Abstract
School-age English learners (ELs) are faced with the challenging task of acquiring a foreign language while simultaneously reading academically demanding literature. Therefore, the current research aimed to examine the relation between the rate of grammatical tense marking errors made by ELs and their performance on measures of reading comprehension (RC). The sample for the current study included 5th-grade students who were categorized as ELs who were receiving English support services (N = 103). Samples were collected using i-Ready and writing samples. The samples were used to examine ELs’ RC in relation to tense marking errors in their written responses on the district writing assessment at the end of the school year. The results from the study revealed that there was a moderate negative correlation (r = −.431, p < .010) between verb tense errors and reading comprehension. Students with high rates of verb tense errors received lower RC scores.
Keywords
The U.S. Department of Education (2021) reports that during the 2017–2018 school year, there were more than 5 million English Learners (EL) who attended schools within the United States. The ELs are defined as students who are a national origin minority and present with limited English proficiency (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). The student population classified as ELs comprise students with a wide range of English language skills within typically developing ELs (TD ELs) and also include EL students who present with language learning disorders (LLD). Language learning disorders are characterized by difficulties with expressive and receptive language (ASHA, 1993).
The wide range of English language skill level in ELs such as the ability to speak, read, and write contributes to long-standing challenges in academic reading and writing performance in English. Moreover, this variation further contributes to the challenge of identifying ELs with LLD (Blom & Paradis, 2013; Verhoeven et al., 2011). According to the Nation’s Report Card (2019), ELs obtained an average scaled score of 191 on the reading assessments administered in 2019, which is considered below the basic proficiency cutoff of 208. In contrast, native English-speaking peers scored an average of 226 on the reading assessments. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) categorizes below basic proficiency as a lack of mastery of skills needed for grade-level promotion (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2012). The NCES (2012) reports that 80% of ELs performed below basic proficiency on writing assessments. When compared with same-age native English-speaking peers, the disproportionate reading and writing scores suggest that ELs need additional support to bolster their English reading and writing skills, which can lessen the risk of poor academic performance and school dropout (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010; Martínez et al., 2014; National Education Association, 2020).
When considering the reading and writing challenges experienced by school-age ELs, it is important to acknowledge language features that are shared between both modalities (Kim, 2020). An example of a shared language feature is verb production. Verb production is presented expressively in written language and receptively comprehended in reading. Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to assess how expressive verb production in written language relates to receptive verb comprehension in reading.
Previous studies have observed that preschool and school-age (e.g., k–12) ELs have difficulties with different English verb tenses such as the past tense in oral language measures (Blom & Paradis, 2013; Gutiérrez-Clellen et al., 2008). Current studies investigate verb production in writing and reading separately (Fumero & Wood, 2022). However, there is a need for research that explores the relation between verb production in writing and reading comprehension. This study will explore relations between specific skills such as morphosyntax that may influence reading comprehension within the EL population. Specifically, investigating how the relation between verb tense errors in writing relates to verb tense comprehension in reading, which derives from the notion that children who have difficulties with verb tense production, could also have difficulties with verb tense comprehension in text (Kim, 2020). Refer to Figure 1 for an overview of the study.
Overview of Study Chart.
Role of Oral Language in Reading and Writing Theories
To better understand the reading and writing theories, it is important to discuss the underlying role of oral language in both sets of theories. Oral language includes the following domains: syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and pragmatics (Honig, 2007). For the purpose of this study, we will focus on the domains of syntax and morphology. Syntax refers to the grammatical rules of the language (e.g., use of adjectives, verb tense, and sentence structure). Morphology refers to the smallest units of words that connote meaning (e.g., adding the past tense -ed suggests that the action happened in the past). Albeit the phrase oral language is not explicitly labeled in the reading and writing models and theories discussed next, the features of oral language are included, such as morphology and syntax (Kim, 2020). Therefore, oral language has an underlying role in the theories of reading comprehension and writing and serves as the variable that connects reading and writing (Kim, 2020).
Theoretical Foundation for Reading Comprehension
To conceptualize the complex process of reading comprehension, Perfetti and Stafura (2014) developed a complex framework that lucidly identifies the different facets of reading comprehension such as morphology and syntax into the model of reading comprehension known as “Reading Systems Framework” (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014, p. 22). The framework is divided into orthographic, linguistic, and general knowledge (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). The orthographic system consists of individuals making connections between the orthography and corresponding phonemes. The linguistic system contains the information stored within the lexicon such as the morphological, grammatical, syntactic, and semantic information. The general knowledge system includes background knowledge, contextual knowledge, and assists in inference making (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). Because the study includes writing samples, it is important to discuss writing theories and reading-writing models.
Writing
The Simple View of Writing parses writing into spelling (e.g., transcribing ideas into the alphabetic symbols) and idea generation (e.g., forming the ideas) (Berninger & Winn, 2006; Flower, 1980; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Juel et al., 1986; as cited by Kim, 2020). As an individual formulates an idea, the idea is being conceptualized in words derived from the oral language lexicon which includes phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic information (Honig, 2007). The words from oral language are then encoded into the orthographic system comprising various letters and symbols.
Because reading comprehension and writing both require extraction of information from the domains of oral language, Kim (2020) has developed the “Interactive Dynamic Literacy Model” which identifies oral language as the factor that connects reading comprehension and writing composition and is discussed in the next section (p. 8).
Connecting Reading and Writing Theories: Interactive and Dynamic Literacy Model
The central focus of the Interactive and Dynamic Literacy Model is that reading comprehension and writing composition are both undergirded by oral language (Ellis, 1987; as cited by Kim, 2020). For example, orthographic to phonemic correspondence derives from the phonology domain of oral language that supports decoding in reading comprehension and spelling in writing. Subsequently, the Interactive and Dynamic Literacy Model suggests that oral language difficulties can co-occur with reading and writing difficulties (Kim, 2022). In sum, the Interactive and Dynamic Literacy Model helps reflect the interaction between reading comprehension and writing theories by highlighting oral language as the underlying feature further bolstering the purpose of the study, which is to explore whether verb tense errors in expressive language production relate to verb tense comprehension difficulties in reading comprehension.
Because this study focuses on the domains of morphology and syntax, morphosyntactic errors in oral language, reading, and writing of English speakers and ELs will be further explored in the subsequent sections.
Morphosyntactic Errors
As monolingual children progress through the early stages of morphological development, some deviation from correct adult production of morphemes and syntax is to be expected such as incorrect verb tense (Rice & Wexler, 1996). However, as children approach the age of mastery for verb tenses, the occurrences of deviations should be rectified (Rice & Wexler, 1996). Similar patterns are also evident in ELs as they acquire English as their second language (Montrul, 2011). Subsequently, some deviations in production can be anticipated in ELs as they acquire English. However, it is the rate and greater frequency of errors made by ELs with LLD, which are indicative of LLD (Montrul, 2011).
Before investigating morphosyntactic errors in ELs (both TD ELs and ELs with LLD), morphosyntactic analyses were conducted using oral language measures with monolingual English students and monolingual English students with LLD. Seminal studies conducted by Leonard (1998) and Bishop (1994) reveal that monolingual students with LLD produce more morphosyntactic errors such as incorrect past tense -ed and production and incorrect use of the singular -s (e.g., She runs) (Bishop, 1994). Rice and Wexler (1996) further investigated whether morphological grammatical tense markers could be used as a clinical marker to differentiate typically developing monolingual students from monolingual students with LLD in preschool-age students. Rice and Wexler (1996) concluded that grammatical tense markers could be utilized as a clinical marker of LLD for the following reasons: (a) regardless of the measure utilized to assess grammatical tense markers, there was variation between typically developing students and students with LLD; and (b) the set of grammatical tense markers should be mastered by age 5; however, the students with LLD performed below average. These findings were the foundation for future studies to probe the effectiveness of morphological grammatical tense markers as a clinical marker for identifying LLD.
Several studies have expanded the research sample to second language learners with and without LLD (Blom & Paradis, 2013; Gutiérrez-Clellen et al., 2008). The Gutiérrez-Clellen et al. (2008) study compared morphological verb tense production in monolingual participants with LLD, bilingual students with LLD, and second language learners with LLD. The study consisted of 71 preschool, kindergarten, and first grade students. Forty-seven of the participants were typically developing and 24 were identified as having LLD. Verb production was assessed using narrative samples. The study found that both the monolingual students and bilingual students with LLD had decreased verb accuracy rates compared with their typically developing peers. However, the verb morpheme with the lowest accuracy rate was the third person singular -s. Therefore, the students with LLD had increased difficulty with the third person singular -s compared with the past tense -ed (Gutiérrez-Clellen et al., 2008). These patterns were different than the verb tense errors noted in studies conducted by Rice and Wexler (1996). Nonetheless, the students with LLD still made more errors than their typically developing peers which were observed in studies conducted by Rice and Wexler (1996). Gutiérrez-Clellen et al. (2008) suggest that verb morphemes are an area of difficulty for both monolingual and bilingual students with LLD.
Similar to Gutiérrez-Clellen et al. (2008), Blom and Paradis (2013) further explored morphological grammatical tense markers as a potential clinical marker of LLD in bilingual students. The data revealed that both ELs with LLD and without had difficulties with irregular past tense verbs; however, the disparity became more apparent with regular past tense verbs (Blom & Paradis, 2013). The ELs with LLD made more regular past tense errors (PaTE) compared with the TD ELs. Therefore, the findings coincide with the findings from the Rice and Wexler (1996) study, which suggests that students with LLD made more errors. The findings from the Rice and Wexler (1996) study suggest that there are clinical implications of grammatical tense markers such as the potential of being a clinical marker to differentiate TD ELs from ELs with LLD.
A recent study conducted by Fumero and Wood (2022) explored the frequency of verb errors and grammatical accuracy of writing samples as well as the group difference in production of verb errors made by ELs with and without LLD. The results revealed that ELs with LLD made more verb errors compared with TD EL. Consequently, the increase in verb errors also decreased the grammatical accuracy of the writing samples produced by ELs with LLD. The group difference and increased production of verb errors made by ELs with LLD coincide with the findings of previous studies conducted by Blom and Paradis (2013) and Rice and Wexler (1996).
Although studies have repeatedly identified that both monolingual and ELs with LLD make more errors than typically developing peers, there remains a lack of studies that further explore how verb tense production presents and relates in writing and reading comprehension. Therefore, this study will further explore the relation between verb tense errors made in writing correlate to verb tense comprehension in text comprehension.
Research Aims
Given that reading comprehension and writing skills are quintessential for ELs as they enable engagement with academic texts within the classroom, additional research is warranted to examine the relation between language features that influence reading and writing performance. Considering the important role of grammatical knowledge in supporting reading comprehension, coupled with the high incidence of grammatical tense marking errors by ELs reported in the extant literature, the current research aimed to explore the difference in production of grammatical tense marking errors made by TD ELs and ELs with LLD and to examine the relation between the rate of grammatical tense marking errors by ELs and their performance on measures of reading comprehension. Specifically, the current study was designed to address the following research questions:
Method
Data for this study were collected as part of a larger study of the impact of word knowledge instruction on the writing skills of U.S. students in fifth grade. The project was approved by the U.S. university’s human subjects committee (HCS # 2018.25857). The larger study included 2,555 consented students. The current study focused on a subset of the larger sample that included students who had been classified by the school district as ELs (n = 103). The subsample was used to examine ELs’ reading comprehension in relation to tense marking errors in their written responses on the district writing assessment at the beginning of the school year.
Participants
The sample for the current study included two groups: students who were categorized as ELs who were receiving English support services (n = 72) and students who were ELs but also identified as having a LLD (n = 31). In addition, of the 103 participants, there were 52 females and 51 males. Furthermore, 100% of the 103 participants were eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch.
Students Who Were TD ELs
Based on the district’s administrative data, the study included 72 participants who spoke a language other than English at home. The 72 participants included 41 females and 31 males. The TD ELs (n = 72) were identified by the school district as having limited English proficiency (LEP) and were currently enrolled in support services in ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages). Students in the current study were from homes in which Spanish was spoken. To additionally characterize their English language skills, investigators examined administrative data obtained from the district regarding students’ performance on classroom-administered standardized assessments that occurred at the beginning of the school year. Based on the Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading Aligned to the Language Arts Florida Standards (FAIR-FS; Foorman et al., 2015), students who were TD ELs in the current study obtained a mean score on the vocabulary knowledge task of (M = 425.03, SD = 90.73) which was equivalent to a percentile rank of 40.7.
English Learners With Language Learning Disabilities
The current study included students who were ELs with language learning disabilities (LLD) who were receiving special education support services in inclusive classrooms. District data were used to determine whether the student was identified as having a LLD. This criterion resulted in inclusion of 31 students with LLD. Of the 31 students, the sample included 11 females and 20 males. All students received instruction in the participating inclusive classrooms and received speech-language services and/or other related services for exceptionalities, including specific learning disability or language impairment, with or without a speech/articulation disorder.
To characterize general language skills of ELs with LLD, investigators obtained and examined administrative data from the district regarding students’ performance on classroom-administered standardized assessments that occurred at the beginning of the school year. Based on the state assessment data on FAIR-FS (Foorman et al., 2015), the students with LLD in the current study demonstrated a mean score equivalent to (M = 394.16, SD = 86.59) which was equivalent to a percentile rank of 29.8.
Written Language Samples
Researchers collected students’ written language responses on the district’s interim writing assessment which was an expository writing task. The prompt challenged writers to provide the benefits of farmers markets and consumption of fresh produce. Expository writing is recognized by the Institute of Education Sciences Practice Guide as one of the main purposes of writing for elementary school students (Graham et al., 2012).
Classroom teachers administered an interim writing assessment as part of a curriculum-based assessment tool used district-wide. In spring of the school year, teachers distributed a packet containing two written passages about the benefits of farmer’s markets, directions for the writing task, and lined paper to use for a written response. The directions instructed students to read two passages, plan and write a response to a prompt, and revise and edit the response. The first passage focused on the payoffs of farmer’s markets and was five paragraphs in length. The subsequent reading passage (two pages in length) focused on the benefits of buying homegrown and having access to healthy fruits and vegetables. The passages were used with permission from the kids GALE Group. Students were given 120 min to read the passages, and plan, write, revise, and edit a written essay on the lined paper.
Measures
Verb Tense Errors
To explore the production of verb tense errors and identify the types of verb tense errors, codes were developed in accordance with the previous research. When coding the writing samples, coders identified verb phrases that contained auxiliary verbs (e.g., be) and main verbs (e.g., run), gerunds, infinitives, and participles. For the purpose of this study, coders applied the code to verb phrases that were functioning as the verb in the sentence and excluded verb phrases that functioned as nouns or subjects. The verb phrases were coded as present tense errors (PrTE) if the student utilized the present tense in a sentence that was not in present tense context (e.g., “Yesterday, I go to the store”). PaTE were coded if a student incorrectly produced past tense grammatical tense marker -ed or utilized irregular past tense verbs in the wrong tense context (e.g., “Today he goed to the store”). The future and conditional tense errors were coded as FuTE. The future tense was indicated by “won’t, will,” and the conditional tense was indicated by “would, could, should.” The future tense errors were noted when students incorrectly produced the future tense in the wrong context (e.g., “I will played”). The writing samples were coded by two coders. One coder was an undergraduate student, and the other coder was a doctoral student. The writing samples were randomly assigned to each coder, and the undergraduate coder was blind to the LLD diagnosis status of the students. The intercoder reliability derived from randomly selecting 15 writing samples from the TD group and LLD group from the Fall and Spring semesters. The intercoder reliability was 92%. Discrepancies in scoring were reviewed.
Reading Comprehension
Scores on the i-Ready assessment (i-Ready, 2018) were used to describe participants’ general level of reading comprehension based on two subtests: (a) reading comprehension of literature and (b) reading comprehension of informational texts. i-Ready is a computer-delivered, interim adaptive assessment for students in KG–12th grade built on the College- and Career-Ready Standards (i-Ready, 2018). Students are given four choices in a multiple-choice design and items are scored dichotomously as correct or incorrect using a Rasch Model. Ability estimates are updated based on students’ performance on a randomly selected set of five items at a starting difficulty level and subsequent items are adjusted higher or lower in difficulty accordingly. Estimated reliability for reading comprehension is reported to be 0.97 in the technical manual. Test–retest reliability is reported to be 0.85–0.86 for third to fifth grade.
Results
To explore the first research question pertaining to the frequency of different verb tense errors, descriptive statistics were reported. The descriptive statistics consist of the mean of verb error proportions (e.g., which derive from the verb errors per verbs produced) per verb tense, and the standard deviation. SPSS was utilized to analyze the frequency of present, past, and future/conditional errors. According to the descriptive data, TD EL produced an average of 3.74 total errors (M = 3.74, SD = 3.31), and ELs with LLD produced an average of 5.58 (M = 5.58, SD = 5.58) total errors. See Table 1 for the total present tense, past tense, and future/conditional tense errors.
Descriptive Statistics of Frequency of Verb Tense Errors in TD ELs and ELs With LLD.
Note. TD EL = typically developing English learners; LLD = language learning disorders.
A one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted in SPSS to assess whether there was a statistically significant difference in group production of verb tense errors when comparing TD ELs and ELs with LLD. Based on Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances, the assumption of homogeneity was not violated. As the variance in scores was similar for each of the groups, a Welch correction was not needed for the unequal group sizes. There was a statistically significant difference at p < .05 level for the number of verb errors for the two groups: F(1, 101) = 4.34, p = .04. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .04. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) test indicated that the mean sum of verb errors for ELs with LLD (M = 5.58, SD = 5.58) was higher than the mean sum of verb errors for TD ELs (M = 3.74, SD = 3.31).
Last, to address Research Question 2, which investigated the relation between verb tense errors and reading comprehension scores in both TD ELs and ELs with LLD, correlations were computed between the mean scores on the Reading Comprehension assessments and the verb tense errors. The descriptive statistics revealed that the mean scores on the four i-Ready assessments, Reading Comprehension: Informational, Reading Comprehension: Literature, Overall Reading, and Vocabulary for TD ELs, were M = 559.99, 37.06, 550.85, and 541.66, respectively. For ELs with LLD, the scores on the four i-Ready assessments, Reading Comprehension: Informational, Reading Comprehension: Literature, Overall Reading, and Vocabulary, were M = 530.67, 27.13, 530.87, and 526.23, respectively. Based upon the standard scores on the reading assessments, the ELs with LLD had lower scores on the reading comprehension assessments. A Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient was calculated using SPSS with the reading comprehension scores and verb tense errors proportions. When both groups are combined, there was a moderate negative correlation between the variable total errors per total verb occurrences and standard scores in reading comprehension, r = −.43, p = .01, with high rates of verb errors associated with low scores in reading comprehension. Data were separated into groups to further assess group differences. Both TD ELs and ELs with LLD presented with a moderate negative correlation between the variable total errors per total verb occurrences and standard scores in reading comprehension informational assessment standard scores, r = −.42, p = .01 and r = −.48, p = .01 respectively. Statistically significant correlation was found between the present tense verb errors and the Reading Comprehension: Informational, Reading Comprehension: Literature, Overall Reading, and Vocabulary. For the TD ELs, the correlations for Reading Comprehension: Informational, Reading Comprehension: Literature, Overall Reading, and Vocabulary were r = −.42, p = .01; r = −.34, p = .00; r = −.47, p < .01; and r = −.48, p < .01, respectively. For ELs with LLD, the correlations for Reading Comprehension: Informational, Reading Comprehension: Literature, Overall Reading, and Vocabulary were r = −.59, p < 01; r = −.40, p = .03; r = −.58, p < .01; and r = −.53, p < .01, respectively. The correlations between the four reading comprehension scores and past tense and future/conditional errors were not statistically significant. However, the ELs with LLD presented with a stronger correlation. For the purpose of this study and the research aims, the Stiegler test was not conducted to assess if the difference in correlations between both groups were statistically significant. The Stiegler test compares correlations between groups that take into account the variability in the relation across and within groups.
Discussion
The purpose of the study was to (a) investigate the difference in production of varying grammatical tense marking errors made by TD ELs and ELs with LLD in fifth grade writing samples and (b) examine the relation between the rate of grammatical tense marking errors by ELs and their performance on measures of reading comprehension. To conduct the analysis, writing samples were coded for present, past, and future/conditional tense errors in SALT Software. The verb tense errors were converted into proportions between verb tense errors and total verbs produced. Following the calculation of proportions, correlations were calculated between the proportions and i-Ready reading scores.
Based upon the analyses conducted, there were two prominent findings. The descriptive statistics provided numerical data that revealed that ELs with LLD made more verb tense errors compared with TD ELs. In addition, the ANOVA yielded a statistically significant group difference in production of verb tense errors. These findings coincide with the findings made by Blom and Paradis (2013). Moreover, the pattern of ELs with LLD making more errors also coincide with the findings of Rice and Wexler (1996) that suggest monolinguals with LLD also made more verb tense errors compared with typically developing peers. Therefore, the findings from this study add to empirical data that suggest that verb tense errors could serve as clinical marker used to identify ELs with LLD.
Furthermore, the second key finding was the statistically significant moderate negative correlation for both groups across all four i-Ready reading assessments. The moderate negative correlations suggest that students who make more verb tense errors have decreased understanding of morphological and syntactical knowledge, which could contribute to decreased accuracy in written language possibly affecting reading comprehension of which passages contain various morphemes. Consequently, decreased comprehension of the morphemes could contribute to lower reading comprehension scores possibly resulting in the negative correlation.
When comparing the moderately negative correlation of TD ELs with ELs with LLD, the ELs with LLD once again presented with a larger negative correlation compared with TD ELs, which coincides with the previous findings of Gutiérrez-Clellen et al. (2008) and Blom and Paradis (2013) that suggest ELs with LLD make more verb tense errors compared with TD ELs. Because the current study was explaining the rate of errors and the relation between errors in written form to comprehension of reading passages, we did not assess whether the differences in correlations were statistically significant. However, future research could further explore whether the difference in group correlations were statistically significant.
When assessing the study through the lens of the Reading Systems Framework, Simple View of Writing, and the Interactive and Dynamic Literacy Model, the findings from this study support the role of broader language skills on reading comprehension. Specifically, the statistically significant negative correlation between verb tense errors in the writing sample and all four reading comprehension scores suggests that the challenge in producing the inflectional morphemes such as the third person -s and past tense morpheme -ed has an effect on reading comprehension. Moreover, difficulties in the expressive production of the morpheme could suggest difficulties in the comprehension of the morpheme, which coincides with the Interactive and Dynamic Literacy Model developed by Kim (2020). In sum, the evidence of the statistically significant correlation supports the model that there is evidence of an effect between reading and writing. More research needs to be conducted to determine whether morphological production in written form has a direct or indirect effect on reading comprehension.
Furthermore, the empirical data from the study support that writing, which relies upon oral language and encoding, can be used to explore reading comprehension skills because both skill sets share similar cognitive processes, which suggests that writing tasks can be utilized as one component of a diagnostic tool assessing reading comprehension.
Clinical Implications
This study provides empirical evidence that adds to the reading and writing profile of TD ELs and ELs with LLD. Although both groups made verb tense errors, which is to be anticipated when acquiring a second language, the increased rate of errors made by ELs with LLD coincides with the findings of former studies. Previous studies have shown that students with LLD have increased difficulties with grammatical tense markers which coincide with morphological and syntactical knowledge when juxtaposed to typically developing peers (Blom & Paradis, 2013; Fumero & Wood, 2022; Jacobson & Schwartz, 2005; Rice & Wexler, 1996). Subsequently, tense markers could be integrated into diagnostic tools to better identify ELs with LLD.
Furthermore, the exploration of the relationship between verb tense errors that derived from writing samples and reading comprehension scores suggests that writing samples can also be utilized as a diagnostic tool. Specifically, Speech Language Pathologists (SLPs) can incorporate writing samples into dynamic assessments to gain insight into production of morphemes. When comparing written language and oral language, oral language reflects spontaneous production of speech that does not always permit corrective feedback. However, written language uses components of oral language, paired with spelling, orthography, idea formulation, and corrective feedback to formulate cohesive sentences. Subsequently, written language provides further insight to the production of expressive language in written form. In sum, this study provides understanding into how clinicians and educators can utilize writing samples to gather information that oral language assessments may not provide.
Limitations
Limitations of the study include the small sample. The study consisted of n = 103 participants. Furthermore, the study could not specifically focus on past tense verb marking errors as explored in the Rice and Wexler (1996) study because the prompts were not scripted to elicit past tense verb production; therefore, the students fluctuated between all three tenses. In addition, the prompt derived from a school district administered interim assessment; subsequently, the PIs could not modify the prompt.
Future Research
Studies have observed that both monolingual and bilingual students have difficulties with verb tenses. Future research can explore how verb tenses and corresponding inflectional morphemes are being taught. Specifically, comparing the efficacy of teaching verb tenses and corresponding morphemes using implicit feedback (e.g., recasting) or explicit feedback (e.g., visual organizers, discussion of rules, discussion of error) could inform ways to improve reading comprehension. Additional studies could explore the relation between oral production of past tense verb markers, written production, and reading comprehension to add to the knowledge base on factors that explain significant variation in reading comprehension. Last, future research could incorporate measures that assess morphological knowledge in conjunction with production. The information gathered from future research could provide insight into diagnostic tool development and interventions.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
Research reported in this publication was supported by grant #R305B200020 and #H325D140068, funded by the U.S. Department of Education. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Department of Education.
