Reading
Does teaching preschoolers word parts help reading years later?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Children taught to notice word parts (prefixes, suffixes, compounds) in preschool understood texts better six years later than untrained children.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Other — Quasi-experimental preschool intervention: teachers randomly assigned to morphological or phonological training, non-random control group, followed up to Grade 6
- N
- N=269 · 269 children in the original study (analysed with full-information maximum likelihood); 115 were retested in Grade 6
- Population
- Norwegian-speaking children aged 5-6 in their last preschool year
- Outcome
- Word reading and reading comprehension at end of Grade 1 and Grade 6
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
The morphology group had better Grade 6 reading comprehension than controls (effect size about .72, rising to .83 with controls), but no advantage in Grade 6 word reading. Morphology training also improved Grade 1 word reading and comprehension, yet the Grade 6 effect was not carried through Grade 1 comprehension. Phonological training showed no lasting effect versus controls, and the two training groups did not differ significantly from each other.
Methodology
Preschool teachers were randomly assigned to deliver either morphological awareness training (spotting and manipulating prefixes, suffixes and compound words) or phonological awareness training (sounds and rhymes) for about 30 minutes a week over 17 weeks; a non-randomised control group did ordinary preschool activities. The researchers tested word reading and reading comprehension at the end of Grade 1 and again in Grade 6, using structural equation models that controlled for mother's education, vocabulary, nonverbal IQ and early phoneme awareness.
Limitations
The control group was not randomly formed and was small, and only 115 of 269 children were retested in Grade 6, with very few from the phonology group. The Grade 6 tests had ceiling effects, which the authors warn may inflate the standardised effect size. Because morphology and phonology groups did not differ significantly, the study cannot show that morphology training specifically beats phonological training, and the broad programme cannot identify which component mattered.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Word-structure knowledge seems to feed comprehension more than decoding.
Morphological awareness (knowledge of prefixes, suffixes and compounds) relates to reading mainly through oral language, and a 17-week preschool morphology programme in Norway was followed by better Grade 6 reading comprehension than a control group (effect size about .72) but not better word reading.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Word-structure knowledge seems to feed comprehension more than decoding.
Morphological awareness (knowledge of prefixes, suffixes and compounds) relates to reading mainly through oral language, and a 17-week preschool morphology programme in Norway was followed by better Grade 6 reading comprehension than a control group (effect size about .72) but not better word reading.
Scope note — quasi-experimental with a non-random control group, heavy attrition by Grade 6 and ceiling effects that may inflate the effect size
Limits the claim's scope: a different population, assay, or outcome.
The Norwegian intervention found a lasting comprehension benefit after morphology training, but the morphology and phonology groups did not differ significantly from each other, and the French correlational study found morphology linked to reading only indirectly, so how much morphology training specifically adds is unsettled.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
The Norwegian intervention found a lasting comprehension benefit after morphology training, but the morphology and phonology groups did not differ significantly from each other, and the French correlational study found morphology linked to reading only indirectly, so how much morphology training specifically adds is unsettled.
History
When this study was placed
Dated entries from the concept change log — when this paper was added or removed as support, challenge, or qualifier on a claim.
Placed as supporting evidence on Literacy Instruction
Morphological awareness (knowledge of prefixes, suffixes and compounds) relates to reading mainly through oral language, and a 17-week preschool morphology programme in Norway was followed by better Grade 6 reading comprehension than a control group (effect size about .72) but not better word reading.
Placed as a scope qualifier on Literacy Instruction
Morphological awareness (knowledge of prefixes, suffixes and compounds) relates to reading mainly through oral language, and a 17-week preschool morphology programme in Norway was followed by better Grade 6 reading comprehension than a control group (effect size about .72) but not better word reading.
Placed as supporting evidence on Literacy Instruction
The Norwegian intervention found a lasting comprehension benefit after morphology training, but the morphology and phonology groups did not differ significantly from each other, and the French correlational study found morphology linked to reading only indirectly, so how much morphology training specifically adds is unsettled.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.
- Do memory and attention matter more for listening or reading?
- Why do bilingual kids lag in reading comprehension?
- Does sounding out words still matter once kids read fluently?
- Which spoken-language skills help poor kids start reading?
- Which kinds of word knowledge help children understand what they read?