Reporting of Classroom-Based Morphological Awareness Instruction and Intervention for Kindergarten to Grade 3 Students in the Literature: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this scoping review was to document how the literature reports morphological awareness instruction and interventions delivered by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and/or educators in classroom settings for kindergarten to Grade 3 students. METHOD: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. Six relevant databases were searched systematically with article screening and selection completed by two reviewers calibrated for reliability. For data charting, one reviewer extracted content and a second reviewer verified it was pertinent to the review question. Charting for the reported elements of morphological awareness instruction and interventions was guided by the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System. RESULTS: = .61. Our analysis generated a comprehensive description of the elements of morphological awareness instruction as reported in the included articles. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide school-based SLPs and educators a systematic means of reviewing the literature to identify key elements of morphological awareness instruction in published articles for application of evidence-based practices with fidelity, thus helping to close the research-to-practice gap. Our manifest content analysis revealed reporting of the elements for classroom-based morphological awareness instruction was varied, and in some cases, underspecified in the articles included in our study. Implications for clinical practice and future research to advance knowledge and promote implementation of evidence-based practices by SLPs and educators in today's classrooms are discussed. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22105142.
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 | 0.124 | 0.469 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".