3. Theoretical Framework
Lexical Quality Hypothesis (Perfetti &
Hart, 2001)
Extension of LaBerge and Samuel’s
(1974) Information Processing in
Reading theory
4. Purpose
Expand the knowledge base on
Morphographic word analysis for DHH
students
Effective practices to increase
morphographic knowledge and possibly
develop meaning-oriented decoding skills
5. Research Questions
o
What effect does morphographic instruction have
on the morphographic analysis skills of DHH
students with a second to fourth grade reading
level?
o What effect does this instruction have on their affix
knowledge?
o If gains are made in morphographic knowledge, will
that knowledge generalize to untaught words?
o If gains are made in morphographic knowledge, will
that knowledge maintain over time?
6. Participants
Name
Megan
Sienna
Brian
Unaided
at
Preferred
1000HZ Communication
Grade Agea (L/R) (dB)
Mode
Amp.
Sign/
5th
10;2
65/65
Speech
HA
5th
4th
10;0
9;3
90/CI
Sign/
Speech
70/50
Sign/
Speech
Language
in home
English
HA &
CI
English
HA
English &
Cambodian
Note. a =Age expressed in years;months; L= Left; R = Right, dB = Decibel; Amp. =
Amplification; CI=Cochlear implant; HA=Hearing aid.
7. Setting
Public school setting in the northwestern
United States
Self-contained/resource classroom (K-6th)
○ 2 Teachers of the d/Deaf/hard of hearing
○ 11 DHH students
Small group instruction
Total communication philosophy
Study Setting
DHH classroom
Kidney table with 3 chairs
Individual instruction
9. Morphographic intervention
research design
Several phases (Phase A, B, C, D, and E)
Three tiers (i.e., student participants)
Phase A- Baseline for all students
○ She demonstrated a minimum of 5 consecutive
data points with a mean score of 20% or less
correct responses out of ten possible responses
on the baseline probe
○ Student 2 and 3 were administered probes
○ Minimum of 5 probes with 3 of those probes
occurring consecutively prior to intervention with a
mean score of 20% or less correct responses
Measure example
10. Morphographic intervention
research design
Phase B & D- Intervention
minimum of 5 data points with a score of 80% or
better correct responses out of five possible
responses for 3 out of 4 consecutive data points
OR
20% or less on the repeated measure for a
maximum of ten sessions
Data collection will cease after the student
participant meets mastery criteria
○ Measure example
11. Morphographic intervention
research design
Phase C- Generalization
a score between 0% and 80% on the probe,
the student entered intervention for the
second set of words
OR
a score above 80% the data collection
ceased and maintenance was collected after
10 sessions
13. Materials
Pretest Materials
Researcher created pretest
○ Morphographic analysis of possible target
words
○ Base word knowledge
Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement
(WJ III: Woodcock, McGrew, Mather, & Shrank, 2001)
○ letter/ word identification
○ passage comprehension
Morphemic Awareness Test
(Luetke, Stryker, & McLean, 2013)
15. Word Sets
Ten multi-morphographic words taught
all the words had two morphographs
two words had eighth to nine letter words
three words had ten to twelve letter words
(Harris et al., 2011)
Intervention Week 1
assistant
Intervention Week 2
biannual
mythology
adduct
amoral
actually
section
difference
dental
gullible
16. Teacher/
researcher
implemented
20 minutes, 5
days a week, 2
weeks
Scripted lessons
and planned
practice
Individual
instruction
Morphographic word
analysis
Morphographic
instruction
Independent and Dependent
Variable
Correctly
dissecting target
words through
permanent
product
17. Procedures
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Teacher participant training
Study scheduled with teacher participants
WJ-III, Morphemic Awareness Test and Pretest
administered to all student participants
Classroom observations completed
Baseline data collection
First intervention phase data collection
Generalization data collection
Second intervention phase data collection
Maintenance data collection
Social validity measures given
18. Fidelity and Reliability
Assessment sessions
Fidelity- 97% (range = 78 % to 100%)
Reliability- 97% (range= 86% to 100%)
Intervention sessions
Fidelity- 93% (range = 90% to 98%)
Reliability- 90% (range = 87% to 93%)
Permanent product scoring
100%
100%
22. Social Validity- Students
Statement
Mean
rating
I liked learning about morphographs.
4.3
Learning about morphographs was fun.
3.7
I can break apart words now.
4.7
I would recommend learning about morphographs
to a friend.
3.0
I learned a lot about morphographs.
4.7
I can use what I learned about morphographs in
other classes at school.
3.7
23. Social Validity -Teacher
Agreed
Easy to implement
Appropriate
Would like to continue
Indifferent
Aligned with literacy goals for the students
Benefitted the students
Changes
Prefer small group instruction
24. Discussion
Functional relation established
Supports Nunes et. al., 2010
DI implemented to teach a literacy skill
Supports Trezek & Malgrem (2005) and Trezek &
Wang (2006)
Matching affixes
Supports Ensor & Koller (1997) as well as Plessow-
Wolfson & Epstein (2005)
Visual organizer
Supports Easterbrooks & Stoner (2006)
Megan’s Baseline
Strategy use
25. Limitations
Sample size
Experimental control in the school
environment
Scripted lessons
Age of participants
Derived word forms did not change
spelling
26. Next Steps…
Replications and group design studies
Use of more flexible lesson types
Implement with younger students
Teach rules to combine morphographs
(Harris et. al., 2011)
Small group instruction
Longer intervention
27. Conclusion
More research needs to be conducted
Morphographic instruction improves
morphographic analysis skills
DHH students require explicit, teacherled instruction
Morphographic decoding may be a
viable decoding strategy
Delay could be ameliorated
28. References
Carlisle, J. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 169–190.
Easterbrooks, S. R., & Stoner, M. (2006). Using a visual tool to increase adjectives in written language of students who are
deaf or hard of hearing. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(2), 95–109. doi:10.1177/15257401060270020701
Ensor, & Koller. (1997). The effect of the method of repeated readings on the reading rate and word recognition accuracy
of deaf adolescents. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(2), 61–70. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15579836
Gaustad, M. (1986). Longitudinal effects of manual English instruction on deaf children’s morphological skills. Applied
Linguistics, 7(2), 101–127.
Gaustad, M., Kelly, R., Payne, J., & Lylak, E. (2002). Deaf and hearing students’ morphological knowledge applied to
printed English. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(5), 5–21.
Harris, M., Schumaker, J., & Deshler, D. (2011). The effects of strategic morphological analysis instruction on the
vocabulary performance of secondary students with and without disabilites. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 34(1), 17–33.
Kennedy, C. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive
Psychology, 6(2), 293-323. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/cognitive-psychology/
McCardle, P., Scarborough, H. S., & Catts, H. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children’s reading
difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(4), 230–239. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00023
Nunes, T., Burman, D., Evans, D., & Bell, D. (2010). Writing a language that you can’t hear. In N. Brunswick, S.
McDougall, & P. de Mornay Davies (Eds.), Reading and dyslexia in different orthographies (pp. 109–126). New York:
Psychology Press.
Plessow-Wolfson, S., & Epstein, F. (2005). The experience of story reading: deaf children and hearing mothers’
interactions at story time. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(4), 369–78. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16466192
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors
of functional literacy (pp. 189–214). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Trezek, B., & Malmgren, K. W. (2005). The efficacy of utilizing a phonics treatment package with middle school deaf and
hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(3), 256–71. doi:10.1093/deafed/eni028
Trezek, B., & Wang, Y. (2006). Implications of utilizing a phonics-based reading curriculum with children who are deaf or
hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(2), 202–13. doi:10.1093/deafed/enj031
Editor's Notes
Well documented that DHH students struggle with literacySome researchers believe that they struggle at a very basic level- decodingDecoding is the ability to quickly use a printed word to accesses the appropriate entry in the mental lexicon and retrieve semantic information (Haptonstall-Nykaza & Schick, 2007)Morphographs are the print version of morphemesWe do not know a lot about how DHH children decode but we do know that the have delayed morphographic knowledgeMorphographic knowledge includes- meanings of affixes, roots and base words, as well as the rules that govern their combination to make new words and to provide surface structure grammar
LQ suggests that literacy skills are supported by word knowledge. Word knowledge is a detailed orthographic, phonologic, or morphographic and semantic representation. The automization of this process is critical to fluent reading (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2008). Young readers decode words as individual letterslater decode as orthographic chunks (e.g. morphographs) providing a higher quality lexical retrieval.Researchers have suggested that morphographic strategies can be taught before a student has mastered individual letter knowledge (Abbott & Berninger, 1999)
Student participant inclusion criteria:diagnosed hearing lossreceived literacy instruction from a teacher of the d/Deaf/hard of hearing (TODHH) had a literacy goal on current Individualized Education Programplaced in the fourth through eighth grade had a second to fourth grade reading ability determine by Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement letter/ word identification and passage comprehension subtest (WJ III: Woodcock, McGrew, Mather, & Shrank, 2001)participated in a self-contained DHH classroom for literacy instructionhad no severe visual, cognitive or physical disabilities that inhibited their ability to utilize the instructional materialsTeacher participant inclusion criteria:current certification for teaching DHH studentsteacher of record for reading for the student participantswilling to attend professional development related to the curriculum provides daily literacy instruction for a minimum of 45 minutes.
This reason for using the DHH classroom for intervention assessments, probes and instruction is to measure the success of this intervention in a natural setting. Further, the students and participants are being recruited from a single classroom to increase experimental control (Kennedy, 2005).
5 phases and 3 tiersBecause the research question was focused on the “effect” then the research design had to be experimental. Best answers the research questionLow incidence population (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2010)Heterogeneous population (Transler, Laybeart & Gombert, 1999)Individual nature of special education (Horner et. al, 2005
No feedback will be given about the answers being correct or incorrect in the repeated measures. The students will get feedback in their workbook because it is a requirement of the curriculum.
16= 88%- most literature considers 80% mastery
The words from the pretest were taken from the district approved curriculum
The BRI -instructional and independent reading levelsdescriptive data to describe accurately the participants in the studyverify the reading ability level provided by the school Test of Morphological Structure (Carlisle, 2000) decomposition and production of derivational morphographs. Morphographs that were judged to be familiar to third and fourth grade students were included in the assessment. Reliability and validity data for this measure are not available at this time but this is a readily available assessment that has been utilized in previous studies to determine participants’ morphographic awareness (Carlisle & Katz, 2006; Carlisle, 2000). baseline and intervention. The entire assessment must be administered. permanent product format. adding the first letter of the expected answer in the blank provided. can be read to or signed to the student
Implementation fidelity50% of sessionsInterrater reliability (IRR) will be done on 33% of the 50% at 90% or better through poIint-by-point agreement (Kazdin, 2011)Assessment/Probe Fidelity50% of sessions 97% fidelityIRR will be done on 33% of the 50% at 88% or better through point-by-point agreement (Kazdin, 2011)Repeated Measures Scoring50% of sessions at 100% IRR will be done on 33% of the 50% at 100% through point-by-point agreement (Kazdin, 2011)
Megan BL- Mean accuracy of 14% ( last 3 data points leading into intervention were stable) Met criteria to enter intervention Mean of each phase =Change in level – 14% to 100% mean of three data points on either side of the phase change=Immediacy of Effect 6.7% to 100% Intervention data were stable at 100% Generalization- She scored 60% Second intervention phase looked exactly like the first intervention phase Maintenance was at 60% No overlapping data between phases Data paths were consistent across phases intervention phases AFFIX Probe in baseline at 0% Mean during Intervention was 92% No overlapping dataSienna BL- Mean accuracy score of 15% and stable Change in leve 15% to 92% immediacy of effect 13% to 93% Generalization score 70% change in level 155 to 92% Immediacy of effect 13% to 87% there were no overlapping data points Intervention phases were consistent Maintenance 100% AFFIX 0% to 60% Intervention phases were consistentBrian BL mean accuracy score of 9% Change in Level 9% to 92% Immediacy of effect 10% to 87% Increasing trend Generalization 60% Change in level 9 to 76% Immediacy of effect 10-60% No overlapping data intervention data paths are not as consistent- 2 days off during intervention Maintenance 90% AFFIX 10 to 60% No overlapping data consistent data paths if you consider the days off increasing trends in intervention
One student “was frustrated towards the end” because the student did not like the repetitive nature of the script and “became frustrated with the concept of mastery.” The student “just wanted to move on.”
Functional relation establishedSupports Nunes et. al., 2010DI implemented to teach a literacy skill Supports Trezek & Malgrem, 2005 and Trezek & Wang, 2006Matching affixes More difficult that the rote learning of MA DID not have a visual organizer to support learning B and S often confused two or three of them Supports the idea that dhh children need more repetitions and scaffoldingVisual organizerSupports Easterbrooks & Stoner, 2006Megan’s BaselineStrategy use
