Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008 CONTRIBUTIONS OF L1 READING SUB-SKILLS TO L2 READING DEVELOPMENT IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE AMONG SCHOOL-AGED LEARNERS Dongbo Zhang and Keiko Koda Department of Modern Languages Carnegie Mellon University, U.S.A. Ab st r act This study examined the cross-linguistic relationship in morphological awareness in two typologically diverse languages, Chinese and English and their relative contributions to L2 reading comprehension among Grades 5 and 6 students in China. Morphological awareness refers to the ability to analyze and identify a word’s morphological constituents. As such, this ability is believed to play a critical role in reading comprehension. Previous research suggests that the acquisition of morphological awareness necessitates substantial print exposure and experience. This implies that EFL learners may have difficulty in acquiring morphological awareness to its fullest extent. Theory of transfer posits, however, that once developed in one language, reading subskills, including morphological awareness, become available in learning to read in another language. This being the case, L1 morphological awareness, in principle, may compensate for restricted L2 print exposure in promoting L2 morphological awareness. Based on these insights, we hypothesized that (1) L2 morphological awareness would be closely related to L2 morphological awareness; (2) L1 morphological awareness is a stronger predictor of L2 morphological awareness than L2 print exposure; and (3) L1 morphological awareness facilitates L2 reading comprehension both directly and indirectly through L2 morphological awareness. These hypotheses were tested by measuring and comparing L1 and L2 morphological awareness and L2 reading comprehension. The results provide strong empirical support for the hypotheses. Their implications for EFL pedagogy are discussed. Keywords: Cross-linguistic relationship; Morphological awareness; Morphological constituents; Theory 2 Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners of transfer INTRODUCTION Although English is regularly taught as a foreign language (FL) in primary schools in many countries, little has been explored how literacy skills develop among school-age EFL learners. Because they are still in the process of developing first language (L1) literacy skills, systematic examinations of their second-language (L2) reading development in conjunction with L1 reading ability should provide significant new insights into cross-linguistic relationships in reading sub-skills development, or “developmental interdependence” (Cummins, 1979, 1991), in L2 literacy learning. In an effort to promote a clearer understanding of the role of L1 in L2 learning, the present study examined the contribution of L1 reading subskills to L2 reading development among school-age children learning English as a foreign language in China. In specific, the study explored the relationship between L1 and L2 morphological awareness and their relative contributions to L2 reading comprehension. In the study, morphological awareness was operationally defined as the ability to analyze and identify a word’s morphological constituents. The significance of this ability lies in its capacity for enabling the learner to segment a word into its morphological components, and in so doing, enhancing many key operations in reading comprehension, such as identifying the grammatical category of words, extracting partial information from unfamiliar words, and accessing stored lexical information. Hence, morphological awareness is believed to be directly, and possibly causally, related to reading ability. Although morphological awareness develops initially through communicative use of spoken language, it becomes progressively more explicit and refined through encoding and decoding morphological information in print (Nagy & Anderson, 1999; Koda, 2000, 2005). Logically, then, it is highly improbable that L2 morphological awareness develops sufficiently to provide presumed assistance in L2 reading comprehension when L2 learning occurs with severely restricted print exposure and experience. The critical question then is whether any other resources are available in promoting L2 morphological awareness as a critical competence supporting analytical approaches to lexical learning and processing during reading. A current view of transfer (Koda 2007, 2008) posits that, once developed in one language, reading sub-skills, including morphological Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008 3 awareness, become available in another language, providing substantial facilitation in learning to read in that language. This being the case, L1 and L2 morphological awareness should be closely related, and there should be systematic functional connections between morphological awareness and L2 reading comprehension both within and across languages. Consequently, the primary objective of the study was to explore both cross-linguistic and functional relationships in morphological awareness and reading comprehension in two typologically diverse languages, Chinese and English. The sections that follow briefly explain the role of morphological awareness in reading development and then describe cross-language transfer in L2 learning. ROLE OF MORPHOLOGICAL AW ARENESS IN LEARNING TO READ According to the Universal Grammar of reading (Perfetti, 2003; Perfetti & Liu, 2005), reading is embedded in two interrelated systems – a language and its writing system. Inevitably, reading acquisition entails making links between the two systems (Nagy & Anderson, 1999; Kuo & Anderson, 2008). In learning to read, therefore, children in all languages must first recognize which language elements are graphically encoded in the writing system, and then, learn the specific ways they are encoded. Morphological awareness contributes primarily to the latter process through its capacity for word segmentation, which enables children to identify a word’s morphological constituents. Beyond the initial stages of learning to read, morphological awareness also plays a prominent role in reading comprehension (Ku & Anderson, 2003; Kuo & Anderson, 2008; Koda, 2005). The concept of word segmentation makes it possible for children to identify familiar morphological components in an unfamiliar word, allowing them to extract partial information from the word. Under the current view of lexical representation, moreover, the morpheme, rather than the word, is considered the basis of lexical description. In such a view, morphemes are seen as the basic unit in lexical access, store and retrieval (e.g., Chilant & Caramazza, 1995; Stolz & Feldman, 1995; Taft, 1991; Taft & Zhu, 1995). Clearly, morphological awareness is essential in known word recognition and lexical inference during reading. Morphological awareness is a complex, multi-dimension, construct, involving a number of facets reflecting the structural and functional properties of morphemes in a particular language. It develops gradually over time as its diverse facets mature at disparate rates following their own timetables. As an illustration, English-speaking children are sensitized to 4 Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners inflectional morphemes in structurally transparent words well before schooling (Berko, 1958; Carlisle, 2003), but the productive use of inflectional information does not occur until Grade 2 or 3 (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 1996). Further, the awareness of derivational morphemes develops over a longer period of time between Grades 4 and 8 (Tyler & Nagy, 1989, 1990; Ku & Anderson, 2003). Similar developmental disparities among diverse awareness facets have also been reported in studies involving native Chinese speaking children (Shu & Anderson, 1999; Ku & Anderson, 2003). CROSS-LANGUAGE TRANSFER Transfer has long been a major theoretical concept in L2 research. Traditionally, transfer is seen as learners’ reliance on L1 linguistic knowledge. Krashen (1983), for example, viewed transfer as the resultant state stemming from learners’ falling back on old knowledge, or L1 rules, when new knowledge is not yet sufficiently developed. Similarly, Gass and Selinker (1983) regarded transfer as use of previously acquired linguistic knowledge, which results in interlanguage forms. Odlin (1989) also endorsed the general thrust of the contention that transfer manifests learners’ reliance on L1 knowledge. He argued, “Transfer is the influence from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired” (p. 27). These views imply that transfer occurs to compensate for insufficient L2 knowledge, ceases once sufficient L2 linguistic knowledge is achieved; and thereafter, L1 knowledge plays a minimum role in explaining individual differences in L2 learning. These contentions, however, are no longer uniformly endorsed. Alternative conceptualizations consistently underscore the need for broader definitions of transfer (August & Shanahan, 2006; Riches & Genesee, 2006). As an illustration, transfer is defined as the ability to learn new skills by drawing on previously acquired resources (Genesee, Lindhoim-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006). Similarly, prior learning experience is regarded as a reservoir of knowledge, skills and abilities that is available in learning a new language as well as literacy skills in that language (Riches & Genesee, 2006). Under these newer conceptualizations, the research focus has shifted from characterizing L1 influence either as negative, positive, or neutral to identifying the resources available to learners at the outset of L2 learning. Within the componential view of reading (Carr & Levy, 1990), recent Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008 5 biliteracy studies have explored cross-linguistic relationships in a variety of reading sub-skills, including phonological awareness (Bialystok, McBrideChang, & Luk, 2005; Branum-Martin et al., 2006; Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin, 1993; Wade-Woolley & Geva, 2000; Wang, Perfetti, & Liu, 2005), decoding (Abu-Rabia, 1997; Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995; Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin, 1993; Geva & Siegel, 2000; Gholamain & Geva, 1999; Wade-Woolley & Geva, 2000), syntactic awareness (Abu-Rabia, 1995; Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995), and working memory (Abu-Rabia, 1995; Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995; Geva & Siegel, 2000; Gholamain & Geva, 1999). RESEARCH QUESTIONS Research on L1 reading acquisition suggests that morphological awareness plays a critical role in reading development; and its acquisition necessitates substantial print exposure and experience. Theory of transfer, moreover, holds that reading sub-skills, including morphological awareness, once developed in one language, become available in another language through cross-linguistic transfer. These insights serve as the basic premises of the study: (1) Morphological awareness facilitates reading comprehension in several important ways. (2) The development of morphological awareness requires substantial print exposure and experience. (3) Notable differences – both individual and developmental – exist in L1 morphological awareness. (4) Facets of L1 morphological awareness are available, through transfer, in the formation of L2 morphological awareness Based on these premises, the following hypotheses were formulated: (1) L1 morphological awareness systematically relates to L2 morphological awareness. (2) L1 morphological awareness contributes to the formation of L2 morphological awareness to a greater extent than L2 print exposure and experience. (3) L1 morphological awareness facilitates L2 reading comprehension directly and indirectly through L2 morphological awareness. These hypotheses were tested by measuring and comparing L1 and L2 morphological awareness and L2 reading comprehension among Grades 5 and 6 native Chinese (Mandarin) speaking children learning English as a foreign language in China. 6 Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners METHOD Par t icip an t s Ninety-six Grade 5 (N=45) and Grade 6 (N=51) students in two intact classrooms participated in the study. The students attended one of the three public schools in the central town of a small county in Northeast China. In this region, Mandarin is used as the primary means of communication as well as the medium of instruction in schools. Students receive formal literacy instruction in Mandarin from Grade 1, and start learning English in Grade 3. According to the National English Language Curriculum Standards (Ministry of Education, 2001), English is taught for 40 minutes every day with the primary emphasis on the simultaneous development of the four skills. In st r um ent s In the study, four tasks were used to measure (a) English morphological awareness, (b) Chinese morphological awareness, (c) English reading comprehension, and (d) nonverbal IQ. These tasks were administered in class as part of instructional activities. In addition, a questionnaire was distributed to parents to elicit information on students’ English print exposure in the home, and a short survey asking about each student’s English proficiency to the teachers who were teaching English to the participating students at the time of data collection. English Morphological Awareness: English morphological awareness was measured through a morpheme recognition task, adapted from the Ku and Anderson’s 2003 study, with minor modifications. The task was designed to measure the ability to segment a morphologically complex word and recognize its stem. In the task, students were presented with 20 pairs of words, followed by yes or no. For each pair, they were asked to decide whether the second word “comes from” the first. For example, in the paired words, birth and birthday, students were asked whether they think birthday comes from birth. They were then instructed to indicate the answer by circling either yes or no. The words used in the task were selected from those explicitly taught in the English textbooks used in the school. Chinese Morphological Awareness: Chinese morphological awareness was measured through the same morpheme recognition task. The task also contained 20 pairs of words which were selected from the words students had previously learned. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008 7 English Reading Comprehension: The reading test comprised four short passages with the mean passage length of 125 words. Each passage was accompanied by five multiple-choice questions designed to measure three comprehension sub-skills, including main idea detection, text-base inference, and co-reference resolution. To ensure that all students understood the comprehension questions, Chinese translation was provided for each question. In addition, Chinese translation was also provided for the words, which were judged unfamiliar to many of the participating students (the mean number of glossed words per passage is about 3). English Print Exposure: Information on students’ home literacy support and literacy-related activities was collected using a questionnaire administered to parents. The questionnaire included three categories: (a) print resources in the home, including the number of English books, magazines and other print materials available at home; (b) child-independent literacy activities involving English print materials both related and unrelated to schoolwork; and (c) parents’ literacy activities involving English print materials. Raven’s Non-verbal IQ: A sub-set of the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices was administered to all students to measure non-verbal intelligence. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Rela t io n sh ip b et w e en L1 a nd L2 M or ph o log ica l Aw ar en ess Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the scores from the four tasks administered in the study. Not surprisingly, students in both Grades 5 and 6 scored higher on the Chinese morphological awareness task (M = 15.13, SD = 1.76 for Grade 5; M = 15.11, SD = 1.89 for Grade 6) than the English task (M = 13.87, SD = 2.08 for Grade 5; M = 14.28, SD = 2.65 for Grade 6), but the means differences were far less pronounced than had been expected. Given that the awareness facet measured in the study (the ability to segment a morphologically complex word and recognize its stem) is relatively early developing capacity, the strong and stable performance on the Chinese task was anticipated. Considering the heavily restricted input, however, it is astonishing that the students maintained roughly the same level of performance in English. 8 Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners TABLE 1 Children’s performance on the four tasks Grade 5 M SD Raven’s nonverbal IQ 30.16 3.92 Chinese morphological awareness 15.13 1.76 English morphological awareness 13.87 2.08 English reading comprehension 11.76 3.26 Form atted Table Grade 6 M 31.17 15.11 14.28 14.09 SD 2.24 1.89 2.65 3.75 To reiterate, the current view of transfer holds that once developed in one language, reading sub-skills become available in another language. Under this view, we hypothesized that L1 and L2 morphological awareness would be closely interconnected. Table 2 presents the intercorrelations of all the variables measured in the study. As evident, L1 and L2 morphological awareness were significantly and positively correlated (r = .37, p < .01). However, no systematic relations were found between L2 morphological awareness and any of the English print exposure indices. Given that home literacy support plays an important role in reading development (Shu, Li, Anderson, Ku, & Yue, 2002), this result may seem odd. Inasmuch as English print exposure was uniformly minimal across students, the consistently low correlations could well be a statistical artifact resulting from the absence of variance in L2 print exposure. TABLE 2 Correlations among all variables 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 Raven’s nonverbal IQ English print materials Children’s English reading Parents’ English reading English proficiency English morphological awareness 7 Chinese morphological awareness 8 English reading comprehension * p < .05 ** p < .01 Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow, Bold, All caps 5 6 7 – .316* -.127 .051 .086 – .375* .539** .210 – .295 .097 – .135 – .193 .270 .213 .081 .320** – .296** .339* -.037 .088 .312** .372** – .327** .283 .149 -.037 .480** .381** .327** 8 Form atted Table Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Centered – Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008 9 Fact o r s Af f e ct in g L2 Mo r ph o lo g ica l Aw ar e ne ss Given the well-developed L1 morphological awareness and the restricted L2 print exposure, our second hypothesis was that L1 morphological awareness would make a stronger contribution than L2 print exposure in the formation of L2 morphological awareness. To test the hypothesis, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed with English morphological awareness as the criterion variable. In the analysis, the two control variables, Raven’s IQ and Grade were first entered, followed by L2 proficiency, L2 print exposure, and L1 morphological awareness. The analysis revealed that neither L2 proficiency nor L2 print exposure was significant, but L1 morphological awareness was significant (F = 7.81, p < .01), as predicted, accounting for 14.4% of the variance – more than onethird of the total variance explained – in L2 morphological awareness (see Table 3). TABLE 3 Hierarchical regression analysis predicting English morphological awareness F change R2 Adjusted R2 R2 change Step 1: Grade .030 .006 1.242 Step 2: Raven’s nonverbal IQ .152 .108 .122 5.590* Step 3: Print exposure .225 .117 .073 1.130 Step 4: English proficiency .231 .099 .006 .293 Step 5: Chinese morphological awareness .375 .246 .144 7.806** * p < .05 ** p < .01 Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow, Bold, All caps Form atted Table Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow, Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Narrow, 10 pt Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Centered Collectively, these results provide strong empirical support for crosslanguage transfer in L2 reading development. Given that the majority of transfer studies have been conducted with adult L2 learners, the present study has extended the notion of L1-based facilitation to school-age learners. More critically, however, the present findings make a potentially significant contribution to the much needed clarification of CALP (cognitive academic language proficiency) – the central construct in the highly influential Developmental Interdependence Hypothesis proposed by Cummins (1979) nearly thirty years ago. According to Cummins, CALP is largely shared across languages and, therefore, L1 CALP serves as the basis for developing L2 CALP. It is generally presumed that CALP relates to literacy skills. Beyond that, however, there is no clear consensus as to what constitutes CALP. Over the past three decades, reading research has uncovered a number of requisite competencies for learning to read. Given that morphological awareness is one such requisite, this capability could be a critical component of CALP. Should this be the case, the present finding Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow 10 Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners sheds substantial light on the nature and manner of L1-based facilitation in L2 sub-skills development. Fact o r s Af f e ct in g L2 Rea din g Com p r ehen sio n Because morphemes provide semantic and grammatical information, they are directly involved in text meaning construction. Morphological awareness therefore should be closely related to reading comprehension subskills. As shown in Table 2, L2 reading comprehension was significantly correlated with both L1 (r = .33, p < .01) and L2 morphological awareness (r = .38, p < .01). A significant correlation was also found between L2 proficiency and reading comprehension (r = .48, p < .01). However, no systematic relation was found between L2 reading comprehension and L2 print exposure. Here again, the uniformly minimal L2 print exposure seemingly explains the low correlations. Unlike morphological awareness, the two grade groups notably differed in their reading comprehension scores (M = 11.76 for Grade 5 students and M = 14.09 for Grade 6 students). The subsequent t-test revealed that the difference was statistically significant (t = 3.0, p < .01). With virtually no L2 literacy support at home, we can safely assume that students’ L2 print exposure is limited to English print materials and printrelated activities in school. One year of additional print exposure therefore may have been sufficient for making the visible difference in reading ability between the two grade groups. Within the current view of transfer, our final hypothesis was that L1 morphological awareness would contribute to L2 reading comprehension both directly and indirectly through L2 morphological awareness. The hypothesis was tested using a hierarchical regression analysis using reading test scores as the criterion variable. As in the previous analysis, the two control variables (Raven’s IQ and Grade) were first entered, followed by L2 proficiency, L2 print exposure, L2 morphological awareness, and L1 morphological awareness. The analysis revealed that after removing the variance associated with the two control variables, L2 proficiency (F = 16.67, p < .01) and L1 morphological awareness (F = 4.37, p < .05) were the only predictors explaining significant portions of the remaining variance. Neither L2 print exposure nor L2 morphological awareness was found significant. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008 11 TABLE 4 Hierarchical regression analysis predicting English reading comprehension R2 Adjusted R2 R2 change F change Step 1: Grade .212 .194 .212 11.597** Step 2: Raven’s nonverbal IQ .262 .227 .050 2.817 Step 3: Print input .344 .260 .082 1.630 Step 4: English proficiency .544 .472 .200 16.672** Step 5: English morphological awareness .547 .461 .003 .235 Step 6: Chinese morphological .596 .506 .049 4.368* awareness * p < .05 ** p < .01 Given that L1 and L2 morphological awareness were similarly correlated with L2 reading comprehension (see Table 2), it is unclear as to why L2 morphological awareness was not significant, while L1 awareness was significant in explaining the variance in L2 reading comprehension. One possible explanation could be that L1 and L2 morphological awareness scores – though derived from the same task – may reflect different capabilities. Recall that the awareness facet measured in the study is the ability for word segmentation, which is an early developing capacity, serving as the functional foundation for acquiring late developing, more refined, awareness facets. Given that L1 morphological awareness is presumably well refined among Grades 5 and 6 students, their L1 awareness scores are likely to be a reliable indicator of how well their morphological awareness had been refined at the time of data collection. This perhaps explains why the L1 awareness scores turned out a significant predictor of L2 reading comprehension. In light of the restricted L2 print input available to Chinese EFL students, it is highly improbable that their L2 morphological awareness could mature to the same extent and at the same rate as their L1 awareness. If so, unlike the L1 scores, the L2 scores do not reflect any capabilities beyond the segmentation ability. Knowing that segmentation is necessary but insufficient for providing direct facilitation in reading comprehension, we would argue that there should be little overlap in the variances in L2 morphological awareness and L2 reading comprehension. This being the case, a possible implication would be that L1 literacy competence is an important resource, but insufficient in itself for supporting L2 reading development. As in L1, the acquisition of L2 reading sub-skills, including morphological awareness, seemingly necessitates substantial print exposure and experience in the target language. Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow, Bold, All caps Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Font: Arial Narrow Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0 cm, First line: 0 cm, Don't adjust right indent when grid is defined, Line spacing: single, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers, Tabs: 10.08 cm, Centered 12 Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS In this study, we examined the role of L1 morphological awareness in the formation of L2 morphological awareness and their relative contributions to L2 reading development among school-age EFL students. Our analyses demonstrated that L1 morphological awareness contributed to the formation of L2 morphological awareness to a far greater extent than L2 print exposure and experience; and that L1 morphological awareness was a strong predictor of L2 reading comprehension. Viewed collectively, these results corroborate the previous findings from cross-language transfer studies, suggesting that L1 reading sub-skills, once acquired in one language, become available in another, providing substantial facilitation in the development of corresponding skills in the new language. Hence, the present findings have extended the notion of L1-based facilitation in L2 learning to school-age EFL learners. Although L2 reading research has repeatedly shown cross-linguistic relationships in a number of reading sub-skills, L1-based facilitation is not widely recognized by EFL practitioners. Given its potential significance, it is essential that a clearer understanding of the functional connections between L1 and L2 reading development be promoted among language teaching professionals – particularly those involved in pre-service teacher training, educational policy makers, and school administrators. Several recommendations can be made towards this end. It is commonly observed that L1 literacy teachers and EFL instructors have minimal interaction professionally in schools. One possible explanation is that the two groups of teachers typically undergo completely different pre-service training – L1 teachers were trained in education while EFL teachers majored in linguistics or language studies. Thus, the groups have little in common in their training, creating a thin basis for their professional communication. Given the magnitude of L1 involvement, it seems essential that L1 literacy development be incorporated as an integral component of FL teacher training. It is equally important that schools promote regularly occurring communication among FL teachers and L1 teachers in top-down fashion. Even if teachers feel it desirable to interact with their colleagues, their daily responsibilities keep them from seeking such opportunities on their own. It would be extremely helpful, for example, if schools set aside a block of time for teacher-initiated in-service activities wherein they can engage in discussions of various language- and literacy-related issues. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008 13 Considering that English education is regulated by the National Curriculum Standards and similar guidelines in China and other Asian countries, it is critical that the developmental and functional connections between L1 and L2 literacy are underscored and their implications for FL instruction are clearly explained in these documents. It would be highly desirable if the National Curriculum Standards for EFL instruction specify the expected L2 literacy skills at each grade level – not only in relation to L2 linguistic knowledge, but also in conjunction with grade-appropriate L1 literacy competence. Undoubtedly, the development of such documents requires extensive collaborations among educators, language researchers and school administrators. THE AUTHORS Dongbo Zhang is a PhD candidate in the Second Language acquisition program in the Department of Modern Languages, Carnegie Mellon University. His research interests include second language reading and biliteracy acquisition. Before coming to the U.S. for his PhD study, he worked as a research associate on bilingual education in Singapore and college EFL lecturer in China. Keiko Koda is Professor of Second Language Acquisition and Japanese in the Department of Languages at Carnegie Mellon University. Her major research areas include second language reading, biliteracy development, psycholinguistics, and foreign language pedagogy. She served on the editorial boards of several major journals, including Reading Research Quarterly, Reading and Writing, Research in Second Language Learning, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Modern Language Journal and TESOL Quartely. She has served as a consultant to Education Testing Service, American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, and the U.S. Department of Education. She was also a member of National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. She has edited and co-edited special issues of Language Learning and Reading in Foreign Language. Her recent publications include Insights into Second Language Reading (Cambridge University Press, 2005), Reading and Language Learning (Blackwell, 2007) and Learning to Read across Language (Routledge, 2008). REFERENCES Abu-Rabia, S. (1995). Learning to read in Arabic: Reading, syntactic, orthographic and working memory skills in normally achieving and poor Arabic readers. Reading Psychology, 16 (4), 351-394. 14 Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners Abu-Rabia, S. (1997). Reading in Arabic orthography: The effect of vowels and context on reading accuracy of poor and skilled native Arabic readers in reading paragraphs, sentences, and isolated words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 465-482. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2006). Developing literacy in secondlanguage learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (1996). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150177. Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., & Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, language proficiency, and learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (4), 580-590. Branum-Martin, L., Mehta, P. D., Fletcher, J.M., Carlson, C. D., Ortiz, A., Carlo, M., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Bilingual phonological awareness: Multilevel construct validation among Spanish-speaking kindergarteners in traditional bilingual education classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 170-181. Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24, 291-322. Carr, T., & Levy, B. (1990). Writing system background and second language reading: A component skills analysis of English reading by native speaker-readers of Chinese. In T. Carr & B. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 375-421). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Chilant, D., & Caramazza, A. (1995). Where is morphology and how is it processed? The case of written word recognition. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 55-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49 (2), 222-251. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008 15 Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89). New York: Cambridge University Press. 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. Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453-465. Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.) (1983). Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (Eds.) (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Geva, E., & Siegel, L. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 1-30. Gholamain, M., & Geva, E. (1999). The concurrent development of word recognition skills in English and Farsi. Language Learning, 49, 183-217. Koda, K. (2000). Cross-linguistic variations in L2 morphological awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21 (3), 297-320. Koda, K. (2005). Insights into Second Language Reading: A Crosslinguistic Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57 (1), 1-44. Koda, K. (2008). Contributions of prior literacy experience to learning to read in a second language. In K. Koda & A. M. Zehler (Eds.), Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic relationships in first- and second-language literacy development (pp. 68-96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Krashen, S. D. (1983). Newmark’s “ignorance hypothesis” and current second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 135-153). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 16 Zhong, Dongbo, and Keiko Koda Contributions of L1 Reading Sub-Skills to L2 Reading Development in English as a Foreign Language Among School-Aged Learners Ku, Y.-M., & Anderson, R. C. (2003). Development of morphological awareness in Chinese and English. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 399-422. Kuo, L., & Anderson, R. C. (2008). Conceptual and methodological issues in comparing metalinguistic awareness across languages. In K. Koda & A. Zehler (Eds.), Learning to read across languages (pp. 3967). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ministry of Education. (2001). English language curriculum standards. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness and literacy acquisition in different languages. In D. A. Wagner, R. C. Venezky, & B. V. Street (Eds.), Literacy: An International Handbook (pp. 155-160). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic influences in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The Universal Grammar of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7 (1), 3-24. Perfetti. C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Orthography to phonology and meaning: Comparisons across and within writing systems. Reading and Writing, 18, 193-210. Riches, C., & Genesee, F. (2006). Cross-linguistic and cross-modal aspects of literacy development. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 64-108). NY: Cambridge University Press. Shu, H., & Anderson, R. C. (1999). Learning to read Chinese: The development of metalinguistic awareness. In A. Inhoff, J. Wang & H. C. Chen (Eds.), Reading Chinese scripts: A Cognitive analysis (pp. 1-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shu, H., Li, W., Anderson, R. C., Ku, Y.-M., & Yue, X. (2002). The role of home-literacy environment in learning to reading Chinese. In W. Li, J. S. Gaffney, & J. L. Packard (Eds.), Chinese children’s reading acquisition: Theoretical and pedagogical issues (pp. 207-224). Boston: Kluwer. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching Volume 4/Number 1 ‚ May 2008 17 Stolz, J. A., & Feldman, L. B. (1995). The role of orthographic and semantic transparency of the base morpheme in morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing (pp. 109-129). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum. Taft, M. (1991). Reading and the Mental Lexicon. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Taft, M., & Zhu, X. (1995). The representation of bound morphemes in the lexicon: A Chinese study. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing (pp. 109-129). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tyler, A., & Nagy, W. (1989). The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 649-667. Tyler, A. & Nagy, W. (1990). Use of English derivational morphology during reading. Cognition, 36, 17-34. Wade-Woolley, L & Geva, E. (2000). Processing novel phonemic contrasts in the acquisition of L2 word reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 295-311. Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97, 67-88.