Edited by Eun Hee Jeon and Yo In'nami
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 13] 2022
► pp. 29–86
Chapter 3L2 reading comprehension and its correlates
An updated meta-analysis
The present study updates Jeon and Yamashita’s (2014) meta-analysis by adding a total of 40 independent samples from 30 additional studies published between 2011 and 2017. Using the method of a quantitative meta-analysis of correlation coefficients, the study synthesizes weighted and, when possible, corrected (for attenuation due to measurement error) correlations between passage-level, L2 reading comprehension and each of the following correlates: decoding, orthographic knowledge, phonological awareness, morphological knowledge, vocabulary knowledge, grammar knowledge, L1 reading comprehension, L2 listening comprehension, working memory, metacognition, and oral reading fluency. The results showed that L2 knowledge variables were invariably strong correlates of L2 reading comprehension. Language-general variables such as working memory and metacognition were, on the other hand, only weakly correlated with L2 reading comprehension. Of the two companion proficiency variables, namely, L2 listening comprehension and L1 reading comprehension, the former showed a much stronger correlation with L2 reading comprehension. In sum, these results indicated that L2 reading comprehension is much more strongly associated with L2 knowledge rather than language-general, cognitive or metacognitive variables or the long-assumed general reading abilities indicated by L1 reading comprehension. Lastly, the study introduced oral reading fluency as a promising correlate of L2 reading comprehension.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction: Purpose of the present study
- 2.A review of reading theories and models that influenced the primary studies of L2 reading comprehension between 1979–2017
- 3.Review of correlates of L2 reading comprehension
- 3.1High-evidence correlates
- 3.1.1Decoding
- 3.1.2Phonological awareness
- 3.1.3Vocabulary knowledge
- 3.1.4Grammar knowledge
- 3.1.5L1 reading comprehension
- 3.1.6L2 listening comprehension
- 3.1.7Working memory
- 3.2Low-evidence correlates
- 3.2.1Orthographic knowledge
- 3.2.2Morphological knowledge
- 3.2.3Metacognition
- 3.2.4Oral reading fluency
- 3.1High-evidence correlates
- 4.Method
- 4.1Literature search and inclusion criteria
- 4.2Acceptable measures of L2 reading comprehension and its correlates
- 4.3Analytical procedures
- 4.4Meta-analytic procedures
- 4.4.1Coding of moderator variables
- 5.Results
- 5.1Results on high-evidence correlates and their moderators
- 5.1.1Decoding
- 5.1.2Phonological awareness
- 5.1.3Vocabulary knowledge
- 5.1.4Grammar knowledge
- 5.1.5L1 reading comprehension
- 5.1.6L2 listening comprehension
- 5.1.7Working memory
- 5.2Results on low-evidence correlates
- 5.2.1Orthographic knowledge
- 5.2.2Morphological knowledge
- 5.2.3Metacognition
- 5.2.4Oral reading fluency
- 5.1Results on high-evidence correlates and their moderators
- 6.Discussion
- 6.1Decoding and L2 reading comprehension
- 6.2Phonological awareness and L2 reading comprehension
- 6.3Vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading comprehension
- 6.4Grammar knowledge and L2 reading comprehension
- 6.5L1 reading comprehension and L2 reading comprehension
- 6.6L2 Listening comprehension and L2 reading comprehension
- 6.7Working memory and L2 reading comprehension
- 6.8Orthographic knowledge and L2 reading comprehension
- 6.9Morphological knowledge and L2 reading comprehension
- 6.10Metacognition and L2 reading comprehension
- 6.11Oral reading fluency and L2 reading comprehension
- 7.Conclusion
-
References
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.13.03jeo
References
Note. Studies that were included in the meta-analysis are marked with an asterisk (*).