This study investigated three questions: Do phonological processes show cross-linguistic transfer? How does the language of instruction influence the relationship between phonological processes and decoding? Does performance on Spanish and English phonological processing tasks similarly predict English decoding for the same English learners (ELs)? We studied first-grade ELs who had been enrolled for 2 years in two programs that differed by language of instruction (English only and bilingual). Phonological processing skills were examined following a theory of core phonological processing deficits that postulates that three related constructs—phonological awareness, phonological coding, and phonological recoding—are the major components of phonological processing. The results indicate that (a) phonological processes do exhibit cross-linguistic transfer in young ELs; (b) phonological awareness might best be conceptualized as comprising two developmentally overlapping components; (c) language of instruction influences English and Spanish word reading and Spanish pseudoword decoding, but not English pseudoword decoding; and (d) phonological awareness is the only theoretical phonological processing construct significantly related to all English and Spanish reading tasks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
August, D., Calderón, M. & Carlo, M. (2000). Transfer of skills from Spanish to English: A study of young learners (Report # ED-98-CO-0071). Center for Applied Linguistics.
2.
Christensen, C.A. (1997). Onset, rhymes, and phonemes in learning to read . Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 341—358.
3.
Cisero, C.A., & Royer, J.M. (1995). The development and cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 3, 275—303.
4.
Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children. (1998). Preventing reading di ficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5.
Cormier, P., & Dea, S. (1997). Distinctive patterns of relationship of phonological awareness and working memory with reading development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 193—206.
6.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.
7.
Dunn, F.L., & Dunn, L.M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
8.
Durgunoglu, A.Y., Nagy, W.E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B.J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology , 85, 453—465.
9.
Gerber, M.M., English, J.P., & Leafstedt, J. (2000). La Patera. Santa Barbara: University of California.
10.
Gerber, M.M., English, J., & Leafstedt, J. (2002). Validity issues in measuring, assessing, and facilitating English reading crossover for Spanish speaking learners: An examination of cognitive functions, working memory, and phonological awareness for students at risk and not at risk for failure. New Orleans: American Educational Research Association. Paper presented April, 2001.
11.
Gottardo, A., Stanovich, K.E., & Siegel, L. (1996). The relationship between phonological sensitivity, syntactic processing, and verbal working memory in the reading performance of third-grade children. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology , 63, 563—582.
12.
Hakuta, K., & Garcia, E.E. (1989) Bilingualism and education. American Psychologist, 44, 374—379
13.
Hakuta, K., Butler, G.Y., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, Policy Report 2000-1). Retrieved November 4, 2002, from http://www.lmri.ucsb.edu
14.
Jiménez, T., Leafstedt, J., & Gerber, M. (2002, February). An item analysis of La Patera's phonological awareness measures. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
15.
Liberman, I.Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education , 6(6), 8—17.
16.
Morris, R.D., Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S., Lyon, G.R., Shankweiler, D.P., et al. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology , 90, 347—373.
17.
Muter, V., & Diethelm, K. (2001). The contribution of phonological skills and letter knowledge to early reading development in a multilingual population. Language Learning, 51, 187—219.
18.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., & Taylor, S. (1998). Segmentation, not rhyming, predicts early progress in learning to read. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 71, 3—27.
19.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
20.
Rossell, C. (2000). Different questions, different answers: A critique of the Hakuta, Butler, and Witt report, how long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? Read Abstracts, 1—19.
21.
Rumberger, R. (2000). Educational outcomes and opportunities for English language learners. Santa Barbara: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
22.
Schatschneider, C., Carlson, C.D., Francis, D.J., Foorman, B.R., & Fletcher, J.M. (2002). Relationship of rapid automatized naming and phonological awareness in early reading development: Implications for the double-deficit hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 35, 245— 256.
23.
Semrud-Clikeman, M., Guy, K., & Griffin, J. (2000). Rapid naming deficits in children and adolescents with reading disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Brain andLanguage, 74(1), 70—83.
24.
Shankweiler, D.P., & Crain, S. (1986). Language mechanisms and reading disorders: A modular approach. Cognition, 24, 139—168.
25.
Stanovich, K. (1988). Explaining the difference between the dyslexic and the garden—variety poor reader: The phonological—core variable—difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(10), 590—604.
26.
Swanson, H.L., Saez, L., Gerber, M., & Leafstedt, J. (2004). Literacy and cognitive functioning in bilingual and nonbilingual children at or not at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 3—18.
27.
Wagner, R.K. (1988). Causal relations between the development of phonological processing abilities and the acquisition of reading skills: A meta-analysis . Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 261—279.
28.
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.
29.
Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Laughon, P. (1993). Development of young readers' phonological processing abilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 21(10), 590—612.
30.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
31.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
32.
Yopp, H.K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 159—177.
