Sun-Alperin, M.K. & Wang, M. (2011). Cross-language transfer of phonological and orthographic processing skills from Spanish L1 to English L2. Reading and Writing, 24, 591-614.

finished 11/26 (obviously except for results. i tried tho)

The authors mentioned that cross-language research has focused on L1 phonological processing and its relation to L2 reading. Limited research has been on the effect of L1 orthographic processing and L2 reading and spelling. but reserach has found that both phonological and orthographic skills contribute to reading acquisition. Phonological processing skills in L1 (Chinese/Korean) transfers to English but orthographic knowledge does not contribute much to English word reading 

 This study investigated how L1 phonological and orthographic processing skills influence reading and speling acquisition in L2.

89 Spanish-English bilingual 2nd and 3rd graders

Spanish phonological processing skills esp phoneme deletion predicted a signif amount of variance in Eng real word and pseudoword reading as well as spelling. But, orthographic processing skills in Sp didn’t predict a sig amount of variance in Eng read word or pseudoword spelling. Spelling requires more orthographic knowledge, need to know all the letters to correctly spell a word vs reading, don’t need to process each letter to recognize the word. spelling of nonwords can’t rely o memorization

English: phonological and orthographic processing skills predicted a signif amount of unique variance in both real word and pseudoword reading and spelling. for real word reading, phoneme deletion and homophone choice were sign predictors

thus, universal phonolog processes, for alphabetic lang, are important in facilitating bilingual reading acquisition.

orthographic learning in Sp is important for native Spanish-speaking children learning to read in English. Not only does phonological processing skills predict word reading and spelling, but orthographic processing skills also account for variance, above and beyond that explained by phonolog skills.

Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2008). Early first-language reading and spelling skills predict later second-language reading and spelling skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 162-174.

completed 11/26

longitudinal study,

students learning foreign lang (Germ, Span, or French) in grades 9 and 10

-examined early L1 predictors (word decoding, comprehension, spelling, phonolog awareness, receptive vocab, listening comp) on later L2 reading (word decoding and comp) and spelling skills in high school

-PREVIOUS RESEARCH: L1 phonolog awareness is good predictor of subsequent reading and decoding skills in another lang (referenced Durgunoglu, 2002 and Spanish, Lindsey, Manis, and Bailey, 2003 and Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, and Lacroix, 1999). implications that decoding skills develop independently of oral lang competence and acquisition of oral lang in L2 doesn’t ensure dvlmpt of word recog skills. probs with one component of lang can have neg effect on both L2 and L1 learning. spelling skills in L2 associatd with phonolog processing but reading skill in L2 had more sig influence on spelling than L1. need bottom up and top down processes for reading comp

-RESULTS: L1 word decoding was best predictor of L2 word decoding at the end of 9th and 10th grades. support that skills used to read words in L1 are highly correlated with skills used to read words in L2

-L1 spelling was best predictor of L2 spelling at end of 10th grades. implication is that L1 spelling skills developed in elementary school are used to learn spelling in L2 many years later. L1 phonolog awareness in elem school predictive of L2 spelling ability suggests long term transfer of phonolog skills in spelling and decoding in L2

-L1 reading comp best predictor of L2 reading comp. when 1st year L2 word decoding replaced Woodcock Basic Skills cluster, L1 reading comp still best predictor of L2 reading comp but when 2nd year L2 word decoding replaced 1st year, L2 word decoding was the best predictor. thus, L2 word decoding explains variance of L2 reading comp. yet, decoding explained less than half of variance. L1 lang proficiency var not explain significant additional variance. contend that oral proficiency in L2 more important for L2 reading comp as stud more proficient at decoding and read more difficult text.

-though lang are alphabetic transferred skills undergo adjustments to accomodate L2 orthographic pecularities

 

Cross-linguistic Transfer Notes

Marian, V. & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). Cross-linguistic transfer and borrowing in bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguisitcs, 28(2), 369-390.

-CONCLN: Cross-linguistic lang influenced by diff in lang environment, architecture of lang system (includes linguistic structure – semantic and syntactic), grammatical category (noun, verb), concreteness level (abstract/concrete for nouns, action/state/func for verbs)

-patterns may be for bilinguals whose L1 more proficient . could’t separate indivi contributions of proficiency, order of acquisition, specific lang. lang status, local production contexts (if interviewed by monolingual speakers, borrowings dec)

-question is whether results/patterns will be similar for bilin w/ different proficiency and age of acquisition, other produc contexts, lang that follow diff structural properties

-suggests 2 types of cross-linguistic interaxn at diff levels of cog processing. borrowing may be rooted in lexical access phenomena. transfer may be rooted in representational/conceptual phenom

-grammatical category and level of concretness appear constrain lang interaxn differently. grammatical more likely influence on conceptual rep.  level of concretenss more likely influence on lexical access. influence of control mechanisms

-interactive bilingual lang system

Durgunoglu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 189-204.

(completed 11/22)

The author’s goal was to use the exisiting research on cross-linguistic transfer to help distinguish between English language learners who are struggling due to cognitive or learning problems and those who are struggling due to low linguistic proficiency. The author states that if the student has mastered a certain level of proficiency in skills that are found to transfer across languages but are struggling with those skills in the non-native language, then it is possibly due to low linguistic proficiency and not due to cognitive or learning problems. If the student has not attained a certain level of proficiency in the native language, they should be observed further. It may be that the student has low school or home support. However, if the student has had extensive support, it is likely that he or she has a learning or cognitive disability.

Some aspects of literacy transfer over to other languages while others do not. This provides evidence for a common representation for general knowledge as well as separate representation for language specific information. One of the aspects of literacy that was found to transfer is phonological awareness. Another is syntactic awareness, which is the ability to notice internal grammatical structure of sentences. Syntactic awareness affects decoding skills and reading comprehension — students are able to engage in metacognition and monitor whether they comprehend what they are reading. They are also better able to use the sentence context. Also, functional awareness transfers. Though decoding skills may have negative transfer, overall, it does have positive transfer. There is a positive correlation between word recognition skills and spelling. And it looks like ELLs and native speakers go through the same stages for word recognition and spelling development. However, for students who speak a non-alphabetic language, this transfer process does not occur, for obvious reasons. The use of formal definitions and decontextualized language , knowledge of stroy grammar and writing conventions, good meaning making strategies in comprehension are also aspects of literacy that transfer from one language to another.

Writer’s Workshop Notes So Far

-dvlpd in Reading and Writing Project at Columbia University

-teachers should think aloud

-students have lots of choice

-teacher: teacher/mentor: model writing techniques and conferring w/ student. teach one skill at a time. 2-7 min; direct writing instruction=mini lesson; then at least 45 min independent writing; also sharing of work; could be small group work, could skip

-mini lesson about 10-15 min: makes connection to previous lesson, teaches new skill, practice

-4 principles

  1. Write about own ideas
  2. Consistent writing process
  3. Work in authentic ways
  4. Foster independence

-Steps (1 month)

  1. Generating ideas (1-2 days)
  2. Collecting writing entries (5–10 days)
  3. Choosing a seed idea (2–3 days)
  4. Planning the draft (1–2 days)
  5. Revising to change the content and quality (1–3 days)
  6. Editing to improve grammar (1–2 days)
  7. Publishing the piece to share it with the world (1–3 days)
  8. Writing Celebration (1 day)

article for 805

“Cross-linguistic transfer”; “Crossover of ___ Skills”

Cardenas-Hagan, E., Carlson, C.D., & Pollard-Durodola, S.D. (2007). The cross-linguistic transfer of early literacy skills: The role of initial L1 and L2 skills and language of instruction. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(3), 249-259.

-with monolingual speakers, phonological awareness is precursor for learning to read; is common underlying proficiency

-possibility that transfer of reading skills may depend on initial literacy in L1 and L2.

-Bilingual Ed theoretical framework: common underlying knowledge about language: interdependenc hypothesis

-L1 vocab and conceptual knowledge highly developed and supported by environment outside of school, intensive immersion in L2 may be beneficial for L2 dvlpmt.

-less dvlped L1 vocab and conceptual knowledge immersed in L2 may not experience continued dvlpmt of L1 and limiting effect of dvlpmt of L2

-Chiappe, Siegel, Wade-Woolley studied native English and ESL K students, both groups performed similarly in Eng acquisition when taught in Eng immersion

-Muter, Hulme, Snowling, Taylor found that at-risk and not-at-risk students with low initial Eng skills in K performed at lower levels on later Eng measures in 1st. no interactions suggests dvlpmnt of Eng skills dependent on initial Eng skills. initial L1 skills not measured

-language of instruction must facilitate dvlpmt of vocab, concept knowledge, pring awareness, and language b/c can’t relate L2 linguistic and emergent lit knolwedge to spoken native lang

-transfer expected to be enhanced when receive instruction in L1 and made transition to L2

-Cummins argued to dvlp L1 skills before intense instruction in L2. Lopez and Greenfield agreed

-though phonol0gical awareness in Eng strongly related to Eng language proficiency, Sp lang proficiency and Sp phonological awareness also contribute to Eng phonological awareness

-those not exposed to literate environment before school, initial language of instruction important

-Phonological Awareness theoretical framework: beginning readers who understand/are aware of phonemes more likely to learn orthographic-phonologic correspondences

-strong correlation b/t phonolog awareness and word recog skills

-phonolog awareness and word recog seem to transfer across lang

-bilingual programs (diff is use of L1 in acquisition of L2)

  • transitional — early exit. L1 rapidly dec
  • transitional — late exit. L1 is lang of instruction from K to 6. at least 40% in L1

-types of ESL programs

  • immersion — primarily L2
  • transitional bilingual,
  • dual language — maintain L1 while learning L2. instruction in L1 and L2. reflects Cummins’ theory that it takes 5-7 ears for cognitive, academic learning and transfer of skils and knowledge from 1 lang to other

-usu 50/50 model, divi b/t languages and not mixed

-few studies have studied the simultaneous role of initial L1 and L2 skills on later acquisition of L2 skills. Mostly focus on studying acquisition and production of L2 structures through L1

-some research support instruction in L1 while others support instruction in L2. few studies on how diff instruction can produce diff results in students with diff initial L1 and L2 skills

-reserach focused on narrow range of skills, mostly phonological awareness and word reading

-PURPOSE OF STUDY: examine relationship b/t ELL L1 letter naming and sound id, phonolog awareness, oral lang skills and dvlpmt of same skills in L2.

-longitudinal Sp-speaking ELLs K to 2nd. Data from 1st yr, K students. 35 schools. 9 schools implemented immersion, 14 transitional bilingual, 7 dual language, 5 implemented 2 lang programs in diff classrooms in school (3 both immersion and dual, 3 both transitional bilingual and immersion)?. so, overall 15 immersion, 14 transitional, 10 dual. 2 classes from each school. 97 K teachers (34 I, 38 TB, 25 DL), 10 stud per class

-oral lang and literacy measures

  • letter name and sound id: identify letters of Eng and Sp alphabet
  • CTOPP has 9 subtests measuring phonolog, rapid name, phonlog mem. 5 used (Ellision, Blending Phonemes into Words, Blending Phonemes into Non-words, Segmenting Words, Sound Matching)
  • Test of Phonological Prcoessing-Spanish (TOPP-S) aligned with Eng CTOPP
  • Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised (WLPB-R)
  • Eng lang ratio

RESULTS: initial Sp and Eng performance for letter name sound id similar, about 1/3 of letters, phonological awareness about 1/4. but inital Sp oral lang higher than Eng but below normatve pop mean; end of year, letter name sound id higher in both lang, phonological higher. but oral lang both lang minimal inc

focused on relationship b/t initial L1 skills and later L2 skills as func of initial L2 skills (?). transfer is deg to which L1 predicted L2 skills above and byound initial L2 skills

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: L1 abilities mediates acquisition of L2 when beginning to acquire L2. early Sp skills predicted Eng outcomes at end of K controlling for early Eng skills. did differ according to skill and type of instruction.

  • #1a: letter name and sound id: level of intial L1 skills of students who began year w/ high L2 letter name and sound id had lil impact on end-of-year L2 letter name and sound id skills(??) regardless of lang of insturction
  • #1b: began year with low L2 letter name and sound id skills, level of initial L1 skills did impact end of year L2 letter name sound id skills. low initial L2 performed higher in English the stronger their Sp letter name and sound id skills, regardless of lang of instruction
  • #1 recap: so, when early Eng letter name sound id low, strong Sp letter name sound id related to higher later letter name and sound id in Eng, whether instructed in Sp or Eng. knowledge of Sp letter name sound id transferred
  • #2a: phonological awareness and oral lang skills, when instruction in Sp, early initial L1 skills predicted later Eng skills after controlling for early Eng skills
  • #2b: instruction in Eng, early Sp skills didn’t predict later Eng skills, controlling for early Eng skills

-should consider lang of instruction and L1 and L2 skills when deciding placements into lang of instruction programs. evidence that explicit instruction in foundational skills such as phonological awareness and phonics in L1 may assist transition to reading in L2. those with weak foundational skills in L2, level of L1 and lang of instructionhas an impact

-lil improv in oral lang abilities in L1 or L2

-need to examine broader range of skills over longer period of time in varied populations