Language Deficits in Poor L2 Comprehenders: The Simple View

Abstract

The simple view of reading (SVR) model proposes that reading comprehension is the product of word decoding and language comprehension, and that both components make independent contributions to reading skill (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). The model posits that there are good readers and three types of poor readers—dyslexic, hyperlexic, and garden variety—who exhibit different profiles of strengths and/or deficits in word decoding and language comprehension. In this study, 165 first‐ and second‐year high school students studying Spanish as a second language in the United States were administered standardized measures of Spanish word decoding, pseudoword decoding, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Participants' scores were compared to monolingual Spanish readers from grades 1 to 9 and then classified according to SVR reader types. The majority of students met the hyperlexic profile (good word decoding, poor reading comprehension). No participant fit the dyslexic criteria (poor decoding, good reading comprehension), and none met the good reader criteria (good word decoding, good reading comprehension) at a level higher than that of second‐grade monolingual Spanish learners.

How Well Do U.S. High School Students Achieve in Spanish When Compared to Native Spanish Speakers?

“…Likewise, by the end of third‐year Spanish, U.S. students’ Spanish reading comprehension ( SS = 53.5, < first percentile) and listening comprehension ( SS = 45.3, < first percentile) skills were three to four standard deviations below their Spanish word decoding skills ( SS = 105.9, 65th percentile) when compared to those of fifth‐grade native Spanish speakers. These findings mirror those of previous studies with a different group of monolingual English high school students completing first‐ and second‐year Spanish courses in which the students displayed significantly stronger Spanish word decoding than Spanish reading comprehension (Sparks, ; Sparks & Patton, ). In L1 reading research, readers with this profile are rare and have been called hyperlexic because their very weak reading and language comprehension are unexpected given their strong word decoding skills (Gough & Tunmer, ; Hoover & Gough, ).…”

“…In L1 reading research, readers with this profile are rare and have been called hyperlexic because their very weak reading and language comprehension are unexpected given their strong word decoding skills (Gough & Tunmer, ; Hoover & Gough, ). In the Sparks () study as well as the current study, the large majority of monolingual English students displayed a hyperlexic profile. In another study, Sparks and Luebbers () found that almost all monolingual U.S. high school students enrolled in FL courses could have been labeled with a reading “disability” when compared to native Spanish speaker norms because their Spanish word decoding skills were so much stronger than their Spanish reading comprehension skills—i.e., their Spanish word decoding skills ranged from two to four standard deviations higher than Spanish reading comprehension.…”

“…For example, even at the end of third‐year Spanish, monolingual U.S. students achieved at the 50th percentile in Spanish word decoding ( SS = 100.8) but below the first percentile in reading comprehension ( SS = 44.1) when they were compared to sixth‐grade native Spanish speakers. In a previous study with another group of monolingual U.S. students completing first‐ and second‐year high school Spanish courses, Sparks () found that these students also made much faster progress in Spanish word decoding and Spanish spelling than in Spanish reading comprehension. One plausible reason for this finding is that Spanish was a new language for the U.S. students, and word decoding had been found to explain the largest part of the variance in the early stages of learning to read (e.g., García & Cain, ; Seidenberg, ; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, ).…”

“…As summarized above, most formal studies of students’ learning outcomes in an FL have used mostly criterion‐referenced measures to compare speakers’ skills to specific criteria or domains of performance; however, studies have not compared monolingual native English–speaker learners’ skills with those of native speakers of the target language of the same age or grade level using a standardized measure. In three recent studies, Sparks and colleagues (Sparks, ; Sparks & Luebbers, ; Sparks & Patton, ) used a standardized measure of Spanish to assess the Spanish reading skills of monolingual English students in U.S. high schools and classified them according to reader types proposed by the simple view of reading model, a well‐researched model that explains how students acquire literacy skills (Gough & Tunmer, ; Hoover & Gough, ). The primary purposes of the present study were to (1) compare the achievement of monolingual English high school students in oral and written Spanish with that of native Spanish speakers on a standardized testing measure, and (2) propose appropriate expectations for monolingual English learners of Spanish after their completion of first‐, second‐, and third‐year high school Spanish courses.…”

Individual differences in L2 achievement mirror individual differences in L1 skills and L2 aptitude: Crosslinguistic transfer of L1 to L2 skills

“…In these studies, U.S. high school students’ Spanish vocabulary and listening comprehension skills were found to be similar to the average native Spanish speaker at a 2½‐ to 3‐year‐old level, even after 3 years of Spanish courses (Sparks & Luebbers, ; Sparks et al, b). Other studies have shown that despite IDs in L1 achievement, U.S. high school students learned to decode an alphabetic L2 (Spanish) well but still met criteria for a L2 reading “disability” because they exhibited extraordinarily poor reading comprehension and listening comprehension skills, largely because of extremely limited L2 vocabulary acquisition (Sparks, ; Sparks & Luebbers, ; Sparks et al, ). The constraint on L2 learning, in particular vocabulary learning, for U.S. students in high school is the social context in which the learning takes place—that is, most live in a home and a community where the target language is not spoken.…”