Elza Seile

1. Your research focuses on measuring students’ morphological competence. Why is morphology particularly important in the context of Latvian language learning?
Morphology is fundamental in Latvian because our language has a rich inflectional system, where grammatical endings carry meaning. Morphological competence is about much more than learning grammatical rules—it supports accurate spelling, vocabulary development, reading comprehension, and text production. In my research, I view morphology as an integrated competence rather than a collection of separate grammar topics. Understanding how words are formed and used helps students communicate more accurately and confidently.

2. Diagnostic assessment plays an important role in understanding learners’ strengths and difficulties. How can teachers benefit from more detailed information about students’ morphological abilities?
We usually evaluate students’ language knowledge based on national diagnostic assessments at the end of Grade 6 or state examinations at the end of Grade 9. These assessments identify broad areas of difficulty, such as spelling, but they rarely explain why students make these errors. Many spelling mistakes actually stem from weaknesses in morphology or morphemic awareness. More detailed diagnostic assessment helps teachers identify the underlying causes of students’ difficulties and provide more targeted support. Since morphology forms the foundation of grammar, strengthening it also makes learning syntax much easier.

3. Your study uses Item Response Theory to examine assessment tasks. What advantages does this approach offer in designing more effective language assessments?
I only became familiar with Item Response Theory during this research, and I was genuinely impressed by the insights it provides. We usually evaluate assessment tasks based on the percentage of correct answers, but IRT allows us to look much deeper. It shows how well a task differentiates between students with different levels of competence. If both high- and low-performing students struggle with the same task, it may not actually measure morphological competence well. Instead, it may point to a common misconception, a habitual pattern of language use, or even an issue with the task itself. We all develop language habits that are difficult to change, and these do not always reflect our overall level of competence. IRT helps identify which tasks truly measure students’ underlying abilities and which reveal broader patterns that deserve greater attention in teaching.

4. In multilingual and digitally influenced learning environments, what challenges do students face regarding morphological accuracy?
Students today communicate in multilingual and highly digital environments, which inevitably influences their language use. As a teacher, I increasingly notice English-influenced sentence patterns and grammatical constructions appearing in students’ writing. While multilingualism and globalisation bring many benefits, they also present challenges for language learning. This is particularly true for smaller languages, but in reality every language is affected by the growing dominance of English and digital communication. At the same time, students are constantly exposed to unedited texts containing spelling and grammatical errors, which can reinforce inaccurate language habits. Artificial intelligence adds another dimension by responding successfully even to poorly written prompts, creating the impression that linguistic accuracy is no longer important. In this context, schools play an increasingly important role in helping students develop accurate and conscious language use.

5. How can research-based assessment practices support teachers in developing more targeted language instruction?
Teachers value professional autonomy, but they also appreciate evidence-based guidance. When research provides a well-founded assessment instrument or a practical teaching model, teachers are usually willing to use it. The study presented here is only one part of my doctoral research. My broader goal is to develop a research-based didactic model for teaching morphology, combining theoretical insights with empirical findings. I hope it will be useful for other teachers, but it has already influenced my own practice by giving me a much clearer understanding of how morphology can be taught in a more systematic and meaningful way.