JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2019, 52, 394–407 NUMBER 2 (SPRING)

An intervention using morphology to derive word meanings for

English language learners
SEAN J. DAVIDSON AND ROLLANDA E. O’CONNOR
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE

Many English language learners (ELL) experience academic and reading difficulties compared to
native English speakers (NES). Lack of vocabulary knowledge is a contributing factor for these
difficulties. Teaching students to analyze words into their constituent morphemes (meaningful
word units) in order to determine the meaning of words may be an avenue to increase vocabu-
lary knowledge. This study investigated potential benefits of morphological instruction for learn-
ing vocabulary words and generalizing taught words to untaught words containing these
morphemes. Nine fourth- and fifth-grade ELL with reading difficulties participated in a multiple
baseline, single-case design study. Visual analysis of the results revealed a functional relation
between the intervention and an increase in participants’ vocabulary scores with 90% to 100%
nonoverlapping data for eight participants. The effects of training generalized to untaught
words. These findings suggest that morphological analysis is a promising approach to increase
vocabulary knowledge of ELL.
Key words: English language learner, morphology, morphological awareness, single- case
design, vocabulary intervention

English language learners (ELL) represent
one of the fastest growing demographics in the
United States (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2011) who tend to be less proficient
than native English speakers (NES) on national
assessments of reading; only 31% of fourth
grade ELL scored at or above a basic level,
compared to 72% of NES fourth graders
(National Center for Education Statistics,
2012). Reading difficulties of ELL correlate
with multiple negative outcomes such as higher
risk of identification for special education ser-
vices (Sullivan, 2011) and increased drop-out
Sean Davidson, Graduate School of Education, Univer-
sity of California, Riverside; Rollanda E. O’Connor, Pro-
fessor and Eady/Hendrick Chair in Learning Disabilities,
Graduate School of Education, University of California,
Riverside.
The manuscript is based on a dissertation submitted by
the first author, under the direction of the second author,
to University of California, Riverside in partial fulfillment
of the PhD degree in Education.
Address correspondence to Sean Davidson, Graduate
School of Education, University of California, Riverside,
900 University Ave, Riverside, CA 92521. E-mail:
sdavi010@ucr.edu
doi: 10.1002/jaba.539
© 2019 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
394
and grade retention rates (Bowman-Perrot,
Herrera, & Murry, 2010). Thus, there is a
pressing need to identify effective interventions
to close the reading comprehension gap for
ELL and mitigate adverse academic
consequences.
Comprehension of text requires both word
reading and oral language skills (Gough &
Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990).
With intervention, ELL can make gains on
word reading skills comparable to NES
(e.g., Chiappe, Siegel, &Wade-Woolley, 2002;
Lovett et al., 2008); however, ELL tend to
enter school with an English vocabulary knowl-
edge gap, which persists despite improvements
in word reading skills (Kieffer, 2011). The esti-
mated vocabulary knowledge growth for typical
readers is roughly 3,000 words per year,
making it difficult to directly teach enough
words to close this vocabulary gap (Nagy &
Anderson, 1984).
As students progress into the upper elementary
grades, understanding academic vocabulary is cru-
cial for academic success (Nagy & Townsend,
2012). Academic vocabulary is characterized by
 MORPHOLOGY TRAINING FOR ELLS
words of Greek and Latin origin that are mor-
phologically complex and appear extensively in
textbooks from fourth grade on in schooling.
Due to the prevalence of these words in text-
books, some researchers (Kieffer, 2008; Orosco &
O’Connor, 2011) have suggested that morpho-
logically complex vocabulary should be an
instructional target.
Increasing students’ knowledge of mor-
phemes may be a way to increase reading
achievement if readers can use morphemes to
both read and understand novel words
(Carlisle, 2003). A morpheme is the smallest
meaningful word part, consisting of base/root
words, prefixes, and suffixes. Morphological
awareness (MA) is the ability to identify mor-
phemes within a word. Morphological analysis
strategies (MAS) help students to combine the
meanings of morphemes to derive a novel
word’s meaning. For example, adaptable con-
tains two morphemes (the verb adapt, “change
to work better,” and the suffix –able, “able to”),
which can be combined to determine the
word’s meaning, “able to change to work bet-
ter.” With MAS, readers can understand unfa-
miliar words (Carlisle, 2003), resulting in
self-teaching opportunities (e.g., Share, 1995),
which may help to close the vocabulary
knowledge gap.
A relation between MA and reading achieve-
ment might exist. Carlisle (2000) assessed third
and fifth graders’ MA and MAS, including
(a) reading morphologically complex words,
(b) demonstrating knowledge of morphological
structure of words, and (c) providing the mean-
ing of morphologically complex words. These
measures accounted for 41% (grade 3) and
53% (grade 5) of the variance in vocabulary.
For comprehension, the measures accounted
for 43% (grade 3) and 55% (grade 5) of the
variance. Similarly, McCutchen and Logan
(2011) modeled the contribution of a morpho-
logical analysis task for fifth and eighth grade
students. Accounting for the effects of phone-
mic awareness, word reading, and a
395
morphological production task, the morpholog-
ical analysis task accounted for significant vari-
ance in vocabulary (11.7% for fifth graders;
12.5% for eighth graders) and comprehension
(6.8% for fifth graders; 5.4% for eighth
graders). Results support Anglin’s (1993) sug-
gestion that growth in fifth grade vocabulary is
due to use of morphological analysis.
MA is associated with reading development
for ELL as well. Kieffer and Lesaux (2008)
investigated the role MA plays in comprehen-
sion for ELL in fourth and fifth grade. MA was
assessed by having students write the correct
base of a derived form to complete a sentence.
In fourth grade, controlling for vocabulary,
word reading, and phonological awareness, MA
made a small contribution to a cloze compre-
hension measure, in which students had to
choose words to complete sentences in a pas-
sage. In fifth grade, MA made significant con-
tributions to a standardized cloze
comprehension measure and passage compre-
hension. Kieffer (2014) found that difficulty
with MA might be more pronounced for ELL
than for NES; 58% of ELL with reading diffi-
culties had weaknesses in MA compared with
23% of NES with reading difficulties.
MAS instruction may also increase reading
achievement. Recent reviews (see Bowers,
Kirby, & Deacon, 2013; Carlisle, 2010; Good-
win & Ahn, 2010) support White, Sowell, and
Yanagihara’s (1989b) recommendation to begin
morphological instruction in the middle ele-
mentary grades. Baumann et al. (2002) com-
pared two fifth grade classrooms that received
MAS with two fifth grade control classrooms.
At immediate posttest, MAS groups signifi-
cantly outperformed control groups on vocabu-
lary words instructed (d = 0.87) and transfer
words, which included prefixes instructed but
not the base word, (d = 0.31). Unfortunately,
these gains were not maintained 5 weeks later.
In a follow-up study, Baumann, Edwards,
Boland, Olejnik, and Kame’enui (2003) com-
pared a combined morpheme analysis and
396 SEAN J. DAVIDSON and ROLLANDA E. O'CONNOR
context clues intervention with textbook vocab-
ulary instruction. Students receiving MAS sig-
nificantly outperformed the control group on a
measure that required participants to provide a
definition for uninstructed words that con-
tained instructed base words and affixes
(η2 = 0.423). Groups did not differ on an
immediate measure of morphologically deci-
pherable and context clue words in passages
but did on the measure delayed 3 weeks
(η2 = 0.016). However, the researchers did not
disaggregate results by type of vocabulary
assessed (morphemic vs. context clue words),
making it difficult to determine what portion
of the score was for morphologically decipher-
able words.
Bowers and Kirby (2010) also studied effects
of morpheme instruction on vocabulary learn-
ing. They randomly assigned fourth and fifth
grade students to an experimental group, which
identified morphemes by focusing on spelling
patterns and combining base words with affixes
without explicit instruction on meaning, and a
control condition, which received typical class-
room instruction. Participants provided defini-
tions for 30 morphologically complex words,
which included 10 words of each category:
word taught, base and affix taught separately,
and affix only taught. Items were scored on a
three-point scale (0-2). The experimental
groups significantly outperformed the control
groups for words taught and words in which
base words and affixes were taught separately.
Groups did not differ on words in which only
the affix was taught. The training in this study
focused on identifying morphological elements
without explicit instruction on how to derive a
word’s meaning, which ELL may require.
These studies indicate that NES students can
learn morphologically complex words
through MAS.
Other vocabulary interventions have
included ELL. Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, and Kelly
(2010) investigated vocabulary interventions,
and their participants included language
minority students (LMS1). They implemented
a multicomponent vocabulary intervention with
sixth graders (LMS = 346; NES = 130), which
included instruction in word meanings, multi-
ple meanings, context clues, visual representa-
tion, suffixes, and use in writing. Using a
quasiexperimental design, teachers at school
sites were assigned to teach the intervention or
serve as a control, with random sampling of
one language arts section per teacher. Students
in experimental classrooms significantly outper-
formed those in control classrooms on a
32-item vocabulary measure of words
instructed during the intervention. LMS and
NES benefitted equally from the intervention.
Adjusted mean scores for experimental LMS
and NES were 23.2 and 26.3, respectively,
compared to the control LMS and NES, which
were 20.8 and 23.9, respectively.
In a larger scale 20-week study of 2,082 par-
ticipants, of which 71% were LMS (Lesaux,
Kieffer, Kelly, & Harris, 2014), results were
similar. Treatment classrooms significantly out-
performed control classrooms on a 30-item
vocabulary measure of taught words. Students
in the treatment group averaged 23.3 correct
compared to 21.1 for students in the control
group. Results suggested that the intervention
may be especially beneficial for LMS, who
benefitted significantly more from the interven-
tion than NES. Treatment LMS scored a sig-
nificant 0.5 standard deviations higher than
control LMS, whereas treatment NES scored a
significant 0.2 standard deviations higher than
control NES. In both of these studies, the
intervention increased vocabulary knowledge
among LMS; however, MAS was part of a
larger vocabulary intervention, and we could
not determine the separate effects of MAS on
vocabulary learning. Because LMS is a broader
1
LMS is a broader term, which describes students in
whose homes a language other than English is spoken,
compared with ELL, which describes students who have
been identified as learning English.
 MORPHOLOGY TRAINING FOR ELLS
group that includes students who might have
attained proficiency in English, the question
remains whether ELL might benefit from MAS
training.
Much of the research on morphological inter-
ventions has been conducted with NES and/or
combined MAS with other skills. We did not
find a study that examined the effects of MAS
training alone for ELL. Moreover, results were
equivocal for transfer measures. The present
study was designed to seek an answer to the fol-
lowing research questions: Would training on a
morphological analysis strategy increase scores
on a vocabulary measure containing morpholog-
ically complex words for ELL? Would such
training increase scores on a transfer measure,
consisting of untaught words containing mor-
phological elements (such as base words and suf-
fixes) taught during the intervention for ELL?
METHOD
Setting and Participants
Setting. The participating school was located
in a large urban school district in Southern Cal-
ifornia. It was a Title I, low socio-economic sta-
tus (SES) school with a population of
859 students (129 and 136 fourth and fifth
grade students, respectively), of which 435 were
Spanish speaking ELL (46 fourth grade and
43 fifth grade students). The student popula-
tion was 100% Hispanic.
Criteria for selection. We considered students
in grades four and five for participation because
MA begins to make a greater contribution to
reading comprehension beginning around
fourth grade (White, Power, & White, 1989a).
In consultation with classroom teachers, the
authors identified ELL who were struggling
readers. After securing parent and student con-
sent, we screened students for reading difficul-
ties using the oral reading fluency scores from
the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (DIBELS; Good et al., 2011). We used
DIBELS’s beginning of year cut point of Below
397
Benchmark (scores below 90 and 111 words
correct per minute for fourth and fifth grade,
respectively), identifying nine participants at
risk for reading difficulties.
Descriptive measures. For descriptive pur-
poses, we administered measures to assess levels
of word reading, fluency, vocabulary, and com-
prehension. Participants’ language proficiency
level was determined by their English language
development level, which was based on the
California English Language Development Test
(see https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/ for more
information). The first author administered all
assessments. Table 1 provides participants’
characteristics. Participants exhibited a range of
reading profiles. Most participants scored
around average for word reading and decoding
skills, but scored lower on other skills such as
comprehension and vocabulary.
Dependent Variable, Interassessor Agreement,
and Procedural Integrity
Selection of vocabulary words. To ensure that
the words taught would be of academic utility
and of low frequency, we selected 30 base
words from Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word
List (AWL) level four and above, and cross-
referenced with Biemiller’s Words Worth Teach-
ing (Biemiller, 2009), which is organized by
words students commonly know at different
grade levels. We identified derived forms of
these words with the suffixes -er/-or, -able/-ible,
-tion/-sion, and -ive in Merriam-Webster’s
unabridged dictionary, resulting in 120 derived
words. We set aside one derived form for each
base word (29 derived forms) for use on the
transfer measures (see below), except for
instruct, for which all derived forms were used
as a model in the first treatment session. This
process resulted in 91 derived forms for instruc-
tion and the daily vocabulary measure (DVM).
To ensure balance of word frequency across
assessments, we blocked base words by suffix
type and frequency using Carroll, Davies, and
398 SEAN J. DAVIDSON and ROLLANDA E. O'CONNOR

Table 1
Participant Characteristics

WJIII WJIII WJIII

Participant Grade ELD Lvl DORFa WIDb WAb COMPb PPVTb TVIPb
David 4 3 57c 99 97 85 89 68
Jasmin 4 4 54c 92 92 86 87 108
Abigail 4 4 77d 100 107 95 88 99
Jaime 5 5 104d 86 105 77 92 89
Josefina 5 5 83c 89 96 92 87 87
Valeria 5 4 106d 96 98 81 78 81
Aron 5 3 86c 88 95 94 90 62
Esmeralda 5 3 104d 94 93 89 90 93
Lucas 5 3 93c 101 105 87 83 86

Note. ELD Lvl = English language proficiency level as measured by the California English Language Development Test.
DORF = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency, the number of words read correctly in one minute;
WJIII = Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement, Third Edition; WID = Word Identification subtest, measures word
reading; WA = Word Attack subtest, measures decoding skills; COMP = Comprehension subtest; PPVT = Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test, measures receptive vocabulary in English; TVIP = Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody,
measures receptive vocabulary in Spanish. aReported scores are raw scores. bReported scores are standard scores. cScores
indicate Well Below Benchmark. dScores indicate Below Benchmark.

Richman’s (1971) word frequency list. From
the blocked list of 91 derived forms, we ran-
domly selected words for inclusion on the
Daily Vocabulary Measure (DVM) and the
remaining 29 derived forms for inclusion on
the Transfer Vocabulary Measure (TVM; see
Table 2 for a list of instructional elements and
Word Matrix). Once a derived form of a word
was selected for inclusion, that word was
removed from the blocked list until all words
were exhausted, at which point the process
started over, creating a sufficient bank of assess-
ments for the duration of the study.
Daily vocabulary measure (DVM). We created
a measure of receptive, rather than productive,
vocabulary, which consisted of a multiple-
choice task. Each measure contained 10 mor-
phologically complex word items and four
answer choices for each word. One choice was
correct, containing the correct meaning for
each morphemic element. Three choices were
incorrect. One contained the meaning of the
base word, but an incorrect suffix meaning.
Another contained the correct suffix meaning,
but an incorrect base word meaning. The final
choice had neither the base nor suffix meanings
correct (see Supporting Information for a sam-
ple). We randomized the order of answer
choice type for each item. Students circled the
letter next to their chosen answer. The DVM
score was the number of items answered cor-
rectly out of 10 items.
Transfer vocabulary measure (TVM). We con-
structed the transfer measures the same way as
the DVM. The only difference was that the
words included on the TVM were not taught
during the intervention. There were three forms.
TVM 1 was given as a pre- and immediate post-
test. TVM 2 and 3 were given 1 week and
2 weeks after participants completed the treat-
ment. Half of the participants received form B
and the other half received form C for TVM
2 and then the opposite form for TVM 3. We
administered TVMs to determine if the effects
of MAS training would generalize to untaught
words, which required recombining taught stim-
uli to choose correct definitions of novel mor-
pheme combinations (Goldstein, 1983).
Interassessor agreement. The first author and a
recent doctoral graduate independently scored
the DVM and TVM. To meet the standards of
What Works Clearinghouse (WWC;
 MORPHOLOGY TRAINING FOR ELLS 399

Table 2 implemented as outlined in the lesson. The

Instructional Elements and Word Matrix checklist items included were: the suffix and
strategy chart referenced; rehearsal of suffix
Suffixes and Measure
Type Inclusion meanings and pronunciation; modeling, guided
Session -able, -tion, practice, or independent practice using the
Base Words Introduced -er, -or -ible -sion -ive strategy with corrective feedback; definition
1. instruct 1&2 DVM DVM DVM DVM matching; and review of the strategy. Proce-
2. adapt 1&2 DVM DVM DVM TVM dural integrity was calculated by dividing the
3. convert 1&2 TVM DVM DVM DVM
4. detect 1&2 DVM DVM TVM DVM number of observed elements from the check-
5. depress 1&2 DVM DVM TVM DVM list by the total number of elements possible.
6. extract 1&2 DVM TVM DVM DVM
7. confirm 3&4 TVM DVM DVM DVM Procedural integrity was 100%.
8. expand 3&4 DVM TVM DVM DVM
9. inspect 3&4 DVM DVM DVM TVM
10. inhibit 3&4 DVM DVM DVM TVM
11. predict 3&4 DVM DVM TVM DVM Procedures
12. reject 3&4 DVM TVM DVM DVM A multiple baseline across participants design
13. alter 5&6 DVM DVM TVM DVM
14. anticipate 5&6 DVM DVM TVM DVM was employed, meeting the standards as estab-
15. promote 5&6 DVM TVM DVM DVM lished by WWC. We assigned David, Jasmin,
16. substitute 5&6 DVM TVM DVM DVM
17. submit 5&6 DVM DVM DVM TVM and Abigail to Group A, Jaime, Josefina, and
18. transmit 5&6 TVM DVM DVM DVM Valeria to Group B, and Aron, Esmeralda, and
19. accumulate 7&8 TVM DVM DVM DVM
20. converse 7&8 DVM DVM DVM TVM Lucas to Group C. Participants underwent
21. exploit 7&8 DVM TVM DVM DVM baseline and treatment phases in these small
22. restore 7&8 DVM DVM TVM DVM
23. transport 7&8 DVM DVM DVM TVM
groups, with each group experiencing a differ-
24. transform 7&8 DVM DVM DVM TVM ent number of baseline sessions.
25. allocate 9 & 10 TVM DVM DVM DVM Baseline. Baseline sessions occurred in an
26. accommodate 9 & 10 TVM DVM DVM DVM
27. communicate 9 & 10 TVM DVM DVM DVM unused classroom. Prior to the beginning of the
28. isolate 9 & 10 DVM DVM DVM TVM study, the first author administered the descrip-
29. investigate 9 & 10 DVM TVM DVM DVM
30. manipulate 9 & 10 DVM DVM TVM DVM tive assessments, described above, and the
TVM 1 to participants. Participants sat at a
Note. DVM (Daily Vocabulary Measure) = word was
kidney-shaped table facing the experimenter
taught during the treatment phase and were included on
the DVM. TVM (Transfer Vocabulary Measure) = word and independently completed the TVM. The
was not taught but was included on the TVM. For exam- only materials present were the assessment and
ple, predictor, predictable, and predictive were instructed, a pencil. The first author read the target words
prediction was not instructed. and answer choices aloud as the participants
followed along. The session lasted about 5 min.
Kratochwill et al., 2010), interassessor agree- Training. In the same unused classroom, par-
ment was collected for each phase, for at least ticipants received morphological analysis strat-
20% of the sessions. An agreement was scored egy (MAS) training with the first author for
when both observers marked a participant’s approximately 15 min a day for 10 sessions
answer choice the same way: correct or incor- until all 91 derived words had been taught.
rect. Interassessor agreement was 100%. Participants sat at the table facing the experi-
Procedural integrity. A recent doctoral gradu- menter. The experimenter taught participants
ate conducted procedural integrity on 30% of to use morphemes (stimuli) to derive word
the sessions, which were videotaped. The rater meanings (response).
reviewed the taped sessions and recorded on a During the initial training session, the exper-
checklist whether the procedures were imenter presented a rationale for studying
400 SEAN J. DAVIDSON and ROLLANDA E. O'CONNOR
morphemes (i.e., word parts could be used to
figure out a word’s meaning), the morphologi-
cal analysis strategy, and suffix meanings (i.e.,
-er/-or, -tion/-sion, -able/-ible, and –ive; see Sup-
porting Information). While referencing the
chart, the first author explained the role of the
suffixes (e.g., changing a verb into an adjec-
tive), and participants rehearsed the definition
with the first author. Next, suffixes were
reviewed on cards. The suffix was pronounced
(while pointing to it) and spelled aloud, with
participants repeating the suffix and spellings.
After this, the meaning of the suffix was pre-
sented, which participants repeated. Finally,
participants chorally read the suffix and gave
the meaning for all suffixes, which were pre-
sented in random order.
After reviewing suffixes, the first author
explicitly taught participants the strategy. Ini-
tially, the four steps of the strategy were mod-
eled using the word instruct. The steps included
(1) read the word, (2) look for a suffix, (3) find
the base word, and (4) say the meaning of the
suffix first, then the base word. Participants
received a worksheet containing base words and
derived forms for each session (see Supporting
Information for a sample worksheet). The
experimenter taught/reviewed base word mean-
ings at the beginning of each session
(by presenting a definition, giving examples of
contexts to which the word applied, and
prompting student rehearsals; Beck,
McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). After teaching the
base words, the experimenter modeled how to
use MAS on the derived words by reading the
word, identifying and circling the suffix, under-
lining the base word, and saying the meaning
of the suffix and the base word, with partici-
pants following along on the worksheet. For
example, the experimenter read instructor aloud,
circled –or, and underlined instruct. Then, the
experimenter said the meaning of the word
(“someone who teaches”). While we taught all
suffixes during the initial session, we intro-
duced six new base words every two sessions
(see Table 2). At the end of each session, the
experimenter reviewed base words and suffixes
with participants by having them take turns
orally matching a definition with the correct
derived word. Each participant had two oppor-
tunities to match a word with a definition. The
session concluded with a review of the strategy
and administration of the DVM.
After the first session, we gradually released
responsibility over the remaining nine sessions.
The experimenter guided the participants in
using the strategy by asking participants to
name and perform each step as a group for the
lesson’s derived words. Immediate corrective
feedback was given if students did not follow
the steps of the strategy (e.g., “What is the first
step?”) or gave an incorrect meaning for the
base word or suffix (e.g., “What is the meaning
of –able?”). The experimenter posted the strat-
egy and suffix charts for participants to refer-
ence (see Supporting Information). With each
successive session, participants began practicing
the strategy independently on the lesson’s
derived words while the other participants fol-
lowed along on their worksheets. Immediate
corrective feedback was given whenever an
error was made, by either modeling how to use
the strategy or guiding participants to use the
strategy (e.g., “What is the first step?”).
Throughout the sessions, the experimenter gave
specific praise for using the steps of the strategy
(e.g., “Yes, circle the suffix first.”).
Social Validity
To measure participants’ acceptability of the
goals and usefulness of MAS, we gave a survey
at the conclusion of the intervention. We read
aloud three statements and two open-ended
prompts. Participants chose whether they
agreed or disagreed with the statement on a
four point Likert scale, with 1 = strongly dis-
agree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly
agree. The three statements are noted in
Table 4. The open-ended prompts were:
 MORPHOLOGY TRAINING FOR ELLS
(1) what I liked best about the lessons using
word parts is—, and (2) one thing I would
change about the lessons using word parts is—.
Analysis
We performed visual analyses and calculated
the percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND)
to determine the effectiveness of the interven-
tion. We calculated PND by dividing the num-
ber of data points in the training phase that did
not overlap with data points in the baseline
phase by the total number of data points in the
training phase. We supplemented the visual
analysis and PND by calculating an effect size
(ES). To address concerns of autocorrelation, ES
was calculated using the correction reported in
Swanson and Sachse-Lee (2000). The mean dif-
ference of the last five data points for the base-
line and treatment phases for each participant
were divided by a corrected standard deviation
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
using the formula Sp = Sg = 2ð1 −r Þ, where
Sg = pooled standard deviation of the baseline
and treatment phases; r is the baseline and
treatment correlation (see Rosenthal, 1994).
RESULTS
Visual analysis revealed a functional relation
between the introduction of MAS training and
an increase in DVM scores (see Figure 1).
DVM scores substantially increased once the
MAS training began. Participants’ scores also
stabilized at practically significant levels, with
most scoring 8 correct out of 10 or higher, evi-
denced by PND and ES (see Table 3). PND
was at least 90% for all participants except for
Abigail, whose PND was 60%. Following
Scruggs and Mastropieri’s (1998) suggestion
that 90%–100% indicates the treatment was
very effective, between 70% and 90% is effec-
tive, and below 70% not effective, the treat-
ment was effective for 8 out of 9 participants.
Effect size indicates how much the perfor-
mance in the training phase exceeds
401
performance in the baseline phase in units of
standard deviation. We used Cohen’s sugges-
tions to interpret the magnitude of the effect
with 0.20 being a small effect, 0.60 a medium
effect, and greater than 0.80 a large effect
(Cohen, 1988). The ES for all participants was
large with a range of 1.83 to 1.96.
Social Validity
Participants’ responses on the survey given at
the end of the intervention are reported in
Table 4. The mean responses for questions
1, 2, and 3 were 3.7, 3.8, and 3, respectively.
Two participants responded with a 2 (disagree)
to question 3 (“I can use word parts to find the
meanings of words when I am reading at home
or at school”), indicating that we may not have
made the applicability of the strategy outside of
the intervention setting explicit for these two
participants. The open-ended questions were
positive as well. Participants indicated the inter-
vention had helped them. In response to the
prompt “What I liked best about the lessons
using word parts is____,” one participant
wrote, “that is [sic] really helps my fugering
[sic] the words out.” Another wrote, “leaning
[sic] is fun.” In other words, the participants
indicated that the goals of the intervention
were important to them, and that the outcomes
were meaningful to them. Anecdotally, to the
language of the prompt “using word parts,”
one participant responded, “Oh, you mean
suffixes?”
DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to determine if
morphological analysis strategy training would
increase scores on a vocabulary measure con-
taining morphologically complex words for
English language learners. Results from the
analysis revealed a functional relation between
the introduction of the morphological analysis
training and increased scores on the vocabulary
measures. To the best of our knowledge, this
402 SEAN J. DAVIDSON and ROLLANDA E. O'CONNOR

Figure 1. Scores on daily and transfer vocabulary measures for each participant by session.
 MORPHOLOGY TRAINING FOR ELLS 403

Table 3 Our study focused on MAS training and

Percentage of Nonoverlapping Data (PND) and Effect specifically included ELL, providing initial evi-
Size (ES) dence for MAS as an effective method to
Participant PND ES
increase vocabulary learning for ELL. These
results are promising and indicate that ELL can
David 90% 1.89
Jasmin 100% 1.95 benefit from MAS training. As an anecdote,
Abigail 60% 1.83 once the treatment phase began, participants
Jaime 100% 1.93
Josefina 100% 1.96
circled the suffixes and underlined the base
Valeria 90% 1.92 words on the daily vocabulary assessment rou-
Aron 100% 1.92 tinely without being directed to do
Esmeralda 100% 1.92
Lucas 90% 1.87 so. Although we explicitly taught participants
to underline base words and circle suffixes dur-
ing the MAS training, we did not instruct stu-
dents to circle suffixes or underline base words
Table 4
on the assessment in either the baseline or
Student Survey Results
treatment phases, suggesting they began to
Participant Q1 Q2 Q3 apply the strategy taught during the training to
David 3 4 2 the DVM. This sort of possible generalization
Jasmin 4 4 4 should be systematically evaluated in future
Abigail 4 4 2
Jaime 4 4 3
research.
Josefina 4 4 3 We also sought to determine whether MAS
Valeria 4 4 3 training would result in increased scores on a
Aron 4 3 3
Esmeralda 3 3 3 transfer measure. In our literature review, we
Lucas 3 4 4 did not find conclusive evidence of MAS
Mean (SD) 3.67 (0.50) 3.78 (0.44) 3.00 (0.71)
increasing scores on transfer measures, espe-
Note. Scores ranged from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to cially for ELL. An important finding was that
4 “Strongly Agree”. Q1 was “Understanding what words after MAS training, scores on the transfer mea-
mean is important for my learning,” Q2 was “I can use
sures increased. All participants improved on
word parts to help me find the meaning of words I do not
know,” and Q3 was “I can use word parts to find the the post-TVM 1 over the pre-TVM 1, and
meaning of words when I am reading at school or maintained improved scores 1 and 2 weeks
at home.” after the conclusion of the intervention. The
improvement in TVM scores after MAS train-
was one of the first studies to investigate the ing is promising, for although morphemes of
efficacy of a MAS intervention exclusively for these words (base word and suffixes) were
ELL. All participants increased their scores on taught during the intervention, these actual
the Daily Vocabulary Measure with instruction forms of the words were not taught. The trans-
in MAS, suggesting MAS instruction can bene- fer measure was included to determine if MAS
fit ELL similar to the benefits shown for NES training would generalize to untaught stimuli.
and LMS. Moreover, whereas transfer of MAS Participants learned MAS through 91 exemplars
learning was equivocal in previous studies, all and were assessed on 29 untrained stimuli.
students in our study made and maintained This generalization method is similar to
gains on Transfer Vocabulary Measures, in methods of teaching a sufficient number of
which the students were exposed to novel exemplars (Stokes & Baer, 1977).
words that contained instructed base words and Our findings build on previous studies with
suffixes. regard to the transfer of MAS. The results of
404 SEAN J. DAVIDSON and ROLLANDA E. O'CONNOR
transfer tests were equivocal in previous evalua-
tions (Baumann et al., 2002, 2003; Bowers &
Kirby, 2010). Even when reaching statistical
significance, practical significance, as measured
by effect sizes, was not consistent. The results
of our study show that TVM scores increased
and stabilized even 2 weeks after the training’s
conclusion. Results provide initial support for
teaching MAS as a way to close the vocabulary
gap between ELL and NES. Combining MAS
with effective base word instruction (Beck
et al., 2002; Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2008)
may be necessary for ELL. Because of the diffi-
culty in directly teaching a sufficient number of
words, MAS training may be a way to help
close the gap between ELL and NES if ELL
can apply MAS when reading independently.
Future research should directly evaluate this
possibility.
Overall, our findings contribute to the MAS
training literature by showing that within a few
sessions of MAS training, DVM and TVM
scores increased. It seems feasible to teach MAS
within the school day because participants
showed improvement over a relatively short
period of time. After 10 treatment sessions
(approximately 2.5 hr), all participants stabi-
lized with 8, 9, or 10 items correct. In Bowers
et al.’s (2013) review, the strongest effects were
found for studies that lasted 10–20 hr. This
improvement in a relatively short amount of
instructional time is likely due to the limited
number of base words (30) and suffixes (four
groups) that were taught. Yet, with targeted
instruction, participants demonstrated that they
had learned the strategy and increased vocabu-
lary scores. It is our recommendation that
vocabulary instruction for ELL include MAS
training because this intervention of relatively
short duration can improve students’ vocabu-
lary knowledge.
Based on participants’ characteristics, it
appears that students may not need to reach
English proficiency before beginning morpho-
logical analysis strategy instruction. The
findings of this study indicate that a MAS
training can be effective as early as fourth grade
and effective for participants with a range of
background reading profiles. Even participants
with below average vocabulary scores benefited
from the intervention. Visual analyses of the
graphs showed no systematic difference
between participants with large differences in
entering vocabulary levels.
Finally, results of this study have implica-
tions for teacher preparation programs, profes-
sional development, and curriculum
development. Participants learned a morpho-
logical analysis strategy to derive the meanings
of unknown words; however, teachers are rarely
trained on how to teach morphological analysis
(Nunes & Bryant, 2011). As with other ele-
ments of literacy instruction, teachers may not
have the prerequisite knowledge of morphology
to effectively teach students how to derive
meanings from morphologically complex words
(Moats, 1994). Teachers will need to be pro-
vided training in order to assist students in
learning this strategy.
There are some limitations of this study to
consider. Because a multiple-choice assessment
with four answer choices was used, participants
may have answered two to three questions cor-
rectly by chance. This concern is somewhat
mitigated by that fact that students answered
above chance level in the treatment phase. A
vocabulary measure that requires participants to
produce a definition might eliminate this ele-
ment of chance and better estimate students’
use of morphology to determine word mean-
ings before and after the intervention.
Another limitation of the present study is
not employing a matrix design to test for
recombinative generalization. With a matrix
design (Goldstein, 1983) a more systematic
approach could be employed to determine
whether participants could demonstrate recom-
binative generalization to untaught stimuli. In
addition, administering a subset of stimuli dur-
ing baseline (only TVM 1 was administered
 MORPHOLOGY TRAINING FOR ELLS
during baseline) limits conclusions drawn about
the effectiveness of MAS on transfer items.
Nevertheless, after MAS training, scores
improved on words that included novel recom-
binations of taught stimuli (i.e., base words and
suffixes). An area to explore is whether younger
(e.g., third grade) students might also benefit
from an intervention in MAS training. Carlisle
(2000) found that third grade students’ MA
was related to vocabulary and comprehension.
Given the vocabulary knowledge gap that ELL
experience, it would be important to determine
if morphological analysis training would be
effective for younger students, to begin to close
the vocabulary knowledge gap earlier.
Another avenue to explore is the extent to
which struggling Spanish-speaking ELL readers
might benefit from an intervention that capital-
izes on the students’ home language. Many
morphologically complex words are of Latin
origin (Henry, 1989). Nagy, García, Durguno-
glu, and Hancin-Bhatt (1993) found that only
proficient ELL readers used knowledge of cog-
nates to derive meanings of unknown words.
Future research might include an intervention
in which Spanish-speaking ELL are explicitly
taught to use morphological knowledge of their
home language to derive word meanings.
ELL represent one of the fastest growing stu-
dent populations in the United States who tend
to experience increased academic difficulties
compared to NES. Increasing vocabulary knowl-
edge is an area in which ELL need support, but
given the number of words students learn in a
year, difficulties exist in directly teaching suffi-
cient vocabulary to close the gap. The results of
our study provide support for MAS as a feasible
and effective way to increase English vocabulary
knowledge for ELL, which in turn may increase
their academic achievement.
REFERENCES
Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A mor-
phological analysis. Monographs of the Society for
405
Research in Child Development, 58, i–166. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028248
Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E. M.,
Olejnik, S., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003). Vocabulary
tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and con-
text on fifth-grade students’ ability to derive and infer
word meanings. American Educational Research
Journal, 40, 447-494. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002
8312040002447
Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G.,
Tereshinski, C. A., Kame’enui, E. J., & Olejnik, S.
(2002). Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis
to fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 37,
150-176. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.37.2.3
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002).
Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction.
New York: Guilford.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2008). Cre-
ating robust vocabulary instruction: Frequently asked
questions and extended examples. New York: Guilford.
Biemiller, A. (2009). Words worth teaching. Columbus,
OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. (2010). Effects of morpho-
logical instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 515-537.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9172-z
Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2013).
The effects of morphological instruction on literacy
skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of
Educational Research, 80, 144-179. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654309359353
Bowman-Perrott, L., Herrera, S. G., & Murry, K. (2010).
Complexities in learning to read and reading to learn
for English language learners. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 26(1), 91-107. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10573560903397064
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and
meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact
on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 12, 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1008131926604
Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to
read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24, 291-322.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710390227369
Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morpholog-
ical awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative
review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 464-487.
https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.5
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). The
American heritage word frequency book. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Chiappe, P., Siegel, L., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2002). Lin-
guistic diversity and the development of reading
skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 6, 369-400. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S1532799XSSR0604_04
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behav-
ioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
406 SEAN J. DAVIDSON and ROLLANDA E. O'CONNOR
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL
Quarterly, 34, 213-238. https://doi.org/10.
2307/3587951
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture
vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Dunn, L. M., Padilla, E. R., Lugo, D. E., &
Dunn, L. M. (1986). Test de vocabulario en imagenes
Peabody: TVIP: Adaptacion Hispanoamericana
(Peabody picture vocabulary test: PPVT: Hispanic-
American adaptation). Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service, Inc.
Goldstein, H. (1983). Recombinative generalization: Rela-
tionships between environmental conditions and lin-
guistic repertoires of language learners. Analysis and
Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 3, 279-293.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-4684(83)90002-2
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Cummings, K., Dufour-
Martel, C., Petersen, K., Powel-Smith, K., . . . Wallin, J.
(2011). DIBELS next assessment manual. Retrieved
from https://dibels.org/next/downloads/DIBELSNext_
AssessmentManual.pdf
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of
morphological interventions: Effects on literacy
achievement of children with literacy difficulties.
Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 183-108. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11881-010-0041-x
Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading,
and reading disability. Remedial and Special
Education, 7, 6-10. https://doi.org/10.
1177/074193258600700104
Henry, M. K. (1989). Children’s word structure knowl-
edge: Implications for decoding and spelling instruc-
tion. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 2, 135-152. 0.1007/BF00377467
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view
of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 2, 127-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00401799
Kieffer, M. J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Ini-
tial English proficiency, concentrated poverty, and
the reading growth of language minority learners in
the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology,
100, 851-868. https://doi.org/0.1037/0022-0663.10
0.4.851
Kieffer, M. J. (2011). Converging trajectories: Reading
growth in language minority learners and their class-
mates, kindergarten to grade 8. American Educational
Research Journal, 48, 1187-1225. https://doi.org/10.
3102/0002831211419490
Kieffer, M. J. (2014). Morphological awareness and read-
ing difficulties in adolescent Spanish-speaking lan-
guage minority learners and their classmates. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 47, 44-53. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0022219413509968
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The role of deri-
vational morphology in the reading comprehension
of Spanish-speaking English language learners.
Reading and Writing, 21, 783-804.
0.1007/s11145-007-9092-8
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H.,
Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., &
Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical
documentation. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.
gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf.
Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, S. E., & Kelly, J. G.,
(2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation
of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguisti-
cally diverse students in urban middle schools. Read-
ing Research Quarterly, 45, 196-228. https://doi.
org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3
Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Kelly, J. G., & Harris, J. R.
(2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for
linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a
randomized field trial. American Educational Research
Journal, 51, 1159-1194. https://doi.org/10.
3102/0002831214532165
Lovett, M. W., De Palma, M., Frijters, J., Steinbach, K.,
Temple, M., Benson, N., & Lacerenza, L. (2008).
Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of
response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling
readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 333-
352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408317859
McCutchen, D., & Logan, B. (2011). Inside incidental
word learning: Children’s strategic use of morpholog-
ical information to infer word meanings. Reading
Research Quarterly, 46, 334–349. https://doi.org/10.
1002/RRQ.003
Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher
education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and
written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648156
Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many
words are there in printed school English? Reading
Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330. https://doi.org/10.
2307/747823
Nagy, W. E., García, G. E., Durgunoglu, A. Y., &
Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1993). Spanish-English bilingual
students’ use of cognates in English reading. Journal
of Reading Behavior, 25, 241-259. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10862969009547816
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools:
Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisi-
tion. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91-108. https://
doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The
Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES
2012–457). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.
gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
National Center for Education Statistics (2012). The
Nation’s Report Card: Vocabulary Results from the
2009 and 2011 NAEP Reading Assessments (NCES
2013–452). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.
gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2011). Morphemic approaches
for reading words. In R. E. O’Connor &
 MORPHOLOGY TRAINING FOR ELLS
P. F. Vadasy (Eds.), Handbook of reading interventions
(pp. 88-112). New York: The Guilford Press.
Orosco, M. J., & O’Connor, R. E. (2011). Cultural
aspects of teaching reading with Latino English lan-
guage learners. In R. E. O’Connor & P. F. Vadasy
(Eds.), Handbook of reading interventions (pp. 356-
379). New York: The Guilford Press.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size.
In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of
Research Synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York: Russell
Sage.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1998). Synthesizing
single subject research: Issues and applications. Behav-
ior Modification, 22, 221-242. https://doi.org/10.
1177/01454455980223001
Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teach-
ing: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition,
55, 151-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)
00645-2
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technol-
ogy of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 10, 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
1977.10-349
Sullivan, A.L. (2011). Disproportionality in special educa-
tion identification and placement of English language
learners. Exceptional Child, 77, 317-334. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001440291107700304
407
Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2000). A meta-
analysis of single-subject-design intervention research
for students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
33, 114-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194000
3300201
White, T. G., Power, M. A., & White, S. (1989a). Mor-
phological analysis: Implications for teaching and
understanding vocabulary growth. Reading Research
Quarterly, 24, 283-304. https://doi.org/10.2307/74
7771
White, T. G., Sowell, J., & Yanagihara, A. (1989b).
Teaching elementary students to use word-part clues.
The Reading Teacher, 42, 302-308.
Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001).
Woodcock-Johnson tests of achievement–Third edition.
Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Received June 23, 2016
Final acceptance May 8, 2018
Action Editor, Rachel Thompson
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional Supporting Information may be
found in the online version of this article at the
publisher’s website.