Cognitive bases of reading and writing in a second/foreign language DIALUKI (www.jyu.fi/dialuki) Lea Nieminen, CALS, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Riikka Ullakonoja, CALS, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Eeva-Leena Haapakangas, CALS, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Ari Huhta, CALS, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Charles Alderson, Lancaster University, UK DIALUKI (2010 2013) DIAgnosing reading (LUkeminen) and writing (KIrjoittaminen) in a second or foreign language Academy of Finland, University of Jyväskylä, ESRC (Economic & Social Research Council, UK) Principal investigator: J. Charles Alderson (Lancaster University, UK) Development of reading and writing in S/FL Can different and L2 linguistic measures predict difficulties in S/FL reading and writing? How does S/FL proficiency in reading and writing develop in psycholinguistic and linguistic terms? Helps to develop diagnostic instruments 1
Participants Grade/age English Finnish as FL as L2 Finnish Russian grade / 9-10 years 8th grade / 13-14 years Gymnasium/17-18 years 3rd 6th grades 7th 9th grades 210 208 219 186 Total 637 264 DIALUKI: Variables 78 2
Reading and writing tasks for graders Reading comprehension in Finnish as 12 multiple choice questions based on a text Turhat tavarat (Unnecessary things) Reading comprehension as FL Pearson Test of English for Young Learners, number of (mixed format) items = 24 Writing in Finnish as Opinion Writing as FL Message to a foreign friend Cognitive tasks for graders 3
Cognitive and psycholinguistic tasks (1) Backwards digit span & FL : 2-8 digits, numbers 1-9 FL: 2-5 digits, numbers 1-6 Common unit in a pair of non- vapi lumpe & FL Tauk auk kisp - kis Cognitive and psycholinguistic tasks (2) ( & FL) : 14 (length 2-8 letters) L2: 8 (length 2-9 letters) # d * a * & y* 4
Cognitive and psycholinguistic tasks (3) Rapid Automatized Naming and FL Mixed stimuli: numbers, letters and colours () numbers, objects and colours (FL) Cognitive tasks for graders 5
Stepwise multiple regression analysis, cognitive s with reading in Finnish as % variance First Grade.108 11% List reading (.247) Backward digit span (.243) Relative weights of the significant cognitive predictor s with reading Finnish as % variance First List Backward reading digit span Grade.108 11% Non-word repetition (.219) Non-word repetition 34.8% 36.3% 28.9% 6
Stepwise multiple regression analysis, cognitive s with EFL reading % First variance Grade.282 28% (.437) (.412) (-.355) Relative weights of the significant cognitive predictor s with EFL reading % variance Grade.282 28% First 41.0% 32.4% Fourth in (.020) Fourth in 23.0% 3.6% 7
Stepwise multiple regression analysis, cognitive s with writing in Finnish as Grade.119 12% % variance First (.304) (.264) Relative weights of the significant cognitive predictor s with writing in Finnish as % variance First Grade.119 12% 58.9% 41.1% 8
Stepwise multiple regression analysis, cognitive s with EFL writing % First variance Grade.343 34% (.491) (.435) (-.401) Fourth Common unit (.301) Relative weights of the significant cognitive predictor s with EFL writing % variance Grade.343 34% First Fourth Common unit 37.8% 30.2% 19.8% 12.2% 9
Factor analysis: Cognitive s Factors Factor 1 Speed of lexical retrieval Factor 2 Processing of unknown linguistic material Variables List reading in FL & FL & Rapid automatized naming FL & Backward digit span FL Common unit Non-word spelling Non-word repetition Non-word reading FL & Backward digit span FL & Common unit FL & Summary of the results Cognitive s predict variance in EFL tasks better than in Finnish as tasks Cognitive s predict variance writing task better than in other tasks examined here However, cognitive tasks seem to have only small contribution to the prediction of variance in reading and writing tasks Common factors behind the cognitive s seem to be speed of lexical retrieval and processing of unknown linguistic material; also working memory plays a role in these s 10
Discussion: why are these s unable to predict variation in reading and writing? Finnish as These cognitive tasks are designed to detect dyslexics and very poor readers. graders are already experienced and skilled readers; It is easy to learn read and write in Finnish because the orthography is extremely transparent and systematic. English as FL In case of graders the cognitive s administered in foreign language are more linguistic s than cognitive s. Writing : beginning learners of English are not yet used to writing. Thank you for your attention! To learn more about DIALUKI, please visit our website www.jyu.fi/dialuki 11