The relations between word reading, oral language, and reading comprehension in children who speak English as a first (L1) and second language (L2): a multigroup structural analysis

Abstract

Babayigit, S. (2015) The relations between word reading, oral language, and reading comprehension in children who speak English as a first (L1) and second language (L2): A multigroup structural analysis. Reading and Writing, 28 (4). pp. 527-544. ISSN 0922-4777 Available from: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/25337We recommend you cite the published version. The publisher's URL is: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9536-x Refereed: YesThe final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145?014?9536?x Disclaimer UWE has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material. UWE makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.UWE makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights. UWE accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT.Published: Babayiğit, S. (2015). The relations between word reading, oral language, and reading comprehension in children who speak English as a first (L1) and second language (L2): a multigroup structural analysis. Reading and Writing, 28(4) This study compared the reading and oral language skills of children who speak English as a first (L1) and second language (L2), and examined whether the strength of the relationship between word reading, oral language, and reading comprehension was invariant (equivalent) across the two groups. The participants included 183 L1 and L2 children (M = 9;7 years, SD = 3.64 months) in England. As anticipated, there was a significant L1 advantage for oral language (i.e., vocabulary, verbal working memory, sentence repetition) and reading comprehension but not for word reading. Findings from the multigroup structural analysis indicated that the strength of relationships between oral language and reading was relatively invariant across the two groups.,Oral language was the strongest predictor of reading comprehension levels in both groups.Finally, the weaker English oral language skills explained the lower performance of L2 learners on reading comprehension. Together the results underscored the importance of supporting oral language development in minority language learners. Structural AnalysisA substantial body of research evidence suggests that whereas word level reading skills develop relatively rapidly, achieving age-appropriate oral language (e.g., vocabulary) and reading comprehension skills in a majority language continues to be a challenge for a significant proportion of learners from minority language backgrounds who speak a language other than the language of instruction at home (Lesaux, Geva, Koda, Siegel, & Shanahan, 20...

The contribution of general language ability, reading comprehension and working memory to mathematics achievement among children with English as additional language (EAL): an exploratory study

“…While SWRT and C-test scores are highly correlated for the EAL learners, the regression analysis showed that the C-test scores explained variation in mathematics scores over and above what is explained by word decoding skills. Our finding that general language ability as measured by the C-test correlates significantly with reading comprehension levels of both L1 and L2 students furthers evidence stemming from previous pieces of research in English (Lesaux, Rupp, and Siegel 2007;Babayiğit 2014Babayiğit , 2015 and in Dutch (Droop and Verhoeven 2003). More importantly, it extends our knowledge of how general language ability might affect comprehension in the context of word-based mathematics problem solving for FLE and EAL students.…”

Component skills that underpin listening comprehension and reading comprehension in learners with English as first and additional language

“…It is notable that in this study EL1 and EAL groups were matched on word reading accuracy and speed, verbal memory and duration of formal schooling in England. These findings were confirmed in a subsequent study with a larger cohort of EAL learners (Babayiğit, 2015), suggesting that oral language skills could be a key factor in explaining the EAL gap in reading comprehension. Moreover, a study on Dutch-speaking bilingual learners found that controlling for weaker Dutch vocabulary of bilingual learners led to a secondlanguage advantage in reading comprehension (van Steensel et al, 2014).…”

“…It is currently unclear whether the relations between oral language and reading comprehension are comparable for EL1 and EAL learners, which may in turn influence the developmental trajectories in reading comprehension over time (Farnia & Geva, 2013). The few studies that compared the pattern and strength of these relations between the first-language and second-language learners have reported mixed findings (e.g., Babayiğit, 2014Babayiğit, , 2015Bowyer-Crane, Fricke, Schaefer, Lervåg, & Hulme, 2017;Lesaux, Lipka, & Siegel, 2006;Trapman, van Gelderen, van Steensel, van Schooten, & Hulstijn, 2014;van Gelderen et al, 2003). For example, Trapman et al (2014) found that whereas receptive vocabulary, grammar and metacognition were strong predictors of reading comprehension in bilingual Dutch-speaking students, word reading fluency was the strongest predictor of monolingual reading comprehension.…”

English as a Foreign Language in Bilingual Language‐minority Children, Children with Dyslexia and Monolingual Typical Readers

“…Specifically, it is hypothesized that bilingual language‐minority children might underperform in the instructional language compared with monolingual typical readers, but not in the foreign language literacy tasks. Despite the often‐reported heterogeneity in L2 exposure and in the L1 background, studies on bilingual language‐minority children have often analysed L2 language‐minority students as large groups (Babayiğit, ; Bellocchi et al, ) because of many other common features. For the purpose of the present study, we addressed the issue of assessing the pattern of strengths and weaknesses across measures of reading and writing in Italian and English, rather than differences in absolute levels of performance between bilinguals and monolinguals.…”