Understanding literacy development of language minority students: an integrative approach Xi Chen, Esther Geva & Mila Schwartz
Reading and Writing An Interdisciplinary Journal ISSN 0922-4777 Read Writ DOI 10.1007/s11145-012-9400-9
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your work, please use the accepted author’s version for posting to your own website or your institution’s repository. You may further deposit the accepted author’s version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s request, provided it is not made publicly available until 12 months after publication.
1 23
Author's personal copy Read Writ DOI 10.1007/s11145-012-9400-9
Understanding literacy development of language minority students: an integrative approach Xi Chen • Esther Geva • Mila Schwartz
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract This special issue of Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal contains nine papers by researchers who presented at the Language and Reading Comprehension for Immigrant Children (LARCIC) conference, which took place at OISE/University of Toronto in 2009. The first set of five papers focuses on the contribution of cognitive factors to reading comprehension in language minority children, and the second set of four papers focuses on the joint effects of cognitive and socio-cultural factors on literacy development in these children. Three common themes emerge in the first set of papers. The first theme compares the cognitive processes that contribute to reading comprehension between language minority children and their peers who speak the societal language as the first language. In particular, the application of the Simple View of Reading model in language minority children is discussed. The second theme compares the reading performance of language minority children to their peers. The third theme explores the nature of reading constructs in language minority children. Two common themes underlie the second set of papers. The first theme addresses the mediating role of socio-cultural factors in vocabulary development in language minority children. The second theme explores the joint effects of cognitive and socio-cultural factors on cross-language transfer of literacy skills. Taken together, the papers presented in this special issue
X. Chen (&) E. Geva Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, ON M5S 1V6, Canada e-mail:
[email protected] M. Schwartz Oranim Academic College of Education, Kiryat Tiv’on, Israel M. Schwartz Department of Research and Evaluation Authority, Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
123
Author's personal copy X. Chen et al.
point to the importance of considering both cognitive and socio-cultural factors in literacy research involving language minority children. Keywords
Literacy Language minority children Cognitive Socio-cultural
A large and increasing number of language minority children learn the societal language as their second language in today’s multicultural society. In order to understand the underpinnings of reading development in language minority children, we hosted the Language and Reading Comprehension for Immigrant Children (LARCIC) conference at OISE/University of Toronto in May 2009.1 The conference brought together reading researchers, educators, policy makers, and graduate students from many different countries to discuss issues pertinent to improving literacy among immigrant students at the primary and secondary level. This special issue of Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal compiles nine papers by researchers who presented at the conference. The first set of five papers focuses on the contribution of cognitive factors to reading comprehension in language minority children, and the second set of four papers focuses on the joint effects of cognitive and socio-cultural factors.
Cognitive factors of reading comprehension in language minority children A prominent theme in literacy research related to language minority children centers on comparing the cognitive processes that contribute to reading comprehension between these children and their peers who speak the societal language as the first language (L1). A popular reading model, the Simple View of Reading (SVR) model, conceptualizes reading comprehension as the product of word decoding and listening comprehension (Hoover & Gough, 1990). Word decoding is defined as simple efficient word recognition, and linguistic comprehension as the ability to understand language. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have investigated whether the SVR model can explain reading comprehension in both L1 children and children who learn to read in their second language (L2) (e.g., Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Sinatra & Royer, 1993). In this special issue, three papers (Verhoeven & van Leeuwe; Geva & Farnia; Lam, Chen, Geva, Luo, & Li) address theoretical issues related to applying the SVR model to language minority children. Verhoeven and van Leeuwe (this issue) conducted a multi-year longitudinal study that followed Dutch L1 and L2 children from Grade 1 to Grade 6. The researchers observed that word decoding and listening comprehension substantially predicted reading comprehension for both groups of children in the early grades, but as the grade level increased, listening comprehension became a much stronger predictor while the effect of word reading weakened. These findings, based on a 1
Esther Geva was the conference chair and Xi Chen was the conference co-chair.
123
Author's personal copy An integrative approach
large representative sample in the Netherlands, support the notion that the SVR model can be used for L1 and L2 children. The initial SVR model proposed by Hoover and Gough (1990) did not specify the components of word reading or linguistic comprehension. As such, researchers have attempted to define the underlying mechanisms of these constructs. It is commonly agreed that phonological and decoding skills belong to the former category, while vocabulary is a key component of the latter (Biemiller & Slomin, 2001; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005). Linguistic comprehension may also include morphological awareness, syntactic awareness, and listening comprehension and inference (e.g., Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Nation, 2005). Geva and Farnia (this issue) further extended the SVR model to include word and text reading fluency in a longitudinal study that involved large samples of English L1 and L2 children. For both groups of children, Grade 2 phonological awareness and vocabulary predicted Grade 5 reading comprehension. In addition, by Grade 5, word reading, text fluency, and additional aspects of language comprehension that were not significant early on (i.e., syntax, listening comprehension) predicted Grade 5 reading comprehension, suggesting that the underlying components of word decoding and linguistic comprehension in the SVR model are dynamic and developmental in nature. In a related vein, Lam et al. (this issue) investigated the contribution of morphological awareness to vocabulary and reading comprehension among young Chinese-speaking English L2 children in a 1-year longitudinal study. Morphological awareness did not predict either vocabulary or reading comprehension for kindergarten children but predicted both longitudinally for Grade 1 children. Thus, morphological awareness gradually emerges as a key component of L2 vocabulary and reading comprehension in the early school years. To recapitulate, using longitudinal designs and/or large samples, these three papers provide rigorous evidence that the SVR model can explain reading comprehension in language minority children. The studies also enrich the SVR model by revealing the underlying processes of word reading and linguistic comprehension. The findings demonstrate that it is useful to conceptualize the SVR model as a dynamic and developmental rather than a static framework. Both the relative contribution of word reading and linguistic comprehension to reading comprehension and the underlying processes of these constructs change overtime. Another theme related to language minority children lies in comparing their reading performance to L1 peers. Previous research has shown that language minority children fare as well as their L1 peers on basic cognitive skills, such as nonverbal reasoning, rapid naming, and phonological awareness (Geva, YaghoubZadeh, & Schuster, 2000; Lipka & Siegel, 2003). They can also develop comparable word decoding skills (Geva, 2006). Several longitudinal studies demonstrate that even language minority children who enter school with lower scores catch up on these skills within a few years (e.g., Lesaux, Rupp, & Siegel, 2007). On the other hand, language minority children face difficulties in developing vocabulary and reading comprehension skills. They often have lower oral language proficiency (Sammons et al., 2004), leading to compromised reading comprehension (Burgoyne, Whiteley, & Hutchinson, 2011).
123
Author's personal copy X. Chen et al.
Findings reported in this special issue are consistent with those of the previous research. Verhoeven and van Leeuwe (this issue) found that while Dutch L2 children entered primary school with lower decoding skills than L1 children, the difference diminished over the grades, and disappeared by Grade 5. In contrast, although the differences in linguistic comprehension and reading comprehension also decreased overtime, they remained significant throughout the primary grades. Similarly, Geva and Farnia (this issue) observed that English L2 children performed lower than L1 children on all three language measures used in the study (syntax, vocabulary, listening comprehension) and on reading comprehension in both Grades 2 and 5, while there were no differences on cognitive or word reading measures between the two groups. Notably, Lipka, and Siegel (this issue) observed a different reading comprehension trajectory for language minority children. The study, which reported the Grade 7 results of a cohort supported by phonological awareness and reading comprehension instructional programs during their elementary schooling, did not observe any difference in reading comprehension between English L1 and L2 children. Thus, it seems that English L2 children who receive good reading instruction in the early grades are capable of developing strong reading comprehension skills, and potentially close the oft-reported L1–L2 gap. A third theme that emerges in the first set of five papers in this special issue lies in exploring the nature of reading constructs in language minority children. With respect to reading fluency, Geva and Farnia (this issue) found that for both English L1 and L2 children, word reading fluency and text reading fluency loaded on the same factor in Grade 2, but on two different factors in Grade 5. It appears that over time word level reading skills become more automatized, and text reading fluency becomes more aligned with language skills. Grant, Gottardo, and Geva (this issue) investigated the validity of two reading comprehension measures, the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery’s Test of Passage Comprehension (WLPB-PC) and the Gray Oral Reading Test-4 (GORT-4) in English L2 children who spoke Portuguese, Spanish, or Cantonese as their L1. The researchers examined the correlation of each reading comprehension measure with decoding and vocabulary and the prediction of performance on each reading comprehension measure from the two variables. The construct validity of reading comprehension was substantiated by similar correlations and regressions across the three groups for each reading comprehension measure. Construct validity was also supported by the finding that the two reading comprehension measures loaded on the same factor across the three groups (although the actual factor structures were somewhat different). Convergent validity was supported by correlations between the two reading comprehension measures across the three groups. In sum, the five papers forming the first set in this special issue highlight similarities in reading comprehension processes between language minority children and their L1 peers. The two groups achieve comparable performance on cognitive and word reading measures, and have similar cognitive and linguistic predictors of reading comprehension. By confirming and extending previous research, these findings contribute to a more dynamic and comprehensive model of reading comprehension in language minority children.
123
Author's personal copy An integrative approach
These papers also report important differences between language minority and L1 children. Language minority children face significant challenges in developing language and comprehension skills. Relatedly, the association between the language and reading comprehension skills appear to be stronger in language minority children than in L1 children (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, this issue). There are also differences among language minority children from different L1 backgrounds (Grant et al., this issue). As will become evident below, at least some of these differences can be attributed to the diversity of the language minority population and the influence of socio-cultural factors.
Cognitive and socio-cultural factors in language minority children’s literacy development: an integrative approach Language minority children form a diverse research population. Even among children who speak the same L1, there is considerable variance in age of immigration, L1 and L2 exposure, instruction, language proficiency, parental education, and Social Economic Status (SES). Systematic differences also exist in these areas between children from different L1 backgrounds. There is little doubt that socio-cultural variables exert important influences on children’s literacy development (Goldberg, Paradis, & Crago, 2008; Lesaux & Geva, 2006; Saracho, 1997). Most studies that examine cognitive processes in reading, however, either do not include socio-cultural variables or only use them as controls. Compared with previous efforts, a distinguishing feature of the second set of papers presented in this special issue is the joint consideration of cognitive and socio-cultural factors in language minority children’s reading development. One important finding from this set of papers is that language minority children’s vocabulary development is mediated by socio-cultural factors. Marx and Stanat (this issue) reported an analysis of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data, which demonstrated a large gap in reading comprehension between language minority children and native speaking peers in Germany. The researchers attributed this gap to disadvantaged socio-economic status (SES), restricted exposure to the societal language, and fewer cultural activities and resources available for immigrant students. By contrast, Schwartz and Katzir (this issue) showed in a longitudinal study that although Russian-speaking Israeli children scored lower than monolingual Hebrew L1 children on Hebrew vocabulary measures in Grade 2, they were able to close most gaps after a year of schooling. Unlike the language minority children in Germany that Marx and Stanat targeted in their paper, the Russian-speaking children in Israel came from highly literate backgrounds. Their parents reported high levels of education and commitment to literacy at home. Thus, it seems that strong parental support and favorable home literacy conditions facilitate language minority children’s vocabulary development. Researchers do not always agree on the facilitating or debilitating effect of speaking L1 at home on L2 vocabulary. This special issue presents two different
123
Author's personal copy X. Chen et al.
perspectives. Citing the PISA data, Marx and Stanat (this issue) reported that in Germany, immigrant students who spoke at home a language other than German had significantly lower reading comprehension scores even after controlling for parents’ SES and educational background. This finding, they argue, indicates that speaking L1 at home puts language minority children at a disadvantage. Cummins (this issue), however, attributes this negative relationship to sociocultural factors that were not sufficiently accounted for. Since the relationship between L2 achievement and L1 use at home disappeared for 10 out of 14 countries in the PISA data when SES and other background variables were controlled (Stanat & Christensen, 2006), Cummins argues that speaking another language at home does not negatively affect L2 achievement. Rather, home language is a proxy for confounding variables such as SES and length of residence in the host country. More research is needed to clarify the nature of the relationship between L1 use and L2 proficiency and the way it interacts with SES and other demographic and contextual factors related to immigration and acculturation. A ubiquitous finding in bilingual children’s literacy development is that skills developed in children’s L1 can transfer to their L2 and predict L2 reading outcomes. One prominent example of cross-language transfer is phonological awareness, which has been observed to transfer not only between two alphabetic languages such as Spanish and English (Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993), but also between languages that are typologically different, such as Chinese and English (Gottardo, Yan, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2001). Recent research has provided evidence for positive (and negative) transfer of a number of other skills, including morphological awareness, vocabulary (cognate) knowledge, and orthographic processing (Deacon, Wade-Woolley, & Kirby, 2007; Pasquarella, Chen, Lam, Luo, & Ramirez, 2011; Ramirez, Chen, Geva, & Kiefer, 2010; Wang, Cheng, & Chen, 2006). However, with the exception of phonological awareness, research on cross-language transfer is still in an early stage. Many questions remain to be answered about linguistic, cognitive, socio-cultural and instructional factors that might affect the extent and direction of transfer. Two papers presented in this special issue explore the joint effects of cognitive and socio-cultural factors on cross-language transfer. Chen, Ramirez, Luo, Geva and Ku (this issue) found that for Spanish-speaking children, lexical transfer from Spanish to English (the ability to recognize Spanish–English cognates) interacts with length of residence in Canada, which is a rough estimate of the extent of exposure to English. When items in a vocabulary measure were divided into cognates and non cognates, only non cognate vocabulary was related to length of residence in Canada. Regardless of length of residence, Spanish-speaking children learned cognate items equally well due to transfer of lexical knowledge from their home language. In the same vein, Cummins (this issue) reiterated the interdependence hypothesis, which states that instruction in L1 facilitates L2 proficiency due to cross-language transfer. He proposes that the interdependence hypothesis provides a rationale for bilingual education. After summarizing studies that evaluated the effectiveness of bilingual programs, Cummins concluded that bilingual education programs often lead to better academic achievement for language minority children and youth than immersion programs delivered in the societal language alone.
123
Author's personal copy An integrative approach
Conclusion In sum, we are pleased to present nine papers in this special issue that examine the literacy development of language minority children. While the first set of five papers focuses on cognitive factors, the second set of four papers takes both cognitive and socio-cultural factors into consideration. There are many challenges in conducting research with language minority children due to the diversity of this population. Some language minority children have lived in different countries and experienced different educational systems and approaches, and many speak a language at home that is different from that used as a medium of instruction at school. In addition, groups of language minority children cannot be randomly assigned to different languages and writing systems, or easily matched on immigration experience, learning environment, parental education or SES. Despite the challenges, the effects of socio-cultural factors on literacy acquisition should not be ignored or underestimated. Thus, an important direction for future research concerning language minority children is to consider cognitive and socio-cultural factors simultaneously. Finally, we wish to thank colleagues who kindly reviewed papers for the special issue: Drs. Stavans Anat, Diane August, Kiel Christianson, Lin Dan, Fataneh Farnia, Fred Genesee, Robert Jimenez, Janina Kahn-Horwitz, Tami Katzir, Michael Kiefer, Young-Suk Kim, Anna Kirova, Yu-Min Ku, Li-Jen Kuo, Joshua Lawrence, Che Kan Leong, Duo Liu, Jeannette Mancilla-Martinez, Stefka Marinova-Todd, Catherine McBride-Chang, Dolores Perin, Diane Pesco, Linda Phillips, Patrick Proctor, Gloria Ramirez, Mila Schwartz, Michal Shany, Shelley Tong, and Jie Zhang. There is no doubt that their valuable comments improved the papers. Without their commitment, the special issue simply would not happen.
References Biemiller, A., & Slomin, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498–520. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.498. Burgoyne, K., Whiteley, H. E., & Hutchinson, J. M. (2011). The development of comprehension and reading-related skills in children learning English as an additional language and their monolingual English-speaking peers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 344–354. doi:10.1348/ 000709910X504122. Deacon, S. H., Wade-Woolley, L., & Kirby, J. (2007). Crossover: The role of morphological awareness in French Immersion children’s reading. Developmental Psychology, 43, 732–746. doi:10.1037/ 0012-1649.43.3.732. Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and secondlanguage learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78–103. doi:10.1598/RRQ.38.1.4. Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465. Geva, E. (2006). Second language oral proficiency and second language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 123–139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
123
Author's personal copy X. Chen et al. Geva, E., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Schuster, B. (2000). Understanding differences in word recognition skills of ESL children. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 123–154. doi:10.1007/s11881-000-0020-8. Goldberg, H., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2008). Lexical acquisition over time in minority first language children learning English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 1–25. doi: 10.1017/S014271640808003X. Gottardo, A., & Mueller, J. (2009). Are first- and second-language factors related in predicting secondlanguage reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 330–344. doi: 10.1037/a0014320. Gottardo, A., Yan, B., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2001). Factors related to English reading performance in children with Chinese as a first language: More evidence of cross-language transfer of phonological processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 530–542. doi:10.1037/ 0022-0663.93.3.530. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160. doi:10.1007/BF00401799. Lesaux, N. K., & Geva, E. (2006). Synthesis: Development of literacy in language-minority students. In D. L. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the national literacy panel (pp. 53–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lesaux, N., Rupp, A., & Siegel, L. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 821–834. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.821. Lipka, O., & Siegel, L. (2003). The development of reading skills in children with English as a second language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 105–131. doi:10.1080/10888430709336555. Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In S. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248–265). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Pasquarella, A., Chen, X., Lam, K., Luo, Y., & Ramirez, G. (2011). Cross-language transfer of morphological awareness in Chinese-English bilinguals. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 23–42. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01484.x. Proctor, P. C., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.246. Ramirez, G., Chen, X., Geva, E., & Kiefer, H. (2010). Morphological awareness in Spanish-English bilingual children: Within and cross-language effects on word reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 337–358. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9203-9. Sammons, P., Elliot, K., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The impact of pre-school on young children’s cognitive attainments at entry to reception. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 691–712. doi:10.1080/0141192042000234656. Saracho, O. N. (1997). Using the home environment to support emergent literacy. Early Child Development and Care, 127, 201–216. doi:10.1080/0300443971270117. Sinatra, G. M., & Royer, J. M. (1993). Development of cognitive component processing skills that support skilled reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 509–519. doi:10.1037/ 0022-0663.85.3.509. Stanat, P., & Christensen, G. S. (2006). Where immigrant students succeed: A comparative review of performances and engagement in PISA 2003. Paris, France: OECD. Wang, M., Cheng, C., & Chen, S.-W. (2006). Contribution of morphological awareness to ChineseEnglish biliteracy acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 542–553. doi:10.1037/ 0022-0663.98.3.542.
123
