This quasi-experimental study compared the effects of morphemic and contextual analysis instruction (MC) with the effects of textbook vocabulary instruction (TV) that was integrated into social studies textbook lessons. The participants were 157 students in eight fifth-grade classrooms. The results indicated that (a) TV students were more successful at learning textbook vocabulary; (b) MC students were more successful at inferring the meanings of novel affixed words; (c) MC students were more successful at inferring the meanings of morphologically and contextually decipherable words on a delayed test but not on an immediate test; and (d) the groups did not differ on a comprehension measure or a social studies learning measure. The results were interpreted as support for teaching specific vocabulary and morphemic analysis, with some evidence for the efficacy of teaching contextual analysis.

S This study explored the effects of instruction in morphemic analysis (select prefixes) and contextual analysis (select context clue types). Four classes of fifth‐grade students were assigned to a morphemiconly, context‐only, or combined morphemic‐context experimental group or to an instructed control group. Following twelve 50‐minute lessons, students were tested on their ability to recall the meanings of words used to teach the morphemic and contextual analysis skills (lesson words), to infer the meanings of uninstructed words that contained taught morphemic elements or words that were embedded in text that included taught context clues (transfer words), and to comprehend text containing transfer words. The results indicated that (a) there was an immediate and delayed effect of morphemic and contextual analysis instruction for lesson words; (b) there was an immediate effect of morphemic and contextual analysis instruction for transfer words; (c) there was no evidence that instruction in morphemic or contextual analysis, either in isolation or combination, enhanced students' text comprehension; and, (d) students were generally just as effective at inferring word meanings when the morphemic and contextual analysis instruction was provided in combination as when the instruction was provided separately. Este estudio exploró los efectos de la enseñanza de análisis morfológico (seleccionar prefijos) yanálisis contextual (seleccionar pistas contextuales). Cuatro cursos de estudiantes de quinto grado fueron asignados a tres grupos experimentales: morfológico, contextual o morfológico‐contextualcombinado, o a un grupo de control. Luego de 12 clases de 20 minutos, se evaluó a los estudiantes en la capacidad para recordar los significados de las palabras usadas para enseñar habilidadesde análisis morfológico y contextual (palabras de la lección), para inferir los significados de palabras no enseñadas que contenían elementos morfológicos ya vistoso palabras contenidas en textos que incluían pistas contextuales enseñadas (palabras de transferencia) y por último, comprender textos que contenían palabras de transferencia. Los resultados indicaron que (a) hubo un efecto inmediato y diferido de la enseñanza de análisis morfológico y contextual para las palabras de la lección, (b) hubo un efectoinmediato de la enseñanza de análisis morfológico y contextual para las palabras de transferencia, (c) no se obtuvo evidencia de que la enseñanza de análisis morfológicoo contextual, ya sea en forma aislada o combinada, mejorara la comprensión de textos y (d) los estudiantes fueron igualmente eficaces para inferir los significados de las palabras cuando la enseñanzade análisis morfológico y contextual se impartió en forma aislada, que cuando se realizó en forma combinada. Diese Studie untersuchte die Unterrichtsauswirkungen in morphemischerAnalyse (Vorwort‐Auswahl) und kontextualer Analyse (Kontexthinweis‐Auswahl). Vier Klassen der fünften Stufe wurden entweder nur morphemischen, nur kontextualen, oder einer kombiniert morphemisc...

A yearlong formative experiment explored the impact of a comprehensive vocabulary instruction program in a diverse, fifth‐grade classroom. The classroom teacher and two university collaborators provided rich language experiences taught individual words taught word‐learning strategies promoted word conscientiousness Results revealed that students' vocabulary grew across the academic year and that they identified and used more challenging words, developed an interest in and positive attitude toward vocabulary, and applied vocabulary strategies independently. Instructional procedures are provided for each component.

PrefaceT he two of us were slated to conduct the Fall 1999 doctoral seminar for students in reading education at the University of Georgia. Our plan was to focus on the broad history of reading research, from Thorndike and Huey to the 1970s, to talk about how research has changed, and to determine which of the ideas in those ancient studies are relevant today.All of this changed when David Moore approached Steve at an International Reading Association (IRA) meeting and asked if we were interested in having our doctoral students review the Handbook of Reading Research, Volume III (Handbook). This seemed like an offer we could not refuse, and we gave an enthusiastic yes.What David did not know was that we had 15 students enrolled in the Fall 1999 seminar, with two more coming in the Spring 2000 semester. We had figured that some people would drop out of the project, but none did. The result is an essay book review written by 17 individuals, a possible candidate for a world record.In the beginning, we took the lead in organizing this task. Since the Handbook galleys did not come until late in the Fall 1999 semester, we gathered preliminary readings (e.g., book reviews, chapters from previous handbooks, and encyclopedias of research), and we scrounged prepublication copies of Handbook chapters from friends and various Web sites. (Thanks to all!) We held group meetings and discussed the genre of book reviews and how to synthesize information.The students, however, organized themselves. They decided how to produce the review, how to determine authorship, and how to handle other matters. We decided not to enforce a uniform style, although a committee edited across sections. By the end of this process, we faculty were merely advisors, helping with some spot editing. So this review reflects the thinking of 17 individuals, . Edited by Michael Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr. 2000. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 968 pp. ISBN 0-8058-2398-0 US$225.00 hardcover.