Summary 20 Achilles tendinopathy

13 Pages·2012·0.89 MB·English

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2015, 229–241
doi:10.1093/deafed/env019
Advance Access publication May 14, 2015
Empirical Manuscript
empirical manuscript
Effects of Morphographic Instruction on the
Morphographic Analysis Skills of Deaf and Hard-of-
D
o
w
n
Hearing Students lo
a
d
e
d
Jessica W. Trussell*,1, Susan R. Easterbrooks2 fro
m
h
1Rochester Institute of Technology and 2Georgia State University ttps
://a
*Correspondence should be sent to Jessica W. Trussell, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, 52 Lomb Memorial c
a
Drive, Rochester, NY 14623 (e-mail: [email protected]). d
e
m
ic
.o
u
p
Abstract .c
o
m
Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students have delayed morphographic knowledge that negatively affects their /jd
s
morphographic analysis and decoding abilities. Morphographic analysis instruction may improve DHH students’ de
mthoer mphoorgprhaopghriacp khnico wanleadlygsei sd seklailyl.s T ohfe r epaudripnogs-ed eolfa tyheids , sltauted-ye wleamse tnot daeryte DrmHHin set tuhdee neftfse. cTths eo fr emseoarrpchho qguraepshtiiocn i nwsatrsu: cWtihoant on /article
effect does morphographic instruction have on the morphographic analysis skills of DHH students who are reading below -a
b
grade level? The study included 3 student participants and 1 teacher participant from a local school district. The researchers stra
used a multiprobe multiple baseline across participants design. The intervention was implemented for 20 min a day, 5 days c
a week for 2–3 weeks. Visual analysis of the data revealed the requisite number of demonstrations of effect and replications. t/20
The intervention improved DHH students’ ability to dissect words and determine affix meanings, which may in turn /3/2
positively affect their decoding abilities. Implications of this study and future research are discussed. 29
/3
4
0
2
3
1
Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) readers often do not attain morphographs) as re- and view. Re- means again and view means by
grade-equivalent reading levels (Easterbrooks & Beal-Alvarez, to look at; therefore, review means to look at again. gu
e
2012). Perhaps one reason is that they do not bring the same Deacon and Kirby (2004) discovered that morphographic skills s
morphographic knowledge to the reading task as their hearing and phonological skills were comparable as predictors of reading t o
n
counterparts (Gaustad, Kelly, Payne, & Lylak, 2002). The smallest comprehension in typically hearing students in fourth through 1
0
units of a language that retain meaning are called morphemes ninth grades. For third through fifth graders, morphographic A
p
(oRrethedog, ra2p0h0y8,) . thWeyh eanre cmaollrepdh emmoerps hoagrrea prhesp r(eMsaegngtes,d MtchMroilulagnh, sokf ilplsh omnaodloeg aic ualn isqkuilels c o(Dnetraicbounti o&n Ktoir wbyo, r2d0 r0e4a)d. iSnigm bileayrolyn, dN tahgayt, ril 20
1
Patching, & Hawke, 1981). Morphographic knowledge includes Berninger, and Abbott (2006) found that morphographic knowl- 9
understanding the meanings of affixes, roots, and base words, edge makes a unique contribution to decoding accuracy for
deconstructing words into their component morphographs, and hearing fourth and fifth graders. These findings indicate a shift
combining morphographs in a rule-base manner to create a new from a phonological focus to morphological focus on decoding
word or to change the grammatical class of a word (Gaustad, (Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Nagy et al., 2006) in the upper elemen-
2000). Morphographs include base words, roots, and affixes tary grades: phonological skills plateau and morphological
(Maggs et al., 1981); every word contains one or more morpho- skills continue to develop (Berninger, Abbott, Nagy, & Carlisle,
graphs (Dixon, 1991). For example, the word review can be ana- 2010). Although the importance of phonological instruction for
lyzed morphographically (i.e., separated into its component DHH students has been documented (Beal-Alvarez, Lederberg,
Received: November 18, 2014; Revisions Received: April 18, 2015; Accepted: April 22, 2015
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected]
229
230 | Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 3
& Easterbrooks, 2012; Bergeron, Lederberg, Easterbrooks, Miller, benefit from morphographic instruction (Arnbak & Elbro, 2000;
& Connor, 2009; Guardino, Syverud, Joyner, Nicols, & King, 2011; Berninger et al., 2007), suggesting that this might be the same
Trezek & Hancock, 2013; Trezek & Malmgren, 2005; Trezek & for DHH students. Morphographic instruction is grounded in the
Wang, 2006; Tucci & Easterbrooks, 2014; Wang, Spychala, Harris, lexical quality hypothesis (Perfetti & Hart, 2001).
& Oetting, 2013), research on morphographic knowledge (Deacon The lexical quality hypothesis (Perfetti & Hart, 2001) proposes
& Kirby, 2004; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012; Nagy et al., 2006) indicates that word knowledge supports literacy skills; that is, the qual-
that morphographic instruction may be similarly important to ity of one’s bank of known words and known meanings directly
their reading achievement (Hearing: Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Nagy influences the development of literacy skills. Emergent readers
et al., 2006; Deaf: Nunes, Bryant, & Barros, 2012). This type of have a limited lexicon, or word bank, and they often decode
instruction is included in state standards (California Department words using individual letters (Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2003). As
of Education, 2007; Colorado Department of Education, 2010; emergent readers develop, they begin to decode words in ortho-
Idaho Department of Education, 2010) and the Common Core graphic chunks (i.e., morphographs; van Hoogmoed, Knoors,
standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2011). Schreuder, & Verhoeven, 2013) employing higher quality lexical
However, it is rarely included in DHH students’ daily reading les- retrieval. A morphographic knowledge delay can interfere with
sons (Gaustad, 2000). This gap in instruction is troubling because the decoding process and impede higher lexical quality retrieval.
D
these students often have a morphographic knowledge delay o
w
that begins at an early age (Gaustad, 1986) and persists through Morphographic Knowledge and Instruction nlo
college (Gaustad et al., 2002). a
d
The link between morphographic knowledge and reading Morphographic knowledge delay affects DHH students regard- ed
comprehension can be explained in two ways. First, English has less of communication modality (e.g., listening and spoken lan- fro
m
more morphographically transparent words than phonologi- guage [LSL], Signed Exact English, and American Sign Language
h
cally transparent words. For instance, let us consider the words [ASL]; Gaustad et al., 2002; Guo, Spencer, & Tomblin, 2013). DHH ttp
m“maaggicic a” nthda mt raegtaiciniasn i.t sT hspeesell itnwgo in w boortdhs w sohradrse btuhte w mhoernp ohnoeg rsaapyhs settu adle.,n t2s0 1w3h) oa nuds et hLoSsLe mwahyo nuoste hseiagrn sloamngeu amgoer pmhaeym enso t( Gsueoe s://ac
a
the words (i.e., magic /mædʒɪk/, magician /mədʒɪʃən/), the voice- English morphemes (Gaustad et al., 2002) during conversation d
e
less stop /k/ becomes a voiceless fricative /ʃ/. When readers see or instruction. Children who do not gain morphological knowl- m
ic
these two words, they may notice the orthographic similarity edge through incidental means are deficient in their use of .o
u
(i.e., magic) and guess that the two words are related although morphemes expressively (Guo et al., 2013) and struggle to under- p
when readers only hear the words, this relationship is not as stand morphemes when they see them in print (Dixon, Zhao, & .co
m
clear (McCutchen, Logan, & Biangardi-Orpe, 2012). Joshi, 2012). Further, many DHH children are delayed language /jd
Second, morphographic knowledge makes a significant con- learners (Lederberg & Spencer, 2009) who process morphograph- s
d
tribution to reading comprehension through vocabulary (Kieffer ically complex words inefficiently because they depend on the e/a
& Lesaux, 2012) also utilizing a morphographic decoding strat- lexical language level. For example, rethink is a morphographi- rtic
egy that improves one’s vocabulary (Baumann, Edwards, Boland, cally complex word because its meaning is clear from its con- le
Olejnik, & Kame’enui, 2003). When readers’ morphographically stituent morphographs. However, delayed language learners will -ab
s
decode, they should be breaking multimorphographic words not deconstruct the word into its constituent parts to determine tra
into their constituent morphographs, determining the mor- its meaning; they will look at it as a whole word and attempt to ct/2
phographs meanings, and reconstructing the word to assess its determine meaning (Jiang, 2004). Perhaps, this processing deficit 0
/3
meaning within the sentence. For example, a student may know could be remedied through morphographic analysis instruction. /2
the meanings of the morphograph re- and the root word write. Morphographic analysis instruction includes several com- 29
When the reader decodes the novel word rewrite, she can decon- ponents: (a) recognizing constituent morphographs within /34
0
struct the word, recall the meanings, and assess if the mean- multimorphographic words, (b) learning the morphographs’ 2
3
ing “to compose again” fits the sentence. Now, the reader has meanings, and (c) studying the rules to create new words from 1
b
encountered a new word and used her morphographic knowl- derivational morphographs (Harris, Schumaker, & Deshler, y
g
edge to determine the word’s meaning and in turn improve her 2011). Morphographic analysis interventions that focused on u
e
vocabulary (Arnbak & Elbro, 2000). Those readers who have a derivational morphographs have been implemented at vary- st o
larger vocabularies are better readers than those with smaller ing grade levels with positive effects on hearing students’ n
1
vocabularies (Kyle & Harris, 2010) and 60% of unfamiliar vocabu- morphographic analysis skills (Apel, Brimo, Diehm, & Apel, 0
lary that children attempt to read at the fifth grade level can be 2013; Harris et al., 2011; Wysocki & Jenkins, 1987). Apel et al. Ap
morphographically decoded (Nagy & Anderson, 1984). (2013) implemented a morphological/morphographic inter- ril 2
Morphographs are separated into two categories: inflectional vention with kindergarteners and first and second graders 0
1
and derivational. Inflectional morphographs, such as -ed and with large effect sizes for morphological knowledge. Wysocki 9
–s, provide surface structure grammar (Verhoeven & Perfetti, and Jenkins (1987) found similar gains in fourth, sixth, and
2003). Derivational morphographs, such as dis- and –less, are eighth grade students. Harris et al. (2011) discovered that the
combined to change the meaning of root words (like vs. dislike) student participants who received morphographic instruction
or to change the grammatical category and the meaning of the decoded novel words for meaning with higher accuracy than
root words (speech [noun] vs. speechless [adjective]). Derivational student participants who received instruction on a vocabulary
morphographs are the focus of the present study. Applying deri- retention strategy or business-as-usual instruction (Harris
vational morphographic knowledge while reading is a tool for et al., 2011). Although the use of derivational morphographic
decoding novel words for meaning (Arnbak & Elbro, 2000) and instructional strategies with DHH students has yet to be
maybe important to DHH students because decoding using mor- empirically tested (xxxBlindedxxx, 2014), the findings of Harris
phographic strategies can be a visual process (Gaustad, 2000). et al. (2011) indicate that students who are at risk for morpho-
There is some indication that hearing students with disabilities graphic knowledge delay benefit from explicit instruction in
who have not mastered the phoneme/grapheme relationship this area.
Trussell et al. | 231
Based on the principles of Direct Instruction (DI; Marchand- b%)
Martell et al., 2004), Spelling through Morphographs (Dixon & e (
Engelmann, 2007) is a DI curriculum that explicitly teaches affix or n;
c o
msisnoececnlatsuin,nd ipgenl,s gaa nnaanfdnfie dxdsp pmemrlaleoicnartpngich irneou,gg l aerian napdsch ttcriiucvu imctatiuienoslana l(t,yD isvwiiexso o rrnetdhv &ribeo uwEuin.gl dTghieh nlesmgc ,c rauiwnprnotreir,c dd2u 0ldl0uei7mss)--. wareness s 70 91 45 d identificati
C19o7rr9e)c, tivthe eS pperlleincgu rtshorro utgoh SMpoerlplihnogg rtahprhosu g(hD ixMoonr p&ho gErnagpehlsm, awnans, hemic a etter/wor
i1m98p1l)e, manedn tseedv ewnitthh gtyrapdicearlsl y(R hoebainrisnogn f&ou Hrtehs,s fie,f t1h9 8(M1) awggitsh epto asli.-, Morp LID = l
tive effects on spelling (Maggs et al., 1981) and morphographic nt;
analysis (Robinson & Hesse, 1981). Kraemer, Kramer, Koch, me
Mt1tp2awhh20naiarrt0trdoodhhTt1uu li ) hoggaggD ffehhnaro Ha angMuMpdHnu,n uoeo adisrra rngpDtpp npeuthhoHed.odo osTr HsgegevoirrSn tea asdoittnpvtpesfauhte he timtds soelehy ea,nfea i ftnls aseohp( t s2cnissawust0.tec s uer0cA k cilo1udnalla)nt yrgg nahr e ssiniomwc,mp uooutaeohtgptlsl rhubhell pieeme t nrhmoer edg o f hsD,feedg eeratnIerecae sattcatrr eepnsucmddr hhorimo nriitefnci Cg ircb enCsa uoecd eonrl(eor ru Kbanmertmreelch yaictcpneistseavri v imveuewseee h.fsse ifeeSStterh inpp icget eesta 6tllwsi llttoa iiehnnaonldgg.–sf,, WJ-III LWIWJ-III PC GESSGESS 3.9943.291 4.5982.989 3.1922.081 Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achieve Downloaded from http
msbtsbd&inhkoeee rtointenoPelwrnl utanpsps egu dh oelhe(la offT,n t fn gofrMe 2oesr sc0ia ouzent0frpeircovpv7tkhorehhe) i nso &c taiftgdh n oinr Mge iaradna tpan thptsfiheledtremfsa ret t uchsfhgcphoce rueagtuein rinsrinrotratmgt in.,dhc s 2p udeHt 0ulg lioDeeus0drnmnc5aHmy rc;d H eee Ttbenewh, r.e st teetc teEazuh larltieeedteuimkoem es,nrcopn eaWeh r rtocnpoDesyaft ssh Iw nstee soh gcnnikgftue,rt ihrW ol rtaSl rosmasppiot cherutod ueloitdldecalih nuyvs Ddeg,e m ia H ldGnStonshiHgappd ar me hl olelsylulanpetvisvnguosepihegs--tl, Language in home English English English and Cambodian hs; SS = standard score; WJ-III =  s://academic.oup.com/jdsd
Morphographs curriculum itself but to use elements of the cur- ont e/a
rqorwkmtkieinnnumceaouoo erdtreewwslhpiu?t:neh lli mIeeoWg ofmddn gghbtgg rowoaeeeaari ?ltapndpog sheeshwe: vfi noWafc eegerg lckerhroraata napm plddot ih szewoaece idfecrl lfeseeit epao dv ctint eghtneu aledi d?nslm,o y twTliesaeonhisuisrssl epsglm t so hhrtskunohotei rc aglcwppltrtsoilh aoo ankopornnnddfgh s aoshrDi.ar? cwaTHy pvkIlh hHfeenr edi eg o cosgspa wtnieeirunn a ildsmesmsrttdec uraaahngudrrie tnyceesq,t tn ruwimawoeteisinsnhals’el d ot haaoite oahfrav fincveiranhxeesrt Comm. modeAmp. Sign/speechHA Sign/speechHA and CI Sign/speechHA valency expressed in grade level m rticle-abstract/20/3/229/3402
Method dB) ade equi 31 by g
PIwlenaefitrtr itetai hcllieiynp ,c safltounuuddtresy d sa tusin dh eitnsh tif sap mastriutliydc yirp.e alHoncotasw teaevdne dtr o, o tnahnee o ttefhoaeucrhr teshcr hppoaaorrltt iidccuiippraainnngtt 1,000 Hz (L/R) ( 65/65 90/CI 70/50 aring aid; GE = grhension. uest on 10 Ap
btagmgo2(rtswTPiheftor0 ahc eCuaatea0asiAierpdddn)Atse1le ac aseeilt)il hoanci,n tuin n ninhgnhigrelhbtnteeee e v,ossti ttt arbe, eaudthhg th emdisnhgartoeetratiohh-detee ifnsdwarfu nde ,go tt n ftp ao icchh u otnosr uoah(eeddwurtsW lbrt eus irtlsrhaadieeiritdetJldrsghu ce-viun e(et Intaace BtydInntitbIatforor yt:hti eIiri sidon a anlfigW rweinpev.noncted dAtyaaia oudt)iise te vrsnhos gutarit dioh od hmeoindiaanc n aacp lbudu i i,rosdrepe ne a(tdieccifiLiinancelgcl olkWifanif dgohaztgzt,-u t hfeo ttcInelsM e)shbod o ,hi fdegt yst nochteai rE gs hGvouitaaenW,drna efarrdar ldu i it,eitioTted nnthn cwhooeaseespaa gdre rb,t,tda gt ( ahc rlMpiM(sm aroeucoTrDsehc  yoencaaO1koeHsy ugttg ,idedDsi hnHPagJeoac ieorHn eshcl nothloclctra o H nanor,clgeasl aulmsd ur)int& pds,goaucm rdpshn aimatrtdsrr Sioi art SoeeoacthIcl, th IinunibioehfIept ceog imlt errinnlfluT irpuaiarrpasntaem aoancrfiailsdaocteomsetktr’hnyee)ss.sr--,. Student participants’ informationTable 1. aStudentGradeAgeUnaided at MeganFifth10;2 SiennaFifth10;0 BrianFourth9;3 Note. L = left; R = right; CI = cochlear implant; HA = heLWI = letter-word identification; PC = passage compreaAge expressed in years;months.bPercentage correct out of 33 test items. ril 2019
232 | Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 3
guidelines. To further describe the student participants, the Preintervention material
primary author requested the students’ age, expressive and First, the Morphemic Awareness Test (Luetke, Stryker, & McLean,
receptive language modality preference, and home language 2013) was used to measure the students’ awareness of the asso-
information. All the students used sign and speech in the ciations of base and derived or inflectional morphographs. The
classroom for receptive and expressive communication and task included the presentation of a sentence with four possi-
used English at home with the exception of Brian. English and ble answers. The students must read or have the sentence read
Cambodian were used in his home. to them and then choose the correct derived or inflected form
The teacher participant was the TODHH for the student that completes the sentence. This assessment informed the
participants. She held a current certification for teaching DHH researchers of the student participant’s current morphographic
students, verified that she was the teacher of record for the stu- knowledge. Reliability and validity data for this measure are
dent participants’ reading, attended professional development not available at this time, but the assessment was created spe-
related to the curriculum, and provided a minimum of 45 min cifically for DHH students and is readily available. The original
daily literacy instruction to the student participants. The class- assessment had three test items for each morphograph tested;
room was managed by two TODHHs; however, after consenting however, the primary author chose to present one test item for
and completing training for the study, one teacher was not able each morphograph due to time restrictions. The student par-
D
to participate for health reasons. The remaining TODHH did not ticipants completed the assessment in a permanent product o
w
feel that she could complete all the parts of the study due to format. nlo
time constraints and the needs of other students not included The second measure was a researchers-created pretest that a
d
in the study so the primary author, a state-certified, experienced included 30 words from the district curriculum that were poten- ed
TODHH, taught one of the student participants. The TODHH tial target words. The students attempted to analyze each word fro
m
taught Megan and Brian (pseudonyms). The primary author morphographically (e.g., ___+____=biannual). Also, the pretest
h
taught Sienna (pseudonym). included reading and telling the meaning of the base words that ttp
Setting wdeonutl dw boeu lpdo atettnetmiapllty ttoa uregahdt tinh et hper ilnetsesdo nwso. rFdo ra enxnaumal palned, t theell s tthue- s://ac
a
primary author what the word meant. This pretest was given to d
e
The study was conducted in a public school setting in the north- determine the word sets for the study to ensure that the student m
western United States. The classroom included DHH students participants had not previously acquired the skills targeted by ic.o
from kindergarten to sixth grade and two TODHHs. The student the intervention and to discern the students’ base-word knowl- up
participants received instruction in a small group setting using edge. Weak base-word knowledge may negatively affect the stu- .co
m
simultaneous communication (i.e., signing and speaking at the dents’ ability to analyze the derived form (Carlisle & Katz, 2006). /jd
same time). Therefore, simultaneous communication was used For example, if one did not know the base form pack, then one s
d
during assessments, probes, and intervention instruction that may struggle to analyze the derived form repack. e/a
were conducted in the DHH classroom. The classroom had two rtic
circle tables and one kidney table with three to four chairs sur- Intervention materials le
rounding them. Several materials were required in order to implement this -ab
s
study. First, the TODHH and primary author delivered 10 daily tra
Research Design scripted lessons during intervention instruction time. In addi- ct/2
tion, the primary author created 40 visual organizer pages (20 for 0
/3
We implemented a multiprobe multiple baseline across par- the teacher and 20 for the primary author) that could be reused /2
ticipants design (Kazdin, 2011) across 4 weeks of intervention. and were part of the daily instruction. The TODHH received a 29
Multiple baseline single case designs are utilized when the Spelling through Morphographs teacher guide book to review prior /34
0
behavior being measured cannot be reversed or unlearned to intervention. This book provided an overview of the curricu- 2
3
(Kazdin). Further, this research design allows the researchers lum and some strategies to improve student learning. Each stu- 1
b
to analyze the data at an individual level. Analyzing the data dent had 10 workbook pages modeled after the Spelling through y
g
at this level is important to address the variability often found Morphographs workbook. u
e
among DHH students (Harris & Beech, 1998) and to address st o
the individualized nature of special education (Horner et al., Baseline/generalization/maintenance probes n
1
2005). The baseline/generalization/maintenance probes were mod- 0
eled after the curriculum’s workbook exercises. The probe Ap
Materials consisted of morphographically analyzing the 10 target words ril 2
(Table 2) with two morphographic units (e.g., ___+___ = dental). 0
1
Study eligibility measures These probes were given during the following phases: baseline, 9
Two subtests of the WJ-III were given to verify the student par- generalization, and maintenance. There were several versions
ticipants’ reading ability level and determine if the student of each measure. The items themselves remained unchanged,
was eligible (second and fourth grade level on the LWI and PC but the numerical order of the items was varied. Generalization
subtests) for the study. The first subtest administered was the and maintenance probes were not collected for affix meaning
LWI subtest. During this assessment, the student participant because that skill was not the primary focus of this study.
was asked to recognize different English letters or read words
that were presented on a flipbook. The second subtest that was Intervention repeated measures
administered was the PC subtest. During this assessment, the The intervention repeated measures were similar to the base-
student participant read sentences or passages with missing line/generalization/maintenance probes in every way but one.
words that were presented on a flipbook. The student partici- The intervention repeated measures consisted of analyzing only
pant tried to determine what the missing words should be to the five target words that were being taught in that interven-
make the passage complete. tion phase. Similar to the baseline/generalization/maintenance
Trussell et al. | 233
Table 2. Target words lists
Intervention Week 1 Intervention Week 2
Assistant Biannual
Mythology Adduct
Amoral Actually
Section Difference
Dental Gullible
probes, there were several versions of each measure where the
items did not change, but the numerical order was varied.
Validity and fidelity measures
Two researcher-created social validity measures were completed D
by the TODHH and student participants to determine the valid- ow
n
ity of this intervention within the school context. The measures lo
asked different questions in a similar format. Regarding the ad
e
fidelity measure, the primary author adapted an instruction d
implementation fidelity measure that is used widely with DI fro
m
programs. The original measure included a zero to three rating h
for each area. It was adapted to include percentages of occur- ttp
s
rence that corresponded with the zero, one, two, or three rating. ://a
For example, if the teacher followed the script 80% of the time, c
a
the TODHH would be given a score of 3 for that requirement. d
e
Also, the primary author created the assessment and probe m
ic
implementation fidelity measure. This measure was a checklist .o
u
created to ensure that the probes and repeated measures were p
.c
administered in the same manner each time. o
m
/jd
s
Independent and Dependent Variables d
e
/a
The independent variable for this study was morphographic rtic
instruction modeled after the Spelling through Morphographs cur- le
-a
riculum (Figure 1) and implemented for 20 min a day, 5 days a b
s
week for 2–3 weeks. The lessons included fast-paced instruction tra
and interactive communication between the TODHH or primary ct/2
author and the student. The TODHH or primary author used 0
/3
simultaneous communication to present the lessons. The pri- /2
2
mary author, TODHH, and students used ASL signs in an English 9
word order with emphasis on using signs that were conceptu- /34
0
ally accurate. 2
Figure 1. Lesson example from Spelling through Morphographs. Reprinted with 3
The TODHH and primary author went over the scripted permission from Dixon and Engelmann (2007). 1 b
lessons and discussed sign usage in order to deliver instruc- y
g
tion similarly using conceptually accurate signs. In addition, morphograph was taught and reviewed in the same manner. u
e
the TODHH and primary author agreed to fingerspell the word No one morphograph received more instruction or emphasis st o
morphograph during instruction and assessment sessions. To across days than another morphograph. Second, the interven- n
1
address how to sign the target affixes, the TODHH and primary tion lesson plans included root word instruction (assist means 0
A
author determined what the goal of the lesson was. If the lesson to help), affix instruction (-ant means a person or things that p
objective was to teach the morphograph, the TODHH or primary does something), word dissection (The first morphograph in ril 2
author fingerspelled the morphograph smoothly without stop- the word assistant is assist. Show me where you would write the 01
ping between letters. If the lesson objective was to teach the first morphograph assist. assist + _____ = assistant), and morpho- 9
spelling of the morphograph, the TODHH or primary author fin- graphic rules (all words have morphographs). The original cur-
gerspelled the morphograph with a slight delay between the let- riculum includes further instruction such as oral spelling and
ters. The students were expected to respond similarly depending word discrimination that were not included in this intervention
on the goal of the lesson. Although not discouraged to use their instruction. These activities were not included because we were
voices, the student participants accommodated the TODHH and measuring discrete skills (word analysis and affix meaning) as
primary author and used simultaneous communication during a result of instruction. Including spelling instruction and word
the intervention and assessment sessions. At times, the activity discrimination instruction would have lengthened instruction
required a written response (i.e., What is the first morphograph? time without providing data to answer the research question.
(signal), MYTH, Write that in the first blank.) or pointing (i.e., Where Third, the meaning of the root word was taught along with
do I write the first morphograph, MYTH?). the affix because based on pretesting, the student participants
Several modifications were made to the original curriculum did not know the root word meanings. Lastly, a visual organ-
when developing the lessons for this study. First, each target izer (Figure 2) was included to provide visual support during
234 | Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 3
The primary author explained the nature of DI and taught several
practice lessons (Stephenson, Dostal, & Wolbers, 2013). During
the training, the teacher participants taught an example lesson
to each other. The teachers were required to obtain a 90% fidelity
score in training before they were allowed to teach the interven-
tion. The TODHH received a 91% implementation fidelity score.
Second, the primary author conducted four preintervention
Figure 2. Visual organizer example. observations (2 announced and 2 unannounced) to ensure that
morphographic instruction (i.e., word dissecting, word building,
instruction (Easterbrooks & Stoner, 2006). After developing the affix instruction, or morphographic spelling rules) was not part
lessons including these modifications, the primary author had of the teacher participants’ daily literacy instruction. Although
the lessons approved by a senior researcher experienced with the primary author did not witness any direct morphographic
implementing DI curriculums. instruction, there was a small poster on the classroom wall that
In addition, the primary author created workbook pages or included the word “prefix” and its definition.
planned practice that were consistent from lesson to lesson and At this point, pretesting began. The primary author admin- D
modeled after Spelling through Morphographs. Planned practice istered the WJ-III subtests, Morphemic Awareness Test, and the ow
included word dissection (_____ + _____ = assistant), affix defini- researcher-created target word pretest to the student partici- nlo
tion matching (-ant = a person or thing that does something), pants prior to collecting baseline data. The student received no ad
word meaning (_______ a person or thing that helps), and sen- feedback during the test. The primary author scored all assess- ed
tence completion (My ________ helps me with everything.). In the ments and determined the 10 target words from the results of fro
m
word dissection portion of the workbook page, there were novel the target word pretest. These 10 target words were separated h
words that included a taught morphograph (taught word: bian- into two sets of 5 words for the two intervention phases. The ttp
noru aplr iamnadr yn oavuethl owro gradv: eb tichyec lset)u dfoern ftu prathrteicr ipparanctt ifceee.d Tbhaeck T oOnD tHhHe TwOoDrdHsH fo arg trheee dd unroatt tioon in osft rthucet r oense marocrhp shtougdrya.phs or the 10 target s://ac
a
workbook pages and corrected the student participant’s mis- d
e
takes with them. Make-up sessions were provided if students Baseline/probe phase m
ic
were absent. During the first session, baseline probes were administered to all .o
u
Lastly, the TODHH or primary author employed correction student participants individually. The baseline probe included p
procedures prescribed in the model curriculum. If the student dissecting all 10 words included in the intervention. When .co
m
participant made a mistake on the morphographic analysis dur- administering baseline probes, the TODHH obtained assent, dis- /jd
ing planned practice, then TODHH or researcher analyzed the tributed the assessment or probe, requested that the student sd
word correctly using the graphic organizer and the student par- wait for further instructions, and provided scripted instruc- e/a
ticipant corrected the practice. If the student participant made tions. For example, the TODHH said, “Fill in the blanks to show rtic
mistakes during the affix instruction, the TODHH or researcher the morphographs in each word.” The following is how the task le
utilized a model, test, and delayed test correction procedure. appeared to the student participants: ________ +________ = bian- -ab
s
The TODHH or researcher modeled the answer (e.g., The mor- nual or _______ + _________ = mythology. The student participant tra
phograph re- means again.), asked the student to tell her the worked on the probe for no more than 10 min. The TODHH col- ct/2
answer that was just given (e.g., What does the morphograph lected the assessment and provided no feedback. The primary 0
/3
re- mean?), and delayed for a few seconds and tests again (e.g., author scored all measures and graphed the students’ percent- /2
What is the morphograph? What does the morphograph re- age of correct responses. 29
mean? Please correct your paper.). Baseline was established for participant one (Megan) when /34
0
The dependent variable for this study was correct responses she demonstrated a minimum of five consecutive data points 2
3
to morphographic analysis items (e.g., _______ + ________ = gul- with a mean score of 20% or less correct responses out of 10 pos- 1 b
lible; Harris et al., 2011). A correct response was defined as hav- sible responses on the baseline probe or until stability was estab- y g
ing the entire word dissected correctly. There were two sets of lished (Kazdin, 2011). Once baseline was established for Megan, u
e
five target multimorphographic words created from the pretest she began intervention instruction and the remaining two stu- st o
results (Table 2). One word set was taught in intervention ses- dent participants (Sienna and Brian) received business-as-usual n
1
sion one and the second word set was taught in intervention literacy instruction from the TODHH or the primary author. 0
session two. Each word set met the following criteria: all the Sienna and Brian established baseline through a minimum of Ap
words had two morphographs, two words had eight to nine let- five probes with three of those probes occurring consecutively ril 2
ter words, and three words had 10–12 letters (Harris et al., 2011). prior to intervention or until baseline was stable (Kazdin, 2011). 01
Affix meaning scores were also obtained from the student 9
worksheets. Five affixes were taught in each phase of the inter-
Procedures
vention for a total of 10 affixes. A correct response was defined
Once approval was attained, the primary author recruited as matching the appropriate affix to its meaning. Although, data
teacher participants and consents were obtained. Next, a letter pertaining to affix meaning did not determine phase changes,
was sent home to the families whose children met the crite- the primary author was interested in the student participants’
ria and parental permission was obtained. Lastly, the primary ability to determine, through matching, the meanings of the
author discussed the study with each potential student par- taught affixes. One affix meaning accuracy data point was col-
ticipant. The student participants assented by signing a letter lected in baseline before the intervention began.
explaining the research study. The letter was read to them if
needed. Intervention phases
Prior to baseline, two events occurred. First, teacher partici- There were two intervention phases. Five target multimorpho-
pants received a 2-hr training in implementing the intervention. graphic words were taught during each phase. At the beginning of
Trussell et al. | 235
the intervention session each day, the TODHH or primary author cost effectiveness, and perceived benefit to the TODHH and stu-
assessed the student participant using the procedure described dent participants. Ratings are addressed in Results section.
previously. The intervention phases taught five target multimor-
phographic words each; therefore, intervention repeated meas- Fidelity
ures only included the five target words being taught during that
phase of the intervention. For both intervention phases, mastery Fidelity was collected on the baseline/intervention/generaliza-
criteria were a minimum of five data points with a score of 80% tion/maintenance sessions, intervention implementation, and
or better correct responses out of five possible responses on for permanent product scoring. All assessment and intervention
three out of four consecutive data points. When a student par- sessions were digitally recorded to aid in collecting fidelity and
ticipant met these criteria, another student participant began reliability scores. Fidelity was collected on 50% of randomly
intervention and the current student participant moved on to selected assessment sessions, intervention sessions, and per-
the generalization phase. If a student participant did not make manent products. Interrater reliability was collected on 30% of
progress on the intervention assessments during the interven- the 50% sessions or permanent products mentioned previously.
tion phases, the TODHH or primary author would continue the Fidelity and reliability were collected on the assessment sessions
intervention for a minimum of 10 sessions. After 10 sessions, through a researcher-created checklist. For the intervention ses-
D
that student participant would be excused from the study and sions, fidelity and reliability were collected through a rating o
w
the next participant would be entered into intervention when form. Lastly, permanent products were scored independently nlo
baseline criterion was met. and compared to determine fidelity and reliability. Second and a
d
During the intervention phases, the TODHH or primary author third raters were trained and completed practice sessions not ed
followed the lesson script and conducted the lesson as described. included in the final calculations. These raters scored or rated fro
The student participant responded to questions through sign lan- sessions or products independently. Reliability was calculated m
h
guage and voice. Affix meaning accuracy data were obtained from through point-by-point agreement (agreements/agreements + ttp
tmhaei snttuedneanntc we odraktsah eweetr dea nilyo tp rcioolrl etcot ecodr rfeocrt iaofnfi.x G meneearnaliinzga.t iWonh oenr doris baegtrteeerm. Feidnetlsi t×y 1a0n0d; rKealizadbiinli,t y2 0p1e1r)c ewnittahg aens aerxep leisctteadti oinn T oafb 8le8 %3. s://ac
a
intervention phase one mastery criteria were met, the gener- d
e
alization phase began. Simultaneously, another student began Results mic
intervention. When intervention phase two phase-change crite- .o
u
ria were met, the maintenance phase began. Preassessment Results p.c
o
m
Generalization phase Before initiating baseline data collection, the primary author /jd
Procedures, during the generalization phase, were the same as administered several assessments. The reasons for administer- s
d
for baseline. At this point in the study, the student participant ing the assessments were twofold: (a) to ensure that the student e/a
had received instruction on 5 out of the 10 words on the base- participants met the study’s inclusion criteria and (b) to under- rtic
line probe. The generalization probe included all 10 words (5 stand their skills better. Overall scores are presented in Table 1. le
instructed and 5 not instructed). If the student scored between -ab
s
0% and 80%, then TODHH or primary author started the second Reading ability tra
intervention phase. If the student scored above 80%, then the The primary author administered the WJ-III LWI and PC sub- ct/2
student did generalized the skill and would begin the mainte- tests. As indicated in Table 1, Megan, Sienna, and Brian had a 0
/3
nance phase. reading delay. They all performed better on the letter/word iden- /2
tification subtest than on the PC subtest. Also, they all met the 29
Maintenance phase criteria to be included in the study because they all were reading /34
0
Once mastery criteria for second intervention phase were met, at or between the second to fourth grade levels. 2
3
the student participant did not interact with any of the inter- 1
b
vention materials for 10 sessions. During the 10 sessions, the Morphemic awareness y
g
student received business-as-usual literacy instruction from the On the Morphemic Awareness Test, Megan did not know the deri- u
e
TODHH. The same assessment procedures described previously vational morphographs un-, mis-, -ful, and pre-. Sienna did not st o
were used. The students completed the maintenance probe that know the morphographs –ness, mis-, and im-. Lastly, Brian did n
1
included all 10 targeted words. The primary author scored the not know several morphographs: –ly, dis-, mis-, -less, re-, -ment, 0
probes and graphed the scores. -ness, pre-, -ent, -able, and -ous. According to the district curricu- Ap
lum, all of the morphographs that Megan and Sienna struggled ril 2
with should have been mastered by the end of fourth grade. For 0
Social Validity 1
Brian, 7 out of 11 of the morphographs he struggled with should 9
Participants also provided information on a social validity have been mastered by third grade. These findings indicated that
assessment that evaluated the effectiveness of the intervention these students were not meeting minimum district grade-level
in terms of ease of implementation, appropriateness to setting, requirements in the area of morphology, warranting the present
Table 3. Fidelity and reliability calculations
Fidelity Reliability
Percentage Range Percentage Range
Assessment sessions 97 78–100% 97 86–100%
Intervention sessions 93 90–98% 90 87–93%
Permanent Product 100 100–100% 100 100–100%
236 | Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 3
intervention. Finally, the primary author asked each student to demonstrated a mean accuracy of 14%, and she met the criterion
read and give a definition of the base words that would be part to enter intervention. During the first intervention phase, there
of the intervention. Megan and Sienna could read all of the base was a change in level (M = 14% to M = 100%) and an immediacy
words but could only define one word, assist. Brian could decode of effect (6.7–100% accuracy). Megan’s intervention data scores
the word dent but could not define any of the target base words. presented a stable trend at 100% accuracy, which met the criteria
to enter the generalization phase. Megan obtained 60% accuracy
Intervention Results on the generalization measure, which met the criteria for her to
enter the second intervention phase. The second intervention
After scoring the repeated measures, the student participants’ phase data were consistent with the first intervention phase
morphographic analysis scores were graphed using the multiple data. There was a change in level (M = 14% to M = 100%) and
baselines across student design (Kazdin, 2011). Visual analysis of an immediacy of effect from 60% to 100% accuracy. The second
the morphographic analysis data paths was used to analyze the intervention phase data were stable at 100% accuracy. Because
results at the student level. The primary author evaluated the Megan’s scores met mastery criteria, data collection ceased. At
morphographic analysis data for the following features: stabil- this point, Megan did not interact with any intervention materi-
ity, level, trend, immediacy of effect, percentage of overlapping als for 10 sessions. After 10 sessions, a maintenance data point
D
data, and consistency similar to Guardino and Antia (2012) and was collected. She obtained a 60% accuracy score on the mainte- o
w
suggested in Kratochwill et al. (2010). nance probe. There was 0% of overlapping data between phases nlo
(i.e., the percentage of data from one phase that is the same as a
d
Megan the data from a previous phase; Kratochwill et al., 2010). ed fro
m
Morphographic analysis Affix meaning h
Figure 3 presents Megan’s data. Her morphographic analy- The triangle data path denotes the affix meaning accuracy ttp
sis data path is indicated with circles. During baseline, Megan scores. During baseline, Megan obtained 0% accuracy on the s://a
c
a
d
e
m
ic
.o
u
p
.c
o
m
/jd
s
d
e
/a
rtic
le
-a
b
s
tra
c
t/2
0
/3
/2
2
9
/3
4
0
2
3
1
b
y
g
u
e
s
t o
n
1
0
A
p
ril 2
0
1
9
Figure 3. Student participants’ graphs. BL = baseline, Int. = intervention, and G = generalization.
Trussell et al. | 237
affix meaning probe. Intervention data presented an increasing strongly agreed. The numbers were accompanied by an icon to
trend that was consistent across both intervention phases. The assist them in understanding the rating system. The results are
mean across both intervention phases was greater than 90%. displayed in Table 4. Overall, the students rated the interven-
There were no overlapping data between phases. tion as a three or higher on average in all areas. The TODHH also
completed a social validity questionnaire.
Sienna The TODHH responded to a questionnaire that rated the
intervention on a scale of 1–5: a score of 1 indicated that she
Morphographic analysis strongly disagreed and 5 indicated strongly agreed. The TODHH
Figure 3 presents Sienna’s data. During baseline, Sienna’s scores strongly agreed that the intervention would be easy to imple-
were stable with a mean of 15% accuracy. Sienna’s phase one ment and was appropriate for classroom instruction. She agreed
intervention data presented an increasing trend with a change that she would like to implement the intervention after the
in level (M = 15% to M = 96%) and an immediacy of effect from study was completed. Lastly, the TODHH felt indifferent about
13% to 93% accuracy, she entered the generalization phase. the intervention aligning with her literacy goals for the students
Sienna obtained a score of 70% accuracy on the generalization and whether or not the intervention was beneficial for the stu-
probe and began the second phase of intervention. Consistent dents. The TODHH also answered three open-ended questions.
D
with intervention phase one, there was a change in level from The first question asked the TODHH how she would change o
w
15% to 92% accuracy and an immediacy of effect from 70% to the intervention. The TODHH indicated that she would like to nlo
87% accuracy. After 10 sessions, the TODHH administered the implement the intervention with small groups instead of one a
d
maintenance probe and Sienna obtained a score of 100% accu- on one. The second question asked about the challenges and ed
racy. There was 0% overlapping data between phases. benefits of implementing a scripted curriculum. The TODHH fro
m
responded that the benefits were that the script helped main-
h
Affix meaning tain the integrity of the instruction and made it easy to stay on ttp
Siniegn bnaas eolbintaei.n Iendt e0r%ve nacticounr adcayt ao np rtehsee naftfiedx mane ainncinrega psirnogb et rdeunrd- tfrausskt. rTahtien gc.h Tahllee nlagset wqause stthioant oonne tshteu dqeunets tfioounnnda itrhe ea rsekpeedt ihtioown s://ac
a
and were consistent for both intervention phases. The mean for the students reacted to the intervention. The TODHH responded d
e
phases one and two intervention data reached 60% accuracy. that most of the students reacted positively. One student “was m
There were no overlapping data between phases. frustrated toward the end” because the student did not like the ic.o
u
repetitive nature of the script “just wanted to move on.” Overall, p
Brian the TODHH’s responses indicated that she liked the intervention .co
m
Morphographic analysis. btyupte w oofu ilnds tprruecfteiro nto m imayp lneomt ebnet siut iitna bslme atoll agdrodurepsss a anlld s tthuadte tnhtiss’ /jds
d
Figure 3 presents Brian’s data. Brian’s baseline data were sta- learning needs or styles. e/a
ble at a mean of 9% accuracy and he was entered into the rtic
intervention phase. Data from intervention phase one were le
plotted and demonstrated an increasing trend with a change Discussion -a
b
in level (M = 9% to M = 92%) and an immediacy of effect from The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of mor- stra
1H0e% o tbot a8i7n%ed a cac usrcaocrye. Borf ia6n0% e natcecruedra tchye ogne ntehrea lgizeanteioranl ipzahtaisoen. pofh oDgHraHp hsitcu dinesnttrsu. cOtiuorn pornim tahrey mreosrepahrcohg raqpuheisct ioann awlyassis: Wskhilalst ct/20
measure and the second phase of intervention began. Unlike effect does morphographic instruction have on the morpho- /3/2
the other two students, Brian’s phase two’s intervention data graphic analysis skills of DHH students who are reading below 29
were not consistent with his data from phase one. Perhaps grade level? We answered this question through repeated /34
this may be attributed to the 2-day school break that occurred assessment of morphographic analysis skill. We found that 02
3
during phase two intervention data collection (see missing morphographic instruction does positively change the student 1
data points). However, there was a change in level (M = 9% participants’ morphographic analysis skills. There were three by
to M = 76%) and no immediacy of effect from 60% to 60% demonstrations of effect (Kratochwill et al., 2010) confirmed by gu
e
atecncuanraccey .p Whaitshe . cBrirtiearnia o mbteati,n Berdi aan 9w0a%s amccouvreadc yin stoco trhee omn atihne- tphaer tcichipanangets .f rFoumrt hbears, eSliiennen tao a inndte Brrvieannt’sio dna tfao rr eapllli ctahtreede tshteu ddeantat st on
maintenance data probe with 0% of overlapping data between paths (Kratochwill et al., 2010) of the first participant, Megan. 10
phases. When looking across the graphs, all baselines were consistent, Ap
and Sienna and Brian’s intervention data were consistent with ril 2
Affix meaning one another. A functional relation between the morphographic 0
1
Brian obtained 0% accuracy on the affix meaning probe during 9
baseline: he demonstrated an increasing trend during inter- Table 4. Student participants’ social validity ratings
vention. His means during intervention phase one mean was
56% and for intervention phase two was 60%. The intervention Statement Mean rating
phases were consistent, and there were no overlapping data
I liked learning about morphographs 4.3
between phases.
Learning about morphographs was fun 3.7
I can break apart words now 4.7
Social validity I would recommend learning about morphographs to 3.0
a friend
Social validity ratings were collected separately for the student
I learned a lot about morphographs 4.7
participants and TODHH. The students rated the intervention on
I can use what I learned about morphographs in other 3.7
different aspects from one to five. A score of 1 indicated that
classes at school
they strongly disagreed, 3 indicated indifference, and 5 indicated
238 | Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 3
intervention and the students’ morphographic analysis skills grades and had a morphographic knowledge delay during the
was established. These findings support previous findings that same period of time when hearing children’s morphographic
DHH students can improve literacy skills through DI programs knowledge is growing. With instruction, their skills improved.
(Trezek & Hancock, 2013; Trezek & Malmgren, 2005; Trezek & This finding supports the work of others who have suggested
Wang, 2006) paired with a visual organizer (Easterbrooks & that DHH students benefit from instruction from professionals
Stoner, 2006). who have experience working with DHH students and who pro-
Second, we asked if students would be able to generalize vide high-quality instruction (Marschark, Sapere, Convertino, &
what they had learned to untaught words. All of the students Pelz, 2008)
were able to analyze one or two untaught words during the gen- During pretesting, the researchers discovered that Megan and
eralization phase. However, they were not able to apply the word Sienna could decode the root words but could define only one of
analysis knowledge at a mastery level. This finding suggests those root words. Brian could neither decode nor define the root
that DHH students require more than a short intervention: they words prior to intervention. This gap in background knowledge
may need ongoing teacher-led, explicit instruction in the area of did not seem to influence their ability to learn the target affixes
morphographs as a part of their daily literacy curriculum if the and root words. Modifying curriculum and planning lessons,
intention is for them to generalize from taught to untaught mor- with the understanding that DHH students often bring deficient
D
phographs. During the student participants’ workbook planned background knowledge to tasks, is common (Hoffman & Wang, o
w
practice, there were novel words with taught morphographs 2010; Schirmer, 2000; Wang & Paul, 2011). Reading in meaning- nlo
on the student worksheets and the students were able to dis- ful chunks is a developmentally appropriate task for students a
d
sect the word appropriately (e.g., taught word = section, novel this age (Carlisle & Fleming, 2003) and the Individuals with ed
word = action). Indicating that a generalization measure that Disabilities Education act requires educators to provide access fro
m
included taught morphographs with novel root words may have to the general education curriculum. For these students, that
h
also been an appropriate measure. meant providing instruction on morphographs with modifica- ttp
morTphhirodg,r wapeh aics kkendo twhlee dfoglelo, wwiinllg t hquate sktnioonw: lIefd ggaei nms aairnet amina doev ienr tsitoundse ntot’ sb prirdegsee ntth lee vgealp o fb petewrfeoernm garnacdee.-level demands and the s://ac
a
time? Sienna and Brian maintained the majority of the mor- Megan’s baseline performance warrants further exami- d
e
phographic analysis skills that they learned during the inter- nation. During baseline, all of the student participants were m
ic
vention. Interestingly, they both scored the intervention more incorrectly deconstructing the target words by dissecting .o
u
favorably on the social validity questionnaire than did Megan. them into syllables. Megan was the only participant who p
Megan maintained her morphographic analysis knowledge over would try different combinations of word parts, often attempt- .co
m
time but not as well as the other two participants. Also, she did ing syllable breaks, at each opportunity. The primary author /jd
not like the format of the intervention. She was often asking tracked her correctly scored responses, and they changed s
d
the TODHH to “do it (the intervention) quickly.” In contrast, her each time she completed the probe, indicating that she was e/a
data showed the largest immediacy of effect and change in level attempting a new strategy. Also, her accuracy scores declined rtic
when compared to Sienna’s and Brian’s data paths indicating throughout the baseline phase. This inconsistency in accu- le
that she might have benefitted from a faster-paced intervention racy indicated that although Megan could guess the correct -ab
s
with a greater number of morphographs. Perhaps, she did not morphographic deconstruction of a word at times, she was tra
respond well to paper and pencil tasks but would have enjoyed a not employing consistent morphographic rules to answer the ct/2
more active intervention. Some students may find the repetition probe. This finding suggests that DHH students may require 0
/3
of DI frustrating as described by the TODHH participant on the morphographic analysis instruction to deconstruct words /2
social validity questionnaire. This suggests that the intervention using morphographic rules. 29
should incorporate differentiated instruction in future trials as The importance of this study’s findings is rooted in the need /34
0
consistent with current best practices in education. to address the continued literacy struggles for DHH students 2
3
Lastly, we wanted to know if morphographic instruction (Easterbrooks & Beal-Alvarez, 2012) and to add to the knowl- 1
b
could influence students’ affix knowledge. We found that the edge base surrounding morphographic analysis in the field of y
g
participants increased their ability to match an affix to its deaf education (Tucci, Trussell, & Easterbrooks, 2014). Improving u
e
meaning on the student workbook pages. The slope for the affix a DHH students’ morphographic analysis and affix mean- st o
knowledge data paths for Brain and Sienna were not as steep ing knowledge could not only influence their decoding skills n
1
as the slope for their morphographic analysis, suggesting that (Carlisle, 2000) and vocabulary but also, more distally, their read- 0
although they might readily have learned the task of break- ing comprehension (Carlson, Jenkins, Li, & Brownell, 2013; Dyer, Ap
ing the words apart in rote fashion, they did not have an equal MacSweeney, Szczerbinski, Green, & Campbell, 2003). ril 2
facility with the underlying meaning of the affixes. During the 0
1
affix tasks, Brian and Sienna would often confuse two or three Limitations and Directions for Future Research 9
of the affixes and were required to go through correction pro-
cedures. The students required more instructional sessions to This study has several limitations that lead to recommenda-
master the affix meanings than they took to master the mor- tions for future research. As with all single case design studies,
phographic analysis. These findings suggest that DHH students replication from an independent lab is needed to meet stand-
require explicit instruction that is focused on meaning as well ards of research rigor (Kratochwill et al., 2010). Future research-
as morphographic analysis. ers may consider replicating this study in various geographic
Further, DHH students may need more repetitions (Ensor locations or employing group design. The scripted lessons may
& Koller, 1997) as well as scaffolding than other populations be a second limitation of this study. The social validity results
(Plessow-Wolfson & Epstein, 2005) during meaning-based suggest that not all students enjoy this kind of paper and pencil-
instruction. This is important because morphographic skills based instruction; instructional designers might consider more
continue to grow beyond fourth grade (Berninger et al., 2010; active ways of teaching this skill such as using Smartboards and
Deacon & Kirby, 2004). These students were in fourth and fifth iPads. Also, future researchers may choose to modify the script