Effects of GO FASTER on Morpheme Definition Fluency for High School Students with High‐Incidence Disabilities

Abstract

Although vocabulary plays an important role in literacy and content instruction, there is a paucity of research identifying effective methods for teaching vocabulary. One promising strategy is morphemic analysis, which involves breaking words into morphemes, the smallest meaningful parts of words, and teaching students the meanings of those parts. The current study used a multiple probe across morphemes experimental design to determine the effects of an intervention package, GO FASTER (Graphic Organizers; Flashcards Added up and Self‐graphed to Track progress; Errors Reviewed). Findings showed that with three to four instructional sessions, three high school students with high‐incidence disabilities successfully defined morphemes at a predetermined fluency rate and generalized these definitions to untaught words. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Reading Interventions for Students With or At Risk of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review

“…Of the two group design studies, none met all QIs necessary to the focus of the synthesis. Five out of 14 single-case studies met all QIs (Cullen et al, 2013; Fishley, Konrad, Hessler, & Keesey, 2012; Flores & Ganz, 2007, 2009; Johnson et al, 2012). Many studies included only one or two participants with or at risk of ADHD.…”

“…Three interventions documented in the corpus of studies met the QIs necessary to be classified as EBPs, yet they stand alone and can only be classified as providing insufficient evidence of an EBP (Cullen et al, 2013; Fishley et al, 2012; Johnson et al, 2012). The first is a computer-based program supporting word reading (Cullen et al, 2013).…”

“…Tau- U calculations for the intervention ranged from 0.39 to 0.94 suggesting moderate to very large changes in reading outcomes after the introduction of the intervention. The second intervention with insufficient evidence, GO FASTER, focused on morpheme meaning instruction with the use of a semantic graphic organizer (Fishley et al, 2012). Students were drilled on the meaning of morphemes and then told to try to beat their previous time using the GO FASTER program, which promoted accuracy and speed of content.…”

“…Three studies incorporated elements of self-monitoring and goal setting in addition to reading instruction yet did not include SRSD (Crabtree et al, 2010; Fishley et al, 2012; Hilsmier et al, 2016; Shimabukuro et al, 1999). All of these studies provided opportunities for students to set their own goals and graph their progress.…”

“…If students met their goals, they received contingent reinforcers. Tau- U calculations for two of the studies using a researcher-developed measure (Fishley et al, 2012; Shimabukuro et al, 1999) ranged from 0.63 to 1.10; however, one study, which used a standardized measure (Hilsmier et al, 2016), yielded highly variable Tau- U calculations. The majority of effect sizes across participants was positive and ranged from 0.33 to 0.70.…”