Derivational Morphological Knowledge of Dyslexic Students: Comparison Between Oral and Written Tasks

Derivational Morphological Knowledge of Dyslexic Students: Comparison Between Oral and Written Tasks

First Author: Amélie Bourcier -- Universite de Montreal
Additional authors/chairs: 
Rachel Berthiaume; Daniel Daigle
Keywords: Morphological knowledge, Dyslexia, Word recognition processes, Reading, Elementary
Abstract / Summary: 

Purpose: Many researches investigating dyslexic children’s derivational morphological knowledge have been conducted in the past thirty years (e.g. Berthiaume & Daigle, 2014; Casalis et al., 2004; Schiff et al., 2016). However, few of them have compared this kind of knowledge in different types of modalities, most having studied it using either oral or written tasks. Since written language acquisition is mainly based on oral language knowledge (Cain, 2010; Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2017), such a comparison would provide insights on how oral and written morphological knowledge influence word recognition among dyslexic students. Thus, our goal is to investigate and compare dyslexic students’ knowledge of derivational morphology in oral and written French. Method: Dyslexic students (n=33, age: 11,52) were matched with two groups of students (RA, n=49, age: 9,97; CA, n=59, age: 11,32). Three morphological tasks were used (lexical probability (LPT), derivation (DT) and relational judgment (RJT)), each was performed in oral and written modalities. Results: Descriptive analyzes and ANOVAS were used to assess and compare groups. For oral tasks, results indicate that dyslexic students do not differ either from RA or CA participants. For written tasks, dyslexic students’ scores are generally similar to those of RA students. However, they are also comparable to CA for RJT and DT tasks. In addition, ANOVAS with group and modality as variables indicate a significant effect of modality, only for dyslexic students, in the LPT task. There was no effect of modality for CA and RA groups in either three tasks. Conclusion: Since no other known study has targeted task modality as a variable, our results will be discussed according to their methodological contribution relating to the field of morphological studies. Also, they will be discussed in consideration of other studies involving comparisons between different groups (Duranovic et al., 2014; Lazaro et al., 2015; Schiff et al., 2011).