论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】： Morphological knowledge plays a essential role in children’s vocabulary development which in turn contributes to their literacy development and scholastic success. Therefore， morphological instruction is believed to be able to help children develop their morphological knowledge and promote the development of their vocabulary. A number of researchers have done studies on the effects of morphological instruction. This paper reports and summarizes previous studies on the effects of morphological instruction.
【Key words】： effects; morphological instruction; vocabulary
1.Introduction
More and more educators realize that morphological knowledge plays a crucial role in children’s vocabulary development which in turn contributes to their literacy development and scholastic success （Bowers & Kirby， 2010; Ramirez，et al.， 2014）. Morphological instruction is believed conducive for the development of the morphological knowledge and vocabulary of the children（Bowers & Kirby， 2010; Ramirez，et al.， 2014）. A number of researchers have done studies on the effects of morphological nstruction （Bowers & Kirby， 2010; Ramirez，et al.， 2014）. In this paper， the author reports and summarizes previous studies on the effects of morphological instruction.
2.A Comparative Analysis of the Studies
In the following part， the author will conduct a comparative analysis of the previous studies.
2.1 The Description to the Studies
Bowers and Kirby （2010）made a study on the effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition of Grade 4 and 5 school children. In this study， the researchers investigated a 20-session intervention targeting morphological word structure on vocabulary knowledge. The subjects of this study were 81 students in two Grade 4 and two Grade 5 classes from two public schools. The research used intervention instruction to collect date and the hierarchical regression analysis to analyse the dates. The results of the research indicate that the treatment group made better use of the pre- test vocabulary knowledge in learning new vocabulary. Results are discussed in light of the growing debate regarding whether to teach many words in a shallow way or to provide deep， rich instruction about fewer words.
Ramirez，et al. （2014）studied the morphological awareness and vocabulary development of kindergarten children. In this study， the researchers investigated the effect of the intervention on growth of vocabulary and morphological awareness among kindergarten children with different ability levels. The subjects in this study were 108 children from schools severing socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhood. The researchers used intervention instruction to collect date， too. The findings of this study indicates that morphological awareness and vocabulary skills were reciprocally related and each made a unique contribution to growth in the other. In sum， both of the two researches involves the study to the effect of the morphological instruction to vocabulary acquisition. However， there is a lot of similarities and difference between them. The author will discuss the differences between these studies in the following part.
Difference between the Studies.
2.2Differences between the Studies
1） In terms of the research topic， Bowers and Kirby （2010） emphasised the bidirectional effect of morphological instruction to vocabulary acquisition， while Ramirez，et al. （2014） paid attention to the reciprocal relation between morphological awareness and vocabulary skills， which is the most important difference between the two researches.
In the introduction part， Bowers and Kirby （2010） introduced the background knowledge of the research， namely， the growing debate regarding whether to teach many words in a shallow way or to provide deep， rich instruction about fewer words and respectively present some previous studies on relationship between morphology and the vocabulary learning and relationship between morphology and vocabulary instruction. Ramirez，et al. （2014）’s background knowledge was the effect of early intervention to the vocabulary acquisition of children is important， and some previous studies about the early intervention proved that read-aloud， explicitly teaching and extended vocabulary instruction is effective vocabulary learning strategies.
2） The research questions of the Bowers and Kirby （2010）’s research were if the bases of morphological complex words can be identified after the intervention instruction and if the bases identify abilities can explain the different vocabulary knowledge and if the instruction can lead to the gains in vocabulary learning. Ramirez，et al. （2014）’s study tried to answer the questions of the unidirectional effect of the morphological awareness and the vocabulary growth.
According to the two researches， we can assume that they have a theoretical consensus which claimed that a child’s socio-economic status is a critical correlate of vocabulary knowledges. Based on this theoretical background， Bowers and Kirby （2010） chose the subjects from one school in a suburban neighbourhood and another school in a nearby small town， and Ramirez，et al. （2014） chose the children from school severing socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhood as the subjects of the research. One exclusive feature of Bowers and Kirby （2010） ’s study is the subjects of the research were divided into treatment group and control group. One exclusive feature of Ramirez，et al. （2014） ’s study is that the subjects of the research have different ability levels， which is a important variable that influences the result. Both of the researches used the intervention instruction to collect date， the Bowers & Kirby （2010）’s instruction was implemented for at least 24 sessions distributed over 3 months， each session lasting about 30 minutes， while Ramirez，et al. （2014）’s instruction was implemented 20 sessions and each session lasting 50 minutes. Furthermore， the date analysis of the two researches are based on the comparison of two stages of test， pre-test and the post-test. The researchers used the words matrix and word sum as tool to test the students in Bowers & Kirby （2010）’s study， while Ramirez，et al. （2014）
mainly used oral activities， flash cards， lesson videotapes and other strategies to test the children.
3）In the measures part， the Bowers and Kirby （2010）’s study made an explicit description of rules， procedures and criteria for scoring， which was designed for linguistic features that only students with explicit instruction， while Ramirez，et al. （2014） made a rough description about the measures in two parts， morphological awareness and the expressive vocabulary.
4）In the research process， Bowers & Kirby （2010） paid more attention to the effect of metalinguistic features to the children’s vocabulary acquisition， in other words， it is the inherent features of words can influence the children’s vocabulary acquisition. Therefore， the researchers designed the test according to the base identification and morphological vocabulary and listed word category like word taught， base taught and affixes taught. While in Ramirez，et al. （2014） held that it is the instruction or the external factors to determinate the acquisition， so they chose the direct instruction， morphological intervention and ability level as the variables that influence the result of the vocabulary acquisition. At the same time， the researchers stressed the compound words awareness， which is scant in the current empirical evidence.
5）In the result part， both of the two researches used regression analysis to analyse the date. Bowers & Kirby （2010） used the hierarchical regression analysis and Ramirez，et al. （2014） used a stepwise regression analysis. In addition， different from Bowers & Kirby （2010）’s date-analysis measure ANOCOVA， Ramirez，et al. （2014） used ANOVA to analysis the date. Bowers & Kirby transformed the raw scores into Z-scores to show the results. While Ramirez，et al. （2014） adopted the confidence interval to analysis the date.
3.Conclusion In one word， between the two researches， there are not contradict points but differences because they are based on different subjects. Based on the same hypothesis theoretical frame that is the morphological instruction have effect on vocabulary acquisition， the two researches used different research methods. Considering the difference between the research subjects， which are students in the primary school and children in kindergarten， there is a guideline for the future study that is to take the students in secondary schools even in universities as research subjects. In light of the current positive results of the two researches， it would be valuable to investigate the effect of similar morphological instruction with populations identified for reading and/or learning disabilities. Moreover， it is critical to develop standardized measures of morphological awareness that could capture individual differences in younger learners and provide a better understanding of the development of different aspects of morphological awareness， as well as their relationships with vocabulary and emerging literacy.
References
[1]Bowers， P. N. & Kirby， J. R.. Effects of Morphological Instruction on Vocabulary Development[J]. Read Writ， 2010， 23：515-537.
[2]Ramirez， G.， Walton P. & Roberts， W. Morphological Awareness and Vocabulary Development among Kindergartens with Different Ability Levels[J]. Journal of Learning Disabilities， 2014， 47：54
【Key words】： effects; morphological instruction; vocabulary
1.Introduction
More and more educators realize that morphological knowledge plays a crucial role in children’s vocabulary development which in turn contributes to their literacy development and scholastic success （Bowers & Kirby， 2010; Ramirez，et al.， 2014）. Morphological instruction is believed conducive for the development of the morphological knowledge and vocabulary of the children（Bowers & Kirby， 2010; Ramirez，et al.， 2014）. A number of researchers have done studies on the effects of morphological nstruction （Bowers & Kirby， 2010; Ramirez，et al.， 2014）. In this paper， the author reports and summarizes previous studies on the effects of morphological instruction.
2.A Comparative Analysis of the Studies
In the following part， the author will conduct a comparative analysis of the previous studies.
2.1 The Description to the Studies
Bowers and Kirby （2010）made a study on the effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition of Grade 4 and 5 school children. In this study， the researchers investigated a 20-session intervention targeting morphological word structure on vocabulary knowledge. The subjects of this study were 81 students in two Grade 4 and two Grade 5 classes from two public schools. The research used intervention instruction to collect date and the hierarchical regression analysis to analyse the dates. The results of the research indicate that the treatment group made better use of the pre- test vocabulary knowledge in learning new vocabulary. Results are discussed in light of the growing debate regarding whether to teach many words in a shallow way or to provide deep， rich instruction about fewer words.
Ramirez，et al. （2014）studied the morphological awareness and vocabulary development of kindergarten children. In this study， the researchers investigated the effect of the intervention on growth of vocabulary and morphological awareness among kindergarten children with different ability levels. The subjects in this study were 108 children from schools severing socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhood. The researchers used intervention instruction to collect date， too. The findings of this study indicates that morphological awareness and vocabulary skills were reciprocally related and each made a unique contribution to growth in the other. In sum， both of the two researches involves the study to the effect of the morphological instruction to vocabulary acquisition. However， there is a lot of similarities and difference between them. The author will discuss the differences between these studies in the following part.
Difference between the Studies.
2.2Differences between the Studies
1） In terms of the research topic， Bowers and Kirby （2010） emphasised the bidirectional effect of morphological instruction to vocabulary acquisition， while Ramirez，et al. （2014） paid attention to the reciprocal relation between morphological awareness and vocabulary skills， which is the most important difference between the two researches.
In the introduction part， Bowers and Kirby （2010） introduced the background knowledge of the research， namely， the growing debate regarding whether to teach many words in a shallow way or to provide deep， rich instruction about fewer words and respectively present some previous studies on relationship between morphology and the vocabulary learning and relationship between morphology and vocabulary instruction. Ramirez，et al. （2014）’s background knowledge was the effect of early intervention to the vocabulary acquisition of children is important， and some previous studies about the early intervention proved that read-aloud， explicitly teaching and extended vocabulary instruction is effective vocabulary learning strategies.
2） The research questions of the Bowers and Kirby （2010）’s research were if the bases of morphological complex words can be identified after the intervention instruction and if the bases identify abilities can explain the different vocabulary knowledge and if the instruction can lead to the gains in vocabulary learning. Ramirez，et al. （2014）’s study tried to answer the questions of the unidirectional effect of the morphological awareness and the vocabulary growth.
According to the two researches， we can assume that they have a theoretical consensus which claimed that a child’s socio-economic status is a critical correlate of vocabulary knowledges. Based on this theoretical background， Bowers and Kirby （2010） chose the subjects from one school in a suburban neighbourhood and another school in a nearby small town， and Ramirez，et al. （2014） chose the children from school severing socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhood as the subjects of the research. One exclusive feature of Bowers and Kirby （2010） ’s study is the subjects of the research were divided into treatment group and control group. One exclusive feature of Ramirez，et al. （2014） ’s study is that the subjects of the research have different ability levels， which is a important variable that influences the result. Both of the researches used the intervention instruction to collect date， the Bowers & Kirby （2010）’s instruction was implemented for at least 24 sessions distributed over 3 months， each session lasting about 30 minutes， while Ramirez，et al. （2014）’s instruction was implemented 20 sessions and each session lasting 50 minutes. Furthermore， the date analysis of the two researches are based on the comparison of two stages of test， pre-test and the post-test. The researchers used the words matrix and word sum as tool to test the students in Bowers & Kirby （2010）’s study， while Ramirez，et al. （2014）
mainly used oral activities， flash cards， lesson videotapes and other strategies to test the children.
3）In the measures part， the Bowers and Kirby （2010）’s study made an explicit description of rules， procedures and criteria for scoring， which was designed for linguistic features that only students with explicit instruction， while Ramirez，et al. （2014） made a rough description about the measures in two parts， morphological awareness and the expressive vocabulary.
4）In the research process， Bowers & Kirby （2010） paid more attention to the effect of metalinguistic features to the children’s vocabulary acquisition， in other words， it is the inherent features of words can influence the children’s vocabulary acquisition. Therefore， the researchers designed the test according to the base identification and morphological vocabulary and listed word category like word taught， base taught and affixes taught. While in Ramirez，et al. （2014） held that it is the instruction or the external factors to determinate the acquisition， so they chose the direct instruction， morphological intervention and ability level as the variables that influence the result of the vocabulary acquisition. At the same time， the researchers stressed the compound words awareness， which is scant in the current empirical evidence.
5）In the result part， both of the two researches used regression analysis to analyse the date. Bowers & Kirby （2010） used the hierarchical regression analysis and Ramirez，et al. （2014） used a stepwise regression analysis. In addition， different from Bowers & Kirby （2010）’s date-analysis measure ANOCOVA， Ramirez，et al. （2014） used ANOVA to analysis the date. Bowers & Kirby transformed the raw scores into Z-scores to show the results. While Ramirez，et al. （2014） adopted the confidence interval to analysis the date.
3.Conclusion In one word， between the two researches， there are not contradict points but differences because they are based on different subjects. Based on the same hypothesis theoretical frame that is the morphological instruction have effect on vocabulary acquisition， the two researches used different research methods. Considering the difference between the research subjects， which are students in the primary school and children in kindergarten， there is a guideline for the future study that is to take the students in secondary schools even in universities as research subjects. In light of the current positive results of the two researches， it would be valuable to investigate the effect of similar morphological instruction with populations identified for reading and/or learning disabilities. Moreover， it is critical to develop standardized measures of morphological awareness that could capture individual differences in younger learners and provide a better understanding of the development of different aspects of morphological awareness， as well as their relationships with vocabulary and emerging literacy.
References
[1]Bowers， P. N. & Kirby， J. R.. Effects of Morphological Instruction on Vocabulary Development[J]. Read Writ， 2010， 23：515-537.
[2]Ramirez， G.， Walton P. & Roberts， W. Morphological Awareness and Vocabulary Development among Kindergartens with Different Ability Levels[J]. Journal of Learning Disabilities， 2014， 47：54