Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2008
The Role of Vocabulary Knowledge,Syntactic Awareness and MetacognitiveAwareness in Reading Comprehension ofAdult English Language LearnersYing Guo
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
THE ROLE OF VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE, SYNTACTIC AWARENESS AND
METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS IN READING COMPREHENSION OF ADULT
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
By
Ying Guo
A Dissertation submitted to the
Department of Educational Psychology and Learning System
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Semester Approved
Spring Semester, 2008
The members of the committee approved the dissertation of Ying Guo on April, 14th
,
2008.
________________________
Alysia D. Roehrig
Professor Directing Dissertation
_________________________
Richard K. Wagner
Outside Committee Member
_________________________
Akihito Kamata
Committee Member
__________________________
Beth M. Phillips
Committee Member
Approved:
Akihito Kamata
Department Chair, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning System
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committees
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First, I would like to dedicate my dissertation to all of my family members in
China, who have always support my endeavors with unconditional love. Second, I would
like to dedicate my dissertation to my major professor Dr Alysia Roehrig for all her
support and positive comment. Dr Roehrig, I would also like to thank you for your
excellent guidance and support through the completion of this degree, including the
coursework, thesis and dissertation. You are not only exceptional advisor, but also an
excellent all-round researcher in the field of education. Your wisdom as well as your
passion and commitment to this field inspired me throughout my doctorate studies. Last,
not least, I would like to thank my other three committee members: Dr Richard Wagner,
Dr Akihito Kamata and Dr Beth Phillips for your willingness to serve in my committee
and for providing excellent feedback as well as insight and clarity. I would especially
thank Dr Wagner, you spent your own time providing the suggestion and discussing your
ideas regarding the statistical analysis and research design. Your thoughtful questions and
expertise in the research have made me think deeper. I would thank Dr Kamata for your
great advice for data analysis and your insightful questions about the statistical results. I
would also thank Dr Phillips; you always helped me whenever I needed help, and guided
me at the appropriate times. I also appreciate Dr Philips for your thoughtful and
insightful advice.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST of TABLES……………………………………………………………………vi
LIST of FIGURES…………………………………………………………………..vii
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………viii
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………1
The Role of Vocabulary Knowledge…………………………………………………2
The Role of Syntactic Awareness…………………………………………………… 7
The Role of Metacognitive Awareness……………………………………………….11
The Difficulties of Poor L2 Readers………………………………………………….15
The Importance of an L2 Model……………………………………………………...15
The Present Study…………………………………………………………………….16
METHOD…………………………………………………………………………......22
Participants……………………………………………………………………………22
Demographic Questionnaire…………………………………………………………..22
National University Matriculation (NUM) Examinations in China…………………..22
Vocabulary Measures…………………………………………………………………22
Syntactic Awareness Measures……………………………………………………….25
Metacognitive Awareness Measures………………………………………………….26
Reading Comprehension Measures…………………………………………………...27
Procedure……………………………………………………………………………...27
RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………..29
Data Issues and Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………29
Research Question 1.1…………………………………………………………………32
Research Question 1.2…………………………………………………………………35
Research Question 2.1…………………………………………………………………38
Research Question 2.2…………………………………………………………………39
iv
Research Question 2.3………………………………………………………………..39
DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………...45
Interpretation of Results………………………………………………………………45
Implications……………………………………………………………………….......49
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research…………………………………….50
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………....54
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………..….117
BIOGRAPHIC SKETCH……………………………………………………………...130
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.Counterbalancing of Four Sessions………………………………………...28
Table 2.Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelation for all observed variables……...29
Table 3.Missing Data Patterns for variables included in the main analysis………...31
Table 4.Mean of All the Measures for both Groups………………………………...33
Table 5.Regression and Correlation Summary for the Structural Portion Model…...37
Table 6.Model Fit Indices…………………………………………………………....38
Table 7.Chi-square Tests Constraining Models……………………………………...42
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.Basic Model………………………………………………………………18
Figure 2.Alternative Model (1)…………………………………………………….19
Figure 3.Alternative Model (2)………………………………………………….....20
Figure 4.Example test item from the Vocabulary Level Test……………………...23
Figure 5.Example test item from the Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure…24
Figure 6.Two-factor Model………………………………………………………...35
Figure 7.Structural Portion Model…………………………………………………36
Figure 8.The good-reader Model…………………………………………………..40
Figure 9.The poor-reader Model…………………………………………………...41
vii
ABSTRACT
The importance of vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension has been established in the first
language research. By contrast, fewer studies have documented the role of these
components in the reading comprehension of English language learners (ELLs) in the
field of second language (L2) research. The proposed study specifically focused on an
L2-only model to examine the role of L2 vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness of reading strategies in L2 reading comprehension with 278
Chinese college students majoring in English. More specifically, First, confirmatory
factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to (1) evaluate whether
vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness were
distinguishable psychological constructs, and (2) examine the strength of the relations
between each construct with reading comprehension. Second, the following questions
were addressed: (1) whether poor L2 readers are inferior to good L2 readers in syntactic
awareness, vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive awareness of reading strategies
(MANCOVA was used to address this question); (2) whether the correlations among
vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness in reading
comprehension were different for poor L2 readers and good L2 readers; and (3) whether
the relation between each of three constructs vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness
and metacognitive awareness to reading comprehension differ across the poor-reader and
good-reader groups. The multigroup analyses were conducted using structural equation
modeling.
278 undergraduates whose native language is Chinese, enrolled as English majors,
from 3 Chinese universities participated. Those with TOEFL reading scores in the
sample’s top and bottom 25% were identified as good and poor readers. Eight
assessments were administered concurrently, with two measures each of vocabulary
knowledge, syntactic awareness, metacognitive awareness, and reading comprehension.
Vocabulary knowledge was assessed using the Vocabulary Level Test (Nation, 1990) and
the Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure (Dian & Mary, 2004). The Sentence
Combination Subtest of the Test of Adolescent and Adult Language (Hammill, Brown,
Larsen & Wiederholt, 2007) and the Syntactic Awareness Questionnaire (Layton,
viii
Robinson & Lawson, 1998) were used as indicators of syntactic awareness. The
Metacognitive Reading Strategies Questionnaire (Taraban, Kerr & Ryneason, 2004) and
the Metacognitive Reading Awareness Inventory (Miholic, 1994) assessed the construct
of metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Reading ability was assessed by using
the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) Reading Comprehension Subtest
(Schedl, Thomas & Way, 1995) and the Gray Silent Reading Test (Third-Edition;
Blalock & Weiderholt, 2000). These were all paper and pencil, group administered
assessments, which participants completed in a counterbalanced order.
Confirmatory factor analysis suggested the two-factor model of Vocabulary
Knowledge/Syntactic Awareness and Metacogntive Awareness offered the best fit to the
data. Structural equation modeling indicated that 87% variance in reading comprehension
is explained by the Vocabulary Knowledge/Syntactic Awareness and Metacognitive
Awareness factors taken together. However, Vocabulary Knowledge/Syntactic
Awareness has a stronger relationship to reading comprehension than metacognitive
awareness does. MANCOVA indicated significant differences between poor and good
readers in both constructs. Multigroup analyses using structural equation modeling
suggested the correlation between the Vocabulary Knowledge/Syntactic Awareness and
Metacognitive Awareness in poor readers was the same across poor-reader and good-
reader groups. Similarly, the pattern of relations of Vocabulary Knowledge/Syntactic
Awareness and Metacognitive Awareness to reading comprehension remained constant
across the poor-reader and good-reader groups.
ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Since the late 1970s, many educators and researchers have agreed that reading is a
language-based skill (Frost, 1998; Mattingly, 1972; Vellutino, 1979; Vellutino, Fletcher,
Snowling & Scanlon, 2004) and involves cognitive processes (Ehri, 1995). Therefore,
reading ability is determined by many factors of language skills. In first language (L1)
research, there is ample evidence that vocabulary knowledge accounts for the largest
percent of variance in reading comprehension (Davis, 1944). Similarly, second language
(L2) research has highlighted the importance of vocabulary knowledge. Carlisle, Beeman,
Davis, and Spharim (1999) suggested that L2 vocabulary knowledge made a unique
contribution to L2 reading comprehension for primary-level struggling Latina/o readers.
Besides vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness, generally conceptualized as the
understanding of rules of grammar and sentence structure, plays a very important role in
reading comprehension for native speakers (Bowey, 1986; Dreher & Zenge, 1990;
Tunmer, Nesdale & Wright, 1987). The importance of syntactic awareness in reading
comprehension also has been established by Carlisle et al. (1999) in L2 reading research.
Whether in L1 or L2, reading is considered a cognitive enterprise that entails
three components including reader, text and activity (Flavell 1979; Snow & Sweet 2001).
Thus, readers must utilize metacognitive awareness and invoke the conscious use of
reading strategies, in order to comprehend text successfully. According to Auerbach and
Paxton (1997), metacognitive awareness is defined as the process “entailing knowledge
of strategies for processing texts, the ability to monitor comprehension, and the ability to
adjust strategies as need” (pp. 204-241). Within the domain of L1 reading research,
recent trends have led to an increasing emphasis on the role of metacognitive awareness
of one’s cognitive and motivational processes while reading (Pressley, 2000; Pressley &
Afflerbach, 1995). Indeed, many researchers have agreed that awareness and monitoring
of one’s comprehension processes are critically important in predicting reading
comprehension. Similarly in the L2 research, many researchers have established the role
of metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension (Barnett, 1988; Carrell, Pharis &
Liberto, 1989; Chamot, 1987).
1
The line of reading research about the unique contribution of vocabulary
knowledge, syntactic awareness, and metacognitive awareness to explaining reading
comprehension was conducted primarily with native English speaking populations to
examine which reading skill components contribute to reading comprehension in L1 with
children and adults (Davis, 1944; Dreher & Zenge, 1990; Pressley, 2000; Pressley &
Afflerbach, 1995; Tunmer, Nesdale & Wright, 1987). The respective roles of vocabulary
knowledge, syntactic awareness, and metacognitive awareness in predicting native
speakers’ reading comprehension have been well documented in factor analysis,
correlational studies, and experimental evidence. By contrast, fewer studies have
documented the role of these components in the reading comprehension of English
language learners (ELLs). While there may be some similarities between native speakers
and ELLs in the arena of which skills predict reading comprehension (Proctor, Carlo,
August, & Snow, 2005), the unique contributions of L2 vocabulary knowledge, syntactic
awareness, and metacognitive awareness to predicting L2 reading comprehension
remains largely undeveloped in the literature. In order to fill this void, the present study
seeks to investigate the role of vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension with adult English language learners.
The research about their respective roles in reading comprehension in the field of L1 and
L2 reading research is reviewed below.
Literature Review
The Role of Vocabulary Knowledge
Previous factor analyses, correlational studies, and true experiments have
established, to different extents in the fields of L1 and L2 research, the importance of
vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension.
Factor analytic evidence. The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and
reading comprehension for native speakers has been established in factor analytic studies
of L1 English speakers. Davis (1944) administered 240 multiple-choice items to a large
number of college freshman in order to analyze basic skills underlying reading
comprehension such as word knowledge, reasoning, ability of identifying a writer’s
purpose, figuring out the meaning of words, grasping the detailed statements, and specific
knowledge of literacy devices and techniques. He found word knowledge had a factor
2
loading of .80. Subsequent analyses (e.g., Botzum, 1951; Clark, 1972; Davis, 1968) have
yielded vocabulary factor loadings ranging from .41 to .93. These factor analyses suggest
that vocabulary knowledge is a major factor of reading comprehension. However, no
research dealing with the factor analysis of vocabulary knowledge in the L2 population
could be identified.
Correlational evidence. Many correlational studies also have been conducted in the
past fifty years that demonstrate the importance of vocabulary knowledge in reading
comprehension. In the field of L1 reading research, prospective longitudinal data from
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2005) revealed a correlation between Grade
1 picture vocabulary and Grade 3 reading comprehension of .56. Furthermore, research
conducted with L1 English speaking undergraduate students has demonstrated
correlations between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension of about .50
(Dixon, LeFevre & Twilley, 1988; Hunt, 1953; Stanovich & Cunningham, 1992).
Similarly, the results of L2 reading research have established the unique contribution of
vocabulary knowledge. Proctor, Carol, August and Snow (2005) tested 135 Spanish-
English bilingual Latina/o fourth graders and reported the correlation of .73 from
structural equation modeling. Additionally, Gelderen et al. (2004) administered tests of
English vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension to 397 Dutch students from
Grade 8 to Grade 10 in secondary education and found a correlation of .63.
Among adolescent and adult English language learners, the role of L2 vocabulary
knowledge becomes more pronounced and, therefore, is considered one of the most
important components of L2 reading comprehension (Alderson, 1984; Laufer, 1992;
Meara & Jones, 1989; Nation, 2001). In a study (Qian, 1999) with 80 Korean and
Chinese adults attending intensive academic ESL programs, the correlation between
scores on the Vocabulary Level Test (Nation, 1983, 1990) and reading comprehension
was .78. The correlations ranged from .50 to .75 in similar studies conducted with other
adult English language learners, whose native languages were neither Chinese nor
Korean (Laufer, 1992; Meara & Jones, 1989). Because research conducted with English
speaking undergraduate students has demonstrated moderate correlations between L1
vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension of about .50 (Dixon, LeFevre &
Twilley, 1988; Hunt, 1953; Stanovich & Cunningham, 1992), the larger correlations
3
obtained from L2 studies indicate that vocabulary knowledge may play a more important
role in reading comprehension for adult ELLs compared with adult native speakers.
For both L1 and L2 vocabulary knowledge, the range of correlations is mainly
determined by two factors: test format and the dimension of vocabulary knowledge tested,
both of which are explored here. There are different test formats for the assessment of
vocabulary knowledge, including reading, oral, expressive and receptive formats. First,
reading vocabulary measures are correlated higher with reading comprehension than
measures of oral vocabulary (Oakland, DeMesquita & Buckley, 1988; Stanovich &
Cunnigham, 1992). That is because reading vocabulary measures assess not only the
word meaning but also word reading ability. Second, tests can be receptive or expressive.
Receptive language involves such operations that “give symbolic abstract meaning to
spoken stimuli when they are heard and to written stimuli when they are seen” (Wallace
& Hammill, 2002, p.3). The term expressive language, by contrast entails those
operations that “formulate meaningful messages intended as communication with other
people” (Wallace & Hammill, 2002, p.3). Formats that assess receptive vocabulary tend
to be more highly correlated with measures of reading comprehension than formats that
assess expressive vocabulary (Oakland, De Mesquita, & Buckley, 1988). This may be
because reading comprehension primarily involves the processes of “simultaneously
extracting and constructing meaning” from written text for some purpose (Snow & Sweet,
2003, p. 1), and the receptive vocabulary test form focuses on assessing the ability to
construct the meaning of words presented in the assessment.
The dimension of vocabulary knowledge being assessed also affects the
correlation between vocabulary and reading comprehension. There are two primary
dimension of an individual’s vocabulary knowledge: breadth and depth. Breadth of
vocabulary mainly refers to the number of words that have some level of meaning to the
individual. It focuses on the knowledge of the multiple meaning of words, but not how
well each of these words is known to an individual. It taps how many words have
meaning for individuals (Anderson & Freebody, 1981). Similar to the definition of
breadth in L1 research, researchers in L2 research have defined breath as the vocabulary
size (Qian, 1999). Numerous studies attempted to estimate the actual number of words
ELLs need to know to comprehend the text. Goulden, Nation and Read (1990) postulated
4
that adult ELLs needed the same number of words in their lexicon as adult native
speakers. About 3,000 word families, or 5,000 individual word forms were necessary for
ELLs’ minimum comprehension (Laufer, 1997; Nation, 1993).
Depth is conceptualized as the richness of knowledge that the individual
possesses about the words that are known. Depth of word knowledge involves knowing
the “core meaning of a word and how it changes in different contexts. This involves
exposure to the word in multiple contexts, preferably from different perspectives” (Stahl,
1998, p. 82). Slightly different from the definition of depth of vocabulary knowledge in
L1 research, Nation (1990) proposed that word meaning, register, frequency,
pronunciation, spelling, syntactic and morphological properties were all considered
primary aspects of depth of vocabulary for English language learners. Moreover, Qian
(2002) added collocational (the restrictions on how words can be used together) and
phraseological (how words and phrases are used in speech and writing) properties as
components of the depth dimension. Qian concluded that word meaning and collocation
are important variables in predicting reading comprehension: depth of vocabulary
knowledge operationalized only as word meaning and collocation explained about 59%
variance of performance on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) reading
comprehension subtest.
Breadth of knowledge is more highly related with reading comprehension than
depth of knowledge in English-speaking children (Tannenbaum, Torgesen & Wagner,
2006). In contrast, Qian (1999) found that for adult ELLs, the correlation between depth
and reading comprehension (.82) was higher than that between breadth and reading
comprehension (.78). Qian (1999) explained that TOEFL reading comprehension
measure was not discriminating enough at the higher ends, which may have caused the
higher correlation between depth and reading comprehension. It also is possible that the
difference in the two studies was caused by the different samples. Thus, depth may play a
more important role in reading comprehension for adult readers (even ELLs) than for
child readers.
Experimental evidence. Besides the correlational evidence, experimental
evidence also has indicated that there is a causal relationship between vocabulary
knowledge and reading comprehension in both L1 and L2 reading research. In the field of
5
L1 reading research, Beck, McCaslin and McKeown (1980) developed a program to
teach word meanings to children in order to enhance comprehension of text. The results
of their study suggested that methods of enhancing word knowledge had an impact on
both word knowledge and comprehension. Beck et al. (1983) further hypothesized that to
achieve true vocabulary development, and not mere rote learning, instruction should be
rich and multifaceted, taking into account the type and extent of encounters needed for a
word to be used fluently and flexibly and become permanent part of children’s
vocabulary (Beck & McKeown, 1983). To make vocabulary instruction more effective in
improving reading comprehension, the recent work conducted by Beck, McKeown and
Kucan (2002) suggested that instruction should develop complex, in-depth, core
knowledge of words and provide multiple and various encounters. Multiple repetitions
are helpful in mastering the word’s meaning.
In the field of L2 reading research, Carlo et al. (2004) explored the effect of
systematic L2 vocabulary instruction among fourth-through fifth-grade Spanish-speaking
ELLs. They concluded that those ELLs receiving English vocabulary instruction, which
focused on depth of vocabulary knowledge and word comprehension strategy use,
performed as well as or better than an English-only control group in reading
comprehension. Similarly, Nagy, Garcia, Durgunoglu and Hancin-Bhatt (1993) found
that fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade bilingual Latina/o students attuned to cognate
relationships between English and Spanish words have better English reading
comprehension outcomes. These studies establish the effectiveness of vocabulary
instruction in improving reading comprehension for English language learners.
However, in the L1 research, the results of some studies indicate that vocabulary
instruction may not always improve general reading comprehension (Foorman, Seals,
Anthony, & Pollard-Durodola, 2004). Foorman et al. found that third grade students
participating in the Vocabulary Enrichment Program in high poverty schools had
significant gains in vocabulary. However, these gains did not generalize to improvement
in reading comprehension. This result suggests that the relationship between vocabulary
knowledge and reading comprehension may be obscured by the nature of vocabulary and
reading comprehension. Vocabulary is mainly about individual words while
comprehension is about the meaning of the text. Even though students understand the
6
meaning of individual words they are taught, it is hard to transfer this specific word
knowledge to reading comprehension of new text.
Other reasons have been put forth to explain why the vocabulary-reading
comprehension relationship is not so simple. Besides the above-mentioned reason,
Anderson and Freebody (1981) suggested that word meaning could not make people
understand text. Rather knowledge of word meanings reflects knowledge of topics, which,
in turn, help people understand. Thus, topic knowledge is the variable that confounds the
relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. It is possible
that different levels of student topic knowledge influence the effectiveness of vocabulary
instruction. In a word, as hypothesized by Snow (2002), the complicated relationship
between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension is mediated by the
relationship among vocabulary knowledge, conceptual and cultural knowledge and
instructional opportunities.
Besides these confounding factors, whether ELLs’ native language and writing
systems are different in important ways from English also may influence the effect of
vocabulary instruction (Haper & Jong, 2004). For example, given ELLs’ native language
system, transfer of the skills of learning words in their native language to studying
English could be hindered. This may be particularly true for Chinese ELLs, whose native
languages are based on ideographic writing systems that are radically different from the
alphabetic system used in English. Therefore, the vocabulary instruction targeted to
Chinese ELLs should give greater attention to developing letter-sound associations
(Haper & Jong, 2004). In contrast, since 1980, only four quasi-experimental interventions
about vocabulary knowledge have been conducted with ELLs (Proctor et al., 2005).
Therefore, whether vocabulary knowledge instruction could improve reading
comprehension remains largely unexplored for ELLs. Clearly, more L2 intervention
research should be conducted to promote vocabulary knowledge for comprehension in L2
populations.
The Role of Syntactic Awareness
Besides vocabulary knowledge, many researchers have recognized the importance
of syntactic awareness as an element of reading skill. Much evidence from correlational
7
and experimental studies establishes its role in reading comprehension in the fields of L1
and L2 reading research.
Specifically, syntactic awareness refers to the ability to understand the
grammatical structures of language within sentences (Tunmer & Hoover, 1992) as well as
the ability to “reflect on the syntactic structure of language and regard it objectively and
separately from the meaning conveyed by language” (Blackmore, Pratt & Dewsbury,
1995, p. 405). Based on Gombert’s theoretical framework, the development of syntactic
awareness follows a four-level path (Gombert, 1992). The first level involves the
acquisition of tacit knowledge of syntactic and grammatical rules related to word strings
or sentences. Level 2 refers to the ability of manipulating the internal grammatical
structure of sentences. Level 3 is determined by the ability to formulate the rules of
syntax and to identify what the rules are. The highest level involves the ability of
intentionally controlling and reflecting upon one’s knowledge of syntactic rules or one’s
performance on tasks testing syntactic knowledge (Layton, Robinson & Lawson, 1998).
Correlational evidence. The presence of a relationship between syntactic
awareness and reading comprehension has been well indicated in correlational studies. In
the field of L1 reading research, research indicates that syntactic awareness is a
statistically significant predictor of students’ reading comprehension performance and
ongoing reading comprehension (Bowey, 1986; Dreher & Zenge, 1990). Tunmer et al.
(1987) matched older, poor readers with younger, good readers on four measures of
reading ability. Participants were 30 second-grade and 30 fourth-grade children. They
found that good readers scored significantly higher than poor readers on two measures of
syntactic awareness derived from oral cloze and oral correction tasks. This finding
suggested the possibility of a causal connection between syntactic awareness and learning
to read. Consistent with this, Siegel and Ryan (1988) reported that reading disabled
children scored lower on measures of syntactic awareness than age-matched normal
readers.
A limitation of both Tumner at al. (1987) and Siegel and Ryan’s (1988) studies,
which both employed the reading level match design, was that the relation between
syntactic awareness and reading comprehension was confounded by decoding skill. In
order to overcome this limitation, Nation and Snowling (2000) matched children for age,
8
decoding skill, and nonverbal ability and assessed syntactic awareness skills, with results
suggesting that poor readers were delayed in developing syntactic awareness skills. In
addition, Gottardo, Siegel and Stanovich (1997) sketched out the relationship between
syntactic awareness and reading comprehension with adults by choosing an orally
presented sentence judgment task and an orally presented sentence correction task to
measure syntactic awareness. They tested 76 adults and found a correlation of .69.
For second language learners, Rabia and Siegel (2002) assessed the role of
syntactic awareness in reading comprehension of 56 bilingual Arab-Canadian children
aged 9-14 and found a correlation of .57. Consistent with this, Verhoeven (1990)
suggested that syntactic knowledge of second language learners significantly predicted
their second-language reading comprehension for grade 2 students. In another study
involving 397 Dutch grade 8 students, Gelderson et al. (2003) reported a correlation
of .78 between grammatical knowledge and English reading comprehension. For
advanced learners, moreover, limited syntactic knowledge and a basic unawareness of
syntactic boundaries can impede their second-language reading process (Kirajima, 1997).
For both L1 and L2 learners, the range of correlations varied depending mainly on
three factors, including the syntactic awareness test format, the control of verbal
intelligence, and the age of participants. There are two main test formats for the
assessment of syntactic awareness. One is the written mode and the other is the oral mode.
The written mode introduces a potential difficulty for research studies. Differences of
performance in measures of syntactic awareness presented in a written mode may be
caused by differences in the decoding abilities of good and poor readers, confounding
decoding and syntactic awareness ability. For example, children having trouble
identifying the words of text will have trouble organizing them into larger structural units
(Tunmer et al., 1987). Therefore, the oral mode is more highly positively correlated with
reading comprehension.
Whether verbal intelligence is controlled also seems to affect the correlation
between syntactic awareness and reading comprehension. Failure to control for verbal
intelligence can cause problems of interpretation, because verbal IQ may produce a
spurious relation between syntactic awareness and reading ability. Syntactic awareness
may not make unique contribution to predicting reading ability not already explained by
9
verbal intelligence (Tunmer et al., 1987). Vocabulary knowledge measures assess
knowledge about word meaning, as well as how words are combined with other words to
form grammatical sentences. Because syntactic ability is partly determined by vocabulary
knowledge that is part of tests of verbal intelligence, the present study controlled for
verbal intelligence using participants’ scores on the Matriculation Chinese test (MCT), a
component of National University Matriculation (NUM) examinations in China which is
similar to the Scholastic Aptitude Test used for US college admissions. Frey and
Detterman (2003) reported that the correlation between SAT and verbal intelligence
was .82. MCT measures the students’ general Chinese reading and writing skills as well
as reasoning skills (Yang, Chang & Ma, 2004).
In addition, research evidence suggests that the limitation of working memory
constrains syntactic comprehension and syntactic awareness. More specifically, when
working memory load is reduced, there is no difference in syntactic awareness tasks
between poor readers and skilled readers (Smith, Macaruso, Shankweiler & Crain, 1989).
Thus, working memory was not assessed for the present study because it is highly
correlated with vocabulary knowledge (Dixon et al, 1988; Macdonald & Christiansen,
2002). Even though working memory is important in predicting the reading performance,
adding it to the model poses a difficulty for isolating the unique effect of vocabulary
knowledge and syntactic awareness in reading comprehension.
The age of participants additionally might affect the correlation between syntactic
awareness and reading comprehension. The correlations between syntactic awareness and
reading comprehension with children were respectively .35 and .40 in two previous
studies (Bowey, 1986; Tunmer, Herriman & Nesdale, 1988). However, Gottardo et al.
(1997) found a correlation of .69 with English-speaking adults, which is higher than those
obtained from similar studies with children. The higher correlation with adults could be
explained by the view proposed by the Rand reading group (2002). That is, individual
differences in vocabulary and syntactic knowledge account for more variance in reading
comprehension than do individual differences in word-level skills in readers with enough
facility in word recognition to comprehend in print what they comprehend in spoken
language. Since adults have acquired the ability of word recognition, syntactic awareness
plays a more important role in reading comprehension for adults.
10
Experimental evidence. Two studies provided children with training in sentence
organization and cloze procedure, which led to an improvement in sentence anagram
performance and an increase in L1 reading comprehension (Kenney & Weener, 1973;
Weaver, 1979). However, the training of both studies focused on low-level syntactic
abilities. Therefore, they offered little support for a causal relation between high-level
syntactic awareness and reading comprehension. In contrast, Layton et al. (1998)
provided training tapping all levels of syntactic awareness for 30 grade-four L1 children.
Opposite to previous intervention studies, syntactic training did not show any effect on
their reading ability, even though it improved the high levels of syntactic awareness.
These conflicting results lead to questions about the existence of causal relationships
between syntactic awareness and reading comprehension across all levels of syntactic
awareness. It is possible that the causal relation does not hold for high levels of syntactic
awareness. In sum, the low-level of syntactic awareness appears to be casually related to
reading comprehension, but whether the causal relations hold for all levels remains a
matter of dispute.
Compared with L1 reading research, there was very little experimental evidence
to support the importance of syntactic awareness in reading comprehension in the body of
L2 reading research. The dispute about whether there is causal relation between syntactic
awareness and reading comprehension in L1 research still persists in the field of L2
reading comprehension. More specifically, whether the causal relations hold for all levels
of L2 still needs to be clarified. In the present study, the L2 syntactic awareness construct,
including both low-level and high-level syntactic ability, was assessed. Thus, the results
have the potential to provide evidence about the relation between high-level L2 syntactic
awareness and L2 reading comprehension. Even though one cannot make definitive
conclusions concerning causal relations, given that the present study was correlational in
design, this study provides a more accurate estimate of their correlation and their
potential for a causal relation by using latent variables.
The Role of Metacognitive Awareness
In the domain of both first and second language reading research, recent trends
have led to an increasing emphasis on the role of metacognitive awareness of one’s
cognitive and motivational processes in reading (Alexander & Jetton, 2000; Pressley,
11
2000). Metacognition is defined as “knowledge about cognitive states and abilities that
can be shared among individuals while at the same time expanding the construct to
include affective and motivational characteristics of thinking” (Paris & Winograd, 1990,
p. 15).The term “metacognitive awareness” refers to the same thing as metacognition.
Applied to reading research, metacognitive awareness is conceptualized as the
“knowledge of the readers’ cognition relative to the reading process and the self-control
mechanism they use to monitor and enhance comprehension” (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001,
p. 423), which is a critical component of skilled reading.
Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) depicted efficient readers as strategic or
“constructively responsive” readers who carefully orchestrate cognitive resources when
reading. Similarly, “second language learners are not mere sponges acquiring the new
language by osmosis alone. They are thinking, reflective beings who consciously apply
mental strategies to learning situations both in the classroom and outside of it” (Chamot,
1987, p. 82). The reader, thus, must use metacognitive awareness and invoke conscious
strategies in order to comprehend the text successfully. What distinguishes the skilled
readers from the unskilled is conscious awareness of the strategic reading process and
actual usage of these reading strategies (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001).
Correlational evidence. The importance of metacognitive awareness in reading
comprehension has been recognized in previous correlational studies. Paris and Myers
(1981) compared good and poor fourth-grade native speakers, matched for age, sex, and
arithmetic achievement and found that good readers knew more about reading strategies,
detect errors more often while reading, and had better memory for text than did poor
readers. Likewise, in a subsequent study, Paris and Jacobs (1984) divided L1 participants
into groups of high, middle, and low awareness about reading based on their
metacognitve scores and concluded that children with higher awareness consistently
scored higher than other children on standardized reading tests, cloze tests, and error
detection test. The correlations between metacognitive awareness and these various
measures of comprehension ranged from .24 to .40, which were all statistically
significant. Furthermore, Forrest-Pressley and Waller (1984) reported on an extensive
correlational study of children’s awareness about reading in grade 3 and grade 6 native
12
speakers. Their results revealed that metacognitive awareness was correlated with reading
comprehension at .83 for grade 3; the comparable correlation was .80 for grade 6.
These basic pieces of evidence lend support to the importance of metacognitive
awareness in reading comprehension in L1. Similarly, correlational evidence was found
in some studies of second language reading. Gelderen et al. (2003) administered a
questionnaire as the measurement of metacogitive awareness and a multiple-choice
English Reading Test to 397 Dutch grade 8 students and also found a large correlation
of .72. Barnett (1988) investigated the relationships among reading comprehension,
strategy use, and perceived strategy use and found that all three were significantly
correlated for cognitively mature university-level readers of French as a second language.
She concluded “students who effectively consider and remember context as they read [i.e.,
strategy use] understand more of what they read than students who employ this strategy
less or less well” (p. 156).
Experimental evidence. There is much experimental evidence to support the
relationship between metacognitive awareness and reading comprehension (Carrell,
Pharis & Liberto, 1989; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Paris & Jacobs, 1984). In L1 reading
research, the training program called “Informed Strategies for Learning” taught 8-12-year
olds what comprehension strategies are, how they operate, when they should be used, and
why they are effective. This program proved effective in improving the reading abilities
of all-aged children (Paris & Jacobs, 1984). In contrast to Paris and Jacobs’ study, which
just focused on direct instruction about reading strategies, Palincsar and Brown (1984)
developed “reciprocal teaching,” which involves modeling and practice, as well as
gradual release of responsibility to students, in addition to direct instruction focused on
applying the four important strategies: self-questioning, summarizing, paraphrasing, and
predicting information in text. Results suggested that children participating in reciprocal
teaching showed significant gains in L1 reading comprehension and memory. In addition,
Duffy and his colleagues found that teachers, who provided explicit descriptions of
strategies during L1 reading lessons, promote elementary students’ understanding of
lesson content (Duffy, Roehler & Rackliffee, 1986).
For second language reading, there are a number of studies that examine the
effectiveness of metacognitive training. Carrell, Pharis and Liberto (1989) provided
13
instruction in reading strategies to adult ELLs, who had various native language
background (e.g., Chinese, French, Spanish, French, etc.). Instruction focused on four
metacognitive awareness components: what the strategy is, why it should be used, how
we use the strategy and when and where strategies should be used. Besides the four
components proposed by Carrell et al. (1989), Raymond’s (1993) training program added
another component to the training of English-speaking adults in the process of learning
French: how to evaluate the use of a strategy. The instructor in this study taught these
five components to the participants in five sequential sessions. Short quizzes were used as
a measurement of the evaluation component. In both the above-mentioned L2 studies, it
was found that strategy training improved ELLs’ reading comprehension. These five
steps have been considered effective, direct instruction of reading comprehension
(Winograd & Hare, 1988). A limitation of the design of these studies, however, is that
they could not identify which components of these package interventions were essential
to improvements in reading comprehension.
To conclude, for both native speakers and English language learners,
metacognitive awareness plays an important role in reading comprehension. Many
researchers have concluded that metacognitive awareness grows with the age; older and
more successful readers are more likely to approach different genres in different ways
and utilize more reading strategies (Baker & Brown, 1994; Garner, 1987; Paris, Wasik, &
Turner, 1991). However, compared with native speakers, second language learners have
greater awareness of cognitive processes, as suggested by Hosefeld (1978). This is
consistent with the view proposed by Vygotsky (1962) that learning a foreign language is
“conscious and deliberate from the start” (p.109). The fundamental difference is that
second language learners utilize additional reading strategies, such as translation and
cognate awareness, which is the ability to use cognates (i.e., words in two languages that
share a similar meaning, spelling, and pronunciation) in a primary language as a tool for
understanding a second language, during the reading process.
In addition, it is worth noting that ELLs’ metacognitive awareness in reading is
related to their cultural backgrounds and to their different L1 literacy experiences (Parry,
1996). For example, Chinese ELL readers’ metacognitive awareness is greatly influenced
by the logographic writing system of the Chinese language and Chinese culture. Just as
14
Field (1985) reported, Chinese ELL readers could not use the more abstract, process
reading strategies (e.g., guessing from contextual meaning) to read English materials
fluently, because of the difficulties in transferring the reading skills from Chinese to
English and sociolculture interference. Nonetheless, the extent research findings are
inconclusive in determining the influence of metacognitive awareness in reading
comprehension for ELLs.
The Difficulties of Poor L2 Readers
Within the literature on reading difficulties of native speakers, phonological deficit
is considered the core problem in specific reading impairment (Snowling, 1987;
Stanovich, 1988; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Besides the phonological deficit, numerous
studies suggest that semantic problems are also connected with poor reading. More
specifically, poor readers have difficulty with receptive vocabulary (Bishop, Byers
Brown & Robison, 1990), comprehending figurative language (Seidenberg & Berstein,
1986), and defining word meanings (Snow, Cancino, Gonzales & Shroberg, 1989).
Furthermore, poor readers also have documented more problems in the tasks of syntactic
awareness, which require them to detect and repair sentences with grammatical errors
(Tunmer et al., 1987), and tasks of complex syntax (Mann, Shankweiler & Smith, 1984).
Most research on reading difficulties has been about native speakers, with less
research on English language learners. Studies about ELLs indicate that language
minority learners perform at a significantly lower level than their monolingual peers in
reading comprehension (Verhoeven, 1999, 2000). The kind of difficulties ELLs have and
the difference between poor L2 readers and good L2 readers, however, still need to be
clarified. The present study identified a group of poor L2 readers and compared their
performance on measures of vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness of reading strategies with that of good L2 readers.
The Importance of an L2 Model
Even though there are important similarities between the learning process of native
speakers and ELLs, ELLs sometimes follow a different developmental path and rate in
the learning process (Davison, 1999). Especially for adolescents and adults; they are
already literate in their native language and have more advanced cognitive skills.
Therefore, they are more likely to rely on sophisticated linguistic and cognitive skills than
15
young children (Harvey & de Jong, 2004). Proctor et al. (2005) developed an L2-only
model to explore the respective roles of L2 oral language skills represented by
vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension, and L2 decoding skills in reading
comprehension for native Spanish-speaking children. They found that vocabulary
knowledge exerted not only a significant proximal effect, but also a distal effect on L2
reading comprehension; L2 listening comprehension had the strongest effect on reading
comprehension in the model. These results indicate the noteworthy contributions of
vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension to the reading comprehension of
ELLs.
In the literature, however, there are fewer studies to investigate the importance of
complicated L2 linguistic awareness, such as syntactic awareness and metacognitive
awareness of reading strategy in L2 reading comprehension with advanced or proficient
second language learners. Although Lesaux and Siegel (2003) suggested that, compared
with English-native speakers, second-language learners from various native language
backgrounds have the same component processes working during reading acquisition.
The present study will specifically focus on an L2-only model to examine the roles of L2
vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness of reading
strategy in L2 reading comprehension with Chinese college students. The results from the
model can provide more information about which L2 predictors make the most
contribution to reading comprehension and provide future instructional directions for
educators, researchers and practitioners.
The Present Study
The present study addressed two primary research purposes, each with three
specific research questions. Research Purpose 1 was to explore the respective roles of
vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness in reading
comprehension. The goal of Research Purpose 2 was to examine the difference between
poor L2 readers and good L2 readers in the measures of vocabulary knowledge, syntactic
awareness and metacognitive awareness and their relation to reading comprehension. The
following six research questions were examined.
16
For Research Purpose 1, this study investigated the relation of vocabulary
knowledge, syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness to reading comprehension.
Three research questions addressed this direction:
(1.1) Are vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and metacognitive
awareness distinguishable psychological constructs? Confirmatory factor analysis
was used to address this question.
(1.2) What is the strength of the relation between each construct and reading
comprehension? Structural equation modeling was used to address this question
(see Figure 1).
(1.3) If there are three separate psychological constructs, does vocabulary
knowledge have an indirect effect on reading comprehension via syntactic
awareness and metacognitive awareness (see Figure 2) or does syntactic
awareness have an indirect effect on reading comprehension via metacognitive
awareness (See Figure 3) by testing the alternative models (Figures 2 and 3
compared to Figure 1)?
Figure 1 represents the basic model tested for question 1.1. This model is based
on the importance of vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness, metacognitive
awareness in reading comprehension based on the results of correlation and experimental
studies described in the preceding sections (Alderson, 1984; Gelderen et al., 2003; Laufer,
1992; Meara & Jones, 1989; Nation, 2001; Paris & Jacobs, 1984; Tunmer & Hoover,
1992; Verhoeven, 1990), in which L2 vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness all maintain proximal effects on L2 reading comprehension.
17
SA
MA
Rdg
VC
Figure 1. Basic model. (VC=vocabulary knowledge; SA=syntactic awareness;
MA=metacognitive awareness; Rdg=reading comprehension)
To answer Question 1.3, two other models were fitted in order to test alternative
specifications for the relationships among vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness
and metacognitive awareness. Figure 2 represents the alternative model (1), in which
vocabulary exerts not only indirect (through respectively syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness) effects but also direct effect on reading comprehension, with
syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness exerting direct effects on reading
comprehension. The rational for this model is that L2 vocabulary knowledge is the most
important component of L2 reading comprehension (Laufer 1997; Nation, 2001), and
thus assumes a more dynamic relation with reading comprehension as both a proximal
and distal (through syntactic awareness) predictor of reading comprehension (Proctor et
al., 2005). In addition, Bates and Marchman (1994) suggested that verb size was found to
be predicative of the correct usage of irregular past tense forms, as well as the onset of
overgeneralization errors, based on data collected from 1130 English-speaking toddlers.
This evidence indicates that vocabulary knowledge is a predictor explaining the variance
of syntactic awareness. Additionally, the addition of a direct path from vocabulary
knowledge to metacognitive awareness, which is supported by the high correlation of .87
18
between vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive awareness, reported by Gelderen et al
(2004).
VC SA
MA
Rdg
Figure 2. Alternative model (1). (VC=vocabulary knowledge; SA=syntactic awareness;
MA=metacognitive awareness; Rdg=reading comprehension)
Figure 3 indicates the alternative model (2) in which vocabulary knowledge
maintains both proximal and distal (through syntactic awareness and metacognitive
awareness) effects on reading comprehension; syntactic awareness directly influences
reading comprehension and indirectly influences reading comprehension via
metacognitive awareness; and metacognitive awareness exerts a proximal effect on
reading comprehension. The comprehensive model assumes that both vocabulary
knowledge and syntactic awareness have direct effects on metacognitive awareness and
indirect effects on reading comprehension via metacognitive awareness.
19
VC SA
MA
Rdg
Figure 3. Alternative Model (2). (VC=vocabulary knowledge; SA=syntactic awareness;
MA=metacognitive awareness; Rdg=reading comprehension)
The theoretical rational for the comprehensive model is that skilled readers are
more able to reflect and monitor their cognitive process so that they are more aware of
which strategies to use and tend to be better at the regulating the use of such strategies in
the process of reading (Baker & Brown, 1984; Carrell et al., 1989; Pressely, 2000;
Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). Actually, skilled reading or good reading comprehension
demands accurate linguistic comprehension, including vocabulary knowledge and
syntactic awareness (Carver, 1998; Nation and Snowling, 2000; Nation, 2001; Siegel &
Ryan, 1988). Therefore, metacognitive awareness is possibly influenced by the readers’
vocabulary knowledge and syntactic awareness.
For Research Purpose 2, the difference between poor readers and good readers
were examined in the three psychological constructs of vocabulary knowledge, syntactic
awareness and metacognitive awareness and their relation to reading comprehension.
Three research questions addressed this issue:
(2.1) Are poor L2 readers inferior to good L2 readers in syntactic awareness,
vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive awareness of reading strategies? This
question is based on evidences that poor readers have deficits in vocabulary
knowledge, syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness (Mann,
20
Shankweiler & Smith, 1984; Paris & Jacobs, 1984; Snow et al., 1989).
MANCOVA was used to address this question.
(2.2) Are the correlations among vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension different across poor L2
readers and good L2 readers? Structural equation modeling was used to address
this question.
(2.3) Does the relation between each of three constructs vocabulary knowledge,
syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness to reading comprehension differ
across the poor-reader and good-reader groups? Structural equation modeling was
also used to address this question.
21
CHAPTER 2
METHOD
Participants
The participants in the study were 278 undergraduate students whose native
language is Chinese, enrolled as English Education majors, in three universities in the
north east of China. Their ages ranged from18 to 23 (M=20.72, SD=.959). This sample
consisted of 235 females (84.5%) and 43 males (15.5%). They were all native Mandarin
speakers. Their demographics were representative of English Education students enrolled
in public universities in China, the majority of which are female. Participants were
identified as less skilled versus more skilled in reading ability on the basis of scores on
the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) reading comprehension test. TOEFL
test scores were considered as the levels of English proficiency for improving the English
language skills of nonnative speakers. The test developers rarely use rigid cutoff scores to
evaluate students’ performance on TOEFL (Educational Testing Service, 1996). Thus, in
the present study, participants with reading scores at the top 25% of the sample on
TOEFL were identified as skilled readers (n=89), while those with reading scores at the
bottom 25% of the sample were identified as less skilled readers (n=74).
Demographic Questionnaire
This researcher-designed questionnaire (see Appendix A) was employed to obtain
background information about participants’ current age, their experiences learning
English, and their proficiency in Chinese. This questionnaire was administered in English.
National University Matriculation (NUM) Examinations in China
NUM Examinations are the national standardized tests used for the purpose of
selecting students for entrance into higher education, as well as evaluating teachers and
schools. It is composed of Chinese, English, Mathematics, Science and Social Science
tests (Yang et al., 2004). The Matriculation Chinese Test (MCT) was used to control for
the participants’ Chinese proficiency level and their verbal intelligence in the present
study.
Vocabulary Measures
Two tests of vocabulary knowledge (breadth and depth) will be
administered to each participant. Breadth is the number of words that have some
22
level of meaning to an individual. Vocabulary Level Test (Nation, 1990) is used
to assess breadth of vocabulary knowledge. Depth is the richness of knowledge
that the individual possesses about the words that are known. Depth of
Vocabulary Knowledge Measure (DVK) (Qian & Mary, 2004) was used to
measure the depth of vocabulary knowledge.
Vocabulary Level Test (VS). This vocabulary test (Nation, 1990) has been
considered a reliable measure for English language learners by many researchers
(Laufer & Paribakht, 1998; Qian, 1998; Yu, 1996). It includes five parts, each
representative of different vocabulary levels; the 2,000 word-family level, the
3,000 word-family level, the 5,000 word-family level, the 10,000 word-family
level, and the university word list level. The 2,000 word-family level covers high-
frequency words in English. The 5,000 word-family level is a boundary level
between high-frequency words and low-frequency words. The 10,000 word-
family level includes low frequency words (See Appendix B). Different from the
others, the university word list level contains academic words, which frequently
appear in university text books. These academic words are the basic, necessary
words for non-native speakers to master in order to attend universities in English-
speaking countries.
At each vocabulary level, there are six items, each containing six words
and three definitions. An example of a test item can be seen in Figure 5. The
participants are required to match each of the three definitions with the correct
word and put the number associated with that word in the blank.
1. business
2. clock _________part of house
3. horse _________animal with four legs
4. pencil _________something used for writing
5. shoe
6. wall
Figure 4. Example test item from the Vocabulary Level Test.
23
Qian (2002) reported that the reliability was .91 in a sample of adult ELLs with various
native language backgrounds. It takes most adult ELLs 35 minutes to finish this test. The
time limit for administration is 50 minutes. The internal consistency reliability of this
measure was .956 in this sample.
Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure (DVK). (See Appendix C) DVK (Qian
& Mary, 2004) was developed based on the format of word associate tests developed by
Read to assess the depth of vocabulary knowledge (Read, 1998). DVK mainly assesses
two aspects of the depth of vocabulary knowledge: (1) word meaning, particularly
polysemy, which is defined as the association of two or more related meanings with a
single phonological form (Nerlich, 2003) and synonymy, and “(2) word collocation,
which means the word’s associational patterns with other words in domains of knowledge
and use” (Qian & Mary, 2004, p. 37). DVK is composed of 40 test items, each consisting
of a stimulus word that is an adjective and two boxes that each contains four words (See
Appendix C). An example of a test item can be seen in Figure 6.
Figure 5. Example test item from the Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure.
In the left box, one to three of them may be similar to the meaning of the stumulus
words (e.g., logical, healthy, and solid all share the meaning of sound), while among the
four words in the right box, some of words are nouns that could be used after the stimulus
word (e.g., sleep could be used after sound) (Qian & Mary, 2004). That means among
eight words in the two boxes, only four of them are correct (e.g., for the stimulus word
sound, there are three correct answers on the left, one on the right).Therefore, each item
will have four correct answers. However, there are three different correct answer
situations: (a) the left box and right box both have two correct answers; (b) the left box
has one correct answer, with the right box having three correct answers; or (c) the left
box has three correct answers with one correct answer in the right box. The internal
consistency reliability of DVK was .91, and it was highly correlated with TOEFL reading
test at .74 in Qian and Mary’s study. It is group-administered test which takes about 15-
24
20 minutes to finish. The internal consistency reliability of this measure was .972 in this
sample.
Syntactic Awareness Measures
Sentence Combination Subtest of TOAL-4. The Test of Adolescent and Adult
Language - Fourth Edition (TOAL-4, Hammill, Brown, Larsen & Wiederholt, 2007) is
designed to measure spoken and written language abilities of adolescents and young
adults, with varying degrees of knowledge of the English language (See Appendix D).
One subtest, sentence combination, which is used to assess low-level syntactic awareness,
has been selected for the present study. The sentence combination subtest asks the
participants to write one grammatically correct sentence from the given two or more
sentences. For example, “We ate lunch” and “It was an hour ago” can be combined into
“We ate lunch an hour ago.” Hammill et al. (2007) reported the internal consistency
reliability of the sentence combination subtest of the TOAL-4 ranging from .87 to .92 in a
sample above 18 years of age. The administration time is approximately 15 minutes. The
internal consistency reliability of this measure with all the items was very low at .511, so
the item analysis was conducted. Item-total correlations were examined, as were the
alpha levels that would result if the specific items removed. According to this criterion,
14 bad items were deleted. The remaining 16 items were found to be discriminating and
the internal consistency reliability for these items was .60.
Syntactic Awareness Questionnaire (SAQ). The SAQ, which was developed by
Layton, Robinson and Lawson (1998), is an 11-item questionnaire assessing high-level
syntactic awareness. It has two parts: (a) Part 1 of the SAQ (Questions 1 to 7) assesses
the levels 3 syntactic ability (i.e., the ability to formulate the rules of syntax and to
identify what the rules are), and (b) Part 2 of the SAQ (Questions 8 to 11) assesses the
level 4 syntactic ability (i.e., the ability to reflect on one’s knowledge and performance in
relation to syntax) (See Appendix E). An example pf a Part 1 question is “What kind of a
job do nouns do in a sentence?” An example of a Part 2 question is “What rules are
hardest to remember?” After the experimenter explains the instructions, participants fill
in the questionnaire. The administration time is approximately 15 minutes. The internal
consistency reliability of SAQ with the original 12 items was .52. After item analysis, 4
25
items with the low item-total correlation were deleted, which increased alpha level. The
internal consistency reliability of the remaining 8 items was .62.
Metacognitive Awareness Measures
The two metacognitive awareness measures are originally in English, so they
were translated into Chinese. The present study employed the back-translation method,
which is considered the preferred method of obtaining a culturally equivalent instrument
(Berberoglu & Sireci, 1996; Erkut et al., 1999; McDermontt & Palchanes, 1994). This
method requires two independent translators. The first translator (researcher) produced
the Chinese-language version from the original. The second translator (doctoral student
majoring in Multilingual and Multicultural Education) uses the Chinese-language version
to produce the instrument in the English-language version. After independent translation,
two translators consulted with each other to adjust any discrepancies and inconsistencies.
Metacognitive Reading Strategies Questionnaire (MRSQ). This 22-item
questionnaire was developed by Taraban, Kerr and Ryneason (2004) to measure college
students’ awareness of the uses of reading strategies in the reading process. Participants
are asked to rate how frequently they use the strategies listed on a five-point Likert scale
(Never Use, Rarely Use, Sometimes Use, Often Use, and Always Use). An example of
one strategy is, “I search out information relevant to my reading goals. Taraban et al.
reported that MRSQ had two components based upon exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses: analytic-cognitive, which relates to cognitions aimed at reading
comprehension, and pragmatic-behavioral, which relates to behaviors aimed at studying
and academic performance. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in the current sample were .82
for all items, .82 for the analytic-cognitive component, and .80 for the pragmatic-
behavioral component. It is a timed group-administered test that lasts 15 minutes. (See
Appendix F for the original version of this test and see Appendix G for the Chinese
translation used in the study)
Metacognitive Reading Awareness Inventory (MRAI). MRAI was designed by
Miholic (1994) to assess college students’ concrete and conscious awareness of reading
strategies. It has 10 items, representing four domains of metacognitive awareness
including regulation, conditional knowledge of strategy application, planning the
cognitive event and evaluation of process. For each item, there are four answers from
26
which participants are to choose. Each item could have more than one correct answer. For
example, given the question “What do you do if you don’t know what an entire sentence
means?”, there are four answers to choose from: a) read it again, b) sound out all the
difficult words, c) think about the other sentences in the paragraph, and d) disregard it
completely. There are no published reports of this measure’s reliability. The present study
will fill this gap. The administration time is 15 minutes. The internal consistency
reliability was .82 in this sample. (See Appendix H for the original version of this test and
see Appendix I for the Chinese translation used in the study.)
Reading Comprehension Measures
TOEFL Reading Comprehension Subtest (TOEFL-RBC).This is a standardized
multiple-choice reading comprehension test (Schedl, Thomas & Way, 1995). It is a
reading comprehension subtest of the 2006 institutional TOEFL Test and contains five
passages, reflecting general academic matters and 30 questions (See Appendix J).
Participants read the passages silently and answer the questions by choosing one from
multiple choices. Qian and Mary (2004) reported that internal consistency reliability
was .93 in the sample of adult ELLs with various native language backgrounds. The
administration time is about 20 minutes. The internal consistency reliability of this
measure was .90 in this sample.
Gray Silent Reading Tests –Third Edition (GSRT-3). This test consists of 13
developmentally sequenced reading passages with five multiple-choice questions
(Weiderholt & Blalock, 2000). The present study choose the form A as the measure of
reading comprehension The technical manual reports that reliability coefficients alphas of
form A are at or above .97 in the sample aged from 18 to 25 (See Appendix K) . The
administration time is about 30 minutes. The internal consistency reliability of this
measure was .92 in this sample.
Procedure
First, the study received approval (See Appendix L) from the FSU Human Subject
Committee. Informed consent (See Appendix M) was obtained before the eight measures
described above were administrated. . Testing of each participant was completed in four
group sessions totaling 2 hours and 45 minutes. The metacognitive awareness measures
were administered after the reading comprehension measures, so that readers would not
27
be prompted to use strategies during the reading comprehension tests that they might not
typically use. During Session 1, the Gray Silent Reading Tests (GSRT-3) and the
Metacognitive Reading Awareness Inventory (MRAI) were administered. During Session
2, the TOEFL Reading Comprehension Subtest and the Metacognitive Reading Strategies
Questionnaire (MRSQ) were administered. During Session 3, the Vocabulary Level Test
(VS) and the Syntactic Awareness Questionnaire (SAQ) were administered. During
Session 4, the Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure (DVK) and the Sentence
Combination Subtest of TOAL-4 were administered. In order to control for order effects
of sessions, counterbalancing was employed. There were 8 classes of students, which
each included about 35 participants, and two groups each were randomly assigned to
receive one of four orders of the sessions (see Table 1). After participants completed all
the measures, they were provided with a debriefing statement containing detailed
information about this study (See Appendix N).
Table 1
Counterbalancing of Four Sessions
Group Order of four sessions
Group (2 classes) 1-2-3-4
Group (2 classes) 3-4-1-2
Group (2 classes) 2-1-4-3
Group (2 classes) 4-3-2-1
Note. Session 1: Gray Silent Reading Tests (GSRT-3) and the Metacognitive
Reading Awareness Inventory (MRAI); Session 2: TOEFL Reading
Comprehension Subtest and the Metacognitive Reading Strategies Questionnaire
(MRSQ); Session 3: Vocabulary Level Test (VS) and the Syntactic Awareness
Questionnaire (SAQ); Session 4: Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure
(DVK) and the Sentence Combination Subtest of TOAL-4.
28
CHAPTER THREE
RESULTS
Data Issues and Descriptive Statistics
The data were examined for outliers, skewness, kurtosis and missing data.
Seventeen univariate outliers (three for Vocabulary Level test, four for Syntactic
Awareness Questionnaire, and ten for Metacognitive Reading Awareness Inventory) were
identified and recoded to be no greater than or less than two interquartile ranges from the
median. No bivariate outliers were found by the inspection of scatter plots. To determine
whether multivariate outliers existed, Mahalanobis distance was used to sort all the cases.
A probability estimate, p< .001, for a case being an outlier was used (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001). This procedure did not show any multivariate outliers. All the skewness
and kurtosis values fell within the acceptable ranges.
Mean standard deviation, reliabilities, and intercorrelations are shown in Table 2.
It is clear that the reliabilities of all the measures are good to excellent, with the exception
of that for the measures of syntactic awareness (TOAL and SAQ). Item analyses were
conducted with the measures of TOAL and SAQ. Of particular interest was whether the
reliability would rise substantially if items were removed from the measure. Item-total
correlations were examined, as were the alpha levels that would result if the specific
items removed. Based on this criterion, the reliability of TOAL increased from .511
to .60 and SAQ’s reliability increased from .521 to .624, raising both to acceptable levels.
However, these results indicated that even though bad items were deleted from these two
measures, the measures themselves are not ideal.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations for All Observed Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. VS ______
2. DVK .480** ______
3. TOAL .170** .215** ______
4. SAQ .247** .299** .133* ______
29
Variable
5. MRSQ
1
.187**
2
.127*
3
.043
4
.036
5
______
6 7 8
6. MRAI .184** .253** .076 .051 .294** ______
7. TOEFL .431** .353** .131* .265** .146* .239** ______
8. GRST .434** .372** .129* .126* .179** .278** .386* ______
M 58.604 81.509 8.247 6.022 31.738 10.652 21.594 33.173
Sample Range 16-94 16-143 1-14 1-11 10-44 4-19 7-47 9-56
SD 19.095 30.879 2.595 2.329 5.823 3.970 10.060 12.240
Reliability .956 .972 .60 .624 a872. /b828. .821 .897 .920
Skewness
Kurtosis
-.524
.073
-.364
-.596
-.113
-.322
.093
-.306
-.621
.851
.723
-.552
.472
-1.001
-.267
-.958
Note. N=278; * p<.05; ** p<.01; reliability of two components; b reliability of analytic-
cognitive component.
a
All correlations among the individual measures of vocabulary knowledge,
syntactic awareness, metacognitive awareness and reading comprehension were
significant except the correlations between the measures of syntactic awareness and those
of metacognitive awareness. For the MRSQ, Taraban et al. (2004) suggested that there
were two components, analytic-cognitive and pragmatic-behavioral components, in this
measure. Only the analytic-cognitive component was significantly correlated with
students’ expected grades in Taraban et al.’s study. The exploratory factor analysis
conducted with the MRSQ data from the present study also showed that there were two
components accounting for 36.41% of the variance, consistent with Taraban et al.’s study.
Therefore, the analytic-cognitive component was selected for statistical analysis. The
internal consistency reliability of the analytic-cognitive component was .828 in the
current data set.
To handle the missing data, traditional methods such as listwise deletion, pairwise
deletion, mean substitution and regression-based single imputation may produce
substantial bias and increase type II error rates. Therefore, a multiple imputation method
was preferable, even with the small amount of missing data (Graham, Cumsille & Elek-
30
Fisk, 2003). More specifically, regression-based single imputed values lack error
variance. However, multiple imputations can add a random error term to each imputed
value to restore the variability. Moreover, multiple imputations use bootstrap methods to
augment the data, which involves a “two-step, iterative procedure. For each step, one has
an i (imputation) and a p (posterior) step. In each i step, data augmentation stimulates the
data based on the current set of parameters. In each p step, data augmentation stimulates
the parameters given the current data” (Graham, Cumsille & Elek-Fisk, 2003, p.94). That
is to say, the missing data are replaced by the predicted scores based on the regression
equation with all the other available scores in the data set as predictors. With this process,
the parameters from one step of data augmentation depend on the parameters form the
immediately preceding step.
For the missing pattern in the present study, some participants did take part in the
measurement session, but for whatever reason did not respond to some questions in some
measures (item nonresponse). If the participant missed above 25% of all the items in one
measure, the present study would consider this measure as the missing data. The total
score for this measure was computed, rather than computing the individual items.Using
the Schafer (2000) NORM program, 20 completed data sets were created using multiple
imputation process to compute the missing values. The percentage of missing measures
in the present study ranged from 0.72% to 2.16% across all the measures. The patterns of
missing data for the variables included in the main analyses are shown in Table 3. Amos
6.0 was used to estimate each of the hypothesized models from the multiple imputed data
sets, and then to average parameter estimates and obtain combined standard errors.
Table 3
Missing Data Patterns for Variables included in the Main Analysis
Variables
Chinese TOAL SAQ DVK VS MRSQ MRAI TOEFL GRST Freq
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 245
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
31
Chinese TOAL SAQ DVK VS MRSQ MRAI TOEFL GRST Freq
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2
1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2
1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
Note. “1” = participants provided data; “0” = participant did not provide the data.
In order to partial out the effect of verbal intelligence, the present study obtained
the residual scores of individual measures of vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness,
metacognitive awareness and reading comprehension, after conducting the simple
regression analysis in which Matriculation Chinese test was considered as the
independent variable, with each measure as subsequently the dependent variable. The
standard residual scores of all the measures were used for the following statistical
analysis.
Research Purpose 1: The Respective Roles of 3 Constructs in Reading Comprehension
The following analyses were based on the full sample.
Research Question 1.1. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to
evaluate the measurement model. All CFAs were based on covariance matrices. Initially,
CFAs were conducted for the present study to confirm the fit of the data to the proposed
three-factor model of Vocabulary Knowledge, Syntactic Awareness and Metacognitive
Awareness. Additional nested models were tested to determine if any two-factor model or
one-factor model offered a better fit to the data than the three-factor model. All the
models were identified, which demonstrated that a unique set of parameter estimates
were obtained. The Amos program produces a range of goodness of fit indices. The
value is a likelihood ratio test statistics evaluating the fit between the restricted
hypothesized model and the unrestricted sample data. The model would be accepted if the
2x
32
value is small and nonsignificant. However, a large sample size generates the problem of
good-fitting data being rejected, according to the value of (Marsh, 1994). Therefore,
for this study other statistics were used to evaluate the model fit, such as the Tucker
Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the root mean squared error of
approximation (RMSEA). A cut-off value (TLI) of .95, or greater, indicates a close fit.
The same standard holds for the CFI (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Browne and Cudeck (1993)
recommended that for RMSEA, a value of .05 or less represents a close fit. Concerning
the value of ratio of to degree of freedom, 2 to 1 or less suggests a close fit. The fit
indices for all the models are shown in Table 4. The fit indices indicated that both the
three-factor model and two-factor model, with vocabulary/syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness as separate factors, provided a good fit to the data.
2x
2x
To compare the model fit of the three two-factor models and the one-factor
model to three-factor model, difference tests were conducted. Nonsignificant
difference tests would demonstrate that the constraints imposed on the three-factor model
to obtain the two-factor or one-factor models provide a better fit to the data than the
three-factor model. The results in Table 4 indicate that two-factor model of vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacogntiive awareness offered the best fit to the
data, which suggested that vocabulary knowledge was so highly correlated with syntactic
awareness that they were not separate psychological construct in the present study. The
two-factor model is illustrated in Figure 6, with standardized regression weight and error
variances. Since the sample size is 278 with df equal to 8, the power for the two-factor
model was .181, as suggested by MacCallum et al. (1996). Statistical power for structural
equation modeling is defined as the probability of testing the hypothesis about model fit
(
2x
2x
Cohen, 1988). The power of this two-factor model is low. However, this model offered a
good fit to the data, based on the model fit evaluation (TIL; CFI; RMSEA). Because there
are only two separate cognitive constructs, the research hypotheses about whether
vocabulary knowledge has an indirect effect on reading comprehension via syntactic
awareness and metacognitive awareness and whether syntactic awareness has an indirect
effect on reading comprehension via metacognitive awareness could not be tested.
33
Table 4
Model Fit Indices
Model 2x df p dfx /2
RMSEA TLI CFI 2
differenceX
1. Three-factor
model: VC,
SYTA, META
3.831 6 .699 .639 .000 1.035 1.000
2. Two-factor
model :
VC/SYTA,
META
5.618 8 .689 .702 ,000 1.029 1.000 (2 vs 1)
1.787
3. Two-factor
model: VC,
SYTA/META
23.818 8 .003 2.977 .085 .811 .899 (3 vs 1)
19.987**
4. Two-factor
model:
VC/META,
SYTA
23.701 8 .003 2.963 .084 .812 .899 (4 vs 1)
19.87**
5. One-factor
model:
linguistic
knowledge
23.867 8 .003 2.652 .077 .842 .905 (5 vs 1)
20.04**
Note. N=278. VC=Vocabulary Knowledge; SYTA=Syntactic Awareness;
META=Metacognitive Awareness; RMSEA=root mean squared error of approximation;
TLI=Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI=Comparative Fit Index. ** p<.01.
34
.39
E4zVS
.63
Figure 6. Two-factor model.
Research Question 1. 2. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the
contribution of the two factors (vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness) to reading comprehension outcomes of adult English language
learners. The structural portion of the two-factor model was based on the covariance
META
.45
zMRAI E6.66
.21
zMRSQ E5
.45
.59
zDVK E3.77
VC/SYTA .15.39
.45**
zSAQ E2.27
.07
zTOAL E1
35
matrix and identified. The results showed that the structural portion of the model
provided a good fit to the data, since (p=.44); TLI=.998; CFI=.998;
RMSEA=.009. The significant path from one factor to the dependent variable indicates
that this factor makes a unique contribution to explaining the variance of the dependent
variable over or beyond its shared covariance with the other factors. However, a
nonsignificant path does not mean that this factor is not correlated with the dependent
variable. Possibly, this factor is significantly correlated with the dependent variable and
with the other factors, which thus reduces its unique contribution to predicting the
outcome. The structural portion of two-factor model is presented in Figure 7. Since the
sample size was 278, with df equal to 17, power for this structural equation model
was .414, which is moderate, suggested by MacCallum et al. (1996). Even though this
power is not desirable, the structural portion model provided the good fit to the data.
,34.172 =x
Figure 7. Structural portion model.
META
.87
Reading
VC/SYTA
.79**
.25
res
.45**
36
The results suggested that the path weight from the vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness to reading comprehension was significant. However,
metacognitive awareness did not make a unique contribution to explaining the variance of
reading comprehension because it is significantly correlated with vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness. In addition, correlations (See Table 5) of vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness with reading
comprehension were both high (r= .90, p<.01; r= .61, p<.01). As Table 5 shows, for the
two-factor model, 87% of variance in reading comprehension was explained by the
vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness factors taken
together. The squared correlation indicates the proportion of explained variance in the
dependent variable. Therefore, vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness explained
81% of the variance in reading comprehension, when controlling for the construct of
metacognitive awareness. Metacognitive awareness contributed 37% variance, with the
construct of vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness controlled.
Table 5
Regression and Correlation Summary for the Structural Portion Model
Note. N=278. VC=Vocabulary Knowledge; SYTA=Syntactic Awareness;
META=Metacognitive Awareness.
VC/SYTA
Reading
X
META
VC/SYTA
X
META
Beta .79* .25
r .90* .61* .45*
% explained 81% 37%
% jointly explained 87%
Research Purpose 2: The Difference between Poor and Good Readers
37
The following analyses were based only on selected subsamples including
identified poor L2 and good L2 readers.
Research Question 2.1. To explore whether there were group (poor readers vs
good readers) differences on participants’ performance on the eight measures,
multivariate analysis of variance (MANCOVA) was performed with participants’ scores
on the Matriculation Chinese test as a covariate. For the construct of vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness, 2 (group) x 4 (vocabulary knowledge and syntactic
awareness measures) multivariate analysis of variance (MANCOVA) was conducted,
followed by univariate analyses of variance (ANONVA) for the individual measures.
Wilks’s lambda of .73 was significant (p<.001), , suggesting a significant
overall difference between the poor-reader and good-reader groups. The F-ratios were as
follows: for the measure of VS, F (1, 163) = 46.66, p = .000, ; for the measure
of DVK, F (1, 163) = 26.82, p = .000, ; for the measure of TOAL, F (1, 163) =
2.41, p = .134, ; and for the measure of SAQ, F (1, 163) = 17.96, p = .000,
. These results indicated that all the F ratios were significant, except for TOAL.
27.2 =η
22.2 =η
14.2 =η
01.2 =η
10.2 =η
For the construct of metacognitive awareness, a 2 (group) x 2 (metacognitive
awareness measures) MANCOVA was performed, followed by univariate ANOVAs for
these measures. Wilks’s lambda of .922 was significant (p=.0016), , indicating
that overall group effect was significant. For the MRSQ, F (1, 163) = 5.64, p = .019,
; and for the MRAI, F (1, 163) = 11.69, p = .001, . These significant F
ratios suggested that there were significant differences between poor readers and good
readers in the performance on metacognitive awareness measures, with the good-reader
group scoring higher than the poor-reader group on all the measures (see Table 5).
08.2 =η
03.2 =η 07.2 =η
Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations of All Measures for both the Good and Poor Reader
Groups
38
TOAL SAQ VS DVK MRSQ MRAI GRST TOEFL
Good
L2
Reader
8.74
2.4
7.08
2.58
68.35
12.24
96.79
28.69
32.69
5.47
12.09
4.2
38.57
10.43
35.36
3.92
Poor L2
Reader
8.07
2.53
5.46
2.53
51.38
17.97
73.16
28.95
30.56
6.26
9.91
3.37
27.12
12.01
11.11
1.60
Research Question 2.2. To examine whether the relation between vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness to metacognitive awareness differs across the two groups,
multigroup analyses were used to test the structural model in Figure 6 (Bryan, 2001;
Kline, 2005). The current study first tested the unconstrained model with both poor and
good readers simultaneously and then defined the model by imposing equal constraints
on some parameters across the both groups (constrained model). The significance of chi-
square changes with respect to changes in degree of freedom was examined to determine
the extent to which constraint was tenable, as the constrained model was nested within
the unconstrained model. More specifically, if the chi-square difference statistic does not
reveal a significant difference between the unconstrained model and the constrained
model, it could be concluded that the model holds across groups. The standard scores
were used here to examine the correlations instead of the covariance.
For the correlation of vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and
metacognitve awareness, the measurement invariance test was conducted by constraining
this correlation to be equal across the two groups. The value of chi-square for
unconstrained model was 42.694, df =34, p=.16; the value of chi-square for constrained
model was 42.746, df = 18. Therefore, the chi-square test of invariance was .052, df =1,
p=.82. This result indicated that the equality constraint does hold across two groups. That
is to say, the association between vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness is the same across the poor-reader and good-reader groups.
Research Question 2.3. The hypothesis was that the association of the two latent
constructs vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness with
reading comprehension would differ across the poor-reader and good-reader groups. To
test this hypothesis, first, unconstrained models were analyzed in each of two groups.
39
These two models are shown separately in Figure 8 and Figure 9. In the model for
the good-reader (Figure 8), the vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness construct
significantly predicted reading comprehension, ,16.=β SE = .075, Z = 2.178. A Z-value,
associated with the unstandardized weight, greater than 1.96 is considered as significant
at the .05 level (Bentler, 1995). However, the metacognitive awareness construct did not
make a unique contribution to predicting reading comprehension, ,07.=β SE = .099, Z
= .693. In the poor-reader model (Figure 9), neither of the paths from vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness to reading comprehension
was significant. Vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness was not a significant
predictor, ,46.−=β SE = .034, Z = -.458. Similarly, metacognitive awareness did not
contribute significantly to reading comprehension, ,005.−=β SE = .014, Z = -.366. That
none of paths are significant is possibly due to suppression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
High correlation between the two constructs may have suppressed their true relations
with reading comprehension. It is worth noting that the correlation between vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness was stronger (.68) for the
poor L2 reader group than that (.35) for the good L2 reader group. However, just as the
above-mentioned result suggested, there is no significant difference between poor- and
good-reader groups in the correlation between vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness
and metacognitive awareness.
40
Figure 8. The good-reader model.
META
.
Reading
VC/SYTA
.49*
.16
res
.35*
41
Figure 9. The poor-reader model.
Next, the extent to which either vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness or
metacognitive awareness as measured here was necessary for predicting reading
comprehension was tested. A model in which the two predictors were allowed to vary
freely in predicting reading comprehension was compared with ones in which either the
vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness construct or the metacognitive awareness
construct was constrained to equal 0 in both the poor-reader and good-reader groups.
Comparing the fit of each constrained model to the unconstrained model can give insight
into each predictor’s unique contribution. More specifically, if either constrained model
leads to a poorer fit than the basic model, it means that the predictor constrained to zero
adds more to the prediction beyond what has been already explained by the other
META
Reading
VC/SYTA
-.95
-.28
res
.68*
42
predictor (Schoonen, Hulstijin & Bossoers, 1998). Table 5 summarizes the changes
across two groups when vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness or metacognitive
awareness was removed from the model.
2x
Table 7
Chi-Square Tests Constraining Models
Vocabulary
Knowledge/Syntactic
Awareness Chi-Square
Metacognitive Awareness
Chi-Square
Good-reader group
5.23* .46
Poor-reader group
4.11* 2.68
Note. * p<.05
From these results, it shows that the relative contributions of vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness remained the same across
the good reader and poor reader groups. That is to say, for both groups, the construct of
vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness was superior in predicting reading
comprehension over metacognitive awareness. However, whether the correlation of the
two latent constructs, vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive
awareness, with reading comprehension would significantly differ across the poor-reader
and good-reader groups has not yet been demonstrated. To do this, the alternate models
were tested across the two groups simultaneously. First, the path of the construct of
vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness to reading comprehension was constrained to
be equal across poor-reader and good-reader groups. In this constrained model, the results
suggested adequate fit of the data with the equal constraint, the value of chi-square was
44.95, df=35, p=.13. The comparison with the unconstrained model (chi-square=42.694,
df =34, p=.16), yielded a chi-square difference value of 2.256, df=1, p=.13. Thus, the
43
construct of vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness predicted reading comprehension
similarly across the poor-reader and good-reader groups.
Using the same method, the path of metacognitive awareness to reading
comprehension was constrained to be equal across the two groups. The model fit indexes
for this constrained model showed that the model fit the data very well, chi-
square=43.095, df=35, p=.18. A comparison of this model with the above unconstrained
model yielded a chi-square difference value of .041, df=1, p=.84. Again, this result
demonstrated that the metacognitive awareness construct predicted reading
comprehension similarly across the poor-reader and good-reader groups.
All in all, across the poor-reader and good-reader groups, there was no significant
difference in the correlations of vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness with reading comprehension.
44
CHAPTER FOUR
DISCUSSION
Interpretation of Results
The main goal of the present study was to investigate the respective roles of
vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness in explaining
the reading comprehension of adult English language learners. The purpose of this study
was twofold: a) to examine whether vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness were three separate psychological constructs and how these
constructs related to reading comprehension; and b) to ascertain any differences between
poor readers and good readers in the relations of those constructs to reading
comprehension. The results related to these two purposes will be addressed first, followed
by a discussion of their implications and their limitations. Finally, questions for future
will be addressed.
Results addressing the first research purpose indicated that a two-factor model of
vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness provided the
best fit to the sample data. These results suggest that vocabulary knowledge, syntactic
awareness, and metacognitive awareness are not completely distinguishable from one
another, at least using the measures employed in the present study. Vocabulary
knowledge was so highly correlated with syntactic awareness that neither of them could
be distinguished as separate factors explaining reading comprehension. One clear
possibility was that performance on syntactic awareness measures might partially depend
on vocabulary knowledge (Tunmer et al., 1987). For example, in order to write one
grammatically correct sentence from the given two or more sentences, English language
learners need to know the word class associated with each word and the syntactic
structures which individual words can enter. Therefore, it makes sense that vocabulary
knowledge was highly correlated with syntactic awareness, which is supported by the
many previous research studies reporting high correlations between them (e.g., Gelderen
et al., 2004; Shiotsu & Weir, 2007).
Additionally, Shiotsu and Weir (2007) argued the (in)divisibility of the
competences of vocabulary knowledge and syntactic awareness and suspected that “the
developments of these putatively distinct elements of linguistic knowledge overlap to a
45
substantial extent that factor analysis would produce a common underlying variable
capable of explaining much of their variance” (p. 122). However, this argument might
appear to contradict findings suggesting that vocabulary knowledge and syntactic
awareness were separate psychological construct from the previous studies (Muter,
Hulme, Snowling & Steveson, 2004; Shiotsu & Weir, 2007). Contradictory results might
be caused by the difference in the methods of measuring syntactic awareness and
vocabulary knowledge. Shiotsu and Weir (2007) pointed out that “a test of syntactic
knowledge should attempt to reduce the need for semantic processing as far as possible
and keep contextualization to a minimum” (p. 106). The measures of syntactic awareness
in the present study involved the ability of vocabulary knowledge. Thus, the participants,
English language learners with limited vocabulary knowledge, would possibly have
difficulty in combining sentences and articulating what the rules of syntax are in English.
Thus, this is a likely reason why vocabulary knowledge and syntactic awareness could
not be distinguished as separate factors in the present study.
The present study also examined the relations between vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness, metacognitive awareness, and reading comprehension. .
The results of confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling indicated
that the correlation between vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness was medium and positive. That this is not a large correlation
makes conceptual sense if these are indeed two separate psychological constructs:
linguistic knowledge (i.e., vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness) versus
metacognitive awareness (i.e., of the reading strategies readers employed in the reading
process).
In addition, the results of structural equation modeling indicated that vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness was more highly correlated with reading comprehension
than was metacognitive awareness. Vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness made a
significant unique contribution to explaining the variance of reading comprehension.
These results add to the large body of evidence that linguistic knowledge (mainly L2
vocabulary) is important for successful L2 reading, as Alderson (1984) and Gelderen et al.
(2004) suggested. Similarly, in the field of L1 reading research, linguistic knowledge also
plays important role in L1 reading comprehension, as Gough, Hoover and Peterson (1996)
46
suggested that reading comprehension would depend more heavily on semantic and
syntactic language skills as English-speaking children get older. Furthermore, for adult
readers, L2 linguistic knowledge was a consistently more powerful predictor of their L2
reading comprehension than their L1 language skills (Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995) In
contrast, metacognitive awareness did not make a unique contribution to predicting
reading comprehension. The correlation between metacognitive awareness and reading
comprehension, however, was substantial, which suggests that metacognitive awareness
is also important for L2 reading comprehension. The absence of a unique contribution
may indicate that individual differences in metacognitive awareness and L2 linguistic
knowledge (vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness) are interdependent and that L2
linguistic knowledge (mainly vocabulary knowledge) is the more powerful predictor.
The second research purpose was to explore the differences between poor readers
and good readers in the relations between vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness,
metacognitive awareness, and reading comprehension. MANCOVA analysis showed that
poor readers differed significantly from the good readers on the measures of vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness. These results lend strong
support to the view, suggested by Tabors and Snow (2000) that deficient vocabulary
knowledge was a significant cause of reading difficulty in second language learners with
limited proficiency in spoken English. These results are also consistent with the view that
poor readers have difficulty in the tasks requiring complex syntax (Mann, Shankweiler &
Smith, 1984). Syntactic deficits inevitably are a significant cause of reading problems,
even in children who have adequate facility in word identification (Snow, 2000). The
significant difference between poor and good L2 readers in the measures of
metacognitive awareness are also aligned with the finding that bilingual Latina/o children
who were skilled English readers possessed more unique reading strategies than less
successful English readers (Jimenez, Garcia & Pearson, 1996). Similar to children, adult
L2 readers who think they use reading strategies considered most productive (i.e.,
perceived strategy use) actually do read better and understand more than do those who do
not think they use such reading strategies (Barnett, 1988).
Besides the difference between poor readers and good readers in the performance
on all the measures administered, the present study also explored the correlation between
47
vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness across the two
groups. Multiple group analysis of structural equation modeling indicated that the
association between vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive
awareness was the same across the poor-reader and good-reader groups.
The current study also examined whether the relations between the constructs of
vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness with reading
comprehension were different across the poor-reader and good-reader groups. For the
good-reader model, the vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness construct made a
significant contribution to predicting reading comprehension, with the path from the
metacognitive awareness construct to reading comprehension nonsignificant. In contrast,
for the poor-reader model, neither of two constructs made a significant contribution to
explaining the variance of reading comprehension, most likely because of the high
correlation between the two constructs. However, removing the vocabulary
knowledge/syntactic awareness construct from the path analysis (i.e., constraining the
path to be zero) predicting reading comprehension in both the poor-reader and good-
reader groups significantly reduced the models’ fit, compared with the unconstrained
models. This is not surprising, given the plethora of studies on the importance of
vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness to reading English. However, removing the
metacognitive awareness measures from the model did not reduce the model fit for either
the poor-reader or good-reader groups. These results suggest that the relative
contributions of each construct of vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and
metacognitive awareness to reading comprehension may remain constant across the poor-
reader and good-reader groups. Similarly, when constraining the paths between the two
constructs and reading comprehension, respectively, to be equal across poor and good
groups, the results indicated that the relation of vocabulary knowledge/syntactic
awareness and metacognitive awareness with reading comprehension remained the same
across the poor-reader and good-reader groups.
These results together with the results just discussed lend strong support to the
conclusion that reading is primarily a linguistic skill (Frost, 1998). Therefore linguistic
deficits are causally related to reading difficulty. Limited vocabulary knowledge and
syntactic deficits might be significant causes of reading difficulties in at least some
48
beginning readers (Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004). Similarly, for
English language learners, Van der Leij and Morfidi (2006) suggested that the delay in
reading development in English was connected with poor text reading and vocabulary
knowledge for Dutch secondary students. A weakness in syntactic skills is also expected
to impair the development of L2 reading skills (Crombie, 1997).
Implications
The importance of vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive
awareness in reading comprehension carries important theoretical and educational
implications for reading research. First, the present study provides evidence of the
noteworthy contribution of vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness to explaining the
reading comprehension of ELLs, which supports the notion that vocabulary knowledge
instruction is a necessary component of reading instruction for ELLs. Research on
effective practice in improving vocabulary knowledge for ELLs suggests targeting both
dimensions of breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge (Ordonez et al., 2002),
teaching cognate awareness as well as providing engaging text (Guthrie & Wigfield,
2000). Furthermore, the high correlation between vocabulary knowledge and syntactic
awareness obtained from the present study indicates that for ELLs, a lack of syntactic
knowledge may affect their incidental vocabulary learning. Therefore, to make
vocabulary instruction effective in improving reading comprehension, vocabulary
instruction may be more powerful when it includes the component of syntactic
knowledge.
Second, the present study establishes the importance of L2 metacognitive
awareness of reading strategies in explaining L2 reading comprehension. The difference
between good readers and poor readers in the latent ability of metacognitive awareness
lends strong support to the previous studies suggesting that good readers know more and
use more reading strategies in the reading process than poor readers (Paris & Jacobs,
1984; Paris & Myers, 1981).
Third, the difference between poor readers and good readers in the measures of
vocabulary knowledge/syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness challenge our
conception of the reading problem. Previous research studies supported the phonological
core problem related to reading disorders in English-speaking populations (Snowling,
49
1987; Stanovich, 1988; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Similarly, de Jong and van der Leij
(2003) concluded that phonological processing is persistently vulnerable in L2 delayed or
weaker seventh and eighth graders. Moreover, adults with reading disabilities may also
have a deficit in phonological processing (Elbro, Nielson, & Petersen, 1994; Shafrir &
Siegel, 1994). However, recent research suggests promising ways of balancing
phonological awareness and other language aspects at the different developing levels for
poor readers (Frost, 2000; Henry, 1988; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998; Spear-Swerling &
Sternberg, 1994). For example, including vocabulary and syntax in every-day language
instruction may be critical at the age from three to four (Gombert, 1992). Elbro et al,
(1994) provided intriguing evidence that adult poor readers experienced difficulties at the
metalinguistic level including vocabulary knowledge and syntactic awareness. The
results of the present study extend the evidence of this line of research. For adult ELLs,
the integration of vocabulary knowledge and syntactic awareness as well as
metacognitive awareness of reading strategies may be crucial.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
There are some limitations to the present study that should be pointed out, with
these providing directions for future research in this area. First, since this was a
correlational study and all the measurements were collected within a short period of time,
one cannot assume claims and conclusions concerning causal relations. Another
important consideration in the evaluation of covariance structure models is the problem
of equivalent models. For most structural models, it is necessary to generate alternative
models, represented by different patterns characterizing the relationship among variables,
and indistinguishable from the original model in terms of providing the goodness of fit to
data. However, equivalent models pose a threat to the validity of interpreting data, which
causes a serious problem, serving as the problem of confounded effects in experimental
research (MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993). Future longitudinal and
experimental studies may shed more light on the estimation of causal influence.
Second, vocabulary knowledge and syntactic awareness were not adequately
measured as separate constructs. This prompts questions about the construct validity of
the vocabulary knowledge and syntactic awareness measures. Possibly, the measures
chosen for the constructs of vocabulary knowledge and syntactic awareness did not
50
measure these constructs as well as other measures that might be developed. That is to
say, the syntactic awareness measures in the current study involved the processing of
visually presented and contextualized text, which may require vocabulary and reading
skills beyond only syntactic awareness. Model indices were used to determine whether
model fit would be improved if additional paths between the measures within each
theoretical construct were added. These indices showed that if the path was added from
DVK to TOEFL, the model fit would improve. Similarly, if the path was added between
SAQ and GSRT, the model fit would also improve. These results appear to indicate that
these two measures may be assessing other constructs that are related to reading
comprehension, but which are different than those assessed by their companion measures.
Thus, another direction of future research is to develop syntactic awareness measures for
ELLs, which would allow vocabulary knowledge and syntactic awareness constructs to
be separately identified. Just as Shiotsu and Weir (2007) pointed out, syntactic awareness
measures should be designed to reduce the need for semantic ability as much as possible
as well as to keep contextualization to a minimum.
The third limitation is the limitations of back-translation method employed in the
present study. The two measures of the metacognitive awareness construct were
translated into Chinese from English. The two translators were both Chinese doctoral
students and may have shared a common world view. Thus, it is possible that they
developed identical versions of the original instrument even though the connotation of the
original version has been lost in the translated version (Marin & Marin, 1991). To
minimize the limitation of back-translation method, future studies could use more than
two translators and more than one iteration of the back-translation method (Marin &
Marin, 1991).
Forth, the participants in the present study were all English language learners in
China. Therefore, it is hard to determine whether the results obtained from the present
study can be generalized to English language learners in other countries such as the
United States or who spoke an L1 other than Mandarin Chinese. In the current study, the
English language learners’ L1 language was Mandarin Chinese, which use a very
different writing system, compared with English. More specifically, the basic unit of
Chinese, a primarily logographic system, is the character; there are about 50,000
51
characters. In contrast, the basic unit of English (an alphabetic system) is the letter, and
the entire English alphabet includes only 26 letters with simple strokes. As an alphabetic
language, pronouncing English words is typically relate to the orthographic structure of
the word-spelling, which maps phonological and morphological identities, while the
structure of Chinese words provides few or no clues about their pronunciations (Schmitt,
Pan & Tavassolli, 1994). In contrast, the linguistic background of many English language
learners in the United States often is much more similar to their native language, for
example Spanish, which shares an alphabetic system with English. Another future
research direction is to conduct cross-sectional studies to investigate the roles of
vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness in reading
comprehension in English language learners with various native languages. In addition,
the participants in the present study had self-selectedEnglish Education as a major and
were all highly educated. Therefore, the results may not be generalized to all English
language learners in China.
Fifth, models of reading comprehension suggest that both lower order and higher
order skills are necessary for successful reading (Perfetti, 1985, 1999). Low-order skills
include word recognition and letter recognition as prerequisites for lexical access. High-
order skills refer to comprehending the content of text (Gelederen et al., 2003). However,
the present study did not control the participants decoding skills or explore the predictive
role of L2 decoding skills in L2 reading comprehension. Thus, future research might
include measures of L2 decoding skills.
Finally, while participants’ L1 literacy skills and verbal intelligence were
controlled for in the present study (i.e., allowing the results to provide more accurate
estimation of the unique contributions of L2 predictors in L2 reading comprehension after
the effect of L1 literacy skills were partialed out), the present study is limited in that it
only explored the importance of L2 vocabulary knowledge, L2 syntactic awareness and
L2 metacognitive awareness in L2 reading comprehension. Current research on bilingual
populations argues that L1 literacy skills are important, even if not crucial in explaining
the variance in L2 reading comprehension outcome (Cummin, 1979, 1984). For example,
the area of phonological awareness, vocabulary knowledge and comprehension of cross-
linguistic transfer has been noticed among elementary-aged bilingual students (Lindsey,
52
Manis, & Bailey, 2003; Verhoeven, 1994). Furthermore, Alderson (1984) concluded that
“good first-language readers will read well in the foreign language once they have passed
the threshold of foreign language” (p.4). In addition, Gelderen et al. (2004) suggested that
in the transfer from L1 reading to L2 reading, metacognitive skills played an important
role. L2 reading is predominantly determined by the skillful application of L1 reading
strategies, as Goodman (1971) suggested. Thus, another possible future research direction
would be to test a more comprehensive model including L1 vocabulary knowledge, L1
syntactic awareness and L1 metacognitive awareness in the model to explore the
differential roles of L1 and L2 linguistic and metacognitive skills in predicting L2
reading comprehension.
53
APPENDIX A
DEMAGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
1. SUBID___________________
2. AGE ___________________
3. Email address _________________________________________
4. Gender: _________Male _________Female
5. When did you begin to learn English?
Before Kindergarten ______________
Kindergarten ______________
Primary school _______________
Junior middle school _______________
Senior middle school ________________
Others ________________
6. Language Background:
a. (1) What is the first language spoken? ___________________________________
Oral Proficiency: _______Above Average _______Average _______Below Average
Written Proficiency: _______Above Average _______Average _______Below
Average
(2) Would you please tell me your NUM Chinese Examination Score?
My Chinese score _________________
b. (1) What is your second language? _____________________________________
Oral Proficiency: _______Above Average _______Average _______Below Average
Written Proficiency: _______Above Average _______Average _______Below
Average
(2) Would you please tell me your NUM English Examination Score?
My English score _______________
7. How many times have you taken the TOEFL test? _____________________________
8. Have you been to English-speaking countries? _____________________________
If so, which countries? ________________
Why did you go? ___________________________________________________
How long were you there? ________________________________________
54
APPENDIX B
VOCABULARY LEVEL TEST
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
APPENDIX C
DEPTH OF VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE MEASURE
64
65
66
APPENDIX D
SENTENCE COMBINATION SUBTEST of TOALD-4
67
68
69
70
71
APPENDIX E
SYNTACTIC AWARENESS QUESTIONNAIRE
72
73
74
APPENDIX F
ENGLISH VERSION of METACOGNITIVE READING STRATEGIES
QUESTIONNAIRE
Instructions: In this part of the survey, you will indicate what you do while reading.
This part has 22 statements. Imagine that you are reading material for school. Take a
moment to think about the typical things you do to help you comprehend the material.
For each strategy statement, choose the statement that best indicates how much you use
that strategy. Please read each statement carefully.
1. When information critical to my understanding of the text is not directly stated, I
try to infer that information from the text.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
2. while reading, I write questions and notes in the margin in order to better
understand the text.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
3. as I read along, I check whether I had anticipated the current information.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
4. I search out information relevant to my reading goals.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
75
5. I try to underline when reading in order to remember the information.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
6. I try to draw on my knowledge of the topic to help me understand what I am
reading.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
7. I make notes when reading in order to remember the information.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
8. While reading, I underline and highlight important information in order to find it
more easily later on.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
9. I read material more than once in order to remember the information.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
10. after I read a text, I consider other possible interpretations to determine whether
I understood the text.
I use this strategy
___Never
76
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
11. While reading, I exploit my personal strengths in order to better understand the
text. If I am a good reader, I focus on the text; if I am good with figures and
diagrams, I focus on that information.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
12. I note how hard or easy a text is to read.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
13. as I am reading, I evaluate the text to determine whether it contributes to my
knowledge / understanding of the subject.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
14. While I am reading, I reconsider and revise my prior questions about the topic,
based on the text's content.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
15. While I am reading, I reconsider and revise my background knowledge about
the topic, based on the text's content.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
77
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
16. While I am reading, I try to determine the meaning of unknown words that seem
critical to the meaning of the text.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
17. As I am reading, I distinguish between information that I already know and new
information.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
18. I evaluate whether what I am reading is relevant to my reading goals.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
19. While reading, I visualize descriptions in order to better understand the text.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
20. When I am having difficulty comprehending a text, I re-read the text.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
78
21. after I have read a text, I anticipate how I will use the knowledge that I have
gained from reading the text.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
22. I anticipate information that will be presented later in the text.
I use this strategy
___Never
___Rarely
___Sometimes
___Often
___Always
79
APPENDIX
CHINESE VERSION OF METACOGNITIVE READING STRATEGIES
QUESTIONNAIRE
示 在 面的问卷中，你将要指出在阅读过程中，所使用的阅读策略。问卷包括 22个阅读策略。 假设你
在阅读学习资料，请你仔细思考， 了帮助理解文章内容，你通常使用了哪些阅读策略。对于以 每一个阅读
策略，请你选择一个最能表示你使用 策略的频率。请仔细阅读 面每一个阅读策略。
1当对于理解文章的重要信息没有被直接陈述时， 尽力 文章中推论出 信息。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
2 在阅读过程中， 了更好理解文章， 会在文章空白处记 问题和笔记。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
3 当 继续阅读时， 会检查 是否 经预测出文章中当前的信息。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
4 会搜寻 阅读目的相关的信息。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
5 在阅读过程中， 了记住文章的信息， 会尽力在信息 面划线。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
80
———总是 ———总是
6 尽力使用 掌握的文章 题的相关知识去帮助 理解文章。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
7在阅读过程中， 了记住文章的信息， 记笔记。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
8 在阅读中， 划线和标注重要信息， 了以后容易找到。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
9 了记住文章的信息， 只一遍的阅读 文章。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
10 在阅读文章后， 会思考其他可能的解释来判断 是否理解了文章。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
11 在阅读中， 了更好理解文章， 会运用 的个人长处。如果 是一个好的读者， 集中精力在文章 。
如果 擅长图表和图形， 会集中精力在这些信息 。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
81
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
12 会注解阅读文章的难易程度。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
13 在阅读中， 会评价文章来决定 文章是否增进 的知识和对 题的理解。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
14在阅读中，根据文章的内容， 会重新思考和修 前面 出的关于文章 题的问题。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
15在阅读中，根据文章的内容， 会重新思考和修 关于文章 题的背 知识。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
16在阅读中， 会尽力确定 认识但是对文章的理解很重要的单词的含 。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
17 在阅读中， 会区分 知的信息和新信息。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
82
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
18 会评价 阅读的文章是否 的阅读目的相关。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
19在阅读中， 了更好理解文章， 会想像文章所 述的内容。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
20 当 理解文章有困难时， 会重新读一遍。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
21 在阅读文章后， 会预 将会怎样使用 文章中获得的知识。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
22 会预测文章 面的内容。
在英语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。 在汉语阅读中， 使用 阅读策略。
——— 未 ——— 未
———很少 ———很少
———有时 ———有时
———常常 ———常常
———总是 ———总是
83
APPENDIX H
ENGLISH VERSION OF METACOGNITIVE READING AWARENESS
INVENTORY
1. What do you do if you encounter a word and you don’t know what it means?
__a. Use the word around it to figure it out.
__b. Use an outside source, such as dictionary or expert.
__c. Temporarily ignore it and wait fro clarification.
__d. Sound it out.
2. What do you do if you don’t know what an entire sentence means?
a. Read it again.
__b. Sound out all the difficult words.
__c. Think about the other sentences in the paragraph.
__d. Disregard it completely.
3. If you are reading science or social studies material, what would you do to remember
the important information you’ve read?
a. Skip parts you don’t understand.
__b. Ask yourself questions about the important ideas.
__c. Realize you need to remember one point rather than another.
__d. Relate it to something you already know.
4. Before you start to read, what kind of plans do you make to help you read better?
a. No specific plan is needed; just start reading toward completion of the
assignment.
__b. Think about what you know about the subject.
__c. Think about why you are reading.
__d. Make sure the entire reading can be finished in as short a period of time as
possible.
5. Why would you go back and read an entire passage over again?
a. You didn’t understand it.
__b. To clarify a specific or supporting idea.
__c. It seemed important to remember.
84
__d. To underline or summarize for study.
6. Knowing that you don’t understand a particular sentence while reading involves
understanding that
a. the reader may not have developed adequate links or associations for new
words or concepts introduced in the sentence.
__b. the writer may not have conveyed the ideas clearly.
__c. two sentences may purposely contradict each other.
__d. finding meaning for the sentence needlessly slows down the reader.
7. As you read a textbook, which of these do you do?
a. Adjust your pace depending on the difficulty of the material.
__b. Generally, read at a constant, steady pace.
__c. Skip the parts you don’t understand.
__d. Continually make predictions about what you are reading.
8. While you read, which of these are important?
a. Know when you know and when you don’t know key ideas.
__b. Know what it is that you know in relation to what is being read.
__c. Know that confusing text is common and usually can be ignored.
__d. Know that different strategies can be used to avoid understanding.
9. When you come across a part of the text that is confusing, what do you do?
a. Keep on reading until the text is clarified.
__b. Read ahead and then look back if the text is still unclear.
__c. Skip those sections completely; they are usually not important.
__d. Check to see if the ideas expressed are consistent with each other.
10. Which sentences are the most important in the chapter?
a. Almost all of the sentences are important; otherwise, they wouldn’t be there.
__b. The sentences that contain the important details or facts.
__c. The sentences that are directly related to the main idea.
__d. The ones that contain the most details
85
APPENDIX I
CHINESE VERSION OF METACOGNITIVE READING AWARENESS
INVENTORY
阅读策略的记录
当你在阅读中遇到困难时，你会用 只一种方式来巧妙的 付。哪种方式是最好的呢？在回答 面每一
个问题的时候，请你标出你认 所有有效的阅读策略(一个题可以有多个答案)。
1 当你遇到一个单词并 你 知道它的含 ，你会做什 ？
在英语阅读中，
____a. 通过周围的单词来确定它的含 。
____ b.用课外的来源， 例如 典或求助 家。
____ c. 暂时 理睬，等待 以后的段落中获得答案。
____ d. 念出来。
在汉语阅读中，
____a. 通过周围的单词来确定它的含 。
____b.用课余的来源， 例如 典或求助 家。
____c. 暂时 理睬，以后再查明。
____d. 念出来。
2 如果你 知道整个句子的含 ，你会做什 ？
在英语阅读中，
____a. 再读一遍。
____b. 念出所有难的单词。
____c. 仔细考虑段落中其他的句子。
____d. 完全忽视 句子。
在汉语阅读中，
____a. 再读一遍。
____b. 念出所有难的单词。
____c. 彻 地想一想段落中其他的句子。
____d. 完全忽视 句子。
3 如果你在阅读关于科学或社会科学的文章，你怎样能记住你所阅读过的重要信息？
在英语阅读中，
____a. 跳过你 能理解的部分。
____b. 向自 出关于文章重点内容的问题。
____c. 意识到你需要记住哪一点。
____d. 把文中内容和你所知道的联系起来。
在汉语阅读中，
____a. 跳过你 能理解的部分。
____b. 向自 出关于文章重点内容的问题。
____c. 意识到你需要记住哪一点。
____d. 把文中内容和你所知道的联系起来。
4 在你阅读之前，你会用什 样的 划去帮助你更好的理解文章？
在英语阅读中，
____a. 没有详细的 划 仅仅 了读完这篇文章。
86
____b. 仔细考虑你对文章 题所知道的相关知识。
____c. 仔细考虑你 什 阅读 文章。
____d. 确信你能在尽可能的短时间内读完。
在汉语阅读中，
____a. 没有详细的 划 仅仅 了完 作业而阅读。
____b. 仔细考虑你对文章 题所知道的相关知识。
____c. 仔细考虑你 什 阅读 文章。
____d. 确信你能在尽可能的短时间内读完。
5 你 什 返回重新阅读整段文章？
在英语阅读中，
____a. 你 理解它。
____b. 了找出某个特定的支持的 点。
____c. 它看起来很重要需要被记住。
____d. 了学习，做标记或总结。
在汉语阅读中，
____a. 你 理解它。
____b. 了找出某个特定的支持的 点。
____c. 它看起来很重要去记住。
____d. 了学习，做标记或总结。
6 在阅读中，你知道你 能理解某个句子，原因是
在英语阅读中，
____a. 阅读者没有对句中的新单词或概念建立适当的联系。
____b. 作者没有清楚地传达他的含 。
____c. 两个句子相互矛盾。
____d. 必要地搜寻句中信息减慢阅读速度。
在汉语阅读中，
____a. 阅读者没有对句中的新单词或概念建立适当的联系。
____b. 作者没有清楚地传达他的含 。
____c. 两个句子相互矛盾。
____d. 必要地确定句子的含 会减慢阅读速度。
7 当你阅读教科书时，你会做以 哪些事情？
在英语阅读中，
____a. 根据文章难易程度，调整阅读速度。
____b. 大体 ，以 变的，稳定的速度阅读。
____c. 跳过 理解的部分。
____d. 断地对 在阅读的内容作出推测。
在汉语阅读中，
____a. 根据文章难易程度，调整阅读速度。
____b. 大体 ，以 变的，稳定的速度阅读。
____c. 跳过 理解的部分。
____d. 断地对 在阅读的内容作出推测。
8 当你阅读的时候，以 哪些很重要？
在英语阅读中，
____a. 知道你什 时候理解了 要内容和什 时候没理解。
____b. 知道你所了解的 你 在阅读的内容相关。
____c. 知道易混淆的文章很 遍，经常可以被忽视。
____d. 知道可以用 同的阅读策略来 高阅读。
87
在汉语阅读中，
____a. 知道你什 时候理解了 要内容和什 时候没理解。
____b. 知道你所了解的 你 在阅读的内容相关。
____c. 知道易混淆的文章很 遍，经常可以被忽视。
____d. 知道可以用 同的阅读策略来 高阅读。
9 当你遇到难以理解的文章的某个部分时，你会怎样做？
在英语阅读中，
____a. 继续阅读，直到文章清 的时候。
____b. 继续阅读，如果文章 然 清 ，返回。
____c. 完全跳过 部分 它们通常 重要。
____d. 检查来确定文中所表达的 点是否相一致。
在汉语阅读中，
____a. 继续阅读，直到文章清 的时候。
____b. 继续阅读，如果文章 然 清 ，返回。
____c. 完全跳过 部分 它们通常 重要。
____d. 检查来确定文中所表达的内容是否相一致。
10 在本章中，以 哪些句子最重要？
在英语阅读中，
____a. 几乎所有的句子都重要 否则它们就 会 在。
____b. 那些包含重要细节或事实的句子。
____c. 那些直接 要内容相关的句子。
____d. 那些包含最重要细节的句子。
在汉语阅读中，
____a. 几乎所有的句子都重要 否则它们就 会 在。
____b. 那些包含重要细节或事实的句子。
____c. 那些直接 要内容相关的句子。
____d. 那些包含最重要细节的句子。
88
APPENDIX J
TOEFL READING COMPREHENSION SUBTEST of TOEFL-RBC
89
90
91
92
93 93
94
95 95
96 96
97 97
98 98
99 99
100 100
APPENDIX K
GRAY SILENT READING TESTS-THIRD EDITION
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
APPENDIX L
HUMAN SUBJECT APPROVAL
APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
Date: 4/5/2007
To: Ying Guo
Address: 306 Pennell Circle Apt. 5 Tallahassee, FL 32310
Dept.: EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LEARNING SYSTEMS
From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair
Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research
INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF VOCABUALRY KNOWLEDGE, SYNTACTIC AWARENESS AND
METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS IN READING COMPREHENISON OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNERS
The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use
of human subjects in the proposal referenced above have been reviewed
by the Secretary, the Chair, and two members of the Human Subjects
Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per 45 CFR §
46.110(7) and has been approved by an expedited review process.
The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for
scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants
and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit.
This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals,
which may be required.
If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the
approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval
notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in
recruiting research subjects.
If the project has not been completed by 3/28/2008 you must request a
renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a
renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date;
however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to
timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee.
You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be
reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the
proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is
required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition,
federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly
report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events
involving risks to research subjects or others.
By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your
major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being
informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the
department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure
that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution
and with DHHS regulations.
This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human
Research Protection. The Assurance Number is IRB00000446.
Cc: Alysia Roehrig, Advisor
HSC No. 2007.391
114
APPENDIX M
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
115
APPENDIX N
DEBRIEFING STATEMENT
Investigating the role of vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension of English language learners
Debriefing Statement Thank you for taking the time to participate in this experiment. In this study, I tested your vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness, metacognitive awareness and reading comprehension. For vocabulary knowledge, you were administered Vocabulary Level Test and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure. The two tests measure the breath and depth of your vocabulary knowledge. Breadth is number of words that have some level of meaning to an individual, and depth is the richness of knowledge that the individual possesses about the words that are known. Syntactic awareness refers to understanding of the rules of grammar and the way that sentences are constructed. To test the syntactic awareness, you were administered Sentence Combination Subtest of Test of Adolescent and Adult Language and Syntactic Awareness Questionnaire. For metacognitive awareness, you were administered Metacognitive Reading Strategies Questionnaire and Metacognitive Reading Awareness Inventory. To test your reading comprehension ability, you were administered TOEFL Reading Comprehension Subtest and the Descriptive Test of Language Skills-Reading Comprehension Test. The responses to these tests will allow me to examine the role of vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension. It is predicted that vocabulary knowledge maintained both proximal and distal (through syntactic awareness and metacognitive awareness) on reading comprehension; syntactic awareness directly influenced reading comprehension and indirectly influenced reading comprehension via metacognitive awareness; Metacognitive awareness exerted proximal effect on reading comprehension. This conclusion, if consistent with the prediction, will provide a new direction for instruction of reading comprehension. Again, thank you for participating in this study. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Ying Guo, Florida Center for Reading Research, Room 3110, 00-1-850-645-2753, [email protected]. Suggested further reading on the topic: Layton, A. (1998). The relationship between syntactic awareness and reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 21(1), 5-23. Lefton, L.A. (1994). Psychology (6th ed., pp. 234-261). Boston: Allyn & Bacon Publishers.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545-561). Mahwaj, NJ: Erlbaum.
116
REFERENCES
Alexander, P.A. & Jetton, T.L. (2000). Learning from text: a multidimensional and
developmental perspective. In: Kamil, M., Mosenthal, P., Pearson, P.D., Barr, R.
(Eds), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. III. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah,
NJ, pp. 285-310.
Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language
problem? In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign
language (pp. 1-27). London: Longman.
Anderson, R.C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.),
Comprehension and teaching: Research Reviews. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Auerbach, E., & Paxton, D. (1997). “It’s not the English thing”: Bringing reading
research into the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 237-261.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Barnett, M. A. (1988). Reading through context: how real and perceived strategy use
affects L2 comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 72, 155-162.
Bates, E., & Marchman, V. (1988). What is and is not universal in language acquisition.
In F. Plum (Ed.), Language, communication and the brain (pp. 19-38). New
York: Raven Press.
Bates, E., & Marchman, V. (1994) Continuity in lexical and morphological development:
a test of the critical mass hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 21, 339-366.
Beck, I.L., McCaslin, E., & McKeown, M.G. (1980). The rationale and design of a
program to teach vocabulary to fourth-grade students (ERDC Publication
1980/25). Pittsburgh, PA.: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and
Development Center.
Beck, I.L., & McKewon, M.G. (1983). Learning words well-a program to enhance
vocabulary and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 36, 622-625.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust
vocabulary instruction. New York: Guildford Press.
Bentler, P.M. (1988). Casual modeling via structural equation systems. In J.R.
Nesselroade & R.B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental
psychology (2nd
edition, pp. 317-335). New York: Plenum.
117
Benter, P.M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software.
Berberoglu, G., & Sireci, S. G. (1996). Evaluating translation fidelity using bilingual
examinees. Laboratory of psychometric and evaluative research, Report no.285.
Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Bernhardt, E.B. & Kamil, M.L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2
reading: consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence
hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16, 15-34.
Bishop, D.V.M., Byers Brown, B. & Robinson, J. (1990). The relationship between
phoneme discrimination, speech production, and language comprehension in
cerebal palsied individuals. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 210-
219.
Blackmore, M. A., Pratt, C., & Dewsbury, A. (1995). The use of props in a syntactic
awareness task. Children Language, 22, 405-421.
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the
vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled
students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31-42.
Botzum, W. A. (1951). A factorial study of reasoning and closure factors. Psychometrika,
16, 361-386.
Bowey, J.A. (1986). Syntactic awareness in relation to reading skill and ongoing reading
comprehension monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 282-
299.
Brown, J.I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Chicago:
Riverside Publishing Company.
Brown, W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 247-261).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bryan, B.M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M. M., Davis, L. H., & Spharim, G. (1999). Relationship of
metalinguistic capabilities and reading achievement for children who become
bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 469-478.
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., et
al (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English
118
language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research
Quarterly, 39, 188-206.
Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989) Metacognitive strategy training for
ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly 23, 647-678.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1998). Vocabulary and language teaching. London:
Longman.
Carver, R.P. (1998). Predicting reading levels in graders 1 to 6 from listening level and
decoding level: Testing theory relevant to the simple view of reading, Reading
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 1221-154.
Carver, R. P., & David, A. H. (2001) Investigating reading achievement using a causal
model. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 107-140.
Chamot, A. U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin,
(Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 71-84). London: Prentice-
Hall.
Clark, N. L. (1972). Hierarchical structure of comprehension skills (2 vols). Hawthorn,
Victoria, Australia: A.C.E.R.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crombie, M.A. (1997) The effects of specific learning difficulties (dyslexia) on the
learning of a foreign language in school. Dyslexia, 3, 27-47.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-251.
Cummins, J. (1984). Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency
to academic achievement among bilingual students. In C. Rivera (Ed.),
Language proficiency and academic achievement (pp. 2-19). Clevedon, North
Somerset, England: Multilingual Matters.
Davis, F.B. (1942). Two new measures of reading ability. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 33, 365-372.
Davis, F. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 9,
185-197.
Davis, F. B, (1968) Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly,
3, 499-545.
119
De Jong, P.F., & Der Leij, A.V. (2003). Development changes in the manifestation of a
phonological deficit in dyslexic children learning to read a regular orthography.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 22-40.
Dixon, P., LeFevre, J., & Twilley, L. (1988). Word knowledge and working memory as
predictors of reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 465-472.
Dole, J. A., Sloan, C., & Trathen, W. (1995). Teaching vocabulary within the context of
literature. Journal of Reading, 38, 452-460.
Dreher, M. J., & Zenge, S.D. (1990). Using metalinguistic awareness in first grade to
predict reading achievement in third and fifth grades. Journal of Educational
Research, 84, 13-21.
Duffy, G., Roehler, L., & Rackliffee, G. (1986). How teachers’ instructional talk
influences students’ understanding of lesson content. Elementary School Journal,
87, 3-16.
Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, L.M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition.
Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing
Educational Testing Service. (1996). TOEFL test and score manual. Princeton, NJ:
Author.
Ehri, L.C. (1995). The emergence of word reading in beginning reading. In P. Owen & P.
Pumfrey (Eds.), Children learning to read: International concerns. Vol 1:
Emergent and developing reading: Messages for teachers (pp. 9-31). London:
The Falmer Press.
Elbro, C., Neilsen, I., Peterson, D.K. (1994). Dyslexia in adults: evidence for deficits in
non-word reading and in the phonological representation of lexical items. Annals
of Dyslexia, 44, 205-226.
Erkut, S., Alarcon, O., Garcia Coll, C., Tropp, L. R., & Vazquez Garcia, H. A. (1999).
The dual-focus approach to creating bilingual measures. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 30, 206-218.
Fenson, L., Dale, P.S., Bates, E., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D. J., & Pethick, S. J. (1994).
Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the society for
Research in Child Development, 59 (5, Serial No.242).
Feldt, R. C. (1988). Predicting academic performance: Nelson-Denny Reading Test and
measures of college students' study of expository prose. Psychological Reports,
63, 579-582.
Field, M. L. (1985) A psycholinguistic model of the Chinese ESL reader. In P. Larson,
120
E.L. Judd & D.S.Messerchmitt (Eds.), On TESOL’ 84. Washington, DC:
TESOL.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-
development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Flax, J., Realpe, T., Hirsch, L.S., & Nawyn, J. (2000, November), Relationship of
language subtypes and literacy skills in families with a history of SLI. Poster
presented at the conference of the American Speech, Language and Hearing
Association, Washington, D.C.
Forrest-Pressley, D. L., & Walker, T. G. (1984). Metacognition, cognition, and reading.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Foorman, B.R., Seals, L.M., Anthony, J., & Pollard-Durodola, S. (2003). A vocabulary
enrichment program for third and fourth grade African-American students:
Description, implementation and impact. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and
remediating reading difficulties: Bringing Science to Scale (pp. 419-444).
Parkton, MD: York Press.
Frey, M.C., & Detterman, D.K. (2003). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship
between the Scholastic Assessment Test and general cognitive ability.
Psychological Science, 15, 373–378.
Frost, R. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True
issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 71-99.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gates, A.I., & MacGinitie, W.H. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests (4th
ed.).
Botson, MA: Riverside.
Gelderen, A. V., Schoonen R., Glooper, K. D., Hulstijin, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., &
Stevenson, M. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and
metacognitive knowledge in first-and second-language reading comprehension: A
componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 19-30.
Gelderen, A. V., Schoonen R., Glooper, K. D., Hulstijin, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P.,
Smith, A., & Stevenson, M. (2003). Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive
knowledge and processing speed in L3, L2 and L1 reading comprehension: A
structural equation modeling approach. The International Journal of Bilingualism,
1, 7-25.
Gleason, J.B. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150-177.
Gombert, J.E. (1992). Metalingusitic development. London: Harvest Wheatsheaf.
121
Goodman, K. S. (1971). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. In P. Pimsleur
& T. Quinn (Eds.), The psychology of second language learning (pp. 135-142).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Goulden R., Nation P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be?
Applied Linguistics, 11, 341-363.
Gottardo, A., Siegel, S. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). The assessment of adults with
reading disabilities: What can we learn from experimental tasks. Journal of
Research in Reading, 20, 42-54.
Gough, P.B., Hoover, W.A., & Peterson, C.L. (1996). Some observations on a simple
view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension
difficulties: processes and interventions (pp. 1-13). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graham, J.W., Cumsille, P.E., & Elek-Fisk, E. (2003). Methods for handling missing data.
In J.A. Schinka & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research
method in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 87-114). New York: Wiley.
Guthrie, J., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L.
Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 3, pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hammill, D.D., Brown, V.L., Larsen, S.C., & Wiederholt, J.L. (2007). Test of adolescent
and adult language-Fourth Edition. Austin TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Harper, C. & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English language
learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48, 152-162.
Henry, M. (1988). Beyond phonics: Integrated decoding and spelling instruction based on
word origin and structure. Annals of Dyslexia 38, 258-275.
Herriman, M. (1991). Metalinguistic development. Australian Journal of Reading, 14,
326-338.
Hill, M.M. (1996). What's in a word? Enhancing English vocabulary development by
increasing learner awareness. In P. Storey, V. Berry, D. Bunton, & P. Hoare
(Eds.), Issues in Language in Education, (pp. 179-190). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Institute of Education.
Hosenfeld, C. (1978). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful
and unsuccessful second language learners. System, 5, 110-123.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1-55.
122
Hunt, J.T. (1953). The relation among vocabulary, structural analysis, and reading.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 44, 193-202.
Jimenez R.T., Garcia, G.E., & Pearson, P.D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual
Latina/o students who are successful English readers: opportunities and obstacles.
Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 90-112.
Kirajima, R. (1997). Referential strategy training for second language reading
comprehension of Japanese texts. Foreign Language Annuals, 30, 84-97.
Kennedy, D. K, & Weener, P. (1973). Visual and auditory training with the cloze
procedure to improve reading and listening comprehension. Reading Research
Quarterly, 8, 524-541.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In H.
Bejoint & P. Arnaud (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126-132).
London: MacMillan.
Lavery, L. & Townsend, M. (1998). Computer-assisted instruction in teaching literacy
skills to adults not in paid employment. New Zealand Journal of Educational
Studies, 33, 181-192.
Layton, A., Robinson, J., & Lawson, M. (1998). The relationship between syntactic
awareness and reading performance. Journal of Research in Reading, 21, 5-23.
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.
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., & Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1 (2), 130-149.
MacCallum, R.C., Wegener, D.T., Uchino, B.N., & Fabrigar, L.R. (1993). The problem
of equivalent models in applications of covariance structure analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185-199.
MacDonald, M.C., & Christiansen, M.H. (2002). Reassessing working memory:
123
Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996).
Psychological Review, 109, 35-54.
Maclay, C.M., & Askov, E.N (1988). Computers and adult beginning readers: An
intergenerational approach. Lifelong Learning, 11, 23-28.
Mann, V.A., Shankweiler, D., & Smith, S.T. (1984). The association between
comprehension of spoken sentences and early reading ability: The role of
phonetic representation. Journal of Child Language, 11, 627-643.
Marin, G., & Marin, B. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Marsh, H. M. (1994). Using the National Longitudinal Study of 1988 to evaluate
theoretical models of self-concept: The self description questionnaire. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 439-456.
Mattingly, I. (1972). Reading, the linguistic process, and linguistic awareness. In J.
Kavanagh & I. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye (pp. 133-147).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meara, P., & Jones, G. (1989). Eurocenters vocabulary test 10 KA. Zurich: Eurocentres.
McDermott, M. A., & Palchanes, K. (1994). A literature review of the critical elements
in translation theory. IMAGE: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 26, 113-117.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M.J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes,
vocabulary knowledge and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading
development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40,
665-681.
Nagy, W. E., Garcia, G. E., Durgunoglu, A., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1993). Spanish-English
bilingual children’s use and recognition of cognates in English reading. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 25, 241-259.
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: Reports of the Subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
124
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2000). Factors influencing syntactic awareness skills in
normal readers and poor comprehenders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 229-241.
Nerlich, B. (2003). Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language.
Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Pathways to reading: the role of
oral language in the transition to reading. Developmental Psychology, 41, 428-442.
Nitsch, K.E. (1978). Structuring decontextualized forms of knowledge. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt.
Oakland, T., De Mesquita, P., & Buckley, K. (1988). Psychological, Linguistic, and
sociocultural correlates of reading among Mexican American elementary students.
School Psychology International, 9, 219-228.
Ordonez, C. L., Carlo, M. S., Snow, C. E., & McLaughlin, B. (2002). Depth and breadth
of vocabulary in two languages: Which vocabulary skill transfer? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94, 719-728.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering
and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In
R. Barr. M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal. & P.D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading
research: Volume II (pp.609-640). New York: Longman.
Paris, S.G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning
and instruction. In B.F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and
cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C.A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C.M.
Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 167-208).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(Vol. 3, pp. 545-561). Mahwaj, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Proctor, C., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005) Native Spanish-speaking children
in English: toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational
125
Psychology, 9, 246-156.
Qian, D.D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in
reading comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282-307.
Qian, D.D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and
academic reading performance: an assessment perspective. Language Learning,
52, 513-536.
Qian, D.D., & Schedl, M (2004). Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge
measure for assessing reading performance. Language Testing, 21, 28-52.
Rabia, A. S., & Siegel, S. L (2002). Reading, syntactic, orthographic, and working
memory skills of bilingual Arabic-English speaking Canadian children. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 661-678.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND. (Access Executive Summary and Appendix A at www.rand.org)
Raymond, P. M. (1993). The effects of structural strategy training on the recall of
expository prose for university students reading French as a second language.
Modern Language Journal, 77, 445-458.
Schafer, J. L. (2000). NORM: Multiple imputation of incomplete multivariate data under
normal model, version 2.02. Software for window 95/98/NT, available from
http://www.stat.psu.edu/~jls/misoftwa.html
Schedl, M., Thomas, N., & Way, W. (1995). An investigation of proposed revisions to
section 3 of the TOEFL test. Research Report 47. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Schmitt, B.H., Pan, Y., Tavassoli, N.T. (1994). Language and consumer memory: the
impact of linguistic differences between Chinese and English. The Journal of
Consumer Research, 21, 419-431.
Shafria, U., & Siegel, L.S. (1994). Preference for visual scanning strategies versus
phonological rehearsal in university students with reading disability. Journal of
Leaning Disabilities, 27, 583-588.
Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C.J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and
vocabualry breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance.
Language Testing, 24, 99-128.
Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language-specific
knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: an empirical
study among Dutch students in grade 6, 8 and 10. Language Learning, 48, 71-106.
126
Seidenberg, P., & Berstein, D. (1986). The comprehension of similes and metaphors by
learning disabled and nonlearning disabled children. Language, Speech and
Hearing Services in Schools, 12, 219-229.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001) Differences in the metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431-449.
Siegel, L.S., & Ryan, E.B. (1988). Development of grammatical-sensitivity, phonological
and short-term memory skills in normally achieving and subtypes of learning
disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 28-37.
Smith, S.T., Macaruso, P., Shankweiler, D., & Crain, S. (1989). Syntactic comprehension
in young poor readers. Applied Psycholingusitics, 10, 429-454.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading
comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Report from the Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in
Young Children, National Research Council, USA.
Snow, C., Cancino, H., Gonzales, P., & Shriberg, E. (1989). Giving formal definitions:
An oral language correlate of school literacy. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Classrooms
and literacy (pp. 233-249). New York: Ablex.
Snow, C.E., & Sweet, A.P. (2003). Reading for comprehension. In A.P. Sweet & C.E.
Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford Press.
Snowling, M. J. (1987) Dyslexia. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Snowling, M.J. (2000). Language and literacy skills: Who is at risk and why? In D.V.M.
Bishop & L.B. Leonard (Eds.), Speech & language impairments in children:
Causes, characteristics, intervention and outcome. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R.J. (1994). The road not taken: An investigative
theoretical model of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 91-
103.
Stahl, S.A. (1998). Four questions about vocabulary knowledge and reading and some
answers. In C. Hynd et al. (Ed.), Learning from text across conceptual domains.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stanovich, K.E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-
variety poor readers: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 21, 590-612
127
Stanovich, K.E., & Cunningham, A.E. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy
within a literate society: the cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory &
Cognition, 20, 51-68.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics, Fourth Edition,
Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
Tabors, P.O., & Snow, C.E. (2001). Young bilingual children and early literacy
development. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early
literacy research (pp. 159-178). New York, NY: The Guilford 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, 381-399.
Taraban, R., Kerr, M., & Rynearson, K. (2004). Analytic and pragmatic factors in college
students’ metacognitive reading strategies. Reading Psychology, 25, 67-81.
Test of English as a Foreign Language. (1997). TOEFL Test Score Manual, Princeton, NJ
Tunmer, W.E., & Bowey, J.A. (1984). Metalinguistic awareness and reading acquisition.
In W.E. Tunmer, C. Pratt, & M.L. Herriman (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness in
children (pp. 144-168). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tunmer, W.E., Herriman, M.L., & Nesdale, A.R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and
beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134-158.
Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. (1992). Cognitive and linguistic factors in leanring to read.
In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri & R. Treiman (Eds), Reading acquisition (pp. 175-
214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tunmer, W.E., Nesdale, A.R., & Wright, A.D. (1987). Syntactic awareness and reading
acquisition. British Journal of Development Psychology, 5, 25-34.
Van der Leij, A., & Morfidi, E. (2006). Core deficits and variable differences in Dutch
poor readers learning English. Journal of Learning Disability, 39, 74-90.
Vellutino, F.R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vellutin, F.R., Fletcher, J.M., Snowling, M.J., & Scanlon, D.M. (2004). Specific reading
disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2-40.
Verhoeven, L. (1990). Acquisition of reading in Dutch as a second language. Reading
Research Quarterly, 25, 90-114.
128
Verhoeven, L. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: The linguistic interdependence
hypothesis revisited. Language Learning, 25, 90-114.
Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 313-330.
Vygostsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wagner, R.K., & Torgesen, J.K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its
causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192-
212.
Wallace, G., & Hammill, D. D (2002). Comprehensive Receptive and Expressive
Vocabulary Test-Second Edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Weaver, P.A. (1979). Improving reading comprehension: Effects of sentence
organization instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 129-146.
Wiederholt, J.L., & Blalock, G. (2000). Gray Silent Reading Tests-
Third Edition. Austin TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Winogard, P., & Hare, V.C. (1988). Direct instruction of reading comprehension
strategies: The nature of teacher explanation. In C.E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz &
P.A Alexander (Es.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment,
instruction and evaluation (pp. 121-139). San Diego: Academic Press.
Yang, Z., Chang, L., & Ma, S. (2004). Multivariate Generalizability Analysis of the
Chinese College Entrance Comprehensive Examination. Acta Psychologica Sinica,
36, 195-200.
129
BIOGRAPHIC SKECTH
Ying Guo graduated from the Shen Yang Normal University in China with a B.A.
in English Education. She worked as the English teacher in China before entering
graduate school. She entered the graduate program at Florida State University in the
summer of 2004 and received her master degree majoring in Learning and Cognition
from Florida State University in 2006.
During her Phd studies, she has worked as the research assistant on many granted-
funded research projects in Florida Center for Reading Research including the Project of
wordwork, a project examining the Causal Effects of Individualized Instruction and a
project identifying the Conditions under Which Large Scale Professional Development
Policy Initiatives are related to Teacher Knowledge, Instructional Practices, and Student
Reading Outcomes. In addition, she has teaching experience at the university level. She
has served as a co-instructor for an Educational Psychology course and the sole instructor
for a section in spring of 2008.
From these experiences, she has acquired the competency to conduct high quality
evaluation research in real world educational settings. She plan to conduct further
evaluations of interventions, curricula, and professional development models related to
improving the reading outcomes of students and develop standardized assessments for
evaluating reading-related skills. Additionally, she is interested in working with schools,
districts, and the government to address questions of interest to educators and policy
makers.
130
