Learning Morphological and Phonological Spelling Rules: An Intervention Study

By T. Nunes, P. Bryant, Jenny Olsson. 2003

252 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/37ae763996e0b6840a7b306fe91ad32688a90344

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. C. McBride-Chang
2. Xi Chen
3. E. Geva
4. Peter N. Bowers
5. Hua Shu
6. Y. Luo
7. Hong Li
8. Michael J. Kieffer

In Education

1. E. Geva
2. Peter N. Bowers
3. C. McBride-Chang
4. Xi Chen
5. Hua Shu
6. Li-Jen Kuo
7. Richard C. Anderson
8. Y. Luo

In Statistics and Probability

1. C. McBride-Chang
2. Xi Chen
3. Peter N. Bowers
4. E. Geva
5. Hua Shu
6. Li-Jen Kuo
7. D. Reed
8. Y. Luo

Citations in the corpus

• Morphological Awareness and Learning to Read: A Cross-Language Perspective (2006, background): “A recent intervention study by Nunes et al. (2003) with 7- and 8-year-old English-speaking children stands out in its theoretical approach and methodology.”
• A Synthesis of Morphology Interventions and Effects on Reading Outcomes for Students in Grades K–12 (2008, background): “The only study intended to investigate spelling (Nunes et al., 2003) had significant pretest differences among groups, and the three studies investigating vocabulary only used researcher-developed measures.”
• Morphological Awareness and Chinese Children's Literacy Development: An Intervention Study (2009, background): “This is inconsistent with Packard et al. (2006), who reported a strong influence of morphological instruction on this task.”
• A Meta-Analysis of Morphological Interventions in English: Effects on Literacy Outcomes for School-Age Children (2013, background): “We excluded two effect sizes that were inexplicably high in their magnitudes (e.g., Study 2 in Bryant et al., 2006; Nunes et al., 2003) due to the potential threat of the overall effect-size distribution.”
• Phonological awareness and morphological awareness: differential associations to regular and irregular word recognition in early Korean Hangul readers (2008, background): “Although the dualroutemodelhasnotbeenapplieddirectlytotheprocessoflearningtoread,thesebasic features have been discussed with reference to children with reading impairments (e.g., Coltheart et al., 2001), as well as to an unselected sample of 7- and 8-year olds ( Nunes, Bryant, & Olsson, 2003 ).”
• Comparing vocabulary development in Spanish- and Chinese-speaking ELLs: the effects of metalinguistic and sociocultural factors (2012, background): “On the other hand, a number of intervention studies have found that training on different aspects of morphological awareness led to improved vocabulary, reading or writing skills, suggesting a causal connection between morphological awareness and literacy (Carlo et al., 2004; Chow, McBride-Chang, Ch”
• The effects of learning to spell on children’s awareness of morphology (2006, background): “Morphological awareness can be seen as a basis for children’s understanding of why some conventional spellings are as they are, even though they depart from the phonological representation of the word or are not completely determined by it. Further evidence for this causal connection was obtained by”
• On the relationship between morphological and phonological awareness: Effects of training in kindergarten and in first-grade reading (2009, background): “In particular, Nunes et al. (2003) also evidenced a positive impact of morphological training on reading.”
• Explicit instruction in orthographic structure and word morphology helps Chinese children learn to write characters (2006, background): “Nunes, Bryant, and Olsson (2003) compared the effects of 4 types of metalinguistic interventions on the reading and spelling of 7- and 8-year olds.”