Comparing Implicit and Explicit Morphological Analysis Instruction for Upper Elementary Readers

PurposeWe compared the effects of two types of instruction on novel suffix learning. Instruction differed in the explicitness of the attention given to the morphological structure of the targets. Learning in form and meaning was measured in trained and transfer words.MethodOver three days Grade 3 (N = 83, 45.8% females, Mage = 8.4) and Grade 5 (N = 86, 47.7% females, Mage = 10.4) students with English as their first language (93% caucasian, 4% East Asian, 2% Latino, 1% First Nations, Metis and Inuit) received training on the definitions of pseudowords with a salient morphological structure (e.g. nim meaning small in "hillnim"). Training activities explicitly taught the morphological structure of the words, or exposed participants to this structure implicitly while teaching the use of general context clues. Participants' learning was assessed immediately (one day) after training, and at follow-up one week later, using a suffix identification task, a word definition, and a multiple-choice task.ResultsParticipants at both grade levels scored similarly on the form task across conditions, but in terms of meaning, explicit training on morphological structure yielded better results for both grade levels and word types. However, for Grade 5 the differences across training conditions were only significant in the word definition task.ConclusionOur results support explicitly teaching the structure of morphologically complex words. Explicit instruction was effective even for older students with more reading experience.