In morpheme identification the cohort outperformed inservice teachers with 30 hours of professional development, though accuracy of 72.9% raised competency questions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? The experimental cohort out-performed the preservice and inservice group who had received 30 hours of professional development on morpheme identification, yet the authors question whether 72.9% accuracy reflects sufficient morphological knowledge. → McNeill 2018

Evidence¶

McNeill 2018¶

McNeill, B. C. (2018). Improving Preservice Teachers' Phonemic Awareness, Morphological Awareness and Orthographic Knowledge. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1). http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol43/iss1/2

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Discussion-section comparison of morpheme identification performance across the three Carreker et al. (2010) comparison groups. The authors note "There is still some question around the participants' competency in morphological knowledge following the course given their accuracy of 72.9%".

"The experimental cohort out-performed the preservice and inservice group who had received 30 hours of professional development. The experimental group also performed comparably to the inservice group who had not undertaken professional development."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Morphological Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it

Page metadata

Field	Value
`status`	`review`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-11-02`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.