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
1932 A. E. Marx, P. Stanat
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
Research evidence on determinants 1933
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
1934 A. E. Marx, P. Stanat
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
Research evidence on determinants 1935
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).
1936 A. E. Marx, P. Stanat
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.
Research evidence on determinants 1937
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
1938 A. E. Marx, P. Stanat
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.
Research evidence on determinants 1939
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
1940 A. E. Marx, P. Stanat
123
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)
Research evidence on determinants 1941
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.
1942 A. E. Marx, P. Stanat
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.
Research evidence on determinants 1943
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.
1944 A. E. Marx, P. Stanat
123
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.
Research evidence on determinants 1945
123