Mariel Renon, Cherie Caravalho, Katie Hearl, Rachel Bell

Dr. Collins
SPED 638
November 29, 2017

Research to Practice Toolkit #4 Vocabulary

I. Peer-Reviewed Research Article

According to Harris, Schumaker and Deschler (2011), the recent couple of decades have

focused on reading progress among elementary students, but not as much for adolescents. At the

time of writing their research article in 2011, Harris et al. estimated that roughly 8 million

adolescents in the United States had not mastered reading skills necessary for maneuvering

through secondary school also needed for acquiring ‘meaningful’ jobs after graduation. This is a

point of national concern and while continued progress monitoring should necessarily continue

for elementary level students, an increase in focus is also needed for post-elementary students.

Harris et al.(2011) explain that one reason why proficiency levels are low among

adolescents is because of poor vocabulary knowledge which is an integral part of reading

comprehension and necessary for academic success. In their research article, ​The effects of

Strategic Morphological Analysis Instruction on the Vocabulary Performance of Secondary

​ and Without
Students With ​ Disabilities, Harris et al.​ (2011) characterize ​generative ​teaching

strategies as those that not only teach the student the meaning of the specific targeted word, but

also teach the student to connect meaning and relate it to several other words that share the same

morphemes. In contrast, non-generative teaching strategies help students learn the meaning of

the targeted word but the strategy doesn’t extend to include and place emphasis on connecting

other words through meaning. Harris et al (2011) say that although non-generative strategies are
 effective they are not generalizable to several new words the way the generative strategy is and

may therefore be less practical for students who are already behind and need to build up their

vocabulary bank quickly. To explain the difference between generative and non-generative

strategies more clearly Harris ​ et al. (2011) use the example of the word ​dictate. Using the

​ ​ device, the student might be taught to ​remember the word by

non-generative strategy ​mnemonic

associating tate with a phrase “I​ told Judy Tate” while the non generative strategy, morphemic

​ ​ ​meaning of word parts. For example, the prefix ​dict means to

analysis,​ teaches the student the

​ that to other morphologically similar words like ​dictionary or

say or talk, so they may connect

dictator. The rate at which a student who is deficient in vocabulary can learn new words using

non-generative strategies is approximately 360 new words per year, which is a small number

considering the thousands of words they need to learn to ‘catch up’ to their “normative” peers

who will learn 20,000 words between grades 3 and 5. Students with Learning Disabilities or

other reading issues are already behind, so in order to approach filling the gap for students who

are not meeting grade level proficiency, Harris et al. (2011) recommend using generative

strategies. The generative strategy highlighted in their research, called morphemic analysis,

combines the smaller parts of words (morphemes) and draws connections with several other new

words. Thousands of new words can be learned quickly using this method. The strategy involves

breaking a word into its morphological parts, learning the meanings of the parts, and then

combining different word parts (suffixes, prefixes and roots) to form new words and understand

their definitions. Although some research suggests that students naturally form morphological

analysis skills as they age, direct and explicit instruction for struggling students can greatly excel
their vocabulary bank (Harris et al. 2011). For example, 25 new words can be connected by

learning one root word ‘port’ (eg. ​port​folio, im​port​ant, de​port​).

Since previous research included heterogenous classes but didn’t separate the outcomes

for students with learning disabilities, Harris et al.(2011) felt that more research was needed

regarding students with disabilities using the morphological analysis strategy. The purpose of

their study was to extract information on the effects of this intervention strategy with older

students with disabilities to understand how effectively the students were able to analyze and

predict the meanings of words. Harris et al. (2011) used 230 ninth grade public school students in

their study and separated them into two subgroups: students with disabilities (SWDs) and

students without disabilities (NSWDs). Nine classes of ninth graders were involved in the study

with 3 classroom teachers attached. Three classes, from one teacher, were assigned as a

normative comparison group and they did not receive intervention but were a test only (TO)

group. Among the other six classes, the students were randomly assigned the generative

intervention called Word Mapping (WM) or a non-generative intervention called Vocabulary

LINCS (VL). Among the 69 students in the WM group, there were 10 students with learning

disabilities, 6 out of 73 in the VL group and 8 out of 64 in the normative comparison group / TO

group). The participating school was located in an urban area with class sizes that average about

30 students with almost half of the school population receiving free or reduced school lunch.

Within the regular inclusion English classroom setting, the author, Harris, instructed the

interventions.

The Word Mapping strategy, a generative morphemic analysis strategy, was taught to

students consists of 4 steps taught to students: breaking the words into morphemic parts,
attaching meaning to the parts, predicting the meaning of the unknown word based upon the

parts, checking the definition to see if the prediction was correct. The non-generative, VI strategy

uses a set of mnemonic steps including a keyword, a visual image, a connecting story, and a self

test to help the student memorize and recall the meanings of a set of vocabulary words. The TO

group received their usual ninth grade English instruction from their regular teacher without any

particular vocabulary instruction and no change to their usual instructional routine. The

intervention took place over 10 classes for 45 minute sessions for a total of 7.5 instructional

hours.

A fidelity checklist was in place to ensure quality teaching of the interventions. Three

subtests were conducted to test the students’ strategy knowledge, word knowledge, and

morphological analysis skill before and after the intervention. The pretests were conducted over

two 90 minute periods and the normative comparison group did not take the strategy test as this

was deemed unnecessary due to the fact that they would not receive the intervention instruction.

The results show that both students with and without disabilities made comparable gains

in strategy-use and word knowledge. The group who received the generative morphological

analysis intervention scored significantly higher than the VL and TO groups regarding meaning

of parts of words. The students who received the non generative VL intervention (both SWDs

and NSWDs) did also make gains but the results suggest that those students who received the

generative, morphological analysis intervention were better able to identify more meanings of

word​ parts and ​predict the word meaning with more accuracy than the other two groups. The

overall findings indicate that both the WM and VI strategies are effective but that the generative

morphological analysis intervention is more effective in connecting meaning to word parts.

Furthermore, the results of this study fall in line with previous studies concerning the comparison

of students with disabilities and students without disabilities showing that both strategies were

effective among students with a Learning Disability but at a lower rate for those with LD (Harris

et al. 2011). Overall, it can be concluded from this research that both WM and VI instructional

interventions are equally effective for teaching student vocabulary strategy and isolated word

knowledge, the generative morphological analysis instruction strategy is superior in regards to

teaching the meaning of word parts and predicting the meaning of unknown words.

Limitations of this study include the small number of students with disabilities and the

restrictive instructional time. One main purpose of this study was to examine how effective these

interventions are with students with learning disabilities in inclusive classroom settings. Further

research is needed with a larger pool of student with LD and over a longer period of instructional

time so the full long term effects of the intervention can be seen (Harris et al. 2011).

II. Peer-Reviewed Practitioner Article

This practitioner article, ​Integrating Morphological Knowledge in Literacy Instruction

Framework and Principles to Guide Special Education Teachers by Claravall (2016), says that

when morphology is taught, it focuses on the literacy components such as morphemic analysis,

vocabulary and spelling, contextual reading, and written expression.

The article introduces Ms. Gonzalez, a resource language arts teacher whose third, fourth,

and fifth grade students “are able to identify letters and sounds, manipulate sounds, and map

sounds to letters or letter patterns” (Claravall 2016). However, as texts become more complex,

students will need more than just phonological skills. In Ms. Gonzalez’s case, when her students

came across multisyllabic complex words, they would skip it or struggle sounding the word out.
Her students “shown inadequate word identification strategies and spelling skills with complex

words” (Claravall 2016).

There are five evidence-based principles of teaching morphology that can be integrated

within language arts to help students like those in Ms. Gonzalez’s class. These principles are:

teaching ​morphological knowledge explicitly, situate morphology lessons through close reading

of literature and informational texts, developing morphological knowledge through meaning and

spelling connection, using morphologically complex words in writing tasks, and embedding

digital media and technology to develop morphological awareness. These five principles are

based on the four literary components and evidence-based practice.

The first principle, teaching morphological knowledge explicitly, is to help students

understand that morphological complex words can be found in all subject areas and not just in

language arts. These complex words can be broken up into base words, prefixes, suffixes,

inflections, Greek and Latin roots - substructures known as morphological knowledge. With this

first principle students should learn to analyze and to dissect a word in order to help with the

meaning. Students should have explicit instruction finding base words. When students learn this,

they can then be introduced to prefixes and suffixes, knowing the differences in where it is

attached to the base word.

The second principle, ​situating morphology lessons through close reading of literature

and informational texts​, allows students the opportunity to use morphology strategies and

teachers to teach morphology lessons in texts used in the classroom. “The goal of explicit

morphology instruction is to develop students’ awareness of different structures of complex

words in order to improve reading comprehension” (Claravall 2016).

 The third principle is developing morphological knowledge through meaning and spelling

connections. Students who struggle with reading also struggle with their spelling. These complex

words “carry a significant meaning to the text and are essential to the development of academic

vocabulary” (Claravall 2016). With these morphologically complex words, students are able to

break apart the word. An example used in the article was the word ​indescribable. A student is

able to spell the word and understand the word meaning using morphemic analysis. So a student

will break apart ​indescribable into the base word and affixes, “​describe, explaining something;

in-, not; and ​-able, to do so” (Claravall 2016).

The fourth principle is using morphologically complex words in writing tasks. Students

should be given the opportunity to apply the morphologically complex words they learn in

writing sentences. Teachers will guide students when choosing the words, as well as and

eventually release the responsibility. “Students need to learn how to use their newly acquired

morphological knowledge independently in spelling and multisyllabic words in sentence writing”

(Claravall 2016).

The last principle is embedding digital media and technology to develop morphological

awareness, which provides access to teaching morphological awareness to students using online

learning tools. “The use of digital media and technology can provide additional instruction in

vocabulary and spelling to address students’ individual needs” (Claravall 2016).

“In the era of the Common Core implementation, teaching morphology prepares students

who receive special education services for the rigors of content area reading materials. Hence,

the study of morphology raises the bar of expectations for students with reading disabilities,

exposing them to morphologically complex words” (Claravall 2016). By integrating

morphological instruction knowledge in literacy instruction, students can improve on their

decoding, spelling and writing skills by teaching the morphology behind words.

III. Overview of the Practice

The focus/outcome area of the strategy

The focus/outcome of this strategy is to enhance the student’s knowledge of roots and

affixes in order to use it as a tool/ strategy to define unknown words. Students will be successful

with this skill if they are able to break up a vocabulary word and recognize the root and/ or affix

and its definition. This will help them gain vocabulary knowledge as well as assist them with

comprehension of informational and literary texts.

Prerequisite skills students will need:

There are a few prerequisite skills that students need to know in order to be successful

when participating in this lesson. Students need to know and understand classroom guidelines

and goals and expectations of the lesson. A key skill that the students should know is computer

literacy. Students will be researching vocabulary words and working on Google Classroom,

which are lessons that should have been introduced previously. Students should also know the

components of their vocabulary folders and how to use it as a resource. Lastly, students need to

know the expectations for tracking along with notetaking in class and while using the internet to

research root words and affixes.

Materials

● Laptops

● Pencils

● Individual Vocabulary Folders

 ● Blank paper for vocabulary trees

● Pre made vocabulary trees

● SMARTBoard (if not available you can use your whiteboard or computer projected on

the whiteboard or connected to the classroom T.V.)

Critical components for implementation

There are some critical components for implementation of this lessons for students.

Students need to be able to follow verbal and nonverbal cues and directions. Students also need

to attend to instruction given in a whole group setting, as well as be independent workers during

the guided and independent practice section of this lesson. Another critical component for

implementation is to have pre-made vocabulary trees readily available as a way to scaffold that

step for students who are not able to hand draw a tree.

​Considerations for implementation

One consideration for implementation that teachers need to be aware of is that it is

absolutely crucial to monitor student work. This is not a learning activity where teachers can be

passive observers while students work. By frequently monitoring the groups, teachers are able to

determine if students are implementing the vocabulary strategy accurately and effectively. In

cases where students are not following the lesson expectations, teachers need to intervene to

correct, give further directions and modeling, and ensure that students are productive in the

activity. Another consideration for implementation is to ensure that EAs or other adults are

aware of the student expectations and provide assistance when needed. They also need to be

cognizant of a student’s nonverbal cues and body language to determine if a student is doing well

or getting frustrated.
 Another component that teachers must take into consideration is that this lesson might

take a few instructional days to complete depending on their knowledge of the aforementioned

prerequisite skills. Teachers need to plan their time and this lesson accordingly. This lesson plan

and the learning activities are accessible to virtually every teacher and can be utilized in many

different content areas. Once students are aware of the steps of this vocabulary activity it is fairly

easy for teachers to prepare and implement in their classrooms and content areas.

IV. Mini Lesson Plan

Connection to Standard:
L.8.4:Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words or phrases
based on grade 8 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies.
L8.4b: Use common, grade-appropriate Greek or Latin affixes and roots as clues to the
meaning of a word.

Connection to HI DOE State Curriculum: ​This lesson utilizes Springboard Grade 8

curriculum. For this lesson, students will be defining vocabulary associated with the Holocaust
because they will need to know these content-specific words for the duration of Unit 3: The
Challenge to Make a Difference.

Lesson Objective:
Given a reading passage from the Springboard Grade 8 Unit 3 curriculum, students will create
vocabulary trees to assist with researching the definitions of roots and affixes in order to make
connections with vocabulary words associated with the Holocaust. They will be able to
complete two vocabulary trees independently as measured by the teachers’ observations and
lesson rubric.

Description of Instructional Delivery:

This lesson can be implemented in a whole group or small group setting. The lesson below is
designed to teach in one longer class period, however there are options listed for
differentiation where the lesson would span the course of several days or would be broken
down into smaller lessons. This lesson uses modeling of the skill in order to directly teach
students how to perform the skill and why it is important. Students will then be led through
guided practice, where they will be supported in the skill, be able to practice the skill, and
receive corrective and positive feedback from the teacher. Students will then be able to
practice the skill independently and in context within the content of the class. While students
are working, the teacher will provide feedback and clarification for any students who still need
it, while informally assessing where students are at in the skill and what needs they still have.
 Procedures that Reflect the Cycle of Direct Instruction
Prior to teaching the lesson, the teacher needs to ensure that all materials are ready for
students. The teacher also needs to have preset, clear definitions of the prefixes and suffixes in
order to pass on that information to students. The teacher will also need to have already set the
expectations for use of vocabulary folders prior to this lesson.
​Teacher will Students will

Anticipatory Instruct students to find their seat.
set This can be student choice or
teacher choice depending on the
class. Have a Do Now posted with
the supplies students will need for
the day: laptops, pencil, vocabulary
folders.
Students find their seat and get needed
materials quickly and quietly. Students
will be prepared at the start of class
with everything they will need for the
day.

Explain that today’s lesson will be

about vocabulary and learning how
to figure out the meaning of Students are attentive. Students make
unknown words. Remind students eye contact with teacher and ask
that good readers come across questions for clarification.
words that they do not know all the
time and that they should expect to
find unknown words when they
read. Reiterate that good readers
use vocabulary strategies to
discover the meaning of the word.

Modeling Direct students attention to the Students track along with the
three sentences on the sentences read on the board.
SMARTBoard. (On the board,
there are three sentences from the
reading that students completed
previously in class). Direct students
to follow along while the teacher
reads the sentences out loud: “Days
went by. Then weeks and months.
Life was normal again. A calm,
reassuring wind blew through our
homes.” (Springboard, 2018, p.
186)

Model the think aloud process for Students watch attentively as the
coming across an unfamiliar word modeling is being performed.
like “reassuring”. Teacher shows
thinking by breaking the word
 down and recognizing a prefix.
Teacher models think-aloud by
going through that re- means again
and so by putting it with the word
assure, it means to assure again.

Model drawing the outline for the Students watch as the vocabulary tree
vocabulary tree. Model writing the is created and note what goes in what
prefix at the bottom of the tree with place on the organizer.
the definition. On the trunk, write
the word “reassuring” and the
definition. Explicitly explain that
the on the branches, students will
write down the sentence that the
read with the prefix or suffix in it
or who said a sentence with the
prefix and suffix in it.

Guided Provide paper for students to create
Practice their vocabulary trees and instruct
students to add them to their
vocabulary folders. Instruct
students to make the outline of their
tree. (If certain students are
struggling to draw a tree outline,
Read out loud a passage from “A
Timeline of the Holocaust”.
The teacher pauses at the word
“anti-Semitism”. Prompt students
to choose the prefix in the sentence.
Students put their papers into their
vocabulary folder.
Students copy down the vocabulary
tree outline.
Students track along in their copy of
the article.
Students find the prefix anti- in the
sentence.

Students engage in the discussion

Discuss with students the definition
of the prefix. Have students come
to the consensus that definition
means “against”.
As students are copying down the
prefix anti- and the definition, the
teacher circulates the room,
answering questions or clarifying
the process for any students who
are confused.
defining the prefix anti- and fill out
their vocabulary tree for this prefix.
Students ask questions for
clarification.
Students create more vocabulary trees
when they come across prefixes and
suffixes. Students ask questions for
 clarification.
After students are finished copying
down the example for anti-, create a
new outline of a vocabulary tree.
Continue reading the passage until
the word “undesirable”. Define the
prefix with the students and instruct
them to fill out a new vocabulary
tree for the new prefix.

Depending on how the students are

doing with the learning activity, the
teacher can either move directly
into the independent practice part
of the lesson or give students a list
of prefixes and suffixes to be on the
lookout for in the remainder of the
article. (-cide, dis-, de-, inter-,
chrono-, pop-, re-)

Independent Instruct students to use their new
Practice knowledge of the prefixes and
suffixes and their resources, like
the Internet, in order to fill out two
more trees independently when
they come across new prefixes and
suffixes in the article. Instruct
students to fill in the branches of
the respective vocabulary trees
when they come across a word that
would work as an example.
Using the words from the Holocaust
unit, students add prefixes and suffixes
for words such as anti-Semitism,
genocide, disinfecting, delousing,
international, chronologically,
population, and relocation to their
appropriate word tree when they come
across them in the text. Students write
the definition of the word part on the
respective vocabulary tree. Students
use resources like the Internet, in order
to ensure that they have the correct
definition.

Walk around the room, checking

for understanding.

Closure At the end of the lesson, invite
students to share out and review
what they did in class that day.
Students share out about what they
learned, review the definitions of the
prefixes or Holocaust vocabulary, and
the use of vocabulary trees as graphic
organizers.

On Google Classroom, have Students fill out exit question on

 students answer the prompt to write Google Classroom.
one thing that was good about the
activity/something they learned,
one question they still have, and
one thing that can be improved for
next time.

Inform students that they will be

using this information while they
read a Holocaust narrative passage
the next time they are in class.
Remind students they should be on
the lookout for the prefixes and
suffixes in their other classes and in
life.

Options for ● Have students work together during the Guide Practice section of the
Differentiation lesson.
● Students can work with an EA if they need assistance in creating the
vocabulary trees and/or the process of writing the information down.
● After gauging where students are at after working with the first two
prefixes, students may need more direct instruction on the other
prefixes and suffixes.
● If students are unable to draw the trees themselves or depending on
the group of students, teachers can provide pre-made tree templates
for students to use.
● This lesson can be broken into mini-lessons spread out over an
extended period of time
○ Mini lesson on each prefix/suffix
○ Filling out the trees using multiple examples for each.
○ Mini lessons on prerequisite skills
■ How to use a laptop
■ How to use a laptop for research
■ How to use the vocabulary folder
■ Tracking along with note taking
■ Using Google Slides
● Students can create vocabulary trees online using Google Slides to
create the trees.

Next steps ● Provide practice for students to use the vocabulary words with the
prefixes and suffixes.
● Continue to have students find examples of words using the prefixes
and suffixes in context.
● Check in on how students are filling out the trees after a set period of
time.
 References

Beers, K. (2003). ​When kids can’t read what teachers can do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Claravall, E.B. (2016). Integrating morphological knowledge in literacy instruction framework

and principles to guide special education teachers. ​TEACHING Exceptional Children, 48

(4), 195-203.

Harris, M.L., Schumaker, J.B. and Deshler, D. (2011). The effects of strategic Morphological

analysis instruction on the vocabulary performance of secondary students with and

without disabilities​. Learning Disability Quarterly 34 (1), 17-33.