ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 5 no. 1 (2024)

The Effect of Morphological Awareness on Lexical Knowledge of Grade 7 Learners

Alphil Christian Cabe | Norman Ralph B. Isla

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

There have been studies attesting that morphological awareness could develop vocabulary; yet several articles argued that lexis is a more encompassing linguistic feature than vocabulary.Hence,this quasi-experimental study sought to investigate the effect of morphological awareness on lexical knowledge of Grade 7 learners in a government high school in City of Koronadal, South Cotabato. Two groups with 45 learners each were selected to form the control and experimental groups. The two groups had a satisfactory performance and showed no significant difference in their scores in the beginning of the study. Then, they received the same 12-hour intervention within twoweeks. Throughdependent samples t-test, the result indicated that there was a significant difference between their scores inthe beginningandend ofthe intervention. Moreover, through independent samples t-test, the result indicated that there was a significant difference between the scores of control and experimental groups in the end of the intervention. The experimental group that received the treatment showed a higher level of lexical knowledge than the control group. Thus, the study concluded that morphological awareness was effective on developing lexical knowledge among Grade 7 learners.



References:

  1. Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a na-tion ofreaders: the report of the commis-sion on reading.national academy of edu-cation.
  2. Bertram, R., Laine, M., & Virkkala, M., M. (2000). The role ofderivational morphol-ogy in vocabulary acquisition: Get with a little help from my morpheme friends. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 287-296.
  3. , R. (2022, December 19). An introduc-tion to t tests | definitions, formula and examples. Scribbr.
  4. Cain, K. & Oakhill, J. (2014). Reading compre-hension and vocabulary: is vocabulary more important for some aspects of com-prehension? Cairn.Info, 2014/4 (Vol. 114), 647-662.
  5. Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: an integrative review. Read-ing Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464–487.
  6. Caro, K. & Rosada, N. (2017). Lexis, lexical competence and lexical knowledge: a re-view. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(2):205. .
  7. Chen, T., Ke, S., & Koda, K. (2021). The Predic-tive Role of Grapho-Morphological Knowledge in Reading Comprehension for Beginning-Level L2 Chinese Learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
  8. Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (Eds.). (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Corneal, D. (n.d.). Why reading the same book repeatedly is good for kids. Brightly.
  10. D’Alesio, R., Scalia, M., Zabel, R. (2007). Im-proving vocabulary acquisition with mul-tisensory instruction. [Thesis, Saint Xavier University].
  11. D’Angelo, N., Krenca, K., & Chen, X. (2020). The overlap of poor reading comprehen-sion in english and french. Frontiers in Psychology.
  12. Du, X., Afzaal, M. & Fadda, H. (2022). Colloca-tion use in efl learners’ writing across multiple language proficiencies: a corpus-driven study. Frontiers.
  13. Endayani, T. (2011). Improving students’ Eng-lish vocabulary through SAVI. [Thesis, Sebelas Maret University].
  14. Gedik, O, & Akyol, H. (2022). Reading difficulty and development of fluent reading skills: an action research. International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 18.
  15. Green, C. & Wolter, K. (2009). Morphological awareness intervention: techniques for promoting language and literacy success.
  16. Griffiths, C. (2006). Language learning strate-gies: theory and research. Iran. ILI Lan-guage Teaching Journal 2. 1,1–29.
  17. Hidayat, N. (2016). Improving students’ vocab-ulary achievement through word game. JEES (Journal of English Educators Socie-ty) 1(2):95. .
  18. Hunt, M. and Feng, J. (2016). Improving vocab-ulary of English language learners through direct vocabulary instruction. [Research, Chinese American Educational Research and Development Association Annual Conference].
  19. Hurry, J., Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Pretzlik, U., Par-ker, M. L., Curno, T., & Midgley, L. (2005). Transforming research on morphology in-to teacher practice. Research Papers in Education, 20(2), 187–206.
  20. Ilter, I. (2019). The efficacy of context clue strategy instruction on middle grades stu-dents’ vocabulary development.
  21. Kame'enui, E. J. & Baumann, J. F. (2003). Vo-cabulary instruction: research to practice. Guilford Publications, 2 (322).
  22. Khodadoust, E., Aliasin, S., H., & Khosravi, R. (2013). The relationship between mor-phological awareness and receptive vo-cabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. IJERT, 4 (1), 60-67.
  23. Kirby, J. & Bowers, P. (2017). Morphological instruction and literacy. Semantic Schol-ar.
  24. Kotzer M. and Heggie, L. (2021). Morphologi-cal awareness predicts reading compre-hension in adults. Semantic Scholar.
  25. Lawrence, J., Knoph, R., Mcllraith, A., Kulesz, P., & Francis, D. (2021). Reading compre-hension and academic vocabulary: ex-ploring relations of item features and reading proficiency. Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (2). 669-690.
  26. Lee, A. M. I. (2021, April 1). 6 essential skills for reading comprehension.
  27. Marshall, S., and Gilmour, M. (1993). Lexical knowledge and reading comprehension in papua new guinea. English for Specific Purposes Volume 12, Issue 1, 1993, Pages 69-81.
  28. McLeod, et. al. (2019). The relation between teacher vocabulary use in play and child vocabulary outcomes.
  29. Mimran, R. and Nevet, L. (2022). Preschool morphological awareness contributes to word reading at the very earliest stages of learning to read in a transparent orthog-raphy. Semantic Scholar.
  30. Morrison, M. (2012). The savi approach to learning. Rapidbi.
  31. Norlund, M. and Norberg, C. (2020). Interna-tional journal of language studies.
  32. Peters, E. (2016). The learning burden of collo-cations: The role of interlexical and in-tralexical factors. Lang. Teach. Res. 20, 113–138. doi: 10.1177/1362168814568131
  33. Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing; 10. 3, 355-371.
  34. Rodriguez, J. (2018). 6 benefits of rereading books for kids.
  35. Rogers, J. and Révész, A. (2020). Experimental and quasi- experimental designs.
  36. San Juan, R. (2019, December 4). DepEd wel-comes PISA results, recognizes 'gaps' in education quality. The Philippine Star Global.
  37. Septiyana, L. (2017). Somatic, auditory, visual, intellectual (savi): its effectiveness to teach writing from the perspective of stu-dents’ critical thinking. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330217158_SOMATIC_AUDITORY_VISUAL_INTELLECTUAL_SA-VI_ITS_EFFECTIVENESS_TO_TEACH_WRITING_FROM_THE_PERSPECTIVE_OF_STUDENTS'_CRITI-CAL_THINKING
  38. Shen, Z. (2008). The roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in efl reading performance. asian social science. 12, 135-137.
  39. Srinivasan, M. (2021). The implications of poly-semy for theories of word learning. Child Development Perspective.
  40. Syahputri, D. (2019). The effect of multisensory teaching method on the students’ reading achievement. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331361903_The_Effect_of_Multisensory_Teaching_Method_on_The_Students'_Reading_Achievement
  41. Terry, B. (2022, September 15). Vocabulary and reading comprehension – scholar within. Scholar Within. .
  42. Wysocki, K., & Jenkins, J.R. (1987). Deriving word meanings through morphological generalization. Reading Research Quar-terly, 22, 66–81.
  43. Yaseen, A. (2013). The reading difficulties in English and how to deal them as per-ceived teachers and students in nablus district. Studocu.

Tools


Copyright © 2026   ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø