predictors of english reading comprehension: cantonese...
TRANSCRIPT
Predictors of English reading comprehension:Cantonese-speaking English language learnersin the U.S.
Yuuko Uchikoshi
Published online: 5 July 2012
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract In this paper, first language (L1) and second language (L2) oral lan-
guage and word reading skills were used as predictors to devise a model of reading
comprehension in young Cantonese-speaking English language learners (ELLs) in
the United States. L1 and L2 language and literacy measures were collected from a
total of 101 Cantonese-speaking ELLs during the early spring of second grade.
Results show that English vocabulary and English word decoding, as measured with
real and nonsense words, played significant roles in English reading comprehension.
In particular, results highlight the crucial role of English vocabulary in the devel-
opment of L2 English literacy skills. English listening comprehension did not
predict English reading comprehension. Theoretical and practical implications are
discussed.
Keywords Reading comprehension · English language learner ·
Cantonese · Vocabulary
Introduction
Comprehending written text is the goal of learning how to read. Many studies have
been conducted on the processes that contribute to effective text comprehension
among native English speakers (e.g., Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982; Snow,
Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Recently, a few studies have explored the English reading
comprehension of English language learners (ELLs). Most of the research on ELLs,
however, has been focused on Spanish-speaking children (Gottardo & Mueller,
2009; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005). Such studies
Y. Uchikoshi (&)
School of Education, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Read Writ (2013) 26:913–939
DOI 10.1007/s11145-012-9398-z
have shown that English oral proficiency and English decoding skills predict
English reading comprehension (Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Hoover & Gough,
1990; Proctor et al., 2005), findings similar to those with monolingual English-
speaking children (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Tunmer
& Hoover, 1992).
However, research on reading comprehension among children whose two
languages do not share cognates and a common writing system, such as Cantonese
and English, is sparse. A search revealed only two studies that examined second-
language (L2) English reading comprehension with first-language (L1) Chinese
children (Cheung, Chan, & Chong, 2007; Wang, Cheng, & Chen, 2006). The goal of
the current study, therefore, is to examine whether the same variables that predict
English reading comprehension for monolingual English-speaking and Spanish-
speaking ELL children predict English reading comprehension for Cantonese-
speaking ELLs living in English-dominant environments. Specifically, the aim is to
devise a structural equation model of L2 reading comprehension—to be applied to a
sample of 101 young Cantonese-speaking ELLs and using variables measured in
both L1 Cantonese and L2 English—and to identify the predictors of English
reading comprehension that may be useful for classroom instruction. This has
implications for both practice and policy.
Reading comprehension in monolinguals and Spanish–English bilinguals
Although the process of reading comprehension is developmental and multifaceted
(e.g., RAND Reading Study Group, 2002), there is wide consensus that oral
language competence (e.g. Biemiller, 2003; Snow et al., 1998) and word reading
(e.g., National Reading Panel, 2000) are the primary components involved in
English reading comprehension for both monolingual and Spanish-speaking ELL
children. The simple view of reading (SVR) model, an influential comprehensive
model of the reading comprehension process in monolingual English-speaking
children, states that both decoding skills and oral language skills, as represented by
listening comprehension, are necessary for reading comprehension (Gough& Tunmer,
1986; Juel et al., 1986; Tunmer&Hoover, 1992). SVR proposes thatR=D9C, whereR is reading comprehension, D is decoding, and C is listening comprehension as a
proxy for general oral language skills (Tunmer & Hoover, 1992). Reading problems
can thus arise from poor decoding skills, poor oral language skills, or both.
Listening comprehension has been shown to be an important component of oral
language skills for Spanish-speaking ELLs as well (Hoover & Gough, 1990; Royer
& Carlo, 1991; Proctor et al., 2005). However, in the modification of the SVR
model to understand the reading processes of Spanish-speaking ELLs, Proctor et al.
showed that both English listening comprehension skills and English vocabulary
were independently and significantly related to English reading comprehension
performance for a sample of 135 Spanish-speaking fourth-grade ELLs. Their
research showed that listening comprehension had a proximal effect on reading
comprehension, while vocabulary had both a proximal and distal (through listening
comprehension) relationship with reading comprehension.
914 Y. Uchikoshi
123
Other past models of reading also consider vocabulary knowledge to be a proxy
for general oral language skills and an important source of variation in reading
comprehension for both monolingual English speakers (Beck et al., 1982; Freebody
& Anderson, 1983; Hemphill & Tivnan, 2008; Snow et al., 1998) and Spanish-
speaking ELLs (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Mancilla-Martinez &
Lesaux, 2010). Oral vocabulary has been shown to be the most significant predictor
of reading comprehension, even after controlling for early word recognition,
phoneme awareness, and letter knowledge (Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Stevenson,
2004), and intervention studies have repeatedly shown the importance of vocabulary
knowledge for reading comprehension (e.g., Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002;
Biemiller & Boote, 2006). Comprehension is disrupted when the proportion of
unknown words is too high (Carver, 1994). Moreover, young ELLs already have, on
average, fewer English vocabulary words than their middle-class English-speaking
peers who know about 10,000 English words at school entry (Anglin, 1993). The
impact of English vocabulary on reading comprehension has been shown to be long-
term; initial status (at age 4.5 years) and rate of growth (from age 4.5–11 years) in
English vocabulary predicted reading comprehension outcomes at 11 years of age
with a sample of 173 low-achieving Spanish-speaking ELLs (Mancilla-Martinez &
Lesaux, 2010).
Decoding words is the other well-established component of the SVR model and
has also been shown to contribute to the reading process for monolingual English-
speaking children and Spanish-speaking ELLs (National Reading Panel, 2000).
Children must be able to decode words not only accurately but also fluently
(Roberts, Good, & Corcoran, 2005; Roehrig, Petscher, Nettles, Hudson, &
Torgesen, 2008). Efficient and automatic word reading allows students to use
cognitive resources for understanding meaning in text rather than identifying and
decoding words (Perfetti, 1998).
Phonological awareness (i.e., the ability to attend explicitly to the sound structure
of spoken words rather than just to their meanings and syntactic roles) has been
identified as a crucial component of decoding for children in the lower primary
grades (Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, & Spharim, 1999; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009;
Manis, Lindsey, & Bailey, 2004). For most English-speaking children, phonological
sensitivity gradually develops over the preschool years (Chaney, 1992) and their
performance on kindergarten phonological sensitivity tasks is a strong predictor of
future reading achievement (Juel, 1991; Scarborough, 1989). This is also evident in
Spanish-speaking ELLs. Gottardo and Mueller (2009) found that English phono-
logical awareness predicted English word reading, which in turn predicted English
reading comprehension with a group of second-grade Spanish-speaking ELL
children.
Although the relation of these variables to English reading comprehension for
English monolinguals and Spanish-speaking ELLs has been examined, we do not
know if the same variables influence English reading comprehension for Cantonese-
speaking ELLs. Given that Cantonese-speaking ELL children may be in the same
classrooms with Spanish-speaking ELL and monolingual English children, it will be
important for teachers to understand the similarities and differences among children
from different home languages.
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 915
123
Chinese-English bilinguals
Cantonese differs from English in many aspects, but particularly in terms of
phonological structures and orthography. Most notably, Cantonese and English do
not share a writing system. Cantonese has a morphosyllabic writing system (Shu &
Anderson, 1997), which contains both semantic radicals associated with meaning
and phonetic radicals associated with the sound of the character (Ho & Bryant,
1997). Cheng (1992) suggested that phonological awareness also plays an important
role in Chinese character identification. More than 80 % of Chinese characters are
semantic-phonetic compounds, which have a semantic radical to indicate the word
meaning and a phonetic radical to provide clues to the pronunciation of the
character, ranging from exact homophones to analogy cues at the level of syllable or
rhyme (Leong, 1986). Additionally, each Chinese character represents a single
syllable and consists of consonant–vowel-consonant or consonant–vowel construc-
tions with no consonant clusters.
In contrast, English has an alphabetic writing system, in which letters generally
represent individual sounds (phonemes) and there are multiple consonant clusters.
The ability to manipulate phonemes and map them onto letters is crucial when
learning how to read in an alphabetic language such as English. If the L1 uses a
shallow orthography (for example, Spanish), it is likely to facilitate L2 English
reading skills (Gottardo, Yan, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2001). However, for
Cantonese-speaking children and for other ELL children whose home language does
not use a shallow orthography, their L1 abilities may not facilitate L2 English
reading.
Chinese is a tonal language; Cantonese has six tones. Tone awareness is
necessary in learning to speak and read Chinese, because tones carry meaning.
Many words in Chinese are homophonous except for their tonal differences, the
source of information regarding their meaning. For example, the word “ma” in
Cantonese could be either媽 (maa1), meaning mother, or馬 (maa5), meaning horse
and if a child does not use the correct tone, some unexpected confusion may arise.
Although most of the research on ELLs has been focused on Spanish-speaking
children, a growing body of research has examined Chinese speakers learning
English. Many of these studies have focused on phonological awareness and word
reading (e.g., Chen et al., 2004; Chien, Kao, & Wei, 2008; Chow, McBride-Chang,
& Burgess, 2005; McBride-Chang, Bialystok, Chong, & Li, 2004; Keung & Ho,
2009). First-language Chinese reading comprehension in children living in China or
Hong Kong has also been examined in recent years (Chen, Hao, Geva, Zhu, & Shu,
2009; Leong, Tse, Loh, & Hau, 2008; Tong & McBride-Chang, 2010). However, a
literature search revealed only two studies that examined Chinese-English
bilinguals’ English reading comprehension (Cheung et al., 2007; Wang et al.,
2006).
Wang et al. (2006) show that English vocabulary, English compound morphol-
ogy, and age were associated with English reading comprehension for a group of
64 Chinese immigrant children who had no reported problems with English
proficiency and were literate in Chinese. The children were in the second and fourth
grades in the Washington, DC area and attended Chinese school on the weekends.
916 Y. Uchikoshi
123
Chinese vocabulary did not correlate with English reading comprehension and was
not included in the authors’ regression models. Neither was English word reading
included as a variable to predict English reading comprehension—although it was
measured—as the study focused on the role of morphological awareness. Whether or
not English vocabulary still predicts English reading comprehension after controlling
for English word decoding for Chinese-English bilinguals remains unanswered.
In another study, Cheung et al. (2007) examined the L1 and L2 variables
associated with English reading comprehension with a group of 88 upper-middle-
class Cantonese-speaking fourth-graders living in Hong Kong. They found that once
English decoding was accounted for, Chinese ortho-phonological knowledge (i.e.,
knowledge about the phonological representation of Chinese characters in written
Chinese) was no longer a predictor of English reading comprehension. However, the
authors did not measure and control for vocabulary knowledge in L1 and L2.
Similar to findings with Spanish–English bilinguals, it appears from the two
studies that English oral proficiency, as measured with vocabulary, and English
word reading affect English reading comprehension for Cantonese-English biling-
uals. Yet, in the two studies, both variables were not entered together as predictors
for English reading comprehension, as the Spanish–English bilingual studies have
done. Additionally, it should be noted that both studies were conducted with
Chinese-speaking children who had received grade-level Chinese reading and
writing instruction. In Wang et al.’s study, all the children attended weekend
Chinese schools, where they were at around grade-level. Most of the families
engaged in Chinese literacy activities such as reading Chinese books and practicing
character writing at home during the week. In contrast, most of the research with
Spanish–English bilinguals have been conducted with children who are English
dominant or have some Spanish proficiency, but not at grade-level. In fact, in the
U.S., many children from immigrant families start to lose their home language when
they start school and many do not reach grade-level proficiency in their home
language (Wong-Fillmore, 1991).
Moreover, Cheung et al.’s (2007) study was conducted on children in Hong Kong.
Gottardo, Chiappe, Yan, Siegel, and Gu (2006) conclude that research conducted with
children learning an L2 as a foreign language in their native country may not apply to
children learning an L2 as a second language in an immersion setting where the L2 is
the majority language. This may be because the former group is in an additive
bilingual situation while the latter is in a subtractive bilingual situation (Hakuta, 1986;
Oller & Eilers, 2002). More research is needed on English reading comprehension
models—based on existing models of reading comprehension—of Chinese-speaking
ELLs living in English-speaking countries who may not attain grade-level L1
proficiency.
Role of L1 and L2 factors
Theoretical models (Cummins, 1984; Geva & Siegel, 2000; Ziegler & Goswami,
2005) and various research studies (Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Oller & Pearson,
2002; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2006) have provided evidence for the
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 917
123
importance of including both L1 and L2 measures in determining predictors of L2
reading for bilinguals. There is considerable evidence of the interdependence of
linguistic skills across languages, suggesting that L1 and L2 abilities are
manifestations of a common underlying proficiency (Cummins, 1991). More
recently, when studying the development of reading skills in bilinguals with two
different orthographies, results have shown that the process may vary as a function
of both a common underlying process and orthographic transparency (Geva &
Siegel, 2000).
It has been suggested that phonological awareness is a language-general
knowledge; skills learned in one language can be transferred to another language
that either does share the writing system, as with Spanish and English (Durgunoglu,
Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993) or that does not, as with Chinese and English
(Bialystok, McBride-Chang, & Luk, 2005; Chien et al., 2008; Gottardo et al., 2001,
2006; Keung & Ho, 2009; Marinova-Todd, Zhao, & Bernhardt, 2010; Wang, Yang,
& Cheng, 2009). In fact, phonological awareness measured in L1 Cantonese was
correlated with L2 English with a group of Cantonese-speaking ELLs in Canada
(Gottardo et al., 2006). This suggests that phonological awareness may need to be
acquired only once. However, studies have also shown that L1 and L2 variables
were best characterized as separate constructs for phonological awareness with
Spanish-speaking ELL children (Branum-Martin, et al., 2006; Gottardo & Mueller,
2009; Nakamoto, Lindsey, & Manis, 2008). More research is needed to determine if
this is the case for bilingual children whose two languages do not share a writing
system.
Vocabulary appears to be language-specific and best represented as separate
constructs (Durgunoglu, 2002; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Nakamoto et al., 2008).
Yet, studies with Spanish–English bilinguals show that, while scores in each
language fell below the monolingual means when examined separately, they fell
within the monolingual average range when the two languages were evaluated
together (Umbel, Pearson, Fernandez, & Oller, 1992). More research is needed,
especially with bilinguals whose two languages do not share a writing system.
ELLs need to be assessed in both of their languages in order to get a complete
picture of their language and literacy abilities. Moreover, as past research has been
conducted with ELLs whose languages share a writing system (i.e., English and
Spanish), more research is needed to examine whether, for ELLs whose two
languages do not share a writing system (e.g., English and Chinese), variables such
as phonological awareness and vocabulary should be represented as single cross-
language constructs or as separate constructs in relation to reading comprehension.
Studies conducted with Spanish-speaking ELLs in the United States have shown
that, once parallel English skills were accounted for, L1 skills were no longer
significant predictors of English reading comprehension (Gottardo & Mueller, 2009;
Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010; Nakamoto et al., 2008). This is not surprising,
given the emphasis of the school curriculum on acquiring English and the fact that
these studies took place in the United States. One study revealed a significant main
effect, albeit small, for Spanish vocabulary knowledge and an interaction between
Spanish vocabulary and English fluency with 135 Spanish-speaking fourth-grade
ELLs who leaned toward Spanish dominance (Proctor et al., 2006). The role of L1
918 Y. Uchikoshi
123
skills for ELL children whose two languages do not share a writing system and who
live in an English-dominant environment needs to be examined.
Present study
The first aim of the present study was to examine whether the same variables that
predict English reading comprehension for Spanish-speaking ELLs and monolin-
gual English-speaking children also predict English reading comprehension for
Cantonese-speaking ELLs using variables measured in both L1 Cantonese and L2
English. The second aim of the study was to propose a model conceptualizing the
interrelationships among oral proficiency, word reading, and English reading
comprehension in Cantonese-speaking ELLs living in an English-speaking country.
Based on the SVR model, both decoding and oral proficiency skills were included in
this model. Decoding included real-word and pseudoword reading in English and
phonological awareness skills in both English and Cantonese. Oral proficiency
included vocabulary knowledge, both expressive and receptive, in English and
Cantonese and listening comprehension in English.
This study used a two-step approach to structural equation modeling. First,
confirmatory factor analysis was used to determine whether the observed variables
served as adequate indicators of the latent variables. Following confirmation of an
adequate measurement model, structural models were tested to examine relation-
ships among vocabulary, phonological awareness, English listening comprehension,
English word reading, and English reading comprehension.
Method
Participants
Data was collected from six schools in two major urban school districts in northern
California. Schools with a high percentage of Cantonese-speaking children were
selected and participants were recruited through the classrooms. All children identified
as native Cantonese-speakers by the school home-language survey or by their
homeroom teachers were given parental consent forms to take home. The return rate of
the consent forms averaged 73 %; the classroom return rate ranged from 60 to 98 %.
According to the teachers, there appeared to be no pattern to the lack of return of the
consent forms.District demographics and school data indicated that 75%ormore of the
participating students qualified for free or reduced lunch. All classrooms used the same
state-adopted reading textbook and addressed the state standards in their instruction.
Teachers in each grade level at each school met weekly to discuss curriculum and other
issues to make sure similar content was being taught in all classrooms. Three of the
schools offered Cantonese-English transitional bilingual programs.
The sample consisted of 101 Cantonese-speaking second graders—63 girls and
38 boys. The sample mean age was 7.64 years old and there were no significant
difference in age between the two school districts. Cantonese was the children’s first
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 919
123
language. The parents’ primary language was Cantonese. The majority of the
children were American-born, but the majority of the parents had been born in the
Cantonese-speaking area of China. At the time of data collection, 40 children were
enrolled in transitional Cantonese-English bilingual programs, while the remaining
61 were enrolled in mainstream classrooms. However, as the bilingual classrooms
were transitional early-exit bilingual programs, the bilingual teachers noted that, in
second grade, approximately 90 % of class time was in English. There was formal
L1 instruction in the bilingual classrooms. In fact, a Chinese word reading task
(Gottardo et al., 2001, 2006) revealed that children in the bilingual program were
able to read 11 highly frequent characters out of 20 on average, while the children in
the mainstream class were only able to read 2 highly frequent characters on average.
All the children were individually tested, on two separate days, in both their
home and school languages by trained research assistants who were native speakers
of English or Cantonese. Most of the children were assessed between January and
March of second grade. Each testing session lasted approximately 30 minutes.
When there were no standardized Cantonese assessment instruments available for
research, experimental measures developed and used by Gottardo et al. (2001, 2006)
were used in this study. The reliability of the experimental measures was estimated
by the internal consistency of the items (Cronbach’s alpha).
English measures
Oral proficiency
Oral proficiency was measured with expressive vocabulary, receptive vocabulary,
and listening comprehension.
Vocabulary English receptive vocabulary was measured with the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test-3rd Edition (PPVT-3; Dunn & Dunn, 1997). The child was asked
to select the picture from an array of four that best matched the spoken word
presented by the assessor. There was a total of 204 items on this test. Reported split-
half reliability from the norms for children at age 6 is .92 (Dunn & Dunn, 1997).
English productive vocabulary was measured with the picture vocabulary subtest of
the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised (WLPB; Woodcock, 1991).
This measure required the child to name both familiar and unfamiliar pictures,
ordered by increasing difficulty, with each response scored by the assessor as correct
or incorrect. There was a total of 58 items on this test. Reported split-half reliability
from the norms for native English-speaking children at age 6 is .77 (Woodcock,
1991).
Listening comprehension English listening comprehension was measured with the
listening comprehension subtest of the WLPB. This is a cloze-type assessment
where the child listened to passages in order of increasing difficulty and produced an
oral response to an unfinished sentence. There was a total of 38 items on this test.
920 Y. Uchikoshi
123
Reported split-half reliability from the norms for children at age 6 is .83
(Woodcock, 1991).
Word reading
The children were tested with the letter-word identification and word attack subtests
of the WLPB in English. The letter-word identification task measures the child’s
reading identification skills with isolated letters and words. The items become more
difficult as less frequently used words are tested. There was a total of 57 items on
this test. The word attack subtest measures the child’s skill in applying phonic and
structural analysis skills to the pronunciation of nonsense words that are
linguistically logical in English. There was a total of 30 items on this test.
Reported split-half reliability from the norms for children at age 6 is .96 for the
letter-word identification subtest and .95 for the word attack subtest (Woodcock,
1991).
Phonological awareness
The elision, blending, and segmenting subtests of the Comprehensive Test of
Phonological Processing (CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999) were
used to measure phonological sensitivity in English. Each subtest had a total of 20
items. On the elision task, children heard a word and were asked to repeat the
word after deleting parts of the word. On the blending task, children were asked to
put sounds or syllables together to form a word. On the segmenting task, children
were asked to repeat a word and then say the word in phonemes, or “one sound at
a time.” Reported internal consistency reliability from the norms for children at
age 7 is .91 for elision, .86 for blending, and .90 for segmenting (Wagner et al.,
1999).
Reading comprehension
The children were tested with the reading comprehension subtest of the WLPB in
English. On this cloze-type reading comprehension test, the children silently read
short passages in order of increasing difficulty and had to orally provide the missing
word. There was a total of 43 items on this test. Reported split-half reliability from
the norms for children at age 6 is .95 (Woodcock, 1991).
Cantonese measures
Vocabulary
The Chinese version of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R;
Lu & Liu, 1998) was used to measure Cantonese receptive vocabulary. There was a
total of 125 items on this test. Reported split-half reliability from the norms for
native Chinese-speaking children is .95 (Lu & Liu, 1998). The pictures from the
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 921
123
English picture vocabulary subtest of the WLPB were also used to measure
Cantonese expressive vocabulary. There was a total of 40 items on this test.
Cronbach’s alpha for this sample was estimated to be .71.
Phonological awareness
Cantonese phonological awareness was measured with the Cantonese phonological
awareness tasks used in Gottardo et al. (2001, 2006). The tone discrimination task
consisted of 15 experimental trials including all possible contrasts among the six
tones in Cantonese. Words in each trial shared the same strings of phonemes and
differed only by tones. Therefore, children were required to use tone to distinguish
between words. Participants heard three words and were asked to identify the word
that had a different tone; for example, “[ma1], [ma4], [ma1]”, which word sounds
different, the first, second, or third?” The score was the total number correct out of
15 items. Cronbach’s alpha for this sample was estimated to be .74.
The rhyme detection task consisted of 15 experimental trials using real Cantonese
words spoken by a native Cantonese speaker. Children listened to three words in
each trial and were asked to identify which word did not rhyme. Most exemplars
included two of the words that shared the same tone and rime, whereas the other
word had a different rime. For example, “[nei4], [tsi6], [pei4],” which word sounds
different, the first, second, or third?” The score was the total number correct out of
15 items. Cronbach’s alpha for this sample was estimated to be .72.
Procedure
The order of administration of assessments was random, such that some children
were tested in English first while others were tested in Cantonese first. The order of
tests in English was: picture vocabulary, letter-word identification, word attack,
passage comprehension, listening comprehension, phonological awareness, and
PPVT-3. The order of tests in Cantonese was picture vocabulary, Cantonese tone,
Cantonese rhyme, and PPVT-R.
Statistical analysis
First, all English raw scores were converted to standard scores for the standardized
assessments. For Cantonese, only the PPVT-R was converted to standard scores, as
the rest of the measures were not normed. Raw scores are reported for the other
Cantonese measures. Correlational analysis was conducted to examine the
relationships among variables.
Initially, the data were screened for missing data, multicollinearity, outliers, and
normality assumptions, according toKline’s (2010) guidelines for data preparation for
structural equation modelling. Then, using LISREL, a two-step approach to structural
equation modelling was taken. First, the measurement model was tested using a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine whether the observed variables
served as adequate indicators of the latent variables. Following confirmation of an
922 Y. Uchikoshi
123
adequate measurement model, the structural equation model (SEM) was tested to
examine the predicative relationships among vocabulary, English listening compre-
hension, English word reading, phonological awareness, and English reading
comprehension. The structural model included the latent constructs of vocabulary,
phonological awareness, and word reading. These variables were included in a model
to predict English reading comprehension, a single observed variable as measured by
the passage comprehension task. As some of the variables were not statistically
significant, further modelling was done after deleting the non-significant paths.
Results
Descriptive statistics
The means, standard deviations, and ranges for all scores for the observed variables
used in the CFA models and the SEM analyses are shown in Table 1. None of the
variables showed marked departures from normality. The WLPB, PPVT, and
CTOPP measures have been standardized on a norming population of monolingual
English or Chinese speakers, which allowed us to analyse these descriptive statistics
from a comparative perspective. The elision and blending subtests for phonological
awareness were combined to form an English phonological awareness composite
(Wagner et al., 1999) to examine how the children compared to published
monolingual means, but were entered individually in the CFA and SEM analyses. A
recent review of the literature by NIH and the U.S. Department of Education notes
that “a comparison group of English-speaking monolinguals is not always the
optimal comparison group for bilingual individuals; however, for purposes of
studying English language learners in the U.S. education system, including such
comparisons can be important” (McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, & Leos, 2005,
p. 70).
The sample as a whole performed at grade-level on reading measures and below
grade-level on oral proficiency measures. Specifically, on average, the children in
this sample scored slightly above age-level monolingual norms on the English
phonological awareness variable and one standard deviation above age-level
monolingual norms on English reading comprehension and English decoding of real
words and nonsense words. On the other hand, the sample as a whole performed one
standard deviation below age-level monolingual norms on English listening
comprehension and English receptive vocabulary and over 1.5 standard deviations
below age-level monolingual norms on Cantonese receptive vocabulary. The sample
performed only slightly below age-level norms on expressive English vocabulary.
Group comparisons were made between the 40 students in bilingual programs
and the 61 students in mainstream classrooms (see Table 1). There were no
significant differences between the groups on any of the English variables. As
expected, the students in the bilingual classrooms scored significantly higher on all
Cantonese measures than their counterparts in mainstream classrooms. However,
the bilingual group were still one standard deviation below the published
monolingual norm on the Cantonese receptive vocabulary task.
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 923
123
In sum, the Cantonese-speaking ELLs in both bilingual and mainstream
programs appear to be more similar than different. The variation among Cantonese
ELLs’ English language and literacy scores did not appear to be due to school
programs (bilingual program or mainstream program), so in the next step, both
groups were collapsed and re-examined.
Correlational analysis
Table 2 shows correlations among measures in the study. Overall, the results showed
that the English variables (vocabulary, decoding, listening comprehension, and
reading comprehension) weremoderately and positively correlatedwith each other. In
particular, English reading comprehension was correlated with English vocabulary
(r = .52–.58, p\ .0001) and English listening comprehension (r = .47; p\ .0001).
English listening comprehension was also moderately correlated with both English
receptive vocabulary (r = .54; p \ .0001) and expressive vocabulary (r = .48;
p\ .0001). The English decoding variables were also moderately correlated with the
English blending and elision measures (r = .34–.51; p \ .001–.0001). Cantonese
variables also were moderately and positively correlated with each other (r= .45–71).
In particular, the Cantonese receptive standardized vocabulary and the expressive
experimental vocabulary measure was strongly correlated (r = .71; p \ .0001).
Confirmatory factor analysis
As a first step, I specified a three-factor CFA with the predictor variables, based on
the assumption that phonological awareness, vocabulary, and word reading are three
unique—yet correlated—latent constructs. This measurement model tested the
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the indicator variables (N = 101)
Variables Total range Total
mean (SD)
Bilingual
program
(n = 40)
Mainstream
program
(n = 61)
English reading comprehension 93–137 113.60 (10.21) 114.93 (10.07) 112.74 (10.29)
English listening comprehension 15–135 84.30 (19.23) 84.80 (19.21) 83.97 (19.40)
English letter word 85–153 122.25 (13.96) 124.20 (13.29) 120.97 (14.35)
English word attack 73–148 116.64 (16.76) 116.40 (16.96) 116.80 (16.76)
English PPVT 54–129 89.37 (13.20) 86.93 (13.58) 90.97 (12.80)
English picture vocabulary 47–138 94.51 (17.42) 95.43 (17.76) 93.92 (17.32)
Cantonese PPVT 55–117 76.45 (17.29) 86.43 (14.99) 69.90 (15.57)
Cantonese picture vocabulary 0–31 14.03 (6.42) 17.78 (5.20) 11.57 (5.98)
English phonological awareness 73–136 105.55 (13.57) 105.40 (15.10) 105.66 (12.60)
English segmentation 5–13 9.50 (1.87) 9.53 (1.77) 9.49 (1.95)
Cantonese rhyme 0–15 8.69 (3.52) 10.40 (2.72) 7.57 (3.55)
Cantonese tone 0–15 8.96 (4.35) 10.45 (2.88) 7.98 (4.87)
924 Y. Uchikoshi
123
Tab
le2
Correlationsbetweenmeasuresforallstudents(n
=10
1)
12
34
56
78
910
11
12
13
1.English
read
comp
–
2.English
listening
.47***
–
3.English
letter
wrd
.65***
.32*
–
4.Engwrd
attack
.33**
.27*
.52***
–
5.English
PPVT
.52***
.54***
.55***
.34**
–
6.English
pic
voc
.58***
.48***
.55***
.29*
.64***
–
7.English
blend
.30*
.09
.51***
.34**
.14
.21*
–
8.English
elision
.31*
.12
.49***
.44***
.27*
.30*
.44***
–
9.English
segment
.05
.02
.13
.22*
.16
.00
.41***
.23*
–
10.CantPPVT
.20*
.10
.06
.04
−.07
−.05
.00
.11
.03
–
11.Cantpic
voc
.09
.11
.04
.00
−.06
−.03
.12
.44***
.05
.71***
–
12.CantTone
.14
.05
.05
.05
.01
.04
.06
.11
.18
.46**
.50**
–
13.CantRhyme
.14
.15
.21*
.14
.06
.17
.14
.25*
.01
.45***
.51***
.60***
–
Readingcomp=
Woodcock
readingcomprehensionsubtest;listening=
Woodcock
listeningcomprehensionsubtest;letter
wrd
=Woodcock
letter
word
subtest;wrd
attack
=Woodcock
word
attack
subtest;PPVT=
PeabodyPicture
Vocabulary
Test;pic
voc=
Woodcock
picture
vocabulary
subtest;blend=
CTOPPblendingsubtest;
elision=
CTOPPelisionsubtest;segment=
CTOPPsegmentingsubtest;Cant=
Cantonese
*p\
.05;**p\
.001;***p\
.0001
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 925
123
hypothesis that tasks in both English and Cantonese are measuring the same
constructs in phonological awareness and vocabulary. Four indices of goodness of
fit were used in the analysis of the model: Chi-square statistics with associated pvalues, the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square of approximation
(RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). These indices
are widely used as fit indicators (Kline, 2010).
The fit of the three-factor model (Model A in Table 3) was not good, with all
indices falling outside the acceptable range: p \ .05, CFI \ .95, RMSEA [ .05,
and SRMR [ .10. Additionally, the factor loadings for the Cantonese vocabulary
variables were low. The lack of fit and the low loadings suggested that the observed
variables were not strong indicators of the latent construct.
In a second confirmatory factor analysis, the latent construct of vocabulary was
split according to language (i.e., English vocabulary and Cantonese vocabulary),
resulting in a four-factor CFA (Model B in Table 3). Phonological awareness was
characterized as one cross-language construct. English word reading also remained
the same. The fit for this model was not good, with all fit indices falling outside the
acceptable range. Additionally, the two factor loadings for the English phonological
awareness variables were low.
In a third confirmatory factor analysis, the latent constructs of phonological
awareness and vocabulary were split according to language (i.e., English
vocabulary, Cantonese vocabulary, English phonological awareness, and Cantonese
phonological awareness), with English word reading remaining the same. This
resulted in a five-factor CFA (Model C in Table 3). The fit for this model was much
better than for the other two measurement models. All four fit indices were within
the desired ranges. Except for English segmentation, all indicator variables loaded
highly and significantly on their respective constructs. All English constructs were
significantly associated with each other. All Cantonese constructs were significantly
associated with each other. None of the English constructs was significantly
associated with any of the Cantonese constructs. The covariances between the
constructs are displayed in Table 4. The measurement model with the standardized
coefficients is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Table 3 Fit statistics for measurement models and structural models
Model X2 df p X2//df CFI RMSEA SRMR
Measurement model
Model A: three constructs 188.62 41 0 4.60 .68 .190 .16
Model B: four constructs 107.10 38 0 2.82 .85 .135 .12
Model C: five constructs 38.36 34 .28 1.13 .99 .04 .05
Structural model
Model D: all variables 58.77 51 .21 1.15 .99 .04 .06
Model E: no Cantonese phonological awareness 39.82 34 .23 1.17 .99 .04 .06
Model F: no Cantonese PA and vocabulary 30.90 22 .10 1.40 .98 .06 .06
N = 101 for all equations. CFI comparative fit index, RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation,
SRMR standardized root mean residual
926 Y. Uchikoshi
123
Table 4 Covariances between latent constructs for CFA
Relationship Estimate SE t
English vocabulary and
Cantonese vocabulary −10.09 18.06 −.56
English phonological awareness 8.59 3.19 2.69
Cantonese phonological awareness 3.77 4.13 .910
English word reading 99.47 20.76 4.79***
Cantonese vocabulary and
English phonological awareness 4.01 3.54 1.13
Cantonese phonological awareness 27.99 6.59 4.25***
English word reading 8.24 20.23 .41
English phonological awareness and:
Cantonese phonological awareness 1.57 .83 1.9
English word reading 18.96 4.34 4.37***
Cantonese phonological awareness and
English word reading 7.93 4.7 1.69
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001
Fig. 1 Measurement model with factor loadings on latent constructs of oral proficiency and phonologicalawareness in English and Cantonese and of English word reading
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 927
123
Structural equation modelling
Structural models were then tested using the measurement model C. All variables
were included in the structural model. English reading comprehension was
measured with only one observed variable (passage comprehension). Direct paths
to English reading comprehension were included from English word reading,
English listening comprehension, Cantonese vocabulary, and English vocabulary.
Indirect paths to English reading comprehension were drawn from phonological
awareness and vocabulary in Cantonese and English through English word reading.
Indirect paths to English reading comprehension were also drawn from Cantonese
and English vocabulary through English listening comprehension.
The statistics and goodness-of-fit indices are presented in Table 3 (see Model D).
The model fit the data well, with all values being within the acceptable range:
X2 (51, N = 101) = 58.77, p = .21, X2/df = 1.15, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .99. For
word reading, paths from English vocabulary and English phonological awareness
were positive and significant, although the paths from Cantonese vocabulary and
Cantonese phonological processing were not. For listening comprehension, the path
from English vocabulary was positive and significant, but the path from Cantonese
vocabulary was not. Paths from English vocabulary and English word reading to
English reading comprehension was positive and significant, while paths from
Cantonese oral language and English listening comprehension to English reading
comprehension were not.
Additional models were tested to determine whether the non-significant paths of
the components of reading comprehension posited in the full structural model were
necessary (see Table 3). Model E involved deleting the pathway between Cantonese
phonological awareness and English word reading from the original model. Model F
involved deleting the pathways between Cantonese vocabulary and English passage
comprehension, between Cantonese vocabulary and English listening comprehen-
sion, and between Cantonese vocabulary and English word reading from Model E.
For Model E, all three fit indices were within the acceptable range: X2 (34,
N = 101) = 39.82, p = .23, X2/df = 1.17, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .99. For Model F,
the RMSEA fell outside of the acceptable range (RMSEA [ .06) and the solution
was reported to be inadmissible. Because the models were nested, Model E could be
compared with the full structural model (Model D) to determine whether one model
provided a significantly better fit than the others (Kline, 2010). The difference in the
Chi-squares was not significant: ΔX2 (17, N = 101) = 18.95, p [ .05. Therefore,
Model E became the final model (Fig. 2), accounting for 59 % of the variance in
English reading comprehension, 75 % of the variance in English word reading, and
38 % of the variance in English listening comprehension.
The magnitude of the direct effect of English word reading on English passage
comprehension is slightly higher than the magnitude of the direct effect of English
vocabulary on English passage comprehension. The magnitudes of the effects of
English vocabulary on English word reading and of English vocabulary on English
listening comprehension are slightly higher than the magnitude of the effect of
English vocabulary on English passage comprehension. Additionally, no cross-
linguistic paths were significant.
928 Y. Uchikoshi
123
Bilingual program group
Since the average performances on English tasks were not different between the
groups, the two groups of children (those in bilingual programs and those in
mainstream classrooms) were collapsed in the analysis above. However, although
both groups had weak Cantonese skills, the children in the bilingual group had
higher Cantonese proficiency than the children in the mainstream classes. As it is
important to examine if the impact of the Cantonese variables on English reading
comprehension changes depending on whether the children have received formal L1
instruction or not, further analysis was conducted with only the children in the
bilingual programs.
Once the mainstream group was taken out, there were only 40 children left in the
sample. As this number is too small for reliable results using structural equation
modelling (Kline, 2010) or multiple regression modelling (Agresti, 2007), the
relationships among the Cantonese and English vocabulary variables and English
reading comprehension were examined with correlational analysis (see Table 5).
Even when the two groups were separated, all of the English variables remained
moderately and positively correlated with each other for the children in the bilingual
group. For the children in the mainstream group, nonword decoding (English word
attack) was not correlated with listening comprehension and the vocabulary
measures. For the mainstream group, English phonological awareness was also not
correlated with the vocabulary measures. On the other hand, all of the Cantonese
Fig. 2 LISREL-derived structural equation model of grade-2 English reading comprehension predictedby English vocabulary and English word reading for Cantonese-speaking English language learners.Significant paths are printed in boldface
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 929
123
Tab
le5
Correlationsbetweenmeasuresbygroup(bilingual
n=
40or
mainstream
n=
61)
12
34
56
78
910
11
1.English
read
comp
Bilingual
–
Mainstream
–
2.English
listening
Bilingual
.56**
–
Mainstream
.42**
–
3.English
letter
wrd
Bilingual
.65***
.39*
–
Mainstream
.65***
.27*
–
4.English
wrd
attack
Bilingual
.43*
.40*
.70***
–
Mainstream
.27*
.17
.41**
–
5.English
PPVT
Bilingual
.51**
.62***
.47*
.49*
–
Mainstream
.58***
.50***
.65***
.25
–
6.Engpic
voc
Bilingual
.54**
.69***
.46*
.47*
.55**
–
Mainstream
.61***
.35*
.58***
.17
.72***
–
7.EngPA
Bilingual
.60***
.43*
.86***
.65***
.48*
.50*
–
Mainstream
.19
−.11
.41**
.32*
.12
.15
–
8.CantPPVT
Bilingual
.30
.18
.24
.19
.23
.16
.27
–
Mainstream
.09
.06
−.12
−.05
−.15
−.19
−.06
–
930 Y. Uchikoshi
123
Tab
le5continued
12
34
56
78
910
11
9.Cantpic
voc
Bilingual
.39*
.31
.45*
.34*
.30
.37*
.57***
.60***
–
Mainstream
−.14
−.00
−.27*
−.19
−.16
−.30*
−.13
.64***
–
10.Canttone
Bilingual
.36*
.29
.23
.20
.30
−.08
.28
.31
.28
–
Mainstream
−.01
−.08
−.09
−.01
−.05
−.08
.09
.35*
.44**
–
11.Cantrhyme
Bilingual
.35*
.22
.51**
.38*
.31
.04
.43*
.21
.26
.30
–
Mainstream
−.02
.12
.03
.05
.04
.04
.18
.39*
.46**
.62***
–
Readingcomp=
Woodcock
readingcomprehensionsubtest;listening=
Woodcock
listeningcomprehensionsubtest;letter
wrd
=Woodcock
letter
word
subtest;wrd
attack
=Woodcock
word
attack
subtest;PPVT
=PeabodyPicture
Vocabulary
Test;pic
voc=
Woodcock
picture
vocabulary
subtest;PA
=CTOPPphonological
awarenesscomposite;Cant=
Cantonese
*p\
.05;**p\
.001;***p\
.0001
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 931
123
variables remained moderately and positively correlated with each other for the
mainstream group. Yet, for the bilingual group, only the two vocabulary measures
were correlated with each other.
Moreover, the relationship between Cantonese expressive vocabulary and
English reading comprehension differed between the bilingual and mainstream
groups. For the bilingual group, the two variables were positively correlated with
each other (r = .39; p \ .05), while for the mainstream group, although not
significant, there was a trend for negative correlation (r = −.14). This was also true
for the relationships between English reading comprehension and the two Cantonese
phonological awareness measures. Furthermore, the same trend was seen with the
English and Cantonese expressive vocabulary measures, where the variables were
positively correlated with each other (r = .37; p \ .05) for the bilingual group,
while the variables were negatively correlated (r = −.30; p \ .05) for the
mainstream group.
The results from Table 5 suggest that there may be an impact of Cantonese
vocabulary and phonological awareness skills on English reading comprehension
for children who are in bilingual programs and receiving formal L1 instruction.
More research is necessary with a larger sample of bilingual children with high L1
proficiency to verify this trend.
Discussion
In this study, oral proficiency and reading measures were collected on a sample of
Cantonese-speaking ELLs living in the United States. As past research with ELLs
has been focused on Spanish-speaking children, a goal of this study was to examine
whether the same variables that predict English reading comprehension for
monolingual English-speaking and Spanish-speaking ELL children also predict
English reading comprehension for Cantonese-speaking ELLs living in English-
dominant countries.
First of all, it is noteworthy that the Cantonese-speaking ELL children in this
study—as a whole and disaggregated by language of instruction—performed at
grade-level or higher on reading measures (English decoding and English reading
comprehension). However, they were below grade-level on oral proficiency
measures. These findings are similar to other researchers’ findings with Spanish-
speaking ELL children’s performance on English vocabulary and English decoding
measures (Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2011; Nakamoto et al., 2008) but differ
from past research with Spanish-speaking children that finds English reading
comprehension to be below grade-level (Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Nakamoto
et al., 2008). This may be because Nakamoto et al.’s (2008) study was conducted
with older children; past research has found that ELLs in upper elementary grades
struggle with reading comprehension due to the high demands on academic
vocabulary and background knowledge (Garcı́a, 1991). The present study’s findings
also contradict the findings in Gottardo and Mueller’s (2009) study with Spanish–
English bilingual second graders. The children in that study were the same age as
the children in this study, but scored significantly lower on both English decoding
932 Y. Uchikoshi
123
and English vocabulary measures, possibly leading to lower English reading
comprehension scores.
Another major finding is that the children in the bilingual program scored
similarly to the children in the mainstream classrooms on all English measures.
Furthermore, the former scored significantly higher than the latter on all Cantonese
measures. This suggests that bilingual instruction and programs can have positive
impacts on ELLs’ academic outcomes. ELL children can learn the home language,
without delays in the second language. In fact, in terms of literacy, these bilingual
children performed just as well as their monolingual English-speaking counterparts.
The implication that stems from this result is that parents and teachers should be
encouraged to develop the home language skills of ELL children. High quality
bilingual instruction with high quality home-school connections may positively
influence the children’s bilingual development (in-depth analysis can be found in
Uchikoshi and Maniates (2010) work).
Moreover, this study highlights the importance of English vocabulary. The
results of the structural model show that English vocabulary was related to English
reading comprehension, similar to findings with English monolinguals and Spanish-
speaking ELLs (e.g., Beck et al., 1982; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010; Proctor
et al., 2005). In fact, English vocabulary played a significant role in three areas:
English word reading, English listening comprehension, and English reading
comprehension. Past research with ELLs in upper elementary grades have found
that ELLs struggle with reading comprehension, especially due to the high demands
on academic vocabulary and background knowledge (Garcı́a, 1991). Although the
children in this sample performed, as a whole, at grade-level on reading measures,
their below-grade-level English vocabulary may hinder their English reading
comprehension as they get older.
In addition, results of the structural model show that English word reading was
also related to English reading comprehension, similar to findings with English
monolinguals and Spanish-speaking ELLs (e.g., Gottardo & Mueller, 2009;
Manis et al., 2004; Proctor et al., 2005; Tannenbaum, Torgesen, & Wagner,
2006). Also similar to young monolingual readers (Catts, Hogan, & Adolf, 2005)
and young Spanish-speaking ELLs (Gottardo & Mueller, 2009), English decoding
was a better predictor of English reading comprehension than oral proficiency, as
measured with vocabulary, for the young Cantonese-speaking ELLs in this study.
Furthermore, a measurement model was tested to determine whether vocabulary
and phonological awareness in Cantonese and English were single cross-language
constructs or separate constructs. Results show that constructs for both vocabulary
and phonological awareness were represented by separate constructs for each
language, similar to the findings of studies with Spanish-speaking ELLs (Branum-
Martin et al., 2006; Cobo-Lewis, Pearson, Eilers, & Umbel, 2002; Gottardo &
Mueller, 2009). However, more research is needed to examine if this model differs
when disaggregated by language of instruction, since the correlational results
showed differences in the relationships between L1 and L2 expressive vocabulary
depending on language of instruction.
In contrast to the findings of past research with Spanish-speaking ELLs (Proctor
et al., 2005; Nakamoto et al., 2008) and with monolingual English-speaking
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 933
123
children (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990), English listening
comprehension did not make a significant contribution to English reading
comprehension. In past research, Chinese listening comprehension did not predict
Chinese reading comprehension with a group of 290 Cantonese-speaking mono-
lingual first-graders in Hong Kong (Yeung et al., 2011). The authors speculate that
this may be because Cantonese—spoken by the majority of Chinese in Hong Kong
—differs in significant ways from written Chinese in both vocabulary and syntax. In
fact, other researchers have found that the linkage between oral language and
literacy become weaker when the differences between oral language and written
language increase (e.g., Burke, Pflaum, & Knafle, 1982). In this study, listening
comprehension and reading comprehension were both measured in English, where
the oral and written languages are the same, so this explanation may not apply.
Another possibility may be that since listening comprehension and vocabulary
scores were moderately and positively correlated, one variable subsumed the other.
However, in Proctor et al. (2006)’s study, although there was a strong relationship
between listening comprehension and vocabulary scores with their Spanish–English
bilinguals, the effect of English listening comprehension remained on English
reading comprehension. A stronger explanation is the younger age and lower
English decoding skills of the Cantonese-speaking ELL children in this study
compared to previous studies conducted with older Spanish-speaking ELL children.
The children in this sample were younger than the children in Proctor et al.’s study.
In fact, the other studies that show L2 listening comprehension skills to be
predictive of L2 reading comprehension outcomes have also been with older
children (e.g. Hoover & Gough, 1990; Royer & Carlo, 1991). It may be that the
children in this sample still need to develop their English decoding skills before an
effect of listening comprehension on reading comprehension is seen. Whether the
differences seen here on the role of listening comprehension is due to L1 differences
or age differences need to be examined further.
It should be noted that English reading comprehensionwas onlymeasured with one
assessment. Although it is a widely used measure, there are problems with assessing
bilinguals with monolingual-normed assessments (Abedi, Lord, Hostetter, & Baker,
2000) and results may differ with other reading comprehension assessments. Further
research is necessary to verify this finding. Additionally, although all the children in
this sample were given similar reading instruction using the same textbook, future
research should also investigate the role of teacher differences in teaching reading
comprehension as well as home literacy practices.
The present study’s findings are important theoretically for developing models of
reading comprehension for young bilinguals, especially for bilinguals whose two
languages use separate writing systems. The findings also have important
implications for practice and policy. As both decoding and vocabulary were
important in developing Cantonese-speaking ELLs’ English reading comprehen-
sion, curricula need to emphasize vocabulary development as well as decoding
skills beginning in the early primary grades. As these findings are similar to findings
from studies with Spanish-speaking ELL children, this suggest that teachers who
have ELL children in their classrooms—regardless of the children’s L1—need to
focus on both vocabulary and decoding in the early elementary school years.
934 Y. Uchikoshi
123
Furthermore, the findings from this study highlight the crucial role of English
vocabulary on English literacy development for Cantonese ELLs. English vocabulary
played a significant role in three areas of English literacy: word reading, listening
comprehension, and reading comprehension. With young monolingual English
readers, reading comprehension is more strongly related to word reading than to oral
language proficiency, in part because the passages in most tests of early reading
comprehension require only a very basic level of vocabulary that most monolingual
English children have already acquired (Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2008). Yet for
ELLs, even this basic level of vocabulary may need to be reinforced to aid in reading
comprehension. In addition to breadth of vocabulary, depth of vocabulary should also
be emphasized. Teachers need to be aware that the content and vocabulary used in
textbooks may not be equally familiar to all their students, especially ELLs.
Additionally, the benefits of intense early vocabulary instruction, even as early as
preschool, should be emphasized. For many ELL children, preschool or kindergar-
ten is the first formal encounter with the English language. As language exposure
impacts vocabulary growth (Hart & Risely, 1995), this indicates that ELL children
must acquire English vocabulary at an accelerated rate if they are to catch up with
their monolingual English-speaking peers. Research shows that earlier exposure to
English has no effect on ELL children’s native vocabulary growth (Uchikoshi,
in press), suggesting that parents should be encouraged to expose their ELL children
to English by enrolling them in English-speaking or bilingual preschools and Head
Start. Additionally, these findings underscore the need for an early-intervention
curriculum focusing on oral language instruction. This may be particularly true for
Cantonese-speaking ELLs whose two languages do not share any cognates.
Moreover, teachers need to consider the similarities as well as differences in the
L1 among ELLs with various L1 backgrounds and how that may or may not affect
the ELL child’s English acquisition. In a multicultural society such as the United
States, having a research-based model of L2 reading comprehension is vital to
developing curricula that can address the needs of children from different language
backgrounds.
Acknowledgments The research reported in this paper was supported by the Foundation for ChildDevelopment.
References
Abedi, J., Lord, C., Hostetter, C., & Baker, E. (2000). Impact of accommodation strategies on English
language learners’ test performance. Educational Measurements: Issues and Practice, 19(3), 16–26.Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Anglin, J. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society forResearch in Child Development, 58(10).
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for
English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 50–57.Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 935
123
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on
lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506–521.Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., & Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, language proficiency, and learning to
read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 580–590.Biemiller, A. (2003). Oral comprehension sets the ceiling on reading comprehension. American Educator,
27(1), 23–44.Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary
grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44–57.Branum-Martin, L., Mehta, P. D., Fletcher, J. M., Carlson, C. D., Ortiz, A., Carlo, M., et al. (2006).
Bilingual phonological awareness: Multilevel construct validation among Spanish-speaking
kindergarteners in transitional bilingual education classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology,98, 170–181.
Burke, S. M., Pflaum, S. W., & Knafle, J. D. (1982). The influence of Black English on diagnosis of
reading in learning disabled and normal readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 19–22.Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M., Davis, L. H., & Spharim, G. (1999). Relationships of metalinguistic
capabilities and reading achievement for children who are becoming bilingual. Applied Psycho-linguistics, 20, 459–478.
Carver, R. P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative
difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 413–437.Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Adolf, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading
disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and readingdisabilities (pp. 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chaney, C. (1992). Language development, metalinguistic skills, and print awareness in 3-year-old
children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 485–514.Chen, X., Anderson, R. C., Li, W., Hao, M., Wu, X., & Shu, H. (2004). Phonological awareness of
bilingual and monolingual Chinese children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 142–151.Chen, X., Hao, M., Geva, E., Zhu, J., & Shu, H. (2009). The role of compound awareness in Chinese
children’s vocabulary acquisition and character reading. Reading and Writing: An InterdisciplinaryJournal, 22, 615–631.
Cheng, C. M. (1992). Lexical access in Chinese: Evidence from automatic activation of phonological
information. In H. C. Chen & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Cheung, H., Chan, M., & Chong, K. (2007). Use of orthographic knowledge in reading by Chinese-
English bi-scriptal children. Language Learning, 57(3), 469–505.Chien, C., Kao, L., & Wei, L. (2008). The role of phonological awareness development in young Chinese
EFL learners. Language Awareness, 17(4), 271–288.Chow, B. W., McBride-Chang, C., & Burgess, S. (2005). Phonological processing skills and early reading
abilities in Hong Kong Chinese kindergarteners learning to read English as a second language.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 81–87.Cobo-Lewis, A. B., Pearson, B. Z., Eilers, R. E., & Umbel, V. C. (2002). Effects of bilingualism and
bilingual education on oral and written Spanish skills: A multifactor study of standardized test
outcomes. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 98–
117). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism in special education. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first and second language proficiency in bilingual children. In E.
Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Durgunoglu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language
learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 189–204.Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Crosslanguage transfer of phonological
awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465.Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema
availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 277–323.Garcı́a, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-speaking
Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(4), 371–392.
936 Y. Uchikoshi
123
Geva, E., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of
basic reading skills in two languages. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 1–30.Gottardo, A., Chiappe, P., Yan, B., Siegel, L., & Gu, Y. (2006). Relationships between first and second
language phonological processing skills and reading in Chinese-English speakers living in English-
Speaking contexts. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 367–393.Gottardo, A., & Mueller, J. (2009). Are first- and second-language factors related in predicting second-
language reading comprehension? A Study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a
second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 330–344.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.Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. RASE. Remedial &
Special Education, 7, 6–10.Hakuta, K. (1986). The mirror of language. New York: Basic Books.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young Americanchildren. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hemphill, L., & Tivnan, T. (2008). The importance of early vocabulary for literacy achievement in high-
poverty schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13, 426–451.Ho, C. S., & Bryant, P. (1997). Development of phonological awareness of Chinese children in Hong
Kong. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(1), 109–126.Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 759–788). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in
first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 243–255.Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills
they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies ofReading, 12(3), 281–300.
Keung, Y., & Ho, C. H. (2009). Transfer of reading-related cognitive skills in learning to read Chinese
(L1) and English (L2) among Chinese elementary school children. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 34, 103–112.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Leong, C. K. (1986). What does accessing a morphemic scripts tell us about reading and reading disorders
in an alphabetic scripts? Annals of Dyslexia, 36, 82–102.Leong, C. K., Tse, S. K., Loh, K. Y., & Hau, K. T. (2008). Text comprehension in Chinese children:
Relative contribution of verbal working memory, pseudoword reading, rapid automatized naming,
and onset-rime phonological segmentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 135–149.Lu, L., & Liu, H. S. (1998). The peabody picture vocabulary test-revised in Chinese. Taipei:
Psychological Publishing.
Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers:
The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701–711.
Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. (2011). The gap between Spanish-speakers’ word reading and word
knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82(5), 1544–1560.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, 214–224.Marinova-Todd, S. H., Zhao, J., & Bernhardt, M. (2010). Phonological awareness skills in the two
languages of Mandarin-English bilingual children. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 24, 387–400.McBride-Chang, C., Bialystok, E., Chong, K. K. Y., & Li, Y. (2004). Levels of phonological awareness in
three cultures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89, 93–111.McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., & Leos, K. (2005). English language learners and learning disabilities:
Research agenda and implications for practice. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(2),68–78.
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 937
123
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and
grammatical skills as foundations of reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 665–681.Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., & Manis, F. R. (2008). A cross-linguistic investigation of English language
learners’ reading comprehension in English and Spanish. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(4), 351–371.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of thescientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (2002). Language and literacy in bilingual children. North York, ON:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Oller, D. K., & Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Assessing the effects of bilingualism: A background. In D. K. Oller
& R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 3–21). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Perfetti, C. A. (1998). Two basic questions about reading and learning to read. In P. Reitsma &
L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Problems and interventions in literacy development (pp. 15–48). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish speaking children reading in
English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256.Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language
vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 98, 159–169.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in readingcomprehension (Tech. Report for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement). Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Roberts, G., Good, R., & Corcoran, S. (2005). Story retell: A fluency-based indicator of reading
comprehension. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 304–317.Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., Hudson, R. F., & Torgeson, J. K. (2008). Accuracy of the
DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes.
Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343–366.Royer, J. M., & Carlo, M. S. (1991). Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language.
Journal of Reading, 34, 450–455.Scarborough, H. S. (1989). Prediction of reading dysfunction from familial and individual differences.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 101–108.Shu, H., & Anderson, R. C. (1997). Role of radical awareness in the character and word acquisition of
Chinese children. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 78–89.Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationships between word knowledge
and reading comprehension in third grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 381–398.Tong, X., & McBride-Chang, C. (2010). Chinese-English biscriptal reading: Cognitive component skills
across orthographies. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 293–310.Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, A. (1992). Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read. In R. Treiman,
C. Ehri, & P. B. Gough (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 175–214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Uchikoshi, Y., & Maniates, H. (2010). How does bilingual instruction enhance English achievement?: A
mixed-methods study of Cantonese-speaking and Spanish-speaking bilingual classrooms. BilingualResearch Journal, 33(3), 1–22.
Uchikoshi, Y. (in press). Development of vocabulary in Spanish-speaking and Cantonese-speaking
English Language Learners. Applied Psycholinguistics.Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B. Z., Fernandez, M. C., & Oller, D. K. (1992). Measuring bilingual children’s
receptive vocabularies. Child Development, 63, 1012–1020.Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological
processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Wang, M., Cheng, C. X., & Chen, S. W. (2006). Contribution of morphological awareness to Chinese-
English biliteracy acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 542–553.Wang, M., Yang, C., & Cheng, C. (2009). The contributions of phonology, orthography, and morphology
in Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 291–314.
938 Y. Uchikoshi
123
Wong-Fillmore, L. W. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 6(3), 323–347.
Woodcock, R. W. (1991). Woodcock language proficiency battery—Revised. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Services.
Yeung, P., Ho, C. S., Chik, P. P., Lo, L., Luan, H., Chan, D. W., et al. (2011). Reading and spelling
Chinese among beginning readers: What skills make a difference? Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(4), 285–313.
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading
across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.
Cantonese ELL English reading comprehension 939
123