EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
Running head: EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
Effectiveness of Word Solving: Integrating Morphological Problem Solving within
Comprehension Instruction for Middle School Students
Note: This is a 1000 word adaptation for AERA to be presented April 4, 2014 in Philadelphia
Amanda P. Goodwin
Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College, Nashville, TN
Author Note
Amanda Goodwin, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning
at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College. Correspondence regarding this article should be
addressed to Amanda Goodwin, [email protected], (305)710-6257.
Acknowledgement:
This research was made possible through funding from Vanderbilt University’s Peabody
College. We would also like to thank the students and teachers who participated in the study.
1
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
2
Abstract
The current study explores the effectiveness of an intervention that uses morphology as a guiding
principle within vocabulary instruction to support vocabulary knowledge, word reading fluency,
reading comprehension, and morphological awareness. Participants were 203 students (N=117
fifth-grade; 86 sixth-grade) from four urban schools who were randomly assigned to the
intervention (N=110; morphological problem-solving within comprehension strategy instruction)
or comparison condition (N=90; comprehension strategy instruction). All students received four
thirty-minute guided reading sessions, with students in the intervention also learning about
morphological problem solving. Results indicate the intervention produced moderate to very
large significant gains on vocabulary, word reading fluency, morphological awareness, and one
of two reading comprehension measures. When compared to the comparison condition, results
suggested the intervention was moderately more effective in supporting vocabulary knowledge
(i.e., word learning; g= 0.41), but no significant differences were noted for other literacy
outcomes, suggesting integrating morphological instruction within comprehension instruction
was equally effective at supporting reading comprehension, word reading, and morphological
awareness and more effective at promoting word learning. No significant interactions were
found between the intervention’s effectiveness and participant’s pretest scores or language
background, suggesting the intervention was equally effective for all students. Implications for
instruction are discussed.
Keywords: morphological instruction, vocabulary, reading, adolescent literacy.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
3
Effectiveness of Word Solving: Integrating Morphological Problem Solving within
Comprehension Instruction for Middle School Students
The English language presents many challenges to adolescent readers, particularly related
to academic vocabulary demands that occur within the texts that adolescents must read.
Researchers have estimated that students encounter as many as 200,000 different words in
academic texts (Graves, 2007; Nagy & Anderson, 1984). Analysis of vocabulary instruction
indicates that while direct, robust instruction of words is more productive compared to incidental
word learning in terms of building deep understanding of taught words, such plans are also
largely inefficient because it is difficult to teach more than a few words each week in a manner
which is conducive to long term mastery of those words (Graves & Watts-Taffe, 2002). As such,
a better approach to word learning may focus more on utility (i.e., teaching the highest utility
words and most effective word learning strategies to build quality lexical representations) versus
quantity.
This idea of choosing the highest utility words, teaching effective word-learning
strategies, and building lexical representations connects directly to morphology, suggesting
morphology could be a key principle to guide word learning and instruction (Nagy & Scott,
2000). Our study examines the effectiveness of an intervention grounded in using morphology as
a guiding principle to vocabulary instruction that is part of larger comprehension strategy
instruction. First, we examine the effectiveness of the intervention itself at literacy outcomes.
Next, we examine whether such instruction (i.e., morphological instruction in combination with
comprehension strategy instruction) is more effective in supporting improvement compared with
comprehension instruction alone. Next, we examine whether morphological instruction in
combination with comprehension instruction is equally effective for all students or whether it is
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
4
particularly effective for students that begin the intervention with certain levels of literacy skills
or for students with certain language backgrounds.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 203 middle school students (N=117 fifth-grade; 86 sixth-grade; 129 native
English speakers; 28 ELLs, 46 language minority youth) from four urban schools (School A=13;
B=35; C=99; D=56) in the southeastern United States. Students of 29 teachers participated.
Procedures
Participants were pre and post-tested on measures of vocabulary, reading comprehension,
word reading fluency, and morphological awareness. Students were randomly assigned to the
intervention (N=110; morphological problem-solving within comprehension strategy instruction)
or comparison condition (N=90; comprehension strategy instruction).
Intervention and Comparison Instruction
Instructional sessions were taught by researchers (N=10). Instruction occurred in small
groups (2-7 students) following a guided reading format that involved four 30 minute
instructional sessions. All instruction was scripted, although tutors were encouraged to adapt the
instruction based on the needs of their students and time constraints as long as they completed
the main components of the intervention.
All students received comprehension instruction as part of both the intervention and
comparison condition. This instruction involved research-based strategies (i.e., comprehension
strategy instruction as suggested within Shanahan et al., 2010) and fit within the guidelines of the
Common Core Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council
of Chief State School, 2010). The intervention and comparison conditions differed because the
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
5
intervention condition included morphological instruction. Specifically, students were taught to
use ‘word solving’ (i.e., morphological problem solving) as an additional reading comprehension
strategy. Whereas challenging words were pre-taught or defined for comparison students, in the
intervention condition, students word solved unfamiliar words within text by finding units of
meaning they recognized within large, unfamiliar words. Intervention students also played
games that were morphological in nature (see Figure 1).
Results
Results suggest morphological instruction was effective for our students. Multilevel
analyses that examined the effect of time on post-test scores for intervention students showed the
intervention produced significant gains on vocabulary, word reading fluency, morphological
awareness, and one comprehension measure. Effect sizes were moderate to very large (see Table
3). Additionally, the intervention was shown to be more effective than comprehension strategy
instruction alone in supporting vocabulary knowledge (i.e., word learning; g= 0.41), with no
significant differences noted for other literacy outcomes. In examining effectiveness for
different types of students, the consistent finding across all literacy outcomes was that the
intervention was equally effective for all students as none of the interaction terms were
significant (see Table 4).
Discussion
The word learning challenges that face adolescent readers are daunting especially when
taking into consideration the additional challenges that stem from academic language. Results of
our study indicate the effectiveness of using morphology as a guiding principle to promote word
learning within comprehension instruction. When contrasted to students in the comparison
condition where words were defined or pre-taught as part of comprehension strategy instruction,
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
6
students in the intervention condition learned significantly more words than students in the
comparison condition. Interpretation of the effect size relative to other academic language
interventions suggests intervention participants made similar gains related to word learning
compared to comparison students as students in other much longer interventions. This suggests
that students were able to build more word knowledge and perhaps better word learning
strategies when attention was paid to the units of meaning that make up unfamiliar words
compared to when definitions were provided. At the same time, students in the intervention
improved their general word reading and reading comprehension skills at a similar rate to
students in the comparison condition which suggests that more word knowledge was built
without negatively impacting gains in general reading skills. Across time, learning more words
(i.e., building more high quality lexical representations) would likely support word reading and
comprehension additionally. Our study suggests that morphology can be used to guide word
choice and word learning activities that promote word learning while developing general reading
skills within comprehension instruction.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
7
References
Adams, M.J. (1990). Learning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the
society for research in child development, 58, 1-186.
August, D. & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2010). Response to a review and update on developing literacy in
second language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language minority
children and youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 341–348.
Beck, I.L. & McKeown, M.G. (1991). Conditions of Vocabulary Acquisition. In P.D. Pearson
(Ed.), The Handbook of Reading Research: Vol. 2 (pp. 789-814). New York: Longman
Press.
Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Carlisle, J., Thomson, J., Hoffer, D., Abbott, S., Abbott, R., Richards,
T., & Aylward, E. (2003). Effective treatment for children with dyslexia in grades 4-6:
Behavioral and brain evidence. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading
difficulties: bringing science to scale (pp.381-417). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
Berthiaume, R., & Daigle, D. (2012, July). Issues in word morphology processing: Resetting the
picture for future research. Paper presented at the 2012 Annual Society for Scientific
Study of Reading Conference, Montreal, Canada. 7/11-14/2012.
Biemiller, A. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential. American Educator, 25,
24-26.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
8
Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on
literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80,
144-179.
Brown, J. I. (1947). Reading and vocabulary: 14 master words. In M. J. Herzberg (Ed.), Word
study (pp. 1--4). Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam.
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex
words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12(3-4),
169-190.
Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement:
An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464–487.
Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in
the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 239-254.
Carlisle, J. F., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Morphemes matter: How morphological knowledge
contributes to reading and writing. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P.
Wallach (Eds.). Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders, 2nd ed.
(pp. 265-282). New York: Guilford Press.
Cho, S. J., Gilbert, J. K., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Explanatory multidimensional multilevel
random item response model: An application to simultaneous investigation of word and
person contributions to multidimensional lexical quality. Psychometrika, 78(4), 830-855.
doi:10.1007/s11336-013-9333-5
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 20, 37-46.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
9
Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.
doi: 10.2307/3587951
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations,
and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 141(1), 2-18.
doi:10.1037/a0024338.
Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 263329. doi:10.1017/S0140525X11001841
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress.
School Psychology Review, 21(1), 45-58.
Giovanni, N., & Collier, B. (2006). Rosa. New York: Square Fish.
Goodwin, A. P. (2014). Word detectives: Building knowledge of academic language by
integrating morphological instruction within comprehension instruction. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
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(2), 183–
208. doi 10.1007/s11881-010-0041-x
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2013). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English:
Effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(4),
257-285. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2012.689791.
Goodwin, A. P., Gilbert, J. K., & Cho, S. J. (2013). Morphological contributions to adolescent
word reading: An item response approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 39-60.
doi: 10.1002/rrq.037
Goodwin, A. P, Gilbert, J. K., Cho, S. J., & Kearns, D. M. (in press). Probing lexical
representations: Simultaneous modeling of word and person contributions to
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
10
multidimensional lexical representations. Journal of Educational Psychology.
doi:10.1037/a0034754
Goodwin, A. P., & Pacheco, M. (2013, April). Rooting out meanings: An examination of
morphological problem solving strategies used by adolescent readers in different word
solving contexts. Paper presented at the 2013 Annual American Educational Research
Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. 4/28-30/2013.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7, 6-10.
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book. New York: Teachers College Press, International
Reading Association, and National Council of Teachers of English.
Graves, M. F. (2007). Vocabulary instruction in the middle grades. Voices from the Middle,
15(1), 13-19.
Graves, M. F., & Watts-Taffe, S. M. (2002). The place of word consciousness in a researchbased vocab program. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say
about reading instruction (pp. 140-165). Delaware: International Research Association.
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related
estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107-128.
Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Rebeck Black, A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for
interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 172-177.
Lexaux, N. K. & Kieffer, M. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties
among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American
Educational Research Journal, 47, 596-63.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
11
MacGinitie, W., MacGinitie, R., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading
test (4th Ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
Mahony, D. L. (1994). Using sensitivity to word structure to explain variance in high school and
college level reading ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 1944.
Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological
relations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 191-218.
Mather, N., Hammill, D. D., Allen, E. A., Roberts, R. (2004). Test of silent word reading
fluency. Texas: PRO-ED.
McCutchen, D., Logan, B., Biangardi-Orpe, U. (2009). Making meaning: Children’s sensitivity
to morphological information during word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4)
360-376.
McCutchen, D., Stull, S., Logan Herrera, B., Lotas, S., & Evans, S. (2014). Putting words to
work: Effects of morphological instruction on children’s writing. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 47(1), 86-97. doi:10.1177/0022219413509969
Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. (1984). The number of words in printed school English. Reading
Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330.
Nagy, W. E., Garcia, G. E., Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1993). Spanish-English
bilingual students’ use of cognates in English reading. Journal of Reading Behavior,
25(3), 241-259.
Nagy, W., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 3 (pp. 269-284). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
12
Nagy, W. E., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as
language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91-108. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.011
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School.
(2010). The common core standards: English language arts. Washington, D.C.: National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.
Nippold, M.A., & Sun, L. (2008). Knowledge of morphologically complex words: A
developmental study of older children and young adolescents. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 365–373. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/034)
Pacheco, M. B., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Putting Two and Two Together: Middle School
Students’ Morphological Problem Solving Strategies for Unknown Words. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(7), 541-553. doi:10.1002/JAAL.181
Perfetti, C. A. (1988). Verbal efficiency in reading ability. In G.E. MacKinnon, T. G. Waller &
M. Daneman (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice, Vol. 6 (pp. 109143). New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In D. S. Gorfein,
(Ed), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical
ambiguity (pp. 67-86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L.Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P.
REitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189-213). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 11, 357-383.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
13
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language?. New York: Harper
Perennial and Modern Classics.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Raudenbush, S. W., Martinez, A., & Spybrook, J. (2007). Strategies for improving precision in
group-randomized experiments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 5-29.
Reichle, E. D., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Morphology in word identification: A word experience
model that accounts for morpheme frequency effects. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3),
219–237.
Ride, S., & Okie, S. (1986). To space and back. New York: HarperCollins.
Rumelhart, D. (2013). Toward an interactive model of reading. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau,
& R. B. Ruddell, R. B. (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 6th edition
(pp. 719-747). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Schreuder, R., & Baayan, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L. Feldman
(Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp.131-154). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Seidenberg, M. S. (2007). Connectionist Models of Reading. In M. Gareth Gaskell (Ed), The
Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 235-250). Oxford University Press. Access at
http://www.praktijkmarloujanssen.nl/upload/pdf%20bestanden/Seidenberg%202005%20
%20Connectionist%20models%20of%20reading%20.pdf
Seymour, P. H. K. (1997). Foundations of orthographic development. In C. A. Perfetti, L.
Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice among
languages (pp. 319–337). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
14
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., &
Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd
grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides.
Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and
morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 219-252.
Snow, C. E., & Kim, Y. (2007). Large problem spaces: The challenge of vocabulary for English
language learners. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.),
Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp.123-129). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.
Tyler, A., & Nagy, W. (1989). The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of
Memory and Language, 28, 649–667.
Tyler, A., & Nagy, W. E. (1990). Use of derivational morphology during reading. Cognition, 36,
17-34.
Wagner R. K., Torgesen J., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. (2010). Test of Sentence Reading
Efficiency and Comprehension. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2008). WWC procedures and standards handbook. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_ha
ndbook.pdf
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
15
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1990). Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational batteryRevised tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency
guide. New York: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
16
Table 1
Demographic Information
Grade
5th
6th
Language Status*
ELL
LMY
Native English
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
White
Intervention
(N=110)
Comparison
(N=93)
62
(56.4%)
48
(43.6%)
55
(59.1%)
38
(40.9%)
14
(12.7%)
30
(60%)
66
(27.3%)
14
(15.1%)
16
(17.2%)
63
(67.7%)
49
(44.5%)
61
(55.5%)
38
(40.9%)
55
(59.1%)
18
19
(16.4%)
(20.4%)
Black
60
54
(54.5%)
(58.1%)
Hispanic
27
20
(24.5%)
(21.5%)
Asian
5
0
(4.5%)
Free and Reduced Lunch
98
77
(89.1%)
(82.8%)
Special Education
10
5
(9.1%)
(5.4%)
Note: *Significant differences between intervention and comparison group.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
17
Table 2
Descriptive Information for Pre and Post-Tests
Intervention
Mean
SD
N
Comparison
Mean
SD
N
Scale
Pretest
Vocabulary
9.22
3.11
110
9.17
2.91
93
Raw
Maze Fluency
20.95
9.11
110
21.34
8.03
93
Raw
TOSREC
88.51
17.27
110
87.87
25.11
93
Index
TOSWRF
96.98
12.71
108
98.14
12.97
90
Standard
TOSMWRF
13.05
8.66
100
12.65
8.67
86
Raw
MA
9.89
3.18
110
9.58
2.95
93
Raw
Mean
(X’)
11.65
(11.40)
25.37
SD
N
SD
N
Scale
2.81
110
2.68
93
Raw
10.29
110
Mean
(X’)
10.45
(10.29)
26.40
9.37
93
Raw
10.03
110
8.93
93
Raw
16.31
110
17.49
93
Index
14.74
109
13.77
90
Standard
11.35
110
11.83
93
Raw
3.38
109
3.76
93
Raw
Post-test
Vocab
Maze Fluency
(2 passages)
Maze Fluency
(4 passages)
TOSREC
TOSWRF
TOSMWRF
MA
23.46
(23.56)
89.96
(87.35)
103.05
(102.67)
24.67
(22.36)
10.90
(10.42)
24.53
(24.09)
90.16
(86.88)
104.01
(102.73)
21.84
(21.04)
10.63
(10.50)
Note: TOSREC=Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension; TOSWRF=Test of
Silent Word Reading Fluency; TOSMWRF=Test of Silent Morphological Word Reading
Fluency; MA=Morphological Awareness; X’=adjusted mean controlling for pretest and language
background.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
18
Table 3
Results of Multilevel Analyses Examining Effectiveness of the Intervention (Main Effects Model)
Outcome
Coefficient
(b)
RQ1: Effectiveness of Intervention1
Vocabulary
Maze Fluency
TOSREC
TOSWRF
TOSMWRF
MA
2.43**
4.42**
1.45
5.94**
11.52**
0.99**
Standard Error
Effect size
(g)
Interpretation
0.24
0.41
1.12
0.75
0.86
0.28
0.81
0.45
0.09
0.44
1.14
0.31
large
moderate
small
moderate
very large
moderate
RQ2: Effectiveness of Intervention compared to Comparison Condition2
Vocabulary
Maze Fluency
TOSREC
TOSWRF
TOSMWRF
MA
1.11**
-0.52
0.46
-0.06
1.32
-0.08
0.28
0.58
1.43
1.02
1.14
0.37
0.41
-0.05
0.03
-0.004
0.11
-0.02
moderate
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible/small
negligible
Note: RQ=Research Question; TOSREC=Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension;
TOSWRF=Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency; TOSMWRF=Test of Silent Morphological
Word Reading Fluency; MA=Morphological Awareness; g=standardized mean difference with
positive values favoring the intervention group; 1 coefficient is from the predictor time; 2
coefficient is from the predictor intervention controlling for pretest scores and language
background; *p<.05; **p≤.001.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
19
Table 4
Results of Multilevel Analyses Examining Effectiveness of the Intervention for Certain Types of
Students(Interaction model)
Outcome
Coefficient
(b)
Standard
Error
p value
0.01
-0.89
0.41
0.10
1.01
0.71
.92
.38
.57
0.02
-0.73
1.40
0.08
1.60
2.23
.82
.65
.53
0.004
-2.66
-5.67
0.09
3.67
5.18
.96
.47
.28
-0.01
3.07
3.35
0.08
2.62
3.69
.95
.24
.37
0.04
-3.44
0.78
0.13
2.79
4.06
.78
.22
.85
0.04
-0.74
1.05
0.13
0.97
1.34
.19
.45
.44
Vocabulary
pretest*intervention
lang*intervention ELLvLM
lang*intervention ENGvLM
Maze Fluency
pretest*intervention
lang*intervention ELLvLM
lang*intervention ENGvLM
TOSREC
pretest*intervention
lang*intervention ELLvLM
lang*intervention ENGvLM
TOSWRF
pretest*intervention
lang*intervention ELLvLM
lang*intervention ENGvLM
TOMSWRF
pretest*intervention
lang*intervention ELLvLM
lang*intervention ENGvLM
MA
pretest*intervention
lang*intervention ELLvLM
lang*intervention ENGvLM
Note: pretest*intervention=interaction of pretest score and intervention status;
lang*intervention=interaction of language background and intervention status; ELL=English
language learner; LM=Language Minority Youth; ENG=Native English speakers; positive
values favor LM; TOSREC=Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension;
TOSWRF=Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency; TOSMWRF=Test of Silent Morphological
Word Reading Fluency; MA=Morphological Awareness.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
20
Table 5
Effect Sizes by Outcome for Students of Different Language Backgrounds
Intervention
Outcome
X’
Raw
SD
Comparison
X’
Raw SD
Effect
size (g)
Interpretation
Favors
Vocabulary
ELL 11.19
2.97
9.05
2.80
0.72
moderate
I
LMY 12.15
1.62
10.91
1.97
0.70
moderate
I
ENG 11.31
2.95
10.48
2.48
0.30
small
I
Maze
Fluency
ELL 23.35
7.16
25.54
7.63
-0.29
small
C
LMY 22.53
7.61
23.33
7.82
-0.10
negligible
-ENG 24.07
10.46
24.14
8.62
-0.01
negligible
-TOSREC
ELL 83.97
14.79
80.34
12.43
0.26
small
I
LMY 90.68
11.48
92.71
13.75
-0.10
negligible
-ENG 88.17
16.06
87.55
16.96
-0.01
negligible
-TOSWRF
ELL 100.25
9.52
101.21
11.64
-0.08
negligible
-LMY 104.22 11.40
101.83
14.01
0.19
small
I
ENG 103.64 16.00
104.32
13.15
-0.08
negligible
-TOMSWRF
ELL 18.34
8.60
19.88
9.99
-0.16
small
C
LMY 24.10
9.34
24.89
11.01
-0.08
negligible
-ENG 22.92
11.94
20.24
11.31
0.23
small
I
MA
ELL
8.81
2.87
10.27
3.49
-0.44
moderate
C
LMY 11.12
3.04
11.53
2.80
-0.13
negligible
-ENG 10.74
3.37
10.41
3.69
0.09
negligible
-Note: ELL=English language learner; LMY=Language Minority Youth; ENG=Native English
speakers; positive values favor LM; TOSREC=Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and
Comprehension; TOSWRF=Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency; TOSMWRF=Test of Silent
Morphological Word Reading Fluency; MA=Morphological Awareness.
EFFECTIVENESS OF WORD SOLVING
21
Figure 1