Characteristics of Weak and Strong Readers in a Foreign Language

Abstract

This study investigated the cognitive (first language [L1] and foreign language [FL]), linguistic (L1 and FL), and motivational characteristics of weak FL readers in contrast to strong readers in 3 groups of L1 Finnish-speaking learners of English, aged 10, 14, and 17 years. This cross-sectional study covered a wide range of potential correlates, and therefore predictors, of FL reading based on previous research on reading in first, second (L2), and foreign languages. The weakest and strongest FL readers (1 standard deviation below or above the mean reading score) in each age group were selected for the comparisons reported in this article. The FL (English) skills other than reading were found to be the clearest distinguishing feature between weak and strong FL readers. However, L1 and cognitive skills in L1 and FL, as well as certain dimensions of motivation to use and learn the FL, were also found to separate the 2 reading groups. The implications of the findings for 2 different hypotheses about the nature of FL reading-the Threshold Hypothesis and the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis-are discussed, as well as the implications for the diagnosis of strengths and weaknesses in reading in an FL.Keywords: reading in a foreign language; weak and strong readers; language skills; cognitive skills; motivation; diagnostic assessment THE ABILITY TO READ IN A FOREIGN language (FL; language not spoken in a learner's environment) is increasingly important in the modern globalised world, yet little is known about how the ability to read in an FL develops, what might underlie weaknesses in FL reading, and how to diagnose such weaknesses. This is all

Word Reading in L1 and L2 Learners of Chinese: Similarities and Differences in the Functioning of Component Processes

“…Despite a possibility of involvement of L1/English‐based processing in L2 Chinese word reading, such a cross‐linguistic influence needs to be treated with caution, as the study did not measure children's English phonological awareness (and other skills in English); thus it is impossible to ascertain any possible (positive) relationship between English phonological awareness and Chinese phonological awareness on the one hand, and with Chinese L2 reading on the other. In addition, whether L1‐based processing is involved or transferred in L2 reading acquisition may also depend on the learning stage or actual proficiency of students and the nature of literacy tasks (e.g., Alderson, Nieminen, & Huhta, ; Yeong, Fletcher, & Bayliss, ). In a study that involved students in the same context as the present study (i.e., Singapore) but that focused on English literacy learning, Yeong and others () found that both Mandarin‐L1 readers of English and English‐L1 readers of English prioritized phonological awareness, as opposed to orthographic processing, in their reading of English words; yet, English spelling of older Mandarin‐L1 readers (11–12 years old) was significantly predicted by orthographic processing as well as phonological awareness.…”

“…Despite a possibility of involvement of L1/English-based processing in L2 Chinese word reading, such a cross-linguistic influence needs to be treated with caution, as the study did not measure children's English phonological awareness (and other skills in English); thus it is impossible to ascertain any possible (positive) relationship between English phonological awareness and Chinese phonological awareness on the one hand, and with Chinese L2 reading on the other. In addition, whether L1-based processing is involved or transferred in L2 reading acquisition may also depend on the learning stage or actual proficiency of students and the nature of literacy tasks (e.g., Alderson, Nieminen, & Huhta, 2016;Yeong, Fletcher, & Bayliss, 2014).…”

Exploring the Challenges of Reading Comprehension Teaching for English Proficiency Test Preparation Class in Indonesia

“…They also add that regarding being sources of proficiency measurements, those language elements discussed previously are better ability predictors of productive language skills (e.g., writing and speaking) instead of receptive language skills such as listening and reading comprehension. These theories are still valid and thoughtprovoking in recent researches on reading comprehension (e.g., Alderson, Huhta, & Nieminen, 2016;Sparks et al, 2008).…”

“…Though it is possible to turn the less motivated learners to become more motivated and in the classroom context, the instructors are the ones who can make it. Instructors possess the ability to change learners' attitude toward learning become more positive (Alderson, Huhta, & Nieminen, 2016). The real challenge here is how the teacher can approach learning that directs learners into realising the expectancy and values of the reading material brought into the class.…”

“…Causes of students' difficulties are abstract yet personally different which makes them indeed challenging for instructors to pinpoint. However, researchers (e.g., Alderson, Nieminen, & Huhta, 2016;Marzban & Bharati, 2016) have simplified the causes into three factors for instructors to observe: readers' linguistic competence, critical thinking gap among learners, and reading motivation. Therefore, this study argues that those three factors are instructors' challenges that should be dealt with in teaching reading comprehension for English proficiency test preparation class in Indonesia.…”