Reading comprehension of immigrant students in Germany: research evidence on determinants and target...

Reading comprehension of immigrant studentsin Germany: research evidence on determinantsand target points for intervention

Alexandra E. Marx • Petra Stanat

Published online: 16 March 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract International studies, such as the Programme for International StudentAssessment (PISA), have shown that, in most participating countries, students who

do not typically speak the test language at home reach lower levels of reading

comprehension than students using the test language at home (Stanat & Christensen,

2006). Results from PISA indicate that Germany is among the countries with the

most pronounced differences in reading comprehension between immigrant students

and students from native families. The present article summarizes these findings and

shows that the reading achievement gap persists even when the socioeconomic and

educational background of students’ families are controlled. Furthermore, although

controlling for background factors reduces the effect of the language spoken at

home on reading, it continues to be substantial. Using these findings as a starting

point, the article addresses the question of what should be done to close this gap. It

summarizes research findings indicating that oral proficiency presents an important

determinant of reading comprehension in a second language. This suggests that

effective general approaches to second-language teaching are needed to promote

reading literacy in a L2. The article closes with a discussion of the available evi-

dence on the effectiveness of such approaches and outlines the need for further

research.

Keywords Reading comprehension � Programme for International Student

Assessment � Second language acquisition � Oral proficiency as a determinant

of reading comprehension

A. E. Marx (&) � P. Stanat

Institute for Educational Progress, Humboldt University Berlin, Unter den Linden 6,

10099 Berlin, Germany

e-mail: [email protected]

P. Stanat

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Read Writ (2012) 25:1929–1945

DOI 10.1007/s11145-011-9307-x

Introduction

Understanding and actively using written texts are among the most important

cultural practices in modern societies. Written texts are routinely used for the

dissemination and exchange of knowledge, arguments, ideas, and beliefs. Reading

comprehension skills thus form an essential prerequisite for participation in virtually

all aspects of society and lifelong learning. Findings from international studies such

as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), however, suggest

that in many countries a substantial proportion of students fails to reach a level of

reading proficiency that is assumed to be necessary in modern societies. Within this

group, students from immigrant families tend to be highly overrepresented (Baumert

& Schumer, 2001).

In Germany, the gap in literacy achievement between immigrant students and

their native peers has repeatedly been found to be particularly large (Baumert &

Schumer, 2001; OECD, 2001; Stanat & Christensen, 2006). Their weaker reading

comprehension skills, in turn, seem to negatively affect the academic development

of immigrant students and hence their educational participation. In fact, immigrant

students in Germany are much less likely to attend the highest track of the

educational system (Gymnasium) and much more likely to attend the lowest track

(Hauptschule) than their native peers (Baumert & Schumer, 2001; see Appendix A

for an overview of the German education system).

In response to these findings, the need to promote immigrant students’ reading

skills has become a focus of educational policy in Germany, and a variety of

measures have been implemented to support their learning. However, the

effectiveness of different approaches to developing reading skills in immigrant

students has not been evaluated. More generally, there is a dearth of research on the

‘‘what works’’ question in the domain of reading in a second language (Slavin &

Cheung, 2003), and it is largely unclear what should be done to promote immigrant

students’ reading comprehension skills.

The present article reviews findings from the PISA studies on differences in

reading achievement between students from immigrant families and students from

native families in Germany. Subsequently, possible causes of immigrant students’

comparatively weak reading skills are discussed. In this context, the role of oral

language proficiency in a L2 on reading outcomes is highlighted. Based on

empirical evidence, it is argued that effective approaches to second-language

teaching and learning need to include aspects of oral proficiency. The final section

of the article describes such approaches and summarizes the available evidence on

their effectiveness.

Reading comprehension of immigrant students in Germany:research evidence from PISA

The PISA studies assess reading, mathematical, and science literacy of 15-year-old

students in three year intervals. In doing so, the project aims at determining the

extent to which the education systems of participating countries succeed in

1930 A. E. Marx, P. Stanat

123

developing knowledge and skills in these domains that students presumably need to

meet the challenges of modern knowledge societies (OECD, 2000). Student

performance in PISA is scaled such that the average across OECD countries is 500

points, with a standard deviation of 100 points. The composite scale for reading

literacy encompasses five proficiency levels and provides a basis for qualitative

interpretations of student performance (OECD, 2003). A detailed description of the

proficiency levels is presented in Appendix B.

In addition, PISA provides information on the relationship between student

background factors and educational achievement (OECD, 1999). Within the PISA

framework, students’ immigration status is defined in terms of their own and their

parents’ country of birth. If a student or at least one of his or her parents were born

outside the country of residence, he or she is regarded to have an immigration

background. In Germany, 21.7% of the students participating in the PISA 2000

assessment had an immigration background. More specifically, 10.2% of the

students were born in another country (first generation) and 5.1% of the students

were born in Germany but had parents who were both born in another country

(second generation). In addition, 6.4% of the students participating in PISA 2000

had one parent born in Germany and one parent born in another country (Walter,

2008).

As a group, immigrants in Germany tend to be highly disadvantaged in terms of

their social and educational background. Data from past PISA studies suggest that

the socio-economic status, as operationalized with the International Socio-

Economic Index (HISEI; cf., Ganzeboom, De Graaf, & Treiman, 1992), of

immigrant families is considerably lower than that of native families. In PISA 2000,

for example, a gap of half a standard deviation on the HISEI was identified

(Baumert & Schumer, 2001). The largest groups of immigrant students in Germany

are children of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union

(PISA 2000: 38%) and students of Turkish origin (PISA 2000: 17%) (Baumert &

Schumer, 2001).

About 20% of students performed below proficiency level 2 on the PISA literacy

scale in Germany (Artelt, Stanat, Schneider, & Schiefele, 2001). Within this group

of weak readers, students with an immigration status were highly overrepresented

(Baumert & Schumer, 2001, 2002; Stanat & Schneider, 2004). Analyses of the PISA

2000 data showed that 14% of students without an immigration background (i.e.,

student and both parents born in Germany) performed below level 2 on the

composite reading literacy scale, while the corresponding proportions were as high

as 46% for first-generation students and 40% for second-generation students. This

finding is particularly alarming as more than two-thirds of the immigrant students

had completed their formal education from preschool to the end of compulsory

schooling in German institutions (Baumert & Schumer, 2002; see Appendix A for

an overview of the German education system).

In interpreting the PISA results for immigrant students, it is important to take the

study’s limitations into account. For the most part, the PISA 2000 items were

developed in English-speaking countries and subsequently translated from English

into the national languages of participating countries. As children are often

unfamiliar with the issues addressed in foreign-language texts, this may have

Research evidence on determinants 1931

123

impaired immigrant students’ reading comprehension (Droop & Verhoeven, 1998;

Garcıa, 2000). In fact, analyses of the PISA 2000 data exploring differential item

functioning (DIF) on the country level (Adams & Wu, 2002; McQueen &

Mendelovits, 2003) indicated that the probability of answering items correctly

depended to some extent on whether a task was developed in the students’ country

of residence or in another country (Artelt & Baumert, 2004). As this type of DIF

was revealed for only a small number of the reading tasks, however, it did not

substantially bias the overall performance estimates at the country level. Consid-

ering the cultural heterogeneity of countries participating in PISA, it seems unlikely

that substantial DIF would exist for different ethnic groups within countries. Yet,

analyses exploring this possibility have not been performed thus far.

Determinants of immigrant students’ reading comprehension in Germany

A variety of factors have been suggested to explain the disadvantage of immigrant

students in terms of reading comprehension and general school success. One such

factor is the social background of their families. According to human capital theory,

achievement is affected by family resources that are relevant for educational success

(e.g., Becker, 1993). These include economic resources parents are able to invest in

education, cultural resources that can help to promote student learning, and social

resources on which students and their families may draw for information and

support. Thus, human capital theory suggests that students from families with fewer

educationally relevant resources should reach lower levels of achievement than

students from more privileged families. In line with this prediction, the socio-

economic status (SES) of families was found to have a strong impact on immigrant

students’ reading achievement (Baumert & Schumer, 2001; Lesaux, Koda, Siegel,

& Shanahan, 2006). In addition, parents’ level of education as well as various

process characteristics of family life, such as the time families spend together, have

been shown to influence immigrant students’ reading self-concepts and reading

proficiency (Goldenberg, Rueda, & August, 2006). Recent research with Russian-

Jewish immigrants in Israel confirmed these findings, indicating that immigrant

parents with higher levels of education possessed more books, paid more attention

to their children’s academic progress, and were more likely to foster their children’s

academic and linguistic development than immigrant parents with lower levels of

education (Schwartz, Kozminsky, & Leikin, 2009).

As data from PISA and other studies show, immigrant and native families in

Germany differ considerably in terms of their social status. In 2000, about 30% of

immigrant parents were unskilled laborers, compared to only 17% of native parents

(Baumert & Schumer, 2001). Thus, the achievement gap between these groups may

largely be due to differences in their social background characteristics rather than

their immigration status. Data from PISA, however, indicate that this is only

partially the case. Results from various analyses suggest that immigrant students’

disadvantage in reading achievement persists even after controlling for their social

background as operationalized with the HISEI. In PISA 2000, multiple regression

analyses were carried out in order to control for social background factors in


123

comparisons of immigrant and native students’ reading outcomes. The results

showed that immigrant students in Germany lagged behind their peers from native

families in reading by 73 points. When social background was entered into the

analysis, this difference was reduced to 52 points, yet the gap continued to be

substantial and statistically significant (Baumert & Schumer, 2001). Similar results

were obtained with the PISA 2009 data. Although the gap had decreased since 2000,

the achievement differences between immigrant and non-immigrant students in

reading were still sizable after students’ social background was controlled (Stanat,

Rauch, & Segeritz, 2010).

Another important predictor of the achievement levels immigrant students reach

is the language families speak at home. In the context of the PISA study, this

variable is assessed by asking students about the language they predominantly use

within their family. Immigrant students who reported to speak a language other than

German at home reached significantly lower reading scores on the composite

reading literacy scale in PISA 2006. The effect of language use was as high as 86

points, i.e., the achievement level of students not speaking the test language at home

was almost one standard deviation lower than the achievement level of students

whose home language was German. Most importantly, the results indicated that the

effect of family language continued to be substantial in most countries, particularly

in Germany and Belgium, after the parents’ socio-economic status and educational

background had been controlled (see Fig. 1). In Germany, not speaking the test

language at home was associated with an achievement disadvantage of more than

half a standard deviation (64 points) on the composite reading literacy scale even

when the students were comparable in terms of social and educational background

characteristics.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Belgium

Germany

Luxembourg

Switzerland

Denmark

Netherlands

Greece

Austria

Sweden

Norway

United Kingdom

New Zealand

France

Canada

Australia

Regression Coefficients (0=another language spoken at home, 1=test language spoken at home)

no controls

controlling for SES, parents' education

Fig. 1 Regression of reading literacy scores in the PISA 2006 assessment on language spoken home


123

This pattern of findings certainly does not imply that immigrant students who

speak their L1 at home are unable to achieve adequate reading skills. Immigrant

students might, however, be at a disadvantage if they lack opportunities to learn the

L2. Furthermore, language use at home might be an indicator of parents’ L2 skills

which, in turn, may influence students’ competencies through the quality and

quantity of parents’ contact to the school (Muller & Stanat, 2006).

Analyses in the context of PISA 2000 have also explored the extent to which

further socio-cultural variables have an impact on immigrant students’ reading

outcomes. The results showed that immigrant students in Germany reported to

engage in fewer cultural activities (e.g., visiting a theatre) and to possess fewer

cultural resources (e.g., books) than native students (Muller & Stanat, 2006). With

regard to the families’ communicative practices (e.g., time spent talking with

parents), the results varied across immigrant groups, with students from regions of

the former Soviet Union engaging in fewer communicative practices within their

families than students from Turkey or native students (Muller & Stanat, 2006).

Regression analyses indicated that these socio-cultural variables were significantly

related to immigrant students’ reading outcomes. Controlling for these factors,

however, did not cause the significant effect of language use at home on immigrant

students’ reading performance to disappear (Muller & Stanat, 2006). Although the

PISA study is cross-sectional and does not allow causal inferences, the fact that

language use at home has an impact on immigrant students’ reading outcomes above

and beyond the influence of social and economical background indicates that

immigrant students may not have sufficient opportunities to develop their L2.

Opportunities and obstacles for L2 acquisition

On the surface, the findings described above seem to contradict the assumption

often found in the literature that bilingualism is associated with positive effects. Yet,

the effects of bilingualism on the development of literacy are complex and varied.

As far as the impact of L1 literacy on L2 literacy is concerned, studies suggest that

successful literacy development in both languages may be supported by a common

set of underlying skills and that L1 literacy contributes to the development of these

skills (Riches & Genesee, 2006). Previous research indicates that L1 reading skills

may transfer to L2 reading, although this effect seems to depend on the specific

languages involved and the level of students’ L2 oral proficiency (Bialystok, Luk, &

Craik, 2005; Wang, Koda, & Perfetti, 2003; see also Dressler & Kamil, 2006 for an

overview).

In addition, bilingualism seems to have positive effects on executive control, i.e.,

on cognitive functions that influence the attention to and processing of information,

and to facilitate the acquisition of meta-linguistic awareness (Bialystok, Craik, &

Luk, 2008; Jessner, 1999; Kuska, Zaunbauer, & Moller, 2010; Malakoff & Hakuta,

1991). Thus, multilingualism may not only be an asset in its own right, but students’

proficiency in their first languages may also be a resource for learning and hence

positively influence their educational outcomes (Cummins, 2005). In line with this

assumption, several studies in the U.S. have shown that bilingual students with


123

high levels of proficiency in both their L1 and L2 may catch up to their monolingual

peers in terms of academic achievement (Collier, 1992; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato,

2006). Notwithstanding these positive results, it must be noted that the quality of

these studies is often limited in that they do not use random assignment procedures or

do not control for important background variables (Collier, 1992; Lindholm-Leary &

Borsato, 2006).

In terms of vocabulary, research has shown that L2 students can catch up with

their monolingual peers, although the rate of L2 vocabulary acquisition may depend

on several factors, such as the families’ socio-economic status (Cobo-Lewis,

Pearson, Eilers, & Umbel, 2002; Golberg, Paradis, & Crago, 2008; Paradis, 2008).

Furthermore, the language environment seems to have an influence on L2 vocabulary

development. For bilingual students growing up in a community where the L1 is

widely spoken, the use of L2 in the home was shown to have a positive effect on L2

vocabulary development (Cobo-Lewis et al. 2002) while no such effect was found for

children living in a more immersed L2 context (Golberg et al. 2008). In investigating

bilingual students‘ vocabulary, it is also important to note that lexicalized concepts of

bilinguals may be distributed across their languages, such that some words are known

in one language, some in the other, and some words in both languages (Oller, 2005;

Oller, Pearson, & Cobo-Lewis, 2007). Thus, bilingual and monolingual students may

have available the same number of lexicalized concepts, albeit in different languages.

In fact, studies indicate that the combined L1 and L2 lexicon of bilingual students

may even exceed monolingual students’ L1 lexicon (Oller, Pearson & Cobo-Lewis,

2007; Umbel, Pearson, Fernandez, & Oller, 1992).

However, as research has consistently shown, the vocabulary of bilinguals in

each of the languages involved is often smaller and their lexical access is somewhat

slower than that of monolingual students (Bialystok & Craik, 2009; Droop &

Verhoeven, 2003; Hutchinson, Whiteley, Smith, & Connors, 2003; Limbird, 2007;

Verhoeven, 2000). Their smaller vocabulary in the L2 may cause difficulties in

bilingual students’ reading acquisition in a L2 environment (Verhoeven, 2000).

Similarly, bilingual students’ morpho-syntactic knowledge in their L2 tends to be

smaller than that of monolingual students which can also impair reading acquisition

in L2 (da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995; Eckhardt, 2008; Hutchinson et al., 2003;

Lesaux, Lipka, & Siegel, 2006; Verhoeven, 1990). In terms of certain linguistic

skills, bilingual students thus often lag behind their monolingual peers.

As the pronounced disadvantage associated with not speaking the language of

instruction at home indicates, immigrant students in Germany seem to have

insufficient opportunities to develop their linguistic skills in L2 which, in turn, may at

least partially cause their disadvantage in reading achievement. In an analysis of data

from PISA 2000, for example, general cognitive ability as well as decoding skills

were the most powerful predictors of reading comprehension for both, immigrant

students and students from native families. However, within the group of immigrant

students, a significant effect of the language spoken at home on reading achievement

was found even after cognitive ability and decoding had been controlled. Not

speaking German at home was associated with a 1.52 times higher risk of exhibiting

low levels of reading literacy (proficiency level 1 or lower) compared to students

speaking German at home (Stanat & Schneider, 2004). Again, these patterns of


123

findings suggest that immigrant students in Germany lack the opportunity to develop

their oral skills in L2 which, in turn, may impair their L2 reading.

The next section reviews studies exploring the extent to which oral language

proficiency is in fact an important determinant of reading comprehension in a

second language. As very little systematic research on predictors of L2 reading has,

thus far, been performed within the German context, the review also draws on

evidence from other linguistic contexts.

The role of oral language proficiency for reading comprehensionin a second language

The assumption that oral skills play an especially important role for students’

reading outcomes is in line with the simple view of reading model of reading

acquisition (Gough, Hoover, & Peterson, 1996; Hoover & Gough, 1990). According

to this theory, reading comprehension is determined by two general skills, namely

decoding and linguistic comprehension. While decoding is defined as efficient word

recognition, linguistic comprehension presents the ability ‘‘to take lexical informa-

tion (i.e., semantic information at the word level) and derive sentence and discourse

interpretation’’ (Hoover & Gough, 1990, p. 131). Linguistic comprehension is

typically measured by students’ listening comprehension which encompasses

further aspects of oral proficiency, including vocabulary and syntactic skills (Gough

& Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990).

The simple view of reading assumes a multiplicative link between decoding and

listening comprehension skills, thus predicting poor reading comprehension if either

skill is insufficiently developed. In addition, Hoover and Gough (1990) suggest that

decoding presents the more important determinant of early reading acquisition while

listening comprehension becomes more significant in later grades, when decoding is

typically fluent. Particularly for advanced readers, then, listening comprehension is

assumed to constitute a limiting factor for reading comprehension.

Previous research indicates that L2 students rarely have problems mastering

decoding and, for the most part, develop decoding skills that are comparable to

those of L1 children (Koda, 1998; Limbird & Stanat, 2006; Stanat & Schneider,

2004; Verhoeven, 1990). However, despite equivalent word-reading skills, L2

children typically reach significantly lower levels of reading comprehension than

their monolingual peers (Stanat & Schneider, 2004; Verhoeven, 2000). It seems

therefore reasonable to assume that it is mainly their weaker oral proficiency skills

that causes L2 students’ disadvantage in reading outcomes.

Some empirical studies suggest that the link between listening comprehension and

reading comprehension is indeed especially pronounced for L2 students (Droop &

Verhoeven, 2003; Limbird, 2007; Royer & Carlo, 1991). Proctor, Carlo, August and

Snow (2005), for example, tested a model of L2 reading comprehension in a sample

of Spanish-speaking ELL students and found listening comprehension to be the

strongest predictor. Furthermore, research with elementary school students in the

Netherlands demonstrated that reading comprehension was more strongly affected

by listening skills in L2 students than in L1 students (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003).


123

Similar findings were obtained by Limbird (2007) who compared determinants of

reading comprehension in German monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual

elementary school students. While listening comprehension significantly predicted

reading outcomes for the latter group, no corresponding effect was found for the

German monolingual children.

Although the simple view of reading postulates an indirect influence of

vocabulary and grammar on reading comprehension, with their impact being

mediated by listening skills, studies have also found these basic aspects of oral

proficiency to influence reading outcomes directly in L2 students. Results of the

study by Limbird (2007), for example, indicated that vocabulary was an important

predictor of reading comprehension, with its impact being somewhat more

pronounced for bilingual students than for their monolingual peers.

Further evidence for a particularly close link between L2 students’ vocabulary

skills and their reading outcomes have been found in a number of studies with

students from various language backgrounds (Brisbois, 1995; Droop & Verhoeven,

2003; Lesaux & Kieffer, 2010; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010; Proctor et al.,

2005; Wise, Sevcil, Morris, Lovett, & Wolf, 2007). Similarly, grammar also seems

to influence L2 students’ reading comprehension skills in a direct way. In a study

Verhoeven (1990) conducted in the Netherlands, morphosyntactic skills of second-

language learners significantly predicted their reading comprehension in Dutch after

the end of grade 2. Similar results were obtained with 5th-grade Mexican–American

students (Peregoy, 1989).

Taken together, previous research indicates that L2 oral proficiency is an important

predictor of L2 reading skills. While some studies find the impact of basic L2 oral

proficiency skills, specifically grammar and vocabulary, to be mediated by L2

listening comprehension, other studies document additional direct influences of L2

vocabulary and grammar on L2 reading. Although further studies are needed to

determine the relative impact of different oral proficiency skills on second language

reading, the available research evidence clearly suggests that immigrant students’

reading comprehension in their second language is strongly influenced by the level of

oral proficiency they reach in this language. Measures designed to promote reading

comprehension in L2 thus have to entail the development of oral L2 proficiency,

including listening comprehension, vocabulary, and grammar (Metsala & Walley,

1998). The next section reviews the available research evidence on the relative success

of approaches that aim at supporting the development of oral proficiency in an L2.

Approaches to promoting students’ second-language proficiency

Various approaches to supporting the learning of immigrant students in schools

have been developed and implemented (for overviews see, for example, Hakuta,

1999; Stanat & Christensen, 2006). Although, to date, the number of methodolog-

ically sound empirical studies investigating effective L2 instruction is too small to

draw definite conclusions, some approaches have been shown to be successful in

enhancing specific aspects of L2 students’ oral language proficiency.


123

For younger children, storybook reading seems to constitute an effective method

to promoting oral L2 proficiency. One common approach is shared reading in which

an adult reads a story and the child listens passively. In dialogic reading, in contrast,

the adult facilitates the child’s active role by asking questions about the context and

by providing feedback using repetitions, expansions, and modeling of answers

(Lonigan & Phillips, 2007; National Early Literacy Panel, 2009). Dialogic reading

has been found to have strong effects on vocabulary development as well as on more

general language proficiency measures in a number of studies (Arnold, Lonigan,

Whitehurst, & Epstein, 1994; Whitehurst et al., 1994, 1988). Accordingly, both the

National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) Review as well as the Early Childhood

Education Review of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) concluded that dialogic

reading efficiently fosters children’s oral language skills. The NELP review, but not

the WWC review, also reported positive effects of shared reading interventions on

children’s oral skills (Lonigan & Phillips, 2007). More specifically, the NELP review

showed that shared reading interventions used by teachers or parents had a strong

impact on children’s oral language outcomes, with an average effect size of 0.73

(National Early Literacy Panel, 2009). Neither the WWC review nor the NELP

differentiated their findings for L1 and L2 learners. However, the NELP review

provided no evidence for ethnicity moderating the impact of shared-reading

interventions on oral language outcomes (National Early Literacy Panel, 2009).

For school children, more explicit approaches to fostering L2 vocabulary seem to

be effective. Appel and Vermeer (1998), for example, designed a program for

increasing the vocabulary of students learning Dutch as a second language. The

program consisted of classroom lessons that revolved around a story which was

supported by pictures. Lessons included activation of children’s prior knowledge,

explanations of the meaning of target words, and a description of the story

illustrations. This was followed by reading the story, discussions of difficult words,

and language games. The program proved to be effective in fostering not only

children’s receptive and productive vocabulary, but also their reading skills (Appel

& Vermeer, 1998). Similar results were obtained in a study by Perez (1981) who

found that systematic daily vocabulary instruction, which explicitly focused on

synonyms, antonyms, multiple-meaning words and idiomatic expressions, enhanced

Mexican–American third-grade students’ reading comprehension skills. It is

important to note, however, that simple drill is unlikely to be effective in building

L2 vocabulary. Rather, children are likely to learn L2 lexicon when it is presented in

meaningful contexts and when they are given the opportunity to repeatedly use these

new words for meaningful purposes (Artelt et al., 2007; Goldenberg, 2008).

Approaches that comprise a variety of interactive exercises, like the program

suggested by Appel and Vermeer (1998), may therefore be especially useful in

supporting the vocabulary acquisition of L2 students.

Whereas child language learning is implicit and automatic, older students’ second-

language acquisition is mainly explicit and involves analytical thinking (DeKeyser,

2003; Doughty, 2003). Therefore, older L2 learners seem to benefit from approaches

that consist of explicitly highlighting similarities between the learners’ L1 and the

target language. For languages that share a substantial number of cognates, the

similarities offer an opportunity to transfer L1 vocabulary knowledge to the target


123

language lexicon (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Jimenez, Garcıa, &

Pearson, 1996; Phillips, Norris, & Vavra, 2007). In line with this idea, Dressler (2000)

showed that L2 students who were taught to search for cognate relationships were

more successful in inferring the meaning of unknown cognates. Furthermore,

Jimenez, et al. (1996) as well as Nagy, Garcıa, Durgunoglu, and Hancin-Bhatt (1993)

found successful L2 readers to outperform less successful L2 readers in terms of

recognizing cognates and using cognate knowledge during reading. It must be noted,

however, that research on beneficial effects of cognate vocabulary has only been

conducted with Hispanic students who learned English as a second language, and it is

therefore unclear whether these findings also apply to other languages.

While research indicates that L2 vocabulary knowledge can be successfully

enhanced with targeted instruction, linguistic comprehension is more difficult to

teach. Nevertheless, it seems possible to provide instruction to help L2 students

acquire comprehension skills as well. Roberts and Neal (2004), for example,

describe an intervention that was effective in enhancing preschool children’s

linguistic comprehension ability in a second language. The comprehension

treatment included storybook reading, story-retelling, vocabulary work, and story-

sequencing activities that were guided by the teacher. As Avalos, Plasencia, Chavez,

and Rascon (2007) point out, such guided reading activities are especially beneficial

for L2 students. However, as with vocabulary instruction, older L2 learners may

profit from more explicit approaches of fostering their comprehension skills. A

promising technique is instruction of cognitive and metacognitive strategies such as

planning, monitoring, and evaluating listening activities (Vandergrift, 1999).

Studies that investigated the effects of metacognitive strategy training have found

this approach to effectively enhance L2 students’ comprehension skills (O’Malley

& Chamot, 1990; Thompson & Rubin, 1996).

Conclusion

Results from previous cycles of the PISA study indicate that immigrant students in

Germany are at great risk of becoming struggling readers and, more generally, poor

academic achievers. One important factor that has been shown to influence

immigrant students’ reading comprehension is the language families speak at home.

The pronounced disadvantage of immigrant students speaking another language

than German within their families suggests that these students may lack

opportunities to develop their oral L2 skills which, in turn, has negative effects

on their reading acquisition. As research has consistently shown, oral skills such as

listening comprehension and vocabulary constitute central prerequisites for the

acquisition of reading skills in a second language. Programs designed to help

immigrant students gain proficiency in the language of instruction therefore need to

entail activities that systematically foster L2 oral skills, such as listening

comprehension and vocabulary. To the extent that this support has positive effects

on students’ oral proficiency in L2, it should also improve their reading

comprehension.


123

Appendix A: Basic structure of the education system in the Federal Republicof Germany

CONTINUING EDUCATION(various forms of tertiary and vocational education)

13Higher education entrance qualification

(Allgemeine Hochschulreife)2)

19

12

11

10

Seco

ndar

y L

evel

II

DUAL-SYSTEM VOCATIONAL TRAINING

(on-the-job training combined with part-time vocational

schools)

SCHOOL-BASED VOCATIONAL

TRAINING

GYMNASIALE OBERSTUFE

The upper level of the Gymnasium, which can also be established in other school types, such as comprehensive

schools. It comprises grades 11-13 (or grades 10-12/11-12, depending on the

Land). Concluded with the Abitur examination which entails the general

higher education entrance qualification.

18

17

16

15

Intermediate general education qualification (mittlerer Schulabschluss) after 10 years 1)

First general education qualification (Hauptschule leaving certificate) after 9 years10

9

8

7

6

5

10th grade 16

Seco

ndar

y L

evel

I

LOWER TRACK (HAUPTSCHULE)

Type of school providing basic

general education, usually comprising

grades 5-9.

INTERMEDIATE TRACK

(REALSCHULE)Type of school providing a more extensive general

education and the opportunity to go on to courses of education at

upper secondary level that lead to higher education entrance qualifications.

Usually comprising grades 5-10.

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOLS

(GESAMTSCHULE)In the cooperative

Gesamtschule, the three courses of education

(Hauptschule, Realschule, andGymnasium) are

brought under one educational and

organisational umbrella. In the integrated

Gesamtschule, these form an educational and

organisational whole.

HIGHEST TRACK (GYMNASIUM)

Type of school covering both lower and upper secondary

level (grades 5-13 or 5-12) and providing an

in-depth general education aimed at the

general higher education entrance

qualification.

15

14

13

12

11

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (GRUNDSCHULE)Elementary schools comprise four grades, except in the Länder Berlin and Brandenburg where they cover six grades.

43

2

1

Prim

ary

Edu

catio

n

10

9

8

7

6543

agegrade

Pre-

scho

ol

Edu

c.

PRESCHOOL (KINDERGARTEN)(optional)

Simplified and adapted from Kultusministerkonferenz (2009, January). Basic structure of the educational

system in the Federal Republic of Germany (Diagram). Retrieved March 12, 2010, from

http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/doc/Dokumentation/Bildungswesen_en_pdfs/en-2009.pdf

Notes: (1) Intermediate general education qualification (‘‘mittlerer Schulabschluss’’): General education

school leaving certificate obtained upon successful completion of grade 10 at Realschulen or, under

certain circumstances, at other lower secondary level school types. It can also be obtained at a later stage

during vocational training at upper secondary level. (2) Higher education entrance qualification (‘‘all-

gemeine Hochschulreife’’): Entitles holder to admission to higher education institutions and is usually

obtained at upper Gymnasium level (Gymnasiale Oberstufe) by passing the Abitur examination


123

http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/doc/Dokumentation/Bildungswesen_en_pdfs/en-2009.pdf

Appendix B: Summary descriptions of the five proficiency levels definedfor the combined reading literacy scale in the Programme for InternationalStudent Assessment

Level Distinguishing features of tasks at each level:

Level 5 The reader must: sequence or combine several pieces of deeply embedded information, possibly drawing on information f rom outside the main body of the text; construe the meaning of linguistic nuances in a section of text; or make evaluative judgements or hypotheses, drawing on specialised knowledge. The reader is generally required to demonstrate a full, detailed understanding of a dense, complex or unfamiliar text, in content or form, or one that involves concepts that are contrary to expectations. The reader will often have to make inferences to determine which information in the text is relevant, and to deal with prominent or extensive competing information.

Level 4 The reader must: locate, sequence or combine several pieces of embedded information; infer the meaning of a section of text by co nsidering the text as a whole; understand and apply categories in an unfamiliar context; or hypothesise about or critically evaluate a text, using formal or public knowledge. The reader must draw on an accurate understanding of long or complex texts in which competing information may take the form of ideas that are ambiguous, contrary to expectation, or negatively worded.

Level 3 The reader must: recognise the links between pieces of information that have to meet multiple criteria; integrate several parts of a text to identify a main idea, understand a relationship or construe the meaning of a word or phrase; make connections and comparisons; or explain or evaluate a textual feature. The reader must take into account many features when comparing, contrasting or categorising. Often the required information is not prominent but implicit in the text or obscured by similar information.

Level 2vel 2

The reader must: locate one or more pieces of information that may be needed to meet multiple criteria; identify the main idea, understand relationships or construe meaning within a limited part of the text by making low -level inferences; form or apply simple categories to explain something in a text by drawing on personal experience andattitudes; or make connections or comparisons between the text and everyday outside knowledge. The reader must often deal with competing information.

Level 1vel The reader must: locate one or more independent pieces of explicitly stated information according to a single criterion; identify the main theme or author’s purpose in a text about a familiar topic; or make a simple connection between information in the text and common, everyday knowledge. Typically, the requisite information is prominent and ther e is little, if any, competing information. The reader is explicitly directed to consider relevant factors in the task and in the text.

BelowLevel 1ow Level 1

There is insufficient information to describe features of tasks at this level.

625.6

552.9

480.2

407.5

334.8

Source: Stanat & Christensen (2006, p. 173)


123

References

Adams, R., & Wu, M. (Eds.). (2002). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris: OECD.

Appel, R., & Vermeer, A. (1998). Speeding up second language vocabulary acquisition of minority

children. Language and Education, 12, 159–173.

Arnold, D. H., Lonigan, C. J., Whitehurst, G. J., & Epstein, J. N. (1994). Accelerating language

development through picture picture book reading: Replication and extension to a video-tape

training format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 235–243.

Artelt, C., & Baumert, J. (2004). Zur Vergleichbarkeit von Schulerleistungen bei Leseaufgaben

unterschiedlichen sprachlichen Ursprungs [Comparability of student’s reading literacy performance

measured with items originating from different language backgrounds]. Zeitschrift fur PadagogischePsychologie, 18, 171–185.

Artelt, C., McElvany, N., Christmann, U., Richter, T., Groeben, N., Koster, J., et al. (2007). Forderungvon Lesekompetenz: Expertise [Promotion of reading comprehension: Expert’s report]. Bonn:

Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF).

Artelt, C., Stanat, P., Schneider, W., & Schiefele, U. (2001). Lesekompetenz: Testkonzeption und

Ergebnisse [Reading comprehension: Test design and results]. In Deutsches PISA-Konsortium

(Ed.), PISA 2000: Basiskompetenzen von Schulerinnen und Schulern im internationalen Vergleich(pp. 69–137). Opladen: Leske ? Budrich.

August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for

English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50–57.

Avalos, M. A., Plasencia, A., Chavez, C., & Rascon, J. (2007). Modified guided reading: Gateway to

English as a second language and literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 61, 318–329.

Baumert, J., & Schumer, G. (2001). Familiare Lebensverhaltnisse, Bildungsbeteiligung und Kompeten-

zerwerb [Family environment, educational participation, and acquisition of competences].

In J. Baumert, E. Klieme, M. Neubrand, M. Prenzel, U. Schiefele, W. Schneider, P. Stanat,

K.-J. Tillmann, & M. Weiß (Eds.), PISA 2000. Basiskompetenzen von Schulerinnen und Schulern iminternationalen Vergleich (pp. 323–407). Opladen: Leske & Budrich.

Baumert, J., & Schumer, G. (2002). Familiare Lebensverhaltnisse, Bildungsbeteiligung und Kompeten-

zerwerb im nationalen Vergleich [Family environment, educational participation, and acquisition of

competences: National comparison]. In J. Baumert, C. Artelt, E. Klieme, M. Neubrand, M. Prenzel,

U. Schiefele, W. Schneider, K.-J. Tillmann, & M. Weiß (Eds.), PISA 2000. Die Lander derBundesrepublik Deutschland im Vergleich (pp. 159–202). Opladen: Leske ? Budrich.

Becker, G. S. (1993). Human Capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference toeducation. Chicago: University of Chigaco Press.

Bialystok, E., & Craik, F. I. M. (2009). Cognitive and linguistic processing in the bilingual mind. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 19, 19–23.

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older

bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 859–873.

Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions

among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 43–61.

Brisbois, J. E. (1995). Connections between first- and second-language reading. Journal of ReadingBehavior, 27, 565–584.

Cobo-Lewis, A. B., Pearson, B. Z., Eilers, R. E., & Umbel, V. C. (2002). Effects of bilingualism and

bilingual education on oral and written Spanish skills: A multifactor study of standardized test

outcomes. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp.

43–63). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Collier, V. P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on

academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 187–212.

Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a

learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 585–592.

da Fontoura, H. A., & Siegel, L. S. (1995). Reading, syntactic, and working memory skills of bilingual

Portuguese–English Canadian children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7,

139–153.

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook ofsecond language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.


123

Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. Doughty &

M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Malden,

MA: Blackwell.

Dressler, C. (2000). The word-inferencing strategies of bilingual and monolingual fifth graders: A case

study approach. Unpublished qualifying paper. Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. L. (2006). First- and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan

(Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel onlanguage-minority children and youth (pp. 197–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (1998). Background knowledge, linguistic complexity, and second-language

reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 253–271.

Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-

language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78–103.

Eckhardt, A. G. (2008). Sprache als Barriere fur den schulischen Erfolg: Potentielle Schwierigkeitenbeim Erwerb schulbezogener Sprache fur Kinder mit Migrationshintergrund [Language-related

barriers in educational success: Potential difficulties in the acquistion of academic language in

immigrant students]. Munster: Waxmann.

Ganzeboom, H. B. G., De Graaf, P. M., & Treiman, D. J. (1992). A standard international socio-economic

index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21, 1–56.

Garcıa, G. E. (2000). Bilingual childrens’ reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, &

R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 813–834). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Golberg, H., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2008). Lexical acquisition over time in minority first language

children learning English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 41–65.

Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners. What the research does—and does not—say.

American Educator, 32, 8–23.

Goldenberg, C., Rueda, R. S., & August, D. (2006). Sociocultural influences on the literacy attainment of

language-minority children and youth. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy insecond-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children andyouth (pp. 269–318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gough, P. B., Hoover, W. A., & Peterson, C. L. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading.

In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention(pp. 1–13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. RASE: Remedial &Special Education, 7, 6–10.

Hakuta, K. (1999). The debate on bilingual education. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 20,

36–37.

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: AnInterdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.

Hutchinson, J. M., Whiteley, H. E., Smith, C. D., & Connors, L. (2003). The developmental progression

of comprehension-related skills in children learning EAL. Journal of Research in Reading, 26,

19–32.

Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third language

learning. Language Awareness, 8, 201–209.

Jimenez, R. T., Garcıa, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o

students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 31, 90–112.

Koda, K. (1998). The role of phonemic awareness in second language reading. Second LanguageResearch, 14, 194–215.

Kuska, S. K., Zaunbauer, A. C. M., & Moller, J. (2010). Sind Immersionsschuler wirklich

leistungsstarker? Ein Lernexperiment [Are immersed students more proficient? A learning

experiment]. Zeitschrift fur Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psychologie, 42, 143–153.

Lesaux, N. K., & Kieffer, M. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among

language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American EducationalResearch Journal, 47, 596–632.

Lesaux, N. K., Koda, K., Siegel, L., & Shanahan, T. (2006a). Development of literacy. In D. August &

T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the nationalliteracy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 75–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.


123

Lesaux, N. K., Lipka, O., & Siegel, L. S. (2006b). Investigating cognitive and linguistic abilities that

influence the reading comprehension skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Readingand Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 99–131.

Limbird, C. (2007). Phonological processing, verbal abilities, and second language literacy developmentamong bilingual Turkish children in Germany. Berlin: Freie Universitat Berlin.

Limbird, C., & Stanat, P. (2006). Pradiktoren von Leseverstandnis bei Kindern deutscher und turkischer

Herkunftssprache: Ergebnisse einer Langsschnittstudie [Determinants of reading comprehension in

children with German and Turkish as a first language: Results from a longitudinal study]. In A. Ittel

& H. Merkens (Eds.), Veranderungsmessung und Langsschnittstudien in der empirischenErziehungswissenschaft (pp. 93–123). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.

Lindholm-Leary, K., & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic achievement. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary,

W. M. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners (pp. 176–222).

Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lonigan, C. J., & Phillips, B. M. (2007). Research-based instructional strategies for promoting children’s

early literacy skills. Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development 1–8. Retrieved 14.

October 2010, from http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/pdfs/topic.php?topId=224.

Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1991). Translation skill and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals. In E.

Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing and language awareness by bilingual children (pp. 141–166).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling

readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 102, 701–711.

McQueen, J., & Mendelovits, J. (2003). PISA reading: Cultural equivalence in a cross-cultural study.

Language Testing, 20, 208–224.

Metsala, J. L., & Walley, A. C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of

lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In J. L. Metsala

& L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning reading. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Muller, A. G., & Stanat, P. (2006). Schulischer Erfolg von Schulerinnen und Schulern mit Migrations-

hintergrund: Analysen zur Situation von Zuwanderern aus der ehemaligen Sowjetunion und aus der

Turkei [Educational achievement of immigrant students: Analyses on the situation of immigrants

from the former Soviet republic and Turkey]. In J. Baumert, P. Stanat, & R. Watermann (Eds.),

Herkunftsbedingte Disparitaten im Bildungswesen. Differenzielle Bildungsprozesse und Problemeder Verteilungsgerechtigkeit (pp. 223–235). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.

Nagy, W. E., Garcıa, G. E., Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1993). Spanish-English bilingual

students’ use of cognates in English reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 241–259.

National Early Literacy Panel. (2009). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early LiteracyPanel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OECD. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills. A new framework for assessment. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2000). Measuring student knowledge and skills. The PISA 2000 assessment of reading,mathematical, and scientific literacy. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life. First results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow. Further results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.

Oller, D. K. (2005). The distributed characteristic in bilingual learning. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K.

Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium onbilingualism (pp. 1744–1749). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Oller, D. K., Person, B. Z., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2007). Profile effects in early bilingual language and

literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 191–230.

Paradis, J. (2008). Second language acquisition in childhood. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwellhandbook of language development (pp. 388–405). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Peregoy, S. F. (1989). Relationships between second language oral proficiency and reading comprehen-

sion of bilingual fifth grade students. NABE Journal, 13, 217–233.

Perez, E. (1981). Oral language competence improves reading skills of Mexican American third graders.

Reading Teacher, 35, 24–27.

Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Vavra, K. L. (2007). Reading comprehension instruction. Encyclopedia ofLanguage and Literacy Development, 1-10. Retrieved 14. October 2010, from http://www.literacy

encyclopedia.ca/pdfs/topic.php?topId=232.


123

http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/pdfs/topic.php?topId=224



Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in

English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256.

Riches, C., & Genesee, F. (2006). Literacy: Crosslinguistic and crossmodal issues. In F. Genesee,

K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners.A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 64–109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roberts, T. A., & Neal, H. (2004). Relationships among preschool English language learner’s oral

proficiency in English, instructional experience and literacy development. Contemporary Educa-tional Psychology, 29, 281–311.

Royer, J. M., & Carlo, M. S. (1991). Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language.

Journal of Reading, 34, 450–455.

Schwartz, M., Kozminsky, E., & Leikin, M. (2009). Socio-linguistic factors in second language lexical

knowledge: The case of second-generation children of Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel.

Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22, 15–28.

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective reading programs for English language learners: A best-evidence synthesis. Baltimore: John Hopkins University.

Stanat, P., & Christensen, G. S. (2006). Where immigrant students succeed: A comparative review ofperformances and engagement in PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.

Stanat, P., Rauch, D., & Segeritz, M. (2010). Schulerinnen und Schuler mit Migrationshintergrund

[Immigrant students]. In E. Klieme, C. Artelt, J. Hartig, N. Jude, O. Koller, M. Prenzel, W.

Schneider, & P. Stanat (Eds.), PISA 2009: Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt. Munster: Waxmann.

Stanat, P., & Schneider, W. (2004). Schwache Leser unter 15-jahrigen Schulerinnen und Schulern in

Deutschland: Beschreibung einer Risikogruppe [Struggling readers among 15-year-old German

students: Characterization of a group at risk]. In U. Schiefele, C. Artelt, W. Schneider, & P. Stanat

(Eds.), Struktur, Entwicklung und Forderung von Lesekompetenz. Vertiefende Analysen im Rahmenvon PISA 2000. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.

Thompson, I., & Rubin, J. (1996). Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension? ForeignLanguage Annals, 29, 331–342.

Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B. Z., Fernandez, M. C., & Oller, D. K. (1992). Measuring bilingual children’s

receptive vocabularies. Child Development, 63, 1012–1120.

Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring successful

strategies. ELT Journal, 53, 168–176.

Verhoeven, L. (1990). Acquisition of reading in a second language. Reading Research Quarterly, 25,

90–114.

Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies ofReading, 4, 313–330.

Walter, O. (2008). Herkunftsassoziierte Disparitaten im Lesen, der Mathematik und den Naturwissens-

chaften: ein Vergleich zwischen PISA 2000, PISA 2003 und PISA 2006 [Origin-dependent

disparities in reading, mathematics, and scientific literacy: A comparison of PISA 2000, PISA 2003,

and PISA 2006]. Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft, 11, 149–168.

Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English word

identification: A comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners. Cognition, 87, 129–149.

Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. H., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A

picture-book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families.

Developmental Psychology, 30, 679–689.

Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C.,

et al. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture-book reading. DevelopmentalPsychology, 24, 552–559.

Wise, J. C., Sevcil, R. A., Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., & Wolf, M. (2007). The relationship among

receptive and expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, pre-reading skills, word identifica-

tion skills, and reading comprehension by children with reading abilities. Journal of Speech,Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1093–1109.


123

Reading comprehension of immigrant students in Germany: research evidence on determinants and target...

Documents

Transcript of Reading comprehension of immigrant students in Germany: research evidence on determinants and target...