Contemporary Second Language Assessment Contempora... - (PART TWO Assessment of Specific Language Aspects)

6
The Role of Background Factors

in the Diagnosis of SFL
Reading Ability
Ari Huhta, J. Charles Alderson, Lea

Nieminen, and Riikka Ullakonoja
ABSTRACT
I n order to diagnose strengths and weaknesses in second/foreign language (SFL )

reading, we need a much more detailed understanding of the construct and the
development of SFL reading abilities. This understanding is also necessary to design
useful feedback and interventions. In this chapter, we report findings from DIALUKI ,
a research project into the diagnosis of SFL reading that examined hundreds of
Finnish learners of English as a foreign language (10- to 18-year-olds) and Russian
learners of Finnish as a second language (10- to 15-year-olds). The study aimed to
predict SFL reading ability with a range of linguistic, cognitive, motivational, and
background measures. In this chapter, we cover both L2 Finnish and FL English
Copyright © 2016. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. All rights reserved.
learners, and focus on the findings regarding learners’ background, and examine to
what extent such learner characteristics can predict SFL reading and possibly
distinguish between L2 and FL readers.
Diagnosing SFL Reading

The ability to read in a second or foreign language (SFL ) is important for business
people, for academic researchers, for politicians, and for professionals in many fields.
It also provides a useful basis for the ability to use the language in general and to
interact with its speakers, for professional, educational, social, and leisure purposes.
The assessment of a person’s SFL reading ability may serve several different purposes:
125
Banerjee, J. V., & Tsagari, D. (Eds.). (2016). Contemporary second language assessment : Contemporary applied linguistics volume 4. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Created from usyd on 2023-08-28 10:34:33.
126 CONTEMPORARY SECOND L ANGUAGE ASSESSMENT
To identify whether a person has sufficient reading proficiency in order to study at

university, to test a person’s progress in reading during a language course, or to
diagnose a person’s strengths and weaknesses in reading in an SFL .
However, to date, the design and construction of diagnostic SFL reading tests is
not well understood. Little is known about how SFL reading ability develops, how
to identify strengths and weaknesses in SFL reading ability, how teachers can best
facilitate such reading abilities, or which factors contribute most to the development
of overall SFL reading performance.
Thus, research into the factors that influence progress in SFL reading is an important
and growing area of applied linguistics as well as of assessment, and this chapter will
present one aspect of the growing field of the diagnostic assessment of SFL reading.
The DIALUKI Project

The research described in this chapter is part of a four-year, multidisciplinary project
studying the relationship between reading in one’s first language (L1) and one’s
second or foreign language. The research team included applied linguists, language
assessment specialists, psychologists, and researchers into reading problems such as
dyslexia. The project examined two separate groups of informants: Finnish-speaking
learners of English as a foreign language, and Russian-speaking learners of Finnish
as a second language in Finland. The English learners (henceforth labeled the FIN -
ENG group) form three separate subgroups: mostly 10-year-old learners in primary
school grade four (n = 211), mostly 14-year-old learners in grade 8 of lower secondary
school (n = 208), and mostly 18-year-old learners in the second year of upper
secondary gymnasia (n = 219). The Russian-speaking Finnish learners (henceforth
known as the RUS -FIN group) are the children of immigrants to Finland, and
constitute two groups, the primary group and the lower secondary group. The
division of the FIN -RUS group into two broader subgroups was based on the fact
that recently arrived immigrant children are not always placed in the grade level that
matches their age because of their proficiency in Finnish and the time of the year
when they arrive. Some of them are thus older than their Finnish-background fellow
students. The participants in the primary group came from grades 3–6 and were
mostly 9–12 years old (n = 186); the lower secondary group came from grades 7–9
and were 13–16 years old (n = 78).

The project involved several substudies: a cross-sectional study, part of which we
deal with here; a longitudinal study; and several intervention studies. In this chapter,
we report on a range of background factors that may affect the SFL reading ability
of the fourth and eighth graders in the FIN -ENG group, and both the primary and
lower secondary groups in the RUS -FIN group.
Review of Previous Research into Learners’

Backgrounds
A wide range of individual and contextual factors that relate to, or even cause,
differences in L1 and SFL skills have been investigated in previous research, including
BACKGROUND FACTORS IN DIAGNOSIS OF SFL READING ABILITY 127
but not limited to, learners’ motivation, intelligence, aptitude, personality, L1 skills,
and contextual characteristics such as the teacher, the classroom, and the school
more generally. Such variables can indeed correlate with, or even cause, foreign
language proficiency (see, e.g., Alderson et al., 2014; Sparks & Ganschow, 1995;
Sparks et al., 2006). In this chapter, however, we focus on those background factors
that were included in the DIALUKI study, namely certain characteristics of the
learner’s home, for example, parents’ education, reading and writing habits, language
skills and possible reading problems, and of the learners themselves, for example,
gender, reading/writing habits, use of the SFL , age of learning to read in L1, and so
on. Therefore, our review of previous research focuses on these aspects in the
learners’ background in particular.
A considerable amount of literature exists on the relationship between different
background factors and reading in a first language. Parents’ socioeconomic status
(SES ) is one of the key factors that affect their children’s L1 reading comprehension.
More specifically, middle- or high-SES parents engage more in joint book reading
with their children and have more books available for their children than low-SES
parents. They also talk more to their children and use more elaborate and abstract
(context-independent) language (see, e.g., Hoff, 2006; Mol & Bus, 2011). In Melby-
Lervåg & Lervåg’s (2014, p. 412) words “the weight of evidence suggests that SES
affects the quality and the quantity of the language to which children are exposed.”
Consistent findings from the international PISA studies of 15-year-olds reading in
the language of education (often their L1) show that girls outperform boys when
reading, although the gender gap in performance is narrower in digital reading than
in print reading (OECD 2011, p. 19), and children of more highly educated parents
from more affluent families outperform their lower SES peers (OECD, 2010, p. 35).
Canadian studies have also shown that parents’ socioeconomic status is related to
their children’s second language (L2) performance (Geva, 2006). Geva’s review
concluded that the children of higher SES parents achieved better results in L2
reading tests.
The European Survey of Language Competences (ESLC ) was a study of more
than 50,000 learners’ foreign language achievement in fourteen European Union
countries (EC , 2012) that provides information about learners’ background and
foreign language (FL ) proficiency. The study focused on students at the end of lower
secondary education (typically aged 14–16) and covered reading, writing, and
listening. The study included extensive background questionnaires for the students,
teachers, and schools. The findings indicated that, in most countries, the number of
languages that the students studied in school was significantly associated with their
test performance: The more languages the students studied, the better their SFL
reading and writing. The parents’ knowledge of the target language, as reported by
the learner, was positively related to their child’s test results in that language,
especially for writing. Target language use at home was also correlated with higher
performance in that language. Learners’ exposure to and use of the FL through
media was strongly associated with their test performance in all the skills in almost
all countries (see EC , 2012, pp. 205–220).
A recent Finnish national evaluation of learning outcomes in foreign languages
covered several background factors and focused on grade 9 in the lower secondary
school. The results of English as an FL were based on a sample of almost 3,500
students (Härmälä et al., 2014). Unlike in the other foreign languages studied, in
English reading, girls did not outperform boys, but both genders achieved equally
good results. However, the parents’ educational level was strongly associated with
performance in English. The difference between the children of parents without
general upper secondary education and the children of parents who both had a
general upper secondary education, was clearest for listening (effect size d = 0.84),
but quite sizable also for the other three major skills (d = 0.78–0.79). The differences
were most marked in students who had the highest English proficiency. However, the
amount of time the students reported doing homework for English did not correlate
with their performance on the tests of English. The students’ use of English in their
free time was fairly strongly associated with their reading performance (.39). The
two activities with the highest correlation with reading performance were watching
movies and video clips in English, and reading online texts in English (.40 and .37,
respectively) (see Härmälä et al., 2014, pp. 76–84). In addition, another recent study
(Pietilä & Merikivi, 2014) of the same age group of Finnish pupils found that
students who reported reading in English in their free time had significantly larger
receptive and productive vocabularies than those who did not.
To summarize, previous research on the relationship between background factors
and reading in L1 or SFL has highlighted the importance of the parents’ socioeconomic
background: Middle and high SES children tend to read better than their low SES
peers. Parents’ knowledge of the SFL is also helpful for their children’s SFL skills, as
also is learner’s use of the language in their free time.
Description of the Background Questionnaires

In the DIALUKI project, questionnaires were administered to the students
participating in the study and to their parents, and covered factors considered
relevant for the development of SFL reading and writing skills. The questionnaires
for the students and parents in the FIN -ENG groups were in Finnish, but for the
RUS -FIN students and their parents, the questionnaires were bilingual in Russian
and Finnish.
The two-page parents’ questionnaire was completed by 95–98 percent of the
parents, in about 80 percent of cases by the mother. The questionnaire covered the
socioeconomic status of the family (i.e., parents’ education and income level), how
often the parents read and write at home, and whether the students’ parents, siblings,
or parents’ siblings have had problems in reading. The parents were also asked to
reply to a set of questions about prereading activities that a family member might
have done with their child when he or she was learning to read (e.g., reading books
to them or playing word games with them), and to state the age at which the child
had learned to read in their L1. Furthermore, the FIN -ENG learner’s parent
completing the questionnaire was asked to self-assess his or her English oral, reading,
and writing skills, and the RUS -FIN learner’s parent was asked to evaluate his or her
Finnish skills, if his or her first language was not Finnish.
The four-page student questionnaire was filled in by about 90 percent of the
students in the RUS -FIN groups and 95–99 percent of the students in the FIN -ENG
groups. The questions focused on:
● languages known by the student (L1 and other languages) and used in his or
her home,
●
amount of homework done on normal school days,
● attitude to reading and writing in free time,
● amount of reading and writing in free time,
● frequency of reading different kinds of material (fifteen types of material, e.g.,
e-mail, Facebook, online discussions, on-line news, magazines, newspapers,
factual texts, fiction),
● frequency of writing different kinds of material (thirteen types of material,
e.g., text messages, e-mails, Facebook messages, online discussions, letters or
cards, notes, stories),
● frequency of using SFL in free time—for reading, writing, speaking, listening,
● knowledge of SFL before starting to study it at school,
● living in an English-speaking country or attending an English-medium school
and for how long (only in the FIN -ENG group).
In addition, the students were asked for the age at which he or she learned to read,
the same question as had been asked of the parents. For the second language learner
group, this question was asked separately for Finnish and Russian.
Findings
Descriptive Characteristics of the Informant Groups:
Language and Reading
The family language practices and environment of our informants can be described
from several different perspectives. First, the parents’ L1: In the FIN -ENG groups,
the parents almost exclusively reported their first language to be Finnish. In the
RUS -FIN groups, more than 90 percent of mothers and 80 percent of fathers
reported Russian as their L1, but in addition Bulgarian, Tatar, Chechen, Ukrainian,
Belarusian, Estonian, Karelian, Chinese, and Arabic were also mentioned as first
languages. Finnish was the L1 of 14 percent of the fathers but only for 0.7 percent
of the mothers, that is, only two mothers. These figures tell us that quite a few of the
children in the RUS -FIN groups lived in a bilingual family, in which one of the
parents had an L1 other than Russian.
When the students were asked about their L1 and any other languages used at
home, the answers from the FIN -ENG pupils were similar to their parent’s reports:
Their L1 was Finnish and they used Finnish at home. However, in the RUS -FIN
groups, the linguistic situation was different from their parents. Russian was reported
to be the L1 of 65 percent of primary school children and 70 percent of those in
lower secondary school, but 19 percent of the primary and 14 percent of the
secondary school children identified themselves as bilinguals and 11–12 percent
reported that Finnish was their first language. The gradual movement toward the
dominant language of the Finnish society is not unexpected. In fact, according to
Montrul (2012), immigrant children are very likely to adopt the language of the
surrounding society as their first language by the time they are adolescents.
The linguistic situation in RUS -FIN homes was also reported differently by the
children compared to their parents. 72 percent of the children said that Russian was
the language mostly used at home, but 17 percent of the primary level and 22 percent
of the secondary level students reported that both Finnish and Russian were used at
home. This is likely to reflect the children’s own language use: They may speak
Finnish with their siblings and also reply in Finnish to their parents who speak
Russian to them. Both of these situations have been reported to be common in
multilingual families (e.g., Mäntylä et al., 2009).
The use of the second or foreign language in free time is the second perspective to
be considered in the linguistic environment of the student groups. As expected, the
RUS -FIN students used Finnish a lot in their free time. More than 80 percent
reported speaking and reading in Finnish and listening to Finnish at least once or
twice a week outside the daily routines of Finnish schools. Although the amount of
speaking and reading in English in their free time in the FIN -ENG groups was much
lower, the percentages were still rather high, especially for the fourth graders who
had started learning English at school less than a year and half earlier. Around 47
percent of the fourth graders and 60 percent of the eighth graders reported speaking
English at least once or twice a week. For reading in English, the percentages were
55 percent and 58 percent, respectively. Listening to English was even more common:
78 percent of the fourth graders and 95 percent of the eighth graders listened to
English weekly in their free time. English enjoys quite a high status in Finland: It is
the most popular foreign language taught in school, and for most pupils, it is also the
first foreign language they learn from the third grade onward. English is seen as the
language that will benefit one most in the future. It is also the language of video
games, TV programs, and popular music, all very important factors for young
people. It has sometimes been said that English is actually no longer a foreign
language in Finland, but has become a second language for many younger people.
The status of the Russian language in the RUS -FIN group is interesting. The vast
majority of children both in the primary and lower secondary school said that they
listen to and speak Russian every day, but reading in Russian in their free time was
much rarer. Only approximately half of the children reported reading Russian daily,
and as much as 15 percent of the primary and 10 percent of the lower secondary
students claimed that they hardly ever read in Russian. This is likely to be at least
partly due to the fact that there is less Russian reading material available than
Finnish. If the family does not buy a Russian newspaper or magazine and there are
no Russian books at home, children have to look for Russian reading material in
libraries or on the Internet. The responsibility for developing reading in Russian is
left to the parents and the students themselves, since 55 percent of the primary and
38 percent of the secondary students said they had never attended a Russian school,
and thus had most likely first learned to read in their second language. Although
most children (primary: 65%; secondary: 78%) had attended Russian language
classes in Finnish schools, their Russian reading skills were not much used outside
the classroom.
In order to create a more precise picture of the students, we also asked about their
literacy history as well as their interests and attitudes toward reading. According to
the parents’ reports in all groups, the majority of students learned to read (in any
language) when they were six or seven years of age, which means they learned to
read during the first year at school. In the FIN -ENG groups, the vast majority of the
fourth graders reported liking to read to some extent (47%) or a lot (46%). For the
eighth graders, the situation had changed. By that age, 25 percent did not like to read
and the proportion of those who liked reading a lot had dropped to only 29 percent.
The RUS -FIN primary and lower secondary pupils did not differ so clearly, and the
proportions between “not liking,” “liking to some extent,” and “liking a lot” remained
quite similar in both age groups (primary: 14%–58%–27%; secondary: 21%–
49%–29%).
What and how much did these children read in their free time? Of the fourth
graders in the FIN -ENG group, 72 percent reported reading only once or twice a
month or even less frequently, whereas for the eighth graders, the proportion of
infrequent readers was 45 percent. Thus, despite their positive attitude toward reading,
the fourth graders seemed to read less frequently than the eighth graders. In the RUS -
FIN group, the trend was similar: 62 percent of the primary students reported reading
once or twice a month or even less frequently, whereas for the lower secondary
students the proportion of infrequent readers was only 35 percent. If the time spent
on reading is divided between digital (Internet, games, SMS , e-mails, etc.) and print
media (books, newspapers, magazines, etc.), then a similar trend can be seen in both
language groups: The younger students read books, newspapers, magazines, and
other print media, whereas the teenagers read digital media more frequently.
Correlates of SFL Reading

To investigate the relationship between SFL reading performance and learners’
background variables, we ran correlational analyses (Spearman’s rho) and regression
analyses for both language groups. Table 6.1 reports the significant correlations
between the parental background variables and reading in English as a foreign
language and Finnish as a second language. Table 6.2 reports the corresponding
findings for the student-related background variables. See Appendix 1 for the
descriptive statistics concerning these variables.
Parents’ educational level and self-assessed proficiency in English were the most
consistent parental background correlates of their children’s reading in English in the
FIN -ENG groups. Although the correlations were significant, they were quite
modest and only ranged from .15 to .28, which may be partly due to the rather short
ordinal scales used in some of the background variables (see Appendix 1). For the
RUS -FIN students, only their parents’ (mostly the mother’s) oral skills in Finnish
were correlated with their children’s L2 Finnish reading test scores. Interestingly, the
RUS -FIN parents’ reading and writing habits were negatively correlated with their
children’s Finnish test scores. The reason for this might be that the parents (mothers
in particular) were often native speakers of Russian, and therefore, probably read
and wrote mostly in Russian. In addition, many of them were not working, which
allows them to spend a lot of time reading and writing.
It is worth noting that neither the families’ income level nor the kinds of potentially
supportive reading activities during the time when their child was learning to read
TABLE 6.1 Spearman Rank-order Correlations between Parental Background Variables and
Reading in FL English and L2 Finnish
FIN-ENG Learners RUS-FIN Learners
4th grade 8th grade Primary Lower sec.
Mother’s educational level ns 0.207 ns ns

p = .003
Father’s educational level 0.178 0.215 ns ns

p = .016 p = .004
Household income level ns ns ns ns
Amount of reading parent does at ns 0.15 ns −0.328

home, in any language p = .038 p = .009
Amount of writing parent does at ns ns ns −0.276

home, in any language p = .030
Parent’s self-assessment of oral skills in 0.156 0.182 ns 0.266

FL English/L2 Finnish p = .029 p = .011 p = .035
Parent’s self-assessment of reading in 0.281 0.217 ns ns

FL English/L2 Finnish p = .000 p = .002
Parent’s self-assessment of writing in FL 0.147 0.199 ns ns

English/L2 Finnish p = .039 p = .005
Parents’ self-assessment (mean across 3 0.211 0.224 ns ns

skills) of FL English / L2 Finnish p = .003 p = .002
Parents’ prereading activities (mean) ns ns ns ns
were associated with SFL reading test results in either of the language groups. The
reason why family income level was not associated with the child’s SFL reading is
not entirely clear. We speculate that the relatively small income differences in Finland
may play a role in this (parents’ educational level was correlated with children’s SFL
reading, but a higher educational level does not automatically mean a higher income
level, and vice versa, although the two are correlated aspects of socioeconomic
status). It may also be that parents’ income, and particularly, their supportive reading
practices are more relevant to learning to read in one’s L1 than in an SFL .
The most consistent correlation between student-related variables and students’
SFL reading across all the groups was the age at which the child had learned to read.
However, there was an important difference between the foreign and second language
groups. For the Finnish-speaking learners of English, learning to read in L1 Finnish
before going to school was associated with higher performance on FL English
reading tests even several years after learning to read. For the Russian-background
TABLE 6.2 Spearman Rank-order Correlations between Learner Background Variables and
Reading in FL English and L2 Finnish

Age of the student ns ns ns ns
Age of learning to read in Finnish −0.309 −0.253 N/A N/A

(according to parents) p = .000 p = .000
Age of learning to read (in any language, N/A N/A ns ns

but in practice, either Russian or
Finnish) (according to parents)
Age of learning to read in Finnish −0.222 −.269 −0.171 −0.317

(according to child) p = .002 p = .000 p = .049 p = .015
Age of learning to read in Russian N/A N/A 0.191 ns

(according to child) p = .030
Feeling about reading in free time ns ns ns ns
Feeling about writing in free time ns ns ns ns
Time spent doing homework in general ns ns ns −.370

p = .003
Amount of time spent on reading in ns ns ns ns

free time
Amount of time spent on writing in ns ns ns ns

free time
Frequency of listening in English/ ns ns ns ns

Finnish outside school
Frequency of reading in English/ ns 0.338 ns ns

Finnish outside school p = .000
Frequency of speaking in English/ 0.155 0.279 ns ns

Finnish outside school p = .031 p = .000
Frequency of writing in English/Finnish ns ns ns ns

outside school
Number of languages the student ns 0.209 0.172 0.460

reports knowing p = .003 p = .039 p = .000
(Continued)
TABLE 6.2 (Continued)

Frequency of free time reading (mean ns ns ns ns

across all activities)
Frequency of free time writing (mean ns ns ns −0.267

across all activities) p = .033
Frequency of using English/Finnish 0.158 0.288 ns ns

overall (mean across 4 skills) p = .026 p = .000
learners of L2 Finnish, early learning to read in L1 Russian was not associated with
better L2 reading performance. In fact, we found the opposite: The earlier they
learned to read in L1 Russian, the worse their L2 Finnish reading test performance
was. We discuss possible reasons for this in the final part of the chapter.
The use of the SFL outside school was associated with better reading performance,
especially in the foreign language (FIN -ENG ) groups. Frequency both of speaking
English, and for the older age group, reading in English correlated significantly with
reading skills. The number of different languages that the student reported knowing
to any extent was also associated with SFL reading except for the youngest foreign
language group, in which probably very few students could be expected to know
languages other than their L1 and the foreign language they had just started to learn
at school.
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, students’ attitudes toward reading or writing and
the frequency of reading and writing were not correlated with their SFL reading in
any of the groups. This is probably because those background questions were not
language-specific, but aimed at tapping their attitude and habits toward reading and
writing in general, across any languages they happened to know and use.
Regression Analyses
To find out more about the relationship between SFL reading and learners’
background, we conducted a series of stepwise multiple linear regression analyses.
These analyses included pair-wise deletion using the Rasch measure from Winsteps
analyses of the SFL reading test as the dependent variable, and the background
variables as independent (predictor) variables. The exception to this procedure was
the older RUS -FIN group in which the small size of the group did not make a Rasch
analysis meaningful. Two analyses were done: first with parents’ background variables
as predictors, then with the students’ background variables (see Appendix 2).
The analyses with parents’ background variables included:
• mother’s and father’s educational level,

• household income level,
• amount of reading and writing that the responding parent does at home,
• parents’ mean prereading activities,
• mean self-assessed FL English or L2 Finnish skills of the parent who
completed the questionnaire.
The analyses with students’ background variables included:
• the age at which they learned to read in their first language,

• attitudes to reading and writing in their free time,
• amount of time spent on reading and writing in their free time,
• frequency of using English, Finnish, or Russian outside school,
• frequency of free time reading and writing,
• the number of languages the student reported knowing.
In addition, age was used as a background variable for the RUS -FIN students as
they came from different age groups.
Findings for the Fourth Grade Finnish Learners of English as a

Foreign Language
Parents’ background
In the regression analysis, only the parent’s (mostly the mother’s) self-assessed
English skills in reading, writing, and speaking accounted for a significant amount of
variance in the child’s English reading test score. However, only 5 percent of the
variance was explained (for details of the regression analyses, see Appendix 2).
Student’s background
The result of the regression analysis with only the student background variables was
similar to that of the parents’ background as only one significant predictor emerged,
namely, the age at which the student learned to read in Finnish. The earlier the child
had learned to read, the better his or her English test result in grade 4. Again, the
amount of variance explained in the English test scores was quite modest, only 9.7
percent.
Findings for the Eighth Grade Finnish Learners of English as a

Foreign Language
Only the father’s educational level accounted for a significant amount of variance in
the child’s English reading test score, but the amount of variance explained was only
3.3 percent.
In contrast to the parental background variables that only explained a very small
proportion of English reading, the student background variables accounted for 11.1
percent of the score. A total of three different variables turned out to be significant:
frequency of using English in free time, age of learning to read in Finnish, and amount
of time spent on reading in any language in one’s free time.
Findings for the Russian-speaking Learners of Finnish as a

Second Language
No single background variable in the regression analysis explained variation in L2
Finnish reading for primary school learners. In the lower secondary school group,
the amount of reading the parent does at home explained 9 percent of the variance,
but the relationship was negative, that is, less parental reading was related to better
reading scores for the child. The somewhat skewed distribution of responses (43%
of the parents reported reading more than ten hours a week) and the likelihood that
their reading is done mostly in Russian could explain this negative relationship.
In the primary school group, the frequency of using Russian overall, across all skills,
and the number of languages the student reported knowing explained 8 percent of
the variance in reading. In the lower secondary school group, the number of languages
the student knew, frequency of free time writing, and amount of homework emerged
as predictors, explaining 34 percent of the variance.
Findings for Certain Dichotomous Background Variables

Finally, we compared the students’ performances with those background variables
that are best treated as dichotomous rather than as continuous variables, using
independent sample t-tests. These include gender, occurrence of reading problems in
the family, and knowledge of the SFL before starting school.
Gender
Boys and girls in the four groups were rather equally balanced. In the fourth grader
FIN -ENG and the lower secondary RUS -FIN groups there was almost exactly 50
percent of boys and girls. In the other two groups, about 53–55 percent of the
students were girls. In the fourth grader FIN -ENG group, there was no difference
between boys and girls in their performance in English reading. However, in the
eighth grader group, boys slightly but significantly outperformed girls. In the
Russian-background group, the girls outperformed boys in the primary school
sample, whereas boys were better in the lower secondary school sample, but the
difference was not statistically significant.
Reading problems in the family

The background questionnaire asked parents to indicate whether the biological
mother, father, child’s siblings, mother’s siblings or parents, or father’s siblings or
parents had had or still had problems in reading. About 35 percent of the families in
both FIN -ENG groups indicated that at least one member of their extended family
had experienced problems in reading. In the RUS -FIN groups, the corresponding
percentage was 13 percent. In both FIN -ENG groups, the students with no reading
problems among their biological family members achieved significantly higher scores
in the English reading test than their peers with even one such problem. No statistical
differences were found for the two RUS -FIN groups. However, the low percentage
of RUS -FIN parents reporting familial reading problems suggests that the occurrence
of such problems may have been under-reported in this study.
Knowing the SFL to some degree before starting to learn it at school

This question was put to the two language groups slightly differently. The FIN -ENG
students were asked if they knew any English (“except perhaps for a few words,”
as specified in the question) before starting to study it at school in grade three.
22 percent of the fourth graders and 17 percent of the eighth graders reported
knowing at least some English before commencing their formal studies of the
language.
In contrast, the RUS -FIN students were asked if they knew Finnish, except for a
few words, before going to school in Finland as the language of instruction in their
schools was Finnish. About half of both age groups reported they knew some Finnish
before going to school in Finland.
In the FIN -ENG groups, the students with some prior knowledge of English
outperformed their peers without such knowledge. The difference was particularly
clear among the fourth graders, and also quite substantial in the eighth graders’
group. A similar although not quite as strong a difference was found for the students
in the younger RUS -FIN group: those who knew Finnish before going to school
outperformed those who did not. However, in the lower secondary group the
difference was not statistically significant.
Discussion
The DIALUKI study aimed to explore the diagnosis of strengths and weaknesses in
reading a second or foreign language. The focus of this chapter was on the relationship
between learners’ background and their SFL reading in order to pave the way for a
better understanding of the diagnostic potential of such background information.
Consistent with results from previous studies on both L1 and SFL reading,
parents’ educational level was correlated with their children’s English reading
performance (see, e.g., Härmälä et al., 2014; OECD, 2010). Interestingly, no such
relationship was found for the Russian-background children. In neither language
group was parents’ income related to children’s test results. A metastudy (Melby-
Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014) and the European ESLC study (EC , 2012) suggested that
parents’ proficiency in SFL may contribute to children’s SFL proficiency and our
study provided some support for that.
Only one significant positive correlation was found between parents’ reading
habits and their children’s reading performance in English. However, for the Russian-
background parents, this relationship was negative, which was probably due to
them reading and writing more in Russian than in Finnish. The interplay of
background factors in the Russian-background families appears quite complex
and requires more investigation: For example, these parents were often quite
highly educated in Russia, but in Finland they are more likely to be unemployed than
Finnish-speaking parents.
The occurrence of first language reading problems among the biological family
members was a significant indicator of weaker English reading performance in both
groups of Finnish-background learners. The reason is most likely related to the fact
that some L1 reading problems have a genetic basis (see Richardson & Lyytinen,
2014) and that L1 and SFL reading problems are often related. Therefore, students
whose family members had experienced L1 reading problems were likely to have
some L1—and FL —reading problems themselves, and therefore, did less well on the
foreign language reading tests. For the Russian-background learners, no such
difference was found between students with or without such family risks, for which
we have no plausible explanation. However, the low percentage of parents reporting
familial reading problems compared to the FIN -ENG parents (13% vs. 35%)
suggests that the phenomenon may have been under-reported in the RUS -FIN group.
On the whole, parental background alone could not explain much variance in
SFL reading. For the Finnish-background students, only 3–5 percent of variance was
accounted for, and for the Russian-background learners, also less than 10 percent.
Student-related background variables explained more variance in learners’ SFL
reading: about or slightly more than 10 percent among the English FL learners and
the younger L2 Finnish learners. In the older RUS -FIN group, explained variance
rose to over 30 percent. The most consistent correlation across all the groups was the
age at which the child had learned to read. For the Finnish-speaking FL English
learners, preschool learning to read in L1 Finnish was associated with higher
performance in FL English reading even years after learning to read. For the Russian-
background learners of L2 Finnish, early learning to read in L2 Finnish was related
to better L2 Finnish reading. However, early learning to read in L1 Russian indicated
weaker L2 Finnish reading performance. This finding is explained by the age of
arrival of the pupils: The pupils who were born in Finland or immigrated to Finland
prior to school age would have learned to read earlier (and better) in Finnish than
those who immigrated to Finland after having learned to read in Russian first and
who thus became exposed to Finnish later.
As has been found in other studies, for example, in the ESLC study and the
Finnish national evaluations, the use of the SFL outside school was associated with
better reading performance, especially in the foreign language (FIN -ENG ) groups.
Frequency of speaking English, and for the older age group, reading in English
correlated significantly with reading skills.
The number of different languages that the student reported knowing was also
associated with SFL reading in most groups studied. A similar finding was made in
the ESLC study where the number of languages studied (but not the number of
languages the child had learned at home before the age of five) was linked to better
test performance. On the basis of our study, it is not possible to establish any causal
links between the number of languages known and SFL reading performance. It may
be that they both reflect some common underlying cause such as a more general
interest in learning/studying languages.
Students’ attitudes toward reading or writing, and the frequency of reading and
writing activities were not related to SFL reading. This is probably because the
questions were not language-specific, but aimed at tapping their attitudes toward,
and habits of, reading and writing in general, across any languages they happened to
know.
Conclusion
From a diagnostic point of view, it is important to distinguish background factors
that can be affected by parents, teachers, or the students themselves, and those that
cannot be changed. In order to predict weak performance and to prepare for possible
problems at the institutional and teaching level, many background factors are
potentially useful, for example, in order to organize remedial teaching and materials,
and to hire specialist staff. However, in order to act on diagnostic information at the
level of the individual student, factors that are amenable to improvement are most
useful (Alderson et al., 2014). An obvious example of such factors is the recreational
use of the language: Since more frequent use of the language is usually associated
with higher language proficiency (and may even cause it), it makes sense to encourage
learners to use the language as much as possible in their free time and to provide
them with ideas and opportunities to do so.
However, we need to put the role of background factors into a wider perspective.
On the basis of the diagnostic studies on SFL reading we have conducted so far, the
background factors reported here enable us to better understand the bigger picture
of which factors relate to strengths and weaknesses in SFL reading. Nevertheless,
compared with other components of reading, such as L1, basic cognitive/
psycholinguistic processes, specific linguistic components (e.g., lexical and structural
knowledge), and motivation, these background factors may play a much smaller role
(see Sparks et al., 2006; Alderson et al., 2014). More research is needed, however,
especially in second language contexts because the predictive power of the student
and family background appeared to differ between FL and L2 learners. Furthermore,
the L2 contexts are probably more complex (see, e.g. Jang et al.’s 2013 study of
different kinds of L2 learners), and therefore, more information and more different
kinds of L2 learners should be included in future studies to get a more accurate
picture of the similarities and differences in the importance of background factors in
SFL development.
References
Alderson, J. C., Haapakangas, E.-L., Huhta, A., Nieminen, L., & Ullakonoja, R. (2014).
The Diagnosis of Reading in a Second or Foreign Language. New York, NY: Routledge.
EC (European Commission). (2012). First European Survey on Language Competences.
Final Report. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved November 10, 2014 from http://
www.ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/strategic-framework/documents/language-survey-
final-report_en.pdf.
Geva, E. (2006). Second-language oral proficiency and second-language literacy. In
D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners:
Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum,
pp. 123–139.
Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development.
Developmental Review, 26(1), 55–88.
Härmälä, M., Huhtanen, M., & Puukko, M. (2014). Englannin kielen A-oppimäärän
oppimistulokset perusopetuksen päättövaiheessa 2013 [Achievement in English
according to syllabus A at the end of comprehensive education in 2013]. Helsinki,
Finland: National Board of Education. Retrieved November 10, 2014 from
http://www.oph.fi/download/160066_englannin_kielen_a_oppimaaran_oppimistulokset_
perusopetuksen_paattovaiheessa.pdf.
Jang, E. E., Dunlop, M., Wagner, M., Kim, Y-H., & Gu, Z. (2013). Elementary school ELL s’
reading skill profiles using Cognitive Diagnosis Modeling: Roles of length of residence
and home language environment. Language Learning, 63(3), 400–436.
Mäntylä, K., Pietikäinen, S., & Dufva, H. (2009). Kieliä kellon ympäri: perhe
monikielisyyden tutkimuksen kohteena [Languages around the clock: A family as the
target for studies in multilingualism]. Puhe Ja Kieli, 29(1), 27–37.
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2014). Reading comprehension and its underlying
components in second-language learners: A meta-analysis of studies comparing first- and
second-language learners. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 409–433.
Mol, S., & Bus, A. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from
infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 267–296.
Montrul, S. (2012). Is the heritage language like a second language? In L. Roberts, C.
Lindqvist, C. Bardel., & N. Abrahamsson (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook Vol 12.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins, pp. 1–29.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Student
Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Retrieved 10 November 2014 from
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48852548.pdf.
OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 Results: Students on Line: Digital Technologies and
Performance (Vol VI). Retrieved November 10, 2014 from http://www.dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264112995-en.
Pietilä, P., & Merikivi, R. (2014). The impact of free-time reading on foreign language
vocabulary development. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(1), 28–36.
Richardson, U., & Lyytinen, H. (2014). The GraphoGame method: The theoretical and
methodological background of the technology-enhanced learning environment for
learning to read. Human Technology, 10(1), 39–60.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995). A strong inference approach to causal factors in foreign
language learning: A response to MacIntyre. Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 235–244.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2006). Native language
predictors of foreign language proficiency and foreign language aptitude. Annals of
Dyslexia, 56(1), 129–160.
Appendix 1
Descriptive Statistics for the Variables Used in the Study
PARENTAL VARIABLES FIN-ENG Learners RUS-FIN Learners

mean / SD mean / SD mean / SD mean / SD
Mother’s educational level (1 = 3.14 / 1.22 3.20 / 1.20 3.51 /1.38 3.53 / 1.40
basic education . . . 5 = higher
university degree)
Father’s educational level (scale as 2.95 / 1.26 2.96 / 1.28 3.34 / 1.40 3.46 / 1.31
above)
Household income level (1 = under 4.49 / 1.26 4.82 / 1.51 2.73 / 1.51 2.94 / 1.54
14,000€/year . . . 8 = over
140,000€/year)
Amount of reading parent does at 2.66 / .84 2.78 / .82 3.01 / .89 3.07 / .94
home (1 = < 1h/week . . . 4 =
>10h/week)
Amount of writing parent does at 1.93 / .78 2.04 / .94 2.26 / .99 2.37 / 1.16
home (as above)
Parents’ self-assessment of oral 2.52 / .80 2.52 / .83 2.33 / .79 2.26 / .84
skills in FL English /L2 Finnish
(1 = weak . . . 5 = excellent)
Parent’s self-assessment of reading in 2.70 / .76 2.71 / .85 2.67 / .84 2.55 / .89
FL English/L2 Finnish (as above)
Parent’s self-assessment of writing in 2.43 / .82 2.44 / .83 2.18 / .78 2.07 / .81
FL English/L2 Finnish (as above)
Parents’ mean self-assessment of FL 2.55 / .73 2.56 / .78 2.33 / .71 2.31 / .77
English/L2 Finnish (as above)
Parents’ prereading activities 3.13 / .49 3.16 / .54 3.2 / .59 3.28 / .51
(mean)
(1 = never or less often than 2.00–.00 1.00–4.00 1.43–4.00 1.57–4.00

1–2/month . . . 5 = daily
or almost daily)
N of respondents n = 183–200 n = 184–204 n = 116–151 n = 67–78
STUDENT VARIABLES FIN-ENG Learners RUS-FIN Learners

Age 9.96 / .37 14.03 / .37 10.90 / 1.25 14.65 / 1.14
Age of learning to read in 6.38 / .88 6.38 / .85 N/A N/A

Finnish (according to parents) range: 3–9 range: 3–8
Age of learning to read (Russian N/A N/A 6.00 / 1.12 5.74 / .90
or Finnish, according to range: 3–10 range: 3–7
parents)
Age of learning to read in 5.90 / 1.00 6.27 / .99 6.84 / 1.76 9.20 / 3.36
Finnish (according to child) range: 3–9 range: 3–9 range: 3–12 range: 4–16
Age of learning to read in N/A N/A 5.81 / 1.83 5.53 / 1.86

Russian (according to child) range: 1–10 range: 1–11
Feeling about reading in free 1.37 / .61 1.03 / .74 1.12 / .61 1.08 / .71
time (0 = doesn’t like . . . 2 =
likes a lot)
Feeling about writing in free 1.12 / .63 .91 / .66 1.03 / .61 1.07 / .60
time (as above)
Time spent doing homework 1.70 / .80 1.54 / .75 1.73 / .85 2.12 / .92
(0 = not at all . . . 4 = over
2h/day)
Time spent on reading outside 1.86 / 1.14 1.65 / 1.23 1.59 / 1.12 1.97 / 1.38
school (as above)
Time spent on writing outside 1.16 / 1.04 1.07 / 1.06 1.03 / 1.30 1.79 / 1.33
school (as above)
Listening in English/Finnish 2.13 / 1.04 2.82 / .53 2.45 / .89 2.66 / .82
outside school (0 = never or
less often than 1–2/month . . .
3 = daily or almost daily)
Reading in English/Finnish 1.27 / 1.17 1.72 / 1.06 2.23 / .96 2.36 / .91
outside school (as above)
Speaking in English/Finnish 1.31 / 1.13 1.72 / 1.11 2.49 / .85 2.66 / .70
Writing in English/Finnish .93 / .1.11 1.45 / 1.17 2.09 / 1.11 2.36 / .99
Using English/Finnish outside 1.43 / .87 1.93 / .76 2.32 / .74 2.48 / .68
school (mean) (0–3 scale)
Number of languages the 2.80 / 1.12 3.52 / .76 3.48 / .79 4.12 / .89
student reports to know range: 1–6 range: 1–6 range: 2–6 range: 3–6
Frequency of free time reading 1.18 / .58 1.64 / .49 1.36 / .60 1.68 / .52
(mean) (0 = never or less range: range: range: range:
often than 1–2/month . . . .07–3.00 .30 –2.80 .07–3.00 .20–2.73
3 = daily or almost daily)
Frequency of free time writing .93 / .63 1.10 / .48 1.18 / .72 1.26 / .56
(mean) (as above) range: range: range: range:
.00–3.00 .10 –2.30 .00–3.00 .00–3.00
N of respondents Nn = 184–201 n = 193–201 n = 124–145 n = 71–77
SFL READING MEASURES (RAW

SCORES)*
Pearson Young Learners Test of English 5.28 / 3.11

(k = 12, score range 0–12; Cronbach’s
alpha = .78)
Pearson Test of English General & 30.02 / 8.42

DIALANG English (k = 49, score
range 7–49; Cronbach’s alpha = .87)
ALLU test of Finnish (k = 11, score range 7.13 / 2.51

1–11; Cronbach’s alpha = .80)
DIALANG Finnish (k = 30, score range 18.75 / 6.35

4–29; Cronbach’s alpha = .88)
*Note: in the correlational and regression analyses, interval scale Rasch scores were used instead of raw
scores.
Appendix 2
Regression Analyses
FIN -ENG Fourth Graders: Parental Background Variables as Predictors of Reading
in FL English
Variable B SE B β
Parents’ self-assessed English skills (mean) .548 .168 .235
R2 .055
Adjusted R2 .050
F 10.566**
*p < .05 **p < .01
FIN -ENG Fourth Graders: Student Background Variables as Predictors of Reading

in FL English
Variable B SE B β
Age at which the child learned to read in L1 Finnish −.618 .137 −.320
R2 .102
Adjusted R2 .097
F 20.286***
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .000
FIN -ENG Eighth Graders: Parental Background Variables as Predictors of Reading

in FL English
Variable B SE B β
Father’s educational level .144 .055 .196
R2 .038
Adjusted R2 .033
F 6.743*
*p < .05 **p < .01
FIN -ENG Eighth Graders: Student Background Variables as Predictors of Reading

in FL English
Variable B SE B β
Mean frequency of using English in free time .264 .087 .214
Age at which the child learned to read in L1 Finnish −.220 .078 −.200
Time spent on reading in one’s free time, in any language .105 .053 .137
R2 .126
Adjusted R2 .111
F 8.861***
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .000
RUS -FIN Primary School Group: Student Background Variables as Predictors of

Reading in L2 Finnish
Variable B SE B β
Mean frequency of using Russian in free time −.577 .192 −.254
Number of languages that the student reports to know .470 .195 .204
R2 .089
Adjusted R2 .075
F 6.369**
*p < .05 **p < .01

RUS -FIN Secondary School Group: Parental Background Variables as Predictors of

Variable B SE B β
Amount of reading the parent does at home −2.260 .889 −.333
R2 .111
Adjusted R2 .094
F 6.470*
*p < .05.**p < .01
RUS -FIN Secondary School Group: Student Background Variables as Predictors of

Variable B SE B β
Number of languages that the student reports to know 3.393 .762 .477
Frequency of free-time writing (mean across all −3.523 1.217 −.310

activities)
Length of studying and doing homework on a normal −1.575 .735 −.228

school day
R2 .371
Adjusted R2 .338
F 11.220***
*p < .05.**p < .01


Contemporary Second Language Assessment Contempora... - (PART TWO Assessment of Specific Language Aspects)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contemporary Second Language Assessment Contempora... - (PART TWO Assessment of Specific Language Aspects)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6

The Role of Background Factors

Ari Huhta, J. Charles Alderson, Lea

I n order to diagnose strengths and weaknesses in second/foreign language (SFL )

Diagnosing SFL Reading

To identify whether a person has sufficient reading proficiency in order to study at

The DIALUKI Project

and were 13–16 years old (n = 78).

Review of Previous Research into Learners’

Description of the Background Questionnaires

Correlates of SFL Reading

FIN-ENG Learners RUS-FIN Learners

4th grade 8th grade Primary Lower sec.

Mother’s educational level ns 0.207 ns ns

Father’s educational level 0.178 0.215 ns ns

Household income level ns ns ns ns

Amount of reading parent does at ns 0.15 ns −0.328

Amount of writing parent does at ns ns ns −0.276

Parent’s self-assessment of oral skills in 0.156 0.182 ns 0.266

Parent’s self-assessment of reading in 0.281 0.217 ns ns

Parent’s self-assessment of writing in FL 0.147 0.199 ns ns

Parents’ self-assessment (mean across 3 0.211 0.224 ns ns

Parents’ prereading activities (mean) ns ns ns ns

FIN-ENG Learners RUS-FIN Learners

Age of the student ns ns ns ns

Age of learning to read in Finnish −0.309 −0.253 N/A N/A

Age of learning to read (in any language, N/A N/A ns ns

Age of learning to read in Finnish −0.222 −.269 −0.171 −0.317

Age of learning to read in Russian N/A N/A 0.191 ns

Feeling about reading in free time ns ns ns ns

Feeling about writing in free time ns ns ns ns

Time spent doing homework in general ns ns ns −.370

Amount of time spent on reading in ns ns ns ns

Amount of time spent on writing in ns ns ns ns

Frequency of listening in English/ ns ns ns ns

Frequency of reading in English/ ns 0.338 ns ns

Frequency of speaking in English/ 0.155 0.279 ns ns

Frequency of writing in English/Finnish ns ns ns ns

Number of languages the student ns 0.209 0.172 0.460

TABLE 6.2 (Continued)

FIN-ENG Learners RUS-FIN Learners

Frequency of free time reading (mean ns ns ns ns

Frequency of free time writing (mean ns ns ns −0.267

Frequency of using English/Finnish 0.158 0.288 ns ns

• mother’s and father’s educational level,

The analyses with students’ background variables included:

• the age at which they learned to read in their first language,

Findings for the Fourth Grade Finnish Learners of English as a

Findings for the Eighth Grade Finnish Learners of English as a

Findings for the Russian-speaking Learners of Finnish as a

Findings for Certain Dichotomous Background Variables

Reading problems in the family

Knowing the SFL to some degree before starting to learn it at school

Dyslexia, 56(1), 129–160.

PARENTAL VARIABLES FIN-ENG Learners RUS-FIN Learners

mean / SD mean / SD mean / SD mean / SD

(1 = never or less often than 2.00–.00 1.00–4.00 1.43–4.00 1.57–4.00

N of respondents n = 183–200 n = 184–204 n = 116–151 n = 67–78

STUDENT VARIABLES FIN-ENG Learners RUS-FIN Learners

mean / SD mean / SD mean / SD mean / SD

Age 9.96 / .37 14.03 / .37 10.90 / 1.25 14.65 / 1.14

Age of learning to read in 6.38 / .88 6.38 / .85 N/A N/A

Age of learning to read in N/A N/A 5.81 / 1.83 5.53 / 1.86

p < .05 p < .01 p < .000

p < .05 p < .01 p < .000