An eight-day instructional vocabulary study was conducted to evaluate two methods of instruction for prefixed words for two methods, Morphemic Analysis and Whole Word Meaning. Seventy-five sixth-grade students from a rural middle school were part of this study.
The Morphemic Analysis and Whole Word Meaning approaches were similar in a number of ways. Instruction consisted of eight lessons, six instructional lessons and two review lessons. Methods were similar in the specific prefixed words taught (24), duration (8 days/8-9 minutes per word), number of exposures (9), and inclusion of the following activities: Example and/or Non-example, Student Examples, Word/Meaning Match, and Word/Example Match.
The major differences between the two methods occurred during the introduction of the prefixed words. Morphemic Analysis included a prefix component that focused on grouping prefixes by families, introducing each prefix meaning, and then analyzing the prefixed word by morphemes: root, prefix, and suffix (as needed). The meaning of the prefixed word was derived by combining the meanings of the parts: root, prefix, and suffix. Whole Word Meaning instruction focused on the prefixed word as a whole unit. Meaning for the prefixed word was developed from a Scenario and Question activity. This activity placed the lesson word into a meaningful written context, and a question followed that guided students to infer the words meaning. Also, a Prompt activity was used to extend the words meaning beyond the written passage.
Analysis of data on the following three measures: 24 prefixes, 24 prefixed lesson words, and 24 untaught prefixed words, revealed students performance for the two conditions, Morphemic Analysis and Whole Word Meaning. The data revealed that students made a greater gain in prefix knowledge (17%) from Morphemic Analysis instruction. This gain could be attributed to the direct instruction of prefixes, a major component of the Morphemic Analysis method. On prefixed lesson words, Morphemic Analysis and Whole Word Meaning each showed large gains; thus, they could be considered equally effective methods of vocabulary instruction. The data on untaught prefixed words indicated that the Morphemic Analysis group outperformed the Whole Word Meaning group, by an advantage of two mean points (8%).
The present study points to the benefits of prefix knowledge and transfer word knowledge for the Morphemic Analysis group. The similar performance by both methods on taught prefixed words was equally interesting and warrants further investigation into the components of effective vocabulary instruction.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PITT/oai:PITTETD:etd-11262007-135902 |
| Date | 29 January 2008 |
| Creators | Talerico, Donna Marie |
| Contributors | Dr. Linda Kucan, Dr. Rita Bean, Dr. Kevin Kim, Dr. Isabel Beck |
| Publisher | University of Pittsburgh |
| Source Sets | University of Pittsburgh |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-11262007-135902/ |
| Rights | unrestricted, I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to University of Pittsburgh or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds