An Intelligent Hearing Aid

Ever been in a noisy crowded room trying to carry on a conversation? Frustrating, yes?  My own hearing is beginning to weaken just a bit. I turn on captions when watching programs on the television.

Hearing aids have been around for decades, potentially helping millions (billions) with auditory impairments. Today, this news caught my ear: a smart hearing aid. Researchers at Fortell have created an impressive device, dubbed “the world’s most intelligent hearing aid.”  Sachin and Adam discuss Fortell’s device in the video Building an AI Ear. It addresses the problem of filtering ambient distracting noise.

This exciting new technology is a boon for children and adults alike. 

Varied types of technology provide useful tools for reading and writing, as described in Assistive Technology by Filippini and Morey.  Hearing difficulties make learning to read a challenge, because a reader must blend discrete sounds together into a whole word, as in sounding out champ as ch-a-m-p, and blending the sounds together. See Filippini’s post on Phonemes and Morphemes for everyone, including those with specific learning difficulties.

A partial solution for hearing difficulties? Yes. That’s a win! 

Ps. It is possible that hearing difficulties may be liked to dementia. Read Neurol (2025) Hearing impairment and dementia: cause, catalyst or consequence?

Reading with Your Ears: Assistive Technology, 21st Century Skills, and Vocabulary (Filippini & Morey)

Dr. Alexis Filippini is the executive director at Mission Learning Center and a literacy consultant (website). She is passionate about literacy, especially among students who do not fit the "mainstream" mold. She has taught English Language Learners and students with learning disabilities in 1:1 and small group contexts, and conducted research on early reading and vocabulary acquisition. The ideas in this post were first inspired by hearing her husband Ben Foss use text-to-speech for work and play.  

Anne-Marie Becker Morey is the founder of Bay Tree Learning. Anne-Marie is a certified educational therapist with a masters degree in special education from San Francisco State University. She is certified by the Association for Educational Therapists and received specialized training in educational therapy from the University of California Santa Cruz. She has trained extensively in research-based literacy methods, including Lindamood-Bell® and Orton-Gillingham. Anne-Marie is a member of the Association of Educational Therapists, the Council for Exceptional Children, and the International Dyslexia Association.

In my last post, Phonemes and Morphemes for All, I wrote about vocabulary instruction for students with specific learning disabilities (SLD), such as dyslexia, that impact print processing. Today, Anne-Marie and I want to elaborate on my previous hints about using technology to support robust, Vocabulogic-style literacy instruction for these learners. To discuss assistive technology (AT) today, we must consider that we live in an entirely different context than twenty, ten, even five years ago. In the era of "new literacies," many of our students (and most of us!) use computers, phones, smart boards, e-readers, etc. to access information on a regular basis.

New literacies or 21st century information and communication skills are “the ability to use technology to develop 21st century content knowledge and skills in support of 21st century teaching and learning.” In the context of vocabulary, everyday technology offers multi-modal instructional opportunities to hit the major vocabulary principles (e.g., Blachowicz & Fisher’s big four: be active, personalized, immersive, and build multiple sources of knowledge through multiple exposures; 2000). This high-tech plus Vocabulogic-style instruction can capture the hearts and minds of children so much better than copying definitions – but the best part is, it’s more effective, particularly for learners who thrive with accommodations!

For example, learners with SLD may have receptive and expressive language that is far stronger than their encoding and decoding skills and therefore require additional support (accommodations) to access new or old literacies. We commonly focus on remedial support but overlook Assistive Technology (AT) and alternate text formats. AT is any technology that can “increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of a child with disabilities” (Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments, 2004). Alternative text formats are typically audio that is either a “natural” human voice or a synthesized voice (obviously braille as well, although less relevant to this conversation). These formats are available through commercial avenues, such as audible.com, or disability-specific avenues, such as bookshare.org, learningally.org, or the National Library Service. Simple software can turn any computer or gadget into a talking device to read aloud, as well.

Effective use of technology to circumvent encoding or decoding is like using a wheelchair to confidently roll up a ramp and into a neighborhood public school, rather than being denied access. While the current reauthorization of IDEA requires consideration of AT for children with individualized educational plans (Blackhurst, 2005), “consideration” is often limited to checking a box. This lack of consideration may be due in part to uncertainty about how, when, and what to teach with these tools. One of the questions I am asked most often by teachers is when to introduce accommodations, and when and how to adjust the remediation-accommodation balance (illustration below; Edyburn, 2006) for learners with print-related disabilities. (We could also learn a lot from work on augmentative and assistive technology use among individuals with significant communication needs, e.g., Soto & Zangari, 2009, but that is for another conversation).

(click to enlarge; right-click to download

Research in academic technology, new literacies, and AT is “fragmented” and “inconclusive” (Fitzgerald, Kourey, & Mitchem, 2008, p. 215) due to rapid changes in technology, perceived barriers to implementation, and assumptions about the very nature of literacy. Nevertheless, we have an obligation to open every door we can to support our students in accessing meaningful text independently. There is no other route; we know the importance of exposure to text for vocabulary growth.

Assistive Technology (AT) in the Vocabulary-Focused Classroom

A number of tools are available to support children with SLD in accessing grade level content, such as text-to-speech software and devices and “books on tape” (usually digital files, now), and simple low-tech options such as pencil grips. Many common AT tools for literacy like speech-recognition software and spell checkers come pre-packaged with common software (e.g., Microsoft; McKenna & Walpole, 2007). To be effective tools for increasing learning and independence, however, all technology must rest on thoughtful, evidence-based teaching.

Let’s look at some examples of using speech synthesis or audio books as a route into vocabulary learning. By turning on the text-to-speech feature in plain old Microsoft Word, a student can hear text read aloud. For example, if she opened Dr. Mohler's packet of engaging activities as a Word document, and went to the prefix activity, she could first listen to the directions, then click through each prefix and its definition and hear it read as she chooses its function. (See Dr. Mohler's post.)

This means that rather than being bogged down by decoding: 1) She is building skills and confidence by working independently; 2) She is receiving multiple exposures to morphology, meaning, and word analysis. Far more than she would be in the same amount of time. 3) Odds are that she is more on task, because she is not avoiding work that seems impossibly difficult. This improves the classroom climate for all students, as the teacher focuses on teaching literacy rather than redirecting challenging behavior.

Developing Language, Knowledge, and Vocabulary via Dialogic Reading Methods (Urbani)

Jacquelyn M. Urbani, Ph.D., contributed this post. Dr. Urbani specializes in reading research and in educating students who are deaf and hard of hearing, where learning to read and developing a broad vocabulary is particularly challenging. Her groundbreaking doctoral research involved helping teachers use dialogic reading procedures during storytime in deaf education classrooms. Before gaining her doctorate at UC Berkeley, Jaci was a teacher for 12 years.

Recent posts have described ways to optimize student vocabulary growth through storybook reading (see prior posts one and two). Reading to children is considered one of the best activities for developing the language, knowledge, and vocabulary essential for future success in reading (1). In particular, reading to children is considered valuable because of the simultaneous presentation of oral and written language as well as its interactive nature (2). This post will describe a specific kind of reading to children, dialogic reading, developed for the express purpose of facilitating students’ expressive language.

What is Dialogic Reading?

Dialogic reading aims to make students more active participants in the reading process by having adult readers engage students in discussion and retellings of the stories (3). Parents and teachers are encouraged to use specific kinds of interactions with children, based on the acronyms PEER and CROWD. PEER stands for Prompting of the child, Evaluating and Expanding upon their responses, and asking children to Repeat correct responses. Prompts are further described using the acronym CROWD: Completion questions (asking students to complete a phrase); Recall (asking children to remember details); Open-ended questions (encouraging student discussion of story ideas and the use of new vocabulary); Wh-word questions (who, what, where, when); and Distancing (making connections between the book and the students’ lives). Examples of dialogic reading prompts are provided below (4), referring to the children’s classic storybook Corduroy, by Don Freeman.

CROWD 
A mnemonic for types of questions and interactions: Completion, Recall, Open-Ended, Wh-word (who, why, where, what, when), Distancing

• Completion       "Corduroy lost a _____________." 


• Recall               "Do you remember what happened with the security guard?" 


• Open-Ended     "What happens when Corduroy looks for his button?" 


• Wh-word          "Who found Corduroy in the bed?" 


• Distancing        "What are your favorite toys?" 

PEER 
A mnemonic for Prompt, Evaluate, Expand, Repeat

• Prompt        (prompting the child -- a question or comment) 


• Evaluate      Provide gentle correction to student misinformation: "This is not an elevator. It's      called an escalator." 


• Expand        Provide further information: "Escalators are like stairs that move for you, so you don't have to use your energy." 


• Repeat         Ask students to repeat a correct response: "Tell me again why Lisa's mom does not let her buy Corduroy." (First, discuss the reasons.)

In my research, I found that teachers often responded to a description of dialogic reading by saying, “I’m already doing that. I ask lots of questions.” However, I found that teachers initially were using simple question types, such as yes/no questions or comprehension checks that required only a one-word response from students. As teachers became aware of the kinds of questions they were asking (this can occur through team teaching, mentoring, and/or critical friends), they were able to modify their language to incorporate more recommended features. Similar to previous posts, the recommendation with dialogic reading is for multiple readings. The first reading serves to engage students in the story and plotline. Subsequent re-readings provide opportunities for students to discuss topics and concepts presented by the book. However, typical teacher-student ratios of early childhood classes often limit such opportunities—which can be particularly problematic for students with language delays and/or English Language Learners. Therefore, teachers are encouraged to work with small groups of three to five students.

Potential Challenges When Implementing Dialogic Reading
Dialogic reading does require effort: quite honestly, it is easier to conduct a storybook reading if the teacher is the only one talking. Using dialogic reading emphasizes the multi-tasking nature of teaching. The teacher is reading and managing behavior as well as engaging students by using specific prompts, encouraging comments, facilitating conversational turn-taking, and keeping track of who has yet to enter the discussion.

Facilitating this student conversation is often uncomfortable for teachers, as they leave their comfort zone and give up some control. In my research on implementing dialogic reading practices, one teacher remarked that she was not sure how far to allow the conversation to go. My response was that if students are asking questions and making comments, these may indicate areas of interest and areas where they do not have the necessary background knowledge; she could then offer explanations to further both their conceptual knowledge and the conversation. However, it is also important to recognize when the conversation has strayed and it is necessary for the teacher to refocus the group on the storybook reading.

Dialogic reading may be difficult to implement, especially initially. An important feature for success is pre-reading the book. While teachers expressed frustration that they did not have time to pre-read the book, when they did make the time, they found it allowed them to consider appropriate prompts and questions, which were more easily integrated into the reading activity. (Because of the multiple readings of the book, this means teachers only need to read one book per week, which should be much easier than reading a new book per day.)

Because of the re-readings of the same book, I suggest reading to the same small group of students during the week. If it is necessary to stop the reading, teachers can resume at the appropriate place the next day. Also, teachers can continue previous conversation by saying, “Remember yesterday Talia asked about . . . and Billy commented on . . .” This also brings focus and support to the social aspect of learning. Students can rotate to new small groups weekly so they learn from each other and are not in static peer groups.

There are days when teachers will say, “Today, I’m just going to read, and we’re not going to make comments, and you all can relax and calm down.” This is necessary—for general sanity—every once in a while. But it shouldn’t be the nature of reading everyday, especially when dialogic reading offers clear benefits for language development, including vocabulary growth.

Dialogic reading is a recommended practice of the What Works Clearinghouse. Further description and research can be found there.

____________________________________
1.  Adams, 1990; Dickinson, McCabe, & Anastasopoulos, 2003; National Academy of Education, 1985.
2.  Ezell & Justice, 2005; National Academy of Education, 1985; and Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005).
3.  Whitehurst, et al., 1988; Whitehurst, Arnold, et al., 1994; Whitehurst, et al., 1999).
4.  Adapted from Pearson Early Learning, 2006.

References: 

• Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT   Press.
• Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2003). A framework forexamining book reading in early childhood classrooms. In A. van Kleeck, E. B. Bauer, & S. Stahl (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 95–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Ezell, H. K. & Justice, L. M. (2005). Shared storybook reading. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
• National Academy of Education (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, DC: Author.
• Pearson Early Learning. (2006). Read together, talk together: A dialogic reading program for young children. Available from Pearson Early Learning at www.PearsonEarlyLearning.com.
• Snow, C. E., Griffin, M., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.) (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D.S., Epstein, J.N., Angell, A.L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J.E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679-689.
• Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., et al. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552-559.
• Whitehurst, G.J., Zevenbergen, A.A., Crone, D.A., Schultz, M.D., Velting, O.N., & Fischel, J.E. (1999). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention from Head Start through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 261-272.

Supporting Early Vocabulary Development within an RTI Framework (Coyne)

This post is courtesy of Michael Coyne, associate professor in the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut and a Research Scientist at the Center for Behavioral Education and Research. His research on beginning reading and early vocabulary instruction and intervention is funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES). Michael is a former special educator in public schools. His publications include a useful guide for teachers:  Effective Teaching Strategies That Accommodate Diverse Learners.  

RTI Supports

Schools are increasingly implementing response to intervention (RTI) or tiered systems of support in an attempt to more effectively and efficiently meet the beginning reading needs of all students, especially those students who are at risk for experiencing learning difficulties. Although there are many different components associated with RTI supports, central features include a) consistent high quality classroom, or Tier I, instruction, b) universal screening of all students using measures that are predictive of response to Tier I instruction, and 3) small group intensive, or Tier II, intervention that supplements classroom instruction for students identified as at-risk by screening measures (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010).

Tiered intervention approaches provide a powerful framework for supporting student learning and practices associated with RTI have evidence of accelerating student achievement (Gersten et al., 2009). To date, however, the vast majority of RTI efforts have focused on increasing students’ beginning reading skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, alphabetic knowledge, decoding). We believe, however, that the field needs to think beyond decoding to how we can support other areas of early literacy, such as vocabulary development, within an RTI approach (Coyne et al., 2010).

Over the last six years we have been engaged in a program of research dedicated to developing and evaluating instructional strategies to support kindergarteners’ vocabulary development. Our approach to instruction includes directly teaching target vocabulary within storybook reading activities (Coyne, McCoach, & Kapp, 2007; Coyne et al., 2009). Key features of our instructional approach include, (a) supporting vocabulary development within oral language experiences, (b) providing students with multiple exposures to target vocabulary across varied contexts, and (c) encouraging students to process words deeply through rich and extended discussions (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). As our research has progressed, we have learned a great deal about both the benefits of providing vocabulary instruction and intervention to young students as well as the challenges of supporting those students who are most at risk for language and literacy difficulties.

Classroom Vocabulary Instruction

In one of our initial studies we investigated the efficacy of providing extended classroom vocabulary instruction to kindergarten students within the context of storybook reading activities (Coyne et al., 2010). A total of 123 kindergarten students across three schools with high populations of at-risk learners participated in the 18-week study. In the extended instruction group, classroom teachers implemented vocabulary activities during whole class instruction. Each vocabulary word was introduced within the context of a storybook reading and reinforced in postreading activities that promoted extended dialogic interactions with the words. Our primary finding was that students who received the extended vocabulary instruction outperformed their peers who did not receive the instruction on both proximal measures of target word knowledge (assessing knowledge of the taught words) as well as transfer measures of generalized language and literacy.

Differential Response to Classroom Vocabulary Instruction

We were also interested in whether the classroom vocabulary instruction was more beneficial for some students than for others. We knew that many children enter school with limited experience with language and literacy (Hart & Risley, 1995) and that overall vocabulary knowledge measured prior to the start of instruction often predicts students’ response to instruction (e.g., Coyne et al., 2009; Penno Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002), so we examined the relationship between students’ initial receptive vocabulary and our outcome measures. We found that initial receptive vocabulary measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) was strongly related to posttest performance on all of our measures. In other words, students with higher initial PPVT scores learned significantly more vocabulary from the classroom vocabulary instruction than those students with lower initial scores and the magnitude of this differential response was striking. Tier 1 vocabulary instruction by itself, therefore, seemed insufficient to close the vocabulary gap among students, and, in fact, may have helped to widen it.

Supplemental Vocabulary Intervention

These findings highlighted the limitations of implementing only whole class, or Tier 1, vocabulary instruction and motivated a new direction in our research. We began to recognize the need to conceptualize vocabulary supports within a multitier or RTI approach. We wanted to investigate the benefits of Tier 2 vocabulary intervention designed to supplement classroom-based vocabulary instruction for those students identified as most at risk for language and learning difficulties based on universal screening (Loftus et al., 2010). We were also interested in the feasibility of schools providing RTI vocabulary supports in authentic settings using existing resources and personnel.

In our most recent study (Coyne et al., 2011), a new group of 20 kindergarten classroom teachers across seven schools that served large numbers of students at risk for learning difficulties implemented Tier 1 vocabulary instruction using Elements of Reading: Vocabulary, a widely available evidence-based vocabulary program, based on the work of Isabel Beck and Margaret McKeown (2007). We worked with all students during whole class instruction for 15–20 minutes per day, 5 days per week, over the course of the school year. All kindergarten students were screened in the fall with the PPVT to identify students who were most in need of supplemental vocabulary support (approximately 3–6 students per class). These students received Tier 2 small-group vocabulary intervention in addition to the classroom instruction for 15–20 minutes per day, 4 days per week. We designed the supplemental Tier 2 intervention to provide more explicit instruction with many opportunities for individual responses followed by immediate corrective feedback. The Tier 2 instruction was provided by school-based personnel (e.g., teachers, paraprofessionals, specialists).

We analyzed our data using a regression-discontinuity approach, which allowed us to estimate the benefit of the Tier 2 intervention for those students who were identified as at risk for not responding to the Tier 1 instruction by itself. Overall, we found that the at-risk students experienced statistically significantly greater vocabulary learning than would have been predicted if they had received only Tier 1 classroom support. Most importantly, the at-risk students who received Tier 2 intervention learned target vocabulary equally as well, on average, as their not-at-risk peers.

In summary, when we screened students on a measure that is predictive of the response to Tier 1 vocabulary instruction and provided at-risk students with supplemental supports, their word learning was comparable to their not-at-risk peers. At least for the target words, we were able to substantially counteract the vocabulary learning gap. However, these gains came as the result of a sizeable investment in instructional time and resources. Students received double the amount of instructional dosage (4 hours versus 2 hours per week) and received intervention in small groups of 3–4 that required allocating additional staff time.

Implications

The need for early intervention and prevention efforts in early literacy extends beyond supporting students’ code-based skills. We know that students enter kindergarten with “meaningful differences” in vocabulary knowledge (Hart & Risley, 1995), and these differences grow larger over time even as vocabulary knowledge becomes more and more critical to reading success (Biemiller & Slonim, 2001). Moreover, although there is growing evidence that classroom-based, vocabulary instruction that is direct and extended supports learning, it is not equally effective for all students. Therefore, we believe that schools should conceptualize vocabulary instruction and intervention within an RTI or multitier approach. It is only with supplemental intervention at high levels of intensity that students at risk of language and literacy difficulties will make progress that will allow them to begin to decrease, or even intercept, the vocabulary differences between them and their peers who are not at risk. 

A note from the editor: This post summarizes research findings and teaching tips reported in Coyne, Capozzoli, Ware, and Loftus (2010). For more details, read the entire article. In addition, several guest authors have discussed ways to help young children develop vocabulary. In the sidebar, under Posts by Guest Authors, see entries by Biemiller, Cavanaugh, Graves, and Paulson. For suggestions on how to help impoverished or undereducated parents become partners in early literacy development, read the post by Michele Berg.

References

• Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. Elementary School Journal, 107, 251–271.
• Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford.
• Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498–520.
•  Coyne, M. D., Capozzoli, A., Ware, S., & Loftus, S. (2010) Beyond RTI for Decoding: Supporting Early Vocabulary Development within a Multitier Approach to Instruction and Intervention. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 18-21.
• Coyne, M. D. (2011, July). Supporting early vocabulary development within a multi-tier approach to instruction and intervention: A regression discontinuity study. Paper accepted at the Society for the Scientific Studies of Reading Annual Conference.
• Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R., Ruby, M., Crevecoeur, Y. & Kapp, S. (2010). Direct & Extended Vocabulary Instruction in Kindergarten: Investigating Transfer Effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3, 93-120.
• Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R., & Kapp, S. (2009). Direct vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Teaching for breadth vs. depth. Elementary School Journal 110, 1–18.
• Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., & Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary intervention for kindergarten students:Comparing extended instruction with embedded instruction and incidental exposure. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30, 74–88.
• Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., et al. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 31, 2011 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf
• Hart, B., & Risley, R. T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
• Loftus, S., Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Zipoli, R., & Pullen, P. (2010). Effects of a supplemental vocabulary intervention on the word knowledge of kindergarten students at-risk for language and literacy difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 124-136.
• National Center on Response to Intervention (March 2010). Essential Components of RTI – A Closer Look at Response to Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.
• Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew Effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 23–33.

Meta-Analysis of Morphological Intervention Studies (Bowers)

Peter Bowers contributed this post. Pete is a doctoral candidate at Queen's University, Canada and the creator of the WordWorks Literacy Centre. Pete authored a prior post on Vocabulogic.

I am pleased to be invited to use this week’s post to describe our meta-analysis on morphological interventions (Bowers, Kirby, & Deacon, 2010) that comes out in the June issue of Review of Educational Research. Vocabulogic emphasizes instruction of morphology among a wide array of vocabulary instruction strategies, so our finding about positive effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary learning is of particular relevance for this blog. Vocabulary, however, was not a special focus of our study. We report on effects for a range of literacy outcomes at the sub-lexical (oral and written features of words), lexical (spelling, reading and vocabulary), and supra-lexical (reading comprehension) levels. Before describing the results, a short refresher on morphology may help.

Morphology: The meaning structure of words

Matrix (Real Spelling dot com)

Morphology is the system by which morphemes combine to construct and represent the meaning of words. For example, the word unhealthy is composed of four morphemes: the prefix un-, the base (also referred to as the root) heal, and the suffixes –th, and –y. Morphemes can also be represented by a word sum (un + heal + th + y → unhealthy). Words with a common base are part of the same morphological family and share a connection in meaning. A matrix like the one shown here represents the underlying structure of unhealthy and other members of the same word family. Read more about morphology and morphological awareness here.

English spelling marks the interrelation of morphology and phonology

English spelling uses consistent spellings of morphemes even when pronunciation shifts (see Venezky 1999, 1967 for this and other spelling principles). Note that the base heal needs a grapheme that can represent both the ‘long e’ of heal and the ‘short e’ of health.

Morphology instruction and research

Morphology provides cues of word meanings, influences grapheme-phoneme correspondences, governs spelling changes due to suffixing and marks the grammatical roles of words. With such a fundamental influence on how spelling represents the meaning and pronunciation of words, it is surprising morphology has not played a larger role in teacher training and instruction (Henry, 2003: Nunes & Bryant, 2006; Moats, 2009).

Morphological instruction may have an intuitive appeal for teachers and researchers, but what does the research evidence show? Does morphological instruction actually bring educational benefits? Are the effects similar for less and more able students? How young can morphology be taught effectively? Are there identifiable methods of instruction that are more effective than others?

To investigate these questions, we conducted a meta-analysis of the existing published morphological interventions. (Meta-analysis is a quantitative technique for combining results across different studies.) We found 22 interventions conducted with children in preschool to grade 8 in languages that use the Roman alphabet (18 in English, 2 in Norwegian, 1 in Danish, 1 in Dutch) with a total 2,652 students.

Instructional strategies

A wide variety of oral and written instructional strategies were used. In production tasks such as a cloze or analogy task, children are taught to produce the appropriate word for a given context (e.g., magic/magician; music/________(musician)). Recognition tasks included selecting or sorting words and identifying morphemes within complex words. Problem-solving was an explicit focus in a number of studies (Baumann et al., 2003; Berninger et al., 2003; Bowers & Kirby, 2009; Tomesen & Aarnoutse, 1998). The meta-analysis includes a descriptive table of the morphological content and types of tasks used across the 22 studies.

Findings of our meta-analysis

We found positive effects of morphological instruction but those effects were variable, which is not surprising given the range of participants and instructional methods employed. Analyzing the results for sub-sets of students based on age and ability and comparing types of morphological instruction provides a clearer picture of the effects. We found that morphological instruction was:

• More effective with less able students
• Generally more effective in interventions with younger students (Pre-K to Grade 2) than older students (Grade 3 and up)
• Generally more effective when integrated with other aspects of literacy instruction

Download a conference poster with a table of the results showing effect sizes for morphological instruction compared to control groups and compared to alternative treatments for outcomes at every linguistic layer at this link.

Implications

Evidence of greater effects with less able and younger students has important implications for classroom instruction and research. Adams (1990) cautioned against morphological instruction with beginning or less skilled readers. More recently, researchers (e.g., Carlisle & Stone, 2005; Kirk & Gillon, 2009; Lyster, 2002; Tyler, Lewis, Haskill, & Tolbert, 2003) presented evidence challenging that recommendation. Our meta-analysis addresses this debate directly with the finding that young and less able readers gain more from morphological instruction.

“But how do you teach morphology to such young children?” is a common question when I have presented these results at conferences. Perhaps the best response I can provide here is to point to two videos of instruction with young children (Grades 1, 2 and 3) illustrating the kind of morphological content young children can learn and use in the classroom: Video 1 (also available on You Tube) and Video 2 . These young children clearly demonstrate understanding of the internal structures of words and how that system informs the pronunciation and meaning of words.

I hope that this new research evidence and examples of morphological instruction encourages you to consider looking for ways to integrate morphological instruction in your classrooms!

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E. M., Olejnik, S., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth-grade students' ability to derive and infer word meanings. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 447-494.

Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Carlisle, J., Thomson, J., Hoffer, D., Abbott, S., Abbott, R., Richards, T., & Aylward, E. (2003). Effective treatment for dyslexics in grades 4 to 6. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 382–417). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Bowers, P. N. & Kirby, J. R. (2009). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23. 515-537.

Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & S. H. Deacon. (in press). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80.

Carlisle, J. F. & Stone, C. A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 428-449.

Henry, M.K. (2003). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding & spelling instruction. Baltimore, Maryland: Brookes Publishing.

Kirk, C. & Gillon, T. G. (2009). Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for improving literacy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 341-351.

Lyster, S. H. (2002). The effects of morphological versus phonological awareness training in kindergarten on reading development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 261-294.

Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 22, 379-399.

Nunes, T. & Bryant, P. (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. London: Routlege.

Tomesen, M., & Aarnoutse, C. (1998). Effects of an instructional programme for deriving word meanings. Educational Studies, 24, 107-128.

Tyler, A. A., Lewis, K. E., Haskill, A., & Tolbert, L. C. (2003). Outcomes of different speech and language goal attack strategies. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 46, 1077-1094.

Venezky, R. (1967). English orthography: Its graphical structure and its relation to sound. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 75-105.

Venezky, R. (1999). The American way of spelling. New York: Guilford Press.

Phonemes & Morphemes for ALL (Filippini)

Dr. Alexis Filippini contributed the following post. Alexis is assistant professor in the Department of Special Education at San Francisco State University.

Dyslexia, the most prevalent specific learning disability, is typically characterized by phonological processing deficits that contribute to difficulty decoding (reading) and encoding (spelling), and slow, inaccurate reading (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003). In particular, matching printed letters to their sounds and vice-versa may be inconsistent, difficult, and frustrating – leaving rich, robust thoughts trapped on a page or stuck in a mind. 

Typically, these difficulties are “unexpected” relative to other cognitive abilities (Lyon et al.).  Many individuals with dyslexia also have strengths in listening comprehension and vocabulary knowledge, although these strengths may be underdeveloped due to limitations in reading and therefore limited exposure to reading age-appropriate material.

Most individuals with learning disabilities, including dyslexia, benefit from high-quality instruction in cognitive strategies, such as comprehension monitoring (e.g., Baker, Gersten, & Scanlon, 2002). For students with dyslexia in particular, high quality instruction focuses on remediating phonological awareness and print-speech mapping (e.g., Vadasay, Sanders, & Peyton, 2006). The focus on cognitive strategies is broadly applicable across the K-12 span and beyond as individuals move into the workplace and college. The systematic, explicit instruction on phonological awareness and cracking the speech-print code is highly effective at remediation for most children. For example, Torgeson’s 2000 review of early interventions reported that the incidence of reading failure was reduced from 18% to 1.4-5.4%. However, for students beyond the primary grades, instructional emphasis on skills that typically develop by eight years old can be tedious, inefficient, and perceived as “baby stuff.”

How do we provide explicit instruction to support phonological processing weaknesses for students who read well below grade level while also supporting them in age-appropriate content knowledge, described in an earlier post as essential to comprehension?

The kind of vocabulary instruction highlighted throughout Vocabulogic, I argue, provides an efficient solution to this challenge. Vocabulary instruction that targets development of word consciousness and generative word knowledge makes use of activities for a wide range of ages that support content-area knowledge (see David Pearson’s post). Simultaneously, we sneak in explicit instruction in word structure. How?

In general, many of the same instructional methods that have proven effective for “good” readers have also proven effective for “poor” readers (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2000). We know that effective vocabulary instruction provides multiple exposures to words in multiple contexts, with multiple opportunities to respond, applicable also to students learning English as a second language (e.g., Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005; McLaughlin et al., 2000). Interestingly, these three angles are effective for supporting learning in general for students with LD!

We also know that structural analysis that attends to morphemes is effective in learning new vocabulary, deciphering novel vocabulary, and in making connections among novel and exciting words (see Reed, 2008 for a review). Taking apart and examining “big” words, those fun multisyllabic science words, such as pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, is absolutely age-appropriate for adolescents, supports access to content area knowledge, and …. drum roll please … gives students opportunities to use phonological awareness and to practice decoding in an authentic, useful way. In fact, these kinds of metalinguistic skills are also great candidates for explicit strategy instruction. 

For example, using morphological analysis plus context clues to make strategies for deciphering unknown word meanings transparent, or using semantic maps and semantic feature analysis to make relationships among words explicit have been very effective for learners with LD (see Bos & Anders, 1990; Carnine & Carnine, 2004; Lubliner & Smetana, 2005). See prior post describing morphemic analysis in context.

Plus, there are some bonuses to rich and robust vocabulary instruction. Depending on the nature of the disability and many contextual factors, these learners may arrive in your classroom with a vocabulary that far exceeds their reading and writing skills or one that is impoverished from years of limited access to sophisticated texts. The first case provides a strong foundation to build on, and the second presents a significant need that is often ignored in our enthusiasm for remediating decoding and fluency skills.    

Finally, instructional research in the area of learning disabilities suggests some additional strategies that would enrich vocabulary learning for typical readers as well. Encouraging oral vocabulary and listening comprehension development through teacher read-alouds and books on tape, and providing more opportunities for bypassing encoding and decoding difficulties such as text-speech software and speech-text software can make vocabulary instruction and development even more robust. Look for future blog posts on these topics!
 
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural Facilitators and Cognitive Strategies: Tools for Unraveling the Mysteries of Comprehension and the Writing Process, and for Providing Meaningful Access to the General Curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(1), 65-77. 
Blachowicz, C. L. Z., & Fisher, P. (2000). Vocabulary Instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 503-524). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31-42.
 
Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. E. (2005). Sustained vocabulary-learning strategy instruction for English-language learners. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Vocabulary (pp. 115-136).
 
Carnine, L., & Carnine, D. (2004). The interaction of reading skills and science content knowledge when teaching struggling secondary students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 203-218.
 
Lubliner, S., & Smetana, L. (2005). The effects of comprehensive vocabulary instruction on Title I students' metacognitive word-learning skills and reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(2), 163-200.
 
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). Defining dyslexia, comorbidity, teachers' knowledge of language and reading: A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53.
 
McLaughlin, B., August, D., Snow, C., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., White, C., Lively, T. J., & Lippman, D. N. (2000). Vocabulary improvement and reading in English language learners: An intervention study. In A Research Symposium on High Standards in Reading for Students from Diverse Language Groups: Research, Practice, & Policy (pp. 129-143). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
 
Reed, D. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K-12. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(1), 36-49.
 
Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 55-64.
 
Vadasay, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 508-528.

The English Language: Complex (poll)

The poll has closed. Thank you for participating! Exactly 50% of the 98 voters viewed English as more complex than German, Spanish, and French, at least from a reading and spelling perspective. Yes, several researchers would agree. I show the poll below, and discuss the relative difficulty associated with spelling -- and reading -- English words.

poll by twiigs.com

 

 (Click image to enlarge)

Orthography has to do with the writing and spelling system. Seymour, Aro, and Erskine (2003) analyzed various European writing systems. Table 1 provides their hypothetical classification of each language by syllabic structure (simple or complex) and orthographic depth (deep or shallow). The chart shows that Finnish is probably the least challenging language for learning to read words. Finnish employs simple syllable patterns within a shallow orthography; each grapheme represents one phoneme, one sound only. (How elegant! How simple!) At the right end of the chart, English is hypothesized to be the most complex in both syllable structure and orthographic depth. Consider the varied ways we spell the sound known as Long A: day, prey, name, rain, eight, paper, bouquet, fiancée and matinee. (How challenging! How muddled!) But hey! C'est la vie! 

For more on the difficulties associated with spelling and reading in English, see English is Difficult, a humorous article by Michael Quinion of World Wide Words. 

But keep in mind, some would argue that English orthography is not wierd or random. They make the case that the English orthorgraphic system is orderly, logical -- even elegant. For example, see this brief  You Tube video featuring Gina Cooke, an expert in Real Spelling. (Be advised, some comments use rough language, not suitable for school. The video is also available at TED.com, but without the comments.)

Implications for Teachers and Students:
Learning to read and write in English is no cakewalk -- even if you take the approach suggested by Gina Cooke. When learning English compared to Spanish, for example, sight word identification will probably be more difficult. Errors are more likely. Phonological awareness instruction is more essential (Frost, 2005). The challenge is great, especially for children who experience reading difficulties like dyslexia, and for children of poverty, particularly if they have few encounters with books in the home. The challenge may also confound English language learners. Thus, we must make phonemes, graphemes, morphemes, and word meanings explicit. Devote time to reading, writing, and word study. Read and explore informational texts to build content knowledge, discussed in a prior post.

In a language this complex, fluency may not come easily. As Dr. Hasbrouck mentioned in the prior post, readers who are fluent are more apt to read a lot, resulting in greater vocabulary expansion. Who knows? Avid readers and seekers might even develop a lasting interest in a particular topic and become über-motivated. Attentive and alert. Curious and increasingly confident. Hopefully, the development of interest is still a prime goal of education, as described years ago by Edward Thorndike (1906) and John Dewey (1913).

Pass the word along. Tell students they struggle with English because it is complex, but remind them also that they can solve this fascinating puzzle if they sort out the patterns and practice daily. Affirm every attempt. Help every teacher and parent understand the nature of this fabulous beast.

PS. Grammar is another story. Believe it or not, English grammar is relatively simple when compared to other large languages. Science Daily reports on pertinent new research from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Memphis.

References:

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and Effort in Education. Riverside Press, Boston.  

Frost, R. (2005). Orthographic systems and skilled word recognition processes in reading. In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A   handbook. (pp. 272-295). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.  

Seymour, P.H.K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J.M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143-17.  

Thorndike, E. L. (1906). The Principles of Teaching: Based on Psychology. A. G. Seiler: New York.  

University of Pennsylvania (2010, January 21). Language structure is partly determined by social structure. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 23, 2010.

Reading Fluency and Vocabulary (Hasbrouck)

Dr. Jan Hasbrouck contributed the following post. Jan's research interests include fluency, educational leadership, literacy coaching, etc. Helpful guides for teachers include The Reading Coach: A How-To Manual for Success.

 
I have been involved with issues related to reading fluency for over thirty years. My interest in this topic started when I was a reading specialist, working with struggling readers in primary, intermediate, and middle schools. I was frustrated with the fact that while so many of my students could read—they could figure out what the words on the page were, and in most cases make sense of what they had decoded—most of my students couldn’t read well. Daily, I watched them struggle. They worked HARD to read text. It took them a long TIME to read sentences and passages. There clearly was little to no intrinsic MOTIVATION to read anything.  

Because this awareness began over three decades ago—long before the publication of the Report of the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000)—I had to do some exploring on my own to figure out what I needed to do to help my students become successful, motivated readers. My investigations helped me understand that a key skill that was missing in many of my students’ repertoire was fluency, which I have come to understand as “accurate reading at a minimal rate with appropriate prosodic features and deep understanding” (Hudson, Mercer, & Lane, 2000). I appreciate this particular definition because it includes all the key components of reading fluency—and lists them in what seems to me the correct order. Below, I will discuss these four components and their contribution to reading fluency. 

Accuracy. Fluent reading is first and foremost ACCURATE reading. We’d never consider a reader to be fluent if he or she made many errors. Nor would we expect a reader to never make a mistake. We are human after all! Acceptable levels of accuracy in reading would typically range from 97 to 98%. 

Rate. I also appreciate that Hudson et al.’s definition mentions RATE--but not a maximum rate. This is a common misunderstanding about fluency. But we understand that fluent readers do not read as fast as they can (although that can be fun to try from time to time! Ready, set, GO!!). As reading specialist, my question was: “So, what should the ‘minimum rate’ be for my students?” Without this information it is difficult if not impossible to set a reasonable instructional goal for students. I was surprised to find that in the early 1980s there was no answer for this question in the current research literature. When I mentioned this critical gap to my then doctoral advisor, Dr. Jerry Tindal at the University of Oregon, he suggested that we should do the research to provide this information for our professional educator colleagues. Together we compiled oral reading fluency norms that continue to be used today to help determine an appropriate “minimum rate” (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 1992; 2006).

 Prosody. Appropriate PROSODIC FEATURES means that when students read aloud, they should use “good expression” with appropriate rhythm, intonation, phrasing, and stress patterns of syllables. In other words, fluent reading should sound like speech (Stahl & Kuhn, 2002). The research is just emerging on the role of prosody in reading and at this point there is only minimal evidence that prosodic reading serves as a significant mediator of reading comprehension (Schwanenflugel et al., 2004).  

Deep Understanding. We care about the skill fluency because the point of reading is comprehension and many if not most of our dysfluent students have difficulty making sense of what they read. The information comes in inaccurately and/or too slowly for the brain to process correctly. Students who struggle with fluency also read significantly less than their more skillful peers and fall further behind in skill development. As Stanovich (1986) reminds us, in reading the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Vocabulary development is affected by reading fluency. Some struggling readers, especially those who have been diagnosed as having dyslexia, have an understanding of spoken words (listening vocabulary) that is at times even superior to their normally progressing peers (Wolf, 2002). However, in order for a student to apply their understanding of the vocabulary in text, they must be able to read that text accurately and at a reasonable and appropriate rate.

Every teacher and every parent wishes that every child will learn to read and love to read. Paying attention to the skill of fluency can help us all achieve that wonderful goal. Help children read fluently, and they will be more apt to enjoy books and other print media. Fluent readers gain word and world knowledge from texts and websites. Ultimately, a natural byproduct of frequent and fluent reading is improved vocabulary and comprehension.

Now, I’d love to hear from you. Please share your expertise! What tools, tips, or techniques have you found effective in building students’ fluency with words, phrases, sentences, and/or passages? What tools do you use to measure fluency? How well is it working? Drop us a line! I am happy to respond to any comments or questions you may have on this topic. 

• Hasbrouck, J. E. & Tindal, G. (Spring, 1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2-5.Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(3), 41-44.
• Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher. 59(7),636–644.
• Hudson, Mercer, & Lane (2000). Exploring reading fluency: A paradigmatic overview. Unpublished manuscript. University of Florida, Gainesville.
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Schwanenflugel, P. J., Hamilton, A. M., Kuhn, M. R., Wisenbaker, J. M., Stahl, S. A. (2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 96(1), 119-129.
• Stahl, S. A. & Kuhn, M. R. (2002). Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement: Making it sound like language: Developing fluency. The Reading Teacher, 55 (6), 582-584.
• Stanovich, Keith E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.
• Wolf, M. (April 2002). Reading difficulties - A major health problem. Radio broadcast Monday 1 April 2002. Retrieved January 5, 2010 from href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s518687.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s518687.htm