Experimental study of
The influence of learners’ L1 on their processing of second language written words. The author hypothesized that different L1 orthographic systems could differentially influence the way that learners access words from their lexicons due to different orthographic and phonological processing patterns.
Learner participants
The learners involved in this study came from two different groups: Japanese L1 ESL students in an intensive English program (IEP) at a Canadian university and Russian L1 learners of English and Hebrew at an IEP/Intensive Hebrew Program (IHP) at an Israeli university. All the learners were successful readers in their L1. Prior to the beginning of the study, none of the learners had lived in an area where English was primarily spoken (the Japanese students were all tested at the beginning of their first semester of study in Canada and had been in Canada for less than three weeks). They were of similar ages, similar gender distribution, and had similar backgrounds in English study.
Of this pool of subjects, sixteen from each group was selected based on having completed all the instruments and on being matched to a learner from the other group. Therefore, there were sixteen pairs of students in the study; each pair was equivalent based on their scores on a test of word recognition. A comparison of the participants’ scores on reading and vocabulary sections of the TOEFL indicated that there were no significant differences in reading ability between the two groups.
Since reading ability and exposure to English were held roughly constant, the main difference between the groups was the first language. Both of these languages differ substantially from English; neither of them uses Roman orthography. Japanese and Russian writing systems are of different types; Russian uses a phonologically-based alphabet, while Japanese uses a syllabary (kana) and a logographic system (kanji). Research on L1 reading has indicated that readers of different alphabet types use different word-level decoding processes; the researcher sought to determine what effect these would have on second language reading.
Study Design
All of the students completed several measures of word-level reading and decoding:
1. TOEFL reading and vocabulary subsections. This test was used to estimate the similarity between groups of reading level.
2. Woodcock Reading Mastery Test—Word reading subtest. This is a test of isolated word recognition. The subjects were presented with words printed on cards and asked to read them out loud. Performance on this test was used to match student pairs across groups to ensure group equality.
3. Woodcock Reading Mastery Test—word attack subtest. This tests learners’ ability to apply structural analysis of words and phonics strategies to pronounce isolated unfamiliar words. Learners were presented with unfamiliar words printed on cards and required to produce a natural reading within 5 seconds.
4. Peabody Individual Achievement Test—Spelling recognition subtest. On this test, participants are presented with sets of four visually and phonologically similar words, only one of which is a correctly spelled word. A word is pronounced aloud and the participant is required to point to the item matching that word.
5. Orthographic knowledge. Students were presented with pairs of pseudowords (e.g., filv-filk) and asked to indicate which was more English-like.
6. Phoneme deletion. Students were presented with a psuedoword and asked to pronounce it. They were then instructed to delete a target phoneme from the syllable onset or coda (e.g., if given the stimulus smeck, learners could be asked to say it without the /s/).
Findings
As was mentioned before, there were no significant differences between groups on the TOEFL scores and the word recognition scores were used to match students in the groups to further ensure equality. There was also no difference between the groups on their pseudo-word decoding and on their working memory as measured by pseudo-word recall.
The Japanese L1 speakers were faster and more accurate on tasks involving recognition of orthographic patterns, in both real English words and in pseudowords. The Russian L1 speakers, however, were faster and more accurate in deleting phonemes from words. The researcher suggests that these differences are likely due to differences in their L1 literacy experience. The Russian L1 speakers are used to a phonologically-based alphabetic system. Like English speakers, they are likely to access words from writing through the phonological system, because they are used to having a relationship between the pronunciation and writing of words. The close relationship between the phonological system and their reading ability is demonstrated in their ability to put non-words through phonological processes like segment deletion.
In Japanese, the writing does not reflect the phonology. It is more likely that Japanese readers do not access words solely from phonology, but also from their orthography knowledge. Therefore, these learners are not used to focusing on phoneme to sound mapping in reading, but rather on sight recognition of letter sequences. This emphasis could give them an advantage in performing English orthography tasks.
Comments on the Study
The study seems very carefully done and well controlled. It does seem reasonable that different learners would focus on the text-processing strategies that are most important in their native language literacy as well. The study does not, however, include any developmental data or any indication of the effects of the use of different strategies on reading development in a second language.
Implications for Practice
Teachers and researchers should recognize that reading tasks require learners to use their reading knowledge in specific ways that might be influenced by their native language literacy rather than by their reading ability in the second language. Scores from any one task type may not be indicative of overall student ability, but rather of preferred processing strategies. Teachers should be aware of the native language literacy they students have so as to build upon the strategies the students are likely to have in L1.
Key Words
Bottom-up processing
Decoding
L1 literacy
Areas for Further Research
The issues raised in this paper (of L2 learners using different processing strategies for word retrieval in reading) could be corroborated with data from other language groups and from learners at different levels of second language proficiency.
Experimental study of
The changes in learners’ miscue behaviors as they improved their reading comprehension over time. The researchers were interested in how learners’ total miscues, semantically acceptable miscues, and syntactically acceptable miscues change over time and how these related to learners’ reading comprehension and views of reading.
Learner Participants
The learners were seven ESL speakers from mixed ethnolinguistic backgrounds (native languages not specified) who were all studying ESL at a community ESL program. All of the learners at the beginning of the study were ranked as beginning/low intermediate level speakers according to the Michigan Placement Test. No information is given about their ESL vocabulary or L1 educational background. All of the students had studied English for a 15 months or more.
Study Design
The researcher audio-taped the learners reading a story and then asked them to retell the story. The selected stories were written at a level of difficulty at which learners were likely to make errors. The learners continued to study at the ESL program from four months. At the end of the four months, the researcher audio-taped them again reading a different story at a similar level of difficulty to the first story. They were again asked to retell the story.
Findings
All the learners but one decreased their overall miscues per one hundred words of text. However, there were mixed patterns on their production of syntactic and semantic errors. All of the learners made more syntactically than semantically possible errors, and all learners increased their percentage of syntactically possible errors. However, some learners decreased their percentage of semantically possible errors from the first reading to the second. And while all learners had fewer semantically than syntactically possible errors, for some the difference was very pronounced. For example, learner 2 made many more syntactically possible miscues than semantically possible (75% vs. 17%) while learner 3’s percentage of syntactically possible miscues (68%) was much more similar to his percentage of semantically possible miscues (53%).
Interestingly, the readers who made the fewest oral miscues were not necessarily the ones who comprehended the stories best, as illustrated by their oral retellings of the story. To illustrate this point, the researcher describes in detail the performance of two learners. One, a Chinese woman, a lower overall use of miscues than the other learner, a Spanish woman. However, her miscues were much more likely to be non-words, showed a much higher degree of graphic similarity to the printed word, and were much less likely to be semantically possible in the context. Her oral retellings indicated that, while she had read the stories very accurately, she had not comprehended them. She indicated that she had been paying attention to the graphic information and had not thought about meaning. The Spanish learner, on the other had, indicated that she read to understand ideas. While she made more errors, she was able to adequately retell both of the stories. This section of the data analysis does not contain information on how these learners’ comprehension of the data improved over time, nor on how the retellings were evaluated.
Comments on the Study
The findings illustrate the possibility that readers may be able to accurately read text that they do not comprehend, an important fact for teachers to acknowledge. However, it is not clear whether vocabulary differences were actually producing this result, since the study designers didn’t track this critical variable. Because mixed L1 backgrounds are always a problem, especially in a small “N” study such as this, one wonders why the author chose to do the study with a heterogeneous group.
The fact that the Spanish woman’s miscues were much more likely to be non-words, and showed a much higher degree of graphic similarity to the printed word may be indicate that she was reading with her Spanish L1 phonetic system, rather than with English.
The nature of oral retelling may actually prompt learner over-attention to graphic information. It is hard to imagine that readers, regardless of their orientation to reading, would pay more attention to pronunciation than to meaning when reading silently. While this study claims to illustrate the harm to comprehension of reading for graphic accuracy, it is difficult to see how this translates to non-oral reading situations. Because of the difficulty experienced in answering questions after oral reading – due to the fact they have been concentrating on reading perfectly, and in ESL learners’ case, pronouncing properly-- at the very least, in this study. the researcher should have allowed the people to re-read the stories silently before asking them to re-tell.
Likewise, it is difficult to follow the researcher’s claims about the learners’ comprehension of the passages without any information on how the retellings were evaluated.
Implications for Practice
Readers who pay excessive attention to graphic information in oral reading may not be taking in meaning. Essentially, this means that learners who do not read for meaning may need practice reading in situations that push them to focus on the meaning of the text. Silent reading, rather than oral reading, might be more suited to helping students process for learning. Teachers should be careful to balance silent and oral reading for both pedagogical and assessment purposes. Learners who do not read for meaning may need practice reading in situations that push them to focus on the meaning of the text.
Key Words
Miscue analysis
Top-down processing
Bottom-up processing
Areas for Further Research
This study could be replicated examining the reading comprehension of learners reading aloud and silently to determine if the reading orientations examined in this study affect silent reading comprehension as well.
Experimental study of
The effect on reading and vocabulary knowledge of specific, interactive vocabulary instruction integrated into an ESL literacy curriculum.
Learner participants
The learners were recruited from an intensive, pre-academic English program connected with an American university. Four intact classes from the advanced intermediate (level 5 of 6) were used in the study. Two classes (18 students) served as the experimental group; two classes (17 students) served as the control group. The students came from mixed ethnolinguistic backgrounds. Many planned on earning a degree in the United States.
Teacher participants
The teachers in the study were all experienced ESL teachers. One teacher taught both of the experimental group classes; two teachers each taught one of the control group classes.
Study Design
At the beginning of the study, all the students completed a vocabulary checklist test to estimate vocabulary size. They also completed a questionnaire that asked them to rate the effectiveness of various types of vocabulary instruction. The questionnaire was designed to investigate students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning. During the next ten weeks, they all participated in regular ESL courses. Their teachers instructed them all to read a minimum of five hours a week of self-selected texts. They were instructed to hand in weekly reading records of the amount and source of their reading each week. These records were not graded to encourage honest reporting. Teachers also reported the amount of required reading for their classes that the students were assigned to do during these ten weeks.
During the ten-weeks of the experiment, the students in the experimental group participated in three hours per week of vocabulary instruction, using a vocabulary teaching text, Lexis: Academic Vocabulary Study (Burgmeier, Eldred, & Zimmerman, 1991). The instruction consisted of approximately 80% group interactive work, during which the teacher was available for assistance. At the end of the study, the students again completed the vocabulary checklist test, and again completed the questionnaire about preferred reading instruction.
Findings
There were no significant differences in the amount of self-selected reading between the experimental and control groups in the study. Students who participated in vocabulary instruction improved their vocabulary knowledge as measured by the pre- and post-treatment checklist test significantly more than the students who did not participated in this instruction. Since these students participated in approximately the same amount of reading during the study, the researcher attributes this difference to the vocabulary instruction, rather than incidental vocabulary learning through extensive reading.
At the beginning of the study, the students had roughly similar vocabulary instruction preferences. By the end of the study, students in the experimental group indicated that they preferred learning vocabulary in interactive contexts and through reading. The researcher notes that the difference in the perceived effectiveness of vocabulary learning through reading could be motivated by the greater amount of reading assigned to the experimental group (50% more), assuming that engaging in more reading helped these learners to perceive the instruction type as more effective.
Comments on the Study
The study investigates an important question—the usefulness of vocabulary instruction in the L2 classroom. Many teachers avoid direct vocabulary instruction, assuming that students will be able to learn vocabulary from reading. This study challenges the assumption that reading instruction without vocabulary instruction can be sufficient for language learning.
However, the use of intact classes in this research complicates the experimental design. There were two, rather than one, differences between the treatments experienced by the experimental group and the control group. The experimental group engaged in both direct vocabulary instruction and approximately twice as much required reading. It is impossible to determine how much of the difference in their post-treatment performance can be attributed to vocabulary instruction, and how much can be attributed to increased input through required reading assignments.
Additionally, it should be remembered that all the measures of the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction are self-reported. The checklist tests require students to rate their familiarity with a word. It is possible that students who have engaged in significant amounts of vocabulary instruction are more likely to rate their own vocabulary knowledge generally more positively, in order to assert that the instruction time was not wasted.
Finally, it is unclear from the description of the research design of this study whether the three hours per week of vocabulary instruction were part of the regular instructional time for the experimental group, or if this instruction represented additional instructional time. If the latter is the case, the improvement on vocabulary might be attributable to more instructional time and input, rather than the vocabulary instruction itself.
Implications for Practice
It is possible that extensive reading alone is insufficient for helping ESL students achieve the level of vocabulary knowledge they need to be communicatively successful in English. Teachers and researchers should investigate the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction as a part of literacy instruction.
Key Words
Bottom-up processing
Vocabulary
Areas for Further Research
This study could be replicated in a more controlled manner, to ensure the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction along with reading over reading alone. The various methods of vocabulary instruction could be compared to determine what is most effective.
Note: There has been little research performed on ESL adults learning to read in English. For this reason, we have included all we found, whether or not it was research that was well conducted. We wanted to show the universe of it exists. Had we insisted only on studies that were rigorously done, we would have severely limited the base.