On Hierarchies of Reading Skills and Text Types

Lee, James F.; Musumeci, Diane

doi:10.2307/328240

Cited by 12 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, it appears that in the research conducted by Lee and Musumeci (), questions of varying task levels were associated with each text sample and that level‐by‐level criterion scoring was not applied (p. 175). In addition, their Figure (p. 179) indicated that while the researchers hypothesized that the students would improve a full proficiency level with every semester of language study, the percentage of correct responses by level would suggest that the only level where the students demonstrated sustained performance was the Intermediate level, or Level 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bernhardt () added the insight that the assessment of reading comprehension has been complicated by readers' use of compensatory processing strategies. In tests of the reading abilities of Italian learners, Lee and Musumeci () concluded that the text types described by Child () did not form a hierarchy of increasing difficulty and that their students' performance was not consistent with the hierarchy of reading skills described in the ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Despite these criticisms, the ILR language proficiency descriptions continue to be used in high‐stakes testing within the federal government, as well as the related STANAG 6001 proficiency descriptions used by NATO.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Empirical Validation of Reading Proficiency Guidelines

Clifford

Cox

2013

Foreign Language Annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The validation of ability scales describing multidimensional skills is always challenging, but not impossible. This study applies a multistage, criterion‐referenced approach that uses a framework of aligned texts and reading tasks to explore the validity of the ACTFL and related reading proficiency guidelines. Rasch measurement and statistical analyses of data generated in three separate language studies confirm a significant difference in reading difficulty between the proficiency levels tested.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical Validation of Reading Proficiency Guidelines

Clifford

Cox

2013

Foreign Language Annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the study by Perkins and Jones (1984) is more concerned with the issue of passage dependency, at the same time it alludes to the importance of the interrelationship between reading skills, the validity of the test items themselves as a measure of reading, the reading text itself and the students' level of proficiency. On the other hand, the study by Lee and Musumeci (1988) clearly showed that a hierarchy of reading skills or specific skill types is not consonant with any particular level of language development. Rather, actual reading performance is a concatena-tion of factors still not clearly defined and until further research is undertaken to inves tigate and explain factors involved in reading comprehension, then any particular hierarchy of reading skills is tentative at best.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…More relevant to the current study, it was found that the inferential skills were more difficult than others. Lee and Musumeci (1988) investigated the relationship between text type and reading skilL4 Four reading skills per text type were used, i.e., recognizing words and memorized elements; decoding and classifying; inferring, guessing, hypothesizing and interpreting; and verifying and extending hypotheses beyond the text. Their data were collected from students of Italian representing the first four semester levels of language instruction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Proficiency Level and Passage Content on Reading Skills Assessment¹

Mecartty

1998

Foreign Language Annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is designed to investigate the use of reading skills by intermediate and advanced learners of Spanish and to determine whether performance on these skills is uniform across learners and across reading texts, and whether there is a gradation of skills from least complex to most complex. Subjects read two authentic unabridged passages in Spanish and were asked to answer questions based on the skills isolated for the study. These skills are: a) locating details which include the subskills recognition and paraphrase; b) simple inferential skills which include understanding words in context and recognizing cause and effect; c) complex inferential skills which include recognizing main ideas and drawing conclusions. The results of the study showed a) a significant three‐way interaction of level, passage and skill; b) a significant interaction of passage and skill; c) a significant interaction of level and skill; and d) a significant main effect of skill. The findings of the study lend support to a hierarchy of skills. However, it is argued that reading comprehension cannot be viewed in terms of a discrete set of skills when the nature of reading is so complex.

show abstract

“…In line with the prediction, Bossers (1991) was able to account for a significant portion (19%) of variance in L2 reading comprehension with L1 reading scores among Turkish-Dutch bilinguals. Based on data from learners of Italian, Lee and Musumeci (1988) concluded that L1 reading was more powerful than L2 proficiency in predicting L2 reading performance. Significant contribution of L1 reading to L2 reading comprehension was also reported by Carrell (1991), though in this study L2 proficiency appeared to be a more prominent factor.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiating Between Automatic and Strategic Control Processes: Toward a Model of Cognitive Mobilization in Bilingual Reading

Cheung

Lin

2005

PSYCHOLOGIA -An International Journal of Psychological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in studying the effect of first language (L1) reading experience on second language (L2) literacy. Such crosslanguage influence in reading is understood as a particular case of the more general phenomenon of cognitive mobilization, which refers to the application of L1-related mechanisms to L2 processing . In this paper, we propose a model of cognitive mobilization for the bilingual reader. The model postulates an L1 and an L2 word recognition system the automaticity of which depends on language proficiency, and a language-neutral central system which entails effortful, strategic control processes. Under the assumptions of limited attentional resources and increasing L2 word recognition automaticity due to enhanced L2 proficiency, the model makes different predictions about cognitive mobilization in reading for bilingual readers at various levels of L2 proficiency. L1-to-L2 mobilization and topdown application of general reading strategies to L2 word decoding are similarly modelled. The paper contributes to the area by providing a framework for the formulation of working hypotheses about cognitive mobilization in reading.Key words: mobilization, reading, bilingual, automatic COGNITIVE MOBILIZATION IN BILINGUAL READINGWhat are the effects of first language (L1) reading experience on second language (L2) literacy development? The first locus of influence seems to occur at the level of orthography. Altenberg and Cairns (1983) tested German-English bilinguals and English monolinguals on English lexical decision. The stimulus set included items that were orthographically legal in both languages and those that were legal only in English. Results showed that the monolinguals were equally fast in making decisions on both types of items, whereas the bilinguals performed better on words that were legal only in English. The authors concluded that the bilinguals' experience in German (L1) interfered with their English (L2) lexical decision when the target items could also be German words (i.e., orthographically legal in German). On the other hand, interference did not occur when the targets did not look like German words at all (i.e., orthographically illegal in German).Cognitive mobilization in reading also takes place in terms of activation of L1 phonological information when reading L2 items. Nas (1983) tested Dutch-English bilinguals on English lexical decision with real English words, English nonwords, and

show abstract

On Hierarchies of Reading Skills and Text Types

Cited by 12 publications

References 1 publication

Empirical Validation of Reading Proficiency Guidelines

Empirical Validation of Reading Proficiency Guidelines

The Effects of Proficiency Level and Passage Content on Reading Skills Assessment¹

Differentiating Between Automatic and Strategic Control Processes: Toward a Model of Cognitive Mobilization in Bilingual Reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

On Hierarchies of Reading Skills and Text Types

Cited by 12 publications

References 1 publication

Empirical Validation of Reading Proficiency Guidelines

Empirical Validation of Reading Proficiency Guidelines

The Effects of Proficiency Level and Passage Content on Reading Skills Assessment1

Differentiating Between Automatic and Strategic Control Processes: Toward a Model of Cognitive Mobilization in Bilingual Reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Effects of Proficiency Level and Passage Content on Reading Skills Assessment¹