Medicine, Faculty of
Audiology and Speech Sciences, School of
DSpace
UBCV
Zhi, Flora
Master of Science - MSc
University of British Columbia
As of 2022, about 50% of all FI students in B.C. and Ontario came from immigrant families and many of them are multilingual. Despite this trend, there is a gap in our understanding of how reading develops in these multilingual students. Languages with similar writing systems such as French and English can facilitate cross-language transfer of reading skills, while little or no transfer has been observed in languages with different writing systems, such as French and Chinese. This project investigated the effects of different writing systems on word reading in multilingual FI students from Chinese backgrounds. The two main research questions were: (1) How do language and literacy abilities compare across the three languages (French, English, Chinese) and across the two grades? (2) What are the language and literacy measure associations among the three languages? Data was collected from 24 Chinese-speaking students enrolled in FI in kindergarten and Grade 1. Studentsâ performance on standardized and experimental language and literacy measures in French, English, and Chinese was compared. Significant improvements from kindergarten to Grade 1 were observed in most Chinese skills; no significant changes were found in French and English. Studentsâ abilities across languages were similar. Partial support was found for possible cross-language transfer among all three languages between phonological awareness and decoding skills. Overall, the reading abilities in these young children did not differ across orthographies, supporting past research that strong readers in one language are generally strong readers in all languages.
BEYOND THE LETTERS: THE EFFECT OF ORTHOGRAPHY ON WORD-READING IN TRILINGUAL FRENCH IMMERSION STUDENTS by Flora Zhi B.A., University of British Columbia, 2023 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Audiology and Speech Sciences) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2025 © Flora Zhi, 2025 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: Beyond the Letters: The Effect of Orthography on Word-Reading in Trilingual French Immersion Students submitted by Flora Zhi in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Sciences in Audiology and Speech Sciences Examining Committee: Dr. Stefka Marinova-Todd, Associate Professor, School of Audiology and Speech Sciences, UBC Supervisor Dr. Guofang Li, Professor, Department of Language and Literacy Education, UBC Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract As of 2022, about 50% of all FI students in B.C. and Ontario came from immigrant families and many of them are multilingual. Despite this trend, there is a gap in our understanding of how reading develops in these multilingual students. Languages with similar writing systems such as French and English can facilitate cross-language transfer of reading skills, while little or no transfer has been observed in languages with different writing systems, such as French and Chinese. This project investigated the effects of different writing systems on word reading in multilingual FI students from Chinese backgrounds. The two main research questions were: (1) How do language and literacy abilities compare across the three languages (French, English, Chinese) and across the two grades? (2) What are the language and literacy measure associations among the three languages? Data was collected from 24 Chinese-speaking students enrolled in FI in kindergarten and Grade 1. Studentsâ performance on standardized and experimental language and literacy measures in French, English, and Chinese was compared. Significant improvements from kindergarten to Grade 1 were observed in most Chinese skills; no significant changes were found in French and English. Studentsâ abilities across languages were similar. Partial support was found for possible cross-language transfer among all three languages between phonological awareness and decoding skills. Overall, the reading abilities in these young children did not differ across orthographies, supporting past research that strong readers in one language are generally strong readers in all languages. iv Lay Summary As of 2022, about 50% of all FI students in B.C. and Ontario came from immigrant families and many of them are multilingual. Despite this trend, there is a gap in our understanding of how reading develops in these multilingual students. Languages with similar writing systems, such as French and English, can support reading development in each language. On the other hand, there seems to be little support between languages with different writing systems, such as French and Chinese. This project investigated how multilingual FI students learn to read words. Rather than the writing system, language exposure and use are more important in helping students develop strong reading skills; strong readers in one language are strong readers in all languages, regardless of writing system. v Preface This thesis is an original intellectual product of the author, F. Zhi, and was written in consultation with Dr. S. Marinova-Todd. No Generative Artificial Intelligence tools were used in the research process, development, or writing of the thesis. The fieldwork reported in Chapters 2-4 was covered by UBC Ethics Certificate #H24-00275. vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................x Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1.2 Orthography .................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Reading â Why is it important? ...................................................................................... 3 1.4 Reading Proficiency: WRA and WRF ............................................................................ 5 1.4.1 Predictors of Word-Reading Accuracy (WRA) ...................................................... 6 1.4.2 Predictors of Word-Reading Fluency (WRF) ......................................................... 7 1.5 Vocabulary ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.6 The Bilingual Context: Cross-Linguistic Transfer of Reading Skills ............................. 9 1.7 The Trilingual FI Context: Cross-Linguistic Transfer of Orthography on Reading ..... 10 1.8 The Present Research .................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 2: Methodology..............................................................................................................13 2.1 Participants .................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Materials ....................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 16 Chapter 3: Results........................................................................................................................18 vii 3.1 Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Grade Comparisons ....................................................................................................... 19 3.3 Group Comparisons Across Languages ........................................................................ 19 3.4 Correlations among all language .................................................................................. 19 Chapter 4: Conclusion .................................................................................................................23 4.1 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 23 4.1.1 Developmental changes across grades .................................................................. 23 4.1.2 Language strengths and weaknesses ..................................................................... 24 4.1.3 Cross Language associations ................................................................................ 25 4.2 Conclusions, Implications, & Recommendations ......................................................... 28 References .....................................................................................................................................32 viii List of Tables Table 2.1 Demographics of Students ............................................................................................ 13 Table 3.1 Descriptive statistics of all French, English, and Chinese measures in raw scores ...... 18 Table 3.2 Correlations between all language and literacy measures ............................................ 20 ix List of Abbreviations EFI Early French Immersion FI French Immersion L1 First Language L2 Second Language L3 Third Language PA Phonological Awareness RAN Rapid Digit Naming WRA Word Reading Accuracy WRF Word Reading Fluency x Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisory committee, Dr. Stefka Marinova-Todd and Dr. Guofang Li, for their continuous support with my research journey. To Dr. Marinova-Todd, thank you so much for taking me on as a research student and for all your help, feedback, and support. From the scholarship process to the complete draft, I couldnât have done it without you. As youâve said and as Iâve discovered, nothing ever goes as planned in research, but Iâm glad we ended up exactly where we needed to be. To Dr. Li, thank you for your continuous guidance and support â Iâve learned so much about research throughout the years Iâve worked with you. Your feedback and suggestions were instrumental to the completion of my thesis. Iâm also extremely grateful to the family and friends who have supported me on this journey. To my parents, grandparents, and my brother, thanks for always believing in and encouraging me. And to my friends, thank you for always checking in on how Iâm doing and for always listening to my struggles. I would like to extend my thanks to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) for their financial support. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Multilingualism in Canadian French Immersion French immersion (FI) is an educational program that promotes bilingualism in the English-speaking parts of Canada (Statistics Canada, 2024). In Early French Immersion (EFI), students are taught exclusively in French from kindergarten or Grade 1 until Grade 3, with English formally introduced in Grade 4 (Ministry of Education and Care Child, 2022). EFI has been shown to be effective at promoting bilingualism due to the early full immersion structure (Cummins, 1978; Genesee, 1987), with many researchers associating linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits with the program (Cummins, 1978; Genesee, 1987; Lambert et al., 1993; Lazaruk, 2007). These benefits have led to a consistent increase in enrollment in FI programs, by as much as 76.4% in the past 20 years, with the most growth in Ontario, Alberta, and B.C. (Statistics Canada, 2024). In the 2021-2022 school year, 14% of students in B.C. and 19.8% of students in Ontario were enrolled in FI programs (Statistics Canada, 2024). Traditionally, FI has been primarily composed of monolingual English speakers acquiring French as a second language (Davis, 2023), but the demographics of FI programs have shifted in recent years. In 2022, almost half of the students in FI programs in B.C. and Ontario came from immigrant families (Statistics Canada, 2022). In the major urban centers within each province, the proportion of students from immigrant backgrounds was even greater: 67.4% in Vancouver and 76.8% in Toronto (Statistics Canada, 2022), where 33.2% and 32.6% respectively had neither English nor French as their first language (Statistics Canada, 2022). Despite the changing demographics, most FI research to date has been conducted on monolingual English-speaking students. From 2006 through 2015, few studies investigated FI practices with English Language Learners or multilingual students compared to monolingual 2 English students (Teale et al., 2018). Although FI programs have been thought of as a way for monolingual English students to become bilingual, for students from multilingual backgrounds, enrollment in FI had been discouraged by teachers and administrators who believed that adding a third language would add too much pressure on the students, thus hindering their literacy development in both English and French (Hurd, 1993; Swain & Johnson, 1997). Recent research has shown that this is often not the case; English Language Learners sometimes perform similarly, if not better, in FI compared to Canadian-born, monolingual students (Bérubé et al., 2022; Bourgoin & Dicks, 2019; Knouzi & Mady, 2017). Nonetheless, more research on FI students from multilingual backgrounds is needed in light of the growing cultural and linguistic diversity in Canada (Cummins, 2014; Kunnas, 2023; Mady, 2017). Currently, within the population of Canadian FI students from multilingual backgrounds, the most common first language (L1) other than French and English is Chinese (2.6%) (Statistics Canada, 2024). Students with Chinese as their L1 are a particularly important population for investigating the influence of L1 on subsequent language and literacy acquisition due to a major linguistic feature that contrasts with English and French: orthography. 1.2 Orthography Orthography refers to the writing system of a language. An alphabetic orthography (e.g., English) utilizes a set of symbols, namely letters, to represent sounds, whereas a logographic orthography (e.g., Chinese) uses distinct characters to represent units of meaning. Orthography influences reading development. The orthographic depth hypothesis (Frost et al., 1987) suggests that the rate of reading acquisition varies with the complexity of grapheme-phoneme correspondences. In transparent orthographies, where grapheme-phoneme correspondences are straightforward, phonological decoding develops quickly, allowing for rapid mastery of word 3 recognition (Florit & Cain, 2011). In deep orthographies with irregular grapheme-phoneme correspondences, beginning readers rely more on complex strategies such as recognizing rimes and whole words, leading to a longer learning process (Ziegler et al., 2001). Similarly, orthographical influences extend to second language reading. The Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummins, 1979) proposes that success in second language (L2) learning is dependent on a personâs competence in their L1, whereby a robust knowledge of the L1 is expected to facilitate the learning of the L2. More specifically, the script-dependent hypothesis (Geva & Siegel, 2000) suggests that L2 reading development is influenced by orthography, with L2 reading acquisition easier in languages with more similar orthographies. FI students exposed to multiple languages are likely to benefit from cross-linguistic transfer, which allows for skills first developed in one language to aid the language and literacy development in a new language (Genesee, 1987). In orthographically similar languages, such as French and English, L1 reading ability has been shown to be positively related to L2 reading ability, with cross-linguistic transfer effects found in areas such as word reading, pseudoword reading, reading comprehension, oral reading skills, and vocabulary (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2007). In orthographically dissimilar languages, such as English and Chinese, researchers have observed fewer transfer effects (Arab-Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001; Bialystok et al., 2005; Gottardo et al., 2001). However, it is still not clear what influences cross-linguistic transfer, which linguistic skills are transferable across languages, and to what extent linguistic skills are transferable. 1.3 Reading â Why is it important? Strong reading skills are essential for academic success as reading plays a role in every subject in later academic years (Leahy & Fitzpatrick, 2017; Mol & Bus, 2011). Consequently, it 4 is essential that foundational reading skills are built in early grades. Early reading difficulties arise at the word level (D. Fuchs et al., 2004), with word-level difficulties in preschoolers predicting more global reading comprehension difficulties in five- to seven-year-olds (Hulme et al., 2015; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). This relationship is present in both monolingual and bilingual students (Betjemann et al., 2008; Juel, 1988). Once reading difficulties emerge, they are likely to persist and unlikely to improve by themselves over time; students who struggle with reading at early ages consistently struggle later on and require intensive intervention (Catts et al., 2016; Vaughn et al., 2010). Results from these studies suggest that bilingual or multilingual students that struggle with reading in one language will struggle with reading in any language. In FI specifically, Shakory et al. (2023) found a longitudinal relationship between FI studentsâ word reading difficulties in English and in French from Grade 1 to Grade 3; students struggling in one language were likely also struggling in the other. Itâs unclear whether these struggles will be minimized by orthographic dissimilarities. Cross-linguistic transfer may aid multilingual students in their acquisition of reading whereas multilingual students learning languages with different orthographies are potentially at a higher risk of being identified with reading difficulties due to the lack of cross-linguistic transfer facilitating their reading development. Thus, it is crucial to further investigate the factors influencing early reading in multilingual learners of orthographically dissimilar languages. According to the simple view of reading framework (Hoover & Gough, 1990), reading is dependent on two main skills: decoding and comprehension. Decoding refers to oneâs ability to read at the word level. Comprehension refers to oneâs ability to process and interpret word-level information for meaning. During early stages of reading, it is critical for readers to develop 5 decoding skills as it is predictive of future comprehension abilities (Breadmore et al., 2019; Catts et al., 2006; Fuchs et al., 2004; Gough, 1996; Perfetti, 1985). More specifically, decoding must be accurate and fluent (Fuchs et al., 1988; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Peng & Kievit, 2020; Stanovich, 1991) in order for cognitive energy to be efficiently allocated to higher-level comprehension (Breadmore et al., 2019; Perfetti, 1985; Stanovich, 1991). 1.4 Reading Proficiency: WRA and WRF Word-Reading Accuracy (WRA) and Word-Reading Fluency (WRF) are two important measures of decoding abilities. WRA refers to oneâs ability to read words correctly by making connections between the letters, sounds, and meanings behind words (Breadmore et al., 2019). WRA is influenced by language-specific processes (Lee & Chen, 2019) such as orthography, phonology, and morphology (Perfetti, 2003). WRA is important for building the automaticity necessary for efficient, errorless, and fluent reading. WRF is defined as oneâs ability to rapidly and automatically recognize words (Breadmore et al., 2019; Kuhn et al., 2010). Fluent word reading allows readers to quickly decode orthographic information and dedicate more energy to comprehension (Breadmore et al., 2019; Pasquarella et al., 2015). Early readersâ WRF skills can predict their paragraph reading fluency in later grades (Geva & Farnia, 2012) and consequently, their reading comprehension (Aaron et al., 1999; L. S. Fuchs et al., 1988). Past research on reading development has traditionally focused on WRA abilities, but emerging research suggests that both WRA and WRF are necessary skills for reading (Huo et al., 2021). Although both WRA and WRF contribute to decoding and subsequent comprehension, the contributions of WRF have been proposed to have a longer impact; WRF has a greater impact on reading comprehension in higher grades due to the important role it plays in bridging 6 word-level decoding with reading comprehension (Huo et al., 2021). This relationship between WRF and comprehension has been found in both alphabetic (Huo et al., 2021) and logographic (Hsu et al., 2023) readers. Furthermore, using WRA and WRF measures in tandem was able to capture more bilingual struggling readers compared with using the measures in isolation (Compton et al., 2010; Fuchs et al., 2004; Shakory et al., 2023), suggesting the interdependence of the measures. Thus, the research suggests that itâs important to include both measures while assessing reading proficiency. 1.4.1 Predictors of Word-Reading Accuracy (WRA) Phonological awareness (PA), or the ability to recognize and manipulate the sounds in a language, plays an important role in decoding (Liberman et al., 1974; Morais et al., 1987). In alphabetic languages such as English and French, early readers rely heavily on phonological awareness (PA) for accurate decoding (DurgunoÄlu et al., 1993; Huang & Hanley, 1995) due to the languagesâ grapheme-phoneme relationship. However, the extent of PAâs influence on WRA lessens with time as readersâ learn to rely more on their vocabulary when reading unfamiliar or phonetically inconsistent words (Powell & Atkinson, 2021). The logographic construction of Chinese makes Chinese decoding different from alphabetic languages. Of the first 2,500 Chinese characters Chinese children typically learn by Grade 6, only 39% can be read by their phonetic component (Shu et al., 2003). Chinese lacks direct grapheme-phoneme correspondences and as a result, Chinese-speaking students may adopt different strategies when reading English and French compared to native speakers of these languages. For instance, skilled Chinese readers are more likely to rely on visual-orthographic features of English compared to native English readers (Liow & Lau, 2006) and less inclined to use PA skills compared to Korean-English bilinguals (Wang et al., 2003). PAâs impacts on 7 Chinese WRA are more prominent in beginner readers (Liu et al., 2017; McBride-Chang & Ho, 2005) compared to the more extensive role PA plays in alphabetic languages. Rather, Chinese reading is greatly influenced by other metalinguistic variables such as morphological awareness or orthographical processing, variables that play a smaller role in decoding alphabetic languages (McBride-Chang et al., 2003; Tong & McBride-Chang, 2010; Yeung, 2011). Another predictor that has been proposed to influence WRA is Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN). RAN has been proposed to influence WRA due to the role it plays in processing speed (McWeeny et al., 2022); however, its influence differs in different orthographies. In alphabetic languages, the contributions of RAN to WRA decrease with age as RAN becomes more closely associated with WRF (McWeeny et al., 2022). Contrarily in Chinese, RAN contributions to WRA increase with age, which Liao et al. (2008) have proposed to be due to the logographic nature of Chinese; this highlights how Chinese reading depends on quick, automatic character recognition, which differs from alphabetic languages that rely more on phonological skills (Liao et al., 2008). Regardless, research regarding both alphabetic and logographic languages tends to focus on the impact on RAN on reading fluency rather than accuracy (Liu et al., 2017), and more research is needed. 1.4.2 Predictors of Word-Reading Fluency (WRF) As with accuracy, PA plays a role in WRF. PA contributed substantially to reading fluency in alphabetic languages (Vaessen et al., 2010) and logographic languages (Liao et al., 2008), with stronger PA contributions in beginner readers, regardless of orthography. Although PA influences WRF, the extent of PAâs influence on reading fluency is smaller than that on reading accuracy; WRF relies more on readersâ abilities to directly recall words as a whole, rather than their abilities to consciously decode words through phonological and morphological 8 processes (Elhassan et al., 2017; Kuhn et al., 2010). Thus, measures of PA in isolation are not enough for predicting fluent reading. Rather, since WRF requires rapid and automatic recognition of words, Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) measures have been suggested to be major predictors of reading fluency (Georgiou et al., 2016; McWeeny et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2019) across all languages, regardless of orthography (Liu et al., 2017; Pasquarella et al., 2015). In alphabetic languages, RAN contributed substantially to reading fluency over six primary grades, with the contribution of RAN increasing with reading experience (Liu et al., 2017). Chinese RAN, after controlling for the effects from PA and orthographic knowledge, was a strong predictor of Chinese WRF measures, with effects increasing across grades, similarly to alphabetic languages (Araújo et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2017; Ruan et al., 2018). Liu et al. (2017) proposed that the lack of grapheme-phoneme relationships in Chinese may be the reason why RAN is important for measuring Chinese WRF. 1.5 Vocabulary In L2 research, vocabulary knowledge is often used as a proxy for language proficiency (Koda, 1989; Koizumi & Inânami, 2013; Qian & Lin, 2019). Outside of WRA and WRF, vocabulary also influences word reading (Suggate et al., 2014), although the extent of influence differs across languages. Despite English and German both being alphabetic languages, vocabulary exerted lesser influence on German word-level reading than English due to its more consistent orthography (Suggate et al., 2014). Conversely, a larger vocabulary in English, a less orthographically consistent language, is an asset to word reading (Suggate et al., 2014) as a larger vocabulary allows readers to more easily recognize irregular words that would otherwise be incorrectly decoded (Gottardo et al., 2017). Similarly, vocabulary accounts for Chinese 9 character reading variance and is predictive of word-level reading (McBride-Chang et al., 2003), possibly due to the orthography of Chinese, in which inconsistencies between phonetic components and their pronunciation result in less accurate phonological clues, requiring more reliance on vocabulary (Shu et al., 2003). Nonetheless, the influence of vocabulary on decoding is not well understood, especially in trilingual readers. 1.6 The Bilingual Context: Cross-Linguistic Transfer of Reading Skills As highlighted in the sections above, the contributions of PA, RAN, and vocabulary on word-level decoding are different depending on the orthography of the language. Furthermore, for bilingual and multilingual learners, orthographical differences have implications on which skills are cross-linguistically transferrable. Some skills have been proposed to be script-specific, transferrable only to languages of the same orthography, whereas other skills have been proposed to be universal predictors, skills that are cross-linguistically transferrable to any language (Pasquarella et al., 2015). PA and RAN have been proposed to be universal skills that are transferable regardless of orthography. For alphabetic language pairs, such as English-French bilingual students in FI, PA influences on decoding were equivalent in both languages, suggesting that PA was transferrable between alphabetic languages (Comeau et al., 1999). A meta-analysis on bilingual children learning alphabetic languages found that RAN was able to predict differences not only in individuals, but also cross-linguistically; relationships to reading were similar in bilingual and monolingual students, suggesting that RAN is a script-universal skill (Kishchak et al., 2024). Results were similar for logographic-alphabetic language pairs. For Chinese-English bilingual students, instruction in English PA was found to improve studentsâ Chinese PA abilities (Chen et 10 al., 2010). Song et al. (2016)âs meta-analysis of 35 studies also suggested that PA and RAN are universal predictors of word reading. There are fewer studies looking at the cross-linguistic transfer of WRA and WRF. Outside of FI, Pasquarella et al. (2015) investigated cross-linguistic transfer of WRA and WRF in orthographically similar Spanish-English and orthographically dissimilar Chinese-English bilingual children from Grade 1 to Grade 2. The authors found that WRA transfer was specific to Spanish-English bilinguals but not Chinese-English bilinguals, suggesting influence based on orthographic similarities. WRF transfer occurred universally across both language groups, suggesting a script-universal process. Nonetheless, the specific role orthography plays on WRA and WRF is unclear. Moreover, no study to my knowledge has looked at how cross-linguistic transfer from orthographically similar languages can impact FI studentsâ skills of WRA and WRF. 1.7 The Trilingual FI Context: Cross-Linguistic Transfer of Orthography on Reading There are only three studies to my knowledge that focused on cross-linguistic transfer effects between alphabetic and logographic orthography in trilingual FI students (Bérubé & Marinova-Todd, 2012; Bourgoin & Dicks, 2019b; Swain et al., 1990). Swain et al. (1990) investigated French (L3) reading development of two groups of Grade 8 students with either orthographically similar or dissimilar L1s. The researchers found that students with alphabetic L1s performed better than students with non-alphabetic L1s on measures of vocabulary, auditory comprehension, and oral fluency. Bérubé & Marinova-Todd (2012) investigated the impact of different orthographies on Grade 4 FI studentsâ oral proficiency and reading comprehension. As expected, FI students with alphabetic L1s, such as Spanish, had stronger oral skills and reading comprehension skills in English (L2) and French 11 (L3) than students with typographical L1s, such as Chinese. Lastly, Bourgoin & Dicks (2019) investigated French (L3) reading development of seven Gr. 3 students with different home languages in late FI in New Brunswick; three of the students had a L1 of Chinese. The authors found that the multilingual students performed similarly if not better on reading tasks than English-French peers, of which their success is attributed by the authors to the cross-linguistic transfer of linguistic knowledge, metalinguistic, and metacognitive skills. All three studies investigated orthographical influences by grouping logographic languages together or with other languages (e.g., Japanese and Chinese). This makes it unclear whether other variables such as multiple orthographies in the case of Japanese, had any influence on orthographical transfer. Furthermore, all studies concentrated on older FI students, who are more likely to have had varying levels of exposure to L1 literacy instruction. By shifting focus to early grades, potential disparities in education across languages are minimized. Lastly, none of the studies focused specifically on decoding skills such as WRA and WRF, which are important early reading skills, because they have been shown to be predictive of later reading difficulties. 1.8 The Present Research The goal of the present research was to examine Chinese-speaking childrenâ early decoding abilities in English and French. This specific population is suited to an investigation of orthographic transfer effects on reading since two of the languages to which the children were exposed have different orthographies (Chinese and English) and are not supported in formal schooling at the time of testing. The study investigated the following two research questions: 1. How do language and literacy abilities compare among the three languages and across the two grades? 2. What are the language and literacy associations among the three languages? 12 If orthographic differences impact word-level reading measures, it is expected that the studentsâ English abilities will be positively associated with their corresponding French skills, which will ultimately result in stronger WRA and WRF outcomes in French, but not in Chinese. If orthographic differences do not impact word-level reading, French WRA and WRF scores are expected to be more weakly associated, if at all, with English and Chinese measures, as they are not languages supported in the early grades of FI schools. 13 Chapter 2: Methodology 2.1 Participants In the context of a larger project, quantitative data from a large battery of language and literacy measures was collected from Chinese-speaking students in kindergarten and Grade 1 in EFI programs in B.C. and Ontario. Due to the limited number of Chinese-speaking students in EFI programs, purposeful sampling was used; 24 students were eligible for the current study, with 7 students in kindergarten, and 17 students in Grade 1. All 7 students from kindergarten also participated in Grade 1. The mean age at the time of testing was 70.16 months for kindergarten students and 81.65 months for Grade 1 students. Most students were born in Canada (n = 16). Of the students born outside of Canada (n = 8), the majority arrived in Canada at 3 months old (n = 5), and the rest arrived between 16 and 36 months of age (n = 3). Table 2.1 Demographics of Students Kindergarten Grade 1 N Mean SD N Mean SD Total 7 17 Age (months) 70.16 3.20 81.65 3.86 Gender Male 2 6 Female 5 11 Most students were exposed to some combination of English, French, and Chinese (either Cantonese, Mandarin, or some other dialect) in the home and school environment. Cantonese- and Mandarin-speakers were treated as one group in the present study due to the focus on the influence of orthography on reading. Of the 24 demographic survey responses, 3 mothers were born in Canada and 21 were immigrants. Most of the mothers had a bachelorâs degree or higher (n = 12). Most mothers were 14 more comfortable using Chinese and English than French; 83% of mothers had no French fluency and 17% had limited French proficiency. On the other hand, 50% and 46% of mothers rated their Chinese and English proficiency respectively as very fluent. The mothersâ stronger Chinese proficiency was reflected in their Chinese use with their child, with 50% of mothers reporting almost always using Chinese with their child while only 25% almost always used English. Only 17% of mothers used any French, and those who did rated their usage as seldom. 8% of students used French half the time with their mothers. The studentsâ language environments were based mostly in English, but Chinese activities also made up a large part of their language and literacy activities. Most students engaged in some type of English language and literacy activity; 58% of students read books everyday, with the remainder 42% of students reading at least once a week. Additionally, students participated in other weekly English language activities, such as using computers (29%) and watching TV (54%). All students participated in some Chinese literacy activities, with 83% of students reading books, and 64% of students watching TV at least once a week. Most families reported almost never engaging in French activities at home, but 38% of parents reported reading French books at least once a week. Many students also participated in extracurricular English (n = 7) and Chinese (n = 12) language programs. English activities ranged from 1.5 to 5 hours a week, and Chinese activities ranged from 2 to 8 hours weekly. 2.2 Materials Qualitative data was collected through a demographic background questionnaire developed by the research team. Quantitative data about the childrenâs language and literacy skills were collected through a battery of tests, including Phonological Awareness (PA), Rapid Digits Naming (RAN), Vocabulary, Word Reading Accuracy (WRA), and Word Reading 15 Fluency (WRF). Parallel experimental measures in all three languages were administered in kindergarten and Grade 1. Demographic Background Questionnaire. Questions were specific to parental proficiency in all three languages, home and school language and literacy practices, and comorbid conditions. Although the focus of the present study was not on sociolinguistic factors, these variables were used in the participant selection and analysis process. Phonological awareness (PA). English PA was assessed by the Elision subtest of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP-2) (Wagner et al., 1999). Parallel experimental measures were administered in Chinese and French. The CTOPP-2 is standardized with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. In this task, students were asked to say a word, then repeat it with a phoneme removed (e.g., âSay cup without the /k/ soundâ). This subtest measured studentsâ ability to segment and delete phonemes, an important skill for early reading. Rapid Digit Naming (RAN). English RAN was assessed by the Rapid Digit Naming subtest of the CTOPP-2 (Wagner et al., 1999) and experimental measures in Chinese and French. In this subtest, students were asked to quickly name a series of digits (e.g., 2, 7, 9, 4) presented in a randomized, repeated array. This subtest measured studentsâ ability to retrieve phonological information from short-term memory, a skill linked to reading fluency and word recognition. Performance was scored based on studentsâ speed and accuracy. Vocabulary (PPVT). French vocabulary was assessed by the Ãchelle du vocabulaire en images de Peabody (EVIP), and English and Chinese vocabulary were assessed by the equivalent Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4 (PPVT-4) (Dunn & Dunn, 2007). All of the tests are standardized with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. In this task, students were asked 16 to select an image from four options that corresponded to the examinerâs verbal prompt. The PPVT was used to estimate studentsâ general language proficiency. Word Reading Accuracy (WRA). French and English WRA were assessed by the Letter Word Identification subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson III (Woodcock et al., 2001). Chinese WRA was assessed by the experimental measure of Character Reading test (Pasquarella et al., 2011). Students were asked to read aloud a list of increasingly complex letters, real words, and pseudowords. The task measured studentsâ decoding abilities, orthographic knowledge, recognition of familiar written words. Word Reading Fluency (WRF). French and English WRF were assessed by experimental measures (Au-Yeung & Chen, 2012). Chinese WRF was assessed by the Character Reading Fluency test (Pasquarella et al., 2011). Students were given 60 seconds to read aloud a list of letters and real words that increased in difficulty. This subtest assessed the automaticity of word recognition, with quicker and more accurate scores reflecting more rapid and effortless decoding abilities. 2.3 Data Analysis This study employed a quantitative research design to investigate EFI studentsâ word-level reading in French, English, and Chinese. Prior to analysis, the researcher screened the data collected for entry errors and missing values. Across variables, missing values ranged from 1 to 2 responses, or 4% to 8% of the data, which are within the acceptable range. Descriptive statistics were conducted on all French, English, and Chinese measures for kindergarten and Grade 1 students. Since most measures were experimental, raw scores were converted to z-scores for subsequent inferential analyses. 17 Skewness and kurtosis were examined to assess the normality of distributions. In cases where the assumptions of normality were violated due to the small sample size, non-parametric tests were selected to examine group differences and associations among variables. These analyses use mean ranks rather than raw means, reflecting studentsâ performance within the groups rather than absolute differences in scores. Studentsâ scores are first ranked based on their order in the dataset (e.g., from lowest to highest); the mean ranks represent the average of the ranks in each group, with a higher rank indicating a groupâs score is relatively higher than other groupsâ. Addressing the first research question, Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the studentsâ language and literacy abilities in all three languages across grades. Comparisons among the three languages were conducted with Friedman tests. The second research question regarding the associations between the language and literacy measures among the three languages was answered using Spearmanâs rank correlation analysis. 18 Chapter 3: Results 3.1 Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics for all English, French, and Chinese measures for kindergarten and Grade 1 students are displayed in Table 3.1. Table 3.2 Descriptive statistics of all French, English, and Chinese measures in raw scores Kindergarten (n = 15) Grade 1 (n = 40) N M (SD) Median Range N M (SD) Median Range French PA 6 8.86 (4.22) 8.00 13.00 17 8.75 (4.48) 9.00 18.00 French RAN 7 112.81 (30.21) 30.21 75.00 17 119.48 (32.66) 120.00 106.32 French PPVT 7 33.14 (15.42) 31.00 43.00 17 21.29 (12.06) 21.00 45.00 French WRA 7 32.29 (16.51) 28.00 47.00 17 34.65 (16.21) 36.00 58.00 French WRF 6 46.76 (23.16) 56.67 61.67 17 66.67 (49.39) 61.15 166.67 English PA 7 16.14 (7.40) 15.00 24.00 17 15.88 (4.06) 16.00 19.00 English RAN 7 136.64 (33.55) 120.36 97.14 17 140.48 (40.89) 138.46 146.74 English PPVT 7 117.57 (22.04) 121.00 69.00 17 94.88 (28.51) 102.00 79.00 English WRA 7 30.71 (12.51) 29.00 36.00 17 26.82 (10.55) 25.00 30.00 English WRF 5 46.72 (33.96) 55.00 85.37 17 59.25 (48.31) 50.00 149.85 Chinese PA 7 14.86 (2.67) 15.00 8.00 17 14.71 (3.22) 15.00 9.00 Chinese RAN 7 51.70 (52.62) 26.67 148.10 17 124.11 (38.82) 120.00 156.38 Chinese PPVT 7 32.43 (25.78) 21.00 72.00 16 55.41 (21.24) 55.00 70.00 Chinese WRA 7 18.00 (8.33) 19.00 22.00 17 37.65 (17.11) 33.00 66.00 Chinese WRF 7 9.52 (6.58) 8.33 15.00 17 54.67 (26.27) 60.00 86.38 Note. PA phonological awareness, RAN rapid automatized naming, PPVT vocabulary, WRA word reading accuracy, WRF word reading fluency. 19 3.2 Grade Comparisons Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted for group comparisons between the two grades (kindergarten and Grade 1) for the variables of PA, RAN, PPVT, WRA, and WRF in each language. Results showed that there were no significant differences in any of the French variables: PA (U = 44.50, z = -0.79, p = .452), RAN (U = 51.00, z = -0.62, p = .619), PPVT (U = 31.00, z = -1.81, p = .075), WRA (U = 50.00, z = -0.60, p = .576), and WRF (U = 46.50, z = -0.64, p = .535). Similarly, there were no significant changes across grades for English measures: PA (U = 53.00, z = -0.42, p = .710), RAN (U = 50.50, z = -0.57, p = .576), PPVT (U = 31.50, z = -1.78, p = .075), WRA (U = 46.50, z = -0.83, p = .418), and WRF (U = 46.50, z = -0.42, p = .680). However, the childrenâs scores on most Chinese measures increased across grades, except for PA: RAN (U = 17.00, z = -2.70, p = .005), PPVT (U = 26.50, z = -2.09, p = .034), WRA (U = 14.00, z = -2.89, p = .003), and WRF (U = 0.00, z = 28.00, p < .001). 3.3 Group Comparisons Across Languages Friedman ANOVA tests were conducted for group comparisons between the three languages (English, French, and Chinese) across both grades for the variables of PA, RAN, PPVT, WRA, and WRF. There were no significant differences in any of the variables across the three languages (PA Ï2(2) = 0.78, p = .676; RAN Ï2(2) = 0.58, p = .747; PPVT Ï2(2) = 1.58, p = .453; WRA Ï2(2) = 0.25, p = .882; WRF Ï2(2) = 1.90, p = .717). 3.4 Correlations Among All Languages Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were calculated to investigate the relationship between Grade 1 studentsâ language and literacy abilities in all languages. The results for the correlations between all language and literacy measures is presented in Table 3.2. 20 Table 3.3 Correlations between all language and literacy measures French PA French RAN French PPVT French WRA French WRF English PA English RAN English PPVT English WRA English WRF Chinese PA Chinese RAN Chinese PPVT Chinese WRA Spearman's rho French RAN Correlation Coefficient .443* Sig. (2-tailed) .034 N 23 French PPVT Correlation Coefficient .186 .425* Sig. (2-tailed) .395 .038 N 23 24 French WRA Correlation Coefficient .842** .630** .353 Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001 .091 N 23 24 24 French WRF Correlation Coefficient .676** .503* .353 .842** Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 .014 .098 <.001 N 22 23 23 23 English PA Correlation Coefficient .693** .244 .250 .624** .537** Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 .251 .238 .001 .008 N 23 24 24 24 23 English RAN Correlation Coefficient .469* .783** .200 .573** .402 .373 Sig. (2-tailed) .024 <.001 .350 .003 .057 .072 N 23 24 24 24 23 24 English PPVT Correlation Coefficient -.009 .429* .663** .217 .347 .236 .298 Sig. (2-tailed) .969 .036 <.001 .310 .105 .266 .158 N 23 24 24 24 23 24 24 English WRA Correlation Coefficient .610** .426* .540** .718** .725** .696** .416* .434* Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .038 .006 <.001 <.001 <.001 .043 .034 N 23 24 24 24 23 24 24 24 English WRF Correlation Coefficient .605** .185 .264 .681** .643** .648** .311 .131 .862** Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .409 .236 <.001 .002 .001 .159 .561 <.001 N 22 22 22 22 21 22 22 22 22 Chinese PA Correlation Coefficient .698** .379 .358 .699** .642** .814** .308 .253 .677** .525* Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 .068 .086 <.001 <.001 <.001 .144 .233 <.001 .012 N 23 24 24 24 23 24 24 24 24 22 Chinese RAN Correlation Coefficient .288 .198 -.405* .365 .351 .121 .222 -.401 .085 .187 .192 Sig. (2-tailed) .182 .353 .050 .080 .101 .573 .297 .052 .694 .405 .368 N 23 24 24 24 23 24 24 24 24 22 24 Chinese PPVT Correlation Coefficient -.010 -.149 -.278 .083 .302 -.039 -.186 -.251 .031 .144 .082 .644** Sig. (2-tailed) .963 .489 .188 .701 .161 .855 .384 .236 .885 .523 .702 <.001 N 23 24 24 24 23 24 24 24 24 22 24 24 Chinese WRA Correlation Coefficient .281 .264 -.061 .419* .625** .384 .234 .055 .295 .274 .389 .536** .535** Sig. (2-tailed) .195 .212 .778 .041 .001 .064 .272 .799 .162 .216 .060 .007 .007 N 23 24 24 24 23 24 24 24 24 22 24 24 24 Chinese WRF Correlation Coefficient .311 .188 -.122 .350 .440* .197 .163 -.212 .098 .270 .136 .641** .527** .806** Sig. (2-tailed) .149 .380 .571 .094 .035 .357 .447 .320 .650 .224 .526 <.001 .008 <.001 N 23 24 24 24 23 24 24 24 24 22 24 24 24 24 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 21 The within-language correlations in French showed that French reading measures were positively associated with all other measures except for PPVT. PA and RAN were both significantly and positively correlated with French reading measures. French WRF and WRA were positively correlated with each other. Comparable results were found between English measures. All measures were positively and significantly correlated with English reading, including, PPVT. On the other hand, results for Chinese measures only showed associations between RAN and PPVT and Chinese reading measures; no significant relationship was found between Chinese reading skills and Chinese PA. Nonetheless, like French and English results, WRA and WRF were positively and significantly related in Chinese. Across the languages, individual variables showed mostly similar patterns of relationships between English-French, Chinese-French and English-Chinese. Firstly, in English, PA, RAN, WRA, and WRF were each individually associated with corresponding variables in French, suggesting that students with strengths in one language are likely to have similar strengths in both languages. In Chinese PA, WRA, and WRF were similarly associated with equivalent variables in French; however, no relationship was found between Chinese RAN and French RAN. Between English and Chinese, only PA measures were correlated with each other across the language pair. Specific to reading measures, English-French WRA and WRF were all positively and significantly correlated with each other. Interestingly, Chinese WRA was only associated with French WRF, but Chinese WRF was not associated with French WRA. Lastly, no Chinese and English reading measures were correlated with each other. Overall results across different 22 language and literacy variables and their relationships with reading suggested there were more English-French associations compared with Chinese-French, and the least in English-Chinese. 23 Chapter 4: Conclusion 4.1 Discussion The goal of the present research was to examine how the English and Chinese proficiency of Chinese-speaking Early French Immersion students affects their French reading abilities. These students are uniquely exposed to three orthographically different languages in tandem: two alphabetic languages (French in school and English from the home and the community) and one logographic language (Chinese from the home). To examine the associations between the three languages, I first looked at how the studentsâ language and literacy abilities compared across grades and across the three languages. Secondly, I looked at the relationships between studentsâ language and literacy measures and reading abilities across the three languages. 4.1.1 Developmental Changes Across Grades The childrenâs performances on all measures in English and French did not change across grades. However, Chinese measures, other than PA, all improved with age. Although there were no significant changes in French, due to the small sample size, it is informative to examine some of the trends in the data. What is particularly striking is that the children's reading fluency in French was on an upward trajectory, which is likely due to the formal instruction in school. On the other hand, vocabulary and reading accuracy in English have a tendency to decrease, which also is likely a result of the lack of formal instruction in English in the early grades in FI. However, the children's mean PPVT scores in English are well within the normal range, which indicates that their English skills are strong and the apparent decline across grades is not of concern at this point. It is likely that once the students begin formal English instruction in Grade 4, their English skills will similarly develop with age. Overall results suggest that the students have strong language and literacy skills generally, with Chinese skills improving with age. The 24 studentsâ improvements in Chinese with age are likely due to their strong home language support; 50% of mothers always used Chinese with their children, all students participated in some kind of language and literacy activity weekly in Chinese (e.g., reading books, watching T.V.), and almost half of the students engaged in 2-8 hours of Chinese extracurricular activities weekly. This is in line with past research showing that providing additional opportunities for language learning and instruction is crucial for maintaining language and literacy skills in minority languages (Li et al., 2023; Lonigan et al., 2018; Turner et al., 2023). 4.1.2 Language Strengths and Weaknesses The students performed similarly in all language and literacy measures across all the languages. This suggests that exposure to literacy in languages with different orthographies does not seem to affect the childrenâs development, at least not in this sample of early FI student from Chinese backgrounds. It is possible that PA, RAN, and reading fluency are equivalent in the three languages, because they are skills that are assumed to be orthographically independent or script-universal (Anthony & Francis, 2005; Gottardo et al., 2017; Pasquarella et al., 2015). The childrenâs equivalent vocabulary sizes in the three languages, typically used as a proxy for language ability, indicate that the students had equivalent language proficiency in all three languages. Although the results were not significant, their mean vocabulary size in Chinese was the largest while their vocabulary size in English was the smallest. These results are likely a reflection of the studentsâ language exposure. From the demographic questionnaires it was apparent that the students had a lot of exposure to Chinese; moreover, cross-grade improvements show that the students had a lot of support for their literacy skills specifically. Similarly, given that most students had little to no exposure to French before entering kindergarten, their small French vocabulary size reflects their still early exposure to the language. Overall, the students 25 have relatively equal strengths across all languages that match their amount of exposure to each language. Lastly, the studentsâ word-reading accuracy abilities are consistent across languages. This finding is not in line with the results of Pasquarella et al. (2015)âs study of English-Spanish and English-Chinese bilinguals, where word accuracy was considered to be reliant on script specific features such as phonology, morphology, and orthography, making it only transferrable across orthographically similar languages (Pasquarella et al., 2015). One plausible explanation is that the children in my sample had a higher degree of language proficiency and literacy exposure in Chinese than those in the Pasquarella et al. study, which was ultimately reflected in their strong reading skills in Chinese. Students in kindergarten and Grade 1 are still in the early stages of learning to decode. As a result, their decoding abilities are similar across all languages, but it is expected that they will develop unevenly because of formal instruction. It is clear that the students in this study have strong foundation in English and Chinese, which ultimately is likely to benefit their acquisition of French. 4.1.3 Cross-Language Associations I first hypothesized that if orthographic differences had an impact on word-level reading, studentsâ English abilities would facilitate their French skills, leading to stronger French reading outcomes, but not in Chinese. If orthographic differences did not impact word-level reading, French reading scores were expected to be more weakly associated with English and Chinese measures, as they are not languages supported in the early grades of FI schools. Current results provide support for the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummins, 1979) and the script-dependent hypothesis (Geva & Siegel, 2000); there is partial evidence that word-level reading 26 seems to be impacted by orthography, therefore, more research on a larger sample size is necessary. Firstly, results within languages suggest that within a language, many skills are correlated with each other. As expected, PA and RAN (Fernandes et al., 2024; Vander Stappen & Reybroeck, 2018) were both significantly and positively correlated with French reading measures, a finding well-supported by past research. Past research on vocabulary suggests a larger vocabulary is beneficial in helping readers more easily recognize irregular words (Gottardo et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2014). In this sample, since the students have only been in FI for one or two years before they participated in the study, the lack of relationship between French reading and vocabulary is likely indicating that the studentsâ French skills are still emerging, rather than reflecting a lack of relationship between French vocabulary and reading. English measures were similarly related to each other; unlike French, English correlations also included the additional association between vocabulary and reading. Compared to French vocabulary, the studentsâ English vocabulary size was much larger. Consequently, it is unsurprising that students with stronger vocabulary can use this skill to help them read (Gottardo et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2014), especially when decoding words that they may have previously encountered. Unlike English and French reading, in Chinese, automatized rapid naming and vocabulary size were both associated with reading. RAN results have been confirmed by previous research suggesting that Chinese reading, compared to reading in alphabetic languages, is less reliant on decoding (Liao et al., 2008; Tso et al., 2022). Rather, Chinese reading is dependent on more holistic recognition of characters, in which quicker, automatic recognition of 27 words (Araújo et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2017; Pan et al., 2021; Ruan et al., 2018) and a larger vocabulary (Shu et al., 2003) are significant assets. Within all three languages, decoding and reading fluency measures were positively correlated with each other (MacKay et al., 2023; Shakory et al., 2023), supporting previous arguments that accurate readers were also likely to be fluent readers. Similarly, English and Chinese PA, reading decoding, and fluency were all individually associated with the corresponding French measures. This finding suggests that skills such as PA, decoding, and reading fluency seem to be associated with reading in all languages, regardless of script. The positive association between French, English, and Chinese PA are consistent with previous findings about orthographical transfer of PA across all languages regardless of orthography (Luo et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2025). Moreover, Chinese, English, and French PA skills were all associated with English and French decoding and reading fluency. No PA skills were associated with Chinese reading measures. This finding is consistent with past research that suggests that PA is more important for alphabetic languages than logographic languages, as there is a greater reliance on automaticity and recognition rather than sound awareness in Chinese (Comeau et al., 1999; DurgunoÄlu et al., 1993). RAN results were in line with other studies on alphabetical transfer (DurgunoÄlu et al., 1993; Huang & Hanley, 1995; Powell & Atkinson, 2021) and from French and French Immersion more specifically (MacKay et al., 2023; Shakory et al., 2023). However, there were no relationships between Chinese RAN and any reading variables in the present study, which was somewhat unexpected considering that RAN is a universal ability (Song et al., 2016; Kishchak et al., 2024). 28 Lastly, regarding the relationship between reading variables, Pasquarella et al. (2015) proposed that reading fluency is script-universal due to its reliance on higher level processes such as processing speed and integration of information, whereas decoding is script specific due to more language specific processes. In the present study, Chinese reading accuracy was correlated with both French reading variables, but with neither English reading variables. Taken together, results partially support past results from studies looking at cross-language transfer. Notably in the current study, PA was suggested to be more script-universal, while RAN results were more varied, associated only across alphabetical languages. Regarding reading variables, there seemed to be a relationship between stronger languages (e.g., English and Chinese), with weaker languages (e.g., French), which suggest students are using all their resources to facilitate decoding in the newer language. Within all languages, decoding and reading fluency were associated, suggesting the interdependence of accuracy and fluency. Generally, there were the most English-French associations compared with Chinese-French, and the least in English-Chinese. 4.2 Conclusions, Implications, & Recommendations Regardless of the language or orthographical system, strong reading skills are essential for academic success (Mol & Bus, 2011). Multilingual students may be more likely to be identified as having reading difficulties because they are less proficient in the language of instruction rather than due to a true reading difficulty. Compared to monolingual students, multilingual studentsâ language and literacy development is more nuanced and influenced by additional factors such as orthography. The present study sought to examine how trilingual students develop language and literacy skills in orthographically similar and dissimilar languages in early grades of FI. Compared to students learning orthographically similar languages, students 29 learning orthographically different languages may not benefit from as many cross-linguistic transfer effects, impacting how their language and literacy development may be perceived in school. Results from this study contribute to a limited degree to the current theories about trilingual language development and cross-linguistic transfer, specifically hinting at how cross-linguistic transfer effects from L1 and L2 influence L3 acquisition. Findings indicated that orthographic differences seem to partially impact word-level reading, although more research on a larger sample size is necessary. For instance, skills such as PA, WRA, and WRF seem to be associated with reading in all languages, regardless of script. Other skills, such as vocabulary, seem to be only associated in languages that are orthographically similar (e.g., English and French). Nonetheless, these results are tentative and additional investigations with larger sample sizes are necessary to make definitive conclusions regarding cross-linguistic transfer of reading skills. In addition to the correlations between reading variables in the three languages, it is also important to consider the results of the cross-language comparisons. Comparisons of studentsâ performance on equivalent French, English, and Chinese measures suggested that studentsâ performance were similar across languages. Students in the present sample have strong language skills in all their languages, and are unsurprisingly, strong readers in all their languages. Both the results from these cross-language comparisons and cross-grade comparisons suggest that language exposure and support are important factors, possibly even more than orthography, in influencing trilingual language learning. Cross-grade analysis showed that Chinese was the language with the most growth from kindergarten to Grade 1; this is likely due 30 to the rich language environment that the students are exposed to. More specifically, Chinese reading skills are growing, hinting at strong literacy support outside of school. A limitation of this study is the sample size. However, due to the purposeful sampling of students who can read in Chinese, the sample is more homogeneous. Nonetheless, a larger sample would allow me to conduct regression analysis necessary for making definitive conclusions regarding the presence and direction of any possible transfer effects among the three languages. Another limitation is the measurement tools used. I considered only the motherâs perspectives from the background questionnaire. In this day and age, it would be important to include fathersâ perspectives or those of the second caregiver, when present. In addition, language use with siblings would add more nuance to our understanding of these studentsâ language exposure and environment. Future studies can expand on the current findings by investigating a larger sample size of the same population or extending the study to include older French Immersion students. As the previous research has shown, effects of many language and literacy measures such as PA, RAN, and PPVT contribute differently to decoding measures across time. Using older students would allow us to investigate the stability of the relationships found in the current study and the developmental patterns observed across the three languages. Moreover, older students would have had more time to develop their reading skills, especially reading comprehension. Further investigation into this area would extend our understanding of how decoding and reading comprehension are linked across different orthographies, and whether there are different predictors of each skill. One last extension would be to compare these Chinese-speaking students with other French Immersion students from alphabetic backgrounds. Having a direct comparison with other students in similar programs would allow us to see whether there are any significant 31 achievement differences that suggest home language orthography can positively or negatively influence the acquisition of additional languages. By recognizing how similarities and differences in orthography impact reading development across different languages, results reassure parents and educators that FI does not hinder studentsâ trilingual development. Strong language and literacy skills in any language can support the development of similarly necessary skills in other languages â strong readers are strong readers in any language they read. 32 References Aaron, P. G., Joshi, M., & Williams, K. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(2), 120â137. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200203 Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Development of Phonological Awareness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 255â259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00376.x Arab-Moghaddam, N., & Sénéchal, M. (2001). Orthographic and phonological processing skills in reading and spelling in Persian/English bilinguals. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(2), 140â147. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000320 Araújo, S., Reis, A., Petersson, K. M., & Faísca, L. (2015). Rapid automatized naming and reading performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 868â883. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000006 Au-Yeung, K., & Chen, X. (2012). English vocabulary development in English language learners in French immersion. Poster presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Montreal, Canada. Bérubé, D., & Marinova-Todd, S. H. (2012). The development of language and reading skills in the second and third languages of multilingual children in French Immersion. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(3), 272â293. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2011.631708 Bérubé, D., Uchikoshi, Y., & Marinova-Todd, S. H. (2022). A longitudinal examination of French and English reading comprehension in French immersion programs in Canada. Applied Psycholinguistics, 43(3), 607â640. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716422000030 33 Betjemann, R. S., Willcutt, E. G., Olson, R. K., Keenan, J. M., DeFries, J. C., & Wadsworth, S. J. (2008). Word reading and reading comprehension: Stability, overlap and independence. Reading and Writing, 21(5), 539â558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9076-8 Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., & Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, Language Proficiency, and Learning to Read in Two Writing Systems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 580â590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.580 Bourgoin, R., & Dicks, J. (2019a). Learning to Read in Multiple Languages: A Study Exploring Allophone Studentsâ Reading Development in French Immersion. Language and Literacy, 21(2), 10â28. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29466 Bourgoin, R., & Dicks, J. (2019b). Learning to Read in Multiple Languages: A Study Exploring Allophone Studentsâ Reading Development in French Immersion. Language and Literacy, 21(2), 10â28. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29466 Breadmore, H. L., Vardy, E. J., Cunningham, A. J., Kwok, R. K., & Carroll, J. M. (2019). Literacy Development: Evidence Review. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288349887.pdf Catts, H., Adlof, S., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2006). Language Deficits in Poor Comprehenders: A Case for the Simple View of Reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Researchâ¯: JSLHR, 49, 278â293. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023) Catts, H. W., Nielsen, D. C., Bridges, M. S., & Liu, Y.-S. (2016). Early Identification of Reading Comprehension Difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(5), 451â465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414556121 Chen, X., Xu, F., Nguyen, T.-K., Hong, G., & Wang, Y. (2010). Effects of cross-language transfer on first-language phonological awareness and literacy skills in Chinese children 34 receiving English instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 712â728. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018802 Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, Ã., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 29â43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.29 Cummins, J. (1978). The Cognitive Development of Children in Immersion Programs. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 34(5), 855â883. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543049002222 Cummins, J. (2014). Rethinking pedagogical assumptions in Canadian French immersion programs. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.2.1.01cum Davis, S. (2023). Multilingual Learners in Canadian French Immersion Programs: Looking Back and Moving Forward. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 79(3), 163â180. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr-2022-0051 Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary TestâFourth Edition. https://doi.org/10.1037/t15144-000 DurgunoÄlu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 453â465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.453 35 Elhassan, Z., Crewther, S. G., & Bavin, E. L. (2017). The Contribution of Phonological Awareness to Reading Fluency and Its Individual Sub-skills in Readers Aged 9- to 12-years. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00533 Fernandes, S., Querido, L., & Verhaeghe, A. (2024). Learning to Read in an Intermediate Depth Orthography: The Longitudinal Role of Grapheme Sounding on Different Types of Reading Fluency. Behavioral Sciences, 14(5), 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14050396 Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011). The Simple View of Reading: Is It Valid for Different Types of Alphabetic Orthographies? Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 553â576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6 Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(1), 104â115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.13.1.104 Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying Reading Disabilities by Responsiveness-to-Instruction: Specifying Measures and Criteria. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593674 Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 9(2), 20â28. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258800900206 Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. The Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 226. https://doi.org/10.2307/328131 Georgiou, G. K., Aro, M., Liao, C.-H., & Parrila, R. (2016). Modeling the relationship between rapid automatized naming and literacy skills across languages varying in orthographic 36 consistency. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 143, 48â64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.10.017 Geva, E., & Farnia, F. (2012). Developmental changes in the nature of language proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading comprehension in ELL and EL1. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(8), 1819â1845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9333-8 Geva, E., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing, 12(1), 1â30. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008017710115 Gottardo, A., Koh, P. W., Chen, X., & Jia, F. (2017). Models of English and Chinese word reading for adolescent ChineseâEnglish bilinguals. Reading and Writing, 30(7), 1377â1406. https://doi.org/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(3), 530â542. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.530 Gough, P. B. (1996). How Children Learn to Read and Why They Fail. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 3â20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648168 Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 127â160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799 Hsu, L. S.-J., Chan, K., & Ho, C. S.-H. (2023). Reading fluency as the bridge between decoding and reading comprehension in Chinese children. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1221396 37 Huang, H. S., & Hanley, J. R. (1995). Phonological awareness and visual skills in learning to read Chinese and English. Cognition, 54(1), 73â98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00641-W Hulme, C., Nash, H. M., Gooch, D., Lervåg, A., & Snowling, M. J. (2015). The Foundations of Literacy Development in Children at Familial Risk of Dyslexia. Psychological Science, 26(12), 1877â1886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615603702 Huo, M. R. Y., Koh, P., Cheng, Y., Marinova-Todd, S. H., & Chen, X. (2021). The simple view of reading in French second language learners. Learning and Individual Differences, 92, 102082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102082 Hurd, M. (1993). Minority Language Children and French Immersion: Additive Multilingualism or Subtractive Semi-Lingualism? Canadian Modern Language Review, 49(3), 514â525. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.49.3.514 Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2007). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203935927 Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437â447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437 Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Sidler Folsom, J., & Grueli, L. (2014). The contributions of vocabulary and letter writing automaticity to word reading and spelling for kindergartnersâPubMed. Reading and Writing, 27(2), 237â253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9440-9 38 Kishchak, V., Ewert, A., Halczak, P., Kleka, P., & SzczerbiÅski, M. (2024). RAN and two languages: A meta-analysis of the RAN-reading relationship in bilingual children. Reading and Writing, 37(5), 1235â1265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10441-3 Knouzi, I., & Mady, C. (2017). Indicators of an âImmigrant Advantageâ in the Writing of L3 French Learners. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 73(3), 368â392. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.3818 Koda, K. (1989). The Effects of Transferred Vocabulary Knowledge on the Development of L2 Reading Proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 22(6), 529â540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1989.tb02780.x Koizumi, R., & Inânami, Y. (2013). Vocabulary Knowledge and Speaking Proficiency among Second Language Learners from Novice to Intermediate Levels. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(5), 900â913. https://doi.org/doi:10.4304/jltr.4.5.900-913 Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230â251. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4 Kunnas, M. (2023). Who Is Immersion for?: A Critical Analysis of French Immersion Policies. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 46â68. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2023.32817 Lambert, W. E., Genesee, F., Holobow, N., & Chartrand, L. (1993). Bilingual education for majority english-speaking children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(1), 3â22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172860 39 Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, Academic, and Cognitive Benefits of French Immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(5), 605â627. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.5.605 Leahy, M., & Fitzpatrick, N. (2017). (PDF) Early Readers and Academic Success. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 7(2). https://doi.org/URL:%2520http://doi.org/10.5539/jedp.v7n2p87 Lee, K., & Chen, X. (2019). An emergent interaction between reading fluency and vocabulary in the prediction of reading comprehension among French immersion elementary students. Reading and Writing, 32(7), 1657â1679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9920-z Li, G., Zhen, F., Lin, Z., & Gunderson, L. (2023). Bilingual Home Literacy Experiences and Early Biliteracy Development among ChineseâCanadian First Graders. Education Sciences, 13(8), 808. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080808 Liao, C.-H., Georgiou, G. K., & Parrila, R. (2008). Rapid naming speed and Chinese character recognition. Reading and Writing, 21(3), 231â253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9071-0 Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18(2), 201â212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(74)90101-5 Liow, S. J. R., & Lau, L. H.-S. (2006). The development of bilingual childrenâs early spelling in English. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 868â878. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.868 Liu, Y., Georgiou, G. K., Zhang, Y., Li, H., Liu, H., Song, S., Kang, C., Shi, B., Liang, W., Pan, J., & Shu, H. (2017). Contribution of cognitive and linguistic skills to word-reading 40 accuracy and fluency in Chinese. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 75â90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.12.005 Lonigan, C. J., Goodrich, J. M., & Farver, J. M. (2018). Identifying Differences in Early Literacy Skills across Subgroups of Language-Minority Children: A Latent Profile Analysis. Developmental Psychology, 54(4), 631â647. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000477 Luo, Y. C., Chen, X., & Geva, E. (2016). Concurrent and longitudinal cross-linguistic transfer of phonological awareness and morphological awareness in Chinese-English bilingual children. In E. Zaretsky & M. Schwartz (Eds.), Cross-linguistic Transfer in Reading in Multilingual Contexts (pp. 93â120). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.17.1.001for MacKay, E., Chen, X., & Deacon, S. H. (2023). Longitudinal predictors of French word reading difficulties among French Immersion children. Annals of Dyslexia, 73(1), 73â89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-022-00275-z Mady, C. (2017). French Immersion for English Language Learners?: Kindergarten Teachersâ Perspectives. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 62(3), 253â267. https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v62i3.56180 McBride-Chang, C., & Ho, C. S.-H. (2005). Predictors of Beginning Reading in Chinese and English: A 2-Year Longitudinal Study of Chinese Kindergartners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 117â144. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_2 McBride-Chang, C., Shu, H., Zhou, A., Wat, C. P., & Wagner, R. K. (2003). Morphological awareness uniquely predicts young childrenâs Chinese character recognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 743â751. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.743 41 McWeeny, S., Choi, S., Choe, J., LaTourrette, A., Roberts, M. Y., & Norton, E. S. (2022a). Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) as a Kindergarten Predictor of Future Reading in English: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(4), 1187â1211. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.467 McWeeny, S., Choi, S., Choe, J., LaTourrette, A., Roberts, M. Y., & Norton, E. S. (2022b). Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) as a Kindergarten Predictor of Future Reading in English: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(4), 1187â1211. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.467 Ministry of Education and Child Care. (2022). French Immersion ProgramâProvince of British Columbia. Province of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-12/administration/legislation-policy/public-schools/french-immersion-program Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 267â296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021890 Morais, J., Alegria, J., & Content, A. (1987). The relationships between segmental analysis and alphabetic literacy: An interactive view. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 7, 415â438. Pan, D. J., Yang, X., Hong, K. F., Lo, J. C. M., & Ho, C. S.-H. (2021). Character and word reading in Chinese: Why and how they should be considered uniquely vis-Ã -vis literacy developmentâScienceDirect. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101961 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 42 bilinguals: Script-universal and script-specific processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 96â110. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036966 Pasquarella, A., Chen, X., Lam, K., Luo, Y., & Ramirez, G. (2011). Cross-language transfer of morphological awareness in Chinese-English bilinguals. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 23â42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01484.x Peng, P., & Kievit, R. A. (2020). The Development of Academic Achievement and Cognitive Abilities: A Bidirectional Perspective. Child Development Perspectives, 14(1), 15â20. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12352 Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability (pp. xiii, 282). Oxford University Press. Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The universal grammar of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(1), 3â24. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0701_02 Powell, D., & Atkinson, L. (2021). Unraveling the links between rapid automatized naming (RAN), phonological awareness, and reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 706â718. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000625 Qian, D. D., & Lin, L. H. F. (2019). The Relationship Between Vocabulary Knowledge and Language Proficiency. In The Routledge Handbook of Vocabulary Studies. Routledge. Ruan, Y., Georgiou, G. K., Song, S., Li, Y., & Shu, H. (2018). Does writing system influence the associations between phonological awareness, morphological awareness, and reading? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 180â202. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000216 Safty, A. (1988). French Immersion and the Making of a Bilingual Society: A Critical Review and Discussion. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de lâéducation, 13(2), 243â262. https://doi.org/10.2307/1494954 43 Shakory, S., Krenca, K., Marinova-Todd, S. H., & Chen, X. (2023). A 3-year longitudinal investigation of the overlap and stability of English and French word reading difficulties in French immersion children. Annals of Dyslexia, 73(1), 53â72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-022-00265-1 Shu, H., Chen, X., Anderson, R. C., Wu, N., & Xuan, Y. (2003). Properties of School Chinese: Implications for Learning to Read. Child Development, 74(1), 27â47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00519 Song, S., Georgiou, G. K., Su, M., & Hua, S. (2016). How Well Do Phonological Awareness and Rapid Automatized Naming Correlate With Chinese Reading Accuracy and Fluency? A Meta-Analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(2), 99â123. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1088543 Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Changing models of reading and reading acquisition. In Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 19â31). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Statistics Canada. (2022, November 30). 897,000 children are eligible for instruction in the minority official language in Canada. The Daily. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221130/dq221130d-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2024, February 28). Participation in French immersion, bilingualism and the use of French in adulthood. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-X/2021018/98-200-X2021018-eng.cfm Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934â947. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.38.6.934 44 Suggate, S., Reese, E., Lenhard, W., & Schneider, W. (2014). The relative contributions of vocabulary, decoding, and phonemic awareness to word reading in English versus German. Reading and Writing, 27(8), 1395â1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9498-z Swain, M., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). Immersion education: A category within bilingual education (R. K. Johnson & M. Swain, Eds.; 1st ed., pp. 1â16). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524667.003 Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Rowen, N., & Hart, D. (1990). The role of mother tongue literacy in third language learning. Language Culture and Curriculum, 3(1), 65â81. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908319009525073 Teale, W., Whittingham, C., & Hoffman, E. (2018). Early literacy research, 2006â2015: A decade of measured progress. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20, 146879841875493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798418754939 Tong, X., & McBride-Chang, C. (2010). Developmental models of learning to read Chinese words. Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1662â1676. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020611 Tso, R. V., Au, T. K., & Hsiao, J. H. (2022). Non-monotonic developmental trend of holistic processing in visual expertise: The case of Chinese character recognition. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00389-3 Turner, M., Keary, A., & Tour, E. (2023). Home language literacy practices: Learning opportunities for primary EAL students. The Australian Educational Researcher, 50, 1513â1531. 45 Vaessen, A., Bertrand, D., Tóth, D., Csépe, V., Faísca, L., Reis, A., & Blomert, L. (2010). Cognitive development of fluent word reading does not qualitatively differ between transparent and opaque orthographies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 827â842. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019465 Vander Stappen, C., & Reybroeck, M. V. (2018). Phonological Awareness and Rapid Automatized Naming Are Independent Phonological Competencies With Specific Impacts on Word Reading and Spelling: An Intervention Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00320 Vaughn, S., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 432â444. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). PRO-ED. Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English word identification: A comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners. Cognition, 87, 129â149. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00232-9 Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K., S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Riverside Publishing. Zhang, K., Sun, X., Flores-Gaona, Z., Yu, C.-L., Eggleston, R. L., Nickerson, N., Caruso, V. C., Tardif, T., & Kovelman, I. (2025). Cross-linguistic transfer in bilingual childrenâs phonological and morphological awareness skills: A longitudinal perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 28(2), 327â342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728924000439 46 Zhao, Y., Cheng, Y., & Wu, X. (2019). Contributions of morphological awareness and rapid automatized naming (RAN) to Chinese childrenâs reading comprehension versus reading fluency: Evidence from a longitudinal mediation model. Reading and Writing, 32(8), 2013â2036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09935-w Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., Jacobs, A. M., & Braun, M. (2001). Identical Words are Read Differently in Different Languages. Psychological Science, 12(5), 379â384. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00370
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Audiology and Speech Sciences
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Marinova-Todd, Stefka
Beyond the letters : the effect of orthography on word-reading in trilingual French immersion students
Text