Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The influence of Chinese character recognition skills on English reading and spelling development Garforth, Kathryn Charlotte 2018

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2018_may_garforth_kathryn.pdf [ 2.48MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0366059.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0366059-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0366059-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0366059-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0366059-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0366059-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0366059-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0366059-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0366059.ris

Full Text

THE INFLUENCE OF CHINESE CHARACTER RECOGNITION SKILLS ON ENGLISH READING AND SPELLING DEVELOPMENT by  Kathryn Charlotte Garforth M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2013 B.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 2009 B.Sc., The University of Lethbridge, 2005   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Special Education)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2018  © Kathryn Charlotte Garforth, 2018   ii Abstract   The present study examined literacy skills in 78 participants who had English as a second language (ESL) in grades 2-4, who had been attending school in English since kindergarten and had a Chinese language as their first language.  These participants were tested on word reading, pseudoword reading, spelling, pseudoword spelling, and phonological awareness in English as well as word reading in Chinese.  This study found that participants who had ESL were able to become proficient at reading and spelling in English.  The participants’ Chinese character identification ability was correlated with their phonological awareness and the spelling of English and pseudowords.  However, when including both phonological awareness and Chinese reading ability in the regression equations, Chinese character identification ability was only a significant predictor of pseudoword spelling ability.  These results show the importance of understanding the literacy skills of an individual who has ESL in their first language as well as the language in which they are being instructed.     iii Lay Summary This study was conducted with participants in grades 2-4 who had English as a second language and a Chinese language as a first language.  They had started kindergarten at an English public school with limited exposure to English.  It looked at the participants’ ability to read Chinese characters and their ability to read and spell both real and pseudowords in English, and their phonological awareness.  Chinese character reading was related to the participants’ phonological awareness, their ability to spell real words and pseudowords as well as their ability to read pseudowords.  Once the participants’ awareness of sounds in the English language was accounted for, their ability to read in Chinese was no longer significantly related to their English reading and spelling ability.  Phonological awareness is easier to measure in a school setting and accounts for more of a relationship to English literacy skills than Chinese character reading does.    iv Preface This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Graduate Studies, Special Education.  It is the original, unpublished, and independent work of K. Garforth.  Ms. Garforth was solely responsible for overseeing all aspects of the research project, including but not limited to the recruitment of participants, data collection, scoring, analysis, and interpretation of the data.  This study was conducted under the guidance and supervision of her supervisory committee: Dr. Linda Siegel (supervisor), Dr. Laurie Ford (committee member), and Dr. Sterett Mercer (committee member).  Prior to commencing data collection, ethical approval for this research was issued by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia (certificate number: H16-00248; “The Influence of Chinese Word Reading on ESL Students’ English Reading and Spelling Development” [dissertation title] and “The Influence of Language Background on Reading and Spelling Development” [BREB-approve project title]).   v Table of Contents  Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iii Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................v List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix List of Abbreviations .....................................................................................................................x Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xi Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Bilingualism .................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Differences Between Chinese and English ..................................................................... 4 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature & Statement of the Problem ...........................................9 2.1 Students who had ESL .................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Students who Have ESL and Literacy .................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Chinese Students who Have ESL ......................................................................... 10 2.1.2.1 Research From Asia .......................................................................................... 12 2.1.2.2 Research Employing Comparisons Across Countries ...................................... 13 2.1.2.3 Research From North America ......................................................................... 14 2.2 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 16   vi 2.3 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................ 19 2.4 Research Questions & Hypotheses ............................................................................... 20 2.5 Rationale for Measures ................................................................................................. 22 Chapter 3: Methodology..............................................................................................................24 3.1 Participants .................................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 25 3.3 English Measures .......................................................................................................... 28 3.3.1 Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement ..................................................... 28 3.3.1.1 Letter Word Identification ................................................................................ 28 3.3.1.2 Word Attack ...................................................................................................... 28 3.3.1.3 Spelling ............................................................................................................. 28 3.3.1.4 Spelling of Sounds ............................................................................................ 29 3.3.2 Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing Second Edition ....................... 29 3.3.2.1 Elision ............................................................................................................... 29 3.4 Chinese Measures ......................................................................................................... 30 3.5 Interview ....................................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 4: Results........................................................................................................................31 4.1 Differences Between Language Groupings .................................................................. 31 4.1.1 English Measures .................................................................................................. 31 4.1.2 Chinese Measures ................................................................................................. 34 4.2 Regression Analyses ..................................................................................................... 36 4.2.1 English Measures Regressed on the CRL ............................................................. 36 4.2.2 English Measure Regressed on the CRL and Elision ........................................... 38   vii 4.3 Structural Equation Model ............................................................................................ 40 4.3.1 English Measures Regressed on the Reading Level ............................................. 40 4.3.2 English Measures Regressed on the RL and Elision ............................................ 42 4.4 Key Findings for Specific Research Questions ............................................................ 44 4.5 Interview ....................................................................................................................... 45 4.6 Common Reading & Spelling Errors ............................................................................ 48 Chapter 5: Conclusion .................................................................................................................54 5.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 54 5.1.1 High Scoring on English Measures....................................................................... 57 5.2 Key Findings for Research Questions........................................................................... 58 5.3 Implications for Practice ............................................................................................... 60 5.4 Strengths, Limitations, and Implications for Future Research ..................................... 62 5.5 Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................. 65 References:....................................................................................................................................66 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................76 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................... 76 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................... 78 Appendix C ............................................................................................................................... 82 Appendix D ............................................................................................................................... 84    viii List of Tables  Table 3.1 Demographic Characteristics ........................................................................................ 27 Table 4.1 Grade 2 Raw Scores From English Measures .............................................................. 33 Table 4.2 Grade 2 Percentile Rank From English Measures ........................................................ 33 Table 4.3 Grade 3 Raw Scores From English Measures .............................................................. 33 Table 4.4 Grade 3 Percentile Rank From English Measures ........................................................ 34 Table 4.5 Grade 4 Raw Scores From English Measures .............................................................. 34 Table 4.6 Grade 4 Percentile Rank From English Measures ........................................................ 34 Table 4.7 Chinese Measures: Median and Interquartile Range .................................................... 35 Table 4.8 Correlation Matrix: CRL .............................................................................................. 37 Table 4.9 Regression: CRL ........................................................................................................... 38 Table 4.10 Correlation Matrix: CRL and Elision ......................................................................... 39 Table 4.11 Multiple Regression: CRL and Elision ....................................................................... 40 Table 4.12 Correlation Matrix: RL ............................................................................................... 41 Table 4.13 Regression: RL ........................................................................................................... 41 Table 4.14 Correlation Matrix: RL and Elision ............................................................................ 43 Table 4.15 Multiple Regression: RL and Elision.......................................................................... 43 Table 4.16 Interview Results ........................................................................................................ 47 Table 4.17 Common Errors for Letter Word ................................................................................ 51 Table 4.18 Common Errors for Word Attack ............................................................................... 51 Table 4.19 Common Errors for Spelling....................................................................................... 52 Table 4.20 Common Errors for Spelling of Sounds ..................................................................... 53    ix List of Figures Figure 4.1 Regression: CRL ......................................................................................................... 37 Figure 4.2 Multiple Regression CRL and Elision ......................................................................... 39 Figure 4.3 Regression: RL ............................................................................................................ 41 Figure 4.4 Multiple Regression: RL and Elision .......................................................................... 43    x List of Abbreviations  CCRMA Chinese Character Recognition Measure and Assessment Scale CCS  Chinese Combined Score Chinese Students who have Mandarin, Cantonese or another Chinese language as their  first language CRL  Chinese Reading Level CTOPP2 Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing Second Edition ESL  English as a second language Letter Word Letter Word Identification RL  Reading Level SD  Standard Deviation Simplified Simplified Cantonese Measure Traditional Traditional Cantonese Measure WJ IV  Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Achievement    xi Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest thanks to Dr. Linda Siegel for all of the opportunities she has given me throughout my academic career at the University of British Columbia.  She has offered support and encouragement throughout my journey as an undergraduate and graduate student.  I would like to thank Drs. Laurie Ford and Sterett Mercer, my committee members, for their support during my course work and advancement through my program.  I would like to thank Dr. Ho, Dr. McBride-Chang, Dr. Chen, Dr. Chung Dr. Chow, Dr. Zhong, Dr. Burgress and Dr. Hayward for allowing me to use the measures they developed in my study.  I would like to thank my research assistants Sonja Saqui and Joanne Ho; I would not have been able to collect my data in a timely manner without their assistance.  Special thanks are owed to my parents, husband, and family who never gave up on helping me fulfill my dreams, regardless of the obstacles I have faced along the way.   xii Dedication  To my family.   1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Introduction Canada, like many other countries around the world, is a multicultural nation whose population is linguistically and culturally diverse. In the most recent Statistics Canada Census (2016), just under one-fifth of Canadian residents spoke a non-official language as their mother tongue with over two and a half percent of residents identifying a Chinese language as their first language (from here forward, Chinese will refer to Mandarin, Cantonese or another Chinese language such as Shanghainese or Taiwanese). The population having identified a non-official language as their first language increased in British Columbia to over one fifth, and over six percent of British Columbians identified Chinese as their first language. This number increased again when considering Metro Vancouver, where more than fifteen percent of residents reported Chinese as their first language while parts of Richmond and Vancouver had more than sixty percent of residents reporting Chinese as their mother tongue (CensusMapper, 2017).   Classroom composition in Canadian metropolitan schools has changed significantly in the past thirty years with an increase in the number of students who have English as a second language (ESL). In each classroom, you can typically find at least a few students who have ESL.  Students are considered to have ESL if their primary home language(s) is not English and they may need specialized language instruction to support academic success (Province of British Columbia, 2018).  With an evolving classroom composition, Canadian educators are faced with teaching students who have ESL from diverse language backgrounds and it is very important these educators understand the needs of their students. These students come from diverse language backgrounds and vary in their mastery of the English language at the time they enter school   2 (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Oritz, 2005). There are many students who begin their formal schooling not knowing how to speak or understand English. In many instances, students who have ESL are being spoken to, taught and expected to learn before they have developed adequate linguistic foundations in their second language (Bialystok, Luk, & Kwan, 2005; Koda, 2015). Educational outcomes for students who have ESL can be enhanced if educators have a better understanding of the development of language, literacy skills and how to assess individual while they are learning these new skills; any under development in these areas has the potential to undermine their academic success. Educational research can foster the design of optimal educational environments for students who have ESL (August & Hakuta, 1997; Goldenberg et al., 2008).  In the Lower-Mainland of British Columbia, many classrooms contain students who have Chinese as their first language. Investigating whether there is a relationship between Chinese character identification and various English literacy skills could help provide educators with a better understanding of how an individual’s knowledge about their first language influences the acquisition of the English language and related literacy skills. These findings could provide educators with insight into best practices for teaching and assessing students who have ESL with Chinese as their first language.   Individuals learn the sounds and structure of any spoken language from a very early age (Joseph, 2006). Individuals who experience exposure to languages with different sounds and syllable structures other than English, must develop sensitivities to sounds and syllables they are not used to hearing in their first language. In the case of individuals with Chinese as their first language, they have minimal exposure to syllables with consonant blends because most Chinese syllables do not contain consonant blends (Hashimoto, 1972). An example of the limited syllable structure can be found in Mandarin: it has approximately four hundred syllables with a relatively   3 simple structure. Nearly 60 percent of the syllables are open and the remaining syllables are closed with one of two final consonants, /n/ or /ŋ/ (Hashimoto, 1972; Wang & Cheng, 2008). Individuals who have a first language background of Chinese are required to learn new phonemes, become familiar with new syllable types and consonant blends in order to have a full understanding of the complexities of the English language. Literacy skills begin their development from listening to spoken language and typically start emerging long before children enter a formal educational setting. This knowledge is acquired by children increasing their familiarity with concepts of print, becoming proficient in their oral language skills, and gaining an understanding of basic text structures (Lesaux, Geva, Koda, Siegel, & Shanahan, 2008; Nation & Snowling, 2000).    Literacy instruction is extremely important for students who have ESL because reading and writing are required conduits for success in the content subject areas past the primary grades (Fitzgerald & Amendum, 2007). Unfortunately, the majority of students who have ESL are at a disadvantage because, unlike native English speakers, they do not have adequate linguistic foundations in their second language before they begin to learn how to read (Geva & Massey-Garrison, 2013; Koda, 2015). In order for students who have ESL to catch up to their English monolingual peers, they must simultaneously acquire oral language and literacy skills in English at a reasonably fast rate. In the classroom, educators must focus instruction on competencies most relevant for success in literacy for their students (Lesaux et al., 2008).  It is important for educators to understand how an individual’s knowledge from their first language relates to their learning of English and its literacy skills. For example, if a student knows how to read Chinese characters, does it have any relationship to how they approach literacy skills in English? It is important to know if measuring Chinese character identification   4 amongst students who have ESL provides insight into their literacy skills while they are still gaining proficiency in English. This knowledge could help educators tailor their curriculum to meet any instructional needs of these students. 1.2 Bilingualism Generally speaking, bilingualism is when an individual makes regular use of more than one language in their everyday lives (Grosjean, 2008). However, bilingualism cannot be used as a simple grouping variable because its effects on an individual’s language performance are not homogeneous (Bialystok, Luk et al., 2005). Bilingualism is a term that has many categories attached to it. In any study, it is important to consider and define the type of bilingualism being discussed. Individuals who acquire the second language before the adolescence, which is often considered the ‘critical’ period for learning a new language, are considered early bilinguals and those who acquire the second language after this period are considered late bilinguals (Buchweitz & Prat, 2013). Simultaneous bilinguals are individuals who learn two languages at the concurrently and sequential bilinguals learn and acquire some proficiency in their first language before learning the second language (Gottardo, Koh, Chen, & Jia, 2017). Jia and Aaronson (2003) found young Chinese students who had ESL living in an English immersion environment to have English become their dominant language within three years. 1.3 Differences Between Chinese and English  There is a universal nature to reading across all written languages, it is the process of mapping some form of written information onto units of the spoken language (e.g., Perfetti, 2003; Perfetti et al., 2007; Perfetti, Nelson, Liu, Fiez & Tan, 2010). When discussing the process of reading it is important to have a clear understanding of three concepts: writing system, orthography and script. The writing system refers to the principles related to the fundamental   5 writing-language relationship and not the appearances of the written language. This means an alphabetic writing system, such as English, is rudimentarily different than a morphosyllabic writing system, such as Chinese. Orthography refer to the differences in the implementation within a writing system (e.g., Perfetti, 2003; Perfetti et al., 2007; Perfetti & Liu, 2005). For example, the French and English languages share a writing system but have different orthographies while Chinese and English have different writing systems. The script of a writing system refers to the specific graphic implementation and it makes a difference to how the language is read because it controls the visual input the reader processes. It is the smallest size of the graphic units that map onto language units. For English, the script is the Roman alphabet and for Chinese, the script is the character (e.g., Perfetti & Liu, 2005; Perfetti et al., 2007).  The nature of the writing system, the orthography, and the script have direct implications for how the language is read (Perfetti, 2003; Perfetti & Liu, 2005). No writing system can be read without some form of phonological awareness and the writing system a language uses dictates how the orthography-to-phonology mappings occur (Perfetti, 2003; Perfetti et al., 2005; Tan et al., 1995). The phonological information in Chinese is retrieved once the character has been identified while the phonological information in English is obtained in tandem with the orthographic information (Liu, Dunlap, Fiez & Perfetti, 2007; Perfetti et al., 2005; Tan, Hoosain & Peng, 1995). The Chinese writing system employs a morphosyllabic structure where a character represents both a syllable and a morpheme that carries meaning (Ho & Bryant, 1997; Keung & Ho, 2009; Leong et al., 1987; Leong & Joshi, 1997; Leong & Tamaoka, 1998; McBride-Chang & Ho, 2005; Shu et al., 2000; Tan & Perfetti, 1998; Yeung et al., 2011). Reading Chinese requires a detailed visual-orthographic analysis of the character as opposed to English where readers are required to map graphemes to phonemes that are then assembled into   6 spoken words (Gottardo, Yan, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2001; Leong, 1997; Mattingly, 1987; Pasquarella, Chen, Gottardo & Geva, 2015; Perfetti et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2003; Yeung et al., 2011). In alphabetic languages, such as English, letters only indicate sound and they do not have any direct relation to meaning (Yeung et al., 2011). The ability to read in English requires an individual to be able to read unfamiliar words, familiar words and even pseudowords. Decoding strategies can be used by individuals to identify unfamiliar words and pseudowords (Ehri, 2013; Perfetti, 2003). The ability to read in Chinese requires the reader to be able to identify familiar characters and the reader must be able to hypothesize the pronunciation and or the meaning of characters they are unfamiliar by using the compositional principles of the writing system. Strictly speaking, in Chinese pseudowords are impossible (Perfetti, 2003).  Two frameworks have been developed to help understand the brain’s response to learning the reading of a language with a different writing system. The assimilation hypothesis suggests that in second language learning, the brain employs procedures from the existing reading network while learning the new writing system. In the accommodation hypothesis, the brain creates new procedures for reading the new language system that are not involved in the first language reading system (e.g., Cao, Tao Liu, Perfetti & Booth, 2013; Perfetti & Liu, 2005). The majority of the functional magnetic resonance imaging research on these hypotheses has been conducted with late Chinese-English bilingual adults with the majority of the results supporting the assimilation hypothesis and some evidence of accommodation (Cao, et al., 2013; Nelson, Liu, Fiez & Perfetti, 2009; Perfetti & Liu, 2005; Tan et al., 2003). It was found that individuals with a higher proficiency of Chinese and English had increased activation in the Chinese network (e.g., Cao et al., 2013; Perfetti et al., 2007).   7  As noted before, methods of reading depend on the foundational components of the writing system, the orthography and the script and aspects of these components influence the reading instruction methods. In North America, children are often taught to read with some element of decoding and phonics instruction in early reading programs (Pasquarella et al., 2015; Shu & Anderson, 1999). However, this method of reading instructions cannot be used for reading Chinese because the Chinese character maps to a syllable and never a phoneme (Bialystok, McBride-Chang & Luk, 2005; Perfetti et al., 2007; Perfetti et al., 2010). Chinese reading instruction heavily relies on rote memorization of characters (e.g., McBride-Chang, 2004; Wang et al., 2005; Yeung, Siegel & Chan, 2013). Using memory, as a method of Chinese reading instruction, is effective because a high proportion of the characters have a consistent pronunciation in the words they appear in (e.g., Pan et al., 2011). The use of memory as a reading strategy can be applied to English and other languages with an alphabetic writing system (e.g., Perfetti et al., 2010).  There is an increasing amount of evidence suggesting Chinese and English bilinguals who are literate in only one language approach reading differently than those who are able to read in both languages (Gottardo et al., 2017; Wang & Koda, 2013; Wang, Koda & Perfetti, 2003; Wang, Perfetti, & Liu, 2003). This finding is thought to occur because of the interaction between the two languages (Gottardo et al., 2017; Koda, 1996). There have been many studies that have not found an association between reading Chinese and English. This supports Geva & Siegel’s (2000) central processing hypothesis that suggests transference of reading and spelling skills across languages may depend on common cognitive processing skills. In order for word reading accuracy to transfer between two languages, there must be script-specific processes that are similar between the languages (e.g. Gottardo et al, 2001; Wang et al, 2005). Chinese and   8 English use writing systems that represent different units of speech. Skills used to read morphemes found in Chinese characters cannot be used to sound out the individual phonemes represented by letters in alphabetic languages such as English.     9 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature & Statement of the Problem 2.1 Students who had ESL The effects of bilingualism are far from simple and there is no way to easily compare the relationship between bilinguals and monolinguals. Cognition is complex, especially when considering how an individual learns to use a new language (Bialystok, 2008). There are many studies discussing the development of reading in students who had ESL from different language backgrounds and at different stages in their education (e.g., Gottardo et al., 2001; Grant, Gottardo, & Geva, 2011; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). Second language acquisition is defined as a process involving learning a new language in addition to an already established system (Bialystok, McBride-Chang et al., 2005). Chiappe et al., (2002) found Canadian kindergarten and grade one students who had ESL from various first language backgrounds acquired basic literacy skills at the same rate as their monolingual peers. Bialystok (2007) concluded bilingualism influences children’s literacy acquisition in complex ways. It can be advantageous for some skills, such as concepts of print, but hinder other areas like their oral language competence. 2.1.1 Students who Have ESL and Literacy  Evidence suggests that students who had ESL  did not require oral language proficiency in the second language for word-reading skills to develop (e.g., Durgunoglu et al., 1993; Geva, Wade-Woolley & Shany, 1993; Gholamain & Geva, 1999). Previous studies have shown that assessing a student who had ESL’s oral language proficiency in their second language is marginally effective for predicting decoding and word recognition ability (e.g., Durgunoglu et al., 1993; Geva & Siegel, 2000; Gholamain & Geva, 1999). There have been mixed results regarding the transference of decoding skills across languages in the early stages of literacy for children who are bilingual. Decoding skills appear to transfer across languages when the writing   10 systems are similar, but there has been no evidence found for its transference when the languages employ different writing systems (e.g., Geva & Siegel, 2000; Gottardo et al., 2001).  Research has repeatedly shown spelling development for students who had ESL to have a similar trajectory to that of English monolinguals (e.g., Fashola, Drum, Mayer, & Kang, 1996; Limbos & Geva, 2001; Tompkins, Abramson, & Pritchard, 1999; Wade-Woolley & Siegel, 1997). Regardless of the differences and complexities between an individual’s first and second language, their spelling performance had a higher correlation with their reading skills in their second language than to their first language’s characteristics (e.g., Geva et al., 1993; Wade-Woolley & Siegel, 1997).   Phonological awareness has been shown to be a good predictor of word recognition skills among students who had ESL as well as the development of their oral and written language skills in a second language (e.g., Chall, 1996; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998). Research has shown skills relating to phonological awareness can transfer across languages for bilingual students and that these skills can be used to predict word recognition and spelling development in their first and second languages (e.g., Durgunoglu et al., 1993; Geva & Wade-Woolley, 1998; Wade-Woolley & Siegel, 1997).  In a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies of the correlates for Chinese and alphabetic reading and Tan et al, (2005) found phonological processing in these languages to share three common areas of brain function. 2.1.2 Chinese Students who Have ESL Before examining research involving Chinese-speaking students who had ESL, it is important to consider the nature of the sample. In order for a fair comparison of conclusions from previous research, the samples must be from similar situations. When examining research, it is essential to remember that different countries and education systems employ different   11 approaches to teaching. In addition, it is important to consider the societal language(s) spoken in the sample’s environment.   In research from China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, the individuals in the sample were living in an environment where Chinese was the societal language. These individuals were exposed to Chinese at home, in school, in the community, and through media exposure. In these countries, Chinese and English reading instruction typically begins around age four or five. The Chinese characters are usually introduced as holistic visual patterns. English reading instruction is taught using rote memorization and the sound symbol relationship is not explicitly taught to the students (e.g., Cheung, Chan & Chong, 2007). These individuals attended school in Chinese and learned English as a subject as part of their formal schooling (e.g. Keung & Ho, 2009; Pasquarella et al., 2015; Shu & Anderson, 1999).   The exposure to the Chinese language is very different for students who had ESL in North America because English is a societal language. French is also spoken in certain areas of Canada, but in British Columbia, English is the predominant language. There are some areas in North America where there is a strong Chinese community, but individuals have nowhere near the same Chinese exposure as they would if they lived in a Chinese speaking Asian country. In research conducted in North America, Chinese students who had ESL typically attend an English-speaking school and any additional reading instruction for Chinese is  done either at home with their parents or at an after-school Chinese heritage language program. North American reading instruction typically employs at least some elements of phonics and decoding instruction during early reading programs (e.g., Keung & Ho, 2009; Pasquarella et al., 2015; Shu & Anderson, 1999).    12 2.1.2.1 Research From Asia Tong & McBride-Chang (2009) found visual-orthographic skills to be a consistent factor in both Chinese and English word reading for second and fifth grade students in Hong Kong.  There are conflicting findings with in the research as to whether phonological awareness plays a role in Chinese reading. Phonological awareness, as measured by a rhyme detection subtest, did not account for any independent contributions to Chinese character reading amongst first grade students in Hong Kong (Yeung et al., 2011). Tong and McBride-Chang (2009) investigated phonological awareness as measured by a syllable and phoneme deletion task they created and did not find it to be uniquely associated with reading in Chinese for second and fifth grade students. However, Keung & Ho (2009) found there was strong evidence that English phonological awareness measured by rhyme detection, and especially phonemic awareness measured by initial phoneme deletion, played a unique role in the Chinese reading development of second grade students in Hong Kong. In a longitudinal study, phonological awareness as measured by Chinese syllable deletion was found to be a significant predictor of word reading abilities among kindergarten students from Hong Kong (Chow et al., 2005). In Hong Kong, a cross-sectional study with children aged 7- to 12-years old, found phonological processing played a significant part in Chinese character recognition (Chan & Siegel, 2001). In a five-year longitudinal study conducted in Beijing, Pan et al. (2011) found Chinese character recognition was an important predictor of all subsequent reading skills assessed, including English word recognition. A two-year longitudinal study conducted in Hong Kong found that both universal and language specific skills needed in the development of Chinese character recognition and English word reading among young students who had ESL (McBride-Chang & Ho, 2005). In Hong Kong, a study involving Chinese individuals aged 9 to 11 who had   13 ESL, found a cross-linguistic transfer of visual-orthographic knowledge, phonological awareness, morphological awareness and rapid naming between Chinese and English. (Chung & Ho, 2010).   In research conducted in Singapore comparing 6-year-old students from three different first language backgrounds who all had ESL, Chinese students employed a visual approach to reading conventional high frequency words in English. The Chinese individuals in this research had poorer phonological processing skills when compared to the students who had Malay and Tamil as their first language (Dixon, Zhao, & Joshi, 2010). 2.1.2.2 Research Employing Comparisons Across Countries There have been several studies conducted comparing students who had ESL while residing in different countries. Bialystok, McBride-Chang, & Luk (2005) examined the reading of three groups of 5- and 6-year olds. They were English monolinguals residing in Canada, Chinese and English speaking individuals residing in Canada and Chinese and English speaking individuals residing in Hong Kong. This research found that decoding skills need to be built up separately for languages employing different writing systems. They concluded that the abilities supporting English reading cannot be recruited for Chinese reading.   When comparing the English spelling performance of students from the United States, Norway, India, and China, researchers found Chinese students employ a visual approach when spelling English words (Joshi, Hoien, Feng, Chengappa, and Boulware-Gooden, 2006). When the Chinese students were asked to spell pseudowords, they would either skip the word if they were unsure how to spell it or spell a real word as a substitute for the pseudoword.   14 2.1.2.3 Research From North America Pasquarella et al. (2015) conducted a 2-year longitudinal study on Spanish and Chinese students who were ESL to compare the cross-language transfer patterns found between two different first languages. The students were assessed on measures of phonological processing, rapid automatized naming for digits, word reading accuracy and fluency in English as well as measure of word reading fluency and accuracy in their first language. There was no association found between English and Chinese character reading accuracy for second grade students who had ESL. There was evidence of a cross-language transfer of word reading fluency for the Chinese students who had ESL. Wang & Geva (2003 a, b) conducted a longitudinal spelling development study on Canadian Cantonese speaking students who had ESL and monolingual English students from first to the second grade. In one study, they compared the developmental trajectories of novel English phonemes between students who had ESL and English monolingual students.   Originally it was found that young Chinese students who had ESL, had spelling errors reflecting a difficulty in representing phonemes absent in Cantonese phonology. They improved over time and were performing similarly to the English monolinguals by the end of the second grade (Wang & Geva, 2003a). The second study examined real word, pseudoword and confrontational pseudoword spelling, vocabulary and nonverbal visual matrix measures with English monolingual students and Cantonese students who had ESL. There was a greater difference between the real word and pseudoword spelling for the students who had ESL than the monolingual students (Wang & Geva, 2003b). Overall, the students who had ESL spelled words lexically as it was easier to spell English words than pseudowords because the students had   15 difficulty mapping phonemes to graphemes when spelling pseudowords (Wang & Geva, 2003a, b).   Marinova-Todd & Hall (2013) conducted research on Canadian English monolinguals, Tagalog- English and Cantonese- English grade one students who were ESL with measures of oral language, phonological awareness, reading and spelling. Phonological awareness was a weaker predictor for pseudoword spelling for the Cantonese students who had ESL, than the Tagalog students who had ESL. Cantonese students who had ESL relied on processing skills rather than phonological awareness for spelling pseudowords.   A Canadian study of Cantonese students who had ESL in grades 1 - 8 used parallel measure of orthographic processing, phonological processing, and oral language in both Cantonese and English. Chinese rime detection was associated with English word reading and significantly associated with English phonological processing. However other measures of Cantonese oral language and reading performance did not have strong associations with English reading performance (Gottardo et al., 2001). A study among Canadian Cantonese students who had ESL in the first through the eighth grade examined the relationship between phoneme categorization, phonological processing and reading performance in both Cantonese and English. This study found Cantonese ESL children’s English phonological processing to be related to their English word and pseudoword reading (Gottardo et al., 2006). This relationship is the same as is seen in native English speakers (Rack, Hulme, Snowling, & Wightman, 1994; Siegel & Ryan, 1988; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). A study from the United States of America, of second and third grade Mandarin speaking students who had ESL focused on phonological and orthographic processing, English word and   16 pseudoword reading, Chinese character recognition, and reading in Pinyin. There was a certain level of phonological transfer between English and Mandarin. Mandarin tone awareness was associated with English pseudoword reading. Mandarin orthographic skills did not have any predictive value for English reading skills. Wang et al., (2005) concluded that Mandarin-English bilingual reading acquisition is a joint function between orthographic specific processes for each language and shared phonological processes between the languages.   2.2  Summary  A common process in reading any language involves the ability to translate forms of visual information into meaningful units of language. The commonality of this process suggests the likelihood of a correlation among reading constructs across languages (Perfetti et al., 2007).  Reading in a second language is a complex task where there is interaction between the individual’s first and second language. Research has found constructs related to reading can transfer across languages (e.g., Chung & Ho, 2010; Pan et al., 2011; Tan et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2005). Chinese has become one of the largest non-official mother tongues in both Canada and the United States of America (Li, 2006). Classrooms in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia have continued to see and increasing number of students who have ESL with Chinese as their first language. Many students who have ESL enter formal school before they have gained sufficient knowledge of the English language (Koda, 2015). It is very important for educators to understand how these students simultaneously learn the English language, while being educated in it. One aspect of this involves educators having the ability to assess the development of their students who have ESL’s English literacy skills and predict their future success in them. This   17 understanding may allow educators to adjust their practices to facilitate the process of learning in a language the individual is not yet proficient in.   The acquisition of bilingual reading is a joint function of orthographic skills and phonological processes (Wang et al., 2005). There has been a limited amount of educational research focused on if and how an individual’s ability to read in Chinese has any relationship with English reading and spelling abilities. Previous research has provided several reasons to believe that an individual’s ability to read in Chinese may be related to their success in learning different English literacy skills. Chinese character recognition was an important predictor of literacy skills, including English word recognition (Pan et al., 2011). Studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging have shown a partial overlap of regions in the brain for reading in Chinese and reading in English (Chee et al., 2000; Perfetti et al., 2010; Tan et al., 2000, Tan et al., 2001). The evidence from these studies has shown that the procedures used in reading Chinese can be used when reading alphabetic languages, such as English, but that alphabetic reading procedures cannot be recruited to read Chinese (Perfetti et al., 2007; Perfetti et al., 2010).  There have been studies that have shown that Chinese individuals who had ESL appear to use whole word strategies when reading English words (e.g., Haynes & Carr, 1990; Joshi et al., 2006; Marinova-Todd & Hall, 2013; Tan et al., 2003; Wang & Geva, 2003b). Tan et al., (2003) suggest this is because Chinese does not have letter-to-sound conversion rules that are used to analyze words by English monolinguals. McBride-Chang & Kail (2002), found early reading development of Chinese and English to be remarkably similar to each other. Numerous studies have demonstrated how phonological awareness uniquely explains children’s reading ability better than general intelligence or other linguistic variables (e.g., Adams, 1990; Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, & Lacroix, 1999; Manis & Freedman, 2001;   18 Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Taylor, 1998; Sprenger-Charolles, Siegel, Bechennec, & Serniclaes, 1998). There is also evidence that phonological awareness is uniquely associated with reading for students who had ESL from different language backgrounds (e.g., Chiappe, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2002; Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Gottardo et al., 2001; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). Similar associations have been found between phonological awareness and reading Chinese (e.g., Ho & Bryant, 1997; Hu & Catts, 1998; McBride-Chang & Kail, 2002; So & Siegel, 1997; Wang & Geva, 2003a). English is an alphabetic writing system that has a segmental structure where individual letters represent phonemes that do not carry meaning on their own (Leong, 1997; Mattingly, 1987; Perfetti et al., 2005). Reading English requires phonemic awareness which is a higher level of phonological awareness than needed when reading Chinese (e.g., Gottardo et al., 2001; Keung & Ho, 2009; McBride-Chang & Ho, 2005; Pasquarella et al., 2014). Research has shown there to be a level of phonological transfer even when languages are based in two different writing systems like English and Chinese (Bialystok, McBride-Chang et al., 2005; Chow, McBride-Chang, & Burgess, 2005; Gottardo, Yan, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2001; Keung & Ho, 2009; Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003; McBride-Chang & Ho, 2000; Saiegh-Haddad & Geva, 2007; Wang et al., 2005). There is also evidence in current research that suggest an individual’s Chinese reading ability would not be able to predict their English reading ability because of the differences in the writing systems. Skilled Chinese reading may be influenced by different processes than skilled English reading (Nagy & Anderson, 1995). Chinese is a morphosyllabic writing system where both the sound and meaning are portrayed in the character (Leong, 1997; Mattingly, 1987; Perfetti et al., 2005). When reading Chinese characters, the reader must map orthographic patterns to sound meaning. Chinese does not have the same sound-symbol correspondence found   19 in alphabetic languages so there is limited use of phonological recoding, which in turn de-emphasizes the role of phonological awareness in Chinese character reading (Bialystok, Luk et al., 2005; McBride-Chang & Ho, 2005; Pasquarella et al., 2014; Perfetti & Tan, 1998; Read, Zhang, Nie & Ding, 1986). The grapheme-morpheme linkage for Chinese characters requires use of visual-orthographic processing and there are a large number of characters that must be memorized (Koda, 2015). Morphological awareness and visual-orthographic processing have shown to be some of the strongest predictors of Chinese character reading (Keung & Ho, 2009; Leong, Tse, Loh & Hau, 2008; McBride-Chang et al., 2005; McBride-Chang, Shu, Zhou, Wat & Wagner, 2003; McBride-Chang, Wagner, Muse, Chow & Shu, 2005; Tan & Perfetti, 1998; Tolchinsky, Levin, Aram, & McBride-Chang, 2012).  2.3 Problem Statement Canadian educators teach students with diverse language backgrounds and it is important for educators to understand how literacy skills in the student’s first language can have an impact their learning of English literacy skills. A large number of students who have ESL in the Lower Mainland have Chinese as their first language and have had at least some exposure to Chinese characters. Previous research has shown that assessing an ESL student’s oral language proficiency in English is only marginally effective at predicting their English word decoding (Durgunoglu et al., 1993; Geva & Siegel, 2000; Gholamain & Geva, 1999; Gottardo et al., 2001).  Given this, it is important for educators to find efficient ways to easily measure current and future reading skills. In the literature, there is evidence both supporting and refuting whether an individual’s ability to read in Chinese has any relationship with their ability to read in English.  Previous research in this area on individuals who live in an environment where English is the societal language and they begin formal schooling in English, is limited (Wang & Geva, 2003 a,   20 b; Wang, Perfetti & Liu, 2005). It would be valuable for educators to know if there is a significant independent relationship between a student’s ability to read in Chinese and their ability to read and spell in English.    However, there is limited previous research on early sequential Chinese-Canadian individuals who had ESL and addressing whether their ability to read in Chinese correlates to their literacy skills in English. Previous research has not addressed whether their Chinese reading ability has any unique correlation to English word reading, pseudoword reading, spelling and pseudoword spelling after the correlation to the skills of English phonological awareness has been accounted for. 2.4 Research Questions & Hypotheses The following research questions were investigated by this study: Research Question # 1:  For an individual who has ESL, does their Chinese reading ability relate to their English phonological awareness, their ability to read and spell in English, and their ability to read and spell pseudowords?  It is expected that there will be evidence for a correlation between Chinese character identification and English literacy skills because of the evidence found for the assimilation hypothesis amongst Chinese-English bilingual adults from a number of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies (Cao et al., 2013; Nelson et al., 2009; Perfetti & Liu, 2005; Tan et al., 2003). Pan et al. (2011) found Chinese character recognition to be an important predictor of English word identification.   Even though Chinese characters cannot be decoded like words from an alphabetic language can be, the use of the holistic visual strategies such as rote memorization can be used to read English words instead of decoding them (e.g. Cheung et al., 2007; Perfetti et al., 2010).    21 Research has shown Chinese individuals who had ESL to employ visual strategies for reading and spelling English words (Dixon et al., 2010; Joshi et al., 2006). Research Question #2:  For an individual who has ESL, does their Chinese reading ability account for any unique correlation in reading and spelling abilities once the correlation explained by English phonological awareness has been removed?  Orthographic phonological mapping is a commonality found in all writing systems (Perfetti, 2003; Perfetti et al., 2005; Tan et al., 1995). Previous research has established that there are both universal and language specific skills required for Chinese character and English word reading (Chung & Ho, 2005; McBride-Chang & Ho, 2005). Phonological awareness has been shown to be a good predictor of word reading as well as oral and written language skills in an individual’s second language (e.g. Chall et al., 1996; Snow et al., 1998). Numerous studies have shown there to be a cross language transfer of phonological processes, even if the languages had different writing systems (e.g., Bialystok, McBride-Chang et al., 2005; Chow et al., 2005; Lindsey et al., 2003; Saiegh-Haddad & Geva, 2007). English phonological awareness has been found to have a unique role in Chinese reading development (Keung & Ho, 2009). Research using neuroimaging found phonological processing skills in English and Chinese to share common areas of brain function (Tan et al., 2005). It is expected that English phonological awareness and Chinese character identification will be correlated with each other because of previous research showing how skills relating to phonological awareness can transfer across languages (e.g. Chan & Siegel, 2001;Durgunoglu et al., 1993; Geva & Wade-Woolley, 1998; Wade-Woolley & Siegel, 1997). However, it is not clear as to whether the Chinese character identification will account for any unique variance among English literacy skills after accounting for its correlationship with English phonological awareness.   22 2.5 Rationale for Measures  In the current study the researcher looked at English phonological awareness, single word reading of real words and pseudowords, spelling of real words and pseudowords and Chinese reading ability. These measures were selected in order to look for relationships between Chinese character identification and English reading and spelling skills in participants. Conducting measures of pseudoword reading and spelling can provide insight into decoding strategies a participant uses.   Decoding is a skill required for the reading of any alphabetic language. It requires an individual to analyze graphemes and extract phonological and morphological information. The individual must simultaneously access lexical and sub-lexical knowledge, while making use of this information to extract and integrate the visually presented information from the printed word (Koda, 2015). Decoding requires the individual to connect print representations to appropriate meanings and pronunciations of words; this skill is associated with phonological awareness (Everatt et al., 2013). Since the decoding and word identification sub skills for each language vary, they must be built up separately for each language and its writing system (Bialystok, McBride-Chang et al., 2005; Koda, 2015). Spelling development parallels the process of learning to read and it is the application of the sound-symbol relationship in a written format (Lesaux et al., 2008). Spelling provides students with a concrete experience to practice mapping phonemes to the appropriate letter(s) (Graham & Hebert, 2010; Shahar-Yames & Share, 2008). Bruck and Waters (1988) postulated that spelling involves two important processes. One process involves phonological awareness, specifically the relationship between the sounds and letters in the English language. The second involves individuals using their visual memory skills to learn how to spell words from memory.   23 Phonological awareness was selected as a control in this study because it plays an important role in the development of both reading and spelling (Bryant, Maclean, Bradley, & Crossland, 1990; Hogan, Catts, & Little, 2005; Stanovich, 1988; Vandervelden & Siegel, 1995; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994). Phonological awareness is the identification and manipulation of oral language. It involves skills including the retrieval, representation, and analysis of phonological information (Share, Jorm, Maclean, & Matthews, 1984). Unlike speaking and listening to English, reading requires explicit awareness of phonological segments and this awareness is difficult considering the embedded nature of phonemes and syllables in the English language (Brady, 1991). Phonological awareness at the phoneme level has consistently shown to be a key factor in learning to read English for both native and ESL speakers (e.g., Chiappe & Siegel, 1999; Cormier & Kelson, 2000; Hulme et al., 2002; Muter et al., 1998; Stuart, 1999; Yeung & Chan, 2013). Teachers can be trained to administer measures of phonological awareness and can use these measures within their classrooms. Measures of Chinese character recognition were used to assess the participants’ ability to read in Chinese. These measures can be challenging to use in a classroom setting to assess reading ability, because the educator would need to able to speak and read in Chinese in order to administer them. Although some educators in North America may be able to do this, it is not a skill that all educators have and so classroom administration of Chinese reading measures to the appropriate students would be difficult in a school setting.    24 Chapter 3: Methodology 3.1 Participants When conducting research of any sort, it is important to consider the heterogeneity of the sample, this is especially true when considering research conducted among students who have ESL.  To be eligible to participate in this study, individuals had to be considered to have had ESL by the school and had attended school in English since kindergarten. All public elementary schools within a school district in the Lower Mainland were sent an invitation to participate in the current study. Teachers from three schools in this district agreed to participate. The ESL teachers from each of these schools consulted the enrolment records and only those who met the inclusionary criteria for the study had consent forms sent home with them. These individuals were all early sequential bilinguals.  The consent form was made available in both English (Appendix A) and jiǎntǐzì (Simplified Chinese;1 Appendix B) to the families. At the first school, the consent forms were originally sent home in jiǎntǐzì but a number of the parents requested English forms instead. It contained a section with optional questions for the parents to answer in order to gain more information about each student’s background and language uses at home. There were 121 students who had consent forms distributed to them with 92 students returning their forms for a return rate of 76%. However, in one of the grade four classrooms, the teacher stated if the students did not want to participate in the study they did not have to return the forms to school.  Had the teacher not given the students this option there may have been a higher return rate for                                                  1 Simplified Chinese characters or what is colloquially referred to as jiǎntǐzì are used in mainland China. They are the characters prescribed in the Table of General Standard Chinese Characters have existed for thousands of years and refers to a simpler form of the character’s structure (Wikipedia, 2017).    25 the consent forms. This would not change the number of students who participated in the study but it might have increase the percentage of consent forms returned. Of the 78 students who gave consent to participate in the study, 32 of the forms were returned in English and 46 were returned in jiǎntǐzì. The majority of the consent forms (76 of 78) had some or all of the optional questions answered. The socio-economic status of those who responded was estimated by the parents’ self-reports of their educational attainment. The responses were compared with the educational attainment of adults age 25-65 in Metro Vancouver (National Household Survey, 2011c). The responses had a similar number of individuals who did not complete high school, but more individuals who had completed a university degree (see Table 3.1).   In the sample, 46 students were Mandarin speaking, 23 were Cantonese speaking and nine spoke both Mandarin and Cantonese in their homes. One of the Mandarin speaking students also spoke Urdu at home. Fifty-one of the students were enrolled in Chinese school (16 Cantonese speaking, 30 Mandarin speaking, 5 spoke both). Some of the Cantonese speaking students were enrolled in Mandarin Chinese school. Some of the students in the study knew Hanyu Pinyin, an alphabetic script sometimes used in Mandarin. 3.2 Procedures  After ethics approval from the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board, and permission from the approached school district, the schools and teachers within the district were contacted to participate in the study. There were three schools that expressed interest in the study and a total of 14 classrooms took part. The schools’ ESL teachers identified the students in each classroom who met the inclusionary criteria for the study. The classroom teachers sent the study information and consent forms home to the parents (Appendix A & B). All of the students who returned a consent form were entered in a draw for an   26 educational book, regardless of whether consent was given to participate in the study. After participating in the testing sessions, students were offered stickers as a thank you. The data was collected over two testing sessions at the end of the school year. The testing sessions were completed by the primary researcher and trained graduate students in a quiet setting within the schools. Before the English testing sessions, each participant was asked to provide verbal assent and sign an assent form to participate in the study using a semi-structured procedure (Appendix C). The English testing session consisted of five measures and a brief informal interview (Appendix D). The measures were selected to assess reading, spelling and phonological awareness. The informal interview was used as a way for the researchers to gather information regarding each participant’s language use in their home(s), neighbourhood(s) and at school. The Chinese testing session was conducted by one individual to ensure consistency. At the beginning of the Chinese testing, the research assistant briefly talked to each participant in Cantonese or Mandarin to estimate the participant’s proficiency in the language before asking them to read the appropriate Chinese reading measures.     27 Table 3.1 Demographic Characteristics Characteristic   n (78) Percentage Sex Male 36 46.15%  Female 42 53.85% Country of Birth Canada 51 65.38%  China 15 19.23%  Hong Kong 8 10.26%  USA 3 3.85%  Not Answered 1 1.28% Language Spoken Cantonese 16 20.51%  Mandarin 42** 53.85%  Cantonese and Mandarin 20 25.64% Before Elementary School  Daycare in English 27 34.62% Care Daycare in a language other than English 7 8.97%  Preschool in English 25 32.05%  Preschool in a language other than English 2 2.56%  Both 7 8.97%  Both in a language other than English 1 1.28%  Not specified 7 8.97% Paternal Education Less than high school diploma 7 8.97%  High school diploma/equivalent 7 8.97%  Some college/trade/university 11 14.10%  Diploma/apprenticeship/trades certification 9 11.54%  Bachelor's degree 21 26.92%  More than a bachelor's degree 11 14.10%  Not reported 10 12.82% Maternal Education Less than high school diploma 6 7.69%  High school diploma/equivalent 6 7.69%  Some college/trade/university 17 21.79%  Diploma/apprenticeship/trades certification 5 6.41%  Bachelor's degree 25 32.05%  More than a bachelor's degree 12 15.38%   Not reported 7 8.97% * Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 because of rounding **One of the participants spoke Mandarin and Urdu at home      28 3.3 English Measures There were five tests selected from two commercially available standardized measures for the English portion of the testing. 3.3.1 Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ IV) is an individually administered standardized test that has measures designed to test participants in the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics (Schrank, Mather, & McGrew, 2014). 3.3.1.1 Letter Word Identification  The Letter Word Identification (Letter Word) test measures the participants’ word identification skill. The initial questions require a participant to correctly identify letters and then to correctly read aloud words that become increasingly difficult. When used for participants between the ages 5-19 there is a median reliability of .92 (Mather & Wendling, 2014). 3.3.1.2 Word Attack The Word Attack test measures the participants’ ability to pronounce English pseudo- or low-frequency words using English phonics and structural analysis. The test begins with a participant producing sounds for individual letters, followed by letter combinations, and then words. When used for participants between the ages of 5-19 there is a median reliability of .90 (Mather & Wendling, 2014). 3.3.1.3 Spelling  The Spelling test measures the participants’ prewriting skill and spelling ability. The prewriting skill involves drawing lines and tracing letters followed by asking for the production of upper and lower case letters. Words are presented orally for a participant to spell and the   29 words increase in difficulty as the measure progresses. When used for participants between the ages of 5-19 there is a median reliability of .91 (Mather & Wendling, 2014). 3.3.1.4 Spelling of Sounds The Spelling of Sounds test measures the participants’ ability to use their phonological and orthographic coding skills to spell pseudowords and low frequency words that follow regular English spelling patterns. The test begins with a participant writing single letters representing one sound before moving onto the words. A recording is used for dictation of the pseudowords.  When used for participants between the ages 5-19 median reliability of .88 (Mather & Wendling, 2014). 3.3.2 Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing Second Edition The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP2) is an assessment designed to measure different phonological processing skills with ten core subtests and two supplemental subtests (Wagner, Torgesen, Rashotte, & Pearson, 2013). 3.3.2.1 Elision The Elision subtest from the CTOPP2 is done orally with the participant to assess their ability to isolate and manipulate sound segments of words. At first, the participant is asked to repeat a compound word and then asked to remove part of the word from the stimulus. For example, the participant might be asked to say the word ‘laptop’ and then asked to say it without saying ‘lap’. The measure increases in complexity as it progresses, starting with removing syllables to asking the participant to remove individual phonemes from the word. The measure is discontinued once the participant had made three consecutive errors (Wagner et al., 2013).   30 3.4 Chinese Measures Three Chinese character reading measures were used in this study. In these measures, the participant was asked to name as many of the Chinese characters as they could from the stimulus sheets. The characters increased in complexity as the measure continued. The first, Chinese Character Recognition Measure and Assessment Scale (CCRMA), is a widely-used standardized test to measure character recognition for Mandarin-speaking participants (Wang & Tao, 1993).  The second two measures have been used with Cantonese-speaking participants and consisted of 100 single Chinese characters selected from Chinese primary school textbooks. One of the tasks is in simplified Chinese (Simplified) and the other is in traditional Chinese (Traditional; Liu, Chen, & Chung, 2015; Liu, & McBride-Chang, 2010; McBride-Chang et al., 2003). If the participants were Cantonese-speaking, they were asked to read both the Simplified and the Traditional measures. If the participants were Mandarin-speaking, they were asked to read the CCRMA and if they were able to read some of the items on this measure they were also asked to read the Simplified measure. When the participants spoke both languages, they were asked to read all three measures.  3.5 Interview An informal interview (Appendix D) was conducted for researchers to get a better understanding about what language(s) the participants spoke out of school, and with whom, in order to get a better understanding of the type of bilingualism the participants were experiencing.     31 Chapter 4: Results All of the data analyses were conducted using the raw scores from the measures. This is in accordance with previous research conducted on participants who had ESL, since none of the measures were standardized on ESL populations (e.g., Geva & Yaghoub Zadeh,2006; Harrison et al., 2016; Jean & Geva, 2009). The samples used to create the norms for the standardized measures used in this study are not representative of the current sample so it would be inappropriate to conduct the analyses using these scores. The data was analyzed using R (Version 3.4.0; R Core Team, 2013), specifically the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). Two different approaches were taken for analyzing the data because the number of the Chinese reading measures read by each participant varied. In one approach, an ordinal variable was created to rank the Chinese reading ability of the participants based on the number of words they read on the Chinese reading measures they completed. This rank was used in regression equations to address the research questions. The second approach employed structural equation modeling where a latent variable was created and employed missing data handling to create one score for the Chinese reading measures. 4.1 Differences Between Language Groupings 4.1.1 English Measures Analyses were conducted where the participants at each grade level were split into subsamples of the Chinese language(s) that the participants spoke at home, in order to see if there were differences between the language groups. There were normal distributions among the groups, but examining the scores within the groups at each grade level revealed some differences between the language groups. Since there was no English monolingual control group in this study, the raw scores were converted to percentile ranks in order to compare the participants with   32 English speaking individuals from the norming sample of the standardized tests.  In the second grade, the differences between the language groups can likely be attributed to the uneven sample sizes between the language groupings (Table 4.1). When looking at the percentile ranks of the tests scores for the students, it can be seen that the participants in the grade two sample performed within the average range of the normative sample for the tests (Table 4.2).   For the third-grade participants, those who spoke Mandarin or both Mandarin and Cantonese at home achieved better scores on Spelling, Word Attack, and Elision when compared to their Cantonese-speaking peers (Table 4.3). Overall, the participants in grade three performed at or above the average range of the normative sample for the tests. The participants who spoke both Mandarin and Cantonese at home had an average one standard deviation above the mean of the normative sample on the Letter Identification tests (Table 4.4). For the fourth-grade participants, those who spoke Mandarin performed better on Spelling, Spelling of Sounds, and Elision when compared to their peers (Table 4.5). Overall, the participants in the fourth grade performed at or above the range of the normative sample on the standardized tests (Table 4.6).  When considering the whole sample, those who spoke Cantonese at home did not perform as well in Letter Word (Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5) when compared to the Mandarin speaking students.      33 Table 4.1 Grade 2 Raw Scores From English Measures   Whole Mandarin Cantonese Both Test Mean SD Mean  SD Mean SD Mean  SD Letter Word 48.25 6.43 47.65 6.96 52 5.35 46.67 3.06 Spelling 26.33 7.06 26.47 7.18 26 5.77 26.00 10.54 Word Attack 17.17 5.44 16.71 5.64 19.25 5.44 17.00 5.57 Spelling of Sounds 12.17 4.52 12.76 4.97 11.75 2.22 9.33 3.79 Elision 20.08 6.23 19.76 6.68 22.75 4.65 18.33 6.11  n=24   n=17  n=4   n=3   Table 4.2 Grade 2 Percentile Rank From English Measures  Whole Mandarin Cantonese Both Test Mean SD Mean  SD Mean SD Mean  SD Letter Word 56.79 19.36 53.18 20.54 73.75 11.18 54.67 X7.51 Spelling 64.25 26.66 63.47 27.12 68.00 19.27 63.67 41.20 Word Attack 52.00 30.99 48.18 32.67 66.75 26.20 54.00 31.20 Spelling of Sounds 44.33 25.71 47.12 28.45 43.75 11.59 29.33 22.81 Elision 38.83 24.38 39.18 27.31 43.75 16.40 30.33 17.62  n=24   n=17  n=4   n=3   Table 4.3 Grade 3 Raw Scores From English Measures   Whole Mandarin Cantonese Both Test Mean SD Mean  SD Mean SD Mean  SD Letter Word 54.79 8.04 55.07 7.37 55.13 6.83 54.86 11.35 Spelling 33.28 6.3 34.4 6.22 31.75 5.6 33.57 7.72 Word Attack 21.86 5.84 22.33 5.67 20.25 6.3 23.86 6.36 Spelling of Sounds 15.17 4.13 15.87 3.71 14 4.04 15.57 5.26 Elision 23.69 5.83 25.47 5.66 21.25 4.83 23.86 7.24  n=30   n=15  n=8   n=7       34 Table 4.4 Grade 3 Percentile Rank From English Measures  Whole Mandarin Cantonese Both Test Mean SD Mean  SD Mean SD Mean  SD Letter Word 58.07 28.11 60.00 26.59 60.67 26.61 86.94 33.83 Spelling 74.23 22.69 77.60 21.56 70.17 19.32 71.33 27.86 Word Attack 64.78 33.80 67.17 31.95 55.60 40.14 67.22 35.60 Spelling of Sounds 49.33 26.12 53.07 24.46 44.00 31.32 46.67 27.53 Elision 45.23 30.27 53.73 30.00 38.00 29.83 35.89 28.36  n=30   n=15  n=8   n=7   Table 4.5 Grade 4 Raw Scores From English Measures   Whole Mandarin Cantonese Both Test Mean SD Mean  SD Mean SD Mean  SD Letter Word 60.67 5.81 62.3 4.81 57.33 4.13 61.13 7.45 Spelling 36.42 4.56 38.6 3.44 36 3.45 34 5.61 Word Attack 24.38 4.04 24.7 3.8 25.33 1.86 23.25 5.5 Spelling of Sounds 17.58 4.62 19.8 2.74 16.17 4.45 15.88 5.87 Elision 25.54 5.48 28.8 3.7 24 6.13 22.63 5.24  n=24   n=10  n=6   n=8   Table 4.6 Grade 4 Percentile Rank From English Measures  Whole Mandarin Cantonese Both Test Mean SD Mean  SD Mean SD Mean  SD Letter Word 67.75 22.70 72.70 20.03 54.17 18.82 71.75 26.69 Spelling 72.13 18.02 78.00 13.89 70.83 14.74 65.75 23.80 Word Attack 70.50 24.37 69.10 24.60 77.50 13.50 67.00 31.37 Spelling of Sounds 51.96 26.27 63.00 17.98 41.83 29.31 45.75 30.52 Elision 45.92 26.92 61.10 27.21 38.17 28.10 32.75 16.91  n=24   n=10  n=6   n=8  4.1.2 Chinese Measures  For the second-grade participants, 20 read the CCRMA and there was a median score of 8.5 with an interquartile range of 5 – 15.5 (Table 4.7). All participants read the Simplified measure and there was a median score of 7.5 with an interquartile range of 3.25 – 13.75. Twelve   35 participants read the Traditional measure and there was a median score of 1.5 with an interquartile range of .25 – 6.25.  For the third-grade participants, 26 read the CCRMA and there was a median score of 12 with an interquartile range of 5 – 21.75. All participants read the Simplified measure and there was a median score of 12.5 with an interquartile range of 5.5 - 20.75. Eleven participants read from the Traditional word list and there was a median score of two with an interquartile range of 0 – 2.  For the fourth-grade participants, 19 read the CCRMA and there was a median score of 13 with an interquartile range of 10 – 32. Twenty-three participants read the Simplified measure and there was a median score of 16 with an interquartile range of 10 – 34. Fifteen participants read the Traditional measure and there was a median score of five with an interquartile range of 2 – 9.  This data shows that the sample contained participants with a wide range of Chinese reading abilities.  Table 4.7 Chinese Measures: Median and Interquartile Range     n Range Median Interquartile Range Grade 2 CCRMA 20 0 - 85 8.5 5 - 15.5  Simplified  24 1 - 77 7.5 3.25 - 13.75  Traditional  12 0 - 13 1.5 .25 - 6.25 Grade3 CCRMA 26 0 - 63 12 5 - 21.75  Simplified  30 0 - 57 12.5 5.5 - 20.75  Traditional  11 0 - 10 2 0 - 2 Grade 4 CCRMA 19 0 - 64 13 10 - 32  Simplified 23 0 - 62 16 10 - 34  Traditional  15 0 - 23 5 2 - 9    36 4.2 Regression Analyses An ordinal variable, the Chinese Reading Level (CRL), was created in order to allow for comparison of the participants based on their ability to read in Chinese established from the number of words they read and on how many of measures they read from. Participants were assigned to one of four values. Participants who were not able to read any of the characters or only identified a few of the characters correctly were assigned a value of zero. Participants who were able to read some of the characters, but not likely to read a beginning level text, were assigned a value of one. Participants who were able to read a number of characters and would likely be able to read a beginning level text were assigned a value of two. Participants who read several characters and would be able to fluently read a text at or above their grade level were assigned a value of three. 4.2.1 English Measures Regressed on the CRL A simple linear regression was calculated to predict the raw score on the English measures based on the ordinal variable CRL (Figure 4.1). There were significant correlations found among the English measures in this analysis (Table 4.8). First, a regression model was conducted to evaluate the predictive effects of the ordinal variable CRL on the English reading and spelling measures (Table 4.9). Significant regression equations were found for four of the five English measures. The ordinal variable CRL was a significant predictor of the Spelling score (𝛃 = 0.3, p < 0.01) and accounted for 9% of the variance explained. The ordinal variable CRL was a significant predictor of the Word Attack score (𝛃 = 0.23, p < 0.05) and accounted for 5% of the variance explained. The ordinal variable CRL was a significant predictor of the Spelling of Sounds score (𝛃 = 0.34, p < 0.01) and accounted for 11% of the variance explained. The ordinal variable CRL was a significant   37 predictor of the Elision score (𝛃 = 0.29, p < 0.01) and accounted for 9% of the variance. The ordinal variable CRL was not a significant predictor for the Letter Word measure (p > 0.1).  Figure 4.1 Regression: CRL Table 4.8 Correlation Matrix: CRL  Measure 1 2 3 4 5 1. Letter Word — 0.85*** 0.80*** 0.78*** 0.70*** 2. Spelling 0.85*** — 0.87*** 0.79*** 0.71*** 3. Word Attack 0.80*** 0.87*** — 0.79*** 0.70*** 4. Spelling of Sounds 0.78*** 0.79*** 0.79*** — 0.68*** 5. Elision 0.70*** 0.71*** 0.70*** 0.68*** —  *** p < 0.001         38 Table 4.9 Regression: CRL   Intercept CRL 𝛃 CRL p R2 Letter Word 53.19 0.17 0.13 0.03 Spelling 29.96 0.3 0.01 0.09 Word Attack 19.87 0.23 0.04 0.05 Spelling of Sounds 13.36 0.34 0.001 0.11 Elision 21.39 0.29 0.001 0.09 4.2.2 English Measure Regressed on the CRL and Elision Second, a multiple regression was conducted to evaluate the predictive effects of both the ordinal variable CRL and the Elision on the English reading and spelling measures (Figure 4.2).  There was as significant correlation found between the ordinal variable CRL and the Elision        r (10) = 0.25, p < 0.05. However, upon further investigation, it was found that although the ordinal variable CRL only acted as a small and often insignificant predictor for the English measures but the Elision was consistently a predictor with a beta with p value of less than 0.001.  There was significant correlation found between the English reading and spelling measures (Table 4.10). When Elision was included in the regression equations, the ordinal variable CRL no longer accounted for a significant source of correlation for the dependent variables (Table 4.11). When the multiple regression was conducted, the Letter Word score was correlated with the ordinal variable CRL and Elision, the Elision was a significant predictor, and the ordinal variable CRL was not (Elision 𝛃 = 0.72, p < 0.001; CRL 𝛃 = -0.06, p = .64). This relationship accounted for 50% of the variance explained between the Letter Word score the ordinal variable CRL and the Elision score. When the Spelling score was correlated with the ordinal variable CRL and Elision, the Elision was a significant predictor, and the ordinal variable CRL was not (Elision 𝛃 = 0.83, p < 0.001; CRL 𝛃 = 0.58, p = 0.26). This relationship accounted for 55% of the variance explained between the Spelling of Sounds score, the ordinal variable CRL and the   39 Elision score. When the Word Attack score was correlated with the ordinal variable CRL and Elision, the Elision was a significant predictor, and the ordinal variable CRL was not (Elision 𝛃 = 0.71, p < 0.001; CRL 𝛃 = 0.03; p = 0.76 ). This relationship accounted for 51% of the variance explained between the Word Attack score, the ordinal variable CRL and the Elision score. When the Spelling of Sounds score was correlated with the ordinal variable CRL and Elision, the Elision was a significant predictor, and the ordinal variable CRL was not (Elision 𝛃 = 0.66, p < 0.001; CRL 𝛃 =0.14, p = 0.09). This relationship accounted for 51% of the variance explained between the Spelling of Sounds score, the ordinal variable CRL and the Elision score.  Figure 4.2 Multiple Regression CRL and Elision Table 4.10 Correlation Matrix: CRL and Elision  Measure 1 2 3 4 1. Letter Word — 0.68*** 0.61*** 0.56*** 2. Spelling 0.68*** — 0.73*** 0.61*** 3. Word Attack 0.61*** 0.73*** — 0.60*** 4. Spelling of Sounds 0.56*** 0.61*** 0.60*** —  * p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001        40 Table 4.11 Multiple Regression: CRL and Elision   Intercept CRL 𝛃 CRL p Elision 𝛃 Elision p R2 Letter Word 34.59 -0.04 0.64 0.72 0.001 0.50 Spelling 23.54 0.58 0.26 0.83 0.001 0.55 Word Attack 17.19 0.03 0.76 0.71 0.001 0.51 Spelling of Sounds 11.29 0.14 0.09 0.66 0.001 0.51  4.3 Structural Equation Model A structural equation model was created using R with the Lavaan package (Version 3.4.0; R Core Team, 2013; Rosseel, 2012). The model consists of one latent variable, Reading Level (RL), created from the three Chinese reading measures and used a full information maximum likelihood strategy to handle missing data among the variables. The model examined how latent variable RL and Elision correlated the four remaining English measures. The model fit the data well (χ2 (10) = 10.93, p = 0.36).  4.3.1 English Measures Regressed on the Reading Level Next, a regression was conducted to evaluate the predictive effects of the latent variable RL on phonological awareness, the English reading and spelling measures (Figure 4.3). There were significant correlations among the English measures in this analysis (Table 4.12). The latent variable RL was a significant predictor for three of the five measures (Table 4.13). The latent variable RL was a significant predictor for the Spelling score (𝛃 = 0.31, p < 0.01) and accounted for 9% of the variance explained. The latent variable RL was a significant predictor for the Spelling of Sounds score (𝛃 = 0.36, p < 0.001) and accounted for 13% of the variance explained. The latent variable RL was a significant predictor for the Elision score (𝛃 = 0.24, p < 0.05) and accounted for 6% of the variance explained. The latent variable RL was not a   41 significant predictor for the Letter Word measure (p > 0.1) nor the Word Attack measure (p > 0.5).   Figure 4.3 Regression: RL Table 4.12 Correlation Matrix: RL  Measure 1 2 3 4 5 1. Letter Word — 0.85*** 0.8*** 0.77*** 0.70*** 2. Spelling 0.85*** — 0.87*** 0.79*** 0.71*** 3. Word Attack 0.8*** 0.87*** — 0.78*** 0.69*** 4. Spelling of Sounds 0.77*** 0.79*** 0.78*** — 0.67*** 5. Elision 0.70*** 0.71*** 0.69*** 0.67*** —  *** p < 0.001     Table 4.13 Regression: RL    Intercept RL 𝛃 RL p R2 Letter Word 54.7 0.15 0.19 0.02 Spelling 32.19 0.31 0.01 0.1 Word Attack 21.3 0.2 0.09 0.04 Spelling of Sounds 15.04 0.36 0.001 0.13 Elision 23.26 0.25 0.03 0.06   42 4.3.2 English Measures Regressed on the RL and Elision Finally, a multiple regression was conducted to analyze the correlation of both the latent variable RL and the Elision on the English reading and spelling measures (Figure 4.4). There was as significant correlation between the latent variable RL and the Elision r (76) = 0.25, p < 0.05. However, upon further investigation, the latent variable RL only predicted a small and often-insignificant amount of correlation and the Elision consistently predicted a beta with p value of less than 0.001. There were significant correlations found between the remaining English measures (Table 4.14). There were significant correlations between the Elision and the other English measures but the latent variable RL was only a significant predictor for the Spelling of Sounds measure (Table 4.15). When the Letter Word score was correlated with latent variable RL and Elision, the Elision was a significant predictor and latent variable RL was not (Elision 𝛃 = 0.72, p < 0.001; RL 𝛃 = -0.03, p = 0.72 ). The relationship between the Letter Word score, the latent variable RL and the Elision score accounted for 50% of the variance explained.  When the Spelling score was correlated with latent variable RL and Elision, the Elision was a significant predictor and the latent variable RL was not (Elision 𝛃 = 0.70, p < 0.001, RL 𝛃 = 0.14, p = 0.7). The relationship between the Spelling score, the latent variable RL and the Elision score accounted for 56% of the variance explained. When the Word Attack score was correlated with RL and Elision, the Elision was a significant predictor and the latent variable RL was not (Elision 𝛃 = 0.71, p < 0.001; RL 𝛃 = 0.14, p = 0.7).  The relationship between the Word Attack score, the latent variable RL and the Elision score accounted for 51% of the variance explained.  When the Spelling of Sounds score was correlated with RL and Elision, both the RL and the Elision were significant predictors (Elision 𝛃 = 0.19, p < 0.001; RL 𝛃 = 0.19, p < 0.01). The   43 relationship between the Spelling of Sounds score, the latent variable RL and the Elision score accounted for 53% of the variance explained.   Figure 4.4 Multiple Regression: RL and Elision  Table 4.14 Correlation Matrix: RL and Elision  Measure 1 2 3 4 1. Letter Word — 0.69*** 0.60*** 0.57*** 2. Spelling 0.69*** — 0.60*** 0.60*** 3. Word Attack 0.60*** 0.74*** — 0.59*XX 4. Spelling of Sounds 0.57*** 0.60*** 0.59* XX —  * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001    Table 4.15 Multiple Regression: RL and Elision   Intercept RL 𝛃 RL p Elision 𝛃 Elision p R2 Letter Word 32.16 -0.03 0.72 0.17 0.001 0.50 Spelling 13.07 0.14 0.09 0.70 0.001 0.51 Word Attack 5.52 0.02 0.82 0.71 0.001 0.51 Spelling of Sounds 3.19 0.19 0.02 0.65 0.001 0.53    44 4.4 Key Findings for Specific Research Questions Research question #1. For an individual who had ESL, does their Chinese reading ability relate to their English phonological awareness, their ability to read and spell in English, and their ability to read and spell pseudowords?   A participant’s ability to read in Chinese did account for some of the correlation on the English measures used in this study. Two analyses were done using an ordinal variable and a latent variable derived from the performance on the three Chinese reading measures. The variable CRL was created by the researcher assigning an ordinal value based on the number of items the participant read on the measures administered. The ordinal variable CRL was a significant predictor for the English spelling measure, the measures of pseudoword reading and spelling as well as the measure of phonological awareness. The latent variable RL was created using the lavaan package for R and it used the full information maximum likelihood to handle the missing data from the three Chinese measures (Version 3.4.0; R Core Team, 2013; Rosseel, 2012). The latent variable RL was a significant predictor for both measures of spelling and the measure of phonological awareness.  If the results of the analyses of both the ordinal variable CRL and the latent variable RL are combined, there are consistencies amongst the findings for four of the five measures. For the sample in this study, Chinese character identification did not correlate with the participants’ ability to read words in English. A participant’s Chinese character identification did correlate with their ability to spell both English words and pseudowords as well as their phonological awareness. It was unclear whether a participant’s ability to read in Chinese correlated with their ability to read pseudowords.     45 Research Question # 2. For an individual who had ESL, does their Chinese reading ability account for any unique correlation in reading and spelling abilities once the correlation explained by English phonological awareness has been removed?   Once the correlation accounted for by phonological awareness on the English measures was removed, the correlation of Chinese character identification was not significant for all but one of the analyses. When using the latent variable RL and the Elision scores as predictors for the Spelling of Sounds measure, both had significant values. 4.5 Interview During the English sessions with the participants, the researcher asked them questions in an effort to gain insight into their comfort with the English language as well as their language use outside of the school environment (Table 4.16). First, the participants were asked which language(s) they were most comfortable speaking and thinking in. Then the researcher asked the participants about who lived in their home with them, before inquiring about what language they spoke with each of the individuals in their home. Next, the participants were asked what language(s) they used during after school activities and when they were with their friends.  Finally, the participants were asked if they had any additional Chinese instruction. Based on the information gathered in this study, the greater part of the sample was more comfortable speaking English than Chinese. A few of the participants were no longer comfortable speaking in Chinese and although they could understand what the examiner was saying in Chinese they chose to respond in English. There were only a few of the participants who were able to converse and read in Chinese at a level that would be expected for their age.   The majority of the participants reported being comfortable speaking and thinking in English, with 17 percent being comfortable only speaking in English, and nine percent being   46 more comfortable thinking in Cantonese or Mandarin. Although 47 percent of the participants spoke exclusively to their parents in Cantonese and or Mandarin, only 20 percent of the participants with siblings spoke to their siblings exclusively in their first language(s). The majority of the participants with grandparents living in their home spoke strictly Chinese with their grandparents. Two out of the five participants who had additional extended family such as cousins, aunts, or uncles sharing their home spoke exclusively in Chinese to their family members. The majority of the participants spoke both English and Chinese outside of school with only 19 percent of the participants reporting they only spoke English and one student reportedly only spoke Cantonese. The majority of the participants attended Chinese school and some of the Cantonese speaking participants were enrolled in Mandarin Chinese school because their parents wanted them to know both languages.     47 Table 4.16 Interview Results Situation Language(s) n Language most comfortable speaking Cantonese 6.41%  Mandarin 8.97%  Cantonese & English 11.54%  Mandarin & English 17.95%  Cantonese, Mandarin & English 5.13%  English 50% Language most comfortable thinking Cantonese 6.41%  Mandarin 2.56%  Cantonese & English 8.97%  Mandarin & English 24.36%  Cantonese, Mandarin & English 3.85%  English 30.77% Language spoken with Parents Cantonese 19.23%  Mandarin 25.64%  Cantonese & Mandarin 2.56%  Cantonese & English 11.54%  Mandarin & English 32.05%*  Cantonese, Mandarin & English 6.41%  English 2.56% Language spoken with Siblings Cantonese 2.56%  Mandarin 8.97%  Cantonese & Mandarin 1.28%  Cantonese & English 11.54%  Mandarin & English 14.10%  Cantonese, Mandarin & English 2.56%  English 24.36%  Not Applicable 34.62% Language spoken with Grandparents Cantonese 5.13%  Mandarin 12.82  Cantonese & English 2.56%  Mandarin & English 1.28%  Not Applicable 78.82%     48 Language spoken with Extended Family Cantonese 1.28%  Cantonese & Mandarin 1.28%  Mandarin & English 2.56%  Mandarin, Urdu & English 1.28%  Not Applicable 93.59%    Language spoken outside of school Cantonese 1.28%  Cantonese & English 15.38%  Mandarin & English 43.59%  Cantonese, Mandarin & English 20.51%  English 19.23% * One student spoke Mandarin, Urdu and English with parents   4.6 Common Reading & Spelling Errors  During the data collection with the participants, researchers noted that some of them made similar errors on the different English measures. After reviewing all the responses the participants made, there were several misreadings or misspellings that were repeated by different participants. For an error to be considered a common error, it had to be made by at least five of the participants. Some of the errors included omitting a sound or syllable from a word or changing the target word to another word with a similar spelling. The Chinese Combined Score (CCS) was a latent variable created to group the participants together based on how many Chinese characters they correctly read on the Chinese measures. The CCS scores were catagorized into three ranges, 0-30 correct, 31-60 correct and over 60 correct. Participants who read between 0-60 Chinese characters correctly would commonly misspell or misread word on three of the five measures. However, there were no commonalities found exclusively to the participants who had read over 60 words correct on the CCS. Although these participants made some of the common errors made by the those who read   49 fewer Chinese characters correctly, there were several unique errors. None of the common errors were exclusively made by the participants belonging to a specific language background. For the Letter Word Identification test (Table 4.17), the participants with a CCS score between 0-60 commonly misread: often (offen), brought (bought), cologne (college) and echelon (ekelon). These errors are all involve the pronunciation of consonant digraphs. On this measure, some of the unique errors made by those who read more than 60 words on the CCS included: over it (overwhelm), hairlistic (heuristic), signgracy (idiosyncrasy) and milleryou (millieu).  Examination of the types of errors made when the participants were reading English words shows that they typically made errors involving the sound of the vowel and when the words involve a consonant blend. More specifically, they omitted the second sound in the blend when they would pronounce library as ‘libary’ or brought as ‘bought’. The participants made errors in a two syllable word where the final consonant sound in the first syllable was different than the intial consonant sound in the second syllable. For example,the participants would say ‘offen’ instead of often. On the Word Attack test (Table 4.18), the common errors made were done so by the paricipants with a variety of Chinese reading abilities and were not exclusive to one language group. Many of the common errors occurred when the participants attempted to change the target pseudoword to an English word or syllable they knew, for example when the target pseudoword ‘leck’ was pronounced as ‘leek’ or when the target word ‘quade’ was pronounced as ‘quad’. In the cases where the participants made unique errors of the target pseudowords, their pronounciation typically included a phoneme that was not in the original word or mispronouncing the vowel sound. On this measure, some of the unique errors made by those with a CCS score of more than 60 included: phelltober (phintober), serthy (cythe) and zast   50 (saist). In these mispronounciations, the participants changed the vowel sound and added a consonant sound that was not in the target word.  Overall, on the Spelling test, many of the errors were from when participants made vowel substitutions or occurred when words contained consonant clusters. On the Spelling test (Table 4.19), participants who misspelled “comb” as “com” scored between 0-30 on the CCS. This error suggest the students were not aware of the silent ‘b’ at the end of the word. The participants who had a CCS score between 0-60 commonly misspelled: already (alredy), laugh (lagh), juice (juce), comb (come), manager (manger, maneger), important (in -> im), calorie (calery). All but one of these errors are associated with the vowels in the word. The first three errors suggest the participants were not familiar with the vowel diagraphs found in these words. The final three errors suggest the particpants were not hearing each individual phoneme in the word clearly because they made substitutions with inappropriate letters. On this measure, some of the unique errors made by those participants who had a CCS score of more than 60 included: leachic (electric), supskiption (subscription) and esuiastic (enthusiastic). These errors suggest the participant was not able to identify all the consonants in the consonant blends. On the Spelling of Sounds test (Table 4.20), the participants who had a CCS score between 0-60 commonly misspelled: ift (ist), ushes (ushis, is->es), quib (qib), cridge (crige), autopotricious (is -> ous). Consistant with the errors on the Spelling test, many of the errors on the Spelling of Sounds test were vowel substitutions or invovled consonant clusters. There were several instances when common affixes were mispelled such as ‘ous’ being spelled as ‘is’ or ‘us and when the suffix‘es’ was spelled as ‘is’. On this measure, some of the unique errors made by those participants who had as CCS score of more than 60 included: zhang (jang), quitch (cridge) and aldomerous (automerous).    51  Table 4.17 Common Errors for Letter Word Target Word Word Read Occurrence library libary 6/8 often offen   7/11 brought bought   5/7  signal single   5/21 knead ned  15/29 sphere spear 14/24 contrary country   2/5  cologne college   5/62 stamina stamia   5/38 thoroughfare throughfare   17/34  staunchest stunchest   5/22 scepter skepter  22/29 echelon ekelon 5/30  Table 4.18 Common Errors for Word Attack Target Word Word Read Occurrence leck leek 8/20 bine bin 14/24 blighten blitten 8/35 quade quad 15/35 centizen citizen 9/40 saist sist   5/31 saist sast   5/31 hudned hudded   4/21 fleighted flighted 14/50 coge cog  19/39     52 Table 4.19 Common Errors for Spelling  Target Word Misspelling Occurrence cooked cook    5/13  already alredy    6/25  juice juce    2/21  comb com    7/27  comb come    8/27  important in->im   15/17  manager manger    5/28  manager maneger    5/28  electric electrick    5/29  electric ick->ic    6/29  clothes cloths 5/25 sword sord    7/22  calorie calery    7/43  calorie calory    7/43  calorie calary    6/43  calorie y->ie   26/43  subscription sus->sub    5/36  league leag    7/36  skiing sking   18/25  enthusiastic in->en   20/37  cocoa coco   31/38  calendar calender   30/37  calendar calander    5/37  cyst sist   13/20  tentacle tentical 4/12 lacquer lacker    7/15    53  Table 4.20 Common Errors for Spelling of Sounds Target Word Misspelling Occurrence ift ist   18/29  ushes ushis   11/38  ushes is->es    14/38  jang jing 6/30 grunches br->gr   11/39  ket cet   21/32  glating blating    10/28  glating bl->gl   11/28  quib qib    5/27  quib cwib    2/27  quib kwib    4/27  hoke hok   11/40  hoke holk 4/40 toping topping    9/31  scritch scrich    7/22  tranning traning   43/48  stenerous us->ous 12/52 stenerous is->ous   11/52  stoffering stofering   13/48  cridge crig 14/42 cridge crige 10/42 briff brith   10/41  briff brif   21/41  strotted stroted    5/13  strotted strawted    4/13  stawn ston    8/11  automerous us->ous    9/32  automerous is->ous 6/32 autopotricious us->ous    5/26  autopotricious is->ous    5/26       54 Chapter 5: Conclusion 5.1 Overview The present study aimed to investigate if there was any correlation between the Chinese reading abilities of second, third, and fourth grade Chinese participants who had ESL, and their English phonological awareness, word reading and spelling ability. There was a wide range of Chinese reading abilities within this sample. The majority of the current research available on Chinese students who had ESL, has come from countries where English is not the societal language and formal schooling occurs in Chinese with some English language instruction. This study took place in Canada, in a community where English was the predominant societal language and the primary language of instruction in public schools used in this study. However, within the school district where the study occurred and the surrounding community, there was high percentage of Chinese speaking individuals and the Chinese culture spoken and written language was prevalent. In this community, there were several after-school Chinese programs available for participants to attend. All of the participants in this study had limited exposure to English in their home before entering kindergarten. The sample contained participants who had received formal reading instruction in Chinese from an after-school program and those who had not. The participants’ language usage outside of school ranged from those who would speak Chinese exclusively outside of school, to those who spoke a mixture of Chinese and English, and those who spoke predominantly in English. The sample is thought to be representative of the Chinese ESL population in Metro Vancouver. The findings from the present study demonstrated that the Chinese participants, who had ESL and had limited exposure to English before entering formal schooling in kindergarten, were able to become proficient at reading and spelling in English. This is similar to Lesaux & Siegel’s   55 (2003) finding that individuals’ reading development was not predetermined by lack of proficiency in English before entering school. It also adds evidence to Chiappe et al., (2002) finding that students who had ESL were able to acquire basic literacy skills at the same rate as their English monolingual peers.   The present study found that Chinese character identification was correlated with the English spelling, pseudoword spelling, and phonological awareness measures. This is consistent with Pan et al., (2011) finding of Chinese character recognition predicting English word recognition. However, in this study, phonological awareness was the strongest correlate for English word reading, pseudoword reading and spelling ability. When Chinese character identification and phonological awareness were analyzed together on the remaining measures, the Chinese character identification only accounted for a significant amount of correlation on the pseudoword spelling measure. There is a significant amount of evidence of phonological skills being related to Chinese reading (Hu & Catts, 1998; McBride-Chang & Ho, 2005; Perfetti & Tan, 1998; Perfetti & Zhang, 1991, 1995; Shu et al., 2000; Tan & Perfetti 1997, 1998). Previous research has demonstrated the same relationships exist among Chinese students who had ESL as English monolinguals on measures of reading and phonological processing (Chall, 1996; Gottardo, Yan et al., 2001; Gottardo, Chiappe, et al., 2006; Rack et al., 1994; Snow et al., 1998). The current study had the same finding.  Previous research on Chinese students who had ESL found them to spell words and pseudowords using visual, whole word strategies and that they did not employ phonological awareness strategies when spelling pseudowords (Haynes & Carr, 1990; Joshi et al., 2006; Marinova-Todd & Hall, 2013; Tan et al., 2003; Wang & Geva, 2003b).   56 The present study found that although participants had similar common error patterns in their spelling, the participants who were better at reading Chinese characters had more errors where they did not appear to use a phonological strategy when spelling unfamiliar words and pseudowords. For example, spelling ‘sword’ as ‘stoes’ on the Spelling test or spelling the target word of ‘hoke’ as ‘cork’.  Marinova-Todd & Hall (2013) had a similar finding where the Chinese ESL in their study relied on their processing skills rather than phonological awareness for spelling pseudowords. This is similar to Tan et al. (2003) suggestion Chinese individuals who had ESL tended to employ a holistic approach with English because their first language does not have a set of letter-to-sound conversion rules.   There were several instances in this study where the participants substituted a like sounding real word for pseudowords they were asked to spell. It was common in the Spelling of Sounds test for individuals to change the pseudoword to a real word, such as changing ‘toping’ to ‘topping’ or spelling ‘ashes’ instead of the target word ‘ushes’. In the Word Attack test individuals also substituted real words in the place of pseudowords such as saying ‘leek’ when the target word was ‘leck’ or saying ‘citizen’ for the target word ‘centizen’. In addition, there were several cases where the participants left the space for a pseudoword blank if they were unsure of its spelling. This was particularly prevalent among the participants who were proficient at reading in Chinese. This is similar to what Joshi et al., (2006) found when Chinese students who had ESL skipped spelling a pseudoword or spelled a real word as a substitute for the pseudoword.   Grant et al., (2011) studied Spanish and Portuguese speaking students who ESL and they found these students to be performing within the average range based on the norms of native English language speakers. The present study found the sample performed at or above the mean   57 of the English norming sample from the standardized measures on the Letter Word Identification, the Spelling, and the Word Attack measures. For the Spelling of Sounds measure, the participants in the fourth grade performed within one standard deviation of the mean of the norming sample, but the participant from the younger grades did not perform in a comparable way to the mean of the norm. The participants in the present study did not perform within one standard deviation of the mean on the Elision. The results from this study demonstrated, although the Chinese participants who had ESL may have performed within the one standard deviation of the mean on some of the standardized measures, they did not perform within this range on all the measures. 5.1.1 High Scoring on English Measures   Overall, participants in this study performed very well on several of the English measures. Since this study did not contain a sample of monolingual English control participants, the scores were converted to the tests percentile rank to allow a comparison with the age based norms from these measures. These results show the current sample performed at a similar level or higher than the normative sample. Initially this may seem surprising but it is a finding that has been replicated in previous research among populations who had ESL from various first language backgrounds.   There have been several studies where the participants who were ESL from various language backgrounds performed better than the monolingual participants on measures of English words reading and spelling (e.g., Abu Rabia & Siegel, 2002; Lesaux et al., 2006; Lipka, 2003; Lipka & Siegel, 2007; Uchikoshi & Marinova-Todd, 2012; Zhao, Quiroz, Dixon, & Joshi, 2016).  Additionally, research has found students who had ESL from numerous heritage languages to outperform their monolingual peers on measures of pseudoword spelling (e.g.,   58 D’Angiulli, Siegel, & Serra, 2001; Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995). Students who had ESL have also been found to perform similar to their monolingual peers on measures of phonological awareness (e.g., Harrison et al., 2016). However, when accessing measures of reading comprehension, researchers have found students who had ESL to perform at lower levels than their monolingual peers (e.g., Snow, 2014). Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux (2011) suggested this may be due to the fact that reading comprehension is a more complex process than skills such as word reading and spelling.  5.2 Key Findings for Research Questions Research question #1. For an individual who has ESL, does their Chinese reading ability relate to their English phonological awareness, their ability to read and spell in English, and their ability to read and spell pseudowords? Research using functional magnetic resonance imaging has found evidence Chinese English bilinguals have neural networks that partly assimilates English word reading into a Chinese reading system (Perfetti et al., 2007). Given this, it makes sense that the answer to whether Chinese character identification is related to English word reading ability has conflicting results. Some studies, like Keung & Ho (2009), have found a significant correlation between Chinese and English word reading. Chung & Ho (2010) also found Chinese reading related cognitive skills such as visual-orthographic knowledge, phonological awareness and rapid naming, to be related to English word reading. Although, others have found no significant correlation between word reading skills in English and Chinese (Gottardo, Yan, Siegel & Wade-Woolley, 2001; Wang et al., 2005). The current study found the participants’ ability to read in Chinese had no significant relation on their ability to read in English. This is similar to Bialystok,   59 McBride-Chang et al.’s (2005) finding that the abilities required to support reading in English cannot be recruited for word reading in Chinese. However, the participants’ Chinese character identification did account for a small amount of correlation in their English word spelling ability. Some research has found Chinese students who had ESL to use visual, whole-word strategies for spelling English words (e.g. Dixon, Zhao, & Joshi, 2010; Joshi et al., 2006). The Chinese character identification also accounted for a small amount of correlation in their spelling of pseudowords. This may be explained by Marinova-Todd & Hall (2013) finding that Chinese ESL student used their processing skills rather than phonological awareness for spelling pseudowords. In this study, there was a significant correlation between Chinese reading ability of the participants and their phonological awareness. This was to be expected given the highly general role of phonology across writing systems and that previous research has shown there to be a level of phonological transfer across languages even if they have two different writing systems (Perfetti et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2005). This finding adds to the argument previous research has suggested phonological awareness is used by individuals reading Chinese characters (e.g., Hu & Catts, 1998; McBride-Chang & Kail, 2002; McBride-Chang et al., 2003; Shu et al., 2000). Research Question # 2. For an individual who has ESL, does their Chinese reading ability account for any unique correlation in reading and spelling abilities once the correlation explained by English phonological awareness has been removed? As noted before there was a significant correlation between Chinese character reading and phonological awareness, however after further analysis, it was discovered that once the correlation explained by phonological awareness had been accounted for, participants’ Chinese   60 reading ability no longer accounted for any unique correlation in their reading of English words, reading of pseudowords and spelling of English words. Similar to previous research, the current study found phonological awareness to be a significant predictor for a participant’s English word reading and spelling ability (e.g., Gottardo et al., 2001; Gottardo et al., 2006; Hogan et al., 2005; Rack et al., 1994). The only measure where both the participants’ phonological awareness and their Chinese character identification accounted for significant amount of correlation, was when they were asked to spell pseudowords.  Previous research has found Chinese students who had ESL to rely on their processing skills rather than phonological awareness when spelling pseudowords (Marinova-Todd & Hall, 2013).  This could be explained by the participants trying to use their visual memory for a similar real word and adapting it to fit the pseudoword by using their phonological awareness skills. 5.3 Implications for Practice Examining the errors the participants made during the spelling and reading tests provided insights that may prove useful to those working with Chinese students who had ESL. Firstly, several of the participants had difficulty identifying some of the consonant blends when spelling, particularly the pseudowords.This suggests the participants are having problems distinguishing some of the consonant blends in the English language and could benefit from working on their phonological awareness, especially with sounds in the coda position of a syllable. This difficulty is not surprising given in some Chinese languages there are only two possible consonant sounds available for the closing syllable position (Hashimoto, 1972; Wang & Cheng, 2008).   There is a growing body of research providing evidence that phonological awareness instruction has a positive effect on reading for children who had ESL from various language backgrounds (e.g., Ganschow & Sparks, 1995, Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). Educators could embed   61 phonological awareness instruction in other instructional activities. Yeung et al., (2013) found students who had received phonological awareness instruction, embedded in their vocabulary instruction, to perform better on English word reading, spelling and phonological awareness than the students in the control group who had just received vocabulary instruction. An additional way to increase phonological sensitivity is by using one of the several computer programs available with activities specifically for developing phonological skills, such as ABRACADABRA (2008). Guided use with a program such as this may help students improve their auditory acuity to phonemes that they are not exposed to in Chinese, but they would have gained naturally if they had exposure to English as a young child. Secondly, reviewing common affixes and discussing their significance in the reading and spelling of words, may assist the students in spelling words containing them.   When examining the errors, it seemed that there was a split as to which of the two spelling processes postulated by Bruck and Waters (1988), the participants relied on more for spelling.  Those who had limited ability to read in Chinese tended to manipulate the sounds of the English language to read and spell unfamiliar words. This is consistent with how reading and spelling are typically taught in North America. Meanwhile, the researchers noted that the participants who were more adept at reading Chinese relied more on their memory for reading and spelling English words. They preferred to avoid reading or spelling a word they were not familiar with. This result suggests one of two outcomes. Either, participants did not want to risk getting the word wrong or they relied more on memory for reading and spelling than using their knowledge of English letters and sounds, or that participants prefer to use memory for word recognition as they would use when reading Chinese.   62 Based on the results from this study, it does not seem necessary to measure participants’ Chinese reading ability if a measure of English phonological awareness is employed. This has significant implications for educational settings, because it can be difficult to find people who are able to read in both Cantonese and Mandarin in addition to having the ability to read traditional and simplified texts. As demonstrated by the current sample, there were many participants who would read in both Cantonese and Mandarin without realizing it.  5.4 Strengths, Limitations, and Implications for Future Research This study made novel contributions to the current literature about elementary Chinese students who had ESL being educated where English is both the societal language and the language of instruction. This study was unique because even with the prominence of English in the society, there was a noticeable Chinese culture with the spoken and written language easily found within the community. The participants were comprised of a diverse sample with a wide range of Chinese reading abilities. This study reported information regarding the participants’ language experience before entering school, whether they attended Chinese school, their use of language at home and outside of school. This allows for a more thorough understanding of the composition of the sample. Previous research on students who had ESL, from any language background, often did not have the strict requirements to the amount of exposure to the English language they have had at the time of the study. The present study had strict inclusion requirements to ensure the participants had similar exposure to the English language before entering formal schooling at kindergarten. Teachers reviewed students’ school records and only sent consent forms home to students who met this criterion.    63 Over 50 percent of the correlation in the participants’ reading and spelling abilities of both real and English pseudowords in the present study, could be explained by assessing their phonological awareness and ability to read in Chinese. Although, phonological awareness was still the single most significant predictor for the participants reading and spelling abilities, the amount of correlation explained, increased with the addition of the number of words a participant read in Chinese.  This study only reported correlational data as all the tasks were administered during one time period. This meant there was no way to test the directionality of the relationships between the variables. A longitudinal study with a similar sample would provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between Chinese character identification of participants who have ESL on English phonological awareness, reading and spelling abilities.   This study had a narrow focus by only looking at the participants’ ability to identify Chinese characters and comparing it with a few of English literacy skills. It would be advantageous for future research to address if and how different of Chinese reading related abilities, like morphological awareness, affect various constructs of English literacy skills, such as word reading fluency and reading comprehension. Additionally, it would be beneficial to know if there was an interaction effect between Chinese morphological awareness and English phonological awareness when examining different English word reading and spelling results.   The results from this study would have been more comprehensive if there were additional measure of the participants’ Chinese language abilities. Measures that examined their language proficiency would allow the participants to be classified according to their speaking and reading proficiency in Chinese. This study would have benefited from additional information regarding   64 how Chinese is used in the participants’ homes and what type of Chinese reading instruction they had received.   Further research on populations such as this, is warranted in order to better explain how skills learned from Chinese students who are ESL’s first language influences their literacy skills in English. Ideally, they would be longitudinal in nature and track individuals from kindergarten and follow the first five years of schooling. This would allow for a more thorough understanding of the changes in the nature of predictors, as the individuals increase their language exposure and experiences with written language.   Future investigations should include measures assessing participants’ vocabulary in both languages. It should involve measures of morphological awareness in English and measures of morphological and phonological awareness in Chinese. As with the present study, parameters should be set in place to control the participants’ exposure to the English language and efforts to gather information about their language use outside of school and any additional language instruction they have received.   The addition of vocabulary measures in each language would allow researchers a better understanding of the samples’ abilities in each language. The sample could then be subdivided into three different groups, those who have a stronger English vocabulary, those who have a stronger Chinese vocabulary and those who have similar vocabularies in both languages. The ability to divide the sample into these subsets would allow for more meaningful analysis of the differing language abilities in the ESL sample, especially when examining relationships between the different measures. Since the morpheme is the most basic unit of speech in Chinese, the addition of morphological awareness tasks in each language would allow researchers to explore whether   65 their importance of this skill in their first language continues to have the same importance in their second language. The addition of a Chinese phonological awareness activity would allow for comparisons between the correlation explained by English phonological awareness and Chinese phonological awareness. It would be interesting to see if when the groups were divided into the subsets describe above, based on vocabulary, there are any differences in the predictability of both morphological and phonological awareness for reading abilities.  5.5  Summary and Conclusion  Chinese is one of the most commonly spoken first languages in Canada and in the United States of America (Li, 2006). This means that schools are seeing an increase in the number of students who are enrolling who have ESL and Chinese as their first language. It is important for educators to appreciate how their students’ experiences in their first language have an impact their learning of and education in English. The present study found participants character identification correlated with their English phonological awareness, spelling, and spelling of pseudowords. English phonological awareness was a significant correlate of both English real and pseudoword reading and spelling. This taken with findings from previous research suggest that measuring Chinese students who have ESL’s phonological awareness, has more value for relating and predicting their English literacy skills than measuring their Chinese character identification.     66 References: ABRACADABRA [Computer software]. (2008). Retrieved from http://abralite.concordia.ca  Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambride, MA:  MIT Press. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority students: A  research agenda (Committee on Developing a Research Agenda on the Education of  Limited English Proficient and Bilingual Students—Board on Children, Youth and  Families). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bialystok, E. (2007). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research.   Language Learning, 57, 54-77. Bialystok, E., (2008). Bilingualism: The good, the bad and the indifferent. Bilingualism:  Language and Cognition, 12, 3-11. Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005).  Bilingualism, biliteracy and learning to read:  Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9,  43-61. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0901_4. Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., & Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, language proficiency, and  learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 580-590.  doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.580. Brady, S. A. (1991). The role of working memory in reading disability. In S. A. Brady & D. P.  Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy (pp. 129-151). Hillsdale, NJ:  Erlbaum. Bruck, M., & Waters, G. (1988). An analysis of the spelling errors of children who differ in their  reading and spelling skills.  Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 77-92. Bryant, P. E., Maclean, M., Bradley, L. L., & Crossland, J. (1990). Rhyme and alliteration,  phoneme detection and learning to read.  Developmental Psychology, 26, 429-438. Buchweitz, A., & Prat, C. (2013). The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human  cortex. Physics of Life Reviews, 10, 428-443. Cao, F., Tao, R., Liu, L., Perfetti, C. A., & Booth, J. R. (2013).  High proficiency in a second  language is characterized by greater involvement of the first language network: Evidence  from Chinese learners of English.  Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 1649-1663.   doi 10.1162/jocn_a_00414. CensusMapper. (2017). [Map of Metro Vancouver]. Chinese as mother tongue (Statistics Canada  Census 2016).  Retrieved from https://censusmapper.ca/maps/774#11/49.2709/-122.9947  Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of Reading Development (2nd ed.).  Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace  College Publishers. Chan, C. K. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2001).  Phonological processing in reading Chinese among  normally achieving & poor readers.  Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80,  23-43. Chee, M. W., Weekes, B., Lee, K. M., Soon, C. S., Schreiber, A., Hoon, J. J., & Chee, M.  (2000). Overlap and dissociation of semantic processing of Chinese characters, English  words, and pictures: Evidence from fMRI. NeuroImage, 12, 392-403. doi:  10.1006/nimg.2000.0631. Cheung, H., Chan, M., & Chong, K. (2007). Use of orthographic knowledge in reading by  Chinese-English bi-scriptal children.  Language Learning, 57, 469-505.    67 doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00423.x. Chiappe, P., & Siegel, L. S. (1999). Working memory, inhibitory control and reading disability.  Memory & Cognition, 28, 8-17. Chiappe, P., Siegel, L., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of  basic reading skills: A longitudinal study.   Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369-400. Chow, B. W. Y., McBride-Chang, C., & Burgess, S. (2005). Phonological processing skills and  earl reading abilities in Hong Kong Chinese kindergarteners learning to read English as a  second language.   Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 81-87. Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second  language. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509-531. Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, E., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of  phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language.  Journal  of Educational Psychology, 91, 29-43. Cormier, P., & Kelson, S. (2000). The roles of phonological and syntactic awareness in the use  of plural morphemes among children in French immersion.  Scientific Studies of Reading,  4, 267-293. Chung, K. K., & Ho, C. S. (2010). Second language learning difficulties in Chinese children with  dyslexia: What are the reading related cognitive skills that contribute to English and  Chinese word reading? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 195-211.  doi:10.1177/0022219409345018. D'Angiulli, A., Siegel, L. S., & Serra, E. (2001). The development of reading in English and  Italian in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 479–507.  doi:10.1017/S0142716401004015. Da Fontoura, H. A., & Siegel, L. S. (1995). Reading, syntactic, and working memory skills of  bilingual Portuguese–English Canadian children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 139–153. doi:10.1007/BF01026951.  Dixon, Q., Zhao, J., & Joshi R. M. (2010). Influence of L1 orthography on spelling English word  by bilingual children: A natural experiment comparing syllabic, phonological and  morphosyllablic first languages. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 33, 211-221. Durgunoglu, A.Y., Nagy, W.E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of  phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453-465. Ehri, L. C. (2013).  Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling  memory and vocabulary learning.  Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 5-21. Everatt, J., Sedaghi, A., Grech, L., Elshikh, M., Abdel-Sabour, S., Al-Menaye, N…  & Elbeheri, G. (2013). Assessment of literacy difficulties in second language and  bilingual learners. In D. Tsagari & G. Spanoudis (Eds.), Assessing L2 students with  learning and other disabilities (pp. 27-43). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge  Scholars Publishing. Fashola, O. S., Drum, P. A., Mayer, R. E., & Kang, S. J. (1996). A cognitive theory of  orthographic transitioning: Predictable errors in how Spanish-speaking children spell  English words. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 825-843. Fitzgerald, J., & Amendum, S. (2007). What is sound writing instruction for multilingual  learners? In S. Graham, C. A. MacAurthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in  writing instruction (pp.289-307) New York: Guilford Press. Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1995). Effects of direct instruction in Spanish phonology on the    68 native language skills and foreign language aptitude of at-risk foreign language learners.   Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 107-120. Geva, E., & Massey-Garrison, A. (2013).  A comparison of the language skills of ELLs and  monolinguals who are poor decoders, poor comprehenders or normal readers.  Journal  of Learning Disabilities, 46, 387-401. doi:10.1177/0022219412466651. Geva, E., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent  development of basic reading skills in two languages.  Reading and Writing: An  Interdisciplinary Journal, 12,1-30. Geva, E., & Wade-Woolley, L. (1998). Component processes in becoming English-Hebrew  biliterate. In A. Y. Durgunoglu & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Literacy development in a  multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 85-110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence  Erlbaum Associates. Geva, E., Wade-Woolley, L., & Shany, M. (1993). The concurrent development of spelling and  decoding in two different orthographies.  Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 383-406. Geva, E., & Yaghoub Zadeh, Z. (2006). Reading efficiency in native English-speaking and  English-as-a-second-language children: The role of oral proficiency and underlying  cognitive-linguistic processes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 31-57. Gholamain, M., & Geva, E. (1999). The concurrent development of word recognition skills in  English and Farsi. Language Learning, 49, 183-217. Goldenberg, C., Rueda, R. S., & August, D. (2008). Sociocultural contexts and literacy  development. In D. August, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing reading and writing in  second-language learners (pp. 95-129). New York: Routledge. Gottardo, A., Chiappe, P., Yan, B., Siegel, L., & Gu, Y. (2006).  Relationships between first and  second language phonological processing skills and reading in Chinese-English speakers  living in English speaking contexts. Educational Psychology 26, 367-393. Gottardo, A., Koh, P. W., Chen, X., & Jia, F. (2017). Models of English and Chinese word  reading for adolescent Chinese-English bilinguals. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30, 1377-1406. doi: 10.1007/s11145-017-9728-2. Gottardo, A., Yan, B., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2001). Factors related to English  reading performance in children with Chinese as a first language: More evidence of  cross-language transfer of phonological processing.  Journal of Educational Psychology,  93, 530-542. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.93.3.530. Graham, S., & Hebert, K. R. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve  reading. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education. Grant, A., Gottardo, A., & Geva, E. (2011).  Reading in English as a first or second language:  The case of grade 3 Spanish, Portuguese, and English Speakers.  Learning Disabilities  Research & Practice, 26, 67-83. Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harrison, G. L., Goegan, L. D., Jalbert, R., McManus, K., Sinclair, K., & Spurling, J. (2016).  Predictors of spelling and writing skills in first- and second- language learners. Reading  and Writing, 29, 69-89. Hashimoto, O. Y. (1972). Phonology of Cantonese. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University  Press. Haynes, M., & Carr, T. H. (1990).  Writing system background and second language reading: A  component skills analysis of English reading by native speaker-readers of Chinese.  In T.    69 H. Carr (Ed.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 375-421).  San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ho, C. H. S., & Bryant, P. E. (1997). Learning to read Chinese beyond the logographic phase.   Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 276-289. Hogan, T. P., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2005). The relationship between phonological  awareness and reading: Implications for the assessment of phonological  awareness. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 285-293. Hu, C. F., & Catts, H. W. (1998).  The role of phonological processing in early reading ability:  What can we learn from Chinese. Scientific Studies in Reading, 5, 55-79. Hulme, C., Hatcher, P. J., Nation, K., Brown, A., Adams, J., & Stuart, G. (2002). Phoneme  awareness is a better predictor of early reading than onset-rime awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 2-28. Jean, M., & Geva, E. (2009). The development of vocabulary in English as a second language  children and its role in predicting word recognition ability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30,  153-185. doi 10.1017/S0142716408090073. Jia, C., & Aaronson, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of Chinese children and adolescents  learning English in the United States.  Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 131-161. Joseph, L. M. (2006). Understanding, assessing and intervening on reading problems: A guide  for school psychologist and other educational consultants. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Joshi, R. M., Hoien, T., Feng, X., Chengappa, R., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2006). Learning to  spell by ear and by eye: A cross-linguistic comparison. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron  (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 569-577). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence  Erlbaum Associates. Keung, Y. C., & Ho, C. H. S. (2009).  Transfer of reading-related cognitive skills in learning to  read Chinese (L1) and English (L2) among Chinese elementary school children.   Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 103-112. Koda, K. (1996). L2 word recognition research: A critical review.  The Modern Language  Journal, 80, 450-460. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb05465.x. Koda, K. (2015).  Development of word recognition in a second language. In X. Chen, V.  Dronjic, & R. Helms-Park (Eds.), Reading in a second language: Cognitive and  psycholinguistic issues (pp. 70-98). New York, NY: Routledge. Lambert, W. E. (1977).  The effects of bilingualism on the individual: Cognitive and socio- cultural consequences. In P.A. Hornby (Ed.), Bilingualism: Psychological, social and  educational implications (pp. 15-27). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Leong, C. K. (1973). Hong Kong. In J. Downing (Ed.), Comparative reading (pp. 383-402).   New York: Macmillan. Leong, C. K. (1997). Paradigmatic analysis of Chinese word reading: research findings and  classroom practices. In C. K. Leong & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Cross-language studies of  learning to read and spell: Phonological and orthographic processing (pp. 378-417).  Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Leong, C. K., Cheng, P. W., & Mulcahy, R. (1987). Automatic processing of morphemic  orthography by mature readers. Language and Speech, 30, 181-196. Leong, C. K., & Joshi, M. R. (Eds.). (1997). Cross-language studies of learning to read and  spell: Phonologic and orthographic processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic    70 Publishing. Leong, C. K., & Tamaoka, K. (1998).  Cognitive procession of Chinese characters, words,  sentences and Japanese kanji and kana: An introduction. Reading and Writing: An  Interdisciplinary Journal, 10,155-164. Leong, C. K., Tse, S. K., Loh, K. Y., & Hau, K. T. (2008).  Text comprehension in Chinese  children: Relative contribution of verbal working memory, pseudoword reading, rapid  automated naming, and onset-rime phonological segmentation.  Journal of Educational  Psychology, 100, 135-149. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.135. Lesaux, N. K., Geva, E., Koda, K., Siegel, L. S., & Shanahan, T. (2008). Development of  literacy in second-language learners. In D. August, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing  reading and writing in second-language learners (pp. 27-59). New York, NY: Routledge. 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.  doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.6.1005. Li, G. (2006). Biliteracy and trilingual practices in the home context: Case studies of Chinese— Canadian children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,6, 355-381. doi:10.1177/1468798406069797.  Limbos, M., & Geva, E. (2001).  Accuracy of teacher assessments of second-language students  at-risk for reading disability.  Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 136-151. 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. Lipka, O. (2003).  The development of reading skills of children with English as a Second  language. Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIEcle/collections/831/items/1.0091220 Lipka, O., & Siegel, L. S. (2007). The development of reading skills in children with English as a  second language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 105-131. doi:10.1080/1088843070134359. Liu, D., Chen, X., & Chung, K. K. H. (2015). Performance in a visual search task uniquely  predicts reading abilities in third-grade Hong Kong Chinese children.  Scientific Studies  of Reading, 19, 307-324. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2015.1030749. Liu, Y., Dunlap, S., Fiez, J., & Perfetti, C. (2007). Evidence for neural accommodation to a  writing system following learning. Human Brain Mapping, 28, 1223-1234. Liu, P. D., & McBride-Chang, C. (2010). What is morphological awareness? Tapping lexical  compounding awareness in Chinese third graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 62. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2011). The gap between Spanish-speakers' word reading  and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82, 1544–1560.  doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01633.x.  Manis, F. R., & Freedman, L. (2001). The relationship of naming speed to multiple reading  measures in disabled and normal readers. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency and the  brain (pp. 65-92). Timonium, MD: York Press. Marinova-Todd, S. H., & Hall, E. K. (2013). Predictors of English spelling in bilingual and  monolingual children in grade 1: The case of Cantonese and Tagalog. Educational  Psychology, 33, 734-754.   71 Mather, N., & Wendling, B.J. (2014). Examiner’s Manual. Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of  Achievement.  Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside. Mattingly, I. G. (1987). Morphological structure and segmental awareness. Cashiers de  Psychologie/Current Psychology of Cognition, 7, 488-493. McBride-Chang, C. (2004).  Children’s literacy development.  New York, NY: Oxford  University Press. McBride-Chang, C., & Ho, C. H. S. (2000). Developmental issues in Chinese children’s  character acquisition.   Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 50-55.  McBride-Chang, C., & Ho, C. H. S. (2005). Predictors of beginning reading in Chinese and  English: A 2-year longitudinal study of Chinese kindergarteners.  Scientific Studies of  Reading, 9, 117-144. McBride-Chang, C., & Kail, R. V. (2002). Cross-cultural similarities in the predictors of reading  acquisition. Child Development, 73, 1392-1407. McBride-Chang, C., Shu, H., Zhou, A., Wat, C. P., & Wagner, R. K. (2003). Morphological  awareness uniquely predicts young children's Chinese character recognition. Journal of  Educational Psychology, 95, 743-751. McBride–Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Muse, A., Chow, B. W. Y., & Shu, H. U. A. (2005). The  role of morphological awareness in children's vocabulary acquisition in English. Applied  Psycholinguistics, 26, 415-435. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary,  and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a  longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40, 665-681. 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.  doi: 10.1006/jecp.1998.2453. Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1995). Metalinguistic awareness and literacy acquisition in  different languages (Tech. Rep. No. 618). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Children’s Research Center. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (2000). Factors influencing syntactic awareness skills in normal  readers and poor comprehenders.  Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 229-241. Nelson, J. R., Liu, Y., Fiez, J., & Perfetti, C. A. (2009). Assimilation and accommodation  patterns in ventral occipitotemporal cortex in learning a second writing system. Human  Brain Mapping, 30, 810-820. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20551. Pan, J., McBride-Chang, C., Shu, H., Liu, H., Zhang, Y., & Li, H. (2011). What is in the  naming? A 5-year longitudinal study of early rapid naming and phonological sensitivity  in relation to subsequent reading skills in both native Chinese and English as a second  language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 897-908. Pasquarella, A., Chen, X., Gottardo, A., & Geva, E. (2015). Cross-language transfer of word  reading accuracy and word reading fluency in Spanish-English and Chinese-English  bilinguals: Script-universal and Script-specific processes. Journal of Educational  Psychology, 107, 96-110. Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The universal grammar of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 3- 24. Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Orthography to phonology and meaning: Comparisons across  and within writing systems. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 193-   72 210. doi: 10.1007/s11145-004-2344-y Perfetti, C. A., Liu, Y, Fiez, J., Nelson, J., Bolger, D. J., & Tan, L. H. (2007). Reading in two  writing systems: Accommodation and assimilation of the brain’s reading network.  Bilingualism,10, 131-146. Perfetti, C. A., Liu, Y., & Tan, L. H. (2005). The lexical constituency model: Some implications  of research on Chinese for general theories of reading. Psychological Review, 112, 43- 59. Perfetti, C. A., Nelson, J., Liu, Y, Fiez, J., & Tan, L. H. (2010). The neural bases of reading:  Universals and writing system variations. In P. L. Cornelissen, P.C. Hansen, M. L.  Kringelbach & K. Pugh (Eds.), The Neural Basis of Reading (pp. 147-172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Perfetti, C. A., & Tan, L. H. (1998).  The time course of graphic, phonological and semantic  activation in Chinese character identification.  Journal of Experimental Psychology:  Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 101-118. Perfetti, C. A., & Zhang, S. (1991). Phonemic processing in reading Chinese words. Journal of  Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 633-643. Perfetti, C. A., & Zhang, S. (1995). Very early phonological activation in Chinese reading.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 21, 24-33. Province of British Columbia. (2018). Education & Training: Legislation and Policy Glossary.   Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/administration/legislation-policy/glossary#english_language_learning_ell  R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for  Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://R-project.org/  Rack, J., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Wightman, J. (1994). The role of phonology in young  children learning to read words: The direct-mapping hypothesis.  Journal of Experimental  Child Psychology, 57, 42-71. Read, C., Zhang, Y., Nie, H., & Ding, B. (1986). The ability to manipulate speech sounds  depends on knowing alphabetic spelling, Cognition, 24, 31-44. Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H., & Oritz, S. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse  students: A practical guide. New York: Guilford Press. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical  Software, 48(2), 1-36. Saiegh-Haddad, E., & Geva, E. (2007). Morphological awareness, phonological awareness, and  reading in English-Arabic bilingual children.  Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary  Journal., 21, 481-504. Schrank, F. A., Mather, N., & McGrew, K. S. (2014).  Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of  Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside. Shahar-Yames, D., & Share, D. L. (2008). Spelling as a self-teaching mechanism in orthographic  learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 22-39. Share, D.L., Jorm, A. F., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual differences  in reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324.   Shu, H., & Anderson, R. C. (1999). Learning to read Chinese: The development of    73 metalinguistic awareness. In J. Wang, H. C. Chen, R. Radach, & A. W. Inhoff, (Eds.). Reading Chinese script: A cognitive analysis (pp. 1-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shu, H., Anderson R. C., & Wu, N. (2000). Phonetic awareness: Knowledge of orthography-  phonology relationships in the character acquisition of Chinese children.  Journal of  Educational Psychology, 92, 56-62. Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. (1988). Development of grammatical-sensitivity, phonological and  short-term memory skills in normally achieving and learning disabled children.   Developmental Psychology, 24, 28-37. Snow, C. (2014). Language, literacy, and the needs of the multilingual child. Perspectives in  Education, 32, 7–16. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young  children.  Washington, DC: National Academy Press. So, D., & Siegel, L.S. (1997). Learning to read Chinese: Semantic, syntactic, phonological and  working memory skills in normally achieving and poor Chinese readers. Reading and  Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 1-21. Sprenger-Charolles, L., Siegel, L. S., Bechennec, D., & Serniclaes, W. (1998). Phonological  mediation and semantic and orthographic factors in silent reading in French. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 3-29. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0201_1. Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety  poor-reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model.  Journal of Learning  Disabilities, 21, 590-612. Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). The phenotypic performance of reading-disabled  children: A regression-based test of the phonological-core bariable-differnce model.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24-53. Statistics Canada (2016). 2016 Census of Population, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-400- x2016066. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dttd/Rpeng.cfm?TABID=2&LANG=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=1164163&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=109670&PRID=10&PTYPE=109445&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2016&THEME=118&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&D1=0&D2=0&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=0  Stuart, M. (1999). Getting ready for reading: Early phoneme awareness and phonics teaching  improves reading and spelling in inner-city second language learners. British Journal of  Educational Psychology, 69, 587-605. Tan, L. H., Hoosain, R., & Peng, D. L. (1995). Role of early presemantic phonological code in  Chinese character identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory  and Cognition, 21, 43-54. Tan, L. H., Liu, H. L., Perfetti, C. A., Spinks, J. A., Fox, P. T., & Gao, J. H. (2001). The neural  system underlying Chinese logograph reading.  Neuroimage, 13, 836-846. Tan, L. H., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Visual Chinese character recognition: Does phonological  information mediate access to meaning? Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 41-57. Tan, L. H., & Perfetti, C. A. (1998). Phonological codes as early sources of constraint in  Chinese word identification: A Review of current discoveries and theoretical accounts.  Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 165-200. Tan, L. H., Spinks, J. A., Feng, C. M., Siok, W. T., Perfetti, C. A. Xiong, J., … & Gao, J.    74 H. (2003). Neural systems of second language reading are shaped by native language.  Human Brain Mapping, 18, 158-166. Tan, L. H., Spinks, J. A., Gao, J. H., Liu, H. L., Perfetti, C. A., & Fox, P. T. (2000). Brain  activation in the processing of Chinese characters and words: A functional MRI study.  Human Brain Mapping, 10, 16-17. Tolchinsky, L., Levin, I., Aram, D., & McBride-Chang, C. (2012).  Building literacy in  alphabetic, abjad, and morphosyllabic systems.  Reading and Writing: An  Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1573-1598.  doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9334-7.  Tompkins, G. E., Abramson, S., & Pritchard, R. H. (1999). A multilingual perspective on  spelling development in third and fourth grades.   Multicultural Education, 6, 12-18. Tong, X., & McBride-Chang, C. (2009). Chinese-English biscriptal reading: Cognitive  component skills across orthographies.  Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary  Journal, 23, 293-310.  doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9211-9. Uchikoshi, Y. Y., & Marinova-Todd, S. S. (2012). Language proficiency and early literacy skills  of Cantonese-speaking English language learners in the U.S. and Canada. Reading and  Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 2107-2129. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9347- 2. Vandervelden, M.C., & Siegel, L. S. (1995). Phonological recoding and phoneme awareness in  early literacy: A developmental approach.  Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 854-875. Wade-Woolley, L., & Siegel, L. S. (1997).  The spelling performance of ESL and native  speakers of English as a function of reading skill. Reading and Writing: An  Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 387-406. 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. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Development of reading-related  phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from latent  variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (2013). Comprehensive Test  of Phonological Processing Second Edition: Examiner’s Manual. Austin, TX: Pro-ed. Wang, M., & Cheng, C. (2008).  Subsyllabic unit preference in young Chinese children.  Applied  Psycholinguistics, 29, 291-314. Wang, M., & Geva, E., (2003a). Spelling acquisition of novel English phonemes in Chinese  children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 325-348. Wang, M., & Geva, E., (2003b). Spelling performance of Chinese children using English as a  second language: Lexical and visual-orthographic processes. Applied Psycholinguistics,  24, 1-25. Wang, J., & Koda, K. (2013). Does partial radical information help in the learning of Chinese  characters? In E. Voss, S. –J. D. Tai & Z. Li (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2011  second language research forum: Converging theory and practice (pp. 162-172).  Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in  English word identification: A comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners.  Cognition, 87, 129-149. doi: 10.1016/s0010-277(02)00232-9. Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2003). Alphabetic readers quickly acquire orthographic    75 structure in learning to read Chinese. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 183-208. doi:  10/12707/S1532799XSSR0702_4. Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross- language and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97, 67-88. Wang, X. L., & Tao, B. P. (1993). Chinese Character Recognition Test Battery and Assessment  Scale for Elementary School Children. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Education Press. Wikipedia (2017, October 25). Simplified Chinese characters. Retrieved from  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters#Notes_and_references  Yeung, S. S., & Chan, C. K. (2013). Phonological awareness and oral language proficiency in  learning to read English among Chinese kindergarten children in Hong Kong. British  Journal of Educational Psychology, 183, 1407-1419. Yeung, P., Ho, C. S. H., Chik, P. P., Lo, L., Luan, H., Chan, D. W., & Chung, K. K. (2011).  Reading and spelling Chinese among beginning readers: What skills make a difference?  Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 285-313. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.482149. Yeung, S. S., & Chan, C. K. (2013). Phonological awareness and oral language proficiency in  learning to read English among Chinese kindergarten children in Hong Kong. British  Journal of Educational Psychology, 183, 1407-1419. Yeung, S. S. S., Siegel, L. S., & Chan, C. K. K. (2013). Effects of a phonological awareness  program on English reading and spelling among Hong Kong Chinese ESL children.  Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 681-704.    76 Appendices Appendix A       77     78  Appendix B     79    80    81    82 Appendix C      83    84  Appendix D     85 Interview I am going to ask you some questions about yourself so I can get to know you better.  1. What language are you most comfortable speaking? Chinese __________ English ___________ 2. What language do you think in? Chinese __________ English ___________ 3. Who lives with you at your house and what languages do you speak with each of them? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. What languages do you family members use when speaking to each other at home? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Does anyone read to you in at home?  Chinese __________ English ___________ 6. What do you do after school? What language do you speak when you do that? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Chinese __________ English ___________ 7. When you are with your friends outside of school, what language do you speak? Chinese __________ English ___________ 8. Do you go to Chinese school or do you have a Chinese tutor?   School: Yes   No  Tutor:  Yes    No 9. What languages are spoken in your neighbourhood? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0366059/manifest

Comment

Related Items