Disambiguating the benefits of morphology and vocabulary instruction for improving spelling among English-speaking children
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This dissertation sought to isolate and examine the benefit of morphologically-focused instruction for improving spelling skill among English-speaking, elementary-school aged children. There is a growing body of evidence which suggests that morphological knowledge makes an important contribution to literacy development, and that instruction on morphological structure benefits word reading, reading comprehension, and spelling. However, in previous intervention studies examining the benefits of morphological instruction for literacy outcomes, morphological instruction was confounded by discussion of word meaning, as morphologically complex words are related to other words in the same word family both in their meaning and in their form. Thus, there is uncertainty with respect to the relative benefits of morphological and vocabulary instruction for literacy development. This study addressed the overlap between morphology and vocabulary instruction, by intentionally extricating instruction on morphological structure from instruction on word meaning, and comparing the relative effectiveness for improving children’s spelling of morphologically complex words. Children in Grades 3 and 5 were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups, and were taught to spell the same set of morphologically-complex words. In one group (the Morphology group), the children were taught about morphological structure, including root words and suffixes, while any discussion of the meanings of the words or word parts was deliberately avoided. In the second group (the Vocabulary group), children were taught the meanings of the complex words, while carefully avoiding any discussion of the root words or suffixes. Chapter one provides a literature review and description of the theoretical basis for the present study. The intervention is described in chapter two, including a description of the participants, and an overview of the intervention procedure and group selection process. This chapter also describes the outcome measures assessing spelling, morphological knowledge and word meaning knowledge. Chapter 3 presents the results of the study, including changes in spelling performance, morphological knowledge, and word meaning knowledge. Across grade and intervention group, children’s spelling improved after the intervention, and a relative benefit of morphological instruction over-and-above word meaning instruction was observed among children in Grade 3 in their spelling of complex words taught in the intervention. On the measure of morphological knowledge, children in both grades improved after the intervention, however this improvement was not differentiated by intervention group. Children also improved on the measure of word meaning knowledge, and a differential benefit was observed for the children in Grade 3, with the children in the Vocabulary group improving significantly more than the children in the Morphology group. Finally, Chapter 4 synthesizes the findings from Chapter 3, providing a cohesive discussion of the relative benefits of morphology and word meaning instruction, with emphasis on the practical and theoretical findings from this study. Overall, this work provides further indication that literacy instruction that is focused on morphology has benefits for spelling development in English-speaking children, with a unique benefit of morphological instruction particularly evident among children in Grade 3
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».