and targeted forinstruction included the following: diction, empathy, distort, bene-diction, deportation, correlate, intermit, mortal, malnutrition,disport, morphology, contortion, admissible, pathetic, discomfit, malev-olence, edit, benefactor, anthropology, philanthropist.

''The words on the Morphological Analysis Test included the fol-lowing: malediction, torsion, apathetic, benevolence, extortion, immor-tality, remittance, amorphic, pathology, malcontent, anthropomorphic,emission, malefactor, portage.

^The word parts in the prefix, suffix, and roots lessons includedthe following: prefixes: un, re, in/im, dis, a/an, de, en/em, e/ex, ad,inter; suffixes: y, ty/ity, age, ist, tion/ion, ance/ence, able/ible,al/ial, er/or; roots: bene, cp/con/com/cor, mal/male, dic/dict, path,mort, port, fac/fact/fit, mit/mis/miss, anthrop, morph, tort.

Please address correspondence about this article to: Monica Harris,Grand Valley State University, 920 Eberhard Center, 301 W.Fulton Street, Grand Rapids, MI 49504; e-mail:harrismo@gvsu.edu

Copyright of Learning Disability Quarterly is the property of Council for Learning Disabilities and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.