(p. 206).
In sum, the involvement of two languages is a fundamental characteristic that separates second language reading from general learning and first language reading. From a crosslinguistic perspective, knowledge of the target language (grammar and vocabulary, in particular) is essential for making links between text information in a second language and the reader's knowledge stored in her first language. The significance of personalization should be understood as the core mechanism through which externally presented information is internalized to become part of the reader's knowledge bases.
Reading Assessment in a Second Language
Given the centrality of personalization in knowledge expansion through reading, it is important that the notion of broad‐based reading ability be addressed in second language reading instruction and assessment. According to a brief survey of textbooks used in third‐year Chinese courses in US colleges (Koda & Ke, 2018), reading ability is viewed as a facet of language proficiency. Post‐reading exercises in these textbooks primarily focus on the reinforcement of the grammar and vocabulary items introduced in a particular unit. Their survey also revealed that widely used foreign language proficiency guidelines also assign a prominent role to linguistic knowledge in describing reading ability. In the guidelines, reading development is regarded as a gradual increase in the ability to understand written texts that demand progressively more sophisticated knowledge of the language and text types (Council of Europe, 2011; American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2012). Apparently, reading pedagogy in language classrooms gives weight to using reading to enhance knowledge of the language, rather than promoting the autonomous use of language through which linguistic knowledge could be augmented and refined during reading.
There are a number of important potential consequences of the treatment of reading as language practice for the end state of second language reading proficiency. First, the language‐focused reading pedagogy generally does not provide the learner authentic purposes of reading, other than answering comprehension questions. Such a practice offers students little incentive to tap into their cognitive and conceptual resources to achieve a deeper text understanding. Knowledge of the language may be sufficient for answering post‐reading questions, but, in itself, does not allow the learner to go beyond text information to generate new insight through reading. Without personalization, moreover, text information remains external to the learner and irrelevant to her internal self. Should this be the case particularly in advanced courses, the language‐focused practice could produce apathy on students to take part in active learning.
The language‐focused view could also lead to an unsubstantiated assumption that augmented linguistic knowledge enables the learner to “read” increasingly more demanding texts in the target language. As mentioned earlier, linguistic knowledge alone is far from sufficient for word meaning integration, let alone personalization. A demanding text is understood only to the extent that the reader knows about its topic. There is much to gain if reading pedagogy explores ways of simultaneously promoting reading ability and linguistic knowledge by exploiting their developmental reciprocity.
In a nutshell, second language reading entails complex crosslinguistic interaction between text information presented in a second language and the reader's cognitive and conceptual resources stored in her first language. What supports this interaction is knowledge of the target language (grammar and vocabulary). Conversely, it is only through the autonomous use of language for meaning making that fosters the expansion and refinement of linguistic knowledge. For reading assessment to yield positive washback effects, it is essential that student‐centered tasks be incorporated to demand the learner to dig into real‐life knowledge to create personalized responses. Scoring student‐centered responses is labor intensive, but the higher investments are likely to generate higher returns.
Unique Challenges in L2 Reading Assessment
Reading assessment, within the reading‐as‐language view, focuses on estimating linguistic sophistication, rather than promoting the ability to use language for constructing and generating meanings during reading. Linguistic features, such as syntactic complexity and vocabulary density, are treated as key factors that largely determine comprehension obstacles and are used to manipulate item difficulty to construct tests with the desired level of difficulty. From this perspective, reading assessment relies on two layers of deductions—first, gauging reading ability based on observed behaviors elicited, and then inferring linguistic sophistication from the estimated reading ability. For assessment results to be reasonably accurate as an indicator of linguistic sophistication, manipulated features, such as word frequency and structural complexity, must be unambiguously linked to the item difficulty levels. In practice, however, such calibration cannot be conducted solely on the basis of linguistic manipulations. As described above, a number of other factors affect text comprehension. With little regard for nonlanguage‐specific factors, it would be difficult to promote broad‐based reading ability through assessment.
In language‐focused reading assessment, language selection could also constitute a threat to the validity of the intended inferences. Language selection refers to decisions regarding the use of the student's first language or the target language for non‐passage elements (e.g., test administration, task instructions, and comprehension questions). If, for example, the target language is used for task instructions, there is always a likelihood that some learners pursue the task without understanding what they are expected to do. Although a clear grasp of the task, when presented in the target language, could be taken as a partial indicator of linguistic sophistication, score differences derived from non‐passage elements remain unintended, making their interpretation difficult at best and erroneous at worst. It is problematic to determine whether poor performance is attributable to task misconceptions, underdeveloped linguistic knowledge, or inadequate reading skills. Conflation of this sort, arising from unintended linguistic obstacles, constitutes a unique challenge in second language reading assessment.
Lexical scaffolding, such as access to a glossary and dictionary, is another challenge uniquely associated with second language reading assessment. Because gaps between second language vocabulary size and conceptual knowledge vary differently among learners of different ages, with distinct first language backgrounds, and with diverse educational experiences, lexical scaffolding could differently affect their comprehension performance. It is important that the characteristics of the focal group of test takers and the intended inference be considered when deciding about access to lexical scaffolding. If, for example, the objective of reading assessment is to gauge the ability to learn new concepts through reading, scaffolding should reduce the risk of underestimating the ability of interest. If, on the other hand, the primary goal is to estimate the learner's language proficiency, lexical assistance may hamper accurate inference about linguistic sophistication of the learner.
In brief, the reading‐as‐language view currently prevails in language classrooms. Considering the centrality of linguistic knowledge in reading, such a view may seem sensible. However, reading pedagogy under this view rarely promotes the utilization of the learner's cognitive and conceptual resources, and, as a result, gives nominal attention to the additional, perhaps even more critical, role of knowledge of the target language—that is, granting the learner access to her nonlinguistic resources in the first language. Thus, the narrow focus at its worst disregards the most fundamental operation in second language reading. This could pose serious challenges for score interpretation.
Future Directions in Second Language Reading Assessment
Assessment of reading in a second language has taken shape following the principles in test development in language assessment. The tradition has resulted in heavy emphasis on language‐specific skills in the target language, and, as its corollary, scant regard for nonlanguage‐specific resources available in the learner's first language. Future agendas can be built to tackle these and other complexities arising from the involvement of two languages in second language reading.
One
