The relations among L1 (Spanish) literacy skills, L2 (English) language, L2 text reading fluency, and L2 reading comprehension for Spanish-speaking ELL first grade students

Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 690–700

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

The relations among L1 (Spanish) literacy skills, L2 (English) language, L2 text reading fluency, and L2 reading comprehension for Spanish-speaking ELL first grade students Young-Suk Kim ⁎ Florida State University and Florida Center for Reading Research, C234D, Florida Center for Reading Research, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, 1107 W. Call St. Tallahassee, FL 32306, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 5 August 2011 Received in revised form 3 June 2012 Accepted 29 June 2012 Keywords: Oral reading fluency Silent reading fluency Reading comprehension Language minority children English language learners Oral language skills

a b s t r a c t We investigated the relations of L2 (i.e., English) oral reading fluency, silent reading fluency, word reading automaticity, oral language skills, and L1 literacy skills (i.e., Spanish) to L2 reading comprehension for Spanish-speaking English language learners in the first grade (N = 150). An analysis was conducted for the entire sample as well as for skilled and less skilled word readers. Results showed that word reading automaticity was strongly related to oral and silent reading fluency, but oral language skill was not. This was the case not only for the entire sample but also for subsamples of skilled and less skilled word readers, which is a discrepant finding from a study with English-only children (Kim et al., 2011). With regard to the relations among L2 oral language, text reading fluency, word reading automaticity, reading comprehension, and L1 literacy skills, patterns of relations were similar for skilled versus less skilled word readers with oral reading fluency, but different with silent reading fluency. When oral and silent reading fluency were in the model simultaneously, oral reading fluency, but not silent reading fluency, was uniquely related to reading comprehension. Children's L1 literacy skill was not uniquely related to reading comprehension after accounting for other L2 language and literacy skills. These results are discussed in light of a developmental theory of text reading fluency. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Reading comprehension is a complex process, requiring orchestration of multiple skills. This process may be even more complicated for language minority children who acquire oral and written language simultaneously in a language they are not proficient. While quite a few studies examined the development and predictors of word reading skills for language minority children (e.g., Chiappe & Siegel, 1999; Durgunoğlu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Geva & Siegel, 2000; Geva, Wade-Woolley, & Shany, 1997; Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003; Nag-Arulmani, Reddy, & Buckley, 2003), less attention has been paid to reading comprehension for L2 learners. The extant studies have shown that various L1 and L2 linguistic and cognitive skills such as working memory, L1 short-term memory, L2 oral language (listening comprehension and vocabulary), and L2 word reading contribute to L2 reading comprehension (e.g., Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010; Miyake & Friedman, 1998; Nakamoto, Lindsey, & Manis, 2008; Proctor, August, Carlo, & Snow, 2006; Swanson, Saez, Gerber, &

⁎ Tel.: +1 850 645 8726; fax: +1 850 645 8947. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.06.009

Leafstedt, 2004). However, few studies have examined reading comprehension in relation to oral and silent reading fluency, word reading automaticity, oral language, and L1 literacy skills for language minority children. Thus, the goal of the present study was to examine the relations of children's L1 literacy skills (e.g., nonword reading fluency in Spanish), L2 language (e.g., listening comprehension and receptive and expressive vocabulary), L2 word reading automaticity (i.e., list reading), and L2 text reading fluency (i.e., word read correctly per minute in connected text) to L2 reading comprehension for Spanish-speaking language minority first graders with limited English proficiency in the US. The selected measures and latent variables in the present study were informed by theory (e.g., Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001; see below) and empirical studies (Kim, Wagner, & Foster, 2011; Kim, Wagner, & Lopez, 2012) to address the relation of oral language and word reading automaticity to text reading fluency and reading comprehension, specifically for Spanish-speaking English language learners. In the present study, we used a latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Latent variable approach is superior to traditional statistical techniques such as ANOVA or multiple regressions because common variance among tasks are used to estimate relations and thus measurement errors are much reduced (Russell, Kahn, Altmaier, & Spoth, 1998).

Y.-S. Kim / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 690–700

In addition, using structural equation modeling, multivariate analysis can be conducted examining mediating processes (i.e., oral or silent reading fluency in the present study). It should be noted that in the present study, the term, text reading fluency, is used to refer to reading rate with accuracy in connected text in oral or silent mode, without including reading expression (or prosody). Although the importance of reading expression for the definition of reading fluency is acknowledged (e.g., Hudson, Pullen, Lane, & Torgesen, 2009; Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003), reading prosody was beyond the scope of the present paper. Extant literature suggests that reading prosody may significantly but weakly contribute to reading comprehension (e.g., Schwanenflugel, Hamilton, Kuhn, Wisenbaker, & Stahl, 2004). The term, word reading automaticity, is used to refer to context-free fast and accurate word reading (also referred to as list reading fluency, Jenkins et al., 2003). Furthermore, the term, English-only children, is used to refer to children who learn English as their first language without a limited English proficiency designation. 1.1. Relations of oral language skill to reading fluency and reading comprehension in L1 English readers A large body of research shows that oral reading fluency is a strong predictor of reading comprehension for English-speaking L1 children (e.g., Good, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 2001; Kim, Petscher, Schatschneider, & Foorman, 2010; Ridel, 2007; also see NICHD, 2000) over and above word reading automaticity (Jenkins et al., 2003). Why is oral reading fluency such a strong predictor of reading comprehension? Theory suggests that reading fluency captures two important ingredients for reading comprehension—word reading automaticity and oral language comprehension (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Perfetti, 1985, 1992). While word reading and oral language comprehension are two necessary components for successful reading comprehension as hypothesized by the simple view of reading1 (Catts, Hogan, & Adlof, 2005; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Kirby & Savage, 2008), achieving automaticity in word reading is an essential requirement for reading comprehension (Adams, 1990; Chall, 1996; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Perfetti, 1985, 1992; Stanovich, 1980). It has been shown that word decoding accuracy and efficiency are two separate constructs for low-performing second and third grade students (Pierce, Katzir, Wolf, & Noam, 2007). As individuals have a limited amount of attentional resources available for any given cognitive tasks, the greater the amount of attention paid to word decoding, the less is available for meaning construction. In other words, word reading automaticity allows oral language comprehension to be utilized for the meaning construction process during text reading (Stanovich, 1980). However, oral reading fluency is more than word reading automaticity and is built on oral language comprehension as well (Fuchs et al., 2001; Jenkins et al., 2003; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). Some degree of comprehension is part of the definition of oral reading fluency (Daane, Campbell, Grigg, Goodman, & Oranje, 2005; Samuels, 2006; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001) and is hypothesized to be the reason why oral reading fluency is predictive of reading comprehension over and above word reading automaticity (Jenkins et al., 2003). Evidence is emerging to support that oral language skill is indeed related to text reading fluency. It was shown that one reads the same words faster in connected text than in isolation, and this is often attributed to language processing during connected text (Biemiller, 1977–1978; Jenkins et al., 2003). Furthermore, a recent multivariate study showed that children's oral language comprehension was uniquely related to oral and silent reading fluency as well as reading comprehension after accounting for word reading automaticity for first grade English-speaking L1 students 1 The simple view of reading did not specify the nature of word reading skill, whether accuracy or automaticity, and thus, the majority of previous studies on the simple view of reading has included word reading accuracy measures, not automaticity.

691

(Kim et al., 2011). However, this result depended on children's word reading proficiency—oral language comprehension was uniquely related to oral and silent reading fluency for children who achieved a high level of word reading proficiency (i.e., mean standard score of 123.27), but not average word readers in the first grade. These findings suggested that a certain threshold level of word reading skill might be needed to release cognitive resources for children's oral language skills to be used in text reading fluency (Perfetti, 1985, 1992). However, one assumption that implicitly underlies this hypothesis is that children's oral language skills are in place. In other words, for oral language skills to play a role in reading fluency or reading comprehension, children need to have achieved oral language proficiency in addition to word reading proficiency. The importance of achieving a certain level of oral language proficiency might not be as evident for children learning to read in their L1 because typically their oral language skills tend to be commensurate with their literacy skills (Kim et al., 2011). Instead, the importance of achieving oral language proficiency might be more evident or better illustrated for children who are acquiring oral language and literacy in L2. Research has shown that L2 learners' word reading skill can develop at a similar rate as L1 students as long as quality code-based instruction is provided (e.g., Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006; Lesaux, Geva, Koda, Siegel, & Shananhan, 2008; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003; Lindsey et al., 2003). However, L2 learners' advanced L2 reading skills such as reading comprehension tend to lag behind those of L1 students because of L2 learners' lower oral language skills in L2 (Lesaux et al., 2008). The moderating role of L2 oral language in reading skills for L2 learners has been recently shown by Crosson and Lesaux (2010). In their study, oral reading fluency was a significant predictor of reading comprehension for first grade language minority children, but only for those with relatively high listening comprehension scores in L2. In the present study, we extended Kim et al.'s (2011) and Crosson and Lesaux's (2010) studies and investigated the role of L2 oral language skills in text reading fluency after accounting for word reading automaticity for L2 first grade learners. Specifically, statistical models were fitted not only for the entire sample, but also for a subsample of skilled and less skilled word readers. If students' L2 oral language skills are not related to their L2 text reading fluency and they have high proficiency in L2 word reading, but low L2 oral language skills, then these results might be taken to suggest that a certain level of L2 oral language proficiency is necessary for it to play a role in L2 text reading fluency. 1.2. The relations of oral and silent reading fluency to reading comprehension In the present study, we examined not only oral but also silent reading fluency in L2 and their relations to reading comprehension in L2. Developing successful silent reading fluency is critical because silent reading is the primary mode of reading for proficient readers, and proficient readers typically read faster in silent reading than oral reading. For instance, silent reading could have substantial consequences for the volume of students’ reading (Hiebert, Wilson, & Trainin, 2010). It was estimated that in a 15-minute period, which is the typical amount of time allocated to reading in a third or fourth grade classroom over a school year, students could read as many as 100,000 additional words, equivalent to the amount recommended for a school year in some core reading programs in grade three (Hiebert et al., 2010). This has an important implication, given that reading volume is important for students' vocabulary, comprehension, and content knowledge (Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987). Thus, it is critical to expand our understanding about silent reading in addition to oral reading. Previous studies with students in second grade and above have shown that silent reading fluency was strongly related to reading comprehension (Jenkins & Jewell, 1993; Klauda & Guthrie, 2008) while a weak relation was also observed (Fuchs et al., 2001). Furthermore, a recent study with English-only children showed

692

Y.-S. Kim / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 690–700

that oral and silent reading fluency were related but dissociable constructs for beginning readers such as first grade students (Kim et al., 2011). 1.3. L1 literacy to L2 reading comprehension Finally, in the present study, children's L1 literacy skill (i.e., Spanish) was also included as a predictor of their L2 reading comprehension. Studies have shown different patterns of L1 influence on L2 literacy acquisition. It appears that L1 phonological awareness facilitates L2 word reading (e.g., Durgunoğlu et al., 1993; Quiroga, Lemos-Britton, Mostafapour, Abbott, & Berninger, 2002; Wang, Park, & Lee, 2006). However, L2 literacy skills tend to have the most influence on L2 higher level reading skills such as reading comprehension (Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Manis, Lindsey, & Bailey, 2004; Nakamoto et al., 2008; Swanson, Rosston, Gerber, & Solari, 2008; Verhoeven, 2000). For instance, L1 oral language proficiency was not uniquely related to L2 reading comprehension once L2 oral language skills were taken into consideration for children in the second grade (Gottardo & Mueller, 2009). Nakamoto et al. (2008) showed that L2 oral language and literacy skills in third grade were the best predictors of L2 reading comprehension in the sixth grade whereas L1 language and literacy skills (Spanish) did not add any unique explanatory power. In the present study, we expanded these previous studies by examining a potential contribution of L1 literacy skills to L2 reading comprehension for beginning readers (i.e., first grade), who are Spanish-speaking language minority students. In summary, in the present study we investigated the following research questions. First, are L2 oral and silent reading fluency better described as a single construct or two related but dissociable constructs for Spanish-speaking language minority children in the first grade? Second, is L2 oral language skill related to L2 oral and silent reading fluency, respectively, over and above L2 word reading automaticity for language minority first grade students, and do the relations vary for skilled and less skilled word readers? Third, what are the shared and unique relations of L2 oral and silent reading fluency, L2 oral language, and L1 (i.e., Spanish) literacy skills to reading comprehension in L2 (English)? 2. Method

Vocabulary Test-4 (PPVT-4; Dunn & Dunn, 2007); and Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) vocabulary subtest (Wechsler, 1999). In the Oral Comprehension task, the child listens to a sentence and is asked to complete a cloze (e.g., People sit in ____). In PPVT-4, the child is asked to point to the picture that best represents a prompt vocabulary word. In WASI vocabulary, the child is asked to provide definitions of words. Cronbach's alphas are as follows: .70 for the WJ-III Oral Comprehension, .96 for PPVT, and .85 for WASI vocabulary. 2.2.2. Word reading automaticity in L2 Two forms of the Sight Word Efficiency subtest of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2, Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2012) were used to assess the rate at which children read words accurately in a list format. The child is asked to read aloud as many words as possible in 45 s. Test-retest reliabilities for TOWRE 2 were greater than .96 for grade one (Torgesen et al., 2012). 2.2.3. Word reading accuracy in L2 The Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R) Word Identification subtest (Woodcock, 1987) was used to assess students' word reading accuracy skills. In the present study, students' performance on this subtest was used to identify skilled word readers, and not used in structural equation modeling. The Cronbach's alpha estimate was reported to be .98 for grade one (Woodcock, 1987). 2.2.4. Oral reading fluency in L2 Children's oral reading fluency was assessed by three, first-grade spring benchmark oral reading fluency passages from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS-5th edition; Good, Kaminski, Smith, Laimon, & Dill, 2001). The school district assessed children's oral reading fluency scores three times a year as a progress monitoring tool, and thus the scores in the spring when the present study was conducted were obtained from the district. The child was asked to read previously unseen passages aloud for 1 min, and the number of words accurately read was their score. Following the DIBELS protocol, omitted words, substitutions, and hesitations for more than 3 s were scored as errors. DIBELS oral reading fluency reliabilities have been reported to range from .92 to .97 (Shaw & Shaw, 2002).

2.1. Participants A total of 150 first grade children (76 girls; mean age = 75.28 months, SD = 5.94) who spoke Spanish as their primary language at home and were identified as limited English proficient according to district record participated in the study. These children were recruited from six title 1 public schools in central Florida. While SES information was not available for individual children, these children were attending schools whose free and reduced lunch status was greater than 70%. All the participating children were in English immersion classrooms and received pull-out ESL services. All the participating schools used the same core reading program (Open Court, Bereiter et al., 2002), which emphasizes an explicit and systematic instruction on teaching of phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension (e.g., strategy use). Unfortunately, data on children's language use and exposure at home were not available. 2.2. Measures The following constructs and their associated indicators were included in the present study. 2.2.1. Oral language skills in L2 Three tasks were used to assess children's oral language skills in English: the Oral Comprehension subtest of Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III, Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001); Peabody Picture

2.2.5. Silent reading fluency in L2 Two forms of the Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC, Wagner, Torgesen, Rashotte, & Pearson, 2010) served as indicators of silent reading fluency. The test required participants to read sentences silently and verify their veracity for 3 minutes. The sentences were true or false statements that were based on fundamental knowledge that was expected to be well known to young children. Children indicated whether they were true or false by circling ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ For example, for the statement, “A cow is an animal,” the correct answer is “yes.” There were two sample items (to explain the task to the student), five practice items, and 50 test items in each form. Total scores are calculated by counting the number of correct responses and subtracting the number of incorrect responses (to control for guessing). Alternate form reliability was reported to be .93 for grade one (Wagner et al., 2010). 2.2.6. L1 (i.e., Spanish) literacy skills Children's literacy skills in Spanish were assessed by three tasks. One was Fluidez en la Segmentacion de Fonemas subtest (Spanish equivalent of the Phonemic Segmentation Fluency of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills [DIBELS]) of Indicadores Dinamicos del Exito en la Lectura 7a edicion (IDEL, Cummings, Baker, & Good, 2006). In this task, the child is asked to segment words into phonemes and the number of words correctly segmented per minute is recorded. A child's answers were scored separately for the total number of sound segments (Todas Las Partes, TLP), and the number of syllable parts produced

Y.-S. Kim / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 690–700

correctly (Partes silabicas, SIL). In the present study, TLP was used based on prior studies on its strong relation with other literacy skills (Kim & Pallante, 2012). The Fluidez en Nombrar Letras subtest of the IDEL is equivalent to the Letter-Naming Fluency subset of DIBELS. In this task, the child is presented with a page of upper- and lower-case letters that are arranged in a random order, and asked to provide the name of each letter. The number of correctly named letters per minute is calculated. Finally, the Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido subtest of the IDEL, was equivalent to the Nonsense Word Fluency subtest of the DIBELS. The child is presented with a page with randomly ordered CV and CVCV nonsense words (e.g., ro, lali, sepi) and asked to pronounce either the individual letter sound of each letter or read the whole nonsense word (e.g., /s//e//p//i/or/sepi/for the words “sepi”). Students' performance was scored in two ways: total number of correct letter sounds (TSL) and number of complete words read correctly (NPC). Both were used in the latent variable analysis. Alternate form reliabilities have been shown to range from .76 to .91 for the tasks included in the present study (Cummings et al., 2006). 2.2.7. Reading comprehension in L2 Two measures were used for reading comprehension: the WRMT-R Passage Comprehension subtest (Woodcock, 1987) and the Stanford Achievement Test (10th edition, SAT-10, Harcourt Brace, 2003). WRMT-R Passage Comprehension is a cloze task. Cronbach's alpha was estimated to be .93 (Woodcock, 1987). The SAT10 reading comprehension task includes several passages followed by multiple choice items after reading literary, informational, and functional text passages. The SAT-10 reading comprehension was group administered in the

693

spring, and scores were available from the district. Cronbach's alpha was .88 (Harcourt Brace, 2003). 2.3. Procedures Data on oral reading fluency and SAT-10 reading comprehension were obtained from the school district. The other assessments were individually administered in the spring by rigorously trained research assistants who were highly proficient Spanish and English bilinguals. TOSREC was group-administered (typically 3 students). Indicators of each construct were administered in different assessment days to reduce time-sampling error. 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics and correlations among observed variables are presented in Tables 1 and 3, respectively, for the entire sample. As expected, the majority of variables are statistically significantly related with a few exceptions (e.g., r = .09 between Spanish lettering naming fluency and English WASI Vocabulary). 3.2. Are oral and silent reading fluency in L2 better described as a single construct or two constructs for Spanish-speaking ELL first grade students? The assumptions of bivariate and multivariate normality (i.e., no floor or ceiling effects) were met for subsequent analyses such as

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and factor loadings. Mean (SD) Oral language WJ-III oral comprehension WJ-III oral comprehension—SS WASI vocabulary WASI vocabulary—SSa PPVT PPVT—SS Word reading automaticity WRMT-R letter word IDb WRMT-R letter word ID—SS Sight word efficiency1 Sight word efficiency1—SS Sight word efficiency2 Sight word efficiency1—SS Oral reading fluency DIBELS ORF passage 1 DIBELS ORF passage 2 DIBELS ORF passage 3 Silent reading fluency TOSREC form Ac TOSREC form O TOSREC form O—SS Spanish literacy skills Phonemic segmentation fluency Letter naming fluency Nonword reading automaticity T Nonword reading automaticity N Reading comprehension WRMT-R passage comprehension WRMT-R passage comprehension—SS SAT 10 SAT 10—percentile rank

Min–max

Loading (SE)

Residuals (SE)

.83 (.04)

.31 (.07)

.73 (.05)

.47 (.07)

.80 (.04)

.36 (.07)

.98 (.006)

.04 (.01)

.97 (.006)

.05 (.01)

9.61 88.45 15.59 39.43 82.97 87.61

(3.79) (13.62) (6.74) (10.84) (18.35) (13.40)

0–23 48–137 0–32 20–68 20–137 46–133

36.15 106.92 32.40 105.56 31.47 104.62

(12.73) (12.75) (14.37) (10.36) (15.77) (11.25)

0–64 71–133 0–70 74–137 0–68 74–135

38.95 (29.52) 35.53 (24.36) 42.54 (26.86)

0–148 0–133 0–124

.87 (.02) .97 (.007) .95 (.009)

.24 (.04) .05 (.01) .10 (.02)

16.94 (8.10) 16.23 (6.89) 94.83 (11.17)

0–42 0–37 64–125

.92 (.02) .87 (.03)

.16 (.04) .25 (.05)

.22 .47 .99 .97

(.07) (.11) (.02) (.02)

.95 (.04) .78 (.06) .03 (.03) .07 (.03)

.82 (.04)

.28 (.06)

.84 (.04)

.36 (.06)

40.21 17.04 31.31 6.03

(13.97) (14.48) (32.65) (8.80)

0–115 0–74 0–188 0–49

14.97 99.32 19.82 38.89

(7.99) (11.70) (5.90) (26.15)

0–34 64–123 6–30 1–96

Note: SS = standard score; those without SS are raw scores. a The standard score for WASI has a mean of 50 (SD = 10), not 100 (SD = 15). b Factor loading is not presented here because it is not used in the confirmatory factor analysis or structural equation modeling. Raw scores were used in the confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Factor loadings presented here are from confirmatory factor analysis for the model presented in Table 3. Factor loadings for structural equation modeling presented in Figs. 1 to 3 are highly similar to those presented here. c Form A is normed in the fall and thus its standard score is not presented here because data in the present study were collected in the spring. In the subsequent analysis, raw scores were used.

694

Y.-S. Kim / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 690–700

confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Measurement models were examined using confirmatory factor analyses and were adequate. Mplus 5.1 was used with full-information maximum likelihood as an estimator to handle missing data. Factor loadings of observed variables are presented in Table 1. Model fit was evaluated by multiple indices such as chi-square, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR). RMSEA values below .08, CFI and TLI values equal to or greater than .95, and SRMR equal to or less than .05 are preferred for an excellent model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). TLI and CFI values greater than .90, and RMSEA values and SRMR values below .10 are considered acceptable (Kline, 2005). The model specifying oral and silent reading fluency as separate latent variables had a good model fit: χ2 =139.72, df= 89, p = b.01; CFI = .98; TLI = .97; RMSEA = .062; and SRMR = .038. The model specifying oral and silent reading fluency as a single latent variable also had a good fit:χ2 = 167.91, df= 94, p = b.01; CFI= .97; TLI = .96; RMSEA= .072; and SRMR= .04. However, the χ2 difference of 28.19 with df= 5 was statistically significant (p b .001). The same pattern was found for skilled and less skilled word readers: Δχ2 (1) = 11.58, p b .001 for the skilled word readers; and Δχ2 (1) = 14.11, p b .001 for the less skilled word readers (see below). Thus, oral and silent reading fluency were modeled as separate latent variables in subsequent analysis. Correlations between latent variables (oral and silent reading as separate latent variables) are presented in Table 4. Children's word reading automaticity was highly related to their oral and silent reading fluency (rs=.96 and .87, respectively). Despite the strong relations, however, model fits were significantly better when word reading automaticity, and oral and silent reading fluency were considered as separate latent variables than when they were considered as a single latent variable (Δχ2 = 45.05, Δdf = 5, p b .001 with oral reading fluency; and Δχ2 = 45.05, Δdf = 5, p b .001 with silent reading fluency). 3.3. Is L2 oral language skill related to L2 oral and silent reading fluency, respectively, over and above L2 word reading automaticity for Spanishspeaking ELL first grade students? Do the relations vary for skilled and less skilled word readers? L2 oral language and word reading automaticity were both hypothesized to have direct relations with L2 oral reading fluency (Daane et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2012; Samuels, 2006), which, then, is related to L2 reading comprehension. When models were fitted for the entire sample, the results were highly similar for oral reading fluency (Fig. 1a) and silent reading fluency (Fig. 2a). Both models had excellent model fits: χ 2 = 108.62, df = 69, p = b.01; CFI = .98; TLI = .98; RMSEA = .06; and SRMR = .038 for a model with oral reading fluency; χ 2 = 96.34, df = 57, p = b.01; CFI = .98; TLI = .97; RMSEA = .068; and SRMR = .042 for a model with silent reading fluency. Ninety four and ninety six percent of the total variance in oral reading fluency and reading comprehension, respectively, were explained by the included predictors. As shown in Fig. 1a, oral language skill was not uniquely related to oral reading fluency (p = .33) after accounting for word reading automaticity whereas word reading automaticity was strongly related to oral reading fluency. Oral reading fluency and oral language skills were uniquely related to reading comprehension (ps b .001) whereas Spanish literacy skill was not (p = .17). For the model with silent reading fluency, 92 and 98% of total variance in silent reading fluency and reading comprehension, respectively, were explained by the included predictors. Patterns of results for silent reading fluency were essentially the same as those for oral reading fluency (see Fig. 2a). In order to examine the relation of oral language to oral and silent reading fluency for skilled and less skilled word readers, two groups of children were created based on children's performance on the WRMT-R Word Identification task. Students whose scores are equal to

or greater than 37 were classified as skilled word readers (N= 80) and those whose scores are less than 37 as less skilled word readers (N= 70). The mean score was 45.35 (SD = 7.04) with corresponding standard scores of 113.20 (SD = 10.48) for skilled word readers and 25.64 (SD = 9.11) with corresponding standard scores of 99.74 (SD = 11.27) for less skilled word readers. Skilled and less skilled word readers' performances were compared in all the measures included in the present study using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and differences were found (Wilks' λ = .31, F= 9.67, psb .001). Descriptive statistics and the univariate F tests results are presented in Table 2. Skilled word readers outperformed less skilled word readers in all the measures with an exception in WRMT-R Passage Comprehension (ps≥.14 for raw and standard scores). Following procedures described in Brown (2006) and Thompson and Green (2006), multi-group structural equation modeling was conducted. After examining measurement models for skilled and less skilled word readers, partial measurement invariance models were fitted by allowing loadings of the following variables to vary across groups: both types of scores in nonword reading fluency in Spanish (i.e., TSL and NPC), oral reading fluency passage 3, and silent reading fluency form O. Correlations among latent variables for the skilled and less skilled readers are presented in Table 4. Patterns of relations are overall similar for skilled and less skilled readers. However, silent reading fluency was much more weakly related to all the other latent variables for the less skilled word readers than for the skilled word readers. When models shown in Figs. 1a and 2a were fitted for the skilled and less skilled word readers, model fits were acceptable and were as follows: χ2 =241.56, df=154, p=b.01; CFI=.94; TLI=.93; RMSEA=.087; and SRMR=1.01 for a model with oral reading fluency; and χ2 =188.10, df=126, p=b.01; CFI=.94; TLI=.93; RMSEA=.081; and SRMR=.099 for a model with silent reading fluency. Fig. 1b and c shows results for skilled and less skilled word readers, respectively, for oral reading fluency whereas Fig. 2b and c displays results for skilled and less skilled word readers, respectively, for silent reading fluency. Patterns of results in oral reading fluency were similar for skilled and less skilled word readers, and oral language skill was not uniquely related to oral reading fluency after accounting for word reading automaticity. Similarly, oral language was not uniquely related to silent reading fluency after accounting for word reading automaticity for less skilled word readers (ps ≥ .31; see Fig. 2b and c). However, differences were found in the patterns of relations for the skilled versus less skilled word readers. For skilled word readers, silent reading fluency was uniquely related to reading comprehension after accounting for oral language and Spanish literacy skills (p b .001) whereas silent reading fluency was not uniquely related to reading comprehension for the less skilled readers. This difference was statistically significant when equality constraint was imposed on the path coefficient for the skilled and less skilled word readers (Δχ 2 [1] = 8.70, p = .003). In addition, Spanish literacy skills were not uniquely related to reading comprehension for the skilled word readers (p = .95) whereas Spanish literacy skills were strongly related to reading comprehension for the less skilled word readers (p b .001). This difference was statistically significant when equality constraint was imposed on the path coefficients for the skilled and less skilled word readers (Δχ 2 [1] = 8.48, p = .004). Furthermore, word reading automaticity was more strongly related to silent reading fluency for the skilled word readers than for the less skilled word readers (Δχ 2 [1] = 10.56, p = .001) while no differences were observed in the relation of oral language to silent reading fluency and to reading comprehension (Δχ 2 [1] ≤ 1.66, p > 10). 3.4. What are the shared and unique relations of L2 oral and silent reading fluency, L2 oral language, and L1 (i.e., Spanish) literacy skills to reading comprehension in L2 (English)? Finally, oral and silent reading fluency were both included in a model simultaneously to examine their unique relations to reading

Y.-S. Kim / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 690–700

A

695

.18

Oral language .04 .58 .36

Word reading automaticity

Oral reading fluency

.95

.91

Reading Comp

-.08

.60

Spanish literacy

B

.34

Oral language .07 .54 .26

Word reading automaticity

Oral reading fluency

.90

.80

Reading Comp

-.06

.51

Spanish literacy

C

.24

Oral language -.03 .34 .11

Word reading automaticity

.88

Oral reading fluency

.87

Reading Comp

.14

.29

Spanish literacy Fig. 1. a. Standardized structural regression weights among Spanish literacy skills, English oral language skill, word reading automaticity, oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension for the entire sample (N = 150). b. Standardized structural regression weights among Spanish literacy skills, English oral language skill, word reading automaticity, oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension for skilled word readers (N = 80). c. Standardized structural regression weights among Spanish literacy skills, English oral language skill, word reading automaticity, oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension for less skilled word readers (N = 70). Solid lines represent statistically significant relations and dotted ones statistically nonsignficant relations.

comprehension. In this model, word reading automaticity was not included on theoretical and empirical bases. Theoretically word reading automaticity was deemed to be a lower order skill that directly influences higher order text reading fluency (i.e., oral and silent reading fluency), and we wanted to examine how text level skills (i.e., oral and silent reading fluency) were related to reading comprehension along with oral language and Spanish literacy skills. Empirically, word reading automaticity is highly related to text reading fluency (Table 4), which is not surprising given the theoretical basis particularly during the beginning stage of reading, and thus, we wanted to avoid multicollinearity. Model fit was good: χ2 =108.97, df=67, p=b.01; CFI=.98; TLI= .97; RMSEA=.065; and SRMR=.042. Ninety two percent of the total variance in reading comprehension was explained by the included

predictors. Oral language and oral reading fluency were both uniquely related to reading comprehension (psb .001) whereas silent reading fluency and Spanish literacy skills were not (see Fig. 3). 4. Discussion The findings of the present study are convergent with previous studies in several regards while some new findings emerged. First, the results showed that oral and silent reading fluency in L2 may be best described as separate constructs, although highly related, for the language minority children in the first grade regardless of their word reading proficiency. This is convergent with a previous study with English-only children (Kim et al., 2011). Second, the participating children's word reading accuracy and word reading automaticity

696

Y.-S. Kim / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 690–700

A

.28

Oral language -.08 .59 .36

Word reading automaticity

Silent reading fluency

1.00

.84

Reading Comp

-.05 .59

Spanish literacy

B

.42

Oral language -.02 .55 .22

Silent reading fluency

.94

Word reading automaticity

.67

Reading Comp

.00 .37

Spanish literacy

C

.43

Oral language -.18 .34 .42 .40

Word reading automaticity

Silent reading fluency

-.01

Reading Comp

.99 .88

Spanish literacy Fig. 2. a. Standardized structural regression weights among Spanish literacy skills, English oral language skill, word reading automaticity, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension for the entire sample (N = 150). b. Standardized structural regression weights among Spanish literacy skills, English oral language skill, word reading automaticity, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension for skilled word readers (N = 80). c. Standardized structural regression weights among Spanish literacy skills, English oral language skill, word reading automaticity, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension for less skilled word readers (N = 70). Solid lines represent statistically significant relations and dotted ones statistically nonsignficant relations.

in L2 were at par with the norm sample, which was probably due to the instructional context of the participating children—the literacy curriculum had heavy focus on systematic and explicit instruction on decoding skills. This provides additional support that L2 learners' word reading skill in L2 can be commensurate to L1 learners', when provided with systematic decoding instruction (e.g., Genesee et al., 2006; Lesaux et al., 2008; Lindsey et al., 2003). Despite the commensurate level of word reading, however, the sample children's oral language, text reading fluency, and reading comprehension (i.e., SAT-10) in L2 were lower than those for the norm sample, which is convergent with previous studies (e.g., Genesee et al., 2006; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003; Lesaux et al., 2008).

The participating children's oral language skill in L2 was uniquely and directly related to L2 reading comprehension over and above L2 word reading automaticity, reading fluency, and L1 literacy skills, providing support for the simple view of reading (Hoover & Gough, 1990). However, children's oral language skill was not uniquely related to oral or silent reading fluency even for skilled word readers. These results are discrepant from findings with English-only skilled word readers in Kim et al.'s (2011) study. When models were fitted without children's L1 (i.e., Spanish) literacy skills in order to directly compare the findings of the present study with findings of Kim et al.'s (2011) study, the results were essentially the same (i.e., oral language skill was not uniquely related to either oral or silent reading fluency;

Y.-S. Kim / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 690–700

697

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for skilled (N = 80) and less skilled word readers (N = 70).

Oral language WJ-III oral comprehension WJ-III oral comprehension—SS WASI vocabulary WASI vocabulary—SS PPVT PPVT—SS Word reading automaticity WRMT-R letter word ID WRMT-R letter word ID—SS Sight word efficiency1 Sight word efficiency1—SS Sight word efficiency2 Sight word efficiency2—SS Oral reading fluency DIBELS ORF passage 1 DIBELS ORF passage 2 DIBELS ORF passage 3 Silent reading fluency TOSREC form A TOSREC form O TOSREC form O—SS Spanish literacy skills Phonemic segmentation fluency Letter naming fluency Nonword reading automaticity T Nonword reading automaticity N Reading comprehension WRMT-R passage comprehension WRMT-R passage comprehension—SS SAT 10 SAT 10—percentile rank

Skilled word readers

Less skilled word readers

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

F (p)

10.96 93.18 17.65 42.61 88.13 90.96

(3.47) (12.72) (6.00) (9.98) (17.42) (13.26)

8.04 82.97 13.20 35.74 77.16 83.83

(3.56) (12.60) (6.81) (10.70) (17.72) (12.61)

21.30 21.92 14.34 13.53 13.86 13.04

(b.001) (b.001) (b.001) (b.001) (b.001) (b.001)

45.35 113.20 42.77 117.20 41.61 116.06

(7.04) (10.48) (10.02) (12.87) (10.53) (13.28)

25.64 99.74 20.54 93.84 19.71 92.86

(9.11) (11.27) (7.98) (9.71) (9.19) (10.95)

193.52 59.42 200.35 153.90 174.68 132.77

(b.001) (b.001) (b.001) (b.001) (b.001) (b.001)

57.71 (27.98) 51.46 (21.60) 60.81 (21.21) 21.86 (6.48) 20.23 (5.10) 101.38 (7.52)

17.79 (11.24) 17.33 (10.81) 21.66 (14.59)

110.53 (b.001) 126.83 (b.001) 155.20 (b.001)

11.31 (5.79) 11.59 (5.69) 87.23 (9.85)

93.48 (b.001) 84.01 (b.001) 98.45 (b.001)

43.04 19.82 44.65 9.50

(14.58) (15.31) (38.07) (10.76)

37.05 13.92 16.36 2.14

(12.62) (12.91) (14.92) (2.55)

7.64 6.72 32.05 29.27

(.007) (.01) (b.001) (b.001)

15.57 100.24 23.25 53.94

(7.86) (10.65) (4.52) (23.54)

14.11 98.27 15.94 21.90

(8.02) (12.79) (4.77) (16.96)

2.25 1.41 80.40 77.11

(.14) (.24) (b.001) (b.001)

model not shown). This discrepancy in the results might be attributed to two factors at least. First, the L2 word reading proficiency of the children in the present study was not high enough or did not quite reach the threshold level at which children can start attending to the comprehension processes during connected text reading. The mean standard score of word reading accuracy (i.e., WRMT-R) for the skilled word readers in the present study was 113.20, which is somewhat

lower than that of English-only students in Kim et al.'s (2011) study (i.e., 123.27). The second reason for the discrepant pattern of relations might be the lower level of L2 oral language skills for the children in the present study. Despite high word reading skills in L2 compared to the norm sample, even skilled word readers in the present study had below average oral language skills in L2 (a mean standard score of 93.18 in WJ-III

Oral language .59

.21

.48

Oral reading fluency

.85

.36

Reading Comprehension

.90 .02

Silent reading fluency .63

-.08 .54

Spanish literacy Fig. 3. Standardized structural regression weights among Spanish literacy skills, English oral language skill, oral reading fluency, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension for the entire sample (N = 150). Solid lines represent statistically significant relations and dotted ones statistically nonsignficant relations.

698

Y.-S. Kim / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 690–700

Table 3 Correlations between observed variables. 1 1. Oral comp 2. WASI vocab 3. PPVT vocab 4. SWE1 5. SWE2 6. ORF passage 1 7. ORF passage 2 8. ORF passage 3 9. TOSREC1 10. TOSREC2 11. Spanish PSF 12. Spanish LNF 13. Spanish NWF T 14. Spanish NWF N 15. Passage comp 16. SAT 10

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

– .46 .44 .32 .44 .46 .28 .37 .15 .03 .30 .30 .49 .38

– .95 .83 .90 .91 .77 .76 .20 .26 .57 .57 .79 .77

– .81 .90 .91 .76 .76 .21 .27 .56 .56 .81 .75

– .87 .79 .76 .68 .15 .21 .49 .48 .66 .73

– .93 .81 .75 .22 .26 .62 .62 .76 .75

– .77 .76 .18 .21 .56 .56 .78 .74

– .79 .09 .18 .48 .46 .62 .65

– .21 .26 .50 .46 .57 .65

– .21 .23 .19 .15 .15

– .47 .46 .19 .23

– .95 .47 .38

– .48 .40

– .68

– .60 .67 .49 .46 .42 .49 .48 .40 .45 .21 .13 .28 .26 .52 .46

– .59 .42 .37 .35 .43 .42 .24 .31 .23 .09 .25 .23 .45 .37

Note: coefficients greater than .17 are statistically significant at the .05 level. Oral comp = WJ‐III oral comprehension; vocab = vocabulary; SWE = sight word efficiency; ORF= DIBELS oral reading fluency; TOSREC = Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension; Spanish PSF = Spanish equivalent of phonemic segmentation fluency; Spanish LNF = Spanish equivalent of letter naming fluency; Spanish NWF = Spanish equivalent of nonsense word fluency; T= total number of correct letter sounds; N = number of complete words read correctly; Passage Comp = WRMR‐R passage comprehension.

Oral Comprehension) and much lower oral language skills than skilled (111.39 in WJ-III Oral Comprehension) and less skilled word readers (102.199 in WJ-III Oral Comprehension) in Kim et al.'s (2011) study. The relatively low oral language skill might be partially attributable to the lack of a unique relation to text reading fluency—i.e., a certain threshold level of oral language proficiency, in addition to word reading automaticity, might be necessary for oral language to play a role in rapid and accurate reading of connected text in oral and silent mode (i.e., oral and silent reading fluency). Another supporting piece of evidence for this speculation is that children in the present study had lower oral and silent reading fluency scores than those in Kim et al. (2011) despite similar mean performances on word level skills (i.e., word reading accuracy and word reading automaticity). The mean raw scores in word reading automaticity tasks (i.e., TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency) for children in the present study were 32.40 and 31.47 in two forms, respectively, which are not different from 34.98 and 34.94 for the English-only children in Kim et al. (2011) (univariate F tests from MANOVA: F = 1.64, p = .20; F = 3.53, p = .06 for the two forms, respectively). In comparison, children in the present study were able to read approximately 39 words per minute in connected text (i.e., oral reading fluency) whereas English only children in Kim et al. (2011) were able to read approximately 54 words per minute. These results indicate that although L1 and L2 children had a similar reading rate in L2 context-free word reading, their reading rates in connected text appear to be quite different—L2 learners in the present study were slower. Taken together, these findings suggest that not only word reading automaticity but also oral language skills in L2 might need to reach a certain level of proficiency to uniquely contribute to their reading fluency in L2. The patterns of relations of L2 text reading fluency and L1 literacy skills to L2 reading comprehension differed between oral and silent reading fluency, and for skilled and less skilled word readers. L2 oral reading fluency, but not L1 literacy skill, was uniquely related to L2 reading comprehension for both skilled and less skilled readers. These results that children's L1 literacy skill was not uniquely related to their L2 reading comprehension after accounting for L2 language and literacy skills are similar to previous findings with children in the second grade and above (Manis et al., 2004; Nakamoto et al., 2008; Swanson et al., 2008). While L1 literacy skills (i.e., Spanish) were moderately related to L2 oral language and literacy skills in bivariate examinations (Table 3), its relation to L2 reading comprehension appears to be completely mediated by L2 oral language and literacy skills. Interestingly, when it comes to silent reading fluency, a similar pattern of relations was found for the skilled readers, but not for the less skilled readers. That is, silent reading fluency

was uniquely related to reading comprehension only for the skilled readers whereas for the less skilled readers, Spanish literacy skill, not silent reading fluency, was strongly and uniquely related to reading comprehension. The unique relation of L1 literacy skill to L2 reading comprehension appears to be attributed, largely in part, to the weak and statistically nonsignificant relation of L2 silent reading fluency to L2 reading comprehension as seen in Table 4. In fact, silent reading fluency was not related or only weakly related to the other latent variables, including oral reading fluency, for the less skilled word readers. These results are similar to those for less skilled English-only first grade students (Kim et al., 2011). Thus, it appears that for first grade less skilled word readers, silent reading fluency (at least according to how we measured it) might not be uniquely related to other reading skills for both ELL and English-only children. When modeled separately, both oral and silent reading fluency were both uniquely related to reading comprehension after accounting for other critical skills such as oral language and word reading automaticity in L2, and L1 (Spanish) literacy skills (Figs. 1a and 2a). However, once oral and silent reading fluency were in the model simultaneously, oral

Table 4 Correlations between latent variables. 1 Entire sample 1. Oral language 2. Word reading automaticity 3. Oral reading fluency 4. Silent reading fluency 5. Spanish literacy skills 6. Reading comprehension Skilled word readers 1. Oral language 2. Word reading automaticity 3. Oral reading fluency 4. Silent reading fluency 5. Spanish literacy skills 6. Reading comprehension Less skilled word readers 1. Oral language 2. Word reading automaticity 3. Oral reading fluency 4. Silent reading fluency 5. Spanish literacy skills 6. Reading comprehension

2

3

.58 .59 .48 .36 .69

– .96 .87 .59 .97

– .91 .62 .95

– .53 .56 .49 .26 .74

– .93 .90 .51 .93

– .92 .49 .91

– .87 .35 .28 .92

– .44 .25 .90

4

5

–

– .33 .27 −.04+ .11+ .46

– .54 .84

–

.39 .83

–

.09+ .29+

–

.54

– .40

– .37

Note: All coefficients are statistically significant at .05 level except for those with +. +p>.05.

Y.-S. Kim / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 690–700

reading fluency was uniquely related to reading comprehension whereas silent reading fluency was not. Thus, at least at the beginning stage of reading development, oral reading fluency appears to have a unique relation to reading comprehension over and above silent reading fluency although oral and silent reading fluency are related (see Table 3). Future studies are needed to investigate the reasons (e.g., rehearsal effect during oral vs. silent reading, Gathercole & Hitch, 1993; or more oral reading experience than silent reading). In addition, future efforts should include the examination of whether patterns of relations of oral and silent reading fluency to reading comprehension are different as a function of children's word reading skill. In the present study, we were not able to address this question because the multi-group model for Fig. 3 did not converge. While the findings in the present study are informative, it is important to keep in mind that this is a snapshot at the end of first grade, and thus a longitudinal examination is necessary. Relations among these predictors are likely to change as children's reading skills develop. For example, it was shown that silent reading fluency was uniquely related to reading comprehension over and above oral reading fluency for English-only skilled word readers in the second grade (Kim et al., 2012). It should be noted that in the present study oral reading fluency and silent reading fluency were not equivalently measured (Kim et al., 2011). That is, oral reading fluency was measured using passages whereas silent reading fluency was measured at the sentence level. In addition, in oral reading fluency, reading comprehension was not explicitly measured after children read oral reading fluency passages whereas in the silent reading fluency task it was. Thus, a future study is warranted to replicate the findings of the present study using parallel measures for both oral and silent reading fluency tasks. Furthermore, it will be illuminating to replicate the present study with a larger sample of students to examine potential subgroups of children with different profiles (e.g., high oral language with high word reading vs. low oral language with high word reading). Finally, previous studies indicated a potential importance of working memory for English language learners' reading development (Swanson, Orosco, & Lussier, 2012; Swanson et al., 2004). Thus, inclusion of working memory might further enhance our understanding of reading development for English language learners. Despite these limitations, the findings of the present study coupled with those in previous studies add to the more nuanced and precise understanding about the relations among L2 language and literacy skills (e.g., text reading fluency), L1 literacy skills, and L2 reading comprehension for Spanish-speaking language minority children.

References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bereiter, C., Brown, A., Campione, J., Carruthers, I., Case, R., Hirshberg, J., et al. (2002). Open court reading. Columbus, OH: SRA McGraw-Hill. Biemiller, A. (1977–1978). Relationship between oral reading rates for letters, words, and simple text in the development of reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 13, 223–253. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Catts, H., Hogan, T. P., & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In H. Catts, & A. Kamhi (Eds.), Connections between language and reading disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt-Brace. Chiappe, P., & Siegel, L. (1999). Phonological awareness and reading acquisition in English- and Punjabi-speaking Canadian children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 20–28. Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of fluent reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers' text-reading fluency in English. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 475–494. Cummings, K. D., Baker, D. L., & Good, R. H. (2006). Indicadores Dinámicos del Éxito en la Lectura 7a edicion. Retrieved from. http://dibels.uoregon.edu Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading. (NCES 2006–469). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

699

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th edition). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments. Durgunoğlu, A. Y., Nagy, W., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256. Gathercole, S. E., & Hitch, G. (1993). The development of rehearsal: A revised working memory perspective. In A. Collins, S. Gathercole, M. Conway, & P. Morris (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 189–209). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Geva, E., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 1–30. Geva, E., Wade-Woolley, L., & Shany, M. (1997). Development of reading efficiency in first and second language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 119–144. Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Smith, S., Laimon, D., & Dill, S. (2001). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (5th ed.). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288. 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, 90, 330–344. Harcourt Brace (2003). Stanford achievement test—tenth edition: Technical data report. San Antonio, TX: Author. Hiebert, E. H., Wilson, K. M., & Trainin, G. (2010). Are Students Really Reading in Independent Reading Contexts? An Examination of Comprehension-based Silent Reading Rate. In E. H. Hiebert, & D. Ray Reutzel (Eds.), Revisiting Silent Reading: New Directions for Teachers and Researchers. IRA: Newark, DE. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160. Hu, L. -T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis. Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Hudson, R. F., Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., & Torgesen, J. K. (2009). The complex nature of reading fluency: A multidimensional view. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 4–32. Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719–729. Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421–432. Kim, Y. -S., & Pallante, D. (2012). Predictors of reading skills for kindergartners and first graders in Spanish: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1–25. Kim, Y. -S., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., & Foorman, B. (2010). Does growth rate in oral reading fluency matter for reading comprehension? Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 652–667. Kim, Y. -S., Wagner, R. K., & Foster, L. (2011). Relations among oral reading fluency, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension: A latent variable study of first-grade readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 338–362. Kim, Y. -S., Wagner, R. K., & Lopez, D. (2012). Developmental relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from grade one to two. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 93–111. Kirby, J. R., & Savage, R. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42, 75–82. Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 310–321. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 232–253. Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 62, 293–323. Lesaux, N. K., Geva, E., Koda, K., Siegel, L. S., & Shananhan, T. (2008). In D. August, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing reading and writing in second language learners (pp. 27–59). New York: Center for Applied Linguistics and International Reading Association. Lesaux, N. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005–1019. 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, 482–494. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 701–711. Manis, F. R., Lindsey, K. A., & Bailey, C. E. (2004). Development of reading in grades K-2 Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19, 214–224. Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. F. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healy, & L. E. Bourne

700

Y.-S. Kim / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 690–700

(Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Nag-Arulmani, S., Reddy, V., & Buckley, S. (2003). Targeting phonological representations can help in the early stages of reading in a non-dominant language. Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 49–68. Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American educational Research Journal, 24, 237–270. 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, 351–371. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In L. C. Ehri, R. Treiman, & P. B. Gough (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pierce, M. E., Katzir, T., Wolf, M., & Noam, G. G. (2007). Clusters of second and third grade dysfluent urban readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 885–907. Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. (2006). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 246–256. Quiroga, T., Lemos-Britton, Z., Mostafapour, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2002). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 85–111. Ridel, B. W. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and vocabulary in urban first-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 546–567. Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Altmaier, E. M., & Spoth, R. (1998). Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 18–29. Samuels, S. J. (2006). Toward a model of reading fluency. In S. J. Samuels, & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 24–46). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Hamilton, A. M., Kuhn, M. R., Wisenbaker, J., & Stahl, S. A. (2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 119–129.

Shaw, R., & Shaw, D. (2002). DIBELS oral reading fluency-based indicators of third grade reading skills for Colorado State Assessment Program (CSAP). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71. Swanson, L., Orosco, M. J., & Lussier, C. M. (2012). Cognition and literacy in English language learners at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 302–320. Swanson, 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, 413–429. Swanson, L., Saez, L., Gerber, M., & Leafstedt, J. (2004). Literacy and cognitive functioning in bilingual and nonbilingual children at or not at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 3–18. Thompson, M. S., & Green, S. B. (2006). Evaluating between-group differences in latent variable means. In G. R. Hancock, & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 119–170). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency (2nd Edition). Austin, TX: Pro-ED, Inc. Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 313–330. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. (2010). Test of silent reading efficiency and comprehension. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Wang, M., Park, Y., & Lee, K. R. (2006). Korean–English biliteracy acquisition: Cross language and orthography transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 148–158. Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211–239. Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery test–revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock Johnson tests of achievement (3rd edition). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.