CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Second Language Acquisition and LearningReading and Literacy DevelopmentEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

The Relationship between Morphological Awareness and Vocabulary Size of EFL Learners

Open access
Tabatabaei, Omid, Yakhabi, Masumeh·2011·English Language Teaching
DOI 10.5539/elt.v4n4p262
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge of Iranian high school students. Nation's Vocabulary Level Test (VLT) was used to test students' knowledge of words drawn from the 2000, 3000 and 5000 most frequent occurring word families. Two morphological awareness tasks (a morpheme identification task and a morphological structure test) were also used to assess students' morphological awareness. The VLT results reveal that the students performed better at the 2000 level than the two higher frequency levels. There existed a significant relationship between the learners' performance on the vocabulary level test and the morphological awareness tasks. These findings implicate the importance of facilitating the students' morphological awareness in English vocabulary learning for EFL learners in Iran.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5539/elt.v4n4p262

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The findings of this study correspond to previous research results (Khan 2022; Tabatabaei and Yakhabi 2011; Llach 2010; Bowers and Kirby 2009).

    “The findings of this study correspond to the previous research results by Khan (2022), Tabatabaei and Yakhabi (2011), Llach (2010), and Bowers and Kirby (2009).”

    From Transformative impacts of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional acquisition in Saudi EFL learners (2024) · cites this paper as Tabatabaei and Yakhabi (2011)

  • A clear relationship exists between morphological awareness and writing by L2 learners.

    “A clear relationship exists between morphological awareness and writing by L2 learners (Khan, 2022;Tabatabaei and Yakhabi, 2011;Llach, 2010;Bowers and Kirby, 2009).”

    From Transformative impacts of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional acquisition in Saudi EFL learners (2024) · cites this paper as Tabatabaei and Yakhabi, 2011

    Section 9.3 reports a relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary-test scores in EFL learners, not between morphological awareness and writing. A search for writing and written performance found only a mention of writing as a skill taught to the students (section 9.1), with no finding about its relationship to morphological awareness. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The result of this study supports previous research findings that a clear relationship exists between morphological awareness and writing by L2 learners.

    “The result of this study supports the previous research findings, which state that a clear relationship exists between morphological awareness and writing by L2 learners (Ross and Berwick,1991;Khan, 2022;Tabatabaei and Yakhabi, 2011;Llach, 2010;Bowers and Kirby, 2009).”

    From Transformative impacts of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional acquisition in Saudi EFL learners (2024) · cites this paper as Tabatabaei and Yakhabi, 2011

    The Objectives and Conclusion sections examine the relationship between morphological awareness and EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge, not writing. A search for writing found only a mention of writing as a skill taught to students (section 9.1), with no finding about its relationship to morphological awareness. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Carlisle, J. F. (2004). Morphological processes influencing literacy learning. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook on language and literacy: Development and disorders. New York: Guilford. pp. 318-339

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tabatabaei, O., & Yakhabi, M.
Affiliations
Islamic Azad University of Najafabad (IR)
Corresponding author
Tabatabaei, Omid
Venue
English Language Teaching
Publisher
Canadian Center of Science and Education
Published
2011-11-28
Volume
4
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 1916-4742 (ISSN-L)
  • 1916-4750
DOI
10.5539/elt.v4n4p262
OpenAlex
W2063824831
Cited by
26
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • English Language Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
morphological awareness, vocabulary size, EFL learners, morpheme identification, morphological structure, vocabulary knowledge, word frequency, high school students, English vocabulary learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review