Dissertation defense trussell 2.28.2014
- 1. Jessica Trussell, M.Ed Dissertation Defense February 27, 2014
- 2. (Gaustad, 1986; Guastad, Affects meaningoriented decoding Kelly, Payne, & Lylak, 2002) (Carlisle, 2003) Delayed morphographic knowledge Obstacle to reading comprehension (McCadle, Scarbourough & Katts, 2001)
- 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
- 8. Research design Multiprobe multiple baseline single case design across students (Kennedy, 2005) Why single case?
- 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
- 12. Morphographic intervention research design Phase E- Maintenance 10 sessions with no interaction with the intervention materials Baseline/generalization/maintenance probe administered
- 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)
- 14. Materials Intervention Measures Baseline/generalization/maintenance probes Intervention repeated measure Intervention Materials 10 Lessons 10 Student workbook pages 10 Visual organizer pages example
- 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%
- 19. Pre-intervention Results Student Megan Sienna Brian Grade 5th 5th 4th WJ-III Letter/ Word ID a 3.8 4.4 3.0 WJ-III Reading Comp a 3.4 3.1 2.1 Morphemic Awareness Scoreb 70% 91% 45% Note. a = grade equivalency expressed in grade level.months; b = percentage correct out of 33 test items, WJ-III = Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement, ID = identification; Comp = Comprehension
- 20. Data analysis Student level Stability (Kazdin, 2011) Level Trend Immediacy of effect Percentage of overlapping data Consistency - Kratchowell et. al, 2010
- 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
- #3: 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
- #4: 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)
- #7: 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.
- #8: 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).
- #9: 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
- #10: 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.
- #12: 16= 88%- most literature considers 80% mastery
- #16: The words from the pretest were taken from the district approved curriculum
- #17: 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
- #22: 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)
- #25: 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
- #27: 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.”
- #28: 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