c
c

   
     
Yuko Iwai
iwai.yuko <at> uwlax.edu
University of Wisconsin (La Crosse, WI, USA)
Foreign language learners have different processes in learning English than monolingual students
because the former group interacts with more than one language. This article focuses on second
language reading for English language learners. It presents the following challenges English
language learners face in developing their English reading comprehension skills: culturally
different schemata, insufficient vocabulary knowledge, and use of the first language. After these
issues are discussed, this article offers recommendations for teachers of English language
learners for better instruction. Developing cultural sensitivity, encouraging bi-literacy, and using
explicit instruction in authentic contexts are key elements to enhancing English language learners¶
reading comprehension.



Reading is a complex activity. The goal of reading is ³to construct text meaning based on
visually encoded information´ (Koda, 2007, p.1). In first language (L1) reading, readers use
only one language, whereas in second language (L2) reading, learners have at least two
languages to deal with. According to Carrell and Grabe (2002), L2 readers use different reading
processes than L1 readers for the following reasons:

V the former group is limited in their linguistic knowledge;

V they do not have cultural and social knowledge that is common in the English context;

V they do not necessarily retain prior knowledge, which is the basis of understanding
English materials;

V they study English for a variety of reasons, including accommodating English speaking
countries and pursuing degrees in these countries; and

V they use both L1 and L2.

Due to these differences between L1 and L2, the L2 readers experience more challenges than the
L1 readers (Koda, 2007).

This study focuses on second language reading for English language learners. It aims to present
the challenging issues English language learners face in developing their English reading
comprehension skills and to suggest recommendations for teachers of English language learners
for better instruction.



Ä c
   
Reading comprehension refers to constructing the meaning of the oral or written
messages. Readers make up for their insufficient understanding of the messages by using
³bottom-up´ and ³top-down´ approaches (Stanovich, 1980). Bottom-up approaches are
processes where readers focus on letters, sounds, syllables, words, phrases, sentences, and
paragraphs. The process of constructing the meaning begins with the written words. In other
words, readers with this approach begin by focusing on smaller parts of the texts. Often, they do
not get the whole meaning of the text.

On the other hand, top-down approaches are the opposite of bottom-up approaches. Rather than
focusing on individual words or analyzing how each word is structured, readers emphasize the
whole text passage and look for key information by activating prior knowledge and
compensating for meanings of unknown vocabulary. Comprehension involves the ability of
understanding the intended messages of a text. Reading comprehension is based on using the
appropriate meaning-making processes from the printed messages. Reading comprehension
involves the passage, the reader, and the context. Readers construct meanings with various
approaches, such as using background knowledge, analyzing words, inferring the text, and
identifying key vocabulary or information.

           

 Ä     

Schemata, background knowledge, consist of ³generalized information abstracted from a variety

of instances´ and show ³the relationships among their component elements´ (Koda, 2007, p.
1). Previous research shows that having rich schemata on a subject matter is related to better
reading comprehension (Hudson, 2007). For example, if readers see a title of a text, such as
³Halloween,´ and if they already know what ³Halloween´ is, it is easier for them to expect what
the text is about and to integrate their prior knowledge with the passage on ³Halloween.´ Rich
schemata, therefore, can help students understand the reading material better than students
without background information on the topic.

One of the characteristics of English language learners is that they are not likely to have the same
schemata that English-speaking students possess (Jiménez, García, & Pearson, 1996). Due to
cultural differences, English language learners may have a hard time in understanding the
content of a message that is not culturally familiar to them. Singhal (1998) summarized several
studies on L1 and L2 reading in terms of cultural differences. She specifically looked at the
following variables:

V content/background schema,

V formal/textual schema, and

V linguistic/language schema.
Singhal (1998) points out that L2 readers, who do not possess cultural background knowledge on
an English text, are limited in comprehending the text message. Text structures also differ from
language to language. Familiarity of the structure of the English language in the way it expresses
³cause and effect,´ ³question and answer,´ and ³compare and contrast,´ also facilitates L2
readers in understanding English passages. In the area of linguistic/language schema, Singhal
(1998) states that L1 linguistic characteristics may influence L2 readers¶ interpretation on the
English texts. According to her, Finnish texts rarely indicate text structures, while English texts
have specific indicators of when a new section begins or what to expect in the following sentence
or section. French texts tend to have more theoretical and abstract components than the English.


  
 

Another challenging issue English language learners are struggling with is their insufficient
English vocabulary knowledge (García, 2003). Having rich vocabulary knowledge is another
key element to better reading comprehension (Hudson, 2007). L2 readers need to develop their
English vocabulary capacity in depth and width. Certain words in the English language can have
more than one meaning and confuse English-language learners because they do not consider the
meaning of the word in the contexts. One example is the word of ³table.´ ³Table´ in the
following sentence, ³We sit around the breakfast table,´ means ³a piece of furniture.´ The same
word in another sentence, ³I kept the whole table entertained with my jokes,´ indicates the
people who are sitting at a table. In the sentence, ³Look at the table of contents,´ ³table´ means
a list of information in a book. Table can also refer to a tablet or plateau. Used as a verb, the
sentence, ³They tabled a question in Parliament,´ means to set aside a question for later
discussion. Used as an idiom, ³The proposal is on the table,´ ³table´ means submitted for
consideration.

Moreover, many English words were derived from other languages, such as Greek and
Latin. English language learners often struggle when analyzing prefixes and suffixes. English
words have irregular rules in affixes. Affixes include prefixes (e.g., anti-, di-, or ultra-) and
suffixes (e.g., -able, -ism, or -ness). Some English-language learners study affixes so that they
can analyze unknown words and infer their meanings on their own. For example, ³in- (or il-, im-,
or ir-)´ refers to ³not´ or ³the opposite of something.´ ³Infinite´ is the opposite of
finite. ³Inability´ is not being able to do something. However, the word ³indifferent´ does not
fit the rule of this particular prefix. English language learners, therefore, need to understand each
meaning of the word case by case.

      

Carrell and Grabe (2002) argue that L2 reading does not require the same process as L1
reading. L2 readers, especially those who are not advanced, translate English into their first
language. For example, Upton (1997) studied two groups of adult Japanese students enrolled in
an American University. One group of six less advanced and another group of five advanced
learners (ages 20 to 36 years old) participated in the study. They thought-aloud while reading an
English expository text. They thought-aloud in English if they were processing in English. They
thought-aloud in Japanese when they were processing in Japanese. After the think-aloud activity,
the subjects listened to their tape recorded protocols and were interviewed to explain how they
were thinking and reading the text. Interviews were conducted in Japanese to clearly identify the
participants¶ intentions.

The results show that less advanced students used more Japanese language to think-aloud than
the advanced students. In other words, the former group translated the English passage into
Japanese to confirm the meaning of the passage and to understand the meaning of the unknown
vocabulary and re-stated English sentences in Japanese. In comparison, most of the proficient
students did not translate the meaning of the unknown words but used the content of the passage
to find out the meaning. In addition, less advanced learners tended to use the bottom-up
approaches, including focusing on lexical resources and grammatical structure. However, the
advanced learners focused on the top-down approaches, such as capturing the whole picture of
the text passage and making inferences from prior knowledge. Upton¶s study supports the
findings of the studies conducted by Anderson (1991) and Carrell (1989).

In general, L2 readers, especially in their introductory stage, are likely to translate words from
English into their first language. They feel that they are unable to understand what a text is
about without understanding the meaning of each word. They stop at a point when they
encounter unknown vocabulary and look up a word in the dictionary to confirm its
meaning. There is danger that, by the time they translate all unfamiliar words into their first
language, they may not retain information from the text. Overusing the bottom-up approach may
cause this disadvantage.

 !       

English language learners experience a lot of difficulties in the development of English reading
skills. Culturally different schemata, limitation of vocabulary knowledge, and use of first
language are some examples of their challenges. The following four recommendations are
offered for the improvement and facilitation of L2 students¶ English reading comprehension:

V developing cultural sensitivity,

V encouraging bi-literacy, and

V using explicit instruction in authentic contexts.

Ä     

One of the most important and fundamental aspects of teaching L2 students is having cultural
sensitivity towards students¶ cultural background. Cultural sensitivity is to know and understand
students¶ cultural differences as well as to respect individuals. Nieto (2000) explains that
English language learners should not be labeled based on socio-economic status, cultural
backgrounds, or inadequate English proficiency levels. Teachers have to understand and respect
the students¶ differences (Ovando, 2005). Providing students with a safe learning environment is
one of the basic components of students¶ academic learning improvement.

It is suggested that teachers carefully consider why English language learners are experiencing
difficulties in learning English. These students have different constructive processes from their
first language learning experiences. It is also recommended for teachers to accommodate
teaching instruction effectively for English language learners and to interact with their colleagues
for enhancing their cultural sensitivity (Nieto, 2000).

 "
  

Upton¶s study in the previous section demonstrates that English language learners, especially
low performing students, are more likely to use their first language to confirm the meanings of
words in a textbook. Using L1 is not necessarily a negative factor for improving reading
comprehension. In fact, using both languages is recommended in the process of learning
English. Therefore, being bi-literate, being able to read and write in two languages, facilitates
English language learners¶ reading comprehension.

For example, Jiménez, García, and Pearson (1996) examined the impact of bilingualism and bi-
literacy on reading strategies among the sixth or seventh grades of three groups of high-
performing bilingual Spanish and English students, of successful monolingual English students,
and of low-performing bilingual Spanish and English students in the ESL setting. The
researchers used an analysis of four tools:

V a think-aloud protocol,

V an interview,

V an assessment of background knowledge, and

V a text recall.

The results showed that successful bilingual learners used more top-down approaches than did
the other groups. Proficient bilingual students also utilized both first and second languages to
compensate for a lack of understanding of reading materials. Other effective reading strategies
found among the better bilingual participants were monitoring comprehension, using background
knowledge, asking questions, using contexts, inferring from contexts to understand the messages
of a reading passage, and translating reading strategies across Spanish and English. García
(2003) and Ovando (2005) also recommend teachers to make use of both first and second
languages for better reading comprehension.

 #  

Another suggestion for teachers of English language learners is to explain reading strategies
clearly in meaningful contexts. Rote learning or memorization may not lead students to retain
word meaning or grammar for a long period. If English language learners study vocabulary in
the context where the word is most likely to be used, and if they can connect that scenario to
their real life experience, authentic learning occurs. This style of instruction enhances students¶
reading abilities. Using research-based reading strategies clearly is also important. García
(2003) presents different studies on how teaching specific reading strategies, such as self-
questioning and making inferences, positively influence English language learners¶ reading
outcomes.


English language learners, who use at least two languages for processing, struggle with
developing English reading comprehension skills. They have culturally different schemata and
limited English vocabulary knowledge. Relying on only the first language and using the bottom-
up approach exclusively prevent them from improving in reading. It is important for their
teachers to understand them from the cultural, linguistic, and social perspectives and to respect
their individual differences. Advocating bi-literacy and using explicit instruction in meaningful
contexts are also recommended. These suggestions aid reading comprehension of second
language learners not only in reading classes, but also across the content areas where reading is
the fundamental tool for understanding the subject matter.

c    

V Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading
and testing. Modern Language Journal 75(4), 460-72.

V Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern
Language Journal 73(2), 121-31.

V Carrell, P. L., & Grabe, W. (2002). Reading. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to
applied Linguistics (pp. 233-250). London: Arnold.

V García, G. E. (2003). The reading comprehension development and instruction of
English-language learners. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading
comprehension (pp. 30-50). New York: The Guilford Press.

V Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

V Jiménez, R. T., García, E. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual
Latina/o students who are successful English learners: Opportunities and obstacles.
Reading Research Quarterly 31(1), 90-112.

V Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second
language reading development. Language Learning 57(1), 1-44.

V Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural
education (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

V Ovando, C. J. (2005). Language diversity and education. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M.
Banks (Eds.),

V Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (5th ed., pp. 289-313). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley and Sons.

V Singhal, M. (1998). A comparison of L1 and L2 reading: Cultural differences and schema.
The Internet TESL Journal 4(10). Retrieved January 10, 2010 from
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Singhal-ReadingL1L2.html

V Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual
differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly 16, 32-71.

V Upton, T. A. (1997). First and second language use in reading comprehension strategies
of Japanese ESL students. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal
3(1). Retrieved January 10, 2010 from http://tesl-ej.org/ej09/a3.html

The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XVI, No. 4, April 2010

http://iteslj.org/
 http://iteslj.org/Articles/Iwai-Reading.html
V