Examining Reading Comprehension Profiles of Grade 5 Monolinguals and English Language Learners Through the Lexical Quality Hypothesis Lens

O’Connor, Megan; Geva, Esther; Koh, Poh Wee

doi:10.1177/0022219418815646

Cited by 24 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings suggest that poor comprehenders experience difficulties in both oral language skills such as vocabulary breadth and listening comprehension, and metalinguistic skills such as morphological awareness. Previous research reported lower performance on listening comprehension, vocabulary and morphological awareness in ELL poor comprehenders when they were compared to ELL good comprehenders (Geva & Massey-Garrison, 2013;Lesaux & Kieffer, 2010;O'Connor et al, 2019;Zhang & Shulley, 2017). Our findings extend this body of research by showing that ELL poor comprehenders also perform worse on these skills than average comprehenders.…”

Section: The Reading Profile Of Ell Poor Comprehenderssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…This is expected because ELLs have reduced exposure to English. Preliminary evidence suggests that ELL poor comprehenders demonstrate persistent difficulties in oral language, metalinguistic, and cognitive skills such as vocabulary, morphological awareness, syntactic awareness, listening comprehension, and working memory as well as higher-level skills such as inference and reading strategies (e.g., (Farnia & Geva, 2019;Geva & Massey-Garrison, 2013); Kieffer & Vukovic, 2012; (Lesaux & Kieffer, 2010;Lesaux, Koda, et al, 2006a;Lesaux, Lipka, & Siegel, 2006b;Lipka & Siegel, 2012;O'Connor et al, 2019;Zhang & Shulley, 2017)). It is important to note that most of these skills are reliant on and predicted by vocabulary knowledge which ELLs lack (Cain, Oakhill, & Lemmon, 2004b).…”

Section: Reading Comprehension Difficulties In Ell Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Weaknesses in oral language lead to poor reading comprehension for ELLs as compared to ELLs without reading difficulties. In fact, the oral language profiles of ELL and EL1 poor comprehenders tend to be similar (Geva & Massey-Garrison, 2013;Lesaux & Kieffer, 2010;O'Connor et al, 2019). Until now, most studies involving either ELLs or EL1s have focused mainly on the role of vocabulary breadth (i.e., the number of words known) in reading comprehension.…”

Section: Oral Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Exploring sources of poor reading comprehension in English language learners

Geva

D’Angelo

et al. 2021

Ann. of Dyslexia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the sources of reading comprehension difficulties in English language learners (ELLs). The characteristics of ELL poor comprehenders were compared to their English as a first language (EL1) peers. Participants included 124 ELLs who spoke Chinese as an L1 and 79 EL1 students. Using a regression technique based on age, non-verbal reasoning, word reading accuracy, and word reading fluency, three types of comprehenders (poor, average, and good) were identified within each language group. The groups were then compared on measures of oral language skills (vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth, and listening comprehension), metalinguistic skills (morphological awareness and syntactic awareness), working memory, and higher-level processing skills (inference, conjunction use, and comprehension monitoring). ELL poor comprehenders had significantly lower scores than ELL average and good comprehenders on vocabulary breadth, listening comprehension, and morphological awareness, whereas there were no significant differences between the average and good comprehender groups on these skills. Additionally, both ELL poor and average comprehenders had lower scores than ELL good comprehenders on all three higher-level skills. Finally, results showed that ELL poor comprehenders scored lower than EL1 poor comprehenders on vocabulary breadth, listening comprehension, and morphological awareness, but the two groups did not differ on higher-level skills. Theoretical and educational implications for the identification and instruction of ELL poor comprehenders are discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Reading Profile Of Ell Poor Comprehenderssupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Reading Comprehension Difficulties In Ell Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Oral Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring sources of poor reading comprehension in English language learners

Geva

D’Angelo

et al. 2021

Ann. of Dyslexia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Listening comprehension has also been shown to play a role in reading comprehension in L2 readers (for a meta‐analysis, see Jeon & Yamashita, 2014) and specifically in EFL readers (e.g., Li & Kirby, 2014; O’Connor, Geva, & Koh, 2019). However, research on the contribution of listening comprehension to EFL lexical processing has been limited (see Jean & Geva, 2009).…”

Section: Reader‐specific Predictors Of Efl Word‐reading Skillmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Word‐Reading Development in English Learner University Students: A Longitudinal Eye Movement Study

Schmidtke

Moro

2020

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the word‐reading development of adult second‐language learners of English. A sample of 70 (Mandarin or Cantonese) Chinese‐speaking students enrolled in a university‐level English bridging program at a Canadian university silently read passages of text at the beginning and end of the program while their eye movements were recorded. At each timepoint, we also administered a battery of tests that measure key component skills of second‐language reading (phonological processing, vocabulary knowledge, and listening comprehension). We found longitudinal changes in lexical processing for long words in early (refixation probability and gaze duration) and late (go‐past time and total reading time) eye movement measures, indicating a shift from a sublexical to a holistic word‐processing strategy. We found the largest gains in sublexical processing among students with stronger phonological awareness upon entry to the program and students who acquired more vocabulary than their peers during the program. We interpret the results of this study as evidence of a transition from a lexical processing strategy that is heavily reliant on phonological decoding to word‐reading behavior that is more actively engaged in higher order cognitive processes, such as meaning integration. This research offers novel insights into predictors of reading skill in postsecondary English‐language bridging programs.

show abstract

“…We have used a cutoff criteria of below the 30th percentile which might include L2 at-risk English readers who were not at-risk. Recent studies have used other identification methods such as growth curve models (S. S. Yeung, 2018) or latent profile analysis (O'Connor et al, 2019) to accurately identify at-risk ESL children. Future research should adopt these identification methods and examine the effects of DMG interventions.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching Grapheme–Phoneme Correspondences Using a Direct Mapping Approach for At-Risk Second Language Learners: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Yeung

Savage

2019

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reading interventions developed to teach grapheme–phoneme correspondences (GPCs) were evaluated among L2 at-risk readers. In the direct mapping of grapheme (DMG) condition, children’s attention was explicitly drawn to the application of a graphemes taught on that day to shared reading of words in authentic text. In the control condition there was no such systematic daily linkage of the GPCs and texts. The two reading interventions were otherwise identical. Two hundred fifty-three Chinese Grade 1 and Grade 2 students were screened, and those who scored in the bottom 30% of an English word-reading test were identified as L2 at-risk readers. Seventy-one L2 at-risk readers were thus randomly assigned to two conditions, both of which were small-group reading interventions: (a) DMG or (b) taught control. We hypothesized a significant main effect of Intervention condition and significant interaction of Intervention by Phonological Awareness (PA) effects on word reading, word attack, spelling, and sentence comprehension favoring the DMG intervention. Results showed that predicted interaction effects were significant for word reading, spelling, and sentence comprehension. No other effects were significant. Results suggest that the daily Direct Mapping of taught GPCs to shared book reading promotes reading development in at-risk English L2 readers with stronger phonological skills.

show abstract

Examining Reading Comprehension Profiles of Grade 5 Monolinguals and English Language Learners Through the Lexical Quality Hypothesis Lens

Cited by 24 publications

References 77 publications

Exploring sources of poor reading comprehension in English language learners

Exploring sources of poor reading comprehension in English language learners

Determinants of Word‐Reading Development in English Learner University Students: A Longitudinal Eye Movement Study

Teaching Grapheme–Phoneme Correspondences Using a Direct Mapping Approach for At-Risk Second Language Learners: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About