How Readers Build and Use Morphological Knowledge. SHAUNA DE LONG, Kent State University, JOCELYN R. FOLK, Kent State University - Following up de Long and Folk (2021), the current research investigated the durability of incidentally learned word knowledge (spellings and meanings). Participants were presented with novel monomorphemic words (breese) in semantically informative sentences, followed by recognition posttests. One day later, participants completed delayed posttests. Participants were then presented with novel compound words (breesebin) in sentences that were semantically informative with transparent morphology (breesebin = fish storage), sentences that were semantically informative with opaque morphology (breesebin = alleyway), or sentences which were semantically uninformative, followed by final recognition posttests. Performance on these posttests was compared to a baseline condition in which participants were never exposed to the monomorphemic words and instead only learned the compound words. The results indicated that readers can remember incidentally learned monomorphemic words across a delay, and even after the delay, those lexical representations are strong enough to support the learning of bimorphemic transparent words and impede the learning of bimorphemic opaque words.

Learning Novel Compound Words: The Use of Morphological Transparency and Semantic Context in Incidental Word Learning. SHAUNA DE LONG, Kent State University, JOCELYN R. FOLK, Kent State University - Research indicates that readers break down known complex words into morphological constituents during pre-semantic processing (Bowers et al., 2009). When novel compound words contain transparent morphemes, readers may also use morphological knowledge to derive meaning of those words (Brusnighan & Folk, 2012). The current research investigated the use of recently learned morphemes in word learning by presenting participants with novel, monomorphemic words (freeve) in semantically informative sentences followed by immediate posttests. After a 1 day delay, participants were presented with novel compound words (freevepad) in sentences that were semantically informative or uninformative and that contained a semi-novel morpheme from the first session (freeve); these morphemes were either consistent or inconsistent with the meaning of the compound word. Word learning was assessed via spelling and meaning recognition posttests. Readers learned more compound words when they contained a semi-novel word they had learned in session one and when the compounds had consistent morphemes presented in semantically informative sentences. This is more evidence that readers spontaneously decompose novel compounds into their semantic constituents.

We Learn Words During Reading—But Do We Remember Them? SHAUNA DE LONG and JOCELYN FOLK, Kent State University (Sponsored by Jocelyn Folk) – Research on incidental vocabulary learning during reading has found links between the development of orthographic (spelling) and semantic (meaning) knowledge (e.g., Brusnighan, 2015). The current study investigated the effect of orthographic knowledge on semantic incidental learning and the retention of incidental word knowledge across a time delay. Participants studied the spellings of 10 novel words. Participants were then asked to read 20 sentences presented individually. Each sentence contained a different novel word embedded in informative semantic context; 10 of these words had been studied earlier and 10 had not. Learning was assessed using immediate and delayed (2 days) orthographic and semantic recognition posttests. Analyses show higher orthographic learning rates for studied than unstudied words across time; studied words also had numerically higher semantic accuracy rates for the immediate posttest but not the delayed posttest. Both posttests showed very little decay between sessions. These findings indicate that prior exposure to words’ spellings may not provide a strong benefit to learning words’ meanings. These findings also indicate that partial word knowledge is durable.

Psychometric Properties of a Spelling Recognition Lexical Expertise Measure. MEGAN E. DEIBEL, Kent State University, SHAUNA DE LONG, Kent State University, ASHLEY ABRAHAM, Kent State University, JOCELYN R. FOLK, Kent State University - Individual differences in lexical processing are well-established in the reading literature (Andrews, 2012; see also Folk & Eskenazi, 2016 for a review). There has been strong evidence for spelling skill as an important component of lexical expertise which may outperform the predictive abilities of other measures of reader skill, such as reading comprehension tests, vocabulary tests, and reading speed (Andrews, 2012). Two common ways of measuring spelling skill are through either spelling recall tests, in which participants are asked to write the correct spelling to a spoken word (e.g. Andrew & Bond, 2009), or spelling recognition tests, in which participants are asked to differentiate between correct and incorrect written spellings. In the current study, we analyzed the psychometric properties of a spelling recognition test used in reading research to measure lexical expertise and which correlates highly with spelling recall (e.g. Eskenazi, Swishchuk, Folk & Abraham, 2018). Internal consistency, item-classification analyses, G-theory analyses, and IRT analyses were examined. Overall, patterns indicated that the measure was stable across multiple data collections with reasonably discriminant and difficult items.

Does Learning the Meaning of a Word Make Spelling Easier? Evidence From Incidental Word Learning During Reading. SHAUNA P.A. DE LONG (Graduate Travel Award Recipient) and JOCELYN R. FOLK, Kent State University (Sponsored by Jocelyn R. Folk) – Research on incidental vocabulary learning during reading has found links between the development of orthographic and semantic knowledge, but the nature of this relationship remains unclear. The current study primarily investigates whether semantic knowledge benefits orthographic knowledge. Participants were exposed to 14 novel non-words embedded in sentences with either informative or uninformative context; the spelling frequency of the novel words was also manipulated (high x low). Participants were exposed to each novel word 3 times in different sentences within the same context condition. Response accuracy was assessed using orthographic and semantic posttests. Results indicated that the relationship between context and orthographic accuracy was moderated by spelling frequency such that when a word had a less common—more difficult—spelling, participants were more likely to learn spellings to words with a known meaning. These findings indicate that teaching words’ spellings and meanings independently of one another may not be the most beneficial means of learning new words.