Stock Exchanges of

Pakistan

Waleed Haider
ROLL NO. L-422
National University of Modern Language,
Lahore Campus
2013-2015

Submitted to: Prof. Saifullah

Faculty of English Language, Literature & Applied Linguistics

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MODERN LANGUAGES
ISLA
In partial fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
ENGLISH LITERATURE & LINGUISTICS
JANUARY, 2015

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MODERN

LANGUAGES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LITERATURE,
LANGUAGE & APPLIED LINGUISTICS

TEACHING OF VOCABULARY THROUGH

MORPHOLOGY
Submitted By: Muhammad Abubaker

Roll #:.12792

MA English Literature & Linguistics

Ms. Hafsa Karamat
Name of Internal Supervisor

Signatures

Ms. Farrukh Shah

Name of External Supervisor

Signatures

Muhammad Kashif Jalil

Name of H.O.D.

Signatures

Brig. (R) Muhammad Akram Khan

Name of Regional Director

Signatures

Date:___________

RESEARCHER'S DECLARATION

I, MUHAMMAD ABUBAKER, do hereby solemnly declare that

the work presented in this research has not been previously submitted to
any other institution for a degree.

MUHAMMAD ABUBAKER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, in the name of Allah the Most Gracious and the
Most Merciful, I thank ALLAH (Subhana Wa Taala) for endowing me
with

health,

patience,

and

knowledge

to

complete

this

work

Alhamdulillah.
Without the guidance and direction of several important
individuals this thesis would never have been completed, Special
appreciation goes to my supervisor, Ms. Hafsa Kramat for her supervision
and constant support.
I would also like to thank Sir Irfan Bashir for his contributions to
the research process. His knowledge and experience were very helpful in
designing the data collection tools and facilitating the recruitment process.
I particularly wish to acknowledge my thanks and sincere
appreciation to procedure and submitted the thesis on time due to head of
English department Sir Rao Kashif for his innovative guidance and
friendly co-operation at various stages of the research work.
Finally I would thank to my parents for their support.

MUHAMMAD ABUBAKER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Chapter 1: Introduction..
1.1-Introduction........................................................................
1.2-Statement of the Problem
1.3-Research Objectives
1.4-Research Questions.
1.5-Hypothesis..
1.6-Significance
1.7-Limitations.
2. Chapter 2: Literature Review...
2.1-What is Morphology?
2.2- Morphology and Vocabulary Learning
2.3- Morphology and Vocabulary Instruction
2.4- Classroom Instruction in Morphology.
2.5- Benefits of Morphology Instruction.
2.6- What Roots to Teach? ....................................................
2.7- Helping Primary Students Learn about Roots.
2.8- Teaching Latin and Greek Word Roots
2.9- Morphological Awareness and Vocabulary Knowledge
2.10- Vocabulary Growth
3. Chapter 3: Research Methodology...
3.1-Population of the Study.
3.2-Sample of the Study..
3.3-Research Tool.
3.4-Procedure of Study.
3.5-Data Analysis..
4. Chapter 4: Data Analysis
5. Chapter 5: Conclusion
5.1- Hypothesis Based Findings...........................................

1
2
9
9
9
9
10
10
11
12
15
18
23
25
31
32
34
34
40
47
48
48
49
49
49
50
69
70

5.2-Recommendations.. 71
5.3-Concluding Remarks.. 72
Bibliography. 74
Appendix

ABSTRACT
The study Teaching of Vocabulary through Morphology was
administered to test whether learning of students improves or not. This
experimental study aimed to contribute in teaching approaches in Pakistan.
The researcher tried to check its feasibility in Pakistani classrooms. For
this purpose 50 students of 9th class were selected and distributed in two
groups; experimental group and controlled group. Two tests were
administered. First test was administered before starting the instructions
and second test was administered after instruction of fifteen days.
Experimental group was taught via morphological structures and later was
taught with normal approach being applied in Pakistani context. The
scores were compared by taking difference of scores via (a-b) approach.
After analyzing all results, it was observed that teacher teaches stem root
or base words to the students and identifies them and make them familiar
to the use of these words in speaking and writing of the students. They
become more proficient in their language. With the help of teaching of
vocabulary especially through suffixes, prefixes and affixes they can
enhance their lexicon.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1

Introduction
Vocabulary is one of the language skills crucial for fluent language

use (Nation, 1993). Vocabulary size is an indicator of how well the second
language (L2) learners can perform academic language skills such as,
reading, listening, and writing (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton and Johnston,
2008; Treiman & Casar, 1996).According to Nation (1993), knowledge of
around 3,000 word families is the threshold needed for tapping other
language skills. Without this threshold, learners encounter problems
understanding the language they are exposed to (Alderson andBanerjee,
2002). Ellis (1997) argues that vocabulary knowledge is a predicator
of learn+ers discourse comprehension, which allows grammatical rules to
be patterned in the learners mind. Having inadequate vocabulary hampers
learners reading comprehension in a way that makes it more likely the
learners will face difficulties in the path of academic achievement.
As such, vocabulary learning and teaching is a central activity in
the L2 classroom. One way in which vocabulary learning can be fostered
is through the use of learning strategies. These strategies are consciously
or unconsciously learned techniques for processing information in order to
enhance learning, comprehension and retention (OMalley and Chamot,
1990). One potential vocabulary learning strategy is the use of
morphological awareness to learn novel vocabulary. Morphological

awareness is defined as the ability to use the knowledge of word formation

rules and the pairings between sounds and meanings (Kuo &
Anderson,2006). With morphological awareness, learners are able to learn
morphemes and morphemic boundaries by disassembling complex words
into meaningful parts (e.g. childhoods = child + -hood + - s), learning the
meanings of roots, affixes (child = baby,hood = the state of being, - s= to
indicate plural nouns), and reassembling the meaningful parts into new
meanings (motherhood , fatherhood ,brotherhood ). The practice of this
dissembling- reassembling method is called morphological analysis.
There is increasing interest in morphological awareness as a
crucial dimension of vocabulary knowledge, especially in reading. In the
first place, morphemes have semantic, phonological and syntactic
properties (e.g. sin the verb rides indicates that the action doer is only
one person who does the action in the present time) (Singson, Mahony and
Mann, 2000) that express the role of a given word in the reading context.
For another thing, words are organized in the mental lexicon according to
their phonological properties with morphological knowledge as a
framework for storing words (Sandra, 1994). Moreover, morphological
awareness makes the learner more aware of the writing system. With the
morphological knowledge, learners can perceive spelling and phonological
irregularities (e.g. sign - signature) (Kuo and Anderson, 2006). The

relationship between morphological awareness and reading may be

reciprocal or directional (Chung and Hu, 2007, Kuo and Anderson, 2006).
In the case the relationship being reciprocal, both reading and
morphological awareness can contribute to the development of one
another. In directional term, morphological awareness leads to reading
proficiency, but not the other way around.
Studies show that language learners encounter complex words at
early stages of their learning. For instance, Nagy & Anderson (1984)
demonstrate that 60% of newly encountered words by children are
morphologically- transparent complex words. Learners are found to be
able to use their morphological knowledge to uncover the meaning of
newly encountered words (Gordon, 1989; Carlisle and Stone, 2003).The
fact that late- elementary graders encounter many derived words in their
reading has motivated researchers to explore further the role of
morphological awareness in vocabulary growth. The task of learning new
words as they are encountered is tremendous .Students encounter up to
100,000 different words during their academic readings at college level
(Graves, 2004). Those 100,000 words include academic words. As learners
make the transition from learning English for basic communication to
learning academic English, they need to learn the academic words critical
to vocabulary development and, therefore, learning success. In order to

develop the needed vocabulary knowledge, learners should be exposed to

various extensive readings, be taught individual words explicitly, and
taught strategies to unlock word meaning, and have their word
consciousness raised (according to Graves, 2004,components of
vocabulary instruction). The concern of the present study is the third
component: vocabulary- learning strategies, particularly those related to
morphological awareness and the resulting morphological analysis (the
realization of morphological awareness). Despite the recognized potential
of morphological awareness for vocabulary leaning, little research to date
has focused on morphological awareness and its relationship to vocabulary
size (Singson, Mahony, Mann, 2000; Carlisle and Fleming,2003). The
nexus between morphological awareness and vocabulary size must be
empirically established before proposing that morphological awareness be
incorporated in the vocabulary learning strategies taught in the secondary
school classroom. Although morphological analysis is not the only
strategy teachable to enhance learners vocabulary size, it is a potential
learning strategy that seems particularly useful for the learners when
attempting to tackle the meanings of new words.
Vocabulary is a fundamental component of a language. Vocabulary
is a web of words; collection of words, cluster of words which someone
familiar with them. To learn a second or foreign language it is necessary to

learn adequate vocabulary. Vocabulary learning is a gradual process; we

can learn it continuously with the passage of time. A standers and great
deal of vocabulary is necessary for speaking, listening, and writing and
especially reading. Language is used as medium of sharing our sentiments,
emotions; we can say that language is a mode of communication and to
make its use effective it is necessary to learn vocabulary.
Extensive vocabulary plays a vital role in learning second language
or target language. In each and every language of the world has its
particular set of words and body of words. English language has a
morphophonemic language because it has its special phonological and
morphological pattern and interrelationship (Venezky, 1999).
Carlisle (2003a) pointed out that familiar word parts can facilitate
language learning compared to learning each complex word in isolation.
This, however, can only occur when students recognize morphemes within
complex words.
Pressley, Disney, and Anderson (2007) reviewed the evidence for
the value of teaching internal context cues (morphological word parts) for
vocabulary development. Although they described the evidence so far as
thin and equivocal (Pressleyet al., 2007, p 214) they reported that there
was some evidence that teaching about morphemes can improve childrens
and adults ability to infer the meanings of words.

Nunes, Bryant, and Olson (2003) and Bryant (2006), and Henry
(1989) provided experimental evidence that morphological instruction
dictation amends word reading and spelling, but they additionally noted
that this type of instruction dictation is infrequent in schools. This
omission may have particular pertinence for literacy development in
English due to the particular nature of oral and written morphology in
English. Morphology is widely held to be part of the explanation for how
children learn so many words that they were never explicitly taught (e.g.,
Anglin, 1993; Carlisle & Fleming, 2003).
Baber and Bacon's (1995) stated that the teaching morphology can
be helpful to improve or learning vocabulary of children and learners. The
strategy of teaching vocabulary can also be useful to comprehend their
vocabulary through reading and they become fluent in their reading.
Pakistani learners have individual vocabulary words rather than
webs words of vocabulary of second language. The weakness in
vocabulary enables them to performing poorly in listening, speaking,
reading and writing. Vocabulary has a vital role in learning any language
especially English as a second language. Pakistani second language
learners learn limited words of vocabulary and try to use them repeatedly,
which is inappropriate use of vocabulary of second language; a great deal
of deficiency by Pakistani learners. They learn a stem and try to poke it in

every sentence; they do not have any idea of Suffixes or Prefixes. For
example, the stem sign; the learners do not have idea to use prefixes and
suffixes of this stem. Such as:
Resign

Assignments

Signed

Signify

Signature

Signing

Assign

Signal

They only know about the stem words because of which they have
very inadequate vocabulary and when this stem is changed by suffixes and
prefixes, the learners do not understand the meaning or usage of this stem.
Lack of vocabulary is a major deficiency in second language learning; due
to this flaw the learners of second language do not learn the language
properly.
If the learners of second language have some idea of prefixes and
suffixes, they do not use them appropriately. They do not have the idea
and knowledge of stems final, single and silent e. They do not remove
this final, single and silent e before adding suffixes. Such as make and
circle both are stem we can change these through suffixes for example;
making and circling. This process involves morphological analysis in
which learners break complex words into constituent meaning elements
called morphemes (bases, prefixes, and suffixes).

1.2

Statement of the Problem

Vocabulary is integral part of any language teaching learning

activity. There are various ways of vocabulary teaching in ESL class. This
research will explore the effect of teaching vocabulary through
morphological rules.
1.3

Research Objectives

To find out the effectiveness of morphological rules in teaching

of vocabulary at secondary level

To give recommendations to the teachers of English using
morphological rules in teaching vocabulary

1.4

Research Questions

What is the effectiveness of morphological rules in teaching of

vocabulary at secondary level?

How morphological rules can be used by secondary school
teachers in teaching vocabulary?

1.5

Hypothesis
1. There is significant difference between mean scores of the students
taught through using morphological rules and the students not
taught through morphological rules.
2. There is significant difference between mean scores of pre test and
post test of the experimental group.

10

3. There is significant difference between mean scores of pre test and

post test of the control group.
1.6

Significance
This study will be helpful for:

The teachers of English as they will be able to teach

vocabulary through morphological rules.

The students as they will be able to develop an awareness of
morphological rules. This answer will help them to develop
and use vocabulary in a better and systematic way.

1.7

Limitations
Due to time constraints and financial issues the study will be

confined on secondary schools of Lahore. This study is limited to the

teaching of vocabulary through morphological rules based on inflectional
and derivational suffixes.

11

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

12

2.1

What is Morphology?
Morphology manages the inner structure of words.

Morphological guidelines tag how new words and word structures are
shaped and capacity as excess standards regarding existing complex words
in the vocabulary. Morphology is consequently vital for the portrayal of
dialects and the hypothesis of punctuation.( Geert Booij. 2012)
Morphology refers to the study of forms. Linguistics
morphology refers to the study of words, their internal structure and the
mental process that are involved in word formation (Arnoff and Fudeman,
2005, OGrady, Cuzman, 1997). It is the study of the hierarchical and
relational aspects of words and the operation on lexical items according to
word formation rules to produce other lexical items (Leong and
Parkinson, 1995, p. 237).
Traditionally, a word can be divided into the minimal
linguistic units that bear meanings or grammatical functions (i.e.
morphemes). In line with the traditional definition, Coates (1999)
identifies four criteria of what it takes to be a morpheme. A morpheme
should have a meaning or function, recur in other words with a related
meaning (e.g. un- in unbelievable and unhappy), and be involved in a

13

pattern of interchange (e.g. est in longest can be substituted with another

morpheme such as, - er).
Morphemes can be classified as free or bound. Simply, free
morphemes are those that can exist in their own (e.g. book in notebooks),
whereas bound morphemes cannot (e.g. s in notebooks) (Coates, 1999).
The word reestablishments can be broken into four morphemes: re-,
establish, -ment, -s. Establish is called the root.
The root is the core of a word to which other morphological
units are attached. Establish can also be a stem (i.e. a base morpheme to
which other elements are attached). A stem can be simple (establish) or
complex (establishment). Re- and ment and s are called affixes. Affixes
can appear in the forms of:

prefixes (e.g. re-): bound morphemes that are attached in front of a

stem.
suffixes (e.g. s): bound morphemes that are attached at the end of

a stem.
circumfixes: bound morphemes that are attached simultaneously

before and after the stem (not applicable to English language).

infixes: bound morphemes that are attached in the middle of a stem
(not in English).

14

Morphemes are further categorized into lexical morphemes

(e.g. -full, -ness, etc) or grammatical morphemes (e.g. ed, -s).
Grammatical morphemes are part of inflectional morphology that
underlies the processes involved in building grammatical word forms.
Words that contain inflection are called inflected words (e.g. larger,
willing, biggest, bottles, etc) Lexical morphemes are part of derivational
morphology that is concerned with the processes involved in building
lexical word forms (Coates, 1999). Derivational morphemes are of two
types: class 1 and 2. Class 1 morphemes trigger changes to the base and/
or changes to stress assignment (e.g. ity in sanity, - ive in productive)
while class 2 morphemes do not (e.g. ness in promptness, -less in
hairless) (OGrady, Cuzman, 1997). Words that contain derivation are
called derivatives or derived words (e.g. dehumanize, unsatisfactory, etc).
The study of morphology has been approached by two
complementary approaches: analytic and synthetic (see Arnoff and
Fudeman, 2005). These approaches reflect two dimensions of learners
morphological knowledge of word formation. The analytic approach is
concerned with morpheme identification or breaking words down into its
meaningful components. For example, notebooks can be recognized as
note-book-s. Learners can segment different meaningful chunks that
constitute a word (Mc-Bride-Chang et al., 2005).

15

2.2

Morphology and Vocabulary Learning

Morphology is widely held to be part of the explanation for

how children learn so many words that they were never explicitly taught
(e.g., Anglin, 1993; Carlisle & Fleming, 2003; Carlisle, 2007; Nagy &
Anderson, 1984; Taft & Kougious, 2004). Anglin (1993) described
morphological problem solving as a process by which the meaning of
previously unknown complex words can be deciphered. This process
involves morphological analysis in which learners break complex words
into constituent meaning elements called morphemes (bases, prefixes, and
suffixes). A synthesis of the meaning of those component morphemes
provides cues to the meaning of a previously unknown word. Nagy and
Anderson (1984) estimated that about 60% of the novel words students
encounter in texts could be worked out through problem solving
morphological structure and their use in a sentence. This metalinguistic
process has garnered growing interest in the literature as an important
word-learning skill (e.g., Baumann et al., 2002; Henry, 1989, 2003; Nagy,
2005; National Reading Panel, 2000; Scott, 2005; Templeton, 1989, 2004).
Wysocki and Jenkins (1987) investigated the extent to which untaught
morphological knowledge could account for the increases evident in
childrens vocabulary that far exceeded the number of words explicitly
taught. They found evidence of transfer of word knowledge from taught

16

words to untaught derivations of those words. Anglin (1993) suggested

that morphological problem solving is in part responsible for the rapid
growth in the knowledge of the meaning of derivations between Grade 3
and 5.
Researchers have begun to investigate the effects of explicit
instruction about morphology (e.g., Baumann et al., 2002, Baumann,
Edwards, Boland, Olejnik, & Kameenui, 2003; Carlisle, 2007). Nunes,
Bryant, and Olson (2003), Nunes and Bryant (2006), and Henry (1989)
provided experimental evidence that morphological instruction improves
word reading and spelling, but they also noted that this type of instruction
is rare in schools. This omission may have particular relevance for literacy
development in English due to the particular nature of oral and written
morphology in English.
English has been called a morphophonemic language due to
the special interrelationship of its phonology and morphology (Venezky,
1999). It is common for the pronunciation of morphemes to shift across
English words. For example, consider the pronunciation of the base do in
its inflections does and done or that of sign in derivations such as signal
and design. Carlisle (2003a) pointed out that familiar word parts can
facilitate language learning compared to learning each complex word in

17

isolation. This, however, can only occur when students recognize

morphemes within complex words. In a study with third and fifth grade
students, Carlisle (2000) showed that learners are less able to recognize
morphological cues in shift words that have changes in pronunciation
and/or spelling due to suffixing patterns across related forms. Written
morphology links large word families with concrete meaning elements via
a system of consistent compounding and affixing patterns. It is an
empirical question whether explicit instruction about how this system
works would help children make better use of relatively transparent
connections for independent vocabulary learning. Such instruction could
also help children by making it easier for them to recognize morphological
cues in shift words. Carlisle (2003b) commented, Leaving morphological
analysis to be discovered by students on their own means that those who
are not inherently linguistically savvy are likely to be left behind their
peers in the development of vocabulary, word reading and comprehension,
and spelling (p. 312). So far, however, morphology remains a resource of
meaning cues that has been poorly exploited by explicit instruction and is
only beginning to be investigated experimentally (Nunes & Bryant, 2006;
Henry, 2003).

18

2.3

Morphology and Vocabulary Instruction

Pressley, Disney, and Anderson (2007) reviewed the

evidence for the value of teaching internal context cues (morphological

word parts) for vocabulary development. Although they described the
evidence so far as thin and equivocal (Pressley et al., 2007, p 214) they
reported that there was some evidence that teaching about morphemes can
improve childrens and adults ability to infer the meanings of words.
Graves and Hammond (1980) taught Grade 7 students the
meaning of prefixes in the context of one set of vocabulary words. Those
students were able to generalize the knowledge to new vocabulary words.
The vocabulary intervention by Baumann et al. (2002) incorporated
morphology instruction that taught the meaning of eight common prefix
families. Morphological instruction produced large immediate effects for
deriving the meaning of morphologically decipherable instructed words
compared to a comparison group who received vocabulary instruction
about learning words from (non-morphological) context cues, and to a
control group, but delayed effects were small. There were no instructional
effects on delayed transfer tests. In a follow up intervention, Baumann et
al., (2003) used the context of social studies textbook lessons in the
classroom to compare the effects of vocabulary instruction which

19

integrated teaching about external context cues and morphological

instruction (MC) with the effects of instruction of textbook vocabulary
(TV).
The morphological instruction in this study focused on
prefixes and suffixes and how to use the meaning of these word parts in
conjunction with root words (base words) to learn the meaning of new
vocabulary words. MC students were more skilled than TV students at
inferring the meanings of morphologically decipherable words on a
delayed test but not an immediate test. These studies provide evidence of
moderate to small effects on word learning skills through morphological
instruction.
The current study was designed to address the need for
word structure knowledge to learn both taught and untaught words, and
motivation to use that knowledge, by means of a problem-solving
orientation. Teaching students to discover spelling meaning connections
between words via a structured inquiry, problem-solving approach was
intended to motivate children to see studying word structure as an
interesting, engaging activity in accordance with researchers who
encourage the development of word consciousness (e.g., Graves, 2006;
Nagy & Scott, 2004; National Reading Panel, 2000). Graphic

20

representations of the word structure of morphological families were used

to reduce students working memory load by presenting the integrated
structure and meaning of sets of words instead of presenting those
connected words one at a time.
The instructional design of this intervention differs from
the studies noted above in terms of (a) the detail of morphological content
studied, and (b) how that content was integrated with and dependent on
teaching morphological problem solving. This intervention did not focus
on teaching a specific set of prefixes as did Graves (2004), or even a
particular set of bases, prefixes, and suffixes like the studies of Baumann
et al. (2002, 2003). Instead, this instruction used sets of morphologically
related words to teach how to find meaning cues in consistent spelling
patterns. Tools such as the word matrix and word sum (described below)
were used to investigate morphological word families to guide learning
how a relatively small number of meaningful word elementsmorphemes
form a large number of words and how these morphemes within
complex words can give clues to word meanings. Students were taught
about morphological elements, suffixing patterns, and morphological
problem solving skills to help them discern morphemes not only in
transparent words but also in shift words, in which orthographic shifts due

21

to suffixing patterns or pronunciation shifts might hinder morphological

awareness.
Morphology relates to the segmenting of words into affixes
(prefixes and suffixes) and roots or base words, and the origins of words.
Understanding that words connected by meaning can be connected by
spelling can be critical to expanding a students vocabulary. Further, parts
of words (affixes) can have separate meanings that can transform or morph
word meaning. The sound sequences, letter patterns, and morphemes
depend, to a large extent, on word origin (Henry, 2003).
Understanding the meaning of prefixes, suffixes, and roots
enhances the comprehension of text being read. The manipulation of
affixes can impact the part of speech that a word denotes. Having this
knowledge enhances text comprehension as well. Direct instruction of
morphology is an effective means to help with understanding and applying
word structure for decoding, spelling, and vocabulary study (Wilson,
2005). Specifically, students can be taught strategies to segment or
manipulate words according to their affixes and roots. As a result,
students may be able to recognize an unfamiliar word simply by
identifying the affixes and the remaining base word or root (Carreker,
2005).

22

Textbooks and student writings in the early grades typically

use words of Anglo-Saxon origin. Typically, these words are one- to twosyllable, high-frequency words (Berninger & Wolf, 2009). Textbooks and
student writings in the upper grades more frequently use words of Latin
and Greek origin. In addition, the number of syllables in these words
increases

and unique

spelling

patterns

emerge.

Therefore, the

recommended instructional sequence for teaching word origins, affixes,

and roots is Anglo-Saxon before Latin and Greek.
"Morphology is an essential subfield of linguistics.
Generally, it aims to describe the structures of words and patterns of word
formation in a language. Specifically, it aims to (i) pin down the principles
for relating the form and meaning of morphological expressions, (ii)
explain how the morphological units are integrated and the resulting
formations interpreted, and (iii) show how morphological units are
organized in the lexicon in terms of affinity and contrast. The study of
morphology uncovers the lexical resources of language, helps speakers to
acquire the skills of using them creatively, and consequently express their
thoughts and emotions with eloquence." (Zeki Hamawand, Morphology in
English: Word Formation in Cognitive Grammar. Continuum, 2011)

23

2.4

Classroom Instruction in Morphology

Prince (2009) suggested four main instructional strategies

from Lesauxs work with morphology:

Morphology should be taught as a distinct component of a
vocabulary improvement program throughout the upper elementary years.
Morphology should be taught as a cognitive strategy to be learned. In
order to break a word down into morphemes, students must complete the
following four steps:

Recognize that they do not know the word.

Analyze the word for recognizable morphemes, both in the roots

and suffixes.
Think of a possible meaning based upon the parts of the word.
Check the meaning of the word against the context of the reading.
Students also need to understand the use of prefixes, suffixes, and

roots, and how words get transformed.

Students who have knowledge of Spanish can use cognates, words
that share a common origin.
A multisensory-guided discovery approach, as well as the

use of an affix card deck, are recommended for teaching affixes. Using
this approach, the teacher reads a series of derivatives that have a common
trait (e.g., joyful, careful, helpful, graceful, cheerful). The students
discover the similar sounds and then visually discover the sound-symbol

24

correspondence. The similar sounds and letters are then identified as a

prefix or suffix, and the student verbalizes these discoveries to anchor the
learning. The teacher writes the affix on a card that is added to the affix
card deck that is reviewed in a systematic manner, daily, weekly, and
periodically thereafter (Carreker, 2005).
Yoshimoto (2009) suggested the use of a foldable model for
the study of affixes and roots. In the example shown in Figure 1, the root
port was used as the central focus, and adjustments were made to the
prefixes and suffixes added. De-port-ment was created in the photo
model. Other arrangements that might be created by sliding the inserts to
new positions include trans-port-ation and im-port-ance.
A number of matching and memory games may be found
on the Florida Center for Reading Research website (follow the link
above). Templates are included with directions for assembly. The games
include Affix Concentration - an activity that involves matching affix and
meaning; Meaningful Affixes - a foldable to assemble with affixes, roots,
and definitions; Word Dissect - an activity that involves discussion and
discovery with partners; and Make It Meaningful - an activity that
involves an affix and root meaning discovery within the context of a
sentence.

25

2.5

Benefits of Morphology Instruction

Students who understand how words are formed by

combining prefixes, suffixes, and roots tend to have larger vocabularies

and better reading comprehension than peers without such knowledge and
skills (Prince, 2009).

Nagy (2007) proposed that the teaching

morphological awareness and decoding in school may be the way to

narrow the achievement gap for children whose families differ in
education and income levels, and ethnic or racial backgrounds. A deep
and full knowledge and understanding of vocabulary will improve
outcomes for students who struggle.
It goes without question that vocabulary, a readers
knowledge of the meaning of words and concepts, is central to success in
reading (National Reading Panel, 2000). Studies and reviews of research
over the past three decades have shown that the size and depth of
elementary students vocabulary is associated with proficiency in reading
comprehension and that instruction to increase readers vocabulary results
in higher levels of reading comprehension (e.g., Baumann, Carr-Edwards,
Font, Tereshinski, Kameenui, & Olejnik, 2002; Beck, Perfetti, &
McKeown, 1922; Kameenui, Carnine, & Freschi, 1982; Stahl &
Fairbanks, 1986).

26

Yet, despite the promise of vocabulary instruction to

improve elementary students reading, consensus about instructional
approaches is lacking. Although Stahl and Fairbanks suggest that,
some methods of vocabulary instruction may be more effective than
others (p. 73), the National Reading Panel (2000) notes that, While
much is known about the importance of vocabulary to success in reading,
there is little research on best methods (p. 17). Moreover, the reality of
the classroom is that teachers are generally not familiar and not
comfortable with anything more than dictionary definitions and the use of
sentence context to teach vocabulary (Berne & Blachowicz, 2009;
Blachowicz, 1987; Bloodgood & Pacifici, 2004). Based on their findings,
Bloodgood and Pacifici suggest that teachers need to be introduced to new
approaches to word study in order to build their knowledge base and
implementation strategies. (p.253).This paper attempts to address this
situation by making the case for a very productive, efficient, and engaging
approach to vocabulary and the study of words.
Focus on Meaningful Word Patterns One vocabulary
instruction method that has not traditionally been associated with the
elementary grades is a morphological approach more specifically, an
approach that taps into the fact that a significant number of words,
particularly academic words, in English are derived from Latin and Greek.

27

Why Latin and Greek? Modern English vocabulary (as well as Spanish,
French, Italian, and the other Romance languages) is thoroughly grounded
in Latin and Greek.
To grasp the importance and impact of Latin and Greek in
English consider the following facts (Author, 2008):
Most of the academic words in English (e.g., math and science words)
are derived from Latin and Greek.
Most of the more challenging multisyllabic words in English are derived
from Latin and Greek.
A single Latin or Greek root or affix (word pattern) can be found in and
aid in the understanding (as well as decoding and encoding) of 20 or more
English words.
Since Spanish is also a Latin-based language, Latin (and Greek) can be
used as a bridge to help Spanish speaking students use knowledge of their
native language to learn English.
Clearly, the study of Latin and Greek linguistic patterns
offers an approach to take vocabulary to a deeper and more expansive
level. Anyone who has ever taken Latin in high school soon realizes how
the English lexicon has been influenced by Latin. Knowledge of Latin and

28

Greek roots increases our ability to understand English words. Knowing

that trace, tract, track means to pull, draw or drag can help students
understand words such as track, tractor, traction, retract, detract, abstract,
contract, contraction, intractable, protractor, trace, retrace, and many more.
However, the exploration of Latin and Greek need not be
limited to the secondary grades as it has in the past. Indeed, we feel that
elementary students, beginning in the primary grades, can benefit from a
guided study of Latin and Greek roots. In fact, research has demonstrated
that many roots and affixes, including those of Latin and Greek origin, can
readily be learned in the primary grades (Biemiller, 2005; Mountain, 2005;
Porter-Collier, 2010).
Other studies have demonstrated the promise of teaching
Latin and Greek roots in the intermediate grades (Baumann et al., 2002;
Carlisle, 2000; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2007). In their studies Baumann and
colleagues note that students were able to use their knowledge of
morphemic elements. To infer meanings of untaught words (p. 170)
and Carlisle concludes that the morphology measures together
contributed to reading comprehension. The relationships were particularly
strong for the fifth graders but it is noteworthy that they were significant
for third graders who are presumably still learning basic strategies for

29

recognizing polysyllabic words in print (p. 183). Kieffer and Lesaux

conclude that Students understanding of morphology was a better
predictor of reading comprehension than their vocabulary level (p. 138).
They also found that morphology was as important for ELL students in
contributing to comprehension as it was for native English speakers.
A Latin-Greek based approach to vocabulary instruction
appears to be a useful way to provide instruction that meets diverse
students needs. English language learners, for example, have been
identified as the largest growing population in American schools (Flynn &
Hill, 2005). Because so many of these children speak first languages
semantically embedded in the Latin lexicon (e.g., Spanish), enhancing this
linguistic connection can accelerate students vocabulary growth
(Blachowicz, Fisher, Ogle & Watts-Taffe, 2006). Similarly, research in
content area vocabulary has demonstrated the effectiveness of teaching
Greek and Latin word roots, especially for struggling readers (Harmon,
Hedrick & Wood, 2005).
Moreover, as students move through the grade levels, they
face an increased load of new words, new concepts, and multiple
meanings in school texts of increasing difficulty (Blachowicz & Fisher,
2000, p. 511). Nagy and Anderson (1984) estimate that in grade 5,

30

students meet 10,000 new words in their reading alone and that school
texts used in grades 3-9 contain approximately 88,500 distinct word
families. A majority of the new words encountered in these texts will be of
Greek and Latin origin. A teacher in the Mountain (2005) study summed
up the potential of a Latin-Greek approach to vocabulary with the
following quote: Morphemic analysis may be one way to narrow the gap
between the vocabulary haves and the have nots (p. 744).
Recently, Blachowicz et al. (2006) have called for a
comprehensive,

integrated,

schoolwide

approach

to

vocabulary

instruction. They propose that vocabulary become a core consideration

across grade levels and subjects, and that it be based on a common
philosophy and shared practices (p. 527). Salient components of such a
program focus on fostering word consciousness, the intentional
teaching of selected words, and teaching generative elements of words
and word-learning strategies to build independence (p. 527). Blachowicz
and her colleagues (2006) also emphasize the critical need for students to
make semantic connections among words, connections that are apparent
to students and that they can verbalize. They further note that research that
focuses on teaching structural analysis or morphology has found this
approach helpful for learning new words.

31

2.6

What Roots to Teach?

There has never been a scientifically-based identification of

rimes appropriate for teaching students at various grade levels, or an

identification of the order in which the rimes should be taught. Teachers
and curriculum developers rely on professional knowledge to make those
determinations. Similarly, there exists no scientifically-based identification
of Latin-Greek word roots worth teaching or order of presentation. Until
such an identification is made, expert opinion must be relied upon.
The Table presents what we believe, based on our own
expertise and experience, are the most useful and appropriate roots worth
teaching in the elementary grades (Author, 2008). We developed these lists
from reviews of language arts and content area materials; identification of
roots that appear most frequently in English;, and identification of roots
that have the greatest utility for primary, intermediate, and middle grades.
The roots have also been validated by a group of practicing teachers who
have used them instructionally with their students. These lists of roots are
meant neither to be mandatory nor exhaustive. We provide them simply as
a starting point for discussing and developing an English vocabulary
curriculum based on Latin-Greek word roots. Author (2007) provide more
detailed and comprehensive listing of roots by grade level.

32

2.7

Helping Primary Students Learn about Roots

All primary-level reading instruction includes attention to

phonics or word decoding. Children learn to look inside of words for

familiar letters, word families, etc. Teachers can use this foundation as a
platform to help students learn about word rootsprefixes, suffixes, and
base words. That is, teachers can help children learn to look inside of
words for familiar meanings in addition to familiar sounds.
Attention to compound words offers an easy way to help
children make the sound-to meaning shift. Teachers should start with
familiar, two-syllable compound words such as bedroom, birthday, or
football. Students can learn to look for two words within each compound
word. The teacher can underscore that the two words in each compound
contribute to meaning, with the base meaning ordinarily found in the
second word: What do we call a room where a bed is? What do we call a
ball that you can kick with your foot? After children develop facility with
familiar two-word compounds, the teacher can introduce three-syllable
compound words, such as storybook or fingernail, and invite children to
look for meaning within these longer words.
Common prefixes, such as un- , can provide the next step in
helping children move from sound to meaning. Again, teachers want to

33

select words that are familiar: unwrap, unhappy, unzip, or unbend and
eventually shift to more challenging words: unalike, unchanged,
unanswered. Questions like these can help children look for letter
combinations that, although not words by themselves, still carry meaning:
If un- means not, what does unhappy mean? If un- means not,
what does unchanged mean? Easy suffixes (e.g.,-er, -est [more, most/
very]; ful, -less [full of, without]) can be introduced next, in a similar
manner.
These procedures build awareness that units within words
can contain meaning as well as sound, an awareness that allows students
to add a semantic unit approach to their vocabulary repertoires. They
learn how to get inside words and look for units that carry meaning.
They learn to look for roots and to think about how the different parts of a
word (beginning, middle, end or prefix, base, suffix) all work together
to generate meaning.
2.8

Teaching Latin and Greek Word Roots

Given the limited amount of time available for vocabulary

instruction, teachers might focus on one to two roots per week through 1015 minute- sessions three to five times per week. In the following section
we present a sampling of three instructional approaches for teaching Latin-

34

Greek roots. The first activity is a superb way to introduce a root, the
second is an excellent reinforcement activity, and the third is a creative
extension activity. A more comprehensive and detailed presentation of
instructional methods can be found in Greek and Latin Roots: Keys to
Building Vocabulary (Author, 2008).
2.9

Morphological Awareness and Vocabulary Knowledge

The role of morphology in vocabulary knowledge is well

documented. Many studies show the beneficiary affect of utilizing

morphological information (i.e. morphological awareness) in determining
word meaning (e.g. Raymond, Matti, Maria, 2000), and therefore in
maximizing vocabulary threshold (Sandra, 1994; Wysocki and Jenkins,
1987). Below is a discussion on the nature of morphological awareness
followed by a discussion of the morphological awareness and its
relationship to vocabulary growth.
Morphological awareness refers to the learners knowledge
of morphemes and morphemic structure, allowing them to reflect and
manipulate morphological structure of words (Carlisle, 1995; Carlisle &
Stone, 2003). Awareness of inflectional forms is gained earlier than
awareness of derivational forms (Carlisle and Stone, 2003). The construct
of morphological awareness has been extended to entail other

35

subcomponents (orthographic, semantic aspects) (Kuo and Anderson,

2006).
It is should be noted that many people confuse morphology
acquisition and morphological awareness. While the concept of
morphological awareness implies learners use of meta cognitive strategies
of reflecting and manipulating word formation rules to derive the meaning
of new words in the absence of communicative context, the concept
morphology acquisition does not necessarily entails meta cognitive
strategies. Morphology acquisition means the cognitive abilities to use and
comprehend morphological structure in natural speech (Kuo and
Anderson, 2006). In this sense, morphological awareness falls under the
umbrella of morphology acquisition.
Morphological awareness delineated in this study hinges
upon learners knowledge of morphemes that enables them to recover the
meaning of new complex words by means of morpheme identification or
decomposition (i.e. analysis), and to recombine morphemes to construct
new meaning by means of morphological structure (i.e. synthesis).
Morphological awareness is contrasted with phonological
awareness. The latter refers to the phonological sensitivity to syllable
segmentation, rhyming and phoneme segmentation (Carroll et al., 2003).

36

Some researchers have explored the nexus between morphological

awareness and reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge
independently of phonological awareness (e.g. Carlisle, 2000; Fowler and
Liberman, 1995; Mahony et al., 2000 ), whereas others compared the
effect of morphological awareness with the effect of phonological
awareness on promoting reading skills and proficiency after controlling
for short- term memory and vocabulary (McBride- Chang, 2005; Singson
et al., 2000) and for verbal and nonverbal intelligence (Deacon & Kirby,
2004). In the present study, morphological awareness is addressed
independently of phonological awareness; however, this study does not
propose that phonological awareness is completely detached from
morphological awareness.
A considerable number of studies have accentuated that
morphological awareness is a predictor of some language skills such as,
understanding the spelling system (Fowler and Liberman, 1995; Bear,
Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2004; Treiman & Casar, 1996) and
vocabulary growth, single word reading and reading comprehension (see
Carlisle, 1995; Fowler & Liberman, 1995; Qian, 2002; Tyler & Nagy,
1990). Much to the interest of this study is the correlation between
morphological awareness and vocabulary growth and reading. The
knowledge of morphological units contributes to vocabulary growth that

37

helps developing reading proficiency. The subsequent sections provide an

account of the role of morphological awareness in vocabulary knowledge.
Vocabulary size refers to the number of words of which
some aspect of meaning is known to the learners. Vocabulary size is
contrasted to vocabulary depth that refers to how well a word is known.
The current study capitalizes on vocabulary size rather than vocabulary
depth. The amount of childrens exposure to derivatives (see section 2.1.1
for definitions of derivatives and derivation) is considerable. Nagy,
Osborn, Winsor and OFlahavan (1994) estimates that 4,000 words out of
10,000 words encountered by fifth graders in US are derived from
frequent words. In the same vein, 13,000 out of 30,000 words encountered
by high school students are derivatives (Biemiller, 2004).
Yet, the estimation of vocabulary size varies from one
study to another according to the criteria for defining a word, source of
word pool, and word sampling. For instance, D Anna & Zechmeisters
(1991) study indicates that the vocabulary size of college students were
1,700 words as the researchers define a word as lemmas, or dictionary
main entry and, therefore, the derived words are not considered as part of
the vocabulary size.

38

Those estimations are consistent with Anglins (1993) study

of vocabulary knowledge growth among first and fifth graders. She and
other researchers (e.g. see Carlisle, 1995; Singson, Mahony and Mann,
2000: experiment 1) report that the growth of derivatives increases three
times compared to the growth of root words among the children. This can
be ascribed to the increasing awareness of internal structure of words as
readings become more sophisticated. Nagy and Scott (1990) conducted a
study of students word schemas on seventh and tenth graders and
undergraduate students. All are asked to rate the plausibility of 96
definitions on a four- point scale (1: implausible- 4: plausible); the items
word classes, definitions and sentences that illustrate word usage were
presented. The results show that there is increasing sensitivity to semantic
regularities (i.e. morphological units that share same semantic meaning)
among the students. The results also highlight that the undergraduates
developed specific information about the types of meaning associated with
English verbs (i.e. morphological awareness).
The tremendous amount of exposure to complex words
underlines the importance of morphological awareness in promoting
vocabulary size, and substantiates morphological awareness intervention
as part of vocabulary instruction.

39

Morphological awareness intervention can equip L1

children and L2 learners with some strategies for tackling the meaning of
new words. Although Kuo and Anderson (2006) suggest that vocabulary
size is one of the variables to be controlled when assessing morphological
awareness, the current study seeks to examine the relationship between
those two factors.

40

2.10

Vocabulary Growth
Vocabulary growth among beginner learners of a language

mirrors their ability to use morphological analysis. It has been

demonstrated that morphological awareness and vocabulary growth are
correlated (Nagy & Anderson, 1984; Singson, Mahony, and Mann, 2000;
Sternberg, 1987; White, Power & White, 1989; Wysocki & Jenkins 1987).
Sandra (1994) points out that morphology can play an important role in
developing polymorphemic vocabulary and in retaining their meaning.
Learners vocabulary rapid growth is greatly attributed to their ability to
apply word formation rules (Wysocki & Jenkins, 1987). Learners who
understand the meaning of adapt are likely to understand adaptive,
adaptable and adaptation by means of morpheme identification and
morpheme synthesis.
A number of studies show that learners are able to use their
knowledge of morphological units (affixes, roots) to extract meaning of
complex words they encounter. As evidenced in the following studies,
these complex words are parsed into smaller, more understandable units of
meanings.
Gordon (1989) and Carlisle and Stone (2003) found that
high stem frequency auditory primes facilitate childrens lexical decision

41

of low- frequency suffixed

words, which manifests that learners deal

with complex words analytically. Proficient readers apply analytic rules to

low frequency complex words, especially when the stem frequency is high
(Katz, Rexer, Lukatela, 1991). Wysocki and Jenkins (1987) investigated
whether forth, sixth and eighth graders use morphological analysis to
arrive to the meaning of complex words. Students are given a training
session of a set words two weeks prior to the test. They are tested on some
words related and unrelated to the words in the training session. The
researchers found that the students perform better in the related words, and
that learners understand new meanings by morphological generalization of
those words sharing the roots.
Similarly, Carlisle (2000) examined the relationship
between third and fifth graders awareness of morphological structure and
defining meanings of complex words, and the relationship between
morphological

awareness

and

reading

and

comprehension.

He

administered tests of complex word reading, morphological structure and

complex word meanings. The results indicate that morphological
awareness, for both grades, is correlated with the ability to define complex
words, and that some aspects of morphological awareness are associated
with reading comprehension. However, the fifth graders outperform the
third graders as they have more years of exposure to complex words. Poor

42

readers, on the other hand, have been found to be less sensitive to

morphological relations that facilitate lexical decision, and less efficient in
processing derivative words (Leong & Parkinson, 1995).
Since students are confront a very large amount of complex
words in their academic reading and since complex words are analyzable
into smaller meanings, it makes sense that morphological awareness is
used as a strategy for unlocking meaning of newly encountered words.
Besides, morphological awareness is related to various language skills
(spelling, vocabulary, and reading). Below is an elaboration on the
relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge
and reading proficiency.
There are a number of studies that show that explicit
instruction on affixes and roots help the elementary graders to unlock the
meaning of newly encountered words (Baumann, Edwards, Boland,
Olejnik, & Kame'enui, 2003; Baumann et al., 2002). Baumann et al.
(2003) investigated the impact of instruction on morphological and
contextual analysis (MC) vs. textbook vocabulary instruction (TV) on fifth
graders abilities to decipher meaning of unfamiliar words. The instruction
was part of social studies lessons. The results indicate that the MC
students outperformed the TV students in inferring meaning of unfamiliar,

43

complex words. Early instruction on morphological units is advised by

some researchers such as Anglin (1993) and Biemiller (2004). Similarly,
Morin (2003) studied the impact of derivational morphology instruction
on developing receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge in the case
of Spanish beginner learners at college level. Morin compared the
performance of a control group and an experimental group in the first
semester and the second semester. Three tests were administered:
vocabulary knowledge test, productive knowledge test and receptive
knowledge test. The results indicate that morphological instruction is a
benefit in productive and receptive vocabulary knowledge, especially for
second semester learners. Morphological instruction also helps in learning
new unfamiliar words, and therefore, increasing vocabulary size. Leong
(1999) recommends early explicit instruction of transformation rules,
word formation rules and morphological structure. Morphological analysis
instruction proved to be effective.
There are number of methods for the instruction of
morphological analysis. For example, disassembling and reassembling
words is one of the MC methods in which learners are trained on how to
chunk meaningful parts of complex words and use those parts to create
new words (Edwards, Font, Baumann, & Boland, 2004). Another method
is direct instruction with posters (Graves, 2004). This method is more

44

suitable for children learners where stems and highlighted affixes are
presented on posters along with pictures. The method of affixes removal
and replacement can used to introduce morphological analysis to adult
learners. Disassembling and reassembling words is concerned with
dissecting complex words into small meaningful units, finding the
meaning of stem and affixes, and finally reassembling the meaningful
parts to come up with new complex words. In this sense, morphemic
analysis instruction can make the learners to independently learn new
vocabulary and to take the charge of their own vocabulary development
autonomy.
Overall, research showed that teaching morphological units
explicitly is effective in deriving the learners to unlock complex word
meaning. Teaching morphological information can be done with various
ways such as, morphological analysis and posters of affixes and related
word pictures. Teachers should utilize the methods that better suit the
students level and needs. Before deciding whether the learners need an
explicit morphological analysis to boost their vocabulary size, the
learners morphological awareness and their vocabulary size should be
investigated.

45

The potential of motivating students to engage in active

processing tasks with words through instruction which emphasizes
problem solving of word structure cues rather than memorization is
another reason for investigating morphological instruction. Focusing on
morphology introduces order to the English spelling system, which brings
with it the possibility of using problem solving to investigate what
Templeton (2004) described as the vocabulary-spelling connection.
Studying words through one-at-a-time memorization characterizes much
of spelling instruction, but it fails to motivate many children to learn about
words (Fresch, 2007).
Students who begin to understand morphological structure
can find ordered spelling and meaning cues in words that morphologically
unaware students could only assume are irregular. (e.g., busy/i ? ness ?
business; do ? es ? does). Vocabulary instruction can involve meaningrich, active processing, and learning experiences without addressing
morphology. However, neither the shallow but wide instruction
encouraged by researchers such as Biemiller (2004) nor the rich but
narrow instruction recommended by others such as Beck, McKeown, &
Kucan (2002), offers students the generative spelling knowledge that
provides the basis for explicit awareness and understanding of
morphology, which, in turn, may guide the systematic growth of

46

vocabulary knowledge (Templeton, 2004, p. 120). Such instruction may

bring a double benefit of (a) generative word structure knowledge, and (b)
motivation to attend closely to words.
Finally, morphology can be used to get a better insight as to
how linguistic rules function in language perception and production, and
how linguistic knowledge is mentally represented. Both psychological and
historical evidence throw light on this issue. Thus, morphology contributes
to the wider goals of cognitive science that explores the cognitive abilities
of human beings (Part V).

The next chapter describes the present study, participants,

research instruments, procedure and data analysis.

47

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

48

Research is a systematic and controlled process to discover and

investigate truth. This research study is experimental in nature and mode.
The researchers major purpose and main focus is to find and describe the
enhancement of vocabulary through pre-fixes, suffixes and affixes.
3.1

Population of the Study

The target population consists of fifty students from grade 9 th of

Qazi Grammar High school, Lahore. All the participants of study had
received the formal education of English at schools at least seven to eight
years. The students of both arts and science groups are included in the
study.
3.2

Sample of the Study

The next important step for collecting data from the students is

sampling. The researcher took two groups control and experimental, each
group consists of 25 students.
Pre-Test and Post-Test
Groups names
Controlled group
Experimental group

No. of students
25
25

49

3.3

Research Tool
Pre and post achievement tests were administered as a research

tool. Both the pre-test and post-test were based on fill in the blanks items.
There were fifty blanks given to the students followed by a root word each
of which was to fill in the light of inflectional and derivational suffixes.
Out of fifty, twenty five were selected for pre-test and twenty five were for
post test. Root words which were placed at the end of each sentence and
the students filled accordingly.
3.4

Procedure of Study
The researcher took a pre-test from both control and experimental

groups before giving treatment. After taking pre-test from both groups the
researcher taught for fifteen days in the school to experimental group
while using morphological rules as a teaching strategy and to control
group without using morphological rules. After teaching fifteen days the
researcher took a post-test from both groups control and experimental as
well.
3.5

Data Analysis
After taking tests the researcher checked the test twice and

awarded number to each students. The data was presented in the form of
tables. To test hypothesis, both paired sample and independent sample ttests were applied.

50

CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS

51

Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated to analyze

data by using SPSS. Very first researcher employed paired sample t- test to
compare the results for comparison within groups and then independent
sample t- test to compare the results of control group with experimental
group.

52

Table 1
Marks obtained in Pre and Post tests by control group
Student no.

Pre-Test

Post-test

Difference

1
2

10
9

11
10

1
1

10

12

12

11

-1

10

10

11

11

10

11

13

10

10

11

11

11

12

12

13

13

14

10

11

15

11

16

10

10

17

11

12

18

13

12

-1

19

20

12

12

21

13

13

22

11

23

11

-3

24

11

14

25

14

11

-3

Total

245

274

29

Table 1 shows pre test and post test scores of control group. In pre test the
groups got 245 scores and in post test 274 scores. There is a difference of
29 scores between pre and post test.

53

Table 2
Marks obtained in Pre and Post Test by experimental group
Student no.

Pre-Test

Post-test

1
13
2
9
3
11
4
13
5
10
6
12
7
12
8
14
9
8
10
13
11
10
12
10
13
9
14
11
15
8
16
11
17
13
18
14
19
9
20
11
21
8
22
7
23
12
24
10
25
13
271
Total
Table 2 shows pre test and post

Difference

15
17
14
18
20
21
19
16
16
15
18
22
20
19
20
22
19
18
21
19
22
21
20
19
20

2
8
3
5
10
9
7
2
8
2
8
12
11
8
12
11
6
4
12
8
14
14
8
9
7

471

200

test scores of experimental group.

In pre test the groups got 271 scores and in post test 471 scores. There is a
difference of 200 scores between pre and post test.

54

Table 3
Comparison of Pre test of Control and Experimental groups
Student no.

Pre-Test of
Control

Pre-Test of
Experimental

Difference

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

10
9
10
12
10
11
7
11
9
8
11
12
9
10
8
10
11
13
9
12
0
7
11
11
14

13
9
11
13
10
12
12
14
8
13
10
10
9
11
8
11
13
14
9
11
8
7
12
10
13

3
0
1
1
0
1
5
3
-1
5
-1
-2
0
1
0
1
2
1
0
-1
8
0
1
-1
-1

Total

245

271

26

55

Table 3 shows the comparison of pre tests of control and

experimental groups. In pre test the control group got 245 scores and
experimental group 271 scores. There is a difference of 26 scores between
pre tests of both groups.

56

Table 4
Comparison of Post test of Control and Experimental groups
Student
no.

Post-Test of
control

Post-Test of
Experimental

Differenc
e

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

11
10
12
11
10
11
10
13
9
10
11
13
9
11
11
10
12
12
9
12
13
11
8
14
11
274

15
17
14
18
20
21
19
16
16
15
18
22
20
19
20
22
19
18
21
19
22
21
20
19
20
471

4
7
2
7
10
10
9
3
7
5
7
9
11
8
9
12
7
6
12
7
9
10
12
5
9
197

Total

57

Table 4 shows the comparison of post tests of control and

experimental groups. In post test the control group got 274 scores and
experimental group 471 scores. There is a difference of 197 scores
between post tests of both groups.

58

Table 5
Difference between the Mean Scores of Pretest and Post-test of
Control Group
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean
Pair 1

pretest of Control Group

post test of Control Group

Std.

Std. Error

Deviation

Mean

9.8000

25

2.67706

.53541

10.9600

25

1.45717

.29143

This table shows mean score of pretest and post-test of controlled

group of the study that is 9.8 and post-test 10.96 respectively. Difference
in mean scores is 1.16 that shows very little change in scores. It is inferred
that there was no significant development in learning of the controlled
group of subjects.

59

Table 6
Comparison between the Mean Scores of Pretest and Post-test of
Control Group
Paired Samples Test
Sig. (2Paired Differences

df tailed)

95% Confidence
Std.
Mean

Interval of the
Difference

Std.

Error

Deviation

Mean

Lower

Upper

.59911

-2.39650

.07650

Pair pretest of
1

Control Group post test of

1.16000

2.99555

- 2
1.936 4

.065

Control Group

Table 6 shows the results of paired sample t-test of control group.

T-value is 1.936 which and P value is 0.65 which approves the null
hypothesis, There is no significant difference in scores of pretest and
post-test of the participants of controlled group. It is inferred that there is
no significant learning is found in controlled group.

60

Table 7
Difference between the Mean Scores of Pretest and Post-test of
Experimental Group

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean

Pair 2

pre test of Experimental

Group
post test of experimental
Group

Std.

Std. Error

Deviation

Mean

10.8400

25

2.03470

.40694

18.8400

25

2.28546

.45709

This table shows mean score of pretest and post-test of

experimental group of the study that is 10.84 and post-test 18.84
respectively. Difference in mean scores is 8 that show dominant change in
scores. It is inferred that there was significant change in learning of the
experimental group of subjects.

61

Table 8
Comparison between the Mean Scores of Pretest and Post-test of
Experimental Group
Paired Samples Test

Sig.
(2Paired Differences

df tailed)

95% Confidence
Std.
Std.
Mean

Error

Deviation Mean

Interval of the
Difference
Lower

Upper

Pair pre test of

2

Experimental
Group - post test
of experimental

8.00000

3.58236 .71647 -9.47873 -6.52127

11.166

24

.000

Group

Table 8 shows the results of paired sample t test of control group.

P value is 0.00 that is lower than significant level 0.05 that approves the
hypothesis, There is significant difference in scores of pretest and posttest of the participants of experimental group. It is inferred that there is
significant development in learning of subjects of experimental group.

62

63

Table 9
Number of the Students and Mean of Score in Both Control and
Experimental Groups
Group Statistics
Group
Pretest

Mean

Controlled Group

25

9.8000

Experiment Group

25

10.8400

This table shows mean score of pretest of control and Experimental

group of the study that is 9.8 and 10.84 respectively. This shows that there
is no significance difference in aptitude of both the groups.

64

Table 10
Comparison between the Mean Scores of Pretest of Experimental and
Control Groups
Independent Samples Test

Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

95%
Confidence
Interval of the

Sig.
(2F

Sig.

Pretes Equal
t

df

assumed

1.54

assumed

Difference

tailed) Difference Difference Lower

48

.129 -1.04000

.67251

.129 -1.04000

.67251

Equal
not

Std. Error

variances .029 .865 1.54

variances

Mean

44.79
0

Upper
-

2.39217

2.39468

.31217

.31468

This table shows the Levene's Test for Equality of Variances that
assumes that pretest scores of controlled and experimental groups vary
significantly. P value 0.129 which is more than significance level 0.05,
disapproves the assumption

65

Table 11
Difference between the Mean Scores of Post-test of Experimental and
Control Groups
Group Statistics
Group
Posttest

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Control Group

25

10.9600

1.45717

.29143

Experiment Group

25

18.8400

2.28546

.45709

This table shows mean score of posttest of controlled and Experimental

group of the study that is 10.96 and 18.84 respectively. This shows that
there is significance progress in learning aptitude of both the groups.

66

Table 12
Comparison between the Mean Scores of Post-test of Experimental and
Control Groups
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

Sig.
(2-

Std.
Mean

Error

tailed Differenc Differe

F

Sig.

df

nce

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower

Upper

Posttest Equal
variances 4.692 .035 -14.536

48

.000 -7.88000 .54209 -8.96995 -6.79005

-14.536 40.745

.000 -7.88000 .54209 -8.97499 -6.78501

assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed

This table shows the Levene's Test for Equality of Variances that assumes
that post-test scores of controlled and experimental groups vary
significantly. P value 0.00 which is less than significance level 0.05
approves the assumption.

67

According to Researchers observation after getting pre test

and post test scores of control group. In pre test the groups got
245 scores and in post test 274 scores. There is a difference of
29 scores between pre and post test.
According to Researchers observation after getting pre test
and post test scores of experimental group. In pre test the
groups got 271 scores and in post test 471 scores. There is a
difference of 200 scores between pre and post test.
According to Researchers observation after getting the
comparison of pre tests of control and experimental groups. In
pre test the control group got 245 scores and experimental
group 271 scores. There is a difference of 26 scores between
pre tests of both groups.
According to Researchers observation after getting the
comparison of post tests of control and experimental groups. In
post test the control group got 274 scores and experimental
group 471 scores. There is a difference of 197 scores between
post tests of both groups.
According to Researchers observation after getting mean score
of pretest and post-test of controlled group of the study that is
9.8 and post-test 10.96 respectively. Difference in mean scores
is 1.16 that shows very little change in scores. It is inferred that

68

there was no significant development in learning of the

controlled group of subjects.
According to Researchers observation after getting the results
of paired sample t-test of control group. T-value is 1.936 which
and P value is 0.65 which approves the null hypothesis, There
is no significant difference in scores of pretest and post-test of
the participants of controlled group. It is inferred that there is
no significant learning is found in controlled group.
According to Researchers observation after getting mean score
of pretest and post-test of experimental group of the study that
is 10.84 and post-test 18.84 respectively. Difference in mean
scores is 8 that show dominant change in scores. It is inferred
that there was significant change in learning of the
experimental group of subjects.
According to Researchers observation after getting the results
of paired sample t test of control group. P value is 0.00 that is
lower than significant level 0.5 that approves the hypothesis,
There is significant difference in scores of pretest and posttest of the participants of experimental group. It is inferred
that there is significant development in learning of subjects of
experimental group.
According to Researchers observation after getting mean score
of pretest of control and Experimental group of the study that is

69

9.8 and 10.84 respectively. This shows that there is no

significance difference in aptitude of both the groups.
According to Researchers observation after getting the
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances that assumes that
pretest scores of controlled and experimental groups vary
significantly. P value 0.865 which is more than significance
level 0.5, disapproves the assumption

70

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

71

5.1

Hypothesis Based Findings

On the bases of data analysis following findings has been drawn:
1. First hypothesis There is significant difference between mean
scores of the students taught through using morphological rules
and the students not taught through morphological rules is
accepted because table 12 shows the Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances that assumes that post test scores of controlled and
experimental groups vary significantly P value 0.00 which is less
than significance level 0.05 approves the assumption.
2. Second hypothesis There is significant difference between mean
scores of pre test and post test of the experimental group is
approved because table 8 shows the results of paired sample t test
of control group. P value is 0.00 that is lower than significant level
0.05 that approves the hypothesis, There is significant difference
in scores of pretest and post-test of the participants of experimental
group. It is inferred that there is significant development in
learning of subjects of experimental group.
3. Third hypothesis There is significant difference between mean
scores of pre test and post test of the control group is disapproved
because Table 6 shows the results of paired sample t-test of control
group. T-value is 1.936 which and P value is 0.65 which
disapproves the hypothesis.

72

5.2

Recommendations
The researcher recommends the following for the future
researchers of the same field of study:

It is recommended to the researchers who are interested to

conduct on teaching of vocabulary through morphological rules
as teaching strategy, should increase the duration of treatment
from fifteen days to at least one month.

Effectiveness of morphological rules as teaching strategy

should be explored at primary level as well.

Students of higher level may produce better results in study

based on teaching via morphological structures.

Higher the population, maximum reliability. To get more

reliable and more generalizable results the future researcher
should take maximum possible population as research sample
and research population. Bigger sample will be best for
reliability of results at long run.

This study was organized in small period of time. So one level

was taken for experimental group and controlled group. The
study will be best reliable if it will be administered in long run.
It can also distribute experimental group and controlled

73

according to levels i.e. secondary, higher secondary and

graduation. And the correlate the results to get results.

Vocabulary is an essential part of any language. So language

should be taught with a lot of practice and drilling. Practice
makes a man perfect, so it is necessary for the teachers to teach
vocabulary through drilling and practice. Student should also
learn vocabulary by doing lot of practice to make them
efficient.

5.3

Concluding Remarks
It is observed that vocabulary can be improved through

morphological rules. It is very helpful in initial stages of learning a

language by a learner to improve his vocabulary. It is observed that if
teacher teaches stem root or bias words to the students and identifies them
and make familiar to their use in their speaking and writing. They become
more proficient in their language. With the help of teaching of vocabulary
especially through derivational and inflectional suffixes they can enhance
their vocabulary widespread. This study clears that vocabulary teaching
through derivational and inflectional suffixes is very helpful for the
improvement of students skill in their target language. If a student has

74

only a stem word by the teaching of vocabulary especially through

derivational and inflectional suffixes he can attain a lot of vocabulary.

75

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anglin, J.M. Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
58(10), v-165. 1993.
Barnett, L. The Treasure of Our Tongue. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
1964.
Bauer, L., & Nation, P. Word families. International Journal of
Lexicography, 6(4), 253-279. 1993.
Baumann, J.F., Edwards, E.C, Font, G., Tereshinski, C.A., Kame'enui,
E.J., & Olejnik, S. Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to
fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(2), 150176.
2002.
Baumann, J.F., Edwards, E.C., Boland, E., Olejnik, S., & Kame'enui, E.J.
Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and
context on fifth-grade students ability to derive and infer word
meaning. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 447-494.
2003.
Blachowicz, C. L., & Fisher, P. Vocabulary lessons. Educational
Leadership, 6669. 2004.
Bowerman, M. Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic
development. In E. Wagnner & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language

76

acquisition: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University

Press.1982.
Bowers, P. & Kirby, J. (2009). Effects of morphological instruction on
vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Reading and Writing. Retrieved
online 7-2-09.s
Bowers, P. & Kirby, J. Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary
acquisition. Journal of Reading and Writing. Retrieved online 7-209. 2009.
Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J.R., & Deacon, S. H. (in press). Effects of
morphological instruction on literacy: A meta-analysis. To be
published in Scientific Studies of Reading.
Bryson, B. The Mother Tongue: English and How it Got That Way. New
York: Avon Books. 1990.
Carlisle, J. F. Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary.
Reading Psychology, 24(3), 291-322. 2003. Carlisle, J. F. (2007).
Fostering morphological processing, vocabulary development, and
reading comprehension. In R. K.
Ediger, Marlow. (1999). Reading and vocabulary development. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 26(1), p7, 9p. 1999.

Appendix
Pre-Test
Student

Name________________________

Class_______________

Roll#_______________

Date,___/___/______
Total Marks: 25

Teachers signature _____________

Time: 25 Minutes

Put the word in brackets into the correct form. You will have to use
suffixes.
1.

They enjoyed success on a scale __________by any previous

2.
3.
4.

pop group. (paralleled)

She plays the violin with great _________. (express)
Stand with your feet wide_____. (part)
He would never do anything to ________ the lives of his

5.

children. (danger)
The new teacher had failed to ________any sort of discipline.

6.
7.
8.

(force)
Come and sit here ______ me. (side)
He was ________ by an old lady. (befriend)
I find it very hard to dress my two-year-old when she refuses

9.
10.
11.

to_________. (operate)
The roads ______ near the bridge. (sect)
I still have some _______ business with you. (finish)
The refugees were _______ back to their country of origin.
(deport)

12.
13.

We're living in an _______ world. (perfect)

Our neighbors have always been very ______ towards us.

14.

(friend)
Don't cook vegetables for too long - they'll lose all

15.
16.
17.

their________. (good)
I value her ______ above anything else. (friend)
He was acting in a very __________________ way. (child)
He's lost his book again. I don't know where he has

18.

__________________ it this time. (place)

He didn't pass his exam. He was __________________ for the

19.

second time. (succeed)

The team that he

20.
21.
22.

the__________________ . (champion)
I couldn't find any __________________ in his theory. (weak)
The film was __________________ good. (surprise)
It really isn't mine. I think that you are __________________ .

23.

(take)
The event was totally __________________ . It was terrible.

24.

(organise)
She looked at him __________________ , and started to cry.

25.

(happy)
I've got to have a wash and make myself _____________for
our guests. (present)

supported

were

able

to

win

Post Test
Student

Name________________________

Class_______________

Roll#_______________

Date,___/___/______

Teachers Signature _____________

Total Marks: 25

Time: 25 Minutes

Put the word in brackets into the correct form. You will have to use
suffixes.
1.
2.
3.

It's a school for________________ gifted children. (music)

Do the exercises serve any__________ purpose? (use)
There's quite a ___________of toothbrushes in the bathroom.

4.

(collect)
The world changed rapidly after the __________of the phone.

5.

(invent)
He invasion on land was supported by __________ in the air.

6.
7.
8.

(bomb)
The ground is too hard to be ____________ . (work)
The mixture __________________ as it cools. (hard)
There was a three-hour __________________ because of the

9.
10.
11.

strike. (stop)
She had no __________________ of going to see him. (intend)
The film was __________________ good. (surprise)
He was __________________ . He wouldn't change his mind.

12.
13.

(compromise)
She's the highest-paid __________in Hollywood. (act)
She is an English ___________. (teach)

14.

With a ___________sigh she folded the letter and put it away.

15.
16.

(sorrow)
We had a __________ time with them. (love)
He tried to ___________ the story for the younger audience.

17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

(simple)
She's very __________ to talk to. (ease)
If something is ____________, you must pay tax on it.( tax)
She's getting very ___________in her old age. (forget)
There'll be a ___________ at the kids' Christmas party. (magic)
He pump is ___________ by wind power. (work)
I'm sure he _______________ his kids. (love)
My mother always hated_______________. (cook)
I value her _______________ above anything else. (friend)
He was sitting __________________ in his seat on the train.
(comfort)