Teaching english morphological rules to non english majors at the university of science to enlarge their vocabulary

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE TEACHING ENGLISH MORPHOLOGICAL RULES TO NONENGLISH MAJORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE TO ENLARGE THEIR VOCABULARY A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL By NGUYỄN NGỌC HẠNH NGUYÊN Supervised by Assoc Prof Dr TÔ MINH THANH HO CHI MINH CITY, APRIL 2020 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that this thesis entitled ―TEACHING ENGLISH MORPHOLOGICAL RULES TO NON-ENGLISH MAJORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE TO ENLARGE THEIR VOCABULARY‖ is my own work This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other institution Ho Chi Minh City, April 19th, 2020 Nguyễn Ngọc Hạnh Nguyên i RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS I hereby state that I, Nguyễn Ngọc Hạnh Nguyên, being the candidate for the degree of Master in TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original copy of my thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan and reproduction of theses Ho Chi Minh City, April 19th, 2020 Nguyễn Ngọc Hạnh Nguyên ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The accomplishment of this thesis was not an individual effort of only the researcher whose name appears in its cover In fact, this thesis could not be successfully complete without the help of the following people to whom I will always be grateful I would firstly express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Assoc Prof Tô Minh Thanh It was a great honor for me to work with a dedicated supervisor whose constant encouragement and precious advice gave me enormous strength whenever my steps wavered Her dedicated guidance and valuable feedback enlightened me about the issues related to the thesis as well as the construction of the thesis itself I am also thankful for her careful proofreading and comments on my writing during the process of completing the thesis I hope that one day I would become as good a mentor to my students as Ms Thanh has been to me Secondly, my sincere thanks go to Dr Lê Hoàng Dũng, Dr Nguyễn Thu Hương, Dr Phó Phương Dung, Dr Nguyễn Thanh Tùng and Dr Nguyễn Đình Thu for numerous discussions and lectures related to the topics that helped me broaden my knowledge and sharpen my arguments for the thesis Thirdly, I am also deeply indebted to Ms Nguyễn Thị Thanh Lợi, the Accountant of the Center for Foreign Languages at the University of Science, and Ms Nguyễn Thị Duy Ni, the academic staff of the aforementioned center, for providing me favorable conditions to conduct my research at this site I would like to acknowledge my colleagues for their enthusiastic assistance and encouragement during the process of conducting and writing this thesis My special thanks also go to my students, who played a crucial role in the completion of this thesis, for their active participation in the study and their inspiration to the thesis topic Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my beloved parents for always giving me the greatest support as they could and being there with me all these years I also owe my thanks to my dear sister for cheering me up and guiding me in using SPSS throughout the process of the thesis I am blessed to be a part of their life, as always iii ABSTRACT The teaching of English morphological rules to EFL learners seems not to attract sufficient attention from EFL teachers, and there is a dearth in the number of research directly measuring affix knowledge in the field of English teaching Although recently the effectiveness of English derivational affixes on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning and morphological knowledge has been measured, the role of these affixes in enlarging their vocabulary size via increasing their size of word family is still not carefully examined Besides, the learners’ attitudes towards the employment of derivational affixes have yet to be thoroughly explored To fill in these gaps in the literature, a quasiexperiment with the pre-test – post-test non-equivalent group design and an attitudinal survey were conducted for the current research with the participation of 60 intermediate and pre-intermediate non-English majors The results of the study reveal that the teaching of English morphological rules generally improved the students’ over-time reception of (1) the three aspects of derivational affixes, including relational aspect, syntactical aspect, and distributional aspect as well as their meanings, (2) the word class of newly encountered derivatives, e.g derived nouns, verbs, adjectives or adverbs The teaching also fostered the production, though not particularly outstanding, of the taught affixes Due to short experiment time, the students’ newly acquired knowledge has not been profound enough to last long, which leads to a moderate result in the delayed posttest: no significant improvement could be found in long-term production of the students from both levels Regarding vocabulary size, the new type of instruction made a large contribution to the increasing number of derivatives the students at both levels produced in the short term and long term The teaching of derivational affixes also received positive feedback from the students Based on these findings, the study discussed implications of the employment of English morphological rules as an effective tool in enlarging their word family size and learning derivatives efficiently for EFL learners, and as an assisting tool in teaching derivatives and boosting learners’ motivation and autonomy for EFL syllabus and textbook designers Keywords: English morphological rules, derivational affixes, reception, production, affix knowledge, vocabulary size iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of authorship i Retention and use of the thesis ii Acknowledgement iii Abstract iv Table of contents v List of abbreviations x List of tables xi List of figures xiii Chapter Introduction 1.1 Background of the study 1.2 Context of the study 1.3 Aims of the study 1.4 Research questions 1.5 Scope of the study 1.6 Significance of the study 1.7 Outline of the thesis Chapter Literature review 2.1 Overviews of affixes and teaching morphological rules in EFL contexts 2.1.1 Definitions and features of derivational affixes and morphological rules 2.1.2 Importance of teaching derivational affixes to EFL learners 14 2.1.2.1 Morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge 14 2.1.2.2 Vocabulary learning 16 2.1.2.3 Vocabulary size 16 2.1.3 Aspects of knowledge of derivational affixes 17 2.1.3.1 Receptive and productive vocabulary 18 2.1.3.2 Recognition and recall 20 2.1.3.3 Comprehension and use 22 2.1.4 Explicit and implicit affix instruction 24 2.2 The nature of morphological rules: word-based morphology and morphemebased morphology as two opposite approaches in word formation 27 2.3 The explicit teaching of derivational affixes and morphological rules 31 v 2.3.1 Theoretical support for the explicit teaching of derivational affixes and morphological rules 31 2.3.2 Previous research on explicit instruction on morphological knowledge 33 2.3.3 Issues yet to be resolved 39 2.4 Theoretical framework of the study 40 2.5 Summary 40 Chapter Methodology 41 3.1 Research design 41 3.2 Research site 43 3.3 Pilot study 44 3.4 Participants 45 3.5 Teaching materials 48 3.5.1 3.5.1.1 Rationale for the selected derivational affixes 48 3.5.1.2 Selection of the target morphological rules 50 3.5.1.3 Selection of the derivatives in the lessons and in the tests 51 3.5.2 3.6 Selection of the target morphological rules and derivatives 48 Design of the teaching materials 53 Research instruments 54 3.6.1 The Quick Placement Test 54 3.6.2 The Affix Knowledge Test 55 3.6.2.1 Overview of the Affix Knowledge Test 56 3.6.2.2 Test-item designing 56 3.6.3 Overview of the Word Family Size Test 58 3.6.4 Piloting and test reliability 59 3.6.5 Test administration and scoring 61 3.6.6 Attitudinal questionnaire 63 3.6.6.1 Design and construct 63 3.6.6.2 Piloting and reliability 66 3.7 Data collection procedure 67 3.8 Data analysis procedure 69 3.9 Summary 71 Chapter Results and discussion 72 4.1 Results 72 vi 4.1.1 Preconditions of ANOVAs and Independent Samples T-Tests 72 4.1.2 Results of the Receptive Affix Knowledge Test over time 73 4.1.2.1 Within-group comparison 74 4.1.2.2 Between group comparison 75 4.1.3 Results of the Productive Affix Knowledge Test over time 82 4.1.3.1 Within-group comparison 82 4.1.3.2 Between group comparison 84 4.1.4 Results of the Word Family Size Test over time 90 4.1.4.1 Within-group comparison 90 4.1.4.2 Between-group comparison 92 4.1.5 Results from the attitudinal questionnaire 96 4.1.5.1 General opinions about teaching and learning vocabulary and derivational affixes 97 4.1.5.2 Reflection on the application of the focus-on-morphological-rule instruction 99 4.1.5.3 4.2 Suggestion for further improvement 104 Discussion 105 4.2.1 Affix reception over time 105 4.2.1.1 Within-group comparison 105 4.2.1.2 Between-group comparison 105 4.2.2 Affix production over time 108 4.2.2.1 Within-group comparison 108 4.2.2.2 Between group comparison 108 4.2.3 Word family size of the students over time 111 4.2.3.1 Within-group comparison 111 4.2.3.2 Between-group comparison 111 4.2.4 Attitudes towards the focus-on-morphological-rule instruction 114 4.2.5 Possible ways to improve the focus-on-morphological-rule instruction 119 4.3 Summary 119 Chapter Conclusion 121 5.1 Summary and contributions 121 5.2 Pedagogical implications 122 5.3 Limitations of the study 125 vii 5.4 Recommendation for further study 126 References 128 Appendices 144 Appendix A Fifteen english derivational affixes selected for the exeriment 145 Appendix B Fifteen morphological rules selected for the experiment 148 Appendix C1 Affix Knowledge Test 149 Appendix C2 Detailed description of the Affix Knowledge Test and how to design it 155 Appendix D Words selected for the Affix Knowledge Test 159 Appendix E1 Word Family Size Test 162 Appendix E2 Selected words for the Word Family Size Test 167 Appendix F Quick Placement Test 169 Appendix G1 Reflective questionnaire (English version) 176 Appendix G2 Reflective questionaire (Vietnamese version) 181 Appendix H1 Handout for the control group 186 Appendix H2 Handout for the experimental group 188 Appendix I1 Lesson plan for the control group 190 Appendix I2 Lesson plan for the experimental group 194 Appendix J1 SPSS output of the tests of normality for AKT 198 Appendix J2 SPSS output of the test of normality for WFST 200 Appendix K1 Result analysis of the AKT results for the CG 203 Appendix K2 Result analysis of the AKT results for the subgroups of the CG 207 Appendix K3 Result analysis of the AKT results for the EG 216 Appendix K4 Result analysis of the WFST results for the CG 221 Appendix K5 Result analysis of the WFST results for the subgroups of the CG 224 Appendix K6 Result analysis of the WFST results for the EG 228 Appendix L1 Result analysis for the AKT comparisons between groups 231 Appendix L2 Result analysis of the WFST results between groups 241 Appendix M1 SPSS output of the AKT results for the subgroups of the CG 245 Appendix M2 SPSS output of the AKT results for the subgroups of the EG 252 Appendix M3 SPSS output for the WFST results for the subgroups of the CG 258 Appendix M4 SPSS output for the WFST results for the subgroups of the EG 273 viii Appendix N1 SPSS output of the Receptive Affix Knowledge Test results between the subgroups of groups 288 Appendix N2 SPSS output of the Productive Affix Knowledge Test results between the subgroups of groups 293 Appendix N3 SPSS output of the WFST test results between the subgroups of groups 295 ix Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Receptive Knowledge posttest Type III Sum of Squares Source Corrected Model Intercept Group Receptive Knowledge pretest Group * Receptive Knowledge pretest Error Total Corrected Total df Mean Square 1 1124.135 937.993 5.518 304.210 27.424 22.883 135 7.421 000 000 719 016 41.929 41.929 1.023 329 573.874 270153.000 3946.278 14 18 17 40.991 Between-Subjects Factors N 9 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Receptive Knowledge post-test Groups in the study Mean CG EG Total 1.0856E2 1.3467E2 1.2161E2 Std Deviation N 5.79032 8.73212 15.23594 9 18 Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa Dependent Variable: Receptive Knowledge post-test F df1 1.031 df2 Sig 3372.404 937.993 5.518 304.210 a R Squared = 855 (Adjusted R Squared = 823) Groups in the study F a Sig 16 325 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups a Design: Intercept + Group + Receptive Knowledge pretest + Group * Receptive Knowledge pretest 289 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Receptive Knowledge post-test Type III Sum of Squares Source Corrected Model Intercept Group Receptive Knowledge pretest Group * Receptive Knowledge pretest Error Total Corrected Total df Mean Square F Sig Partial Eta Squared a 3372.404 937.993 5.518 304.210 1 1124.135 937.993 5.518 304.210 27.424 22.883 135 7.421 000 000 719 016 855 620 010 346 41.929 41.929 1.023 329 068 573.874 270153.000 3946.278 14 18 17 40.991 a R Squared = 855 (Adjusted R Squared = 823) Estimated marginal Groups in the study Dependent Variable: Receptive Knowledge post-test Groups in the study 95% Confidence Interval Mean CG EG 1.105E2a 1.304E2a Std Error Lower Bound 2.499 2.842 Upper Bound 105.151 124.307 115.871 136.498 a Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Receptive Knowledge pretest = 101.0000 1.3 Delayed post-test Between-Subjects Factors N Groups in the study CG EG Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Receptive Knowledge posttest Type III Sum of Squares Source Corrected Model Intercept Group Receptive Knowledge pretest Group * Receptive Knowledge pretest Error Total Corrected Total df Mean Square Sig 2057.688 950.505 158.236 314.126 1 685.896 950.505 158.236 314.126 29.568 40.976 6.821 13.542 000 000 021 002 243.023 243.023 10.477 006 324.756 281138.000 2382.444 14 18 17 23.197 a R Squared = 864 (Adjusted R Squared = 834) Between-Subjects Factors N Groups in the study F a CG EG Descriptive Statistics 290 Dependent Variable: Receptive Knowledge post-test Groups in the study Mean CG EG Total 1.1489E2 1.3400E2 1.2444E2 Std Deviation N 5.23078 8.06226 11.83823 9 18 Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa Dependent Variable: Receptive Knowledge post-test F df1 df2 039 Sig 16 847 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups a Design: Intercept + Receptive Knowledge pretest + Group Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Receptive Knowledge post-test Type III Sum of Squares Source Corrected Model Intercept Receptive Knowledge pretest Group Error Total Corrected Total df Mean Square 907.333 1667.449 23.971 44.052 000 000 762 746 171.110 171.110 4.521 051 232 651.485 567.779 281138.000 2382.444 15 18 17 651.485 37.852 17.211 001 534 Groups in the study Dependent Variable: Receptive Knowledge post-test CG EG 95% Confidence Interval Std Error a 1.171E2 1.318E2a 2.294 2.294 Partial Eta Squared Estimated marginal Mean Sig 1814.665 1667.449 a R Squared = 762 (Adjusted R Squared = 730) Groups in the study F a Lower Bound Upper Bound 112.184 126.928 121.961 136.705 a Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Receptive Knowledge pretest = 101.0000 The pre-intermediate students 291 Group Statistics Groups in the study N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Receptive Knowledge pretest CG 21 91.2381 9.73090 2.12346 EG 21 93.3333 11.29307 2.46435 Receptive Knowledge post-test CG 21 1.0348E2 10.05793 2.19482 EG 21 1.2071E2 12.00893 2.62056 Receptive Knowledge post-test CG 21 1.1138E2 7.38564 1.61168 EG 21 1.1776E2 10.69535 2.33392 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Receptive Equal variances Knowledge assumed pretest Equal variances not assumed Receptive Equal variances Knowledge assumed post-test Equal variances not assumed Receptive Equal variances Knowledge assumed post-test Equal variances not assumed 585 639 2.030 Sig .449 429 162 t-test for Equality of Means t df -.644 Sig (2tailed) Mean Std Error Difference Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper 40 523 -2.09524 3.25301 -8.66982 4.47934 -.644 39.145 523 -2.09524 3.25301 -8.67430 4.48382 -5.043 40 000 -17.23810 3.41827 -24.14668 -10.23951 -5.043 38.805 000 -17.23810 3.41827 -24.15331 -10.32288 -2.250 40 030 -6.38095 2.83631 -12.11335 -.64855 -2.250 35.540 031 -6.38095 2.83631 -12.13585 -.62606 292 APPENDIX N2 SPSS OUTPUT OF THE PRODUCTIVE AFFIX KNOWLEDGE TEST RESULTS BETWEEN THE SUBGROUPS OF GROUPS The intermediate students 1.1 Pre-test Group Statistics Groups in the study Productive Knowledge pretest N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean CG 26.7778 4.38115 1.46038 EG 28.4444 4.61278 1.53759 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Productive Knowledge pretest Equal variances assumed t-test for Equality of Means Sig .309 t 586 Equal variances not assumed Sig (2Mean Std Error tailed) Difference Difference df 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -.786 16 443 -1.66667 2.12059 -6.16212 2.82879 -.786 15.958 443 -1.66667 2.12059 -6.16309 2.82976 1.2 Immediate post-test Descriptive Statistics Percentiles N Productive Knowledge post-test Groups in the study Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum 18 31.7778 9.26445 9.00 18 1.50 514 Mann Whitney Test Statisticsb Productive Knowledge post-test Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp Sig (2-tailed) Exact Sig [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] 18.500 63.500 -1.945 052 050a a Not corrected for ties b Grouping Variable: Groups in the study 1.3 Delayed post-test 293 25th 43.00 27.2500 1.00 50th (Median) 75th 34.5000 39.0000 1.50 2.00 Group Statistics Groups in the study Productive Knowledge posttest N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean CG 33.2222 5.84760 1.94920 EG 38.1111 5.10990 1.70330 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Productive Equal variances Knowledge assumed post-test Equal variances not assumed t-test for Equality of Means Sig .559 t 466 Sig (2tailed) df Mean Difference Std Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -1.889 16 077 -4.88889 2.58856 -10.37638 59860 -1.889 15.718 078 -4.88889 2.58856 -10.38440 60663 The pre-intermediate students Group Statistics Groups in the study N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Productive Knowledge pretest CG 21 21.6667 5.00333 1.09182 EG 21 22.9524 6.71175 1.46462 Productive Knowledge post-test CG 21 24.8095 6.91100 1.50810 EG 21 32.9048 6.56433 1.43246 Productive Knowledge post-test CG 21 27.9048 7.40881 1.61674 EG 21 31.5238 7.35948 1.60597 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Productive Equal variances Knowledge assumed pretest Equal variances not assumed Productive Equal variances Knowledge assumed post-test Equal variances not assumed Productive Equal variances Knowledge assumed post-test Equal variances not assumed 2.372 002 147 Sig .131 968 703 t-test for Equality of Means t df -.704 Sig (2tailed) Mean Std Error Difference Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper 40 486 -1.28571 1.82680 -4.97781 2.40638 -.704 36.984 486 -1.28571 1.82680 -4.98721 2.41578 40 000 -8.09524 2.07998 -12.29903 -3.89145 -3.892 39.895 000 -8.09524 2.07998 -12.29937 -3.89110 -1.588 40 120 -3.61905 2.27881 -8.22469 98660 -1.588 39.998 120 -3.61905 2.27881 -8.22470 98660 -3.892 294 APPENDIX N3 SPSS OUTPUT OF THE WFST TEST RESULTS BETWEEN THE SUBGROUPS OF GROUPS The intermediate students 1.1 Pre-test Descriptive Statistics N Words with derivatives pretest – Strict marking Words with derivatives pretest – Strict marking Words with derivatives pretest – Strict marking Words with derivative pretest – Strict marking WFT pretest – Strict marking Group in the study Percentiles Std Deviation Mean 18 15.2778 Minimum Maximum 25th 50th (Median) 75th 10.30023 3.00 35.00 7.5000 12.0000 23.0000 18 4.7222 5.71691 00 18.00 1.0000 2.0000 6.7500 18 1.8333 1.85504 00 6.00 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 18 1.7222 1.36363 00 5.00 1.0000 1.5000 2.2500 18 23.5556 18 1.50 18.32460 514 4.00 63.00 10.7500 1.00 16.0000 1.50 35.0000 2.00 Mann Whitney Ranks Group in the study Words with derivatives CG pretest EG Total Mean Rank Sum of Ranks 7.56 68.00 11.44 103.00 18 Words with derivatives CG pretest EG Total 7.00 63.00 12.00 108.00 8.39 75.50 10.61 95.50 6.89 62.00 12.11 109.00 18 Words with derivatives CG pretest EG Total 18 Words with derivatives CG pretest EG Total WFT pretest N 18 CG 7.50 67.50 EG 11.50 103.50 Total 18 Test statistic b Words with derivatives pretest Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp Sig (2-tailed) Exact Sig [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] Words with derivatives pretest 23.000 68.000 -1.549 121 136a 18.000 63.000 -2.014 044 050a 1.2 Immediate post-test Group Statistics 295 Words with derivatives pretest 30.500 75.500 -.947 344 387a Words with derivative pretest 17.000 62.000 -2.142 032 040a WFT pretest 22.500 67.500 -1.594 111 113a Group in the study N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Words with derivatives CG post-test EG 18.0000 9.97497 3.32499 37.4444 10.95572 3.65191 Words with derivatives CG post-test EG 2.7778 1.92209 64070 6.1111 1.53659 51220 WFT post-test 1 30.8889 18.69789 6.23263 63.8889 19.81442 6.60481 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Words with Equal variances derivatives post-test assumed Sig .666 t 085 Equal variances assumed 471 EG -29.91428 -8.97461 -3.937 15.861 001 -19.44444 4.93882 -29.92173 -8.96716 775 -4.064 16 001 -3.33333 82027 -5.07222 -1.59444 -4.064 15.260 001 -3.33333 82027 -5.07910 -1.58757 502 -3.634 16 002 -33.00000 9.08125 -52.25139 -13.74861 -3.634 15.946 002 -33.00000 9.08125 -52.25665 -13.74335 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Words with derivatives post-test Group in the study CG EG Total Mean Std Deviation 6.3333 14.5556 10.4444 N 6.12372 6.54047 7.46145 9 18 Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa Dependent Variable: Words with derivatives post-test F df1 161 df2 Sig 16 Upper 4.93882 N Lower -19.44444 Between-Subjects Factors CG Std Error Difference 001 Equal variances not assumed Group in the study Mean Difference 16 Equal variances not assumed WFT post-test Sig (2tailed) df 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference 426 -3.937 Equal variances not assumed Words with Equal variances derivatives post-test assumed t-test for Equality of Means 693 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups a Design: Intercept + Group + Words with derivatives pretest + Group * Words with derivatives pretest Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 296 Dependent Variable: Words with derivatives post-test Type III Sum of Squares Source Corrected Model Intercept Group Words with derivatives pretest Group * Words with derivatives lpretest Error Total Corrected Total df Mean Square F Sig Partial Eta Squared a 711.526 392.891 90.228 407.263 1 237.175 392.891 90.228 407.263 14.134 23.414 5.377 24.271 000 000 036 000 752 626 277 634 1.464 1.464 087 772 006 234.919 2910.000 946.444 14 18 17 16.780 a R Squared = 752 (Adjusted R Squared = 699) Estimated marginal Group in the study Dependent Variable: Words with derivatives post-test 95% Confidence Interval Group in the study Mean Std Error a CG EG 7.751 13.299a Lower Bound 1.422 1.415 Upper Bound 4.701 10.264 10.800 16.333 a Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Words with derivatives pretest = 4.7222 Between-Subjects Factors N Group in the study CG EG Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Words with l derivative post-test Group in the study CG EG Total Mean Std Deviation 3.7778 5.7778 4.7778 N 1.92209 1.56347 1.98689 9 18 Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa Dependent Variable: Words with derivative post-test F df1 1.298 df2 Sig 16 271 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups a Design: Intercept + Group + Words with derivative pretest + Group * Words with derivative pretest Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Words with derivative post-test Source Corrected Model Intercept Group Type III Sum of Squares df a 27.459 50.920 048 Mean Square 1 297 9.153 50.920 048 F 3.232 17.978 017 Sig Partial Eta Squared 055 001 899 409 562 001 Words with derivative pretest Group * Words with derivative pretest Error Total Corrected Total 9.422 9.422 3.327 090 192 2.343 2.343 827 378 056 39.652 478.000 67.111 14 18 17 2.832 a R Squared = 409 (Adjusted R Squared = 283) Estimated marginal Group in the study Dependent Variable: Words with derivative post-test Group in the study 95% Confidence Interval Mean Std Error a CG EG 3.943 5.285a Lower Bound 592 639 Upper Bound 2.672 3.914 5.213 6.656 a Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: totalscores1familyallpretest = 1.7222 1.3 Delayed post-test Group Statistics Group in the study N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Words with derivatives post-test 2 25.0000 13.22876 4.40959 41.6667 11.36882 3.78961 Words with derivatives post-test 2 3.0000 2.23607 74536 6.0000 1.65831 55277 WFT post-test 41.4444 22.02335 7.34112 69.2222 19.69631 6.56544 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Words with derivatives post-test Equal variances assumed 036 Sig .853 Equal variances not assumed Words with derivatives post-test Equal variances assumed 810 381 Equal variances not assumed WFT post-test Equal variances assumed 004 Equal variances not assumed 953 t-test for Equality of Means t EG Lower Upper 16 011 -16.66667 5.81425 -28.99234 -4.34100 -2.867 15.646 011 -16.66667 5.81425 -29.01502 -4.31831 -3.233 16 005 -3.00000 92796 -4.96719 -1.03281 -3.233 14.756 006 -3.00000 92796 -4.98075 -1.01925 -2.820 16 012 -27.77778 9.84870 -48.65609 -6.89946 -2.820 15.805 012 -27.77778 9.84870 -48.67710 -6.87846 N CG 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference -2.867 Between-Subjects Factors Group in the study Sig (2tailed) df Std Error Mean Differen Difference ce 298 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Words with derivatives post-test Group in the study Mean CG EG Total Std Deviation 9.7778 15.8889 12.8333 N 6.72268 6.75360 7.25380 9 18 Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa Dependent Variable: Words with derivatives post-test F df1 df2 2.921 Sig 16 107 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups a Design: Intercept + Group + Words with derivatives pretest + Group * Words with derivatives pretest Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Words with derivatives post-test Source Type III Sum of Squares Corrected Model Intercept Group Words with derivatives pretest Group * Words with derivatives pretest Error Total Corrected Total df Mean Square 173.948 845.199 75.020 343.663 6.535 31.753 2.818 12.911 005 000 115 003 583 694 168 480 19.981 19.981 751 401 051 372.655 3859.000 894.500 14 18 17 26.618 Group in the study Dependent Variable: Words with derivatives post-test CG EG 95% Confidence Interval Std Error a 11.302 14.957a Lower Bound 1.791 1.782 Upper Bound 7.461 11.135 15.143 18.778 a Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Words with derivatives pretest = 4.7222 Between-Subjects Factors N Group in the study CG EG Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Words with derivative post-test Group in the study CG EG Mean 3.6667 5.6667 Std Deviation 1.11803 1.58114 Partial Eta Squared 1 a R Squared = 583 (Adjusted R Squared = 494) Mean Sig 521.845 845.199 75.020 343.663 Estimated marginal Group in the study F a N 9 299 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Words with derivative post-test Group in the study CG EG Total Mean Std Deviation 3.6667 5.6667 4.6667 N 1.11803 1.58114 1.68034 9 18 Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa Dependent Variable: Words with derivative post-test F df1 1.805 df2 Sig 16 198 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups a Design: Intercept + Group + Words with derivative pretest + Group * Words with derivative pretest Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Words with derivative post-test Type III Sum of Squares Source Corrected Model Intercept Group Words with derivative pretest Group * Words with derivative pretest Error Total Corrected Total df Mean Square F Sig Partial Eta Squared a 26.888 49.904 282 8.851 1 8.963 49.904 282 8.851 5.943 33.093 187 5.869 008 000 672 030 560 703 013 295 1.310 1.310 869 367 058 21.112 440.000 48.000 14 18 17 1.508 a R Squared = 560 (Adjusted R Squared = 466) Estimated marginal Group in the study Dependent Variable: Words with derivative post-test Group in the study CG EG 95% Confidence Interval Mean 3.863a 5.225a Std Error Lower Bound 432 466 Upper Bound 2.936 4.225 4.790 6.226 a Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Words with derivative pretest = 1.7222 The pre-intermediate students 2.1 Pretest Descriptive Statistics Percentiles N Words with derivatives pre-test – Strict marking Words with derivatives pretest – Strict marking Words with derivatives pretest – Strict marking Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum 25th 50th (Median) 75th 42 4.0714 3.44570 00 17.00 1.0000 4.0000 5.2500 42 6429 72655 00 2.00 0000 5000 1.0000 42 2381 43108 00 1.00 0000 0000 2500 300 Words with derivative pretest – Strict marking WFT pretest – Strict marking Group in the study 42 3810 66083 00 2.00 0000 0000 1.0000 42 5.3333 4.38215 00 21.00 2.0000 4.5000 8.0000 42 1.50 506 1.00 1.50 2.00 Mann Whitney Ranks Group in the study N Mean Rank Words with derivatives CG pretest EG Total Total 405.00 21 23.71 498.00 21 21.57 453.00 21 21.43 450.00 21 23.50 493.50 21 19.50 409.50 42 Words with derivatives CG pretest EG WFT pretest 19.29 42 Words with derivatives CG pretest EG Words with derivative pretest Sum of Ranks 21 Total 42 CG 21 21.21 445.50 EG 21 21.79 457.50 Total 42 CG 21 20.26 425.50 EG 21 22.74 477.50 Total 42 Test statistic a Words with Words with Words with derivatives pretest derivatives pretest derivatives pretest Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp Sig (2-tailed) 174.000 405.000 -1.179 238 219.000 450.000 -.041 967 Words with derivative pretest 178.500 409.500 -1.432 152 WFT pretest 214.500 445.500 -.190 849 194.500 425.500 -.657 511 2.2 Immediate post-test Descriptive Statistics N Words with derivatives post-test – Strict marking Words with derivatives post-test – Strict marking Words with derivatives post-test – Strict marking WFT post-test – Strict marking Group in the study Std Deviation Mean Percentiles Minimum Maximum 50th (Median) 75th 42 16.5476 11.02149 3.00 48.00 7.0000 14.5000 22.2500 42 5.3810 5.15587 00 23.00 1.7500 3.0000 8.0000 42 2.3810 1.73841 00 6.00 1.0000 2.0000 3.2500 42 28.1667 18.43633 5.00 85.00 14.5000 25.0000 37.0000 42 1.50 506 1.00 1.50 2.00 Mann Whitney Ranks Group in the study Words with derivatives CG 25th N Mean Rank 21 15.33 301 Sum of Ranks 322.00 post-test EG 21 Total 42 Words with derivatives CG post-test EG Total 581.00 21 14.64 307.50 21 28.36 595.50 21 15.17 318.50 21 27.83 584.50 42 Words with derivatives CG post-test EG WFT post-test 27.67 Total 42 CG 21 14.60 306.50 EG 21 28.40 596.50 Total 42 Test Statisticsa Words with derivatives posttest Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp Sig (2-tailed) Words with derivatives post-test 91.000 322.000 -3.261 001 Words with Words with derivatives derivative post-test post-test 1 WFT post-test 76.500 307.500 -3.654 000 87.500 318.500 -3.405 001 93.500 324.500 -3.222 001 75.500 306.500 -3.650 000 a Grouping Variable: Group in the study Group Statistics Group in the study Words with derivative post-test N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean CG 21 2.7619 1.99762 43592 EG 21 4.9524 1.93588 42244 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Words with derivative Equal variances post-test assumed Equal variances not assumed 000 Sig 1.000 t-test for Equality of Means t Sig (2tailed) df Mean Std Error Difference Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -3.609 40 001 -2.19048 60703 -3.41732 -.96363 -3.609 39.961 001 -2.19048 60703 -3.41736 -.96359 2.3 Delayed post-test 302 Descriptive Statistics N Words with derivatives post-test – Strict marking Words with derivatives post-test – Strict marking Words with derivatives post-test – Strict marking Words with derivative post-test – Strict marking WFT post-test – Strict marking Group in the study Std Deviation Mean Percentiles Minimum 42 20.7143 12.86570 Maximum 25th 50th (Median) 75th 4.00 51.00 10.0000 16.0000 32.2500 42 7.7143 6.13779 00 24.00 2.0000 6.0000 12.0000 42 2.9762 2.30046 00 8.00 1.0000 3.0000 5.0000 42 3.6667 2.31292 00 8.00 1.0000 4.0000 5.2500 42 35.0714 21.62247 6.00 88.00 17.7500 32.5000 52.2500 1.00 1.50 2.00 42 1.50 506 Mann Whitney Ranks Group in the study N Words with derivatives CG post-test EG Total Total 21 15.10 317.00 21 27.90 586.00 21 15.29 321.00 21 27.71 582.00 21 17.50 367.50 21 25.50 535.50 42 Words with derivatives CG post-test EG WFT post-test Sum of Ranks 42 Words with derivatives CG post-test EG Words with derivative post-test Mean Rank Total 42 CG 21 13.71 288.00 EG 21 29.29 615.00 Total 42 CG 21 14.57 306.00 EG 21 28.43 597.00 Total 42 Test Statisticsa Words with derivatives posttest Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp Sig (2-tailed) 86.000 317.000 -3.390 001 Words with derivatives posttest 90.000 321.000 -3.292 001 a Grouping Variable: Group in the study 303 Words with Words with derivatives post- derivative post-test test WFT post-test 136.500 367.500 -2.134 033 57.000 288.000 -4.159 000 75.000 306.000 -3.664 000 ...STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that this thesis entitled ? ?TEACHING ENGLISH MORPHOLOGICAL RULES TO NON -ENGLISH MAJORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE TO ENLARGE THEIR VOCABULARY? ?? is... immediately and five weeks after the teaching stage? (2) To what extent does the application of morphological rules facilitate the production of the affixes of the US non -English- majored students at. .. crucial role in the completion of this thesis, for their active participation in the study and their inspiration to the thesis topic Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my beloved