Noviyenty, L., Astuti, M., Fakhruddin, & Morganna, R (2020). Tertiary EFL Students’ Morphological Awareness of English. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(2), 486-497. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/837 Received: 01.03.2020 Received in revised form: 20.03.2020 Accepted: 23.03.2020 TERTIARY EFL STUDENTS’ MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS OF ENGLISH Research Article Leffi Noviyenty State Islamic Institute of Curup, Bengkulu, Indonesia leffinoviyenty@gmail.com Mutiara Astuti State Islamic Institute of Curup, Bengkulu, Indonesia anmutiara4@gmail.com Fakhruddin State Islamic Institute of Curup, Bengkulu, Indonesia fakhruddinzidan@gmail.com Ruly Morganna State Islamic Institute of Curup, Bengkulu, Indonesia rulymorganna@gmail.com Leffi Noviyenty is an assistant Professor of English education. She received her master’s degree in English education from State University of Padang and currently is taking her doctoral degree in Bengkulu University. Her research interests: TEFL, English structure, and TOEFL. Mutiara Astuti obtained her bachelor’s degree in English education at State Islamic Institute of Curup in 2019. Her research interests: English linguistics and English morphology. Fakhruddin is currently a director of Postgraduate Program of IAIN Curup. He is an assistant Professor of Islamic education. His research interests: Islamic culture in education and Arabic language education. Ruly Morganna received his master’s degree in English education from Sebelas Maret University in 2018. He teaches English at State Islamic Institute of Curup. His research interests: English as a lingua franca, intercultural English communication, intercultural language learning, interlanguage analysis, and second language acquisition. Copyright by Informascope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/837 mailto:leffinoviyenty@gmail.com mailto:anmutiara4@gmail.com mailto:fakhruddinzidan@gmail.com mailto:rulymorganna@gmail.com http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8050-9066 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5953-0282 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7820-2559 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2188-2511 Noviyenty, Astuti, Fakhruddin, & Morganna 486 TERTIARY EFL STUDENTS’ MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS OF ENGLISH Leffi Noviyenty leffinoviyenty@gmail.com Mutiara Astuti anmutiara4@gmail.com Fakhruddin fakhruddinzidan@gmail.com Ruly Morganna rulymorganna@gmail.com Abstract Morphological awareness is regarded as a significant predictor of vocabulary acquisition, reading comprehension, and the advancement of various literary competences. Thus, the present study sought to investigate tertiary EFL students’ morphological awareness of English in terms of morphological identification and morphological structure awareness. By making use of the total sampling technique, 51 tertiary EFL students from one of the universities in Bengkulu, Indonesia, were involved as the participants. Their English morphological awareness was assessed using a valid and reliable test already developed by a previous researcher. The results indicated that their English morphological awareness was moderate. Such condition became a positive potential which might contribute to consolidate them in the process of English vocabulary acquisition, in dealing with reading comprehension, and in fulfilling various English literary needs. This study recommends that both deductive and inductive English morphological interventions be given to tertiary EFL students in tandem with adequate practices that can continuously train their English morphological awareness. Keywords: EFL morphological awareness, morphological identification, morphological structure 1. Introduction Morphological awareness is a visual processing ability to analyze morphemic features in order to be able to construct meaning (Ke & Xiao, 2015). The ability as such refers to a metalinguistic ability to understand, reflect on, and manipulate morphemic properties wherein this ability allows one to develop words into more complex and detailed forms (Hamavandi, Rezai, & Mazdayasna, 2017; Kuo, Ramirez, de Marin, Kim, & Unal-Gezer, 2017; Wolter & Gibson, 2015). The properties of morphology in common extend to roots, affixes, inflection, derivation, compound words, blends, and phrasal words (Carstairs- Mccarthy, 2002; Harley, 2006). The metalinguistic ability in terms of morphological awareness also aligns with deliberate awareness of morphemic constituents (Vaknin- Nusbaum & Raveh, 2019). mailto:leffinoviyenty@gmail.com mailto:anmutiara4@gmail.com mailto:fakhruddinzidan@gmail.com mailto:rulymorganna@gmail.com International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 486-497 487 For learners who learn English as the other language, the case of morphological awareness development to some extent is determined by the degree of L1 and L2 similarity. A study conducted by Xue and Jiang (2017) revealed that in the context of EFL learners, if the morphological features of L1 and L2 and the bilingual speakers’ proficiency between their L1 and L2 have adequate similarities, their morphological awareness can be a unique predictor of their reading skill for both languages. The aforesaid study implies that sufficient similarities in the aspects of proficiency and linguistic forms between L1 and L2 become the bridge of morphological awareness improvement. Morphological awareness is correlated with reading comprehension ability (Ke & Xiao, 2015). It becomes an important predictor of reading comprehension (Tighe & Binder, 2015) so that students with good morphological awareness can improve their reading comprehension in an effective way (Vaknin-Nusbaum, Sarid, Raveh, & Nevo, 2016). Otherwise, the lack of morphological awareness is related to the lack of comprehension in reading (MacKay, Levesque, & Deacon, 2017). A study conducted by Deacon, Holliman, Dobson, and Harrison (2018) indicated that morphological awareness independently contributes to students’ literary ability in terms of word reading, the accuracy of reading, and reading comprehension. With adequate morphological awareness, learners will be assisted in dealing with extensive reading activities (Y. Zhang & Li, 2016). In addition, morphological awareness is also associated with writing skill. A study conducted by McCutchen and Stull, (2015) informed that morphological awareness affects students’ writing skill in the aspects of both spelling accuracy and word production. Besides being associated with reading comprehension, morphological awareness also influences vocabulary acquisition (Bae & Joshi, 2017; Sparks & Deacon, 2015). The study undertaken by Gottardo, Mirza, Koh, Ferreira, and Javier (2018) showed that morphological awareness alongside the knowledge of syntax positively contribute to the acquisition of vocabularies in depth. The improvement of morphological awareness positively aids the extent and depth of ESL vocabularies, and it can also equip learners with detailed understanding of word features alongside the related words and phrases (Haomin & Bilü, 2017), lexical inference (Zhang, Koda, & Leong, 2016), and word spelling (Wilson-Fowler & Apel, 2015; Zhao, Joshi, Dixon, & Chen, 2017). In the context of teaching and learning, drawing upon prior studies, the efforts made to improve students’ morphological awareness have been carried out in both deductive and inductive ways. In a deductive way, in the context of foreign language learning, the study conducted by Leonet, Cenoz, and Gorter (2020) revealed that translanguaging pedagogy, teaching morphology across languages, has a significantly positive effect on students’ foreign language morphological awareness. The foregoing study indicates that students’ first language knowledge and competence can be good modes that help students understand foreign language morphological rules better. In line with the foregoing, learning from the study conducted by Kim et al. (2015), morphological awareness is influenced by both instruction and cross-language transfer. In this sense, bilingual education has a positive impact on the improvement of learners’ morphological awareness by means of a cross- language transfer. Bilingual education also enhances students’ sensitivity to the structure of language features (Kuo et al., 2017). Morphological instructions potentially develop students’ morphological awareness so that students are able to effectively extract meanings from texts (Vaknin-Nusbaum & Raveh, 2019). The study undertaken by Amirjalili and Jabbari (2018) revealed that morphological instructions can effectively improve EFL students’ morphological awareness and reading comprehension. This study recommended that morphological instructions be applied in EFL Noviyenty, Astuti, Fakhruddin, & Morganna 488 classrooms for the sake of improving students’ English literacy. Good, Lance, and Rainey (2015; and Wolter and Gibson (2015) also revealed that direct morphological instructions designed to enhance morphological awareness have a significantly positive impact on the improvement of literary skills. Zhang (2016) recommended that morphological instructions be applied in order to develop bilingual students’ reading skill. According to the study conducted by Kraut (2015), drawing upon the data solicited from ESL learners, it is found out that L2 learners’ morphological awareness does not necessarily affect their automatic morphological decomposition. The aforesaid study recommended that non-native English learners need to be deliberately provided with morphological exposures and also to be trained to compose as well as decompose English morphological families in practices in order that they can improve their automatic morphological decomposition that can assist them in dealing with efficient and speed reading. In addition, teaching students sufficient knowledge vis-a-vis morphology and inductive reasoning can improve students’ morphological awareness (Yeh, Joshi, & Ji, 2015). A study conducted by Lin, Cheng, and Wang (2018) with respect to morphological awareness interventions amid Chinese bilingual speakers who use English as the other language, in teaching compound structures to bilingual learners, the teacher is expected to teach students to identify the compound head and to understand how it works in meaning making towards the entire words. In addition, the teacher is also suggested to teach students the compound structure similarities between the two languages. The aforementioned studies highlight the importance of implicit or deductive teaching of morphological awareness to help develop students’ vocabulary acquisition, reading comprehension, and literary developments. In an inductive way of teaching and learning, the study conducted by Reynolds (2019) suggested that a variety of word formations can be acquired through extensive reading. In this sense, morphological awareness can be enhanced by means of incidental learning. However, this study also suggests that if more complex varieties of word formations are expected to be acquired, direct morphological instructions that deliberately expose learners with the explanations of morphemic parts are needed. In addition, learning vocabularies in context will improve students’ morphological awareness. As the foregoing, students will acquire morphological knowledge, word definitions, the usages of words, and other necessary knowledge such as synonyms and antonyms of words (Spencer et al., 2015). In this regard, learning vocabularies in context refers to part of incidental learning or the so-called inductive learning. Anchored in a range of studies above that prove the paramount importance and the pivotal roles of morphological awareness in vocabulary acquisition, reading comprehension, writing skill, and other literary needs, the present study is proposed to assess EFL tertiary students’ morphological awareness in terms of morphemic identification and morphemic structure. Two research questions are formulated as follows: 1. How is tertiary EFL students’ morphological awareness of English in terms of morphemic identification? 2. How is tertiary EFL students’ morphological awareness of English in terms of morphemic structure? 2. Method This study applied a descriptive quantitative method to measure tertiary EFL students’ morphological awareness of English. The morphological awareness examined in the present study was comprised of analytical and structural aspects of morphology. The rationale International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 486-497 489 beyond the application of this study method was because this study sought to solicit rigorous data that could be generalized, and the data could also be the source of developing English morphology teaching materials in order to meet EFL students’ needs. This study was conducted in one of the universities in Bengkulu, Indonesia. 2.1. Participants The participants of this study were the first-year tertiary EFL students who were going to take an English morphology subject in the following year. 51 tertiary students were engaged, and they were collected using a total sampling technique. They aged between 18-20 years old. Resting upon the proficiency test of college students’ enrolment, the participants of this study were categorized as pre-intermediate to intermediate English students. 2.2. Technique of Collecting Data The data were collected using an English morphology test adopted from an instrument constructed by Farsi (2008). A part of his study measured tertiary students’ English morphological awareness in the analytical and structural components. The two components aligned with the aspects measured by the present study. In addition, the participants’ conditions in his study also had a range of similarities compared to those of the present study, wherein they were the first-year college students and non-native English users. They used English as a foreign language. The range of participants’ ages was also adequately similar. Hence, adopting a test already constructed and used by Farsi (2008) was ideal. This test was assigned to measure tertiary students in reflecting on and manipulating English morphemic constituents. The framework of this test was comprised of the analyses and structures of word formations which were further called the morphological identification and morphological structure tests. 2.2.1. English morphological identification test This test was deployed to measure tertiary EFL students’ English morphological awareness in terms of analyzing and breaking down English words into smaller meanings. The test consisted of 15 items. In this test, tertiary EFL students were provided with a variety of complex English words which were free from contexts, and they were demanded to segment the morphemic constituents of those words into the morphemes that represented the smallest meaning each. Both validity and reliability of this test had already been verified by Farsi (2008) so that this test was ready to be used by other researchers who studied similar cases. 2.2.2. English morphological structure test The function of this test was to measure tertiary EFL students’ English morphological awareness in terms of synthesizing morphemes to form new meanings. This test subsumed 15 items. All items were displayed in the form of incomplete sentences. The students were further asked to modify words needed to complete the English sentences in an accurate way. Each item was preceded by a sentence example having the same concept but modifying a different word. In detail, this test examined students’ knowledge with regard to word structures, the connections between words and within words, and word parts. Both validity and reliability of this test had already been verified by Farsi (2008) so that this test was ready to be used by other researchers who studied similar cases. 2.3. Technique of Data Analysis The data were analyzed using descriptive statistic calculations to obtain the percentages of tertiary students’ English morphological awareness. The following formula was deployed to analyze the data: Noviyenty, Astuti, Fakhruddin, & Morganna 490 X = R/(T x n ) x 100 % Note: x = The percentage of each kind of the tests R = Total number of correct answers T = Number of samples n = Number of items The mean score was further calculated resting upon the total score of the two kinds of test. M = (∑%)/N Note: M : Mean ∑% : Total percentage of overall scores N : Number of samples The next step was to determine the levels of students’ morphological awareness. The following tabulated scales are the five point scales adopted from Nurgiyantoro's (2010) classification. Table 1. Nurgiyantoro's (2010) score classification No Score Percentages Interpretation 1 90 %-100% Very good 2 75%-89% Good 3 60%-74% enough 4 40%-59% Less/low 5 0%-40% Poor / very low 3. Results and Discussion The following presentation provides a quantitative description of tertiary EFL students’ morphological awareness of English in terms of morphological identification and morphological structure awareness. 3.1. Tertiary EFL Students’ Morphological Identification Awareness of English Resting upon the data gained from the morphological identification test containing 15 items that measure students’ ability to analyze and break down English words into smaller meanings, the results are obtained as presented in the following diagram. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 486-497 491 Diagram 1. The results of tertiary EFL students’ morphological identification awareness test Diagram 1 displays the condition of the overall data. Subsequently, from the statistical calculations, the total of correct answers gained was 542, and that of incorrect answers was 223. The percentage of the correct answers gained was 70.84%. 3.2. Tertiary EFL students’ morphological awareness of English Anchored in the data garnered from the morphological structure test comprising 15 items that measure students’ ability to synthesize English morphemes to form new meanings, the results are obtained as presented in the following diagram. Diagram 2. The results of tertiary EFL students’ morphological structure awareness test 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% correct answer wrong answer 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% correct answer wrong answer Noviyenty, Astuti, Fakhruddin, & Morganna 492 Diagram 2 displays the condition of the overall data. Subsequently, from the statistical calculations, the total of correct answers gained was 515, and that of incorrect answers was 250. The percentage of the correct answers gained was 67.32%. The next stage undertaken was to classify the level of tertiary EFL students’ morphological awareness of English based upon Nurgiyantoro's (2010) classification. The following diagram highlights the distribution of data based on the related percentages. Diagram 3. The level of students’ morphological awareness of English Diagram 3 indicates that the classification of tertiary EFL students’ morphological identification and morphological structure awareness was in enough category because Nurgiyantoro (2010) elucidated that if the scores emerge in the percentage from 64% to 74%, the scores represent an “enough” category. The result of students’ morphological identification awareness was 70.84%, and that of students’ morphological structure awareness was 67.32%. It means that students’ morphological awareness level was enough in terms of both morphological identification and morphological structure awareness. The results of the present study indicate that tertiary EFL students have sufficiently been capable of analyzing as well as breaking down English words into smaller meanings and synthesizing English morphemes to form new meanings (Carlisle, 2000; Farsi, 2008). This efficacy will moderately consolidate tertiary EFL students in the process of vocabulary acquisition (Bae & Joshi, 2017; Gottardo et al., 2018; Haomin & Bilü, 2017; Sparks & Deacon, 2015; Wilson-Fowler & Apel, 2015; Zhang et al., 2016), in coping with reading comprehension, and various literary needs (Ke & Xiao, 2015; Tighe & Binder, 2015; Vaknin- Nusbaum et al., 2016). However, the moderate level of English morphological awareness owned by tertiary EFL students in this study merely lies as the temporary English morphological potential which can increase or perhaps decrease dependent upon the further English morphological interventions that will be given to students. The researchers recommend that their English morphological potential be improved by provisioning both deductive and inductive interventions alongside adequate practices that continuously train their English morphological awareness. As an implication for the context of English education in Indonesia, considering the scientific consensus which internationally positions English as the world lingua franca whose users are multicultural people in the world (Baker, 2016; Deniz, Özkan, & Bayyurt, 2016; Fang, 2017; Ishikawa, 2016; Kirkpatrick, 2018; Kusumaningputri & Widodo, 2018; J. Liu & Fang, 2017; K. L. Liu, 2019; Matsuura, Rilling, Chiba, Kim, & Rini, 2016; Mauranen, 2018; Rahatlou, Fazilatfar, & Allami, 2018; Sherman, 2018; Si, 2018; Sung, 2017) and the nature 0.% 10.% 20.% 30.% 40.% 50.% 60.% 70.% 80.% 90.% 100.% morpheme identification awareness morpheme structure awareness very good good enough low very low International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 486-497 493 of Indonesian people, including students, that is multicultural in situ (Hamied, 2012; Morganna, Sumardi, & Tarjana, 2018a, 2018b, 2020; Sukyadi, 2015), the natural English interactions that Indonesian English students take part in will always be across cultures, and such interactions willy-nilly call for their English linguistic competences which meet the adequate extent of English fluency and accuracy. English morphological awareness is a part of the aforesaid linguistic competences. Thus, the English morphological awareness of Indonesian students has to meet both fluent and accurate degrees. In this regard, English teaching and learning processes undertaken in the classrooms have to assist students in learning English morphology in both deductive and inductive ways. Deductive English morphological interventions can improve students’ English morphological awareness in terms of accuracy (Amirjalili & Jabbari, 2018; Good et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2015; Kraut, 2015; Kuo et al., 2017; Leonet et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2018; Vaknin-Nusbaum & Raveh, 2019; Wolter & Gibson, 2015; Yeh et al., 2015; D. Zhang, 2016). Subsequently, inductive English morphological interventions can improve their English morphological awareness in terms of fluency (Reynolds, 2019; Spencer et al., 2015). The present study really supports English teachers to teach students English morphology deductively and inductively. 4. Conclusion The present study reveals that tertiary EFL students’ morphological awareness of English is moderate. This condition becomes a positive potential which may contribute to consolidate them in the process of English vocabulary acquisition, in dealing with reading comprehension, and in fulfilling various English literary needs. Nonetheless, such morphological potential can either increase or decrease dependent upon the English morphological interventions that will further be given to them. This study recommends that both deductive and inductive English morphological interventions be given to them in tandem with adequate practices that can continuously train their English morphological awareness. Further studies are expected to address the practices of English morphological interventions in the contexts of Indonesian EFL students. Noviyenty, Astuti, Fakhruddin, & Morganna 494 References Amirjalili, F., & Jabbari, A. A. (2018). The impact of morphological instruction on morphological awareness and reading comprehension of EFL learners. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1523975 Bae, H. S., & Joshi, R. M. (2017). Role of morphological awareness in biliteracy development: Within- and cross-language perspectives among Korean ESL learners in grades five and six. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.11.001 Baker, W. (2016). English as an academic lingua franca and intercultural awareness: student mobility in the transcultural university. Language and Intercultural Communication, 16(3), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2016.1168053 Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12(3), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604 Carstairs-Mccarthy, A. (2002). An introduction to English morphology: words and their structure. Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Deacon, S. H., Holliman, A. J., Dobson, G. J., & Harrison, E. C. J. (2018). Assessing direct contributions of morphological Awareness and prosodic sensitivity to children’s word reading and reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(6), 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1483376 Deniz, E., Özkan, Y., & Bayyurt, Y. (2016). English as a lingua franca: Reflections on ELF- related issues by pre-service English language teachers in Turkey. The Reading Matrix, 16(2), 144–161. Fang, F. G. (2017). World Englishes or English as a Lingua Franca: Where does English in China stand? English Today, 33(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078415000668 Farsi, B. Al. (2008). Morphological awareness and its relationship to vocabulary knowledge and morphological complexity among Omani EFL university students. The Asian EFL Journal. Good, J. E., Lance, D. M., & Rainey, J. (2015). The effects of morphological awareness training on reading, spelling, and vocabulary skills. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 36(3), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740114548917 Gottardo, A., Mirza, A., Koh, P. W., Ferreira, A., & Javier, C. (2018). Unpacking listening comprehension: the role of vocabulary, morphological awareness, and syntactic knowledge in reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 31(8), 1741–1764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9736-2 Hamavandi, M., Rezai, M. J., & Mazdayasna, G. (2017). Dynamic assessment of morphological awareness in the EFL context. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1324254 Hamied, F. A. (2012). English in Multicultural and Multilingual Indonesian Education. Multilingual Education, 1(English as an International Language in Asia: Implications for Language Education), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4578-0_5 Haomin, Z., & Bilü, Z. (2017). Multi-faceted morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in English as a second language learners: A multivariate analysis. Chinese International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 486-497 495 Journal of Applied Linguistics, 40(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2017-0003 Harley, H. (2006). English words: A linguistic introduction. English Words. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203495971 Ishikawa, T. (2016). World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca: Conceptualising the legitimacy of Asian people’s English. Asian Englishes, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1171672 Ke, S., & Xiao, F. (2015). Cross-linguistic transfer of morphological awareness between Chinese and English. Language Awareness, 24(4), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1114624 Kim, T. J., Kuo, L. J., Ramírez, G., Wu, S., Ku, Y. M., de Marin, S., … Eslami, Z. (2015). The relationship between bilingual experience and the development of morphological and morpho-syntactic awareness: a cross-linguistic study of classroom discourse. Language Awareness, 24(4), 332–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1113983 Kirkpatrick, A. (2018). The development of English as a lingua franca in ASEAN. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 138–150). New York: Routlage. Kraut, R. (2015). The relationship between morphological awareness and morphological decomposition among English language learners. Reading and Writing, 28(6), 873– 890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9553-4 Kuo, L. J., Ramirez, G., de Marin, S., Kim, T. J., & Unal-Gezer, M. (2017). Bilingualism and morphological awareness: a study with children from general education and Spanish- English dual language programs. Educational Psychology, 37(2), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1049586 Kusumaningputri, R., & Widodo, H. P. (2018). Promoting Indonesian university students’ critical intercultural awareness in tertiary EAL classrooms: The use of digital photograph-mediated intercultural tasks. System, 72, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.10.003 Leonet, O., Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Developing morphological awareness across languages: translanguaging pedagogies in third language acquisition. Language Awareness, 29(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2019.1688338 Lin, C. Y., Cheng, C., & Wang, M. (2018). The contribution of phonological and morphological awareness in Chinese–English bilingual reading acquisition. Reading and Writing, 31(1), 99–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9775-8 Liu, J., & Fang, F. (Gabriel). (2017). Perceptions, awareness and perceived effects of home culture on intercultural communication: Perspectives of university students in China. System, 67, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.04.003 Liu, K. L. (2019). Student perspectives on language and culture Teaching in EFL: Implications for intercultural approach. Journal of Studies in Education, 9(2), 1–20. MacKay, E. J., Levesque, K., & Deacon, S. H. (2017). Unexpected poor comprehenders: An investigation of multiple aspects of morphological awareness. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12108 Matsuura, H., Rilling, S., Chiba, R., Kim, E. J., & Rini, N. (2016). Intelligibility and comprehensibility in English as a lingua franca: nativized English in Japanese. Asian Englishes, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1234359 Noviyenty, Astuti, Fakhruddin, & Morganna 496 Mauranen, A. (2018). Conceptualising ELF. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & D. Martin (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 7–24). New York: Routlage. McCutchen, D., & Stull, S. (2015). Morphological awareness and children’s writing: accuracy, error, and invention. Reading and Writing, 28(2), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9524-1 Morganna, R., Sumardi, S., & Tarjana, S. S. (2018a). Teaching Culture: The Prevailing Stance of Indonesian EFL Teachers. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 5(4), 317–330. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v5i4.169 Morganna, R., Sumardi, & Tarjana, S. S. (2018b). Immersion vs. construction: The portrayals of culture in Indonesian EFL learning paradigm. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 283–304. Retrieved from https://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/969/385 Morganna, R., Sumardi, & Tarjana, S. S. (2020). Tertiary English students’ attitudes towards intercultural language learning. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(3), 657– 665. https://doi.org/10.17509/ ijal.v9i3.23216 Nurgiyantoro, B. (2010). Penilaian pembelajaran bahasa berbasis kompetensi. Yogyakarta: BPFE-Yogyakarta. Rahatlou, M. B., Fazilatfar, A. M., & Allami, H. (2018). English as a lingua franca in Iran: An attitudinal investigation into the in-service teachers. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1499215 Reynolds, B. L. (2019). The effect of morphological form variation on adult first language incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. English Teaching, 18(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-07-2018-0069 Sherman, T. (2018). ELF and the EU/wider Europe. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 115–125). New York: Routlage. Si, J. (2018). English as a native language, World Englishes and English as a lingua franca- informed materials: acceptance, perceptions and attitudes of Chinese English learners. Asian Englishes, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2018.1544700 Sparks, E., & Deacon, S. H. (2015). Morphological awareness and vocabulary acquisition: A longitudinal examination of their relationship in English-speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000246 Spencer, M., Muse, A., Wagner, R. K., Foorman, B., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., … Bishop, M. D. (2015). Examining the underlying dimensions of morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge. Reading and Writing, 28(7), 959–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9557-0 Sukyadi, D. (2015). The teaching of English at secondary schools in Indonesia. Secondary School English Education in Asia: From Policy to Practice, 123–147. Sung, C. C. M. (2017). Investigating perceptions of English as a lingua franca in Hong Kong: The case of university students. English Today, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078417000293 Tighe, E. L., & Binder, K. S. (2015). An investigation of morphological awareness and processing in adults with low literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 245–273. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 486-497 497 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000222 Vaknin-Nusbaum, V., & Raveh, M. (2019). Cultivating morphological awareness improves reading skills in fifth-grade Hebrew readers. Journal of Educational Research, 112(3), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1528541 Vaknin-Nusbaum, V., Sarid, M., Raveh, M., & Nevo, E. (2016). The contribution of morphological awareness to reading comprehension in early stages of reading. Reading and Writing, 29(9), 1915–1934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9658-4 Wilson-Fowler, E. B., & Apel, K. (2015). Influence of morphological awareness on college students’ literacy skills: A path analytic approach. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(3), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15619730 Wolter, J. A., & Gibson, F. E. (2015). Morphological awareness assessment and intervention to improve language and literacy. Seminars in Speech and Language, 36(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1396444 Xue, J., & Jiang, X. (2017). The developmental relationship between bilingual morphological awareness and reading for Chinese EFL adult learners: a longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 30(2), 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9683-3 Yeh, Y. F., Joshi, R. M., & Ji, X. R. (2015). The development of morphological awareness in Chinese ESL students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.10.002 Zhang, D. (2016). Morphology in Malay–English biliteracy acquisition: an intervention study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(5), 546–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1026873 Zhang, D., Koda, K., & Leong, C. K. (2016). Morphological awareness and bilingual word learning: a longitudinal structural equation modeling study. Reading and Writing, 29(3), 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9603-y Zhang, Y., & Li, R. (2016). The role of morphological awareness in the incidental learning of Chinese characters among CSL learners. Language Awareness, 25(3), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2016.1162167 Zhao, J., Joshi, R. M., Dixon, L. Q., & Chen, S. (2017). Contribution of phonological, morphological and orthographic awareness to English word spelling: A comparison of EL1 and EFL models. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.007