The Effect of Explicit English Morphology Instruction on EFL Secondary School Students’ Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study attempted to investigate the effect of explicit morphology instruction (EMI) on developing secondary school students’ EFL morphological awareness and reading comprehension. The explicit morphology instruction targeted two morphological skills namely, inflectional and derivational skills. The study used a pre-posttest experimental and control group design. The intact study participants were (98) first year secondary school students. While the first intact group (n=49) was functioned as an experimental group, the second intact group (n=49) represented the control group. To collect the data, a two-unit explicit morphology instruction program (EMIP), a morphological awareness test (MAT) and a reading comprehension test (RCT) were designed, validated and implemented. Before the intervention, the participants’ morphological awareness and reading comprehension were pre-tested. During the course of intervention, while the experimental group participants were exposed to explicit morphological instruction in addition to their regular English instruction sessions, the participants of the control group only received their regular EFL instruction sessions. Results revealed that the experimental group participants’ mean scores on the post morphological awareness test and reading comprehension test surpassed that of the control group. Accordingly, explicit morphological instruction was effective in developing EFL secondary school students’ morphological awareness and reading comprehension. However, the effect size of explicit morphological instruction on developing EFL secondary school students’ morphological awareness was higher than its effect size on developing their reading comprehension. Therefore, teaching English morphology should be an integral part of EFL secondary school curriculum.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".