becoming bilingual readers: examining orthographic
TRANSCRIPT
BECOMING BILINGUAL READERS: EXAMINING ORTHOGRAPHIC
PROCESSING IN LEARNING TO READ ENGLISH AND FRENCH
by
Sheila Cira Chung
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development
University of Toronto
© Copyright by Sheila Cira Chung 2018
ii
BECOMING BILINGUAL READERS: EXAMINING ORTHOGRAPHIC PROCESSING
IN LEARNING TO READ ENGLISH AND FRENCH
Sheila Cira Chung
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development
University of Toronto
2018
Abstract
This dissertation is comprised of three studies examining the role of orthographic
processing in word reading among children enrolled in Canadian French immersion programs.
Print awareness, as well as lexical and sublexical aspects of orthographic processing were
examined. Study 1 evaluated the within- and cross-language relations between print awareness
and word reading among 92 emergent readers from senior kindergarten to Grade 1.
Concurrently, there was a within-language relation between English print awareness and English
word reading; there was also a cross-language relation between English print awareness and
French word reading in senior kindergarten. Longitudinally, English print awareness in senior
kindergarten predicted progress in French word reading in Grade 1, but not in English. These
results suggest that print awareness measured in the dominant language can be used to predict
word reading development in emergent bilingual readers attending French immersion.
Study 2 investigated the development of early knowledge of print conventions and its
within- and cross-language relations to early word reading skills with the same sample as Study
1 from senior kindergarten to Grade 1. Results revealed a systematic development of knowledge
in several aspects of print from senior kindergarten to Grade 1 in both English and French.
Hierarchical linear analyses revealed significant within-language relations between print
convention knowledge in kindergarten and word reading in both English and French. Across
iii
languages, English print convention knowledge in senior kindergarten predicted progress in
French word reading in Grade 1; French print convention knowledge in senior kindergarten was
not correlated with progress in English word reading in Grade 1.
Finally, Study 3 investigated the predictors of English and French word reading in 69
children from first through third grade. The role of phonological awareness, orthographic
processing (both lexical and sublexical), and vocabulary knowledge in English and French on the
achievement and growth of word reading in the two languages were evaluated with growth curve
analyses. Results showed that Grade 1 measures of English phonological awareness and
orthographic processing predicted Grade 3 English word reading achievement; English
orthographic processing in Grade 1 also predicted growth in English word reading in Grade 3.
French phonological awareness and orthographic processing in Grade 1 predicted French word
reading achievement in Grade 3. Additionally, at-risk readers (n = 6) identified in Grade 1
generally fell behind their typically-developing peers across all measures, although evidence of
improvement emerged over time. Taken together, these studies suggest that orthographic
processing is a key predictor of word reading in emergent bilingual readers.
iv
Acknowledgements
A foolproof recipe for the ultimate dessertation
In a large bowl, combine:
Dr. Xi Becky Chen, for her intellectual inspiration and the myriad opportunities to explore and
grow, both professionally and personally. Whisk in her uncompromising confidence in my future
and myself.
Dr. S. Hélène Deacon, for her incredible insights to methodology and passion for research.
Thoroughly blend in her steadfast encouragement and mentorship.
Dr. Esther Geva, for her boundless wisdom, friendship, and uncanny ability to learn from every
experience. Gently fold in her inspiring anecdotes and unyielding commitment to equal and
literate societies.
Poh Wee, Klaudia, Redab, Janani, Sharry, and Diana for their solidarity and extraordinary
support as friends and colleagues. Add a dollop or two of their contagious laughter.
Drs. Malatesha Joshi, Jeffrey Steele, and Eunice Jang, for their heartfelt dedication to L2
research and for generously sharing their expertise to strengthen the current research.
The children, parents, teachers, and staff at the Toronto District School Board, for their patience,
cooperation, and participation.
Undergraduate and graduate assistants and Annie Laroche, for their tremendous help with
piloting and data collection.
My parents, for their everlasting source of strength and love; and for all the reasons I cannot
begin to describe here.
Let the mixture rise at room temperature for 5 years. Garnish with sliced strawberries. Thank you
and bon appétit.
v
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….… ii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….……….. iv
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………….……. v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………… vi
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………….……. vii
List of Appendices ………………………………………………………………….…….. viii
Chapter 1– Introduction……………………………………………………………...……. 1
Chapter 2 – Canadian French Immersion Programs ………………………………...……. 13
Chapter 3 – Study 1: Show me a capital letter: The role of print awareness in word
reading in emergent French immersion readers………………………………………..….
14
Methods………………………………………………………………………………… 24
Results………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
Discussion……………………………………………………………………………… 39
Chapter 4 – Study 2: Becoming bilingual readers: Uncovering print convention
knowledge in learning to read English and French ……………………………………….
47
Methods………………………………………………………………...………………. 56
Results………………………………………………………………….……………….. 65
Discussion…………………………………………………………….………………… 77
Chapter 5 – Study 3: Learning to read in English and French: Emergent readers in
French immersion ………….……………………………………….……………………..
85
Methods………………………………………………...………………………………. 92
Results………………………………………………………….……………………….. 96
Discussion……………………………………………………….……………………… 108
Chapter 6 – General Conclusions ………………………………………………………… 117
References ………………………………………………………………………………… 123
Appendices……………………………………………………………………...………… 138
vi
List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of All Measures (Study 1) 32
Table 2 Correlations Among All Measures 34
Table 3 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses
Predicting SK Word Reading in English and French
from SK English Print Awareness
36
Table 4 Summary of Hierarchical Linear Regression Analyses
Predicting Grade 1 English and French Word Reading
from SK Print Awareness with Autoregressor (SK)
controls
37
Table 5 Examples of the 6 Conditions for the Print Convention
Knowledge Task
61
Table 6 Item Statistics for Each Condition of the English and
French Print Convention Knowledge Task
62
Table 7 Descriptive Statistics of All Measures (Study 2) 66
Table 8 Pearson’s Correlations Among All Measures 72
Table 9 Summary of Hierarchical Linear Regression Analyses
Predicting Grade 1 English and French Word Reading
from SK Print Convention Knowledge with
Autoregressor Controls
74
Table 10 Descriptive Statistics (raw scores) and Reliability of All
Measures (Study 3)
98
Table 11 Concurrent and Longitudinal Correlations Among All
English Measures
100
Table 12 Concurrent and Longitudinal Correlations Among All
French Measures
100
Table 13 Simple Conditional Models of English Word Reading at
Time 3
102
Table 14 Simple Conditional Models of French Word Reading at
Time 3
103
Table 15 Final Conditional Model of English Word Reading at
Time 3
105
Table 16 Final Conditional Model of French Word Reading at
Time 3
105
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Developmental trajectory of English print convention
knowledge from senior kindergarten (SK) to Grade 1
69
Figure 2 Developmental trajectory of French print convention
knowledge from senior kindergarten (SK) to Grade 1
69
Figure 3 Trajectories of English measures of word reading,
phonological awareness, orthographic processing, and
vocabulary between Times 1 and 3.
107
Figure 4 Trajectories of French measures of word reading,
phonological awareness, orthographic processing, and
vocabulary between Times 1 and 3.
108
viii
List of Appendices
Appendix A Parental Demographic Questionnaire 137
Appendix B Concepts of Print (“Stones”) 144
Appendix C French Word Reading 149
Appendix D English Print Convention Knowledge 151
Appendix E French Print Convention Knowledge 153
Appendix F English Lexical Orthographic Processing 155
Appendix G French Lexical Orthographic Processing 158
Appendix H English Sublexical Orthographic Processing 161
Appendix I French Sublexical Orthographic Processing 163
Appendix J French Phonological Awareness 165
1
Chapter 1. Introduction
Orthographic processing is an umbrella term that can refer to several aspects of
understanding of the orthography, or a set of conventions in the written language. This can
include understanding of the conventions in books, print, and words, such as reading proceeds
from left to right in the English language (Clay, 1979; Justice & Ezell, 2001). Orthographic
processing is also considered to include more well-specified representations of word spellings
(Barker, Torgesen, & Wagner, 1992), as well as general understanding of orthographic
regularities within a writing system (Vellutino, Scanlon, & Tanzman, 1994).
Research suggests that young children demonstrate orthographic processing and this is
refined across reading development. To illustrate, young children who have not started formal
schooling (i.e., before Grade 1) show good understanding of several conventions related to print
and reading (e.g., directionality of reading and book handling; Clay, 1979). They can also
identify some letters (Hiebert, 1981; Levin & Aram, 2004; Mason, 1980) and can discriminate
pictures from writing and perceive writing as a linear varied series (Lavine, 1977). Furthermore,
young children demonstrate understanding of several aspects of print conventions that make up
words; for instance, that words are composed of a variety of letters and that words typically
consist of both vowels and consonants (Levy, Gong, Hessels, Evans, & Jared, 2006). Once
formal reading instruction is introduced at the start of Grade 1, children demonstrate more
nuanced aspect of orthographic processing, such as knowledge of word spellings and spelling
regularities (e.g., Conrad, Harris, & Williams, 2013; Deacon et al., 2013b).
Different aspects of orthographic processing have been assessed through various means.
One aspect is print awareness, which refers to young children’s early knowledge about
conventions in books, print, and words that govern the visual and orthographic aspects of the
2
writing system (Clay, 1989). For example, in English, sentences begin with a capital letter and
reading proceeds left to right. Clay’s (1979) Concepts of Print (COP) has been widely used to
assess print awareness. The COP task was designed to elicit young children’s knowledge about
the written language within the context of a shared reading activity. In this task, children are
asked to read a book with the examiner and answer questions on book and reading conventions
(e.g., where one begins and ends reading a page), alphabet knowledge (e.g., identifying
individual letters), and concept of word (e.g., pointing to a word). Another task that has been
used to measure print awareness is a forced-choice discrimination task (Levy et al., 2006). Here,
children’s early knowledge of print conventions that make up words are examined; for instance,
that words are composed of only letters, not numbers (e.g., laugh-la8gh; Levy et al., 2006).
As children receive direct reading instruction, understanding of word-specific spelling
(lexical orthographic processing) and of general spelling regularities (sublexical orthographic
processing) have been assessed with an orthographic choice task. Lexical orthographic
processing refers to knowledge of the spellings of specific words and units within words; for
example, the letters C-A-T spell the word cat (Barker et al., 1992). In a classic lexical
orthographic choice task, the child is asked to choose between alternative spellings for a target
word (e.g., dream-dreem; Olson, Forsberg, Wise & Rack, 1994). This task is said to measure
lexical orthographic processing because it requires well-specified orthographic representation of
the word that is independent from phonological skills (Olson et al.). Additionally, sublexical
orthographic processing involves general orthographic knowledge of the writing system, such as
consistencies or conventions with which letter combinations can or cannot occur (Vellutino et
al., 1994). In a sublexical orthographic choice task, the child is presented with nonwords and
asked to choose the one that looks most like a real word (e.g., baff-bbaf; Cassar & Treiman,
3
1997). This task is said to measure sublexical orthographic processing because it requires
knowledge of orthographic patterns of the writing system, rather than phonological skills, to
identify the correct response.
Research suggests that orthographic processing plays a significant role in word reading in
monolingual and bilingual children because orthographic processing constrains and refines
readers’ expectations about how a word may be read (e.g., Conrad et al., 2013; Deacon, Wade-
Woolley, & Kirby, 2009; Ehri, 2014). However, evidence supporting this claim largely stems
from cross-sectional and concurrent studies where the relations between orthographic processing
and word reading have been investigated at a single point in time (e.g., Deacon et al., 2009,
2013b; Korat, 2005; Levy et al., 2006; Sun-Alperin & Wang, 2011; Yeong, Fletcher, & Bayliss,
2014). As children begin to read, print awareness has been reported to be significantly correlated
with word reading among children who have not received formal reading instruction (e.g., in
kindergarten or preschool; Korat, 2008; Levy et al., 2006; National Early Literacy Panel [NELP],
2008). For children who have started to receive formal reading instruction, both lexical and
sublexical orthographic processing have been found to contribute unique variance to word
reading in children in Grade 1 and above (e.g., Conrad et al., 2013; Deacon, Chen, Luo, &
Ramirez, 2013a; Deacon et al., 2009, 2013b; Sun-Alperin & Wang, 2011). Accordingly, cross-
sectional and concurrent studies do not reveal the extent to which orthographic processing
determines progress in learning to read over time.
There has been a small, but growing number of longitudinal studies to uncover the
relations between orthographic processing and word reading in monolingual (Deacon, Benere, &
Castles, 2012; Hecht, Burgess, Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2001) and bilingual readers
(Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003; Manis, Lindsey, & Bailey, 2004; Pasquarella, Deacon, Chen,
4
Commissaire, & Au-Yeung, 2014), with inconsistencies in which the relations have been tested.
Lindsey et al. and Manis et al. have examined the longitudinal correlation between print
awareness and word reading in Spanish ELL children. They reported a significant association
between Spanish print awareness in kindergarten and English word reading in Grades 1 and 2.
However, evidence of a correlation between early print awareness and later word reading only
demonstrates that early print awareness is merely associated with later word reading skill. More
recently, a few longitudinal studies have adopted a more stringent test to determine whether early
orthographic processing predicts progress in later word reading outcomes with the inclusion of
an auto-regressive control (e.g., Deacon et al., 2012; Pasquarella et al., 2014). Controlling for the
auto-regressor, or the outcome variable measured at an earlier time point, evaluates whether
orthographic processing is associated with change in later word reading (Gollob & Reichardt,
1987). Deacon et al. reported that neither lexical nor sublexical orthographic processing
predicted progress in word reading in monolingual English-speaking children from Grades 1 to
3. Likewise, Pasquarella et al. observed that lexical orthographic processing in either English or
French did not predict a unique variance in word reading in either language from Grade 1 to 2 in
French immersion children. Across these studies, it is evident that stringent tests are needed to
uncover the precise aspect of orthographic processing that determines progress in word reading.
Prominent Theories of Word Reading Development
Ehri’s phase theory of word reading development. According to Ehri (2005, 2014),
there are four phases that characterize the course of how children learn to read words. The phases
are distinguished according to the type of alphabetic knowledge used to form connections: pre-
alphabetic, partial, full, and consolidated alphabetic phases.
5
In the pre-alphabetic phase, children try to read by using cues that do not involve the
alphabetic system; as such, children in this phase are considered non-readers. Children make
connections between salient visual or contextual features to read words (e.g., logos
accompanying signs in the environment) or semantic cues (e.g., reading the word look by the two
“eyes” in the middle). During this stage, children’s attempts at reading are performed by using
cues that do not involve an understanding of the writing system. Accordingly, these rudimentary
visual or contextual cues do not involve early print awareness that is helpful to word reading.
Children progress to the partial alphabetic phase when they learn the names and sounds
of some letters and use these to read words. Partial alphabetic phase readers have difficulty
reading unfamiliar words and they typically rely on the first and final letters (e.g., the letters s
and n to read spoon). The connections formed are incomplete due to limited phonological
awareness and letter-sound knowledge.
Children advance to the full alphabetic phase when they can form connections between
letters and sounds to read words from memory, but they are limited by the size of their memory
for sight words. Children have a good grasp of the major letter-sound correspondences and can
segment pronunciations into phonemes that match up to the graphemes. Children can remember
correct spellings of words (typically short monosyllabic words) better than partial alphabetic
phase readers because they can connect spellings fully to pronunciations in memory. Once a
word-specific access route is established in memory, phonological processing plays a lesser role
and the spelling of the word activates the connections that generate accurate pronunciations.
During this stage, it becomes clearer that there is a developmental hierarchy in orthographic
processing involved in word reading.
6
Finally, children progress to the consolidated phase as they retain increasingly more sight
words in memory. Words can be read as single units as children become familiar with letter
patterns that recur across words. The letter-sound connections in these words become
consolidated into larger units. These units include spelling patterns that recur in multiple words
(e.g., -ump in jump, bump), sight words that form parts of longer words (e.g., an in pan, and in
sand), and recurring morphemic spelling units (e.g., root words and affixes). As an example, the
word chest might be segmented only as two units (ch and est) in the consolidated phase, whereas
the word might be further segmented (ch, e, s, t) in the full alphabetic phase; accordingly, it is
easier to remember how to read words because fewer spelling-sound connections are needed to
store the word in memory. As children acquire more knowledge about spelling patterns, their
ability to read words fitting these patterns also develops.
The phase theory predicts protracted learning for the acquisition of orthographic
processing. Beginning readers use primarily grapheme-phoneme knowledge to remember
spellings of words during the partial and full phases. The phase theory emphasizes orthographic
processing at the lexical level in its role in word reading development, with the development of
well-specified representation of words accumulated in memory. As memory for written words
increases, additional knowledge about the writing system is developed, and this in turn facilitates
word reading ability; that is, previously established orthographic representations support skilled
word reading.
Although the phase theory notes lexical orthographic processing as fully emerging by the
consolidated phase, it does not specify the continuous and gradual development of orthographic
processing. As reviewed previously, there is evidence that orthographic processing begins prior
to formal reading instruction (i.e., in kindergarten and preschool; Clay, 1979; Levy et al., 2006;
7
NELP, 2008), with evidence of more refined understanding of words as children progresses
across grades (e.g., Cassar & Treiman, 1997; Jared et al., 2011; Pacton, Perruchet, Fayol, &
Cleeremans, 2001). At the same time, the phase theory is not sufficient to explain the
development of the various aspects of orthographic processing as children progress in their
reading. Thus, it is evident that the complexities of orthographic processing need to be
considered in understanding children’s reading development.
Statistical learning. According to the statistical learning of reading, young children are
sensitive to occurrence of letters and their position in words. As an example, children might be
sensitive to the orthographic regularity that the letter combination ck occurs in medial (locked)
and final position (lock), but never in the initial position in the English language. Learning about
this letter combination, along with its corresponding phoneme /k/, can be viewed as being
probabilistic in that it involves learning about frequencies with which such patterns occur and
reoccur. This co-occurrence of letters and sounds may support children to recognize these
relations during reading.
Statistical learning also suggests that learning is implicit (Pacton, Perruchet, Fayol, &
Cleeremans, 2001); it does not require an explicit understanding of why orthographic patterns
and their corresponding phonemes vary with context. As children are exposed to a growing
number and variety of written language in their environment, their sensitivity to these kinds of
probabilities increases without having to draw children’s attention to them explicitly through
formal instruction (e.g., Cassar & Treiman, 1997). Children learn about these and other
orthographic patterns even when the patterns are not explicitly pointed out to them and even
when the patterns are probabilistic. In this respect, statistical learning predicts an early
development of sublexical orthographic processing in learning to read.
8
Summary of Prominent Theories of Word Reading Development
Viewed together, these prominent theories of reading development lay out alternative
accounts of orthographic processing (Cassar & Treiman, 1997; Ehri, 2005, 2014; Pacton et al.,
2001). Whereas the phase theory of reading development (Ehri, 2005, 2014) views orthographic
processing as well-specified lexical orthographic representation as a result of reading experience,
statistical learning (Cassar & Treiman, 1997; Pacton et al., 2001) views orthographic processing
as sublexical orthographic knowledge. Accordingly, these theories also generate different
predictions as to when orthographic processing plays a role in reading development. Ehri’s phase
theory suggests children acquire orthographic processing later on in reading development, while
the statistical learning theory proposes that orthographic processing emerges earlier than might
be expected by phase theory. At the same time, neither of these theories specify other aspects of
orthographic processing and their role in word reading over time. Thus, it is clear that no single
theory is comprehensive enough to account for complexing views of what orthographic
processing is that affect children’s word reading development. Each of them, however, provides
important insights that contribute to the understanding of orthographic processing as
encompassing both well-specified and sublexical orthographic knowledge.
Prominent Theories of Cross-Language Transfer
Transfer Facilitation Model
Koda (2008) proposed the transfer facilitation model to explain cross-language transfer
pertinent to reading development. At its core, there are metalinguistic skills that are critical in
both first language (L1) and second language (L2) reading, some of which are more easily
transferred from one language to facilitate reading in another language. According to Koda,
transfer is “an automatic activation of well-established first-language competencies, triggered by
9
second-language input” (p. 78), which is non-volitional and non-selective. In other words,
transfer takes place regardless of the learner’s intent and cannot be easily controlled. In this
regard, cross-language transfer is viewed as a dynamic, rather than static process, given the
constant interplay between well-established L1 competencies (i.e., metalinguistic awareness) and
continued exposure to L2 print input. There are three key assumptions that underlie this
argument:
1. For transfer to occur, the competences to be transferred must be well rehearsed—to the
point of automaticity—in the first language; 2. Transfer is not likely to cease at any given point
in second-language development; and 3. Transferred competencies will continuously mature
through processing experience with second-language input. (pp. 78-79)
The cross-language relations in the transfer facilitation model operate between
metalinguistic awareness in one language and literacy outcomes in another. It involves cross-
modal effects. As the transferred skills under investigation are in an oral language form in one
language, while the impacted abilities are in the written form, operating across two different
language modalities. The model emphasizes that L1 facilitates L2 acquisition; that is,
metalinguistic awareness developed in the L1 can be readily available to transfer in L2 reading
development. In this regard, well-developed L1 skills are an index of the availability of the
requisite metalinguistic capabilities that should predict initial reading development in the L2. By
contrast, underdeveloped metalinguistic awareness is not likely to transfer to another language.
Interactive Transfer Framework
More recently, Chung, Chen, and Geva (in press) have proposed the interactive transfer
framework to lay out several factors that may influence the cross-language relations of
metalinguistic skills. Chung and colleagues have noted that the extent to which linguistic features
10
overlap between the L1 and L2 (i.e., L1-L2 distance) may be one potential factor in cross-
language relations between orthographic processing and literacy-related skills. To elaborate,
Chung et al. have observed that cross-language associations have been reported between
orthographic processing in one language and literacy-related skills (e.g., word reading, spelling)
in another language primarily among L2 learners of language pairings that share the same script
(e.g., English-French; Deacon et al., 2009; English-Spanish; Sun-Alperin & Wang, 2011). On the
other hand, such cross-language relations have not been observed among L2 learners of language
pairings that differ in script (e.g., English-Russian; Abu-Rabia, 2001; English-Korean; Wang,
Park, & Lee, 2006) or that differ in orthographic bases (e.g., English-Chinese; Gottardo, Yan,
Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2001).
At the same time, Chung et al. (in press) have pointed out unclear patterns for relative
L1-L2 proficiency and language complexity as factors that may influence cross-language
relations between orthographic processing and literacy-related outcomes. For L1-L2 proficiency,
there is evidence that when L2 learners have stronger L2 proficiency compared to the L1, cross-
language associations of orthographic processing and literacy-related outcomes have been
observed from the L2 to L1 (e.g., Chung, Chen, & Deacon, in press; Pasquarella et al., 2014;
Sun-Alperin & Wang, 2011). However, evidence from the L1 to L2 has also been reported, as
well as bidirectional cross-language relations between orthographic processing and reading (e.g.,
Deacon et al., 2009, 2013b).
Prominent Theories of Cross-Language Transfer: Some Considerations
After reviewing these cross-language theoretical frameworks, it is evident that questions
remain as to how to uncover the relations between orthographic processing and word reading
among L2 learners. Chung et al. (in press) have argued that the scope of the transfer facilitation
11
model (Koda, 2008) is restrictive. Koda based much of the transfer facilitation model on findings
from studies examining bilingual learners who have well-established L1 skills; namely, children
in first grade to adult learners. In this regard, the conceptualization of transfer is reduced to L1
metalinguistic skills that have already achieved automaticity and are thus transfer ready. This
restriction limits the extent to which the model can (or cannot) make predictions about cross-
language relations among emergent bilingual readers—young children who, prior to formal
schooling, are developing L1 and L2 language and literacy skills simultaneously. In applying this
model to cross-language relations between orthographic processing and word reading, this
implies that emergent bilingual readers, such as the ones in the current research, may not possess
either L1 or L2 skills that are available to facilitate the learning of the other language. Yet, there
is emerging evidence with young bilingual children that orthographic processing is developed
early and its relation to word reading across languages is evident from the L1 to L2 (e.g., Deacon
et al., 2013b; Lindsey et al., 2003) and vice versa (Deacon et al., 2013a; Pasquarella et al., 2014;
Sun-Alperin & Wang, 2011) as well as in both directions (Deacon et al., 2009). Yet, the cross-
sectional and concurrent designs of most of the empirical studies provide a limited view of the
precise aspect of orthographic processing that is associated with word reading in young bilingual
children.
As Chung et al. (in press) have pointed out, cross-language relations between
orthographic processing and word reading have been predominately observed among bilingual
readers acquiring language pairings that share the same script. Accordingly, orthographic
processing may be a language-general skill to the extent that language pairings share the same
script and may not be entirely driven by a common underlying process when the scripts or
orthographic bases differ. In the current research, the role of several aspects of L1 and L2
12
orthographic processing in learning to read English and French is explored among emergent
bilingual readers.
Chapter 2. Canadian French Immersion Programs
In 1965, the first French immersion program was introduced in St. Lambert, Quebec, in
response to the demands of predominately English-speaking parents who wanted their children to
develop language and literacy skills in both English and French (Official Languages Act;
Lambert & Tucker, 1972; Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2007). The goal of French immersion is
additive bilingualism, in which the development of French proficiency occurs in the context of
public schooling while maintaining native proficiency in the majority English language (Wesche,
2002). Since their inception, French immersion programs have proliferated across Canada.
Enrolment in French immersion nationally was 45,000 in 1977; by the 2015-2016 academic year,
it had increased to over 425,000 students (Canadian Parents for French, 2016).
French immersion program models differ in terms of age of intake and proportion of
instruction conducted in French. Early immersion begins in kindergarten or Grade 1. In early
total immersion programs, French is the language of instruction during the early primary grades.
English is introduced as a medium of instruction in Grade 3 or later. English is first introduced
into the curriculum to teach language arts. In higher grades, both English and French are used to
teach different academic subjects (e.g., mathematics and science) and the use of English varies
from as little as 20% of total instructional time to 70%, depending on the school district. In
middle and late immersion programs, students receive formal instruction in English in
kindergarten and the primary grades, along with core French. The use of French for instruction
of academic subjects is delayed until Grade 3 or later. At that time, either all instruction, with the
exception of English language arts, or at least half of curriculum instruction is delivered in
French. All other instruction is conducted in English (Genesee, 1979).
Chapter 3. Study 1
Show me a capital letter: The role of print awareness in word reading in emergent French
immersion readers
Before children learn to read, they develop initial knowledge about how books, words,
and letters work. Collectively, these understandings of print conventions are referred to as print
awareness (Clay, 2000). Print awareness prepares the child for the task of learning to read and
facilitates children’s transition from beginning to conventional reading (Whitehurst & Lonigan,
1998). Among precursors to reading, the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP, 2008) reports
that print awareness in kindergarten is one of the best predictors of later reading abilities,
reviewing a host of supportive studies. Much of the research to date has focused on monolingual
children (e.g., Aram & Korat, 2009; Korat, 2005; Mason, 1980), with a single such study
showing that early print awareness predicts progress in word reading skill over time (Hecht et al.,
2000). This is a stringent test of the temporal order of the relations, suggesting that print
awareness might enable word reading development. We extend this work to emergent bilingual
readers, who are of particular interest because they are exposed to print conventions in more than
one language in various learning contexts. A recent theory proposes that this variability in
context could support word reading development (Kuo & Anderson, 2010). In the current study,
we examine print awareness and its relation to word reading in emergent English-French
bilingual readers enrolled in French immersion programs in Canada.
The present investigation was designed to provide a clearer picture of the relation
between print awareness and word reading among emergent bilingual children learning to read in
English and French. We conducted this study within the context of an early total French
immersion program in Ontario, Canada. In the province of Ontario, publicly funded two-year
15
full-day kindergarten is available to all four- and five-year old children. Four-year old children
attend junior kindergarten in English. In the following year, children enter senior kindergarten
(SK) either in the English-stream or French immersion, both of which are in the public school
system. In the region where the current study was conducted, children in early total French
immersion receive all instruction in French, their second language (L2), starting in SK.
Systematic instruction in French language and literacy begins in Grade 1. These children are
introduced to some English instruction in language arts classes starting in Grade 4. Generally,
children in French immersion also develop English language and literacy skills, even though it is
not taught formally in the early grades because English is the dominant societal language (Au-
Yeung et al., 2015; Geva & Clifton, 1994). Typically, French is not used outside of the
classroom. Through this program, students acquire proficiency in French, with little or no long-
term cost to their English (Genesee & Jared, 2008; Lazaruk, 2007). French immersion provides a
unique context in which to investigate within and cross-language relations for reading-related
skills because of the division between formal instruction in one language (i.e., French) and
informal learning of another (i.e., English).
Literature Review
Print Awareness
Print awareness has been traditionally characterized as including four dimensions (Justice
& Ezell, 2001). The first is print and book reading conventions, such as that in English or
French, one reads from left to right and top to bottom. The second is the concept of a word,
which is described as children’s understanding of words as discrete units of print and speech
(Adams, 1990). The third is alphabet knowledge, consisting of understanding details and features
of letters and the names of individual letters (Lomax & McGee, 1987). The final dimension is the
16
use of linguistic terms to reflect on or interact with written language (e.g., “letter”, “word”, “top
of the page”). These dimensions comprise children’s emerging knowledge and skills related to
early reading development (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).
In the research literature, one measure widely used to tap into these dimensions of print
awareness is Clay’s (1979) Concepts of Print task (COP; see Lomax & McGee, 1987; Lonigan et
al., 1999; Neuman, 1999; Reutzel, Oda, & Moore, 1989). The COP task was originally
developed for five- and six-year old monolingual English-speaking children who are already
reading. It was designed to elicit children’s knowledge about written language within the context
of a shared reading activity between the examiner and child. A number of researchers have
adapted the tool for younger children by removing more difficult items (e.g., Justice & Ezell,
2001; Lomax & McGee, 1987; Lonigan et al., 1999) or by using the items in the context of
children’s storybooks (e.g., Justice & Ezell, 2001). Clay’s original COP has been shown to have
good reliability and validity (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha = .73 to .95; Clay, 1985, 1989; Day & Day,
1979; Johns, 1980). Among emergent bilingual readers, Clay’s COP has been adapted and used
mostly with Spanish-as-first-language (L1) children learning English (L2) (e.g., Boice, 1988;
Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis et al., 2004; Reyes & Azuara, 2008; Rodriguez, 1983), with a small
set of studies using the task among preschool English language learners (ELs) from diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds (e.g., Nichols, Rupley, Rickelman, & Algozzine, 2004;
Sneddon, 2000).
Print Awareness and Reading Among Emergent Monolingual Readers
Extant research has shown that prior to formal schooling, young monolingual children
demonstrate an understanding about print. For example, monolingual preschoolers between 3-
and 5-years of age are learning letter features (Lavine, 1977), can name some letters (Hiebert,
17
1981; Levin & Aram, 2004; Mason, 1980), and can read words when they are presented in
familiar environmental contexts (Goodall, 1984; Mason, 1980). Similarly, five-year old children
also demonstrate knowledge of several conventions related to print and reading (e.g.,
directionality and book handling; Clay, 1979) as well as some awareness of why people read and
what people do when they read (e.g., Downing, 1972; Reid, 1966). In other words, emergent
monolingual readers are already developing form and function of print, even before explicit
reading instruction begins at school. Individual differences in early levels of print awareness
have been shown to be significantly associated with subsequent word reading among
monolingual readers (e.g., Adams, 1990; Aram & Korat, 2009; Day, Day, Spicola, & Griffin,
1981; Evanechko, Ollila, Downing, & Braun, 1973; Evans, Taylor, & Blum, 1979; Hecht et al.,
2000; Johns, 1980; Levy et al., 2006; Lomax & McGee, 1987; Korat, 2005; Stuart, 1995;
Wagner & Barker, 1994). For example, Day and colleagues (1981) assessed print awareness
using Clay’s COP at kindergarten. Path analyses including verbal ability and test of basic skills
(i.e., vocabulary, reading, spelling, and mathematical skills) revealed that print awareness at the
beginning of kindergarten was strongly related to reading achievement at the end of first grade.
One study in this line of research is particularly relevant, as it demonstrates that print
awareness predicts progress in children’s word reading skill over time, rather than simply being
associated with later outcomes. In a longitudinal study, Hecht et al. (2000) followed English-
speaking children from kindergarten to Grade 4 and used three measures to assess print
awareness: Clay’s COP, letter naming, and letter-sound tasks. They measured word-level reading
with real word and pseudoword reading tasks. Results showed that after controlling for general
verbal ability and the autoregressor of kindergarten reading, print awareness in kindergarten was
a unique predictor of word-level reading in each of grades 1 to 4. To our knowledge, Hecht et al.
18
(2000) conducted the only study to have controlled for the autoregressor of concurrent levels of
reading skill when investigating the longitudinal relations between print awareness and later
reading. This is a critical step in evaluating the temporal order of the relations between variables
(Kenny, 1975). These findings are consistent with a meta-analysis conducted by the National
Early Literacy Panel (2008) which found that print awareness was moderately to strongly
predictive of later literacy proficiency, including word identification. From a developmental
perspective, these findings highlight the role that print awareness plays in the emergence of word
reading skills in monolingual children. Methodologically, they point to the need to conceptualize
more carefully the nature of the relations between print awareness in the early years and
emergence of later reading skills, once formal literacy instruction has been introduced.
Structural Sensitivity Theory
It is particularly interesting to investigate the relations between print awareness and word
reading in bilingual learners in part because of current theorizing. Kuo and Anderson (2010)
proposed structural sensitivity theory, which postulates that children with regular exposure to
more than one language may have “greater readiness to reorganize linguistic input and impute
linguistics structure” (p. 369). The theory’s central premise is that it is the joint experience of the
two languages that contribute to bilingual advantage. This advantage, which is characterized by
heightened sensitivity to structural aspects of language, stems from several sources. First,
bilingual children need to overcome interlingual interference, which provide them an opportunity
to focus their attention on the structural features of language. Second, bilingual children attend to
structural similarities and differences between languages and thus form representations of
language structure at a more abstract level. Finally, bilingual children are exposed to overlapping
features between the two languages in rich and variable contexts; it is this joint experience in the
19
two languages that enhances their development of metalinguistic awareness. The Structural
Sensitivity Theory has received good empirical support (e.g., Kuo & Anderson, 2012; Kuo,
Uchikoshi, Kim, & Yang, 2016; Marinova-Todd, Zhao, & Bernhardt, 2010; see also, Kuo &
Anderson, 2008). Some studies have suggested that cross-language associations between
advanced levels of print awareness (e.g., orthographic knowledge) and reading reflect, to some
extent, the ability to extract commonalities between the languages under acquisition, at least
when the languages share the same Roman alphabet, such as English-French (e.g., Commissaire,
Duncan, & Casalis, 2011; Deacon et al., 2009; Deacon et al., 2013b) and English-Spanish (e.g.,
Deacon et al., 2013a).
In the current study, we apply Kuo and Anderson’s (2010) Structural Sensitivity Theory
to investigating the relation between print awareness and word reading among emergent
bilingual readers in French immersion. Emergent French immersion readers are exposed to
overlapping print features (e.g., print directionality, letter knowledge, concept of a word)
between English and French in different contexts. For instance, experience with English print
largely takes place outside of school, whereas experience with French print takes place at school.
At the same time, experience with print in both languages occurs concurrently, given the official
English-French bilingual language status in Canada. Following Kuo and Anderson’s prediction,
this joint experience in English and French print in diverse contexts may enhance French
immersion children’s early understanding of print, which in turn, is associated with word reading
development (e.g., NELP, 2008).
Print Awareness and Reading Among Emergent Bilingual Readers
Similar to findings on emergent monolingual readers, research has also shown that
emergent bilingual readers demonstrate knowledge about print prior to formal schooling. Studies
20
by Bialystok and colleagues found that four- and five-year old bilingual children showed
understanding of print concepts in either one or both of the languages under acquisition, which
might follow from their experience in seeing texts written in different ways (English-Mandarin
and English-French; Bialystok, 1997; English-Hebrew; Bialystok, Shenfield, & Codd, 2000).
More recently, Bengochea, Justice, and Hijlkema (2017) studied the early print awareness of five
year-old Yucatec Maya-Spanish bilingual children in an indigenous community in Mexico. As
this community used oral communication in Mayan as the primary means of communication,
these children had limited print resources in Mayan both in school and at home; most printed
materials and instruction at school were in Spanish. Correlational analyses showed cross-
language relations between Spanish and Mayan print awareness. Thus, in spite of limited print
sources in the community in Mayan, these emergent readers engaged in autonomous, incremental
learning of print. Similarly, Goodrich and Lonigan (2017) observed that English and Spanish
print awareness were significantly correlated among three and a half to six year-old Spanish EL
children. While no relations to word reading were investigated in these studies, nevertheless,
they suggest that bilingual readers demonstrate print awareness prior to formal schooling, in
either one or both of the languages under acquisition.
Extant bilingual research has largely focused on more advanced levels of print awareness,
specifically, orthographic knowledge, among children who have started receiving direct literacy
instruction (i.e., Grade 1 or above; Chung, Koh, Deacon, & Chen, 2017a; Chung, Chen, et al., in
press; Deacon et al., 2009, 2013a, 2013b; Sun-Alperin & Wang, 2011; Wang et al., 2006; Yeong
et al., 2014). This advanced level of print awareness involves an understanding of print
conventions at the word level, such as knowledge of permissible letter combinations (i.e.,
sublexical) and of how words are spelled (i.e., lexical). In contrast, much less is known about
21
these relations among bilingual children prior to receiving formal instruction. To date, we are
aware of only two such studies. Lindsey et al. (2003) followed Spanish-speaking ELs from low
socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds from kindergarten to Grade 1 and Manis et al. (2004)
followed the same children until Grade 2. These children were in an early transition bilingual
program in which their schooling was in Spanish (L1) at the outset of kindergarten, followed by
a transition to English (L2) by mid-first grade. Children’s print awareness in Spanish was
measured by an adapted version of Clay’s COP task. Results showed significant cross-language
associations; Spanish print awareness in kindergarten accounted for unique variance in English
word reading in Grades 1 and 2, after partialling out other reading related variables in Spanish.
On the other hand, Spanish print awareness in kindergarten did not account for unique variance
in Spanish word reading in Grade 1. The authors suggested that, because English has less
predictable letter-sound relations, Spanish print awareness may be more important for English
reading than Spanish. On the whole, these findings demonstrate that print awareness is related to
word reading across languages among emergent bilingual readers.
While findings on monolingual and bilingual children have shed light on the relation
between print awareness and word reading skills, there are several gaps in extant research.
Notably, past studies (e.g., Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis et al., 2004) have not systematically
explored the concurrent and longitudinal relations between print awareness and word reading
among emergent bilingual readers. As we discussed earlier, the investigation of longitudinal
relations with analyses that include auto-regressive controls would be key in determining
whether print awareness determines progress in word reading (e.g., Hecht et al., 2000; see also,
Gollob & Reichardt, 1987). Another gap is that for the two studies examining relations between
print awareness and word reading among emergent bilingual readers (Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis
22
et al., 2004), the COP task was not adapted to assess commonalities in print conventions between
the two languages under investigation. In this regard, it is not clear whether the observed cross-
language relations reflect bilingual children’s ability to extract these common print conventions
at a more abstract level, as Kuo and Anderson (2010) suggested. Finally, studies on emergent
bilingual readers have typically included children who came from the same L1 background, as is
the case with Spanish EL children in early transition bilingual program. Thus, it is not clear
whether the relation between print awareness and word reading can be extended to bilingual
children from diverse L1 backgrounds.
The Present Study
Building on past findings that print awareness predicts word reading among emergent
bilingual readers (e.g., Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis et al., 2004), we explored these relations
among culturally and linguistically diverse children enrolled in French immersion from SK
through Grade 1. At the same time, we applied Kuo and Anderson’s (2010) focus on features that
are common to two languages to the investigation of print awareness and its role in word
reading. In such an investigation, we used Clay’s COP task and adapted items that are common
to both English and French to assess print awareness. By doing so, the print awareness measure
tapped into the ability to extract commonalities in print conventions while also being able to
measure print awareness at an earlier age than previously tested in French immersion children.
There are two research questions. The first research question focused on within-language
relations. Specifically, we asked whether print awareness in English is related to their English
word reading concurrently in SK and longitudinally in Grade 1. We hypothesized positive
within-English relations between print awareness and word reading concurrently, as well as
longitudinally, after controlling for the autoregressor, thereby testing predictors identified in
23
studies of emergent monolingual readers that contribute the development of word reading (e.g.,
Hecht et al., 2000; NELP, 2008). The second research question concerns the cross-language
relations; namely, is English print awareness related to French word reading across languages
concurrently (in SK) and longitudinally (in Grade 1)? We predicted significant concurrent cross-
language relation between English print awareness and French word reading, and that this cross-
language relation would remain a year later in Grade 1, after controlling for the autoregressor.
Reflecting the trend of increasing numbers of linguistically diverse students in Canadian French
immersion (Au-Yeung et al., 2015; Swain & Lapkin, 2005), the present study includes English
L1 and English L2 children.
We tested the longitudinal relations between English print awareness and progress in
word reading in English and French in Grade 1 by including autoregressive controls. To
illustrate, when English word reading in Grade 1 was the outcome variable, English word
reading in SK was entered as an autoregressor before English print awareness, the predictor
variable of interest. Assessing the contribution of print awareness to early word reading while
controlling for the autoregressor would be a key extension of Lindsey et al. (2003) and Manis et
al. (2004). We also controlled for several key control variables. We included parental education
as a proxy for socioeconomic status (e.g., Cupples, Ching, Crowe, Day, & Seeto, 2014). In
addition, we controlled for English receptive vocabulary, phonological awareness, and rapid
automatized naming, as English was the dominant language of the majority of children. These
measures are important in any study of reading outcomes, given their demonstrated role in
learning to read among emergent readers (e.g., Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, & Lacroix,
1999; Cupples, et al., 2014; Ehri et al., 2001; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998; Wolf, Bally, &
24
Morris, 1986). The inclusion of this wide range of control variables helps to limit several
alternative explanations for observed relations.
Methods
Participants. The participants were recruited from 7 publicly funded early total French
immersion programs in a large metropolitan city in Ontario, Canada. At this school district,
children in French immersion received total schooling in French from the start of SK
(approximately five years old) until the end of Grade 3. After Grade 3, English was offered as a
subject while most of the instruction continued in French. All participants attended junior
kindergarten (when they were approximately four years old) in mainstream English programs
before they started French instruction in SK. Thus, all participants had one year of English
instruction and had some experience with English print. Moreover, all participants had been
receiving French instruction for at least 1.5 years by the spring of Grade 1. Within the full SK
sample, there were 128 children (66 males; M = 70.17 months, SD = 4.40). Two children were
recruited by word of mouth through acquaintances of the researchers; these children attended
public French immersion schools in the same school district as the one in the study. Owing to
attrition between SK and Grade 1, the final sample included 92 children (46 males; M = 81.36
months, SD = 4.82) by the spring of Grade 11. Attrition was due to children moving to different
schools or due to the lack of parents’ consent for their child to participate.
The French immersion curriculum in grades 1 to 3 adopts a comprehensive approach to
teaching French language and learning strategies that includes a balance of direct and guided
instruction in speaking, listening, reading, and writing (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013).
1 Within the full sample of 92 children, 5 children had been identified as having a disability: speech impediment (n =
1), partial hearing loss corrected with cochlear implant (n = 1), behavioral issues (n = 2), and speech and behavioral
issues (n = 1). We report the findings with the full sample of 92 children, given the same pattern of findings were
observed when these 5 children were excluded.
25
The language and literacy program offered by the province places an emphasis on oral language
proficiency in the early grades, with somewhat systematic training in alphabetic and
phonological awareness training. In the SK curriculum, children are expected to develop oral
language skills, letter knowledge, and phonemic awareness. They are taught to print the letters
and their own names. Starting in Grade 1, children receive direct instruction in phonological
awareness, as well as in the use of other reading cues (e.g., sight word recognition of high-
frequency irregular words and using contextual clues to guess word meanings). By the end of
first grade, children are expected to read familiar words with picture support and to write simple
words from alphabet and syllabic charts.
A parental demographic questionnaire indicated that 89 of the 92 children were born in
Canada. Parental education was calculated based on the average of highest degree obtained for
both parents or primary caregivers. For approximately 53.2% of the sample, the parental
education was at least a university degree, followed by a college degree (e.g., vocational school,
community college) for 35.9% of the sample and a high school degree for the remaining 9.8% of
the sample. Parental education for one child was not reported. Thus, our participants primarily
came from middle-class socioeconomic backgrounds (as indexed by parental education). Based
on completed parental reports of their child’s home activities (approximately 73% of the
sample), 72% of children had at least 50 English children’s books at home, whereas 68% of
children had 25 or fewer French children’s books at home. A small percentage of children (17%)
had 25 or fewer children’s books at home that were in a language other than English or French.
A large majority of the parents (87%) reported that their children engaged in reading or writing
activities in English every day, compared to approximately 22% of parents who reported that
their children engaged in these activities in French every day.
26
With respect to the language background, a child was classified as English first language
(EL1) if her or his parents reported the child’s L1 was English and if one of the parents usually
or always spoke English to the child. A child was considered ELL if parents reported the L1 as a
language other than English and if one of the parents spoke this language to the child at least
50% of the time. Based on these criteria, there were 75 EL1 children (83.7% of the sample) and
15 ELL children (16.3% of the sample)2. For the 15 ELL children, the following languages were
listed as the child’s L1: Vietnamese and Gujarati (n = 2), Chinese (n = 2), Hungarian, Korean,
Japanese, Farsi, Spanish, Tamil, and Turkish (n = 1 each), and multiple L1s (Arabic-Yomba, n =
1 and Sinhalese-Japanese, n = 1). None of the participating children were native speakers of
French. Approximately 83% of the children rarely or never spoke French outside of school.
Parental demographic questionnaires also revealed that 7 of the ELL children engaged in literacy
activities in their L1: 3 children on a daily basis and 4 children at least once a week. For the 8
remaining ELL children, reading and writing activities rarely or never occurred in their L1.
Notably, approximately 66.7% of the ELL children read or wrote in English every day. Taken
together, our sample of ELL children came from a wide range of L1s, with fairly consistent
weekly engagement in language and literacy activities in their L1 and English.
Measures
Word reading. We used the word reading subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson III battery
(Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) to assess English word reading, following the
standardized protocol. There were 76 items; the first 16 items required the child to identify letters
(“Point to the letter l”) and the remaining 60 items required the child to read aloud words of
increasing difficulty in isolation (e.g, is, which, together). Testing was discontinued when the
2 Two cases were not classified as either EL1 or ELL due to lack of information in the parental demographic
questionnaire.
27
child misread six words consecutively. Cronbach’s alpha reliability rating was .95 in SK and in
Grade 1.
We used an experimental task originally developed by MacCoubrey (2003) and further
adapted by Au-Yeung et al. (2015) to measure French word reading (see Appendix C). The
words were chosen by researchers based on the French curriculum and verified by French
immersion teachers in the school district. In SK, a total of 80 words were arranged in sets of
eight words. Level of word difficulty increased with lower frequency words as children
progressed across each set (e.g., ami [friend], chanson [song], baleine [whale]). In Grade 1, an
additional 40 more difficult test items were included to prevent a ceiling effect. The task was
discontinued at the end of a set when the child had made 4 or more errors. Raw scores are the
total number of words read correctly. Cronbach’s alpha reliability was .91 in SK and .94 in
Grade 1.
English print awareness. We used the story of Stones from Clay’s (1979) Concepts of
Print (COP) to assess print awareness. In a shared storybook context, the experimenter carried on
a structured conversation with the child and asked questions evaluating knowledge of book and
print conventions. The test included items that are common to both English and French writing;
for example, (1) print and book reading conventions (e.g., “Where do I begin to read?”), (2)
concept of word (e.g., “Show me two words.”), and (3) alphabet knowledge (e.g., “Show me a
capital letter”).
We made three adaptations to the original COP test (see Appendix B). The first is that we
removed 6 items to shorten the testing time. These items were the ones in which at least 50% of
average five and a half year-old English-speaking children passed the item, according to Clay
(1979). The second adaptation is that we awarded points for each response that was part of a
28
multicomponent question. For instance, for an item that required the child to show the first and
the last part of the story, up to two possible points can be awarded, as opposed to only one point
for both components, as outlined in the original COP. Finally, we removed items that were
specific to the English language, such as items related to word identification (e.g., “Show me
was”) and spelling errors (e.g., “What’s wrong with the writing on this page? [siwng for swing]).
English-specific items were removed so that the COP test taps into children’s general
understanding of print conventions across both the English and French writing systems.
The adapted COP task consisting of 20 test items, was administered in English. Correct
responses received 1 point; incorrect responses or no response received 0 points. Raw scores are
the total number of items answered correctly. Cronbach’s alpha was .63.
English phonological awareness. We administered the elision subtest of the
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999) to assess
phonological awareness in English. The standardized instructions were used for administrations
of this task. There were 6 practice items and 20 test items. The test items begin with the deletion
of word parts and proceeds to deletion of initial and middle phonemes from words (e.g., “Say
cowboy without saying cow.”). The testing stopped when the child made three consecutive
errors. The Cronbach’s alpha calculated for this sample was .98.
English receptive vocabulary. We measured English receptive vocabulary with the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition (Form A; Dunn & Dunn, 2007). The
standardized instructions were used for administrations of this task. Participants chose which one
of four pictures best corresponded to a target word presented orally. Two practice items were
used to ensure that the students understood the instructions. The test was stopped when the
29
students incorrectly answered at least eight items in a set of 12. According to the manual, the
reliability for this task was high for the spring of kindergarten (Cronbach’s ɑ = .96).
Rapid automatized naming – digits. In English, the Rapid Automatized Naming-Digits
subtest from the CTOPP (Wagner et al., 1999) was used. The child was presented with six rows
of the same six digits arranged in different orders and was asked to name the digits as quickly
and accurately as possible. A practice example was given prior to testing. Two alternative forms
(A and B) were administered, and the total time in seconds it took to name the digits on both
forms was used as the raw score in analysis. According to the manual, the reliability for this task
administered in spring of kindergarten was good (Cronbach’s ɑ = .89).
Parental demographic questionnaire. The parents of participating children completed a
questionnaire about demographic and educational information (see Appendix A). They were
asked to indicate whether they spoke English, French, or an additional language to the child and
rate on a 5-point likert scale (never, seldom, 50%, usually, almost always) how often they spoke
the respective language(s). The parents also indicated the highest level of education received
(elementary school, high school, vocational school, Bachelor’s, Master’s, Doctorate or other
professional degree). We also collected information on the child’s country of birth.
Procedure
Children were assessed in the spring of SK and were followed up a year later in the
spring of Grade 1. Trained research assistants proficient in the respective languages administered
the measures individually in a quiet room during school hours at the children’s school. Tests
were counterbalanced across participants and took approximately 35-45 minutes to complete.
We obtained informed consent on an annual basis from parents or guardians of the
participating children. Given the linguistic diversity of the sample, some consent forms were
30
translated into a language other than English to ensure that all parents understood the study and
were able to make an informed decision about their child’s participation.
Results
To begin, we performed a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with all SK
measures and observed no significant differences between the children who remained in the
sample and those who moved, Wilk’s ʌ = .96, F(7, 112) = 0.73, p = .65. At the same time, the
same pattern of findings emerged when concurrent regression analyses were conducted with the
full sample of 128 children. Additionally, we computed z-scores for each of the control variables
(i.e., English vocabulary, parental education, English rapid automatized naming, and English
phonological awareness) and computed an interaction term as the product of each variable and
attrition status. We entered each interaction term in a separate regression analysis along with all
of the predictor variables. None of the interaction terms contributed significantly to either
English or French word reading at SK beyond the other predictors, suggesting that the variance
contributed by each did not significantly change with attrition status, with β values ranging
from .014 to .094, all ts < 1.12, all ps = n.s. For these reasons, all concurrent and longitudinal
analyses were conducted with the final sample of 92 children.
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of all of the measures. We report raw
scores, and where appropriate, standard scores for all administered measures. There were no
univariate outliers in the sample. With the use of a p < .001 criterion for Mahalanobis distance
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), one child was identified as a multivariate outlier when the relation
of print awareness, English and French word reading in SK was considered. This case was
included in all correlational and linear regression analyses, as the same pattern of significant
findings emerged when this case was excluded. Moreover, we checked for normality, skewness,
31
and kurtosis. English and French word reading in SK and Grade 1 were positively skewed.
Following Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), we corrected these variables with log, reciprocal, or
square root transformations. All other measures were normally distributed. The same pattern of
findings emerged when analyses were done with raw scores and transformed scores; therefore,
we report the analyses with raw scores for ease of interpretability.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of All Measures
Measures
Senior Kindergarten Grade 1
M SD Range M SD Range
Age (in months) 70.06 4.57 62.90 – 97.20 81.36 4.82 73.20 – 109.40
Parental education (out of 5) 2.74 0.82 0.5 – 5 - -
English vocabulary (out of 228) 113.37 17.96 77 – 163 - -
English vocabulary – SS 113.61 13.84 78 – 153 - -
English rapid automatized naming (in seconds) 35.85 12.25 16.60 – 88.00 - -
English rapid automatized naming – SS 10.39 1.95 2 – 13 - -
English phonological awareness (out of 20) 13.19 4.54 6 – 20 - -
English phonological awareness – SS 11.08 2.01 4 – 19 - -
Print awareness (out of 20) 14.34 3.29 8 – 20 - -
English word reading (out of 76) 21.71 8.51 10 – 52 30.57 12.36 14 – 75
English word reading – SS 90.65 4.25 72 – 125 106.93 2.08 73 – 175
French word reading (out of 80 in SK; 120 in Gr. 1) 5.79 11.13 0 – 61 24.77 20.05 0 – 91
Note. SS = standard score.
Table 2 presents the Pearson’s correlations among all measures. Parental education was
positively moderately correlated with Grade 1 English word reading (r = .30, p < .01). English
vocabulary and phonological awareness were moderately positively correlated with print
awareness, as well as English word reading in SK and Grade 1 (.23 < r < .50, ps < .05). English
rapid automatized naming (as measured in seconds) was negatively moderately correlated with
almost all variables (-.49 < r < -.23, ps < .05). English word reading in SK and Grade 1 were
significantly positively correlated with almost all variables (.27 < r < .74, ps < .05). French word
reading in both grades were significantly positively correlated with most variables (.21 < r < .74,
ps < .05). Print awareness was significantly positively correlated with English word reading in
SK and Grade 1 (.50 < r < .70, ps < .01); similarly, there were significant correlations between
print awareness and French word reading in both grades (.45 < r < .53, ps < .01). The degree of
collinearity for all regression analyses was found to be acceptable (tolerance > .408; variance
inflation factor < 2.45) and all correlations were below .9, reducing the likelihood of multi-
collinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
34
Table 2
Correlations Among All Measures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Parental education
2. SK English vocabulary
3. SK English rapid automatized naming
4. SK English phonological awareness
5. SK Print awareness
6. SK English word reading
7. SK French word reading
8. Gr.1 English word reading
9. Gr.1 French word reading
- .14 -.04 .11 .07 .17 .15 .30** .08
- -.23* .33** .48** .33** .21* .27* .19
- -.29** -.30** -.34** -.27* -.49** -.38**
- .50** .51** .36** .42** .40**
- .70** .53** .50** .45**
- .72** .68** .74**
- .59** .68**
- .65**
-
Note. SK = senior kindergarten.
* p < .05, ** p < .01
We conducted a series of hierarchical linear regression analyses to investigate the
relations between print awareness and word reading in English and French, both concurrently
and longitudinally (Tables 3 and 4, respectively). With respect to longitudinal relations, we
adopted a conservative approach by treating the respective variables measured in SK as
autoregressor when estimating their potential contribution in Grade 1. For example, when
English word reading in Grade 1 was the outcome variable, English word reading in SK was
entered as an autoregressor before English print awareness, the predictor variable of interest.
Without accounting for the autoregressor, relations among other predictors can be artificially
inflated (Kenny, 1975). We also controlled for parental education and English measures of
vocabulary, rapid automatized naming, and phonological awareness. These controls reduced the
possibility that any effects could be due to a spurious third variable. All reported standardized
beta weights (β) are from the final step of the regression model.
Table 3
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting SK Word Reading in English and
French from SK English Print Awareness
English word reading French word reading
Steps ΔR² Final β ΔR² Final β
1. English vocabulary
Parental education
.151***
.006
.078
.047
.116
.086
2. English phonological awareness .156*** .186* .114*** .169
3. English rapid automatized naming .056** -.139 .041* -.128
4. Print awareness .206*** .572*** .126*** .448***
* p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001
The two left most columns of Table 3 shows results of the concurrent analyses of the
relation between print awareness and English word reading in SK. In step 1, English vocabulary,
and parental education were entered, followed by English phonological awareness in step 2 and
English rapid automatized naming in step 3. Collectively, these control variables accounted for
approximately 36.3% of the variance. Over and above these controls, print awareness contributed
significantly to English word reading in SK, explaining an additional 20.6% of the variance, F(1,
88) = 45.34, p <.001, pointing to a significant relation between print awareness and English word
reading in SK. Jointly, the variables in this model accounted for approximately 62.4% of the
variance, F(5, 88) = 25.11, p <.001.
The two right most columns of Table 3 presents the concurrent analyses of the relation
between print awareness and French word reading in SK. The control variables of English
vocabulary and parental education (step 1), English phonological awareness (step 2), and English
rapid automatized naming (step 3) accounted jointly for 20.2% of the variance. Print awareness
entered at step 4, explained additional 12.6% of the variance in French word reading, F(1, 88) =
37
17.79, p < .001. Altogether, the regression model explained approximately 32.8% of the total
variance on French word reading in SK, F(5, 88) = 9.25, p <.001.
Table 4
Summary of Hierarchical Linear Regression Analyses Predicting Grade 1 English and French
Word Reading from SK Print Awareness with Autoregressor (SK) Controls
Steps
English word reading French word reading
ΔR² Final β ΔR² Final β
1. English vocabulary
Parental education
.091*
.032
.177*
.007
.186*
.031
2. English phonological awareness .141*** .014 .197*** .100
3. English rapid automatized naming .179*** -.331*** .099** -.203**
4. SK English word reading
4. SK French word reading
.164***
-
.461***
-
-
.334***
-
.573***
5. Print awareness .003 .086 .036* .188*
Note. SK = senior kindergarten.
* p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001
Next, we examined the longitudinal relation between print awareness and English word
reading in Grade 1 (two left columns of Table 4). In testing the longitudinal relations, the
analyses controlled for SK measures of English vocabulary and parental education (step 1),
English phonological awareness (step 2), and English rapid automatized naming (step 3).
Collectively, these control variables accounted for 41.1% of variance in Grade 1 English word
reading. The autoregressive control of English word reading in SK, entered in step 4, explained
an additional 16.4% of the variance on Grade 1 word reading. After partialling out these control
variance, print awareness did not make a significant unique variance to English word reading in
Grade 1 (p >.05). Jointly, the regression model explained 57.8% of the total variance in English
word reading in Grade 1, F(6, 87) = 16.40, p < .001.
Finally, we present the longitudinal relation between print awareness and French word
reading in Grade 1, while controlling for the autoregressive effect of prior word reading ability
38
(two right columns of Table 4). As before, control variables included SK measures of English
vocabulary and parental education (step 1), English phonological awareness (step 2), and English
rapid automatized naming (step 3). These control measures accounted jointly for 30.3% of the
variance in Grade 1 French word reading. The autoregressive control of French word reading in
SK (step 4) explained an additional 33.4% of the variance. Taken together, the variables in steps
1 through 4 accounted for approximately 63.7% of the variance. Beyond these controls, print
awareness made a significant unique contribution of 3.3% to the variance to French word reading
in Grade 1, F(1, 86) = 4.19, p = .03. This points to a significant longitudinal relation between
early print awareness and later French word reading in Grade 1. Collectively, this regression
model explained 48.1% of the total variance in French word reading in Grade 1, F(6, 88) =
23.27, p <.001.
We performed additional analyses to determine whether there is a potential interaction
effect of children’s language status (i.e., EL1 or EL) on the relation between print awareness and
word reading in English and French. We converted SK print awareness scores to z scores so that
the variable had a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. We then computed the
interaction term as the product of print awareness and language status, and each interaction term
was entered as a potential predictor in the final step in a regression analysis. The interaction term
(Language Status x Print Awareness) did not contribute significantly to any of the outcome
variables (i.e., English and French word reading in SK and Grade 1), beyond the aforementioned
substantive controls. The lack of significant findings suggest that the variance contributed by
print awareness to word reading in both languages did not significantly change with EL1-EL
language status. For concurrent analyses, final β values ranged from -0.041 to 0.043, with all ts <
0.042 and ps > .05; with respect to longitudinal analyses, final β values ranged from -0.05 to
39
0.120, with all ts < 1.71 and ps >.05. Moreover, we conducted MANOVA for all measures and
found that the language status effect was not significant, Wilks’ ʌ = .90, F(8, 84) = 1.67, p = .40,
suggesting that the EL1 and EL children demonstrated similar performance across all measures.
Discussion
To our knowledge, there are no other prospective longitudinal studies conducted with
emergent French immersion readers that explore print awareness and word reading in the early
stages of reading. The present study was designed to examine the within- and cross-language
relations between print awareness and word reading in English and French among emergent
bilingual readers in French immersion. We examined these relations in SK and one year later in
Grade 1. Regarding within-language relations, our results showed that print awareness in English
was significantly related to word reading in English in SK; there was no such relation
longitudinally in Grade 1, over and above the SK autoregressor. With respect to cross-language
relations, our results revealed that print awareness in English was related to French word reading
in SK as well as longitudinally in Grade 1, after the SK autoregressor. These cross-language
relations extend the findings of Spanish-speaking EL children in Lindsey et al. (2003) and Manis
et al. (2004)’s studies to emergent readers in French immersion. Given the limited number of
studies that examined the relations between print awareness and word reading in emergent
bilingual readers, the current results make an important contribution to the literature. Taken
together, these results demonstrate that print awareness supports later word reading, after
stringent autoregressor controls are included (Hecht et al., 2000), and does so in a bilingual
sample from a range of L1 backgrounds.
The first research question concerned within-language relations: is print awareness in
English related to English word reading? Findings from concurrent analyses are consistent with
40
the hypothesis that English print awareness would be significantly correlated with English word
reading in SK, after controlling for English vocabulary, parental education, rapid automatized
naming, and English phonological awareness. These findings are also consistent with research on
EL1 children (e.g., Day et al., 1981; Lomax & McGee, 1987). At the same time, these findings
fit nicely with Deacon and colleagues’ observation of significant concurrent within-English
relations between advanced print awareness (i.e., orthographic knowledge) and word reading
with French immersion children in grades 1 and 2 (Deacon et al., 2009, 2013a). On the other
hand, findings from longitudinal analyses reveal that print awareness in SK did not predict
progress in English word reading in Grade 1, at least not when multiple controls were added,
including the autoregressor of English word reading in SK. Since the English language has
highly irregular letter-sound correspondences (Ziegler, Stone, & Jacobs, 1997), children may
need to rely on orthographic units to accurately read a word in English (Ziegler & Goswami,
2005). Accordingly, the fundamental principles underlying print conventions (e.g., directionality
of print, using a capital letter at the start of a sentence) might be sufficient to impact word
reading in SK, but not sufficient to predict progress in word reading as children advance to
Grade 1. During this time, children may need to draw on other more specific reading-related
skills, including more advanced and specific aspects of orthographic knowledge (e.g., sublexical
and lexical orthographic knowledge), to support the complexities of reading words in English
(e.g., Chung, Chen, & Deacon, in press; Deacon et al., 2009, 2013b; Sun-Alperin & Wang,
2011).
Our second research question targeted cross-language relations: is English print
awareness related to French word reading? We found that, as hypothesized, English print
awareness contributed significantly to French word reading not only in SK, but also one year
41
later in Grade 1. This finding is especially intriguing as we controlled for word reading
performance in kindergarten. Such findings may have been, in part, due to the fact that the
children were less proficient in French than English (e.g., Chung, Chen, & Geva, in press).
Parents’ reports suggest that the children tended to engage in fewer language and literacy
activities in French than English at home. At the same time, children’s exposure to French was
limited to the classroom, whereas their English exposure was more varied. Moreover, our
participants were already at average to above average levels on English literacy skills in SK and
in Grade 1, despite not receiving explicit language and literacy instruction in the language. Given
that the COP measure tests lower-level knowledge on print awareness, it may no longer be
relevant to English word reading by Grade 1, while it continues to facilitate French word reading
at this time. Notably, the COP measure explores emerging understanding of terms that are
associated with exposure to reading and that are used to talk about reading (e.g., “Where do I
begin to read?”, “Show me a capital letter.”). Other items examine beginning readers’ ability to
understand the rules that govern the acts of reading (e.g., parts of a book, directionality of print).
Children who already possess these beginnings of knowledge of print can transition to other
reading-related skills that emerge in close succession, such as letter recognition, letter-sound
knowledge, and orthographic knowledge (e.g., Deacon et al., 2009, 2013b; Pasquarella et al.,
2014). These latter skills play a larger role in reading English, their stronger language.
Research on print awareness in emergent bilingual readers benefits from discussions of
the COP measure. In particular, we point to two factors that may be related to our findings. First,
we did not include English-specific items in our COP task. The original COP task includes word-
level items that tap into children’s understanding of English print conventions. For example,
there are items that require the child to identify words (e.g., “Show me was”) and spelling errors
42
(e.g., yelolw for yellow). Such items rely on children’s understanding of letter-sound
correspondence and spelling knowledge in English, and thus contribute to English word reading
over time (e.g., Hecht et al., 2000; NELP, 2008). On the other hand, aspects of print awareness
shared between English and French center on lower-level print knowledge and are limited in its
variability to predict English word reading over time. Second, the relatively low reliability of the
COP task may be in part due to the multidimensionality of print awareness. Certain dimensions
of print awareness may be acquired earlier or later than other dimensions among young emergent
readers (Levy et al., 2006). As such, children may have mastered directionality of print, but are
still grappling with concept of word. Yet, our understanding of the multidimensionality nature of
print awareness is limited because there was a varying number of items across the different
dimensions. Our revised COP task included 7 items to assess alphabet knowledge, but only 2
items to assess concept of word. Future research needs to consider these factors when assessing
print awareness among bilingual learners.
Notably, our cross-language findings indicate that the ability to extract print conventions
is common across languages that are represented by the same Roman alphabet. As children begin
to acquire basic literacy skills at this young age, word reading ability may be driven by
fundamental principles of the written language that are common across the two writing systems.
Print awareness can be considered as a common skill underlying both formal and informal
reading experiences, likely built up through joint experience in the two languages in rich and
diverse contexts, as proposed by Kuo and Anderson (2010). As such, it might be worthwhile to
draw young readers’ attention to print conventions that are common to the two languages in the
development of their word reading ability. Investigation of the extent to which print awareness
developed through formal and informal contexts relates to word reading success in various
43
language combinations, including languages that are not as similar (e.g., English and Chinese), is
warranted in future research.
Our findings extend the work of Lindsey et al. (2003) and Manis et al. (2004) that
involved Spanish-English bilinguals from low SES backgrounds to emergent bilingual readers
from middle SES backgrounds in French immersion. Both sets of studies observed cross-
language longitudinal relations from the stronger to the weaker language (i.e., English to French
in our study and Spanish to English in the previous studies) among bilingual readers acquiring
Latin-based alphabetic languages. None of the studies, including ours, observed significant
contributions of early print awareness to later word reading in the same language. These findings
suggest that the transition to the language of formal schooling may have contributed to the cross-
language role of early print awareness to subsequent word reading. It is possible that the
transition is associated with rapid development in reading in the language of formal schooling,
which is also the weaker language, compared to reading in a language that is associated with
more proficiency but not taught consistently or explicitly at school. This may be particularly the
case with word reading as formal instruction provides opportunities for children to use print
awareness explicitly during reading (Ehri, 2014; Hardy, Stennett, & Smythe, 1974).
Although not the focus of the current study, our research also adds to a small, but
growing number of studies involving EL children in French immersion (e.g., Au-Yeung et al.,
2015; Bérubé & Marinova-Todd, 2014; Geva & Ryan, 1994). Notably, we did not observe a
significant interaction of language status (i.e., EL1 or EL), which suggests that the results of the
hierarchical linear regressions were similar for EL1 and EL children in French immersion.
Furthermore, both groups of children performed similarly across all measures, including the COP
task. These findings suggest that EL children possess well-developed print awareness, just like
44
their EL1 peers. Such findings extend the structural sensitivity hypothesis (Kuo & Anderson,
2010) to print awareness of EL1 and EL children in French immersion. Similar to EL1 children,
EL children may attend to structural similarities and differences across multiple languages,
which support their representations of language structure at a more abstract level. According to
Kuo and Anderson, it is the collective experience in several languages that forms the
underpinning for metalinguistic awareness.
Future Directions and Educational Implications
We note several directions for future research, reflecting in part the limitations of the
current study. One concern lies in the reliability of the COP measure. While our COP task met
standards for an experimental measure, it was below reliability reported in previous studies,
which ranged from .73 to .95 (e.g., Clay, 1985, 1989; Day & Day, 1979; Johns, 1980; Manis et
al., 2004). The relatively low reliability may reflect the challenge of developing a conceptually
motivated measure to assess understanding of print conventions among young emergent
bilingual readers. In the present context, children attending French immersion programs vary in
terms of quality and quantity of exposure to print in English due to a lack of formal school
instruction. These factors may lead to a relatively low reliability in the English print awareness
measure. Given the relatively low reliability, it is even more impressive that we observed
significant findings at SK (for both English and French word reading) and Grade 1 (for French
word reading). Additional limitation lies in the relatively small sample size of the current study.
While our sample size is adequate for the hierarchical linear regression analyses, a larger sample
size would have allowed for a more sophisticated modeling of our data.
Notwithstanding these limitations, our findings have clear educational implications for
emergent bilingual readers. It can be challenging to predict word reading skills for French
45
immersion educators because kindergarteners have not yet had formal reading instruction in
either English or French. In the current study, print awareness in English was significantly
correlated with word reading ability in both English and French in SK, suggesting that the COP
measure can be administered in the relatively more proficient language (i.e., English) to predict
both English and French word reading. In this respect, it might be helpful for French immersion
educators to use COP as a potential within- and cross-language screening measure for emergent
bilingual readers. For a long time, researchers have noted that French immersion parents help
their children to read in English at home (e.g., Kendall, Lajeunesse, Chmilar, Shapson &
Shapson, 1981; Rubin, Turner, & Kantor, 1991); the present study also suggests that children
engage in mostly English language and literacy activities outside of school. In this respect, it
may be helpful to provide direct instruction on print conventions that are common across English
and French. Opportunities to interact with print are present in diverse contexts for emergent
bilingual readers (e.g., Kuo & Anderson, 2010); for instance, commonalities in English and
French print conventions are present in formal (e.g., at school) and informal environments (e.g.,
in print media and at home). Accordingly, educators and parents can take advantage of these
varied contexts by drawing children’s attention to commonalities of English and French print
conventions.
To summarize, our study adopted a more stringent test than past studies of the relation
between print awareness and word reading in emergent monolingual and bilingual readers (e.g.,
Day et al., 1981; Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis et al., 2004) by controlling for the autoregressor
effect of earlier word reading ability when predicting progress in later word reading. Our
findings extend the work of Lindsey et al. (2003) and Manis et al. (2004) by demonstrating
significant contributions of English print awareness to English and French word reading in SK
46
and to progress in word reading in French in Grade 1. An important educational implication of
our findings is that with some modifications, Clay’s COP may be useful for French immersion
educators to understand the word reading development of emergent bilingual readers. Given that
kindergarteners in French immersion have limited proficiency in French, a print awareness task
in English can be helpful to predict later word reading ability and to provide appropriate
educational opportunities to support success in bilingual reading achievement.
47
Chapter 4. Study 2
Becoming bilingual readers: Uncovering print convention knowledge in learning to read English
and French
To learn to read in two languages, the emergent bilingual reader needs to acquire
considerable knowledge about the print conventions in both of the orthographies in which they
are learning to read. Each orthography has specific conventions that govern the visual and
orthographic aspects of print. For example, in English and French, words are composed of
Roman letters. Yet, English and French are distinct from each other in use of diacritics. Although
much research has converged on the importance of print awareness to early reading achievement
in monolingual populations (e.g., Levy et al., 2006; National Early Literacy Panel [NELP], 2008;
Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998), key questions remain as to the developmental trajectory of print
awareness and its role in learning to read among emergent bilingual children. The aim of the
present study is to explore emergent English-French bilingual children’s knowledge of print
conventions in each of the languages under acquisition and to investigate its relation to progress
in word reading.
Bilingual learners vary in the degrees of proficiency in and exposure to their two
languages due to the diversity of educational contexts. A large number of bilingual children enrol
in programs in which English is the language of instruction (August & Shanahan, 2008). These
students learn English, the dominant societal language in a formal learning environment as their
second language (L2), whereas the first language (L1) is learned through informal contexts, such
as at home or in the community. In contrast, a growing number of bilingual learners receive
formal instruction in a minority language. Such is the case with our participants, who were
enrolled in French immersion programs in Canada. In this context, non-Francophone children
48
receive formal schooling in French, an L2 that is non-dominant but socially valued (Swain &
Johnson, 1997) because both English and French are official languages of Canada. French
immersion students also develop language and literacy skills in English informally because they
live in an English-dominant environment (Au-Yeung et al., 2015; Chung, Chen, & Geva, in
press).
The Development of Print Awareness in Monolingual and Bilingual Children
Print awareness refers to young children’s growing understanding of the form and
function of the written language (Justice & Ezell, 2001). This awareness consists of several
related dimensions. The first is reading conventions, such as that in English or French, one reads
from left to right and top to bottom (Clay, 1979). The second is alphabet knowledge, consisting
of understanding details and features of letters and the names of individual letters (Lomax &
McGee, 1987). A third dimension is the use of linguistic terms to reflect on or interact with
written language (e.g., “letter”, “word”, “top of the page”). A fourth dimension includes
children’s developing understanding of words as discrete units of print and speech, or concept of
word (Adams, 1990). The final aspect is knowledge of print conventions that make up words
(Levy et al., 2006), including global and specific aspects of words, such as visual orientation
(e.g., letters are not printed upside down) and orthographic constraints (e.g., words normally
contain both vowels and consonants). In the present study, we focus on this final aspect to
uncover the role of print convention knowledge in English and French word reading among
emergent bilingual children.
Much of the research on the development of print awareness focuses on English-speaking
monolingual children. Investigating print awareness prior to formal reading instruction is
particularly interesting because autonomous and self-motivated interactions with print increase
49
exponentially (Justice & Ezell, 2001; Mason, 1980). Generally, research suggests that young
children have a good knowledge of print before they start schooling, with knowledge increasing
as children get older. For example, five-year-old English-speaking preschoolers demonstrate
knowledge of several conventions related to print and reading (e.g., directionality of reading and
book handling; Clay, 1979) as well as some understanding of why people read and what people
do when they read (e.g., Downing, 1972; Reid, 1966). Emergent readers can also name some
letters (Hiebert, 1981; Levin & Aram, 2004; Mason, 1980) and can successfully discriminate
pictures from writing and perceive writing as a linear varied series (Lavine, 1977).
To provide a comprehensive picture of children’s emerging knowledge of print
conventions, Levy et al. (2006) conducted a cross-sectional study with 4- to 7-year old English-
speaking children. A two-alternative, forced-choice discrimination task was used to tap into
children’s knowledge of print conventions in the English language, including knowledge that
words are composed of a variety of letters (e.g., swamp-Ssss) and that words consist of vowels
and consonants, but not either exclusively (e.g., prior-prlbr and mouse-iouaei). Results suggest
that knowledge of print conventions begins with letter orientation and figural and spatial aspects
of writing (e.g., ninth-ni n th), whereas a knowledge of a more word-specific spelling knowledge
emerges later (e.g., purse-perce).
There is also evidence that French-speaking children demonstrate sensitivity to print
conventions prior to formal schooling (Pacton, Perruchet, Fayol, & Cleeremans, 2001; Sanchez,
Magnan, & Ecalle, 2012). For example, Sanchez et al. (2012) found that five and a half-year old
French-speaking kindergarteners performed above chance on a print convention knowledge task
in which they identified which letter-strings could be a real word based on print conventions in
the French language (e.g., words in French are composed of consonants and vowels; aeoiae-
50
verils). In another study, Grade 1 French-speaking children who had started formal reading
demonstrated sensitivity to orthographic constraints on print. Pacton et al. (2001) reported that
first graders were sensitive to the identity of consonants that can or cannot be doubled in French
(e.g., billot-bihhot), and that the same vowels cannot be doubled (e.g., rujjer-ruujer). Taken
together, these studies provide evidence that emergent monolingual children demonstrate some
knowledge about print conventions before direct literacy instruction and this understanding is
further refined once instruction begins.
It is particularly interesting to examine knowledge of print conventions in emergent
bilingual children because they vary in the degrees of exposure to and proficiency in the two
languages under acquisition through their diverse experiences in their homes and communities.
On one hand, it is possible that emergent bilingual children have a good knowledge of print
conventions in either one or both of the languages in part because of the diverse educational
contexts in which to learn about print. For English and French, the two languages of interest in
the present study, children may understand that diacritical marks occur only in certain French
words (usually vowels). As their exposure is limited in the formal schooling context and that
English words do not contain diacritical marks as they typically do not appear in informal
learning contexts (e.g., at home, in the media). In contrast, the diverse educational contexts could
limit the knowledge of print conventions in part because the distinction of formal and informal
educational contexts in learning about print conventions may not be readily evident during the
early stages in bilingual reading development. We explore these alternatives with emergent
bilingual readers in French immersion, for whom educational contexts differ in developing print
convention knowledge in English and French.
51
To date, research on bilingual children’s print convention knowledge has been studied at
a single time point and has largely focused on Spanish-ELLs attending transitional bilingual
programs or mainstream English schools (e.g., Deacon et al., 2013a; Lindsey et al., 2004; Manis
et al., 2005; Sun-Alperin & Wang, 2011) or bilingual French immersion children who have
started formal schooling (i.e., Grade 1 or above; Chung, Koh, Chen, & Deacon, 2017; Deacon et
al., 2013b; Jared, Cormier, Levy, & Wade-Woolley, 2011). Deacon and colleagues (2013b)
assessed Grade 1 French immersion children’s knowledge of orthographic conventions in both
English and French with a forced-choice task (e.g., sween-sweiin and blappe-blaape, where –een
and –ppe are legal spelling patterns in English and French, respectively). Results showed that
children performed significantly better than chance in both English and French, suggesting that
these children had good knowledge of orthographic conventions in both of the languages under
acquisition by Grade 1. To our knowledge, only one study has tracked bilingual children’s
knowledge of print conventions over time. Jared, Cormier, Levy, and Wade-Woolley (2013)
found that Grade 2 French immersion children were able to discriminate English and French
orthographic patterns (e.g., knoop [English], fonque [French]) better than chance and this
performance significantly improved by Grade 3. Collectively, these studies indicate that
bilingual children demonstrate good knowledge of print conventions.
Print Awareness and Its Relation to Reading in Monolingual Readers
There is good evidence of concurrent relations between print awareness and word reading
among monolingual readers (Conrad et al., 2013; Korat, 2005; Levy et al., 2006; Sanchez et al.,
2012). Levy et al. (2006) reported that different aspects of print knowledge were significantly
related to reading development across age groups, after accounting for age and phonological
awareness. For 4-year-old English-speaking children, the understanding of graphic aspects of
52
print (e.g., correct letter orientation, words are composed of a variety of letters) was associated
with word reading. For 5- and 6-year olds, graphic aspects of print, as well as more nuanced
knowledge about legal spelling conventions (e.g., words are composed of both vowels and
consonants) were significantly associated with concurrent reading ability.
A significant association between print awareness and word reading has also been
observed in monolingual readers of languages other than English. Korat (2005) measured
Hebrew-speaking kindergarteners’ print awareness with an adapted version of Clay’s (1985)
Concepts of Print task. This task covers a range of print awareness across the different
dimensions within the context of a shared reading activity, including reading and print
conventions and alphabetic knowledge (e.g., orientation of print, identifying units of the written
language as words and letters). Korat observed that Hebrew-speaking kindergartners’ print
awareness is one of the significant correlates of word recognition, beyond controls for age and
socioeconomic status. Likewise, Sanchez and colleagues (2012) showed that among French-
speaking first graders, print awareness made a unique contribution to word-level reading, after
controlling for age, non-verbal intelligence, vocabulary, letter naming, and phoneme extraction.
Put together, these studies suggest a significant correlation between print awareness and word
reading among monolingual children.
Print Awareness and Its Relation to Word Reading in Bilingual Readers
Empirical investigation has yielded findings that print awareness is significantly
correlated with word reading in bilingual children who have started formal schooling (i.e., Grade
1 or above), with evidence from concurrent and longitudinal studies (Chung et al., 2017; Deacon
et al., 2009; Deacon, et al., 2013a, 2013b; Jared et al., 2013; Sun-Alperin & Wang, 2011). Across
these studies, print awareness has been typically studied at a more advanced level, involving the
53
knowledge of how words are spelled (lexical) and of permissible orthographic patterns
(sublexical). In a concurrent study on Grade 1 French immersion children, Deacon et al. (2013b)
found that both lexical and sublexical aspects of print awareness were significantly related to
word reading within English and French, demonstrating within-language associations. Deacon
and colleagues also reported cross-language associations in that both English and French print
awareness were related to word reading in the other language, following controls for mother’s
education, nonverbal reasoning, English vocabulary, English phonological awareness, and
within-language print awareness.
With respect to bilingual learners who have not started formal reading instruction, only a
handful of studies have investigated the relations between print awareness and word reading
(Chung, Deacon, Shakory, Geva, & Chen, resubmitted; Jared et al., 2011; McBride-Chang & Ho,
2005; Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis et al., 2004). Most of these studies have typically measured
print awareness holistically, by tapping into several, if not all of the dimensions constituting print
awareness. Lindsey et al. (2003) followed Spanish-speaking English language learners (ELLs)
attending an early transition bilingual program from kindergarten to Grade 1 and Manis et al.
(2004) followed the same children until Grade 2. Lindsey et al. (2003) found that Spanish print
awareness in kindergarten, as measured with Concepts of Print, was significantly related to
English word reading in Grade 1 after partialling out Spanish measures of letter knowledge,
phonological awareness, vocabulary, and memory for sentences. Similarly, Spanish print
awareness was associated with English word reading in Grade 2 in the follow-up study by Manis
et al. On the other hand, Spanish print awareness in kindergarten did not account for unique
variance in Spanish word reading in Grade 1, after partialling out the same set of control
variables. The authors suggested that, because English has less predictable letter-sound relations,
54
Spanish print awareness may be more important for English reading than Spanish reading. In a
study of French immersion kindergarteners, Jared et al. (2011) focused on the dimension of
alphabet knowledge, by testing letter-name and letter-sound knowledge in English. Hierarchical
linear modeling analyses revealed that English alphabet knowledge in kindergarten was a
significant predictor of Grade 3 French word reading, but not English word reading.
While these aforementioned studies reveal significant correlations between print
awareness and word reading, they do not tell us whether print awareness determines progress in
later word reading. Recently, Chung et al. (resubmitted) have taken a preliminary step to address
this concern. Chung and colleagues followed young bilingual readers in French immersion from
senior kindergarten (approximately 5.5 years of age) to Grade 1 (6.5 years of age). They
observed that English print awareness in senior kindergarten determined progress in French word
reading in Grade 1, after controlling for the autoregressor or prior word reading ability. English
print awareness was not correlated with progress in English word reading in Grade 1. The
authors explain print awareness might not predict progress in learning to read in English, as
English is the more proficient language among French immersion children. Together, these
studies provide evidence that L1 print awareness contributes a unique variance to L2 word
reading.
The Present Study
There are several gaps in extant research. First, while studies have examined print
awareness at a single time point (e.g., Chung et al., resubmitted; Deacon et al., 2009, 2013a,
2013b; Jared et al., 2011; Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis et al., 2004; Sun-Alperin & Wang, 2011),
with the exception of Jared et al. (2013), no research has tracked emergent bilingual readers’
knowledge of print conventions over time. Second, research on monolingual children has
55
identified knowledge of print conventions as a dimension of print awareness associated with
word reading (Levy et al., 2006); yet, the extent to which this aspect of print awareness
contributes to word reading outcomes for emergent bilingual children remain unclear. A further
concern lies in evaluating these relations by controlling for the autoregressor. Only Chung et al.’s
(resubmitted) study included auto-regressive controls of word reading measured at an earlier
time point. Such analyses are a critical step to determine the role of early print convention
knowledge in progress in later word reading (e.g., Gollob & Reichardt, 1987). Finally, past
studies have not assessed print awareness in the L2 (i.e., French in Chung et al., resubmitted and
Jared et al. 2011; English in Lindsey et al., 2003 and Manis et al., 2004). Assessing print
awareness in both the L1 and L2 would provide a clearer picture of the relations between print
awareness and word reading, both within and across languages.
To address these issues, we followed emergent bilingual children in French immersion
from senior kindergarten to Grade 1. There were three aims of the current study. The first aim
was to track the trajectory of print convention knowledge in both English and French over time
in emergent bilingual children. Building on Levy et al. (2006), we hypothesized that print
conventions that are global (e.g., words are composed of letters and not numbers, correct visual
orientation of words) are developed relatively early compared to print conventions that involve
more nuanced understanding of print conventions (e.g., knowledge of word-specific spellings).
The second aim was to investigate the within-language relations between print
convention knowledge in senior kindergarten and word reading in Grade 1 in each of English
and French. Drawing from past research (e.g., Chung et al., resubmitted; Lindsey et al., 2003;
Manis et al., 2004), we anticipated no significant relations within English. With respect to
within-French relations, there was little basis on which to make hypotheses. On one hand, a
56
limited language and literacy experience in the L2 (e.g., French) may not be adequate to observe
within-language relations. On the other hand, explicit instruction in the L2 may facilitate
emergent bilingual readers drawing from their convention knowledge to support word reading in
the L2.
The third aim was to examine the cross-language relations between print convention
knowledge in senior kindergarten and word reading in Grade 1. We expected a significant cross-
language role of English print convention knowledge in progress in French word reading (e.g.,
Chung et al., resubmitted; Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis et al., 2004). Concerning the cross-
language role of French print convention knowledge in English word reading, our predictions
remain unclear given the lack of studies assessing L2 print awareness to evaluate such relations.
Methods
Participants. The participants were enrolled in early total French immersion programs
and recruited from 7 publicly funded schools within the same school district in a large
metropolitan area in Ontario, Canada. The same children were followed from senior kindergarten
to Grade 1, as part of a larger project. In senior kindergarten, there were 129 children (including
67 males), with a mean age of 70.30 months (SD = 4.61). By Grade 1, 93 children (47 males)
remained in the study. Attrition was due to children moving to different schools or due to the
lack of parental consent for their child to participate. A multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) with all senior kindergarten measures revealed that there were no significant
differences between the children who remained in the sample and those who did not, Wilk’s ʌ
= .95, F(78, 115) = 0.71, p = .68.
We collected the participants’ demographic information through a parental demographic
questionnaire completed at the time of initial recruitment. Close to 93% of the children were
57
born in Canada. For the three children born outside of Canada, two children were born in India
and one child was born in Vietnam; the average age of immigration to Canada for these children
was approximately 31 months (SD = 20.53 months). For approximately 53.2% of the sample, the
parental education was at least a university degree, followed by a college degree for 35.9% of the
sample and a secondary degree for the remaining 9.8% of the sample. Parental education for one
child was not reported. Based on completed parental reports of their child’s home activities
(approximately 73% of the sample), 72% of children had at least 50 English children’s books at
home, whereas 68% of children had 25 or fewer French children’s books at home. A small
percentage of children (17%) had 25 or fewer books at home that were in a language other than
English or French. A large majority of the parents (87%) reported that their children engaged in
reading or writing activities in English every day, compared to approximately 21.7% of parents
(n = 20) who reported that their children engaged in these activities in French every day.
Consistent with changes in Canadian demographics in large urban areas (Swain &
Lapkin, 2005), our sample included ELL children enrolled in French immersion. Based on a
parental questionnaire, a child was considered ELL if parents reported that the child’s L1 was a
language other than English and that one of the parents spoke this language to the child at least
50% of the time. A child was classified as English as first language (EL1) if parents reported that
the child’s L1 was English and that at least one of the parents usually or always spoke English to
the child. Based on these criteria, there were 75 EL1 children (83.7% of the sample) and 15 ELL
children (16.3% of the sample). For the 15 ELL children, the following languages were listed as
the child’s L1: Vietnamese and Gujarati (n = 2), Chinese (n = 2), Hungarian, Korean, Japanese,
Farsi, Spanish, Tamil, and Turkish (n = 1 each), and multiple L1s (Arabic-Yomba, n = 1 and
Sinhalese-Japanese, n = 1). Three children were not classified as either EL1 or ELL due to lack
58
of information in the parental demographic questionnaire. The language status is confirmed with
a lower performance on raw English vocabulary scores of ELL children (M = 102.33, SD =
19.78) compared to EL1 children (M = 144.98, SD = 16.88), t(88) = 2.60, p < .01. None of the
participating children were native speakers of French.
In the province of Ontario, full-day kindergarten is available to all four- and five-year old
children. Children in the current study all attended a school district in which they receive
complete instruction in French at the start of senior kindergarten, with some English instruction
gradually introduced at the beginning of Grade 4. Accordingly, the participants’ first formal
experience in learning to read was in French. In the kindergarten curriculum, children are
expected to develop oral language skills, letter knowledge, and some phonological awareness.
They are taught to print the letters and their own names. In Grade 1, children receive direct
instruction in phonological awareness, as well as in the use of other reading cues (e.g., sight
word recognition of high-frequency irregular words and use of contextual clues to guess word
meanings). By the end of first grade, children are expected to read familiar words with picture
support and to write simple words from alphabet and syllabic charts (Ontario Ministry of
Education, 2013).
Measures
All children received a battery of measures in English and French. Measures of print
convention knowledge in English and French were administered in senior kindergarten and
Grade 1; likewise, measures of word reading in English and French were administered in senior
kindergarten and Grade 1. English measures of vocabulary, phonological awareness, and rapid
automatized naming were administered in senior kindergarten. We also included parental
education, as reported in a parental demographic questionnaire distributed in senior kindergarten.
59
Word reading. We measured English word reading by using the letter-word reading
subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson III battery (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001), following
the standardized protocol. There were 76 test items, which required the children to read aloud
single isolated letters and words in increasing difficulty (e.g., is, which, together). The scores
represented the total number of letters and words read correctly. Testing stopped when six
consecutive errors were made. For this sample, Cronbach’s alpha reliability rating was .95 in
Grade 1.
To measure French word reading, we used an experimental measure developed by
MacCoubrey (2003) and further developed by Pasquarella et al. (2014). In senior kindergarten, a
total of 80 words were arranged in sets of eight words. Level of word difficulty increased with
lower frequency words as children progressed across each set (e.g., ami [friend], chanson [song],
baleine [whale]). In Grade 1, an additional 40 more difficult test items were included (e.g.,
scierie [sawmill], psychologue [psychologist]) to help protect the measure from ceiling effect.
The task was discontinued at the end of a set when the child had made 4 or more errors. Raw
scores are the total number of words read correctly. Cronbach’s alpha reliability was .94 in
Grade 1.
Print convention knowledge. We used a two-alternative, forced-choice discrimination
task adapted from Levy et al. (2006) to measure print convention knowledge. Each item
contained two alternatives: one correct representation and one that violated a single print
convention. We selected 4 print conventions from Levy et al.’s (2006) work to cover a range of
knowledge in print conventions: letter-number, upside-down, vowels, and consonants (see Table
5). The letter-number condition concerns the convention that words are composed of all letters
with no numbers, whereas the upside-down condition draws on correct visual orientation of
60
words. Vowels and consonants conditions cover the orthographic conventions that words
typically include both vowels and consonants, but not either exclusively.
Additionally, we introduce two conditions in the present study: legal and illegal
diacritical marks. Diacritical marks in French are used to change the sound values of the letters
to which they are added (e.g., acute <é>, grave <è>, or circumflex accent <î>), to indicate a
hiatus (e.g., diaeresis mark, <ï>), or to distinguish between homonyms (e.g., à [at] and a [has]).
Diacritical marks are placed on vowels, with the exception of the cedilla accent, which is only
placed on the consonant c to correspond to /s/, rather than /k/ (e.g., ça [that]). The type of
diacritical mark depends on the vowel as well. For instance, grave accents occur only on vowels
a, e, and u (e.g., à [at], mère [mother], and où [where]), whereas acute accents only occur on e
(e.g., année [year]). Accordingly, the legal and illegal diacritical marks conditions in French
reflect the understanding of these conventions. For English, the two diacritical marks conditions
reflect the understanding that the English orthography does not contain any diacritical marks. For
legal diacritical marks, the items in English tested whether children understand that English
words do not contain diacritical marks that are legal in French (e.g., get-gêt, where ê is legal in
French). For the illegal diacritical knowledge condition, the items in English tested whether
children understand that English words do not contain diacritical marks that are illegal in French
(e.g., books-bòoks, where ò is illegal in French).
61
Table 5
Examples of the 6 Conditions for the Print Convention Knowledge Task.
Conditions
Description
English French
Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect
1. Letter-number Words are composed
of letters
laugh la8gh seul se4l
2. Upside-down Words have
orientation
conventions
clean
maison
3. Vowels Words contain
vowels and
consonants, but not
either exclusively
hoof eooi pire oiae
4. Consonants Words contain
vowels and
consonants, but not
either exclusively
keeper kccpcr poulet prnlst
5. Legal diacritical
marks
English: Words do
not have diacritical
marks
French: Words have
appropriate diacritical
marks, where
applicable
stem stèm année annee
6. Illegal diacritical
marks
English: Words do
not have diacritical
marks
French: Words have
appropriate diacritical
marks, where
applicable
scarce şcarce foncé fonće
clean maison
62
There were 6 items for each of the 6 conditions, for a total of 36 test items in English and
French (see Appendix D and E). Each condition had 3 high-frequency words (> 100 per million
words) and 3 low-frequency words (< 49 per million words). Word frequency counts appropriate
for children in grades 1 to 5 were taken from the corpus Educator’s Word Frequency Guide
(Zeno, Ivens, Millard, & Duvvuri, 1995) and the Manulex (Peereman, Lété, & Sprenger-
Charolles, 2007) for English and French items, respectively. For French, we developed items to
match the English task for each condition on word frequency, letter length, and number of
syllables. Table 6 presents the item statistics for each condition.
Table 6
Item Statistics for Each Condition of the English and French Print Convention Knowledge Task.
Print condition
English French
t
p M M
Letter-number
Lexical Frequency
Letter Length
Number of Syllables
661.67
4.00
1.17
626.43
4.00
1.50
.99
.00
-1.58
.37
1.00
.18
Upside-down
Lexical Frequency
Letter Length
Number of Syllables
1767.67
4.33
1.17
1741.11
4.67
1.50
1.30
-1.00
-1.00
.25
.36
.36
Vowels
Lexical Frequency
Letter Length
Number of Syllables
126.00
4.50
1.33
124.49
4.50
1.33
1.23
.00
.00
.27
1.00
1.00
Consonants
Lexical Frequency
Letter Length
Number of Syllables
88.50
3.00
1.00
86.69
4.67
1.33
.74
-2.08
-1.58
.49
.09
.18
Legal diacritical marks
Lexical Frequency
Letter Length
Number of Syllables
315.17
5.50
1.83
305.24
5.00
1.67
1.35
1.46
.542
.24
.20
.61
Illegal diacritical marks
Lexical Frequency
Letter Length
Number of Syllables
116.17
5.67
1.50
116.69
5.67
2.17
-.674
.000
-3.16
.53
1.00
.06
63
Children were presented with 4 to 5 pairs of items per sheet in a response booklet.
Children were told: “Look at each pair carefully and circle the one you think is a better word to
read in (English/French).” The letter-number and upside-down conditions were counterbalanced
per page and the remaining conditions were counterbalanced per page. This was done to ensure
that word spelling items did not affect performance on the letter-number and upside-down items.
Items were scored as correct or incorrect. Three practice items with feedback for each language
were provided to ensure that children understood the instructions. In English, Cronbach’s alpha
for this task was .85 in senior kindergarten and in Grade 1; in French, Cronbach’s alpha was .75
in senior kindergarten and .79 in Grade 1.
Rapid automatized naming (RAN) - Digits. In English, the Rapid Automatized Naming
– Digits subtest from the CTOPP (Wagner et al., 1999) was administered to assess naming speed.
Children were shown a visual display of randomly presented digits and were asked to name them
in sequence as quickly and accurately as possible. Two forms (A and B) were completed and the
time (in seconds) it took to name all digits was recorded and used as the raw score in the
analyses. The test was administered according to standardized procedure. According to the
manual, the Cronbach’s alpha for this task administered in spring of kindergarten was .89.
English phonological awareness. We used the elision subtest of the Comprehensive Test
of Phonological Processing (Wagner et al., 1999) to measure phonological awareness in English.
We followed standardized instructions for administration of this task. It consists of 6 practice
items with feedback and 20 test items. The test items start with the deletion of word parts (e.g.,
“Say popcorn without saying pop.”) and then of initial and middle phonemes from words (e.g.,
“Say tiger without saying /g/.”). After three consecutive errors, the task was stopped. According
to the manual, the reliability for this task was .98 in kindergarten.
64
English receptive vocabulary. We measured English receptive vocabulary with the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition (Form A; Dunn & Dunn, 2007). The
standardized instructions were used for administrations of this task. Participants chose which one
of four pictures best corresponded to a target word presented orally by the examiner. Two
practice items were used to ensure that the students understood the instructions. The test was
stopped when the students incorrectly answered at least eight items in a set of 12. According to
the manual, the Cronbach’s alpha for this task was .96 in the spring of kindergarten.
Parental demographic questionnaire. The parents of participating children completed a
questionnaire about demographic and educational information. They were asked to indicate
whether they spoke English, French, or an additional language to the child and how often the
parents spoke the language(s), on a 5-point likert scale (never, seldom, 50%, usually, almost
always). The parents also indicated the highest level of education received (primary, high school,
college, Bachelor’s, Master’s, Doctorate or other professional degree). We also collected
information on the child’s country of birth.
Procedure
Following the return of the parental consent form, each child was tested at the school site
in a quiet room during school hours. Participants were assessed in the spring of senior
kindergarten and were followed up a year later in Grade 1. Trained research assistants who were
proficient speakers of the appropriate language administered the measures. For the English
measures, only English instructions were provided; for the French measures, both English and
French instructions were provided to ensure comprehension. At senior kindergarten, all measures
were administered individually. In Grade 1, tasks of print convention knowledge in both
languages were administered in a small group setting (3-7 students); all other measures were
65
administered individually. English and French measures were administered in separate sessions.
The order of the sessions was counterbalanced across participants and, within each session, the
order of task administration was randomized. In total, the testing sessions took approximately
45-60 minutes.
We obtained informed consent on an annual basis from parents or guardians of the
participating children. Given the linguistic diversity of the sample, some consent forms were
translated into a language other than English to ensure that all parents understood the study and
were able to make an informed decision about their child’s participation.
Results
In the following sections, we present the results to address the main research questions of
the current study. In the first section, we present the descriptive statistics on all measures, as well
as on the levels of print convention knowledge in English and French at senior kindergarten.
Next, we present the developmental trends of the print convention knowledge in English and
French from senior kindergarten to Grade 1. In the final section, we present the results from the
hierarchical linear regression analyses to examine the within- and cross-language relations
between print convention knowledge and word reading.
Table 7 presents the descriptive statistics for all measures. We report raw scores, and
where appropriate, standard scores for all administered measures. We screened the data for
missing values. There were missing values in 2 cases and mean replacement was used given the
low number of missing data. At the same time, there is little evidence of floor or ceiling effects,
given that scores did not overlap with 0 or the maximum score within one standard deviation of
the mean.
66
Table 7
Descriptives Statistics of All Measures
Measures
Senior Kindergarten Grade 1
M SD Range M SD Range
Age (in months) 70.06 4.57 62.90 – 97.20 81.36 4.82 73.20 – 109.40
Parental education (out of 5) 2.74 0.82 0.5 – 5 - - -
English vocabulary (out of 228) 113.76 18.44 77 – 163 - - -
English vocabulary – SS 113.28 13.89 78 – 153 - - -
English rapid automatized naming (in seconds) 36.11 12.41 16.60 – 88.00 - - -
English rapid automatized naming – SS 10.32 1.80 2 – 13 - - -
English phonological awareness (out of 20) 14.55 4.73 6 – 20 - - -
English phonological awareness – SS 11.13 2.19 4 – 19 - - -
English word reading (out of 76) 21.98 8.79 10 – 52 30.92 12.44 14 – 75
English word reading – SS 93.55 4.08 69 – 153 107.16 3.28 73 - 175
French word reading (out of 80 in SK; 120 in Gr. 1) 6.19 11.93 0 – 61 24.94 20.70 0 – 91
English print convention knowledge (out of 36; 6 per condition) 26.42 6.23 5 – 36 31.48 5.05 12 – 36
Letter-number 5.13 1.37 0 – 6 5.76 0.72 2 – 6
Upside-down 5.44 1.16 2 – 6 5.76 0.67 3 – 6
Vowels 3.75 1.54 0 – 6 4.62 1.33 1 – 6
Consonants 3.58 1.48 0 – 6 4.89 1.32 0 – 6
Legal diacritical marks 4.06 1.76 0 – 6 5.06 1.37 1 – 6
Illegal diacritical marks 4.69 1.45 0 – 6 5.42 1.07 0 – 6
French print convention knowledge (out of 36; 6 per condition) 24.46 3.97 13 – 33 29.00 4.70 16 – 36
Letter-number 5.00 1.57 0 – 6 5.73 1.06 0 – 6
Upside-down 5.43 1.36 0 – 6 5.70 0.95 0 – 6
Vowels 3.70 1.22 1 – 6 4.57 1.23 2 – 6
Consonants 3.98 1.25 0 – 6 4.67 1.31 1 – 6
Legal diacritical marks 2.69 1.77 0 – 6 3.90 1.92 0 – 6
Illegal diacritical marks 3.69 1.12 1 – 6 4.32 1.35 0 – 6
Note. SK = senior kindergarten, Gr. 1 = grade one, SS = standard scores
67
Standard scores showed that children’s English word reading in senior kindergarten and
Grade 1, as well as phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming were average
compared to the norming sample. English vocabulary was above average in our sample. These
findings are consistent with the findings of several other studies of French immersion children
(Au-Yeung et al., 2015; Chung et al., 2017; Deacon et al., 2009; 2013a; Kendall, Lajeunesse,
Chmilar, Shapson & Shapson, 1987). With the use of a p < .001 criterion for Mahalanobis
distance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), we identified three children as multivariate outliers when
the following relations were considered: (1) senior kindergarten English and French word
reading, senior kindergarten English print convention knowledge, (n = 2), and (2) senior
kindergarten French word reading, Grade 1 English word reading, and senior kindergarten
English print convention knowledge (n = 1). These cases were included in all correlation and
regression analyses as the same pattern of significant findings emerged when they were
excluded. Moreover, we transformed English and French word reading in senior kindergarten
and Grade 1 because they were positively skewed. The same pattern of findings emerged when
analyses were done with raw scores and transformed scores; therefore, we report the analyses
with raw scores for ease of interpretability. The assumptions of normality, homogeneity, and
independence were met for all other measures.
Next, we investigated whether our sample demonstrated print convention knowledge in
both English and French at senior kindergarten by testing whether the children’s performance on
the print convention knowledge task was above chance for each of the conditions. Results from
one-sample t tests revealed that, with the exception of the legal diacritical condition on the
French print convention knowledge task, the children’s scores on each condition of the print
convention knowledge tasks were statistically better than chance in both English and French, all
68
ts > -2.58, ps < .01 and all ts > 4.26, ps < .001, respectively. For the legal diacritical condition on
the French print convention knowledge task, the children performed at chance, t(41) = -1.38, p
= .17. These findings suggest that French immersion children at SK have at least some
knowledge of several print conventions in both English and French prior to direct literacy
instruction; however, they did not appear to know the correct spelling of French words that have
legal diacritical marks.
Next, we explored the developmental trends in the experimental print convention
knowledge tasks in English and French. Figures 1 and 2 show the developmental trajectories of
English and French print convention knowledge, respectively.
69
Figure 1
Developmental trajectory of English print convention knowledge from senior kindergarten (SK)
to Grade 1.
Figure 2
Developmental trajectory of French print convention knowledge from senior kindergarten (SK)
to Grade 1.
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
SK Grade 1
Mea
n C
orr
ect
Developmental Trajectory of English Print Convention Knowledge
Letter-number
Upside-down
Vowels
Consonants
Legal diacritical marks
Illegal diacritical marks
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
SK Grade 1
Developmental Trajectory of French Print Convention Knowledge
Letter-number
Upside-down
Vowels
Consonants
Legal diacritical marks
Illegal diacritical marks
70
For English print convention knowledge, there is a good development of each of the
conditions from senior kindergarten to Grade 1. Generally, children began with a high
performance on global features of writing systems; that is, the knowledge that words are
composed of letters and correct visual orientation were already well-established in senior
kindergarten and the development of these conditions approached ceiling by Grade 1. Similarly,
despite receiving no formal instruction in senior kindergarten, children were cognizant that
illegal diacritical marks do not make up the English writing system and made modest gains by
the end of Grade 1. Parallel to, or shortly after the development of the global features of print
convention knowledge, children gradually learned to extract and fine-tune the orthographic
features of English. Performance on the legal diacritical knowledge, vowels, and consonants
conditions was relatively lower than other conditions at senior kindergarten and Grade 1,
suggesting that more word-specific knowledge is acquired slower than global features in words.
With respect to French print convention knowledge, children also demonstrated
improvement across all conditions from senior kindergarten to Grade 1. Similar to English print
convention knowledge, there is a well-established understanding of global print conventions,
with a high performance on letter-number and upside-down conditions in senior kindergarten and
with near ceiling performance by Grade 1. For consonants, vowels, and illegal diacritical
knowledge conditions, children performed modestly at senior kindergarten, with improvement by
Grade 1. Finally, children had the most difficulty with the legal diacritical knowledge condition
at senior kindergarten, as evidenced by their below chance performance. However, children
made considerable gains by Grade 1, albeit, their performance on this condition was still low
compared to the other conditions. Taken together, these results suggest that there is good
71
development of knowledge about print conventions in both languages, from senior kindergarten
to Grade 1.
Table 8 shows the Pearson’s correlations among all measures used in the analyses.
Parental education was positively moderately correlated with senior kindergarten French print
convention knowledge, as well as Grade 1 English and French word (.20 ≤ r ≤.25, p < .05).
English vocabulary was positively correlated with senior kindergarten English print convention
knowledge and word reading, as well as Grade 1 measures of English and French print
convention knowledge and English word reading (.20 ≤ r ≤ .31; p < .05). English phonological
awareness was significantly correlated with all of the print convention knowledge and word
reading measures in both grades and languages (-.33 ≤ r ≤ .53, p < .01). English rapid
automatized naming (measured in seconds) was significantly negatively correlated almost all
variables (-.51 ≤ r ≤ -.21, p < .05). English and French print convention knowledge at SK were
significantly positively correlated with word reading in both languages at SK (.34 ≤ r ≤ .60, p
< .01) as well as word reading in both languages in Grade 1 (.41 ≤ r ≤ .56, p < .01). The degree
of collinearity for all regression analyses was found to be acceptable (tolerance ≥ .442; variance
inflation factor ≤ 2.26) and all correlations were below .9, reducing the likelihood of multi-
collinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
72
Table 8
Pearson’s Correlations Among All Measures
Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
1. Parental education -
2. SK English vocabulary .16 -
3. SK English phonological awareness .10 .31** -
4. SK English rapid automatized naming -.13 -.21* -.33** -
5. SK English print convention knowledge .19 .21* .34** -.34** -
6. SK French print convention knowledge .20* .16 .27** -.24* .30** -
7. SK English word reading .17 .31** .53** -.37** .60** .40** -
8. SK French word reading .13 .19 .40** -.30** .40** .34** .71** -
9. Gr. 1 English print convention knowledge .14 .25* .40** -.41** .48** .30** .44** .33** -
10. Gr. 1 French print convention knowledge .17 .20* .31** -.30** .45** .40** .40** .42** .50** -
11. Gr. 1 English word reading .25* .22* .46** -.51** .54** .41** .68** .63** .58** .39** -
12. Gr. 1 French word reading .21* .19 .45** -.41** .56** .41** .72** .70** .60** .57** .68** -
Note. SK = senior kindergarten, Gr. 1 = grade one.
* p < .05, ** p < .01
73
We performed a series of hierarchical linear regression analyses to test the relations
between print convention knowledge at senior kindergarten and word reading in Grade 1. A
critical step toward investigating these relations involves controlling for the autoregressive effect
of earlier word reading. By controlling for previous word reading skills (i.e., at senior
kindergarten), the estimates of relations between early print convention knowledge and later
word reading are not confounded by prior levels of word reading skills (e.g., Gollob &
Reichardt, 1987). For instance, when English word reading in Grade 1 was the outcome variable,
English word reading in senior kindergarten was entered as the autoregressor in step 3, before
English and French print convention knowledge measures in the final step, the predictor
variables of interest. In addition, we controlled for parental education and English measures of
vocabulary, phonological awareness, and rapid automatized naming. These controls reduced the
possibility that any effects could be due to a spurious third variable. We report the standardized
beta weights (β) from the final step of the regression model.
74
Table 9
Summary of Hierarchical Linear Regression Analyses Predicting Grade 1 English and French
Word Reading from SK Print Convention Knowledge with Autoregressor Controls
Gr.1 English word reading Gr.1 French word reading
Steps ΔR² Final β ΔR² Final β
1. Parental education
SK English vocabulary
.109**
-
.153*
.006
.007 .139*
.129
2. SK English phonological awareness .148*** .048 .189*** .120*
3. SK English rapid automatized naming .141*** -.271*** .082** -.139*
4. SK English word reading
SK French word reading
.164***
-
.422***
-
-
.325***
-
.543***
5. SK English print convention knowledge
6. SK French print convention knowledge
.013
.007
.135
.094
-
-
-
-
5. SK French print convention knowledge - - .033* .140*
6. SK English print convention knowledge - - .046*** .252***
Note. SK = senior kindergarten
* p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001
The middle column of Table 9 presents the results of the longitudinal analysis with
English word reading in Grade 1 as the outcome variable. This regression sought to address the
objective of exploring the within-language relation between English print convention knowledge
and English word reading, as well as the cross-language relation between French print
convention knowledge and English word reading. In step 1, parental education and English
vocabulary were entered, followed by English phonological awareness in step 2 and English
rapid automatized naming in step 3. Altogether, these control variables accounted for
approximately 39.8% of the variance. In step 4, we entered the autoregressive control of English
word reading at senior kindergarten, which explained an additional 16.4% of the variance in
Grade 1 English word reading. In step 5, we entered the within-language English print
convention knowledge at senior kindergarten. Finally, in step 6, we entered the cross-language
French print convention knowledge at senior kindergarten. After partialling out the control
variables in steps 1 to 4, print convention knowledge in either language did not make a
significant unique contribution to English word reading in Grade 1 (p > .05). Collectively, the
regression model explained 58.2% of the total variance in English word reading in Grade 1, F(8,
86), = 15.53, p <.001.
Finally, the right-most columns show the longitudinal relations with French word reading
in Grade 1 as the outcome variable. This regression investigates the within-language relation
between French print convention knowledge and French word reading, as well as the cross-
language relation between English print convention knowledge and French word reading. As
before, we include the control variables of parental education and English vocabulary in step 1,
English phonological awareness in step 2, and English rapid automatized naming in step 3.
Together, these variables accounted for 27.8% of the variance in Grade 1 French word reading.
76
In step 4, the autoregressive control of French word reading in senior kindergarten explained an
additional 32.5% of the variance. The variables in steps 1 through 4 accounted for approximately
60.3% of the variance. Over and beyond these controls, print convention knowledge in French
made a significant unique contribution of 3.3% of the variance to French word reading in Grade
1 (p <.05) in step 5, illustrating the within-language associations. In step 6, English print
convention knowledge explained an additional 4.6% of the variance to French word reading in
Grade 1 (p <.001), demonstrating the cross-language relations. Collectively, this regression
model explained 68.2% of the total variance in French word reading in Grade 1, F(8, 87) =
23.52, p <.001.
We performed additional analyses to determine whether there is a potential interaction
effect of children’s language status (i.e., EL1 or ELL) on the relation between print convention
knowledge and word reading in English and French. We converted print convention knowledge
scores to z scores so that the variable had a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. We
then computed the interaction term as the product of print convention knowledge and language
status, and each interaction term was entered as a potential predictor in the final step in a
regression analysis. The two interaction terms (i.e., Language Status x English Print Convention
Knowledge and Language Status x French Print Convention Knowledge) did not make
significant contributions to the two outcome variables (i.e., English and French word reading in
Grade 1), beyond substantive controls. The lack of significant findings suggest that the variance
contributed by print convention knowledge to word reading in both languages did not
significantly change with language status. Final β values ranged from -0.37 to -0.09, with all ts
<1.18 and ps > .05.
77
Discussion
The present study had three research goals. The first goal was to track knowledge of print
conventions in both English and French in emergent bilingual readers in French immersion from
senior kindergarten to Grade 1. This is a point in schooling when word reading becomes central
to academic achievement, and yet, to our knowledge, this is the first study to empirically
describe the development of print convention knowledge in both of the languages under
acquisition among emergent bilingual readers. The second goal was to determine the within-
language relations between print convention knowledge in senior kindergarten and word reading
in each of English and French in Grade 1. Finally, the third goal was to examine the cross-
language relations between print convention knowledge and word reading across English and
French.
The Development of Print Convention Knowledge
With respect to our first goal, we found that there is good development of knowledge
about print conventions in both languages, from senior kindergarten to Grade 1. For English print
convention knowledge, this development begins with knowledge of visual orientation (i.e.,
upside-down condition) and of acceptable letters in words (i.e., letter-number condition).
Similarly, children’s knowledge of illegal diacritical marks was well-established at senior
kindergarten, despite not receiving explicit reading instruction at this time. Next, or in
conjunction with the first development comes more well-specified word knowledge; notably,
understanding that legal diacritical marks in French are not legal in English words, and that
words contain vowels and consonants, but not exclusively.
The development of French print convention knowledge shows patterns similar to that of
English print convention knowledge. There was a high performance on both the letter-number
78
and upside-down conditions by senior kindergarten. In close succession, knowledge that words
are composed of vowels and consonants and of illegal diacritical marks emerge. Finally,
knowledge of legal diacritical marks, which reflect a more well-specified word knowledge,
seemed to be late to emerge compared to the other print conventions. By the end of Grade 1
when children had been receiving formal literacy instruction, they made considerable gains in
this knowledge, despite the low performance overall.
What is clear from these findings is that the development of print convention knowledge
begins with more global features of print conventions in both languages among emergent
bilingual readers whose two languages share the same alphabet, as in the case with English and
French. Children’s knowledge of correct letter orientation and that Roman letters are composed
in words is already evident in both languages in senior kindergarten, prior to formal instruction.
There is also evidence of good knowledge that words are typically composed of both vowels and
consonants in both English and French. While there is a small number of words composed
exclusively of vowels in English (e.g., I, a) and French (e.g., oui [yes], eau [water]), children are
not confused by this aspect of print. Additionally, children have demonstrated a good knowledge
of diacritical marks that cannot accompany letters in either English or French. Kindergartners are
well aware that English and French words are not composed of arbitrary diacritics in either
English or French, though there is some indication that this knowledge is more established in
English compared to French. Such findings suggest that children learn about global aspects of
print implicitly prior to direct schooling, with continued development through first grade.
It is also worthwhile to note that the legal diacritical marks condition in the English print
convention knowledge task is neither a global nor a distinct aspect of print convention. This is
because diacritical marks that are considered legal in French are technically illegal in English.
79
The lack of a clear-cut classification of the legal diacritical marks condition in English print
convention knowledge lies in contrast to the illegal diacritical condition, which is a common
illegal print convention for both of the languages under acquisition. It is possible that a higher
performance on the illegal diacritical condition task in English print convention knowledge in
both grades, compared to the legal diacritical condition, reflects some effects of children’s
knowledge of French print conventions on English words. These findings require further
investigation.
Our study provides preliminary evidence that emergent English-French bilinguals also
face a substantial challenge with respect to distinct print conventions. Diacritical marks in French
follow conventions (e.g., acute accents are only placed on e). Our findings suggest that
knowledge of legal diacritical marks in French print convention knowledge, which reflects a
more well-specified word knowledge, is late to emerge compared to other print conventions that
are common to both English and French. Formal instruction is necessary to facilitate the
development of distinct aspects of print convention knowledge and connect them to the growing
knowledge of letter-sound correspondence rules. Generally speaking, our findings on emergent
English-French bilinguals converge with those of Levy et al. (2006), who focused on 5- and 6-
year old English-speaking readers. Levy and colleagues have shown that basic graphic aspects of
writing (e.g., letter-orientation, distinguishing pictures from words) are nearly learned and that
growth is occurring largely in terms of the orthographic conventions (e.g., vowels, consonants,
word-specific spelling) at this age. Put together, the current study demonstrates that emergent
bilingual readers are sensitive to print conventions and this knowledge develops between senior
kindergarten and first grade.
The Relation Between Print Convention Knowledge and Word Reading Within Languages
80
The second objective was to determine the within-language relation between print
convention knowledge and word reading in English and French. The results support our
predictions. There was no significant within-language effect of English print convention
knowledge in senior kindergarten on progress in English word reading in Grade 1. On the other
hand, we observed a significant contribution of French print convention knowledge in senior
kindergarten to progress in French word reading in Grade 1. These relations were observed after
controlling for parental education, and English measures of vocabulary, phonological awareness,
rapid automatized naming, and the autoregressor effect of senior kindergarten word reading (in
either English or French).
In past studies, measures generally tapped into broad aspects of print awareness. The
measures used in Chung et al. (resubmitted), Lindsey et al. (2003) and Manis et al. (2004)
included reading conventions (e.g., directionality of reading), basic alphabet knowledge (e.g.,
letter-name, identifying lower-case letters), and concept of word (e.g., identifying two words
within a sentence), whereas Jared et al. (2011) tapped into letter-name and letter-sound
knowledge. The current study focused on knowledge of print conventions that make up words.
Despite the differences in print awareness measures across these studies, there is a common
pattern—none of the studies observed a significant within-relation between L1 print awareness
and L1 word reading. These findings suggest that early print awareness is not associated with
word reading in the L1 even in senior kindergarten and first grade. At least part of these null
results may be due to the fact that emergent bilingual readers may have already passed the initial
stage of reading development in their L1 and need to draw on word-specific print skills, such as
orthographic knowledge at the sublexical and lexical levels, to support word reading (e.g., Chung
et al., 2017). In contrast, Levy et al. (2006) reported that among 5- and 6-year old English-
81
speaking children, word reading was closely related to more well-specified knowledge about
words, such as lexical knowledge. Only two conditions (e.g., legal and illegal diacritical
knowledge) with relatively small number of items tapped into a more refined understanding of
words in the current study, which may have limited the power to predict progress in English
word reading.
A novel finding of the present study is that French print convention knowledge in senior
kindergarten determined progress in learning to read in French in Grade 1, demonstrating within-
language relations in the L2. It is possible that the basic print conventions underlying print
awareness is sufficient to impact word reading in the L2 for which there is limited literacy
experience among emergent bilingual readers as compared to the L1. Another possibility is that
implicit and explicit learning of the L2 print in the classroom (e.g., during storybook time,
engaging with word walls) may motivate emergent bilingual readers to draw from print
conventions to support word reading. While past studies have not measured print awareness in
the L2 among emergent bilingual children (e.g., Chung et al., resubmitted; Jared et al., 2011;
Lindsey et al., 2003, Manis et al., 2004), the present study sheds light on the importance of
assessing L2 print awareness (at the level of print convention knowledge) prior to formal
schooling in determining later word reading success in the L2.
The Relation Between Print Convention Knowledge and Word Reading Across Languages
The third objective was to investigate the cross-language relations between print
convention knowledge in senior kindergarten and word reading in Grade 1. The findings confirm
our predictions. Specifically, we found that English print convention knowledge in senior
kindergarten accounted for a significant amount of unique variance in progress in Grade 1
French word reading. On the other hand, there was no significant role of French print convention
82
knowledge in senior kindergarten in progress in Grade 1 English word reading. These relations
controlled for parental education, and English measures of vocabulary, phonological awareness,
rapid automatized naming, within-language print awareness, and the autoregressor effect of
earlier word reading in either English or French in senior kindergarten.
The unique contribution of English print convention knowledge in senior kindergarten to
progress in Grade 1 French word reading confirms the findings of previous research. The
direction of relation from L1 print awareness to L2 word reading has been found in emergent
English-French bilinguals (i.e., from English print awareness to French word reading in Chung et
al., resubmitted, Jared et al., 2011) and emergent Spanish-English bilinguals (i.e., from Spanish
print awareness to English word reading in Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis et al., 2004).
At least two factors may explain the cross-language relations between L1 print awareness
and L2 word reading among emergent bilingual readers: the proficiency of the languages under
acquisition and the educational context. First, research has suggested that skills in a more
proficient language contribute to the development of reading skills in a less proficient language
(for a review, see Chung et al., in press; Genesee, Geva, Dressler, & Kamil, 2006). This may be
particularly evident during the early stages of reading when beginning readers need to draw on
basic knowledge of print in their well-established language to support word reading in a less
proficient language (e.g., Chung et al., resubmitted; Lindsey et al., 2004). To support the reading
in a more proficient language, bilingual readers may need to rely on other reading-related skills
that are independent of print conventions. Second, children in French immersion receive formal
language and literacy instruction at the beginning of Grade 1. These children learn French, their
L2, at school and simultaneously develop English language and literacy skills because they live
in an English-dominant society. As such, the quantity and quality of exposure to French at school
83
may be more consistent than that of English. Similarly, the children in Lindsey and colleagues’
studies (Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis et al., 2004) learned English, their L2, at school, which may
have been more consistent as compared to Spanish, their L1. This variability in the L1 (i.e.,
English in our study and Spanish in Lindsey et al. and Manis et al.’s studies) likely increases the
variability in print awareness, which may explain the cross-language direction from L1 to L2, but
not from L2 to L1.
The lack of cross-language relations between L2 French print convention knowledge and
L1 English word reading also hints that a limited language and literacy background in the L2
may not be adequate to observe cross-language relations among emergent bilingual readers (e.g.,
Koda, 2008; see also, Chung et al., in press). From a methodological perspective, the null results
may reflect the lack of sensitivity of the print convention knowledge measure to predict English
word reading over time. Given the relatively well-established English word reading skills in
French immersion children, more advanced measures of reading-related predictors (e.g.,
decoding, phonological awareness) may increase the power to predict English word reading over
time (e.g., Chung et al., 2017).
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study has several limitations that must be considered in future research. One
limitation is that we explored a small number of print conventions. Some aspects of print
conventions were not examined in the current study, such as features of word shape (linearity
and letter-like characters; Lavine, 1977; Levy et al., 2006) and orthographic regularities (Cassar
& Treiman, 1997; Pacton et al., 2001). Thus, further research should look more systematically
into the time course of learning a wider range of print conventions, particularly in emergent
English-French bilinguals. Furthermore, consistent with the increased enrolment of ELL students
84
in French immersion, our study included students from diverse linguistic backgrounds. While our
sample is representative of the French immersion population in large urban centers (e.g., Swain
& Lapkin, 2005), it is also a limitation as a more homogeneous group of EL1 and ELL children
learning French would offer more rigorous control over the language background of the sample.
Finally, although the current study had a longitudinal design with a number of control variables,
including the auto-regressor, it cannot establish a causal relationship. Future research can build
on these findings with an intervention design. To date, several intervention studies have been
conducted with emergent monolingual readers on developing print awareness (e.g., Justice &
Ezell, 2000, 2001, 2002; Lefebvre, Trudeau, & Sutton, 2011; NELP, 2008). Similar studies need
to be carried out for emergent bilingual readers.
Notwithstanding these limitations, we uncovered several important findings in the present
study. First, we show the developmental trajectory of print convention knowledge among
emergent bilingual readers in French immersion. Print conventions that are common to both
English and French tend to develop by the end of senior kindergarten, whereas print conventions
that are unique to either language were still in development by the end of Grade 1. Second, we
demonstrate that this early knowledge of print convention is related to achievement in word
reading skills in the L2. There is a significant role of French print convention knowledge in
senior kindergarten to progress in French word reading in Grade 1. Across languages, English
print convention knowledge in kindergarten is related to progress in French word reading in
Grade 1. These results suggest that print awareness in both English and French develops through
formal and informal educational contexts and that print convention knowledge predicts progress
in word reading in emergent bilingual children.
85
Chapter 5. Study 3
Learning to read in English and French: Emergent readers in French immersion
Extensive research has shown that successful word reading entails multiple skills,
including phonological awareness, orthographic processing, and vocabulary knowledge (e.g.,
Conrad, Harris, & Williams, 2013; Ehri et al., 2001; Kirby, Derochers, Roth, & Lai, 2008). For
emergent bilingual readers, skills that contribute to word reading success in two languages may
develop in different contexts. Thus, it is important to consider the developmental trajectories of
these skills and the linguistic environments in which they are acquired. In the current study, we
explored the extent to which phonological awareness, orthographic processing, and vocabulary
knowledge contribute to word reading achievement in English and French from first through
third grade. We conducted our study with typically developing and at-risk readers attending an
early total French immersion program in Canada. Children in the early total French immersion
program are second language (L2) learners of French. They receive school instruction entirely in
French from first to third grade, while acquiring English language and literacy skills informally
outside of school.
The French immersion program provides a unique opportunity to investigate how
emergent bilinguals develop word reading skills in their two languages in different learning
contexts. French immersion children receive consistent exposure to language and literacy
instruction in their L2 in a formal schooling setting. At the same time, French immersion
children develop reading skills in English informally because it is the dominant societal
language, even though it is not taught at school in the early grades (Au-Yeung et al., 2015).
Thus, through this unique L2 program, it is possible to explore how phonological awareness,
orthographic processing, and vocabulary knowledge develop in formal and informal settings in
86
English and French and examine the extent to which these skills predict word reading
achievement in the two languages.
The Relation Between Phonological Awareness and Word Reading
Phonological awareness refers to the ability to manipulate and reflect on sound units in
the spoken language (e.g., the word cat consists of 3 phonemes, /k/ /a/ and /t/). Phonological
awareness has been identified as a fundamental skill in learning to read (e.g., Casalis &
Alexandre, 2000; Geva & Siegel, 2000). Emergent readers must develop the ability to identify
the segments of oral language (i.e., phonemes, syllables) to map letters onto sounds quickly and
accurately (Koda, 2000). For bilingual children, the relation between phonological awareness
and word reading is supported in both the first language (L1) and L2 (e.g., Durgunoğlu, Nagy, &
Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Gottardo, Siegel, Yan, & Wade-Woolley, 2001). In addition, phonological
awareness has been shown to be a strong predictor of word reading longitudinally, particularly
during the early years of reading instruction (e.g., Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, & Lacroix,
1999; Lafrance & Gottardo, 2005; for a review, see Lesaux & Geva, 2006).
Several longitudinal studies have identified phonological awareness as a robust predictor
of word reading skills among English-French learners in the early primary grades. Comeau and
colleagues (1999) tested French immersion students in grades 1, 3, and 5 and reported that
phonological awareness skills in English and French were significantly correlated with word
reading in both languages one year later, after partialling out naming speed and pseudoword
repetition. In another study, Kruk and Reynolds (2012) tracked English reading skills among
English-speaking students in French immersion from Grade 1 to Grade 3. Findings revealed that
English phonological awareness in Grade 1 was a significant predictor of English word reading
in Grade 3. Lafrance and Gottardo (2005) observed that, longitudinally, French phonological
87
awareness in kindergarten was significantly associated with French word reading in Grade 1
among native French-speaking children learning English. Finally, in a three-year longitudinal
study, Wise and colleagues (Wise, D’Angelo, & Chen, 2016) reported that French immersion
children who received an 18-week English phonological awareness training in Grade 1 showed
significant gains in both English and French word reading in Grade 3 as compared to the control
group who received English vocabulary instruction. Taken together, these studies suggest that
phonological awareness plays an important role in the word reading development of English-
French bilingual learners.
The Relation Between Orthographic Processing and Word Reading
The second skill that is related to beginning reading achievement is orthographic
processing, which refers to the “ability to form, store, and access orthographic representations”
(Stanovich & West, 1989, p. 404). Orthographic processing occurs at both lexical and sublexical
levels. At the lexical level, orthographic processing involves the application of knowledge of
spellings of specific words and spelling patterns within words. In lexical tasks, participants are
asked to choose the correct spelling for a real word (e.g., dream-dreem; Olson et al., 1994). At
the sublexical level, orthographic processing involves the application of knowledge of the
orthographic consistencies or conventions with which letter combinations may occur in a
language. In such tasks, participants are asked to choose the pseudoword that looks more like a
word (e.g., baff-bbaf; Cassar & Treiman, 1997). In this case, baff is the correct answer because
the consonant doublet ff is legal in the final position of a word, whereas bb in bbaf is illegal in
the initial position.
An increasing body of research indicates that orthographic processing is significantly
correlated with word reading skills among diverse group of bilingual readers. Studies of these
88
relationships employ either lexical or sublexical orthographic choice tasks or a combination of
both. Among Grade 1 French immersion children, Deacon et al. (2013b) demonstrated that
English lexical orthographic processing contributed to English word reading, just as French
lexical orthographic processing contributed to French word reading (see also, Deacon et al.,
2009). They also found the same pattern of results for the sublexical tasks. In a longitudinal
study, Commissaire, Pasquarella, Chen, and Deacon (2014) examined the development of
English and French orthographic processing among French immersion children from Grade 1 to
Grade 2. They observed that orthographic processing skills at both the lexical and sublexical
levels in English and French loaded onto a single latent factor, suggesting that similar processes
underlie the subcomponents of orthographic processing when children learn to read in English
and French. Based on the results of Commissaire et al. (2014), we combined lexical and
sublexical measures to represent orthographic processing in the present study.
The Relation Between Vocabulary and Word Reading
Vocabulary knowledge refers to understanding the meanings of individual words (Muter,
Hulme, Snowling, & Stevenson, 2004). It is considered a central aspect of general language
development. For monolingual readers of alphabetic orthographies, vocabulary knowledge is
viewed to contribute to word reading because it allows children to recognize words after they are
sounded out (Metsala & Walley, 1998; Nation & Snowling, 1998, 2004). The role of vocabulary
in word reading may be especially evident among speakers of languages that consist of
unpredictable letter-sound correspondence (Kirby et al., 2008). For example, in both English and
French, some letters can be pronounced in different ways, resulting in multiple possible
pronunciations. To illustrate, as in English can correspond to multiple sounds, including /æs/ as
in gas, /æz/ as in has, and /ʌz/ as in was. Thus, it may be challenging to differentiate among
89
these possibilities without being able to recognize a variant as sounding like a known word, and
perhaps corroborating this selection through assessment of the meaning in context. In this way,
vocabulary knowledge facilitates word reading.
Research also suggests that vocabulary knowledge may not play a critical role in word
reading. It is possible that during the early stages of learning to read, word reading skills are
relatively uninfluenced by vocabulary knowledge because children start school with a relatively
well-developed vocabulary, whereas foundational decoding skills are beginning to develop.
During this stage in reading development, vocabulary knowledge and word reading skills may be
distinct constructs, as proposed by the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986).
Indeed, there is evidence that vocabulary knowledge is not significantly related to word reading
skills among monolingual children learning to read (e.g., Muter et al., 2004; Ricketts, Nation, &
Bishop, 2007). In this respect, evidence for the role of vocabulary in word reading is not widely
supported.
Different from monolingual learners, children learning an L2 upon entering formal
education have little or no vocabulary foundation in the L2 (Farnia & Geva, 2011). As such, the
development of reading and vocabulary skills co-occur (Chall, 1996). Generally, studies in the
L2 population on the role of vocabulary knowledge on word reading have focused on English
learners (ELs), but the results are mixed. On the one hand, some researchers argue that
vocabulary knowledge aids word reading because L2 learners may rely on their knowledge of
words in the L2 to aid the pronunciation of the printed word (Geva & Siegel, 2000; Gottardo,
2002; Swanson, Rosston, Gerber, & Solari, 2008). For example, Gottardo (2002) found that
English L2 receptive vocabulary explained a small but significant variance in English word
reading among Spanish-English first grade children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. In a
90
systematic review that included studies with students from various language groups, Geva (2006)
reported that English oral language proficiency explained a modest proportion of unique variance
in EL students’ word reading scores.
On the other hand, studies of L2 learners from diverse home language backgrounds have
not shown a consistent and unique role of L2 vocabulary in L2 word reading (e.g., Durgunoğlu et
al., 1993; Geva, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Schuster, 2000; Gottardo et al., 2001). For example, Geva
and colleagues (Geva et al., 2000) found that English L2 vocabulary knowledge was not
significant in predicting word reading skills in both English as first language (EL1) and EL
children once phonological awareness and rapid naming had been partialled out. Likewise,
Durgunoğlu and colleagues (1993) reported that vocabulary skills in either Spanish or English
were not significantly associated with word reading among Spanish speakers learning English in
first grade.
Put together, research findings regarding the relation between vocabulary and word
reading among L2 learners need to be clarified. Also noteworthy is the scarcity of research
conducted with young English-French learners.
At-Risk Readers Learning an L2
The majority of research on at-risk L2 readers has investigated phonological awareness
and word reading skills. Generally, findings indicate that at-risk readers in mainstream English
stream programs, whether they are English L1 speakers or ELs, fall behind their typically
developing peers on phonological awareness and word reading and this gap remains over time
(Lesaux & Siegel, 2003; Geva, et al., 2000). In addition, although research has found that
phonological awareness intervention given to at-risk L2 learners in French immersion programs
improves their phonological and word reading skills (MacCoubrey, Wade-Woolley, Klinger, &
91
Kirby, 2004; Wise et al., 2016), it is not known whether they catch up to their typically-
developing peers over time. With respect to vocabulary, a series of longitudinal studies carried
out by Bruck (1978, 1982) showed that French immersion students who were identified as
“impaired” in kindergarten had not achieved the same levels of vocabulary in grades 1 to 3 as the
control group, suggesting that the gap in vocabulary also sustains over time. However, current
research is needed to validate the findings of Bruck’s studies given that they were conducted
three decades ago.
The lack of research on the orthographic processing of at-risk L2 readers hinders our
understanding of how at-risk readers compare to their typically-developing peers, though some
generalizations can be made based on research on monolinguals. Apel and colleagues (Apel,
Thomas-Tate, Wilson-Fowler, & Brimo, 2012) reported that, among at-risk kindergarteners from
low socioeconomic backgrounds, those with more advanced word reading abilities developed
better lexical orthographic processing skills than their peers with less advanced word reading
abilities. In another study, Siegel, Share, and Geva (1995) compared orthographic processing
skills between native English speakers with dyslexia and typically developing readers matched
for reading level. Results showed that the group with dyslexia had significantly higher scores
than the typically developing readers. The researchers hypothesized that, because of their poor
phonological skills, the readers with dyslexia had learned to pay more attention to the
orthographic form of a word than to its sound. These findings indicate that readers possess some
orthographic processing skills even if they have dyslexia or are at-risk, but the extent to which
they compare to their typically developing counterparts remains largely unknown.
The Present Study
The present study is a longitudinal investigation of word reading development among
emergent bilingual readers in a French immersion early grade educational program. We focused
on bilingual children from grades 1 to 3, as this is a critical point in schooling when key
foundational reading skills develop. Very few studies have examined the simultaneous
development of English and French word reading skills acquired through formal and informal
settings over time (e.g., Au-Yeung et al., 2015; Pasquarella et al., 2014). Building on the studies
reviewed above, we examined the contributions of phonological awareness, orthographic
processing, and vocabulary to growth and achievement in word reading in English (L1) and
French (L2). The present study is guided by three overarching research questions:
(1) Which Grade 1 reading sub-skills predict Grade 3 word reading achievement in
English and French for children in French immersion? Do these predictors differ for English and
French word reading achievement?
(2) Which Grade 1 reading sub-skills predict trajectories of word reading from Grade 1 to
Grade 3 in English and French for children in French immersion? Do these predictors differ for
English and French word reading trajectories?
(3) How do the trajectories of reading skills compare between typically developing and
at-risk children in French immersion during the first three years of L2 schooling?
Methods
Participants. Participants were recruited for a larger project that investigated the bi-
literacy development of children in French immersion programs in a large Canadian city.
Performance on English and French tasks was assessed across three time points corresponding to
the spring of Grades 1, 2, and 3 (Times 1, 2, and 3, respectively). The initial sample comprised
93
81 students (38 males, M = 6.15 years, SD = 0.36). Consistent with the changing demographics
in large metropolitan cities, our sample included children from diverse language backgrounds.
About half of the children spoke English only at home, whereas the other half spoke a variety of
languages3 to varying extents (e.g., Chinese, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Korean, Punjabi,
Serbian, Spanish, and Turkish). Because a previous study using the same dataset revealed no
difference in either performance or trajectory on most measures between EL1 and EL children
(e.g., Au-Yeung et al., 2015), the two groups were combined in the current study. Due to
attrition, the final sample at Time 3 was reduced to 69 (33 males; 36 females). No significant
differences were found between children who dropped out of the study and those who remained
in the study on any of the measures administered at Times 1 and 2 (ps > .05), ruling out selective
attrition in the sample.
Children who scored at or below the 30th percentile on the Letter-Word Identification
subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson III-Tests of Achievement (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather,
2001) and the Elision subtest of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP;
Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999) were identified as at-risk readers at Time 1. These criteria
were adopted from Wise et al. (2016). Using them, we identified six children (1 male, Mage =
6.06 years, SD = 0.01) as being at-risk readers at Time 14.
Measures
As it was of interest to examine the development of English and French word reading
over time, scores for measures of English and French word reading were examined at the three
time points. For all other measures, only scores at Time 1 were examined in the current study
3 None of the participants reported French as their home language. 4 Of the six at-risk readers, there were 5 EL and 1 EL1 children.
94
because we were interested in Grade 1 measures (i.e., Time 1) as predictors of performance and
growth in word reading in Grade 3 (i.e., Time 3).
Non-verbal reasoning. Non-verbal reasoning was measured with the Matrix Analogies
Test (MAT; Naglieri, 1985). The test was made up of four subtests, with 16 items in each
subtest. For each item, participants were provided with a sequence of patterns with a missing part
and asked to complete the sequence by choosing from six available options. Testing was
discontinued when four consecutive errors were made. The total score was the total number of
correct items across all four subtests.
Phonological awareness. The Elision subtest of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological
Processing (CTOPP; Wagner et al., 1999) was used to measure English phonological awareness
following the standardized procedure. In this 20-item task, children were required to sound out a
word without a specific sound segment (e.g., “Say baseball without saying base”). Two practice
items were presented prior to the task. Testing was stopped after three consecutive errors. French
phonological awareness was assessed using an experimental task from Wise et al. (2016). The
format of administration and item characteristics of this 20-item task were similar to that of the
English CTOPP Elision task. Six practice items were presented before testing. Testing was
discontinued after three consecutive errors. In both the English and French phonological
awareness tasks, the total number of correct items was used.
Orthographic processing. Orthographic processing in English and French was assessed
using both lexical and sublexical orthographic tasks that were adapted from Olson et al. (1994)
and Deacon et al. (2013) respectively (see Appendix F – I). For each item in the lexical task,
participants were presented with two possible spellings from which they had to choose the one
that they thought reflected the correct spelling of the target word. The two options were
95
homophones, such that the item was chosen on the basis of orthographic features alone (e.g.,
roar - rore in English; jambon - jembon in French). There were a total of 42 items and two
practice items in both the English and French lexical tasks.
In the English and French sublexical tasks, the options provided in each item were
pseudowords (e.g., vish – visch; see Deacon et al., 2013b). The two options were homophonic
but one of the options contained an orthographic pattern that was illegal in English or French. An
illegal orthographic pattern was defined as either (1) a letter string that was not accepted in the
language (e.g., spiime) or (2) a letter or letter string occupying an illegitimate position within a
word (e.g., fhrode where fh is in an illegitimate position by appearing at the beginning of the
word) (Commissaire et al., 2014). Participants were asked to indicate which of the two options
resembled the spelling of a real word in either English or French. There were a total of 28 items
and two practice items in both the English and French sublexical tasks.
Receptive vocabulary knowledge. English receptive vocabulary was measured using the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-IV; Dunn & Dunn, 2007). The child was asked to
indicate which of four pictures best represented a target word that was read. The 228 items of the
task were arranged in sets of 12 words in increasing difficulty. Testing was terminated when
eight or more errors in a set were made. French receptive vocabulary was assessed using the
Échelle de Vocabulaire en Images Peabody (EVIP; Dunn, Theriault Whalen, & Dunn, 1993).
The format of testing was similar to the PPVT. There were 170 items on the task and testing
stopped when six errors in a set of eight items were made. Standardized protocol was followed
for both English and French vocabulary measures. The total score of each task was the total
number of correct responses.
96
Word reading. English word reading was assessed by the Letter-Word Identification
subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson III-Tests of Achievement (Woodcock, et al., 2001). There
were 76 items in total, presented in increasing difficulty. Testing was discontinued after six
consecutive errors. French word reading was assessed using an experimental task used in Deacon
et al. (2013). The test comprised 120 word items that were organized into sets of eight words of
increasing difficulty. Testing stopped when participants made four or more errors in a set. The
total score on each task was derived from the total number of correct items on the task.
Procedure
Tasks of phonological awareness, non-verbal reasoning, word reading, and vocabulary in
both languages were administered individually by trained research assistants who were native or
fluent speakers of the language(s) in which they were administered. The orthographic tasks in
both languages were administered in a group setting under the supervision of research assistants.
At each time point, testing was conducted over two sessions (English and French), with each
session lasting between 30 and 40 minutes.
Results
The means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients of all measures are presented
in Table 10. As mentioned earlier, we combined the data of the EL1 and EL children because a
previous related study found no significant differences between the two groups on most
measures administered in this study (Au-Yeung et al., 2015). To simplify the analysis, we also
combined the scores on the lexical and sublexical orthographic processing tasks in each language
by first converting the scores on each task into z-scores and adding them together to create
composite scores for orthographic processing in English and French. We used a composite score
97
for orthographic processing given that an earlier study found that both lexical and sublexical
tasks in each language loaded onto a common factor (see Commissaire et al., 2014).
Table 10.
Descriptive Statistics (raw scores) and Reliability of All Measures
Measure English French
M (SD) Reliability M (SD) Reliability
Non-Verbal Reasoning 20.01 (12.26) .96 - -
T1 Word Reading 36.36 (10.09) .95 40.29 (13.51) .96
T2 Word Reading 45.99 (8.83) .85 63.61 (20.69) .99
T3 Word Reading 53.04 (8.46) .96 82.26 (22.57) .97
T1 Phonological Awareness 11.75 (5.25) .92 11.72 (5.19) .92
T1 Orthographic Processing
Lexical
Sublexical
T1 Vocabulary
39.82 (9.62)
19.32 (5.65)
19.37 (5.20)
115.29 (22.12)
.82
.83
.75
.96
39.57 (8.10)
19.67 (4.06)
18.92 (5.54)
38.17 (16.93)
.59
.71
.70
.96
Note. T1 = Time 1 (Grade 1), T2 = Time 2 (Grade 2), and T3 = Time 3 (Grade 3).
An examination of the skewness and kurtosis values revealed that, with the exception of
French vocabulary, none of the performance distributions for any of the tasks violated normality.
Log transformation was carried out to correct the negative skew of the distribution for French
vocabulary but it did not alter the pattern of results. Therefore, raw scores for this measure were
used for subsequent analyses. Although several outliers were identified across the range of tasks,
they were not excluded from subsequent analyses because the pattern of results did not differ in
the models with and without the outliers.
Tables 11 and 12 show the correlations among predictor and outcome variables over the
three grades (Times 1, 2, and 3) in English and French, respectively. With respect to English
measures (Table 11), all predictors were significantly correlated with word reading at all three
time points. The word reading measures across all three grades (Times 1, 2, and 3) were also
significantly correlated to one another (.54 ≤ r ≤ .75). With respect to French measures, non-
verbal reasoning was not significantly correlated with French word reading across the three time
points. Among the other measures, except for the correlation between French vocabulary and
99
Time 3 (Grade 3) French word reading, all other correlations with French word reading across
the three time points were significant (.24 ≤ r ≤ .73).
Table 11
Concurrent and Longitudinal Correlations Among All English Measures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Non-Verbal Reasoning -
2. T1 English Word Reading .52** -
3. T2 English Word Reading .30* .67** -
4. T3 English Word Reading .39** .54** .75** -
5. T1 English Phonological Awareness .38** .56** .48** .40** -
6. T1 English Orthographic Processing
7. T1 English Vocabulary
.47**
.35**
.78**
.31**
.58**
.37**
.49**
.36**
.43**
.31**
-
.22
-
Note. T1 = Time 1 (Grade 1), T2 = Time 2 (Grade 2), and T3 = Time 3 (Grade 3).
** p < .01; * p < .05
Table 12
Concurrent and Longitudinal Correlations among all French Measures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Non-Verbal Reasoning -
2. T1 French Word Reading .36** -
3. T2 French Word Reading .19 .73** -
4. T3 French Word Reading .07 .72** .73** -
5. T1 French Phonological Awareness .21 .41** .29* .26* -
6. T1 French Orthographic Processing .45** .61** .45** .42** .04 -
7. T1 French Vocabulary .25** .34** .29* .23 .24* .28* -
Note. T1 = Time 1 (Grade 1), T2 = Time 2 (Grade 2), and T3 = Time 3 (Grade 3).
** p < .01; * p < .05
Growth curve analyses were conducted using the Hierarchical Linear Modelling 7
software (HLM-7; Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2011) to examine (1) the linear growth
trajectories of English and French word reading, (2) the predictors of word reading achievement
at Time 3 (Grade 3), and (3) the predictors of growth of English and French word reading across
the three time points. As such, growth curve analysis was a good technique for examining the
association of the predictor variables with growth of word reading scores over time.
A two-level repeated measures design was adopted for each analysis. Separate analyses
were carried out for English and French word reading. Unconditional models for English and
French word reading were computed by entering each participant’s word reading scores across
all three time points at level 1. This yielded individual growth trajectories which allowed for an
investigation of the amount of variance within and among participants. The data were centered at
age at Time 3 (98 months). As a result of this centering, the intercept of each trajectory
represented the word reading score at Time 3, whereas the slope provided information on the
growth of word reading scores over time. Subsequently, simple conditional models were fitted
where scores on each predictor variable (i.e., individual or student-level characteristics) were
entered separately at level 2. With simple conditional models, we were able to examine whether
differences in the trajectories of word reading were dependent on each of the level 2 predictors.
Only predictors that were found to significantly affect changes in the intercept and/or slope were
included in a final combined model.
The coefficients, standard errors, and t-values for the simple conditional models of
English word reading are shown in Table 13. Non-verbal reasoning, English phonological
awareness, and English orthographic processing were significant predictors of the intercept. In
addition, both the Grade 1 intercept and the slope of English orthographic processing were
102
significant predictors of the final intercept and rate of growth on English word reading. A
negative coefficient of the slope associated with this predictor means that participants who had
lower scores on the English orthographic processing task exhibited faster growth in English word
reading than those with higher scores.
Table 13
Simple Conditional Models of English Word Reading at Time 3.
Predictor Coefficient SE t
Time 1
Non-Verbal Reasoning Intercept .20 .08 2.59*
Slope <-.01 .01 -.77
Time 2
Phonological Awareness Intercept .57 .20 2.82***
Slope -.01 .01 -1.23
Orthographic Processing
Intercept
Slope
.44
-.01
.09
.01
4.74***
-2.80**
Vocabulary Intercept .09 .06 1.68
Slope <-.01 <.01 -.07
*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
A similar set of coefficients for the simple conditional models associated with French
word reading is shown in Table 14. However, unlike the English models, the unconditional
model in French showed that the variation in growth rates of French word reading was not
significant. Therefore, slope coefficients were not included in the French models. Simple
conditional models revealed that, other than non-verbal reasoning, all variables were significant
predictors of intercept at Time 3.
Table 14
Simple Conditional Models of French Word Reading at Time 3.
Predictor Coefficient SE t
Time 1
Non-Verbal Reasoning Intercept .26 .16 1.63
Time 2
Phonological Awareness Intercept .87 .40 2.18*
Orthographic Processing Intercept 1.02 .25 4.03***
Vocabulary Intercept .35 .13 2.74***
*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
Based on the information in the simple models, the significant predictors in the simple
models for each language then were entered in final models successively based on their strengths
of prediction. The model fit statistics (i.e., deviance statistics using Full Maximum Likelihood) at
each step were then compared to determine the best-fitting final combined models for each
language. The English word reading model was thus fitted using English orthographic
processing, English phonological awareness, and non-verbal reasoning as predictors of the
intercept, and English orthographic processing as a predictor of slope. The final model for
French word reading was fitted using French measures of orthographic processing, phonological
awareness, and vocabulary.
The final model of English word reading is shown in Table 15. Although non-verbal
reasoning was a significant predictor in the simple conditional model, a comparison of the
deviance statistic of the model when this predictor was added after orthographic and
phonological awareness (the two stronger predictors) as compared to the model with only two
predictors (phonological and orthographic processing) showed that the model with three
predictors did not improve model fit significantly (p >.05). Therefore, non-verbal reasoning was
not included in the final model. English phonological awareness and English orthographic
104
processing at Time 1 (Grade 1) made significant contributions to English word reading
achievement at Time 3 (Grade 3). In addition, English orthographic processing in Grade 1
significantly predicted growth of English word reading scores. The final model explained 40.8%
of the variance in word reading scores in English and 37.5% of the variance in growth of English
word reading.
The final model of French word reading, as shown in Table 16, showed French
phonological awareness and orthographic processing as unique significant predictors of French
word reading achievement at Time 3 (Grade 3). Although vocabulary was a significant predictor
of intercept based on the simple conditional models, it was not included in the final model
because a three-factor model (vocabulary, phonological awareness, and orthographic processing)
did not yield a significantly better model fit as compared to a two-factor model (phonological
awareness and orthographic processing) (p >.05). The final model explained 59.3% of variance
in word reading scores in French.
Table 15
Final Conditional Model of English Word Reading at Time 3.
Model Fixed Effects Random Effects
Coefficient SE t Variance SE R2 (%)
Unconditional
Intercept 53.40 1.02 51.51*** 49.58*** 7.04***
Slope .71 .05 14.00*** .08*** .29***
Conditional
Intercept 29.33*** 5.42*** 40.8
Phonological Awareness .31 .13 2.42*
Orthographic Processing .38 .09 4.15***
Slope .05*** .23*** 37.5
Orthographic Processing -.01 .01 -2.77**
*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
Table 16
Final Conditional Model of French Word Reading at Time 3.
Model Fixed Effects Random Effects
Coefficient SE t Variance SE R2 (%)
Unconditional
Intercept 80.05 2.69 29.76*** 411.79*** 20.29***
Slope 1.65 .08 20.95*** .14 .37
Conditional
Intercept
Phonological Awareness
.90
.32
2.76**
167.44*** 12.94*** 59.3
Orthographic Processing 1.02 .25 4.12***
*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
Growth of Typically-Developing Children and At-Risk Readers
The performance on English and French word reading, phonological awareness,
orthographic processing, and vocabulary of the typically developing children and at-risk children
over the three grades was also graphed to compare the trends (Figures 3 and 4). As seen in the
graphs, the typically developing children were always outperforming the at-risk children across
all tasks in both languages. Longitudinally, the at-risk readers improved on the English measures
of phonological awareness, orthographic processing, vocabulary, and word reading, as well as
the French measures of orthographic awareness and word reading over time. Although there
appears to be a drop in performance for the at-risk readers between Grade 2 and Grade 3 on the
French phonological awareness measure, this decrease was not significant. Performance on the
French vocabulary measure was stagnant between Grade 2 and Grade 3 for the at-risk readers.
107
Figure 3. Trajectories of English measures of word reading, phonological awareness,
orthographic processing, and vocabulary between Times 1 and 3.
108
Figure 4. Trajectories of French measures of word reading, phonological awareness,
orthographic processing, and vocabulary between Times 1 and 3.
Discussion
We investigated predictors of performance and growth in English and French word
reading from first through third grade among emergent bilingual readers attending an early total
French immersion program in Canada. The longitudinal design afforded the opportunity to move
beyond traditional methods of concurrent correlational analyses. Thus, growth curve analyses
were adopted to investigate the trajectories of word reading in English and French and the Grade
109
1 predictors of these trajectories; namely, phonological awareness, orthographic processing, and
vocabulary.
Factors Related to English Word Reading
The Grade 1 predictors of Grade 3 English word reading achievement consisted of
English phonological awareness and English orthographic processing. We also found a negative
slope between English orthographic processing in Grade 1 and English word reading in Grade 3.
These findings converge in several ways with findings from extant research that focused on the
development of reading (e.g., Comeau et al., 1999; Conrad et al., 2013; Ehri et al., 2001). First,
the finding English phonological awareness was significantly related to English word reading
confirms that the ability to manipulate sounds plays a critical role in learning to read alphabetic
languages. There is substantial research supporting the role of phonological awareness in the
development of word reading in both monolingual and bilingual children in the early primary
grades (e.g., Comeau et al., 1999; Durgunoğlu et al., 1993; Gottardo et al., 2001; Sun-Alperin &
Wang, 2011; Wagner et al., 1997). Our findings extend longitudinal studies of Comeau et al.
(1999) and Lafrance and Gottardo (2005) on the significance of phonological awareness in word
reading among English-French children to a diverse sample of French immersion children.
Compared to phonological awareness, the role of orthographic processing in the
performance and growth in word reading has been less extensively examined among young
bilingual children. To our knowledge, the current study is the first to show that English
orthographic processing contributes to both achievement and growth in English word reading
among French immersion children. The finding that English orthographic processing in Grade 1
was significantly related to achievement in English word reading in Grade 3 replicates findings
from studies on native English-speaking children as well as bilingual children in early primary
110
grades (Conrad et al., 2013; Deacon et al., 2009, 2013; Pasquarella et al., 2014; Wagner &
Barker, 1994). Our study, with a 3-year longitudinal design, underscores the long-term effect of
orthographic processing on word reading. Notably, we also observed a negative slope between
English orthographic processing in Grade 1 and English word reading in Grade 3. The negative
slope suggests that children who had lower scores in English orthographic processing in Grade 1
made more gains in English word reading by Grade 3, probably because they had more room to
grow.
Given that the English language is considered to have highly irregular and unpredictable
correspondences between phonemes and graphemes (Ziegler, Jacobs, & Stone, 1996; Ziegler,
Stone, & Jacobs, 1997), it may be necessary to rely on orthographic processing to determine the
correct identification of a word in English. According to Ehri (2005), lexical orthographic
knowledge supports word reading because familiar words are read automatically as a single unit
directly from memory. Lexical knowledge may support reading unfamiliar words through
analogy to words already stored in memory. Ehri (2005) also proposed that with practice, sight
words are established in memory through connections that are formed by linking a word’s
spelling to the pronunciation and meaning in memory. These connections are formed through the
reader’s increasing alphabetic knowledge, which is facilitated by alphabetic principles and
orthographic conventions, and includes knowledge of letter-sound correspondence, spelling
patterns and regularities that recur in different words. As readers develop multiple letter-sound
correspondences and an understanding of spelling patterns, they use larger units to form
connections to remember specific words. As such, sublexical knowledge may also contribute to
the formation of connections necessary to establish word reading skills.
111
With respect to vocabulary, our results revealed that vocabulary in Grade 1 was not a
significant predictor of achievement or growth in English and French word reading in Grade 3.
Several researchers (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Nation & Snowling, 1998; Plaut, McClelland,
Seidenberg, & Patterson, 1996) have proposed that the mechanism by which vocabulary
knowledge influences word recognition is through fast mappings between orthographic,
phonological, and semantic representations in the lexical system. Indeed, studies with
monolinguals have indicated that there is a relation between vocabulary and word recognition
(e.g., Bryant, Maclean, & Bradley, 1990; Nagy, Berninger, Abbott, Vaughan, & Vermeulen,
2003; Stratman & Hodson, 2005). However, our finding that vocabulary did not significantly
predict word reading is consistent with research on monolingual and bilingual children that also
did not observe such a relation (e.g., Durgunoğlu et al., 1993; Geva et al., 2000; Gottardo et al.,
2001; Muter et al., 2004). It is possible that during the early years of formal education, word
reading is relatively uninfluenced by vocabulary knowledge because children enter school with a
relatively well-developed vocabulary, while beginning to acquire decoding skills. Vocabulary is
expected to play a stronger role in reading in later elementary grades when students are
confronted with more complex texts (e.g., Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Muter et al., 2004)
and must decode a word and check it against their vocabulary to determine whether the word was
properly decoded.
Factors Related to French Word Reading
French phonological awareness and French orthographic processing in Grade 1 emerged
as unique significant predictors of French word reading performance in Grade 3. French
vocabulary in Grade 1 was not significantly related to French word reading in Grade 3. Our
finding for French word reading parallels the pattern of results for English word reading, in that
112
both phonological awareness and orthographic processing were significantly related to word
reading achievement in Grade 3.
The finding that both phonological awareness and orthographic processing were
significantly related to word reading in both English and French provides evidence that word
reading development in both languages is remarkably similar for emerging readers in French
immersion, despite acquiring word-reading skills in different contexts. At the same time, it is not
surprising that phonological awareness and orthographic processing emerged as significant
predictors of word reading, given the substantial evidence of their role in early reading
development in both monolingual and bilingual children (e.g., Comeau et al., 1999; Conrad et
al., 2013; Deacon et al., 2009, 2013b; Durgunoğlu et al., 1993; Muter et al., 2004; Sun-Alperin &
Wang, 2011).
Also noteworthy is the lack of a significant role of French vocabulary in French word
reading. French immersion children already reach a certain level of English proficiency before
entering the immersion program, whereas their French vocabulary is developed at the same time
as other reading-related skills in the program. Despite differences in the level of vocabulary
knowledge in English and French upon entering formal schooling, our findings show that
vocabulary is not significantly related to word reading among emergent L2 readers. The absence
of such relation is in line with past research that has also shown that vocabulary does not play a
unique role in word reading during the early stages of reading development (e.g., Durgunoğlu et
al., 1993; Geva et al., 2000; Gottardo et al., 2001; Muter et al., 2004).
Interestingly, the predictors in the best-fitting model for French accounted for more
variance in French word reading than the predictors in the best-fitting model for English word
reading. A possible explanation for this finding is that children in the present study received
113
formal instruction entirely in French because it was an immersion program. As the measures
used in this study tapped into skills that are likely enhanced by school experience, the French
predictors made greater contributions to French word reading than the English predictors to
English word reading.
Developmental Trajectory of At-Risk Readers
Our results showed that children classified as at-risk for reading difficulties continued to
fall behind their peers in French immersion on measures of word reading, phonological
awareness, orthographic processing, and vocabulary in English and French during the first three
years of formal schooling in French. Our findings are consistent with Bruck (1978, 1982) and
Lesaux and Siegel (2003), in which at-risk readers also demonstrated poorer performance on
reading-related tasks compared to their typically-developing peers. As the demand and
complexity of reading develops, children increasingly draw from multiple sources of reading-
related skills to achieve literary goals (Nagy et al., 2003). At-risk readers struggle to rely on
these various reading-related skills to read successfully. Of course, our results, based on a very
small sample, are descriptive in nature and need to be validated by future research.
On the other hand, the at-risk readers in the French immersion program continued to
improve on phonological awareness, orthographic processing, vocabulary, and word reading in
English as well as orthographic processing and word reading in French over time, even though
they were receiving no formal literacy instruction in English (see Figures 1 and 2). These results
are consistent with previous research with at-risk readers learning English in mainstream
classrooms, which has also shown evidence of improvement in English word-level skills during
the early primary years (Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). Our study extends Lesaux and Siegel (2003) by
tracking the reading skills in two languages under acquisition of at-risk children in French
114
immersion. Our findings contribute to the scarce research conducted with at-risk readers in
French immersion and highlight the improvement of reading-related skills from first to third
grade.
However, we note that there was a slight drop in performance on the French phonological
awareness task over time for the at-risk readers, although this drop was not significant. In
addition, there appears to be a stagnation of French vocabulary growth between Grade 2 and
Grade 3 for the at-risk readers (see Figure 2). These results are puzzling given that word reading
in French showed a steady increase over time for this group of readers. These inconsistencies in
growth patterns on different tasks could be attributed to the learning environment. Although the
children in the present study were schooled exclusively in French in the early years of formal
education, they received varying amounts of support in the language given that they were in an
English-majority environment outside of school which could yield inconsistent growth patterns.
Further research is needed though to examine this hypothesis, in light of the small sample of at-
risk readers in the present study.
Future Directions and Conclusions
There are several limitations of the current study that must be considered in future
research. First, although our diverse linguistic sample reflects the changing demographics in
large metropolitan cities in Canada, future studies might benefit from including a wide range of
children from various socioeconomic backgrounds. Based on a parental demographic
questionnaire, over ninety percent of mothers whose children participated in our study reported
an education level equal to or greater than a university degree. Clearly, socioeconomic status is a
factor that may limit the generalizability of our findings. Second, there is room for adopting a
more nuanced approach of vocabulary knowledge and whether and how it may be related to
115
word reading. In the current study, we only used a receptive vocabulary knowledge measure in
both languages. Vocabulary knowledge is a multi-dimensional construct (Nation, 2001). Future
research should consider including a wider range of vocabulary knowledge measures, such as
expressive vocabulary, vocabulary depth, and cognate knowledge.
To conclude, despite the limitations, our analysis of the emerging reading abilities of
French immersion children extends previous findings by tracking the longitudinal influences of
phonological awareness, orthographic processing, and vocabulary on the achievement and
growth of word reading in English and French over a three-year period. We add to the literature
by demonstrating that English phonological awareness and orthographic processing in Grade 1
predicted English word reading achievement in Grade 3; likewise, French phonological
awareness and orthographic processing in Grade 1 predicted French word reading achievement
in Grade 3. English orthographic processing in Grade 1 also predicted growth in English word
reading in Grade 3. Despite acquiring English and French reading-related skills in different
settings, word reading development in both languages was similar for the emerging readers in
French immersion. Moreover, we found that at-risk readers in French immersion generally fell
behind their typically developing peers across these reading-related variables in all grades,
although at-risk readers generally showed evidence of improvement in reading-related variables
in both English and French over time. We also observed inconsistent patterns of growth in
vocabulary and phonological awareness for at-risk readers, which could be, in part, due to
learning French in an environment that was English majority outside of school. Future research
is needed to clarify the effects of learning environment on growth of reading-related skills of at-
risk readers compared to typically-developing children.
116
In terms of educational implications, our findings indicate that it might be helpful for
teachers to emphasize orthographic structure in addition to its phonological structure during
reading instruction. Emphasizing these features might support the subsequent development of
phonological and orthographic processing skills to enhance word reading in both English and
French, for both typically developing and at-risk readers in early French immersion.
Chapter 6: General Conclusions
To summarize, the first study (Chung et al., resubmitted) explored the within- and cross-
language relations between print awareness and word reading among emergent bilingual readers
in French immersion from senior kindergarten to Grade 1. The primary goal of the first study
was to determine whether English print awareness, as measured by a shared-storybook task,
predicted English and French word reading concurrently (in senior kindergarten) and a year later
in Grade 1. Concurrently, results showed a significant within-language relation between English
print awareness and English word reading; there was also a cross-language relation between
English print awareness and French word reading. Longitudinally, results were consistent with
studies on emergent Spanish-English readers (e.g., Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis et al., 2004);
English print awareness in senior kindergarten predicted progress in French word reading in
Grade 1, but not in English word reading.
Building on the first study, the second study employed a forced-choice discrimination
task to measure print convention knowledge in English and French. Results revealed a systematic
development of knowledge in several aspects of print from senior kindergarten to Grade 1 in
both English and French, with a trend toward earlier development of global rather than distinct
aspects of print conventions. Within-languages, we found a significant relation between French
print convention knowledge in senior kindergarten to progress in French word reading in Grade
1; no such relations were observed for English. Across languages, English print convention
knowledge in senior kindergarten predicted progress in French word reading in Grade 1; the
cross-language results corroborate with the first study.
Finally, the third study (Chung et al., 2017) investigated the predictors of English and
French word reading from first through third grade. Results showed that Grade 1 predictors were
118
similar for word reading in both languages in Grade 1; English phonological awareness and
orthographic processing (as measured by a lexical and sublexical choice task) predicted English
word reading achievement; English orthographic processing also predicted growth in English
word reading. French phonological awareness and orthographic processing in Grade 1 predicted
French word reading achievement in Grade 3. Moreover, at-risk readers identified in Grade 1
generally fell behind their typically-developing peers across all measures, although evidence of
improvement emerged over time.
The current research advance our knowledge of bilingual children’s orthographic
processing in learning to read in several notable ways. First, past studies have examined the role
of orthographic processing in word reading among bilingual children who have already started
formal schooling (i.e., Grade 1 or above; Deacon et al., 2009, 2013a, 2013b; Pasquarella et al.,
2014; Sun-Alperin & Wang, 2011). Study 1 and 2 established preliminary evidence in the
longitudinal prediction of early orthographic processing (i.e., print awareness) in learning to read
among emergent bilingual readers who have not yet received formal literacy instruction (e.g.,
Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis et al., 2004). Second, Study 2 is one of the first studies to
systemically track the development of emerging understanding of print over time in bilingual
readers. Study 2 also highlighted that print awareness can be assessed in the child’s L2 to predict
within-language word reading despite limited language and literacy experience in the L2 during
this stage. Finally, Study 3 revealed that once bilingual readers have started formal instruction,
orthographic processing at the lexical and sublexical levels plays a unique role in predicting
achievement and growth in learning to read in English and French.
Collectively, the current research illustrates that orthographic processing is an important
predictor of word reading achievement in emergent bilingual readers in French immersion. These
119
results suggest that the extent to which orthographic processing predicts word reading may be, in
part, explained by whether children have started formal reading instruction; notably, early word
reading outcomes were predicted by print awareness (i.e., Concepts of Print and word
discrimination tasks) and later word reading outcomes were predicted by lexical and sublexical
orthographic processing.
Theoretical Implications
Orthographic processing has been included in prominent models of word reading
development, but these models do not specify aspects of orthographic processing that support
word reading as children progress in their reading development. Whereas Ehri’s (2005, 2014)
phase model of reading development predicts lexical orthographic processing as the outcome of
reading experience, statistical learning predicts that sublexical orthographic processing develops
early in reading development (Cassar & Treiman, 1997; Pacton et al., 2001). These models,
however, do not account for the possibility that different aspects of orthographic processing may
play a role in supporting reading development. Findings from the current research provide
evidence that a more nuanced perspective needs to be adopted in understanding orthographic
processing in word reading development.
Generally, the three studies revealed that different aspects of orthographic processing
predict word reading outcomes. Study 1 and 2 revealed that print awareness predicted progress in
word reading in Grade 1. Print awareness appears to develop in emergent bilingual readers prior
to formal literacy instruction is introduced, suggesting that young children likely learn about
some aspects of print implicitly. In the current research, print awareness is demonstrated through
understanding of book and reading conventions, alphabet knowledge, use of linguistic terms, as
well as more refined understanding of conventions that make up words.
120
As children receive formal literacy instruction, results from Study 3 suggest that lexical
orthographic processing in Grade 1 predicts word reading in Grade 3. Lexical orthographic
processing may require a more refined understanding of words, which in turn, predicts word
reading. However, the relation between lexical orthographic processing and word reading may be
a reciprocal one. Recent studies have found that word reading predicts progress in lexical
orthographic processing among school-aged English-speaking (Deacon et al., 2012) and French
immersion children (Pasquarella et al., 2014). The finding from lexical orthographic processing
to word reading in the current research and the finding of an opposite direction in past studies
provide support for measurement concerns raised by Castles and Nation (2006) and Vellutino et
al. (1994). Castles and Nation and Vellutino and colleagues have argued that the lexical
orthographic choice task (e.g., dream-dreem) is a measure of word reading because it assesses
access to well-specified word representations, as does word reading. As such, rather than
measuring a predictor of word reading, lexical orthographic choice task measures word reading
itself and the use of such tasks is circular if the goal is to predict word reading that is not the skill
itself.
With respect to cross-language relations, the current research provides support for the
transfer facilitation model (Koda, 2005) in several ways. First, the model emphasizes that L1
facilitates L2 acquisition; that is, metalinguistic awareness developed in L1 can be readily
available to transfer in L2 reading development. According to Koda, competences must be well
rehearsed—to the point of automaticity—in the L1. Both Study 1 and 2 have illustrated that it is
the children’s L1 (i.e., English) that predicted progress in word reading in the L2 (i.e., French).
To further strengthen the transfer facilitation model, there was no significant cross-language
prediction of L2 to L1 in Study 2. Second, the model posits that shared aspects of metalinguistic
121
awareness facilitate transfer from one language to another. Results from Study 1 provide good
support for this notion, with the adaption of the Concepts of Print task to directly test items that
focus on common print conventions in English and French and that performance on this task
predicted variance in French word reading in Grade 1. Given that English and French share
certain print and reading conventions (e.g., use of Roman letters, directionality of reading),
orthographic processing acquired through exposure to one language would be expected to be
related across languages to word reading, thereby facilitating reading development in the other
language.
Findings from the current research provide support for the interactive transfer framework
(Chung et al., in press) as well. Several factors may influence the cross-language relation
between orthographic processing and word reading. As specified by Chung and colleagues, L1-
L2 proficiency may be one such factor. Study 1 and 2 illustrated the cross-language relation
between orthographic processing and word reading from the more proficient language (i.e.,
English) to the less proficient one (i.e., French). Moreover, the particular methodological
approach may reveal the extent to which cross-language relations is observed. The current
research adopted a longitudinal design with conservative analyses examining the relations
between orthographic processing and word reading. Accordingly, such research methodology
provides a clearer picture of the cross-language relations, as compared to concurrent or cross-
sectional studies. Jointly, the current research sheds light on the complex and dynamic relations
between orthographic processing in learning to read among emergent bilingual children.
Educational Implications
The results of the three studies have key educational implications for the assessment and
design of reading instruction for emergent bilingual readers. It can be challenging to predict
122
word reading skills for French immersion educators because emergent bilingual readers have
limited language and literacy experience in either English or French. The current research
highlighted the importance of orthographic processing in learning to read English and French
among emergent bilingual readers.
Despite acquiring orthographic processing in different learning contexts for English and
French, emergent bilingual readers have demonstrated considerable knowledge about print in
both languages, which in turn, played a significant predictive role in learning to read in Grade 1
(Study 1 and 2) and Grade 3 (Study 3). In this respect, it might be helpful for French immersion
educators to use orthographic processing tasks (e.g., in the form of a shared storybook or forced-
choice) as potential within- and cross-language screening measures for emergent bilingual
readers. In addition, it may also be informative to provide direct instruction on print conventions.
Findings revealed that children have a good knowledge of global print conventions (Study 1 and
2), with evidence of challenges with more distinct aspects (Study 2). Diacritical marks may
require particular attention during instruction in the beginning stages of learning to read in order
to facilitate the development of well-specified orthographic representations in emerging bilingual
children. Finally, opportunities to interact with print are present in diverse contexts for emergent
bilingual readers (e.g., Kuo & Anderson, 2010), such as at school, in the community, and in print
media. Accordingly, children can be encouraged to engage with print by drawing attention to
orthographic structures across these varied contexts. A combination of these approaches seem
promising for educators in developing appropriate instructional and assessment strategies to
support bilingual children’s emergent literacy success.
References
Abu-Rabia, S. (2001). Testing the interdependence hypothesis among native adult bilingual
Russian–English students. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 437–455.
DOI:10.1023/A:1010425825251.
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Apel, K., Thomas-Tate, S., Wilson-Fowler, E. B., & Brimo, D. (2012). Acquisition of initial
mental graphemic representations by children at risk for literacy development. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 33(2), 365 - 391. doi:10.1017/S0142716411000403
Aram, D & Korat, O. (2009). Literacy development and enhancement across orthographies and
cultures. New York, NY: Springer.
Au‐Yeung, K., Hipfner‐Boucher, K., Chen, X., Pasquarella, A., D'Angelo, N., & Deacon, S. H.
(2015). Development of English and French language and literacy skills in EL1 and ELL
French Immersion Students immersion students in the early grades. Reading Research
Quarterly, 50(2), 233 - 254. doi:10.1002/rrq.95
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners:
Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaun Associates, Inc.
Barker, T. A., Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). The role of orthographic processing
skills on five different reading tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 334–345.
doi:10.2307/747673
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Bengochea, A., Justice, L. M., & Hijlkema, M. J. (2017). Print knowledge in Yucatec Maya-
Spanish bilingual children: An initial inquiry. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 20(7), 807-816
Bérubé, D., & Marinova-Todd, S. H. (2014). The effect of sociolinguistic factors and English
language proficiency on the development of French as a third language. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(4), 465-483. DOI:
10.1080/13670050.2013.820686
Biemiller, A. & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in
124
primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44 - 62.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.44
Bialystok, E. (1997). Effects of bilingualism and biliteracy on children’s emerging concepts of
print. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 429-440. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.3.429
Bialystok, E., Shenfield, T., & Codd, J. (2000). Languages, scripts, and the environment: Factors
in developing concepts of print. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 66-76.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.66
Boice, R. K. (1988). Using the translated concepts about print test by Marie Clay with bilingual
kindergarten students (Master’s thesis). State University of New York, Brockport, NY.
Bruck, M. (1978). The suitability of early French immersion programs for the language disabled
child. Canadian Journal of Education, 3(4), 51 - 72.
Bruck, M. (1982). Language disabled children: Performance in an additive bilingual education
program. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3(1), 45 - 60. doi:10.1017/S014271640000415X
Bryant, P. E., Maclean, M., & Bradley, L. L. (1990). Rhyme, language, and children’s reading.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 11(3), 237 - 252. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400008870
Canadian Parents for French. (2016). Retrieved September 24, 2017 from
https://cpf.ca/en/research-advocacy/research/enrolmenttrends/
Casalis, S., & Alexandre, M. F. L. (2000). Morphological analysis, phonological analysis and
learning to read French: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 12(3), 303 - 335.
doi:10.1023/A:1008177205648
Cassar, M., & Treiman, R. (1997). The beginnings of orthographic knowledge: Children’s
knowledge of double letters in words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 631 -
644. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.631.
Castles, A. & Nation, K. (2006). How does orthographic learning happen? In S. Andrews (Ed.),
From ink marks to ideas: Challenges and controversies about word recognition and
reading, (pp. 151–179). London, UK: Psychology Press.
Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
Chung, S. C., Chen, X., & Deacon, S. H. (in press). The relation between orthographic
processing and spelling in grade 1 children in early French immersion. Journal of
Research in Reading. DOI:10.1111/1467-9817.12104
125
Chung, S. C., Chen, X., & Geva, E. (in press). Deconstructing and reconstructing cross-language
transfer: An interactive framework. Journal of Neurolinguistics.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.01.003
Chung, S. C., Koh, P. W., Chen, X., & Deacon, S. H. (2017). Learning to read in English and
French: Emergent bilingual readers in French immersion. Topics in Language Disorders,
37(2), 136-153. DOI: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000118
Chung, S. C., Deacon, S. H., Shakory, S., Geva, E., & Chen, X. (resubmitted). Show me a capital
letter: The role of print awareness in word reading in emergent French immersion
readers.
Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties: A diagnostic survey with
recovery procedures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1989). Concepts about print in English and other languages. The Reading
Teacher, 42(4), 268-276. doi:10.2307/20200110
Clay, M. M. (2000). Concepts about print: What have children learned about the way we print
language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, É., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of
phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 29 - 43.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.29
Commissaire, E., Duncan, L. G., & Casalis, S. (2011). Cross‐language transfer of orthographic
processing skills: A study of French children who learn English at school. Journal of
Research in Reading, 34(1), 59-76. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01473.x
Commissaire, E., Pasquarella, A., Chen, X., & Deacon, S. H. (2014). The development of
orthographic processing skills in children in early French immersion programs. Written
Language & Literacy, 17(1), 16 - 39. doi:10.1075/wll.17.1.02com
Conrad, N. J., Harris, N., & Williams, J. (2013). Individual differences in children’s literacy
development: The contribution of orthographic knowledge. Reading and Writing, 26(8),
1223 - 1239. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9415-2
Cupples, L., Ching, T.Y., Crowe, K., Day, J., & Seeto, M. (2014). Predictors of early reading
126
skill in 5‐year‐old children with hearing loss who use spoken language. Reading
Research Quarterly, 49(1), 85-104. doi:10.1002/rrq.60
Day, K. C., & Day, H. D. (1979). Development of kindergarten children's understanding of
concepts about printed and oral language. In Kamil M. L., Moe A. H. (Eds.), Reading
research: Studies and applications (pp. 19–22). Rochester, NY: National Reading
Conference.
Day, K. C., Day, H. D., Spicola, R., & Griffen, M. (1981). The development of orthographic
linguistic awareness in kindergarten children and the relationship of this awareness to
later reading achievement. Reading Psychology, 2(2), 76-87.
doi:10.1080/0270271810020203
Deacon, S. H., Benere, J., & Castles, A. (2012). Chicken or egg? Untangling the relationship
between orthographic processing skill and reading accuracy. Cognition, 122, 110-117.
doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.09.003
Deacon, S. H., Chen, X., Luo, Y., & Ramírez, G. (2013a). Beyond language borders:
Orthographic processing and word reading in Spanish-English bilinguals. Journal of
Research in Reading, 36(1), 58-74. doi:JO.111l/j.1467-9817.20ll.01490.x
Deacon, S. H., Commissaire, E., Chen, X., & Pasquarella, A. (2013b). Learning about print: The
development of orthographic processing and its relationship to word reading in first grade
children in French immersion. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1087 - 1109.
doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9407-2
Deacon, S. H., Wade-Woolley, L., & Kirby, J. R. (2009). Flexibility in young second-language
learners: examining the language specificity of orthographic processing. Journal of
Research in Reading, 32(2), 215 - 229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01392.x
Downing, J. (1972). Children’s developing concepts of spoken and written language. Journal of
Reading, 4, 1-19.
Dunn, D. M., & Dunn, L. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test: Manual. San Antonio,
TX: Pearson.
Dunn, L. M., Theriault-Whalen, C., & Dunn, L. M. (1993). Échelle de vocabulaire en images
Peabody: EVIP. Canada: Psycan Corporation.
Durgunoğlu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of
phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 453 - 465.
127
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.453
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 9(2), 167 - 188. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading: Reading,
spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 5-21. doi:
10.1080/10888438.2013.819356
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T.
(2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence for the
National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250 - 287.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2
Evanechko, P., Ollila, L., Downing, J., & Braun, C. (1973). An investigation of the reading
readiness domain. Research in the Teaching of English, 7(1), 61-78.
Evans, M., Taylor, N., Blum I. (1979). Children's written language awareness and its relation to
reading acquisition. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 331-34.
Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2011). Cognitive correlates of vocabulary growth in English language
learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(4), 711 - 738. doi: 10.1017/S0142716411000038
Genesee, F. (1979). Acquisition of reading skills in immersion programs. Foreign Language
Annals, 12, 71-77.
Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, D., & Kamil, M. (2006). Synthesis: Cross-linguistic
relationships. 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. 153–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Genesee, F., & Jared, D. (2008). Literacy development in early French immersion programs.
Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 140-147. DOI: 10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.140
Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2007). Dual language education in Canada and the United
States. In J. Cummins & N. Hornberger (Eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd
Edit.) (pp. 253-266). New York: Springer,
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.
128
Geva, E., & Clifton, S. (1994). The development of first and second language reading skills in
early French immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(4), 646–667.
Geva, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1993). Linguistic and cognitive correlates of academic skills in first and
second languages. Language Learning, 43(1), 5-42.
Geva, E., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent
development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing, 12(1), 1 - 30.
doi: 10.1023/A:1008017710115
Geva, E., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Schuster, B. (2000). Understanding individual differences in
word recognition skills of ESL children. Annals of Dyslexia, 50(1), 121 - 154.
doi: 10.1007/s11881-000-0020-8
Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1987). Taking account of time lags in casual models. Child
Development, 58(1), 80-92.
Goodall, M. (1984). Can four year olds “read” words in the environment? The Reading Teacher,
37, 478-482.
Goodrich, J. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2017). Language-independent and language-specific aspects
of early literacy: An evaluation of the common underlying proficiency model. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 109(6), 782-793.
Gottardo, A. (2002). The relationship between language and reading skills in bilingual Spanish-
English speakers. Topics in Language Disorders, 22(5), 46 - 70.
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(3), 530 - 542. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.530
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7(1), 6 - 10. doi:10.1177/074193258600700104
Hardy, M., Stennett, R. G., & Smythe, P. C. (1974). Development of auditory and visual
language concepts and relationships to instructional strategies in kindergarten. Elementary
English, 51(4), 525-532.
Hecht, S. A., Burgess, S. R., Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2000).
129
Explaining social class differences in growth of reading skills from beginning
kindergarten through fourth-grade: The role of phonological awareness, rate of access,
and print knowledge. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 99-127.
Hiebert, E. (1981). Developmental patterns and interrelationships of preschool children’s print
awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 236-260.
Jared, D., Cormier, P., Levy, B. A., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2011). Early predictors of biliteracy
development in children in French immersion: A 4-year longitudinal study. Journal of
Educational Psychology,103(1), 119-139. DOI: 10.1037/a0021284
Jared, D., Cormier, P., Levy, B. A., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2013). Discrimination of English and
French orthographic patterns by biliterate children. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 114, 469-488. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.11.001
Johns, J. L. (1980). First graders’ concepts about print. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(4), 529-
549.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2000). Enhancing children’s print and word awareness through
home-based parent intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9(3),
257–269.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2001). Word and print awareness in 4-year-old children. Child
Language and Teaching and Therapy, 17(3), 207-225.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2002) Use of storybook reading to increase print awareness in at-
risk children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(1), 17–29.
Kendall, J. R., Lajeunesse, G., Chmilar, P., Shapson, L. R., & Shapson, S. M. (1987). English
reading skills of French immersion students in kindergarten and grades 1 and 2. Reading
Research Quarterly, 22(2), 135-159.
Kenny, D. A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. Psychological
Bulletin, 82(6), 887-903. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.82.6.887
Kirby, J. R., Desrochers, A., Roth, L., & Lai, S. S. (2008). Longitudinal predictors of word
reading development. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(2), 103 - 110.
doi:1 0.1037/0708-5591.49.2.103
Koda, K. (2000). Cross-linguistic variations in L2 morphological awareness. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 21(3), 297 - 320. doi:10.1017/S0142716400003015
Koda, K. (2008). Impacts of prior literacy experience on second-language learning to read. In K.
130
Koda, & A. M. Zehler (Eds.). Learning to read across languages: Crosslinguistic
relationships in first- and second-language literacy development (pp. 68–96). Mahwah,
NJ: Routledge.
Korat, O. (2005). Contextual and non-contexal knowledge in emergent literacy development: A
comparison between children from low SES and middle SES communities. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 220-238. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.04.009
Kruk, R. S., & Reynolds, K. A. A. (2012). French immersion experience and reading skill
development in at-risk readers. Journal of Child Language, 39(3), 580 - 610.
doi:10.1017/S0305000911000201
Kuo, L.-J., & Anderson, R.C. (2008). Conceptual and methodological issues in comparing
metalinguistic awareness across languages. In K. Koda & A. Zehler (Eds.), Learning to
read across languages (pp. 39-67). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kuo, L.-J., & Anderson, R. C. (2010). Beyond cross-language transfer: Reconceptualizing the
impact of early bilingualism on phonological awareness. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 14(4), 365-385. doi:10.1080/10888431003623470
Kuo, L.-J., & Anderson, R. C. (2012). Effects of early bilingualism on learning phonological
regularities in a new language. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(3), 455-
467. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.08.013
Kuo, L.-J., Uchikoshi, Y., Kim, T.-J., & Yang, X. (2016). Bilingualism and phonological
awareness: Re-examining theories of cross-language transfer and structural sensitivity.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 1-9.
Lafrance, A., & Gottardo, A. (2005). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills and
reading in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26(1), 559 - 578.
doi:10.1017.S0142716405050307
Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert
experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lavine, L. O. (1977). Differentiation of letterlike forms in prereading children. Developmental
Psychology, 13(2), 89-94.
Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French immersion. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(5), 605-628. doi: 10.1353/cml.2008.0006
Lefebvre, P., Trudeau, N., & Sutton, A. (2011). Enhancing vocabulary, print awareness, and
131
phonological awareness through shared storybook reading with low-income preschoolers.
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11(4), 453-479. DOI: 10.1177/1468798411416581
Lesaux, N., & Geva, E. (2006). Synthesis: Development of literacy in language-minority
students. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language
learners: A report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority children and
youth (pp. 53 - 74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lesaux, N. K. & Siegel, L. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English
as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39(6), 1005 - 1019.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.6.1005
Levin, I., & Aram, D. (2004). Children’s names contribute to early literacy: a linguistic and a
social perspective. In D. Ravid & H. Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on
language and language development (pp. 219–239). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Levy, B. A., Gong, Z., Hessels, S., Evans, M. A., & Jared, D. (2006). Understanding print: Early
reading development and the contributions of home literacy experiences. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 93(1), 63-93. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.07.003
Lindsey, K. A., Manis, F. R., & Bailey, C. E. (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading in
Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3),
482-494. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.482
Lomax, R. G., & McGee, L. M. (1987). Young children’s concepts about print and reading:
Toward a model of word reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(2), 237-
256.
Lonigan, C. J., Bloomfield, B. G., Anthony, J. L., Bacon, K. D., Phillips, B. M., & Samwel, C. S.
(1999). Relations among emergent literacy skills, behavior problems, and social
competence in preschool children from low- and middle-income backgrounds. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 40-53.
MacCoubrey, S. J. (2003). A phonemic awareness intervention for at-risk second language
readers in French immersion. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis.) Queen’s University,
Ontario, Canada.
MacCoubrey, S. J., Wade-Woolley, L., Klinger, D., & Kirby, J. R. (2004). Early identification of
132
at-risk L2 readers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(1), 11 - 28.
doi:10.3138/cmlr.61.1.11
Manis, F. R., Lindsey, K. A., & Bailey, C. E. (2004). Development of reading in grades K–2 in
Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 19(4), 214-224. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00107.x
Marinova-Todd, S., Zhao, J., & Bernhardt, M. (2010). Phonological awareness skills in the two
languages of Mandarin-English bilingual children. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics,
24(4-5), 387-400.
Mason, J. M. (1980). When do children begin to read: An exploration of four year old children’s
letter and word reading competencies. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(2), 203-227.
McBride-Chang, C., & Ho, C. S.-H. (2005). Predictors of beginning reading in Chinese and
English: A 2-year longitudinal study of Chinese kindergarteners. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 9(2), 117-144.
Metsala, J. L., & Walley, A. C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental
restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early
reading ability. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning
literacy (pp. 89 - 120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and
grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a
longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 665 - 681.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.665
Naglieri, J. A. (1985). Matrix Analogies Test: Short Form (MAT-SF). San Antonio: TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of
morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second grade readers and
at-risk fourth-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 730 - 742.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.730
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Individual differences in contextual facilitation: Evidence
133
from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 996 -
1011. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06157.x
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills
contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(4), 342 -
356. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00238.x
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early
Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from
http://www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.htm
Neuman, S. B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 34, 286-311.
Nichols, W. D., Rupley, W. H., Rickelman, R. J., & Algozzine, B. (2004). Examining phonemic
awareness and concepts of print patterns of kindergarten students. Reading Research and
Instruction, 43(3), 56-82. doi:10.1080/19388070509558411
Olson, R., Forsberg, H., Wise, B., & Rack, J. (1994). Measurement of word recognition,
orthographic, and phonological skills. In L. G. Reid (Ed.), Frames of reference for the
assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 243 - 277).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013). The Ontario curriculum: French as a second language.
Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/fsl18-2013curr.pdf
Pacton, S., Perruchet, P., Fayol, M. & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Implicit learning out of the lab:
The case of orthographic regularities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130,
401–426. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.401.
Pasquarella, A., Deacon, H., Chen, X., Commissaire, E., & Au-Yeung, K. (2014). Acquiring
orthographic processing through word reading: evidence from children learning to read
French and English. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,
61(3), 240 - 257. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2014.932579
Peereman, R., Lété, B. & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2007). Manulex-Infra: Distributional
characteristics of grapheme-phoneme mappings, infra-lexical, and lexical units in child-
directed written material. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 579–589.
134
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., and Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding
normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.
Psychological Review, 103(1), 56 - 115. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.56
Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S, & Congdon, R. (2011). HLM 7.00 for Windows [Computer
software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Reid, J. (1966). Learning to think about reading. Educational Research, 9, 56-62.
Reutzel, D. R., Oda, L. K., & Moore, B. H. (1989). Developing print awareness: The effect of
three instructional approaches on kindergarteners’ print awareness, reading readiness, and
word reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 21(3), 197-217.
Reyes, I., & Azuara, P. (2008). Emergent biliteracy in young Mexican immigrant children.
Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 374-398.
Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not
all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3), 235 - 257.
doi:10.1080/10888431003623538
Rodriguez, I. (1983). Administration of the concepts about print SAND test to kindergarten
children of limited English proficiency utilizing four test conditions (Doctoral
dissertation). Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX.
Rubin, H., Turner, A., & Kantor, M. (1991). Fourth grade follow-up of reading and spelling
skills of French immersion students. Reading and Writing, 3(1), 63-73.
Sanchez, M., Magnan, A. & Ecalle, J. (2012). Knowledge about word structure in beginning
readers: What specific links are there with word reading and spelling? European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 27, 299–317. DOI: 10.1007/s10212-011-0071-8.
Siegel, L. S., Share, D., & Geva, E. (1995). Evidence for superior orthographic skills in
dyslexics. Psychological Science, 6(4), 250 - 254.
doi:10.1111/j.14679280.1995.tb00601.x
Sneddon, R. (2000). Language and literacy: Children’s experiences in multilingual
environments. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(4), 265-
282.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading
Research Quarterly, 24(4), 360 - 407. doi:10.2307/747605
Stratman, K., & Hodson, B. W. (2005). Variables that influence decoding and spelling in
135
beginning readers. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21(2), 165 - 190.
doi:10.11911I 191l/0265659005ct287oa
Stuart, M. (1995). Prediction and qualitative assessment of five- and six-year old children’s
reading: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 287-296.
Sun-Alperin, M. K., & Wang, M. (2011). Cross-language transfer of phonological and
orthographic processing skills from Spanish L1 to English L2. Reading and Writing,
24(5), 591 - 614. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9221-7
Swain, M., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). Immersion education: A category within bilingual
education. In M. Swain & R. K. Johnson (Eds.), Immersion education: International
perspectives (pp. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in
Canada: Some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 15(2), 169-186.
Swanson, H. L., Rosston, K., Gerber, M., & Solari, E. (2008). Influence of oral language and
phonological awareness on children’s bilingual reading. Journal of School Psychology,
46(4), 413 - 429. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.07.002
Tabachnick, B. C., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (1994). Components of reading ability:
Issues and problems in operationalizing word identification, phonological coding, and
orthographic coding. In L. G. Reid (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of
learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 279–332). Baltimore, MD:
Paul H Brookes.
Wagner, R. K., & Barker, T. A. (1994). The development of orthographic processing ability. In
V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge: Theoretical and
developmental issues (pp. 243 - 276). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Development of reading-related
phonological processing abilities: Evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable
longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 73-87.
136
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological
processing: CTOPP. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R.,
Donahue, J., & Garon, T. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing
abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-
year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 468 - 479.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.3.468
Wang, M., Park, Y. & Lee, K.R. (2006). Korean–English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language
phonological and orthographic transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 148–158.
DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.148.
Wesche, M. B. (2002). Early French immersion: How has the original Canadian model stood the
test of time? In P. Burmeister, T. Piske & A. Rohde (Eds.), An integrated view of
language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp.357-379). Trier, Germany:
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child
Development, 69, 848-872.
Wise, N., D’Angelo, N., & Chen, X. (2016). A school-based phonological awareness
intervention for struggling readers in early French immersion. Reading and Writing,
29(2), 183 - 205. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9585-9
Wolf, M., Bally, H., & Morris, R. (1986). Automaticity, retrieval processes and reading: A
longitudinal study in average and impaired readers. Child Development, 57, 988-1005.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson tests of
achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Yeong, S. H. M., Fletcher, J., & Bayliss, D. M. (2014). Importance of phonological and
orthographic skills for English reading and spelling: A comparison of English monolingual
and Mandarin-English bilingual children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4),
1107-1121.
Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency
guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., & Stone, G. O. (1996). Statistical analysis of the bidirectional
137
inconsistency of spelling and sound in French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,
& Computers, 28(4), 504 - 515. doi:10.3758/BF03200539
Ziegler, J. C., Stone, G. O., & Jacobs, A. M. (1997). What is the pronunciation for -ough and the
spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistency in
English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29(4), 600–618.
doi: 10.3758/BF0321061
138
Appendix A
Parental Demographic Questionnaire
In an effort to better understand the factors that influence a child’s ability to learn to read, we would
appreciate it if you could take a moment to complete this questionnaire. Please return the questionnaire to
your child’s classroom teacher along with the consent form.
My child’s name: ____________________ My child’s gender: _________
My child’s date of birth: (MM/DD/YYYY) _____________________________
Questions to Guardian 1 (please specify relationship to child ________________):
1. Were you born in Canada? Please circle one: Yes / No
a. If not, what is your home country? _____________________
b. When did you arrive in Canada? _____________________
2. Was your child born in Canada? Please circle one: Yes / No
a. If not, where was your child born? _____________________
b. At what age did he/she come to Canada? _____________________
3. What is your child’s first language? _____________________
4. At what age did your child first speak English? _____________________
5. How fluent are you in English and any other languages? Please check the appropriate boxes, and
write in any other languages you speak in the blanks provided.
Not fluent
No
understanding
or speaking
ability
Limited
fluency
Some
understanding
and can say
short, simple
sentences
Somewhat
fluent
Good
understanding
and can
express myself
on many
topics
Quite fluent
Can
understand
and use the
language
adequately
for work and
most other
situations
Very fluent
Understand
almost
everything.
Very
comfortable
expressing
self in all
situations
English
Language:
_______________
Language:
_______________
6. What languages do you speak with your child? Please check the appropriate boxes, and write in
any other languages you speak in the blanks provided.
Never Seldom 50% Usually Almost
always
English
Language:
_______________
139
Language:
_______________
7. What languages does your child speak with YOU? Please check the appropriate boxes, and write
in any other languages you speak in the blanks provided.
Never Seldom 50% Usually Almost
always
English
Language:
_______________
Language:
_______________
8. What language do you speak most often with others in your home? _______________
9. Please circle the highest level of education you have completed (in any country):
Primary / Secondary / College / University – Degree / University – Master / University - PhD
Questions to Guardian 2 (please specify relationship to child ________________):
8. Were you born in Canada? Please circle one: Yes / No
a. If not, what is your home country? _____________________
b. When did you arrive in Canada? _____________________
9. How fluent are you in English or any other languages? Please check the appropriate boxes, and
write in any other languages you speak in the blanks provided.
Not fluent
No
understanding
or speaking
ability
Limited
fluency
Some
understanding
and can say
short, simple
sentences
Somewhat
fluent
Good
understanding
and can
express myself
on many
topics
Quite fluent
Can
understand
and use the
language
adequately
for work and
most other
situations
Very fluent
Understand
almost
everything.
Very
comfortable
expressing
self in all
situations
English
Language:
_______________
Language:
_______________
10. What languages do you speak with your child? Please check the appropriate boxes and write in
any other languages that you speak in the blanks provided.
Never Seldom 50% Usually Almost
always
English
Language:
_______________
Language:
_______________
140
11. What languages does your child speak with YOU? Please check the appropriate boxes and write in
any other language your child speaks in the blanks provided.
Never Seldom 50% Usually Almost
always
English
Language:
_______________
Language:
_______________
12. What language do you speak most often with others in your home? ____________________
13. Please circle the highest level of education you have completed (in any country):
Primary / Secondary / College / University – Degree / University – Master / University - PhD
Questions for both parents and/or guardians:
11. In addition to guardians 1 and 2, is there another primary caregiver in the home? Yes / No
a. If yes, what language(s) does s/he speak with your child? Please check the appropriate boxes
and write in any other languages in the blanks provided.
Never Seldom 50% Usually Almost
always
English
Language:
_______________
Language:
_______________
b. What language(s) does your child speak with her/him? Please check the appropriate boxes and
write in any other languages in the blanks provided.
Never Seldom 50% Usually Almost
always
English
Language:
_______________
Language:
_______________
14. Approximately how many children’s books do you have in the home (including library books)?
Please check one for each applicable language.
English books: More than 100____ 50-100____ 25-50____ 10-25____ Fewer than 10____
Other ______: More than 100____ 50-100____ 25-50____ 10-25____ Fewer than 10____
Other ______: More than 100____ 50-100____ 25-50____ 10-25____ Fewer than 10____
141
15. How often does your child do the activities below, either in English or in other languages? Please
check the appropriate boxes below, and please specify the language in which the child does the
activity.
Activity English Language:
____________________
Language:
____________________
Every
day
At
least
once
a
week
Almost
never/
never
Every
day
At
least
once
a
week
Almost
never/
never
Every
day
At
least
once
a
week
Almost
never/
never
Reads
books/magazines
Uses a computer
Watches
TV/movies
Storytelling
Sings
songs
Writes
16. Does your child attend an English language program outside of school (after-school, or on the
weekends)? Yes / No
a. If yes, how many hours per week? Please specify: _______________________________
17. Does your child attend an international language program outside of school (after-school, or on the
weekends)? Yes / No
a. If yes, for which language? ________________________________
b. How many hours per week? ________________________________
18. Does your child participate in any extracurricular activities which require the use of language
skills, either in English or in other languages (for example, art classes, dance classes, sports
teams, etc.)?
a. If yes, how many hours per week? Please specify: ________________________________
19. Does your child have brothers or sisters? Yes / No
If yes, please answer questions 20 – 22 or 25.
20. Sibling 1: Gender: ________________ Date of birth: ________________
21. What language(s) does Sibling 1 speak with the child? Please check the appropriate boxes and
write in any other languages in the blanks provided.
Never Seldom 50% Usually Almost
always
English
Language:
_______________
Language:
_______________
142
22. What language(s) does your child speak with Sibling 1? Please check the appropriate boxes and
write in any other languages in the blanks provided.
Never Seldom 50% Usually Almost
always
English
Language:
_______________
Language:
_______________
23. Sibling 2: Gender: ________________ Date of birth: ________________
24. What language(s) does Sibling 2 speak with the child? Please check the appropriate boxes and
write in any other languages in the blanks provided.
Never Seldom 50% Usually Almost
always
English
Language:
_______________
Language:
_______________
25. What language(s) does your child speak with Sibling 2? Please check the appropriate boxes and
write in any other languages in the blanks provided.
Never Seldom 50% Usually Almost
always
English
Language:
_______________
Language:
_______________
143
26. Please circle the appropriate answer to indicate whether your child has diagnosed or suspected difficulties in the areas below:
Area of
difficulty
Diagnosis Who diagnosed the difficulty? If a diagnosis was received, what
was the diagnosis given?
Was the problem
treated?
Does your child still have
problems in this area?
Speech, or
Language
Yes No
Suspected but not diagnosed
Speech therapist
Psychologist
Other: __________
Yes No Yes No
Hearing Yes No
Suspected but not diagnosed
Audiologist
Doctor
Other: __________
Yes No Yes No
Autism
Spectrum
Disorder
Yes No
Suspected but not diagnosed
Psychologist
Other: __________
Yes No Yes No
Learning Yes No
Suspected but not diagnosed
Psychologist
Teacher
Other: _________
Yes No Yes No
Behavior Yes No
Suspected but not diagnosed
Psychologist
Other: _________
Yes No
Yes No
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. We greatly appreciate your responses. Please return this questionnaire
to your child’s teacher with the consent form at your earliest convenience.
144
Appendix B
Concepts of Print (“Stones”)
ITEMS Scoring System
PAGES 2/3
1. Say: I’ll read this story. You help me.
Show me
where to start reading. Where do I begin to
read?
(1) point for: pointed to print.
(0) point for: pointed to picture.
(0) point for: Other response.
Total points possible: 1 PAGES 4/5: *No test items on pages 4-5. Read the text normally.
PAGES 6/7: *DO NOT mention the upside-down picture on Page 7
2. a. Say: Show me the first part of the story.
2. b. Say: Show me the last part.
(1) point for: - (2.a) Pointed to the whole text OR;
-Pointed to a line (i.e., first line on page 2 or
6) OR;
-Pointed to a word (i.e., first word in the
book on page 2 or 6)
-Pointed to a letter (i.e., first letter on page 2
or 6).
(0) point for: Other response.
(1) point for: - (2.b) Pointed to the whole text OR;
-Pointed to a line (i.e., last line on page 6 or
20) OR;
-Pointed to a word (i.e., last word in the book
on page 6 or 20)
-Pointed to a letter (i.e., last letter on page 6
or 20).
(0) point for: Other response.
Total points possible: 2
PAGES 8/9
145
3.a. Say: Where do I begin?
3.b. Say: Which way do I go?
3.c. Say: Where do I go after that?
(1) point for:
- (3.a) Pointed to “I”
(0) point for: Other response.
(1) point for:
- (3.b) Moved right to left from “I”
without turning the book around OR
Turned the book around and moved
left to right in the conventional
manner
(0) point for: Other response.
(1) point for:
- (3.c) Pointed to the lower and then
upper line without turning the book
around OR Turned the book around
and pointed to the upper and lower
line
(0) point for: Other response.
Total points possible: 3
PAGES 10/11
4. Say: What’s wrong with this?
.
(1) point for: commented on line order
(1) point for: Other response.
Total points possible: 1
PAGE 12
PAGE 13
PAGES 14/15
5. Say: What’s this for? (point to the
question
mark)
(1) point for: said “question mark”; OR
(1) point for: said “a question”; OR
(1) point for: said “asks something”; OR
(1) point for: any plausible explanation of
function or name of a question mark*
(0) point for: Other response
Total points possible: 1
PAGES 16/17
146
6. Say: What’s this for? (point to the period) (1) point for: said “full stop”; OR
(1) point for: said “period”; OR
(1) point for: said “It tells you when you’ve
said enough.”; OR
(1) point for: said “It’s the end.” OR
(1) point for: any plausible explanation of
function or name of a period*
(1) point for: Other response
Total points possible: 1
7. Say: What’s this for? (point to the
comma)
(1) point for: said “a little stop”; OR
(1) point for: said “a rest”; OR
(1) point for: said “a comma.”; OR
(1) point for: any plausible explanation of
function or name of a comma*
(1) point for: Other response
Total points possible: 1
8. Say: What’s this for? (point to the
quotation marks)
(1) point for: said “that’s someone talking”;
OR (1) point for: said “talking”; OR
(1) point for: said “speech marks”; OR
(1) point for: any plausible explanation of
function or name of quotation marks*
(1) point for: Other response
Total points possible: 1
9.a. Say: Find a little letter like this.
(POINT to capital T – e.g., “Then”).
9. b. Say: Find a little letter like this.
(POINT to capital B – e.g., “Big”).
(1) point for: - (12.a): pointed to lower case t
(0) point for: other response
(1) point for: -(12.b): pointed to lower case b
(0) point for: Other response
Total points possible: 2
PAGES 18/19
147
10. a. Say: Show me “was”.
10. b. Say: Show me “no”.
(1) point for:
- (13.a): pointed to “was”
(0) point for: Other response
(1) point for:
- (13.b): pointed to “no”.
(1) point for: Other response
Total points possible: 2
PAGE 20
11. a. Say: This story says “The stone
rolled down the hill”. I want you to push
the cards across the story like this until all
you can see is just 1 letter. (Demonstrate
the movement of the cards above the page
but DO NOT do the exercise).
11. b. Say: Now, show me 2 letters.
(1) point for:
- (14.a): identified one letter
(0) point for: Other response
(1) point for:
- (14.b): identified two letters
(0) point for: Other response
Total points possible: 2
12. a. Say: Show me just one word.
12. b. Say: Now show me two words.
(1) point for:
- (15.a): identified one word
(0) point for: Other response
(1) point for:
- (15.b): identified two words
(1) point for: Other response
Total points possible: 2
13. a. Say: Show me the first letter of a
word.
14. b. Say: Show me the last letter of a word.
(1) point for:
- (16.a): identified the first letter of a
word
(0) point for: Other response
(1) point for:
- (16.b): identified the last letter of a
word
(0) point for: Other response
Total points possible: 2
148
15. Say: Show me a capital letter. (1) point for: identifying a capital letter (e.g.,
T in “The”)
(1) point for: Other response
Total points possible: 1
149
Appendix C
French Word Reading
ami bonjour avec maison
école fête lundi maman
dans famille il livre
petit une tête arbre
fille garçon bon beau
travail comme matin chanson
elle devoir journée faute
lecture moi élève porte
qui sur assez demander
écouter fin nous pas
devenir facteur inviter lumière
patate relever venir tourner
équipe mener ouvrage preuve
retrouver véritable réaliser usage
s’habiller cuillère espadrilles tourbillon
permettent écaille éventail bâiller
150
vieille réveil l’oreille appareil
bouillon feuillage l’écureuil rouille
vadrouille chevreuil bouilloire l’araignée
baleine l’espion panthère phoque
drap mucus dard appât
abat entrepris inouïe scierie
surélevé absorber jacinthe excrément
controversé litière humidité crampon
asphyxié quincaillerie menuiserie hygiénique
infiltre interdependent indigène psychologue
déployèrent éclatèrent moquèrent développèrent
écrasèrent équilibrent adaptent deviennent
préviennent transmettent emprisonnent excerçaient
deviendraient parcouraient élargissent térébenthine
151
Appendix D
English Print Convention Knowledge5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
5 Formatting is modified from the original task.
hope hope
first fgrst
haunt oauie
laugh la8gh
clean clean
monkey monkey
u3 up
where
where
few 5ew
golden 6ol03n
palm palm
vest vest
m92d mold same sam8
it
it
keeper
tool
kccpcr
uooe
152
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
hoof
tedious tédious
glare gláre
stp
eooi
sea
iouae
môrning
bòoks
shape
morning
prove prhvz
books
bàrely
mtddly
barely
scarce
middle
ae am şcarce
himŝelf
stem stèm
himself
cut czt
ear
luck lgck
unequal
eai
gêt get
uńequal
153
Appendix E
French Print Convention Knowledge6
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
6 Formatting is modified from the original task.
cible
o6
cible
ou
ép3e épée
épaule épaule
se4l maison maison
pris
pris
seul
fâ7h8r fâcher gamin
5ar3 gare
ne ne
gamin
8ien rien
mnvtl
garçon garcon
envol
iouae boule
léger ĺeger
aoaue avant
154
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
lieu
lâche laĉhe
lanière
lhmr
laniere
facoņ
année
façon
prnlst
oiae pire
poulet
annee
chaud
foncé fonće
chrbd
trou chèvre chevre
eaou
égal
écouter dvx dix
egal
ecóuter
voisin ouiaie
entouré entouŕe
ca
aoiu
ça
soif
brin brdn
155
Appendix F
English Lexical Orthographic Processing
1 nostrels nostrils
2 need nead
3 backword backward
4 betwean between
5 travle travel
6 grown grone
7 learn lurn
8 easy eazy
9 hert hurt
10 stream streem
11 rane rain
12 applause aplause
13 answer anser
14 every evry
15 tertle turtle
16 goast ghost
17 explane explain
18 trew true
19 dreem dream
20 roar rore
156
21 believe beleave
22 skait skate
23 smoke smoak
24 mystery mysterey
25 thum thumb
26 wait wate
27 pavement pavemant
28 assure ashure
29 engine enjine
30 salmon sammon
31 reath wreath
32 wheat wheet
33 scair scare
34 wize wise
35 trousers trowsers
36 basement baisement
37 hevvy heavy
38 taik take
39 several sevral
40 suddin sudden
41 studdy study
42 forty fourty
43 raspberry rasberrry
157
44 tommorrow tomorrow
45 pursue persue
46 purched perched
47 faught fought
48 keen kean
49 acheive achieve
50 culprit culpret
51 hearth harth
52 hussle hustle
158
Appendix G
French Lexical Orthographic Processing
1 grinper grimper
2 châtau château
3 beaucoup beaucout
4 jummeau jumeau
5 euf oeuf
6 corbau corbeau
7 cheise chaise
8 vent vemp
9 miel miele
10 poulait poulet
11 neige naige
12 verre vaire
13 terre teire
14 jembon jambon
15 patin patain
16 chenson chanson
17 écren écran
18 bavard bavar
19 jeaune jaune
20 drapeau drapau
159
21 triquot tricot
22 bouge bouje
23 crapau crapaud
24 achète achaite
25 trompe tronpe
26 durant duran
27 vaitement vêtement
28 sonnerie sonnerit
29 jamais jamet
30 voloeur voleur
31 sonje songe
32 concours comcours
33 vendre vandre
34 lanteur lenteur
35 gauffre gaufre
36 oeil oeuil
37 pinceau peinceau
38 seizième seisième
39 mourir mourrir
40 secouce secousse
41 agraffe agrafe
42 orteils orteilles
43 amener ammener
160
44 estaumac estomac
45 paintre peintre
46 collis colis
47 cerceau serceau
48 poid poids
49 cauchemard cauchemar
50 ailleurs ailleur
51 chuchoter chuchotter
52 baignoire beignoire
161
Appendix H
English Sublexical Orthographic Processing
1 ploin ployn
2 ckufle cufle
3 yeadh yead
4 stearl sttearl
5 sweinn sween
6 cluff cluph
7 nowll nowl
8 doard dowrd
9 fhrode frode
10 slage slaje
11 flornne florn
12 knazze knase
13 crell crelh
14 flean phlean
15 chhowl chowl
16 spime spiime
17 dreell dreel
18 stame stahme
19 plouur plour
20 cruq cruck
21 glough glouph
22 scoal sckoal
23 visch vish
24 gook goock
25 clange clangge
162
26 ficke fike
27 skoad skowde
28 bhoogh boogh
163
Appendix I
French Sublexical Orthographic Processing
1 chabe chhabe
2 scoil sckoil
3 rouvve rouve
4 vime viime
5 jonde jomde
6 clabe clabhe
7 vrahte vratte
8 doeure doeur
9 klazze klase
10 plame plahme
11 vuute vutte
12 bhorl borl
13 dreille dreylle
14 sttime stime
15 doin doyn
16 flaipe phlaipe
17 splaumme splomme
18 drange drangge
19 fhroul froul
20 prosce proce
21 sulle suule
22 glaje glage
23 fonpe fompe
24 blappe blaape
25 vrouur vrour
164
26 foushe fouche
27 clige clije
28 cafle ckafle
165
Appendix J
French Phonological Awareness
MATERIALS: None
CEILING: Stop after the examinee misses 3 test items in a row.
FEEDBACK: Give feedback on all practice items and test items 1-5 only.
SCORING: Record correct answers as 1 and incorrect answers as 0. The total score is
the total number of correct test items up to the ceiling.
PRACTICE ITEMS
DIRECTIONS: Say: “Nous allons faire un jeu de mots.”
a. “Dis chaton. Maintenant, dis chaton sans dire chat.” Pause to allow the child to
answer.
If correct say, “C’est ça, ton. Nous allons essayer le suivant.
If incorrect say, “ Ce n’est pas tout à fait ça. Chaton sans dire chat fait ton. Nous allons
essayer le suivant.
Say, “Let’s play a word game.
a. Say chaton. Now, say chaton without saying chat.”
If correct say, “That’s right, ton. Let’s try the next one.”
If incorrect say, “That’s not quite right. Chaton without saying chat is ton. Let’s try
the next one.” Continue to give feedback as before.
b. “Dis parterre. Maintenant, dis parterre sans dire terre.” (par)
b. “Say parterre. Now say parterre without saying terre.” (par)
c. “Dis souris. Maintenant, dis souris sans dire sou.” (ris).
c. “Say souris. Now say souris without saying sou.” (ris)
166
TEST ITEMS
Continue to give feedback.
1. “Say surtout. Now, say surtout without saying tout.” (sur)
1. “Dis surtout. Maintenant, dis surtout sans dire tout.” (sur)
2. “Say toucher. Now, say toucher without saying tou.” (chez)
2. “Dis toucher. Maintenant, dis toucher sans dire tou.” (chez)
3. “Say poisson. Now, say poisson without saying son.” (pois)
3. “Dis poisson. Maintenant, dis poisson sans dire son.” (pois)
PRACTICE ITEMS
Say, “Okay, now let’s try some where we take away smaller parts of words.”
“Bon, maintenant nous allons essayer d’enlever une plus petite partie des mots.
Continue to give feedback. Use the phoneme, not the letter name (e.g., /k/ is the sound
of k).
d. “Say cou. Now say cou without saying /k/.”
d. “Dis cou. Maintenant, dis cou sans dire /k/.” (ou)
If correct say, “That’s right, ou. Let’s try the next one.”
“C’est ça, ou. Nous allons essayer le suivant.
If incorrect say, “That’s not quite right. Cou without saying /k/ is ou.”
“ Ce n’est pas tout à fait ça. Cou sans dire /k/ fait ou.
e. “Say pouce. Now say pouce without saying /s/.” (pou)
e. . “Dis pouce. Maintenant, dis pouce sans dire /s/.” (pou)
f. “Say lune. Now say lune without saying /l/.” (une)
f. . “Dis lune. Maintenant, dis lune sans dire /l/.” (une)
167
TEST ITEMS
4. “Say boeuf. Now say boeuf without saying /b/.” oeuf
4. “Dis boeuf. Maintenant, dis boeuf sans dire /d/.” (oeuf)
5. “Say mille. Now say mille without saying /m/.” il
5. “Dis mille. Maintenant, dis mille sans dire /m/.” (il)
REMAINING TEST ITEMS
Provide no feedback on the remaining items.
6. “Say met. Now say met without saying /m/.” et
7. “Say route. Now say route without saying /t/.” roue
8. “Say mouche. Now say mouche without saying /ch/.” mou
9. “Say piquer. Now say piquer without saying /k/.” pied
10. “Say marché. Now say marché without saying /ch/.” marée
11. “Say mardi. Now say mardi without saying /d/.” mari
12. “Say place. Now say place without saying /l/.” passe
13. “Say constant. Now say constant without saying /s/.” content
14. “Say flamme. Now say flamme without saying /l/.” femme
15. “Say plisser. Now say plisser without saying /s/.” plier
16. “Say mètre. Now say mètre without saying /t/.” mère
17. “Say fleur. Now say fleur without saying /f/.” leur
18. “Say sport. Now say sport without saying /p/.” sort
19. “Say plaindre. Now say plaindre without saying /l/.” peindre
20. “Say texte. Now say texte without saying /k/.” test
21. “Say jouet. Now say jouet without saying /ou/.” jet
22. “Say cable. Now say cable without the /b/.” cale
23. “Say muguet. Now say muguet with the /g/.” muet
24. “Say parle. Now say parle without the /r/.” pale
25. “Say gruau. Now say gruau without the /u/.” gros