| Summary: | Providing appropriate reading interventions for older, adolescent students is a complex and multifaceted process. There are a multitude of factors that influence student reading outcomes and the researcher aimed to explore how awareness of morphological structures can facilitate reading growth in high school students who have reading disabilities in a suburb of Boston, Massachusetts. Using morphological generalization theory and a case study approach, this study sought to
examine to what degree high school students with reading disabilities made reading gains after the completion of a morphology-based intervention, and how they regarded their experience with reading and the intervention used, by addressing the following research questions: 1) What is the degree to which high school students with reading disabilities are affected by morphology-based intervention? 2) What are students' attitudes regarding their abilities and experience with the
intervention? 3) How does the reading intervention specialist view the intervention and its effectiveness? Findings from this study suggest that systematic morphological instruction may play a pertinent role in providing students enhanced access to word recognition and word analysis strategies which aid in remediating reading gaps in high school students with reading deficits. Systematic morphology instruction in strategies for identifying common roots and affixes enhances structural
word analysis skills and equips students with the tools necessary for uncovering unfamiliar words (Crosson & Moore, 2017). This may be especially impactful for students whose word recognition, reading abilities, and motivation have been compromised. Further, findings suggest that as students internalize new strategies, they begin to feel more positive about their own literacy skills. Results from this study have demonstrated the need for future exploration of methodologies for
implementing morphology-based interventions, for assessing the effects of the instruction, and for measuring participant motivation and regard for interventions. Additional implications for practice and areas for future research are discussed.
|
|---|
