Share: Facebook Twitter


This paper aims to investigate the effectiveness of morphological analysis instruction on gradetenbiology-major studentsin TanTaoHigh SchoolfortheGifted inLong An, Vietnam, andto find out whether they can catch up with the level of biotechnology students in Tan Tao University, in terms of science vocabulary performance. The instruction selectively targeted technical multisyllabic words that occur frequently in the participants’ corpus. Thirty-one students including eighteen grade-ten biology students as the experimental group and thirteen biotechnology students as the control group participated in the study. For data collection, pre-posttest was designed, validated and applied for the experimental and control group. Apart from the regular teaching method, the experimental group also received explicit morphemic analysis instruction, while the control group only received their regular teaching. Pretest to posttest results revealed that each group registered an increase in the respective means, however, the experimental group surpassed the control group up to 5.9 mean difference. Morphemic analysis confirms its effectiveness in boosting the students’ vocabulary acquisition of multisyllabic terminologies that facilitates their learning. The paper ended with some pedagogical implications for teaching technical terms.


  1. Frederick Obniala. Enhancing science vocabulary through activelearningapproach: Impacttostudents’performance. JournalofHumanitiesandEducationDevelopment(JHED),1(3):88–96, May 2019.
  2. Ana Houseal, Victoria Gillis, Mark Helmsing, and Linda Hutchison. Disciplinary literacy through the lens of the next generation science standards. Journal of Adolescent AdultLiteracy, 59:377–384, 01 2016.
  3. Timothy Shanahan and Cynthia Shanahan. What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32:7–18, 01 2012.
  4. Zhihui Fang. The language demands of science reading in middleschool. InternationalJournalofScienceEducation-INTJ SCI EDUC, 28:491–520, 04 2006.
  5. Tamara M. Green. The Greek & Latin roots of English. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, fifth edition edition, 2015.
  6. Peter Bowers, John Kirby, and Hélène Deacon. Bowers, p. n., kirby, j. r., deacon, s. h. (2010). the effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. review of educational research, 80, 144-179. Review of Educational Research, 80:144–179, 01 2010.
  7. Amanda P. Goodwin and Soyeon Ahn. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(2):183–208, December 2010.
  8. Deborah Reed. A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades k–12. Learning Disabilities Research Practice, 23:36 – 49, 02 2008.
  9. Michael Green and Nonie Lesaux. Morphing into adolescents: Active word learning for english-language learners and their classmates in middle school. Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy, 54:47 – 56, 09 2010.
  10. DinhDien,HoangKiem,andNguyenToan. Vietnameseword segmentation. pages 749–756, 01 2001.
  11. V.W. Berninger, W.E. Nagy, J. Carlisle, J. Thomson, D. Hoffer, S. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Richards, E. Aylward, and B.R. Foorman. Effective treatment for children with dyslexia in grades 4-6: Behavioral and brain evidence, symposium, preventing andremediatingreadingdifficulties: bringingsciencetoscale. In Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: bringing science to scale, SYMPOSIUM, Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: bringingsciencetoscale, pages 381–418, Baltimore, 2003. York Press;.
  12. Alpana Bhattacharya and Linnea Ehri. Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling readers read and spell words. Journal of learning disabilities, 37:331–48, 08 2004.
  13. Jennifer L. Zoski, Kristin M. Nellenbach, and Karen A. Erickson. Using morphological strategies to help adolescents decode, spell, and comprehend big words in science. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 40(1):57–64, 2018.
  14. lestari setyowati and Sony Sukmawan. Syllabic-based approachforlearningtoreadinbahasaindonesiaforearlyreaders. 05 2018.
  15. Joanne Carlisle and C. Stone. Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly - READ RES QUART, 40:428–449, 10 2005.
  16. John Merrow, John D. Tulenko, Carrie Glasser, John Heus, Shae Isaacs, David Wald, Perry Ryan, Inc. Learning Matters, and PBS Home Video. Declining by degrees : higher education at risk, 2005.
  17. Mohamed Badawi. The effect of explicit english morphology instruction on efl secondary school students’ morphological awareness and reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 12:166, 03 2019.
  18. Ismalianing Eviyuliwati, Dillan Dzikrika, and Bahrul Hasibuan. The effectiveness of morphological analysis technique in teaching vocabulary. EnglishLanguagein Focus(ELIF), 1:9, 07 2019.
  19. Thomas G. White, Michael A. Power, and Sheida White. Morphological analysis: Implications for teaching and understanding vocabulary growth. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(3):283–304, 1989.
  20. AngelaN.McLeodandKennApel. Morphologicalawareness intervention: Study of a child with a history of speech and language impairment. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 36(4):208–218, 2015.
  21. Patrick C. Manyak, James F. Baumann, and Ann-Margaret Manyak. Morphological analysis instruction in the elementary grades: Which morphemes to teach and how to teach them. The Reading Teacher, 72(3):289–300.
  22. Luong Thi Thuan and Ha Kim Phuong. A comparison between english and vietnamese morpheme system.
How to Cite
Kent-David Juen, & Nhon Dang. (2021). Enhancing Technical Vocabulary Through Morphological Analysis Instruction For Biology-majored Students. TTU Review, 2(1), 47-54.

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel