The Effects of Morphological Awareness on L2 Vocabulary Knowledge of Thai EFL Young Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphological awareness (MA) is the ability to recognize words, identify the association between lexically attached parts of a word and create new lexical forms. Morphological instruction mediates the acquisition of new words and is, therefore, crucial for developing morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge. Currently, the receptive-productive continuum of MA remains unclear, especially in an EFL context. This quasi-experimental study investigates how MA instruction affects the acquisition of morphologically complicated words and its impact on vocabulary knowledge among young Thai EFL learners. Six receptive and productive MA measures and four vocabulary knowledge measures were administered to 221 EFL young learners. While participants in the control group did not get this instruction, participants in the experimental group received explicit teaching on morphological awareness. A repeated measures ANOVA (with scores on several aspects of affixes as the dependent variable) with experimental and control cohorts and a repeated measure (time point) was conducted to probe Thai young EFL learners’ morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge. The findings demonstrated an encouraging effect of MA teaching in English language classrooms. Specifically, the participants in the experimental group showed improved performance in both receptive and productive MA. This suggests that the explicit instruction of morphologies may benefit English learners in understanding words and ease vocabulary acquisition. Other implications of these findings are debated, considering current pedagogical practice and theory.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".