Examining the effectiveness of targeted morphological instructions on reading outcomes: a randomized controlled trial involving Chinese EFL learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous studies have demonstrated the overall effectiveness of morphological interventions in enhancing word reading and reading comprehension. However, the specific practices within these morphological interventions vary significantly and few intervention studies have investigated how targeted instruction in distinct aspects of morphological awareness can best support word reading and reading comprehension. This research presents the first empirical evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of morphological skills (i.e., morphological analysis and morphological decoding) and affix knowledge in developing English reading-related skills, word reading and reading comprehension among Chinese EFL students. A total of 156 Grade-8 students were randomly assigned to one of three groups: morphological analysis group (experimental group 1), morphological decoding group (experimental group 2) or affix knowledge group (active control group). Both experimental groups received direct instruction on affix knowledge alongside their respective morphological skills. Each intervention consisted of two 50 min sessions per week over a five-week period. The results indicated that all three morphological interventions led to improvements in affix knowledge, inflectional and derivational morphological structure awareness, word reading and reading comprehension. However, no significant differences in improvement were observed among the groups. The findings suggest that the morphological interventions, irrespective of the specific dimensions of morphological awareness taught, were effective for EFL learners. The implications for future research and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".