is to incorporate predictable variations induced by first language reading skills and other resources. Over the last three decades, research has shown that previously acquired skills variably affect second language reading development. To date, however, we know little about how such variations alter assessment outcomes and their interpretation. As a case in point, it is widely recognized that decoding competence develops at disparate rates in learners with diverse first language orthographic backgrounds, but it is not well understood how such disparity predicts speed and accuracy of text comprehension among linguistically diverse learners. Thus, we have yet to know to what extent and how facilitation stemming from transferred first language skills in one operation enhances the execution of other, later occurring, operations. In recent years, these complex issues have begun to attract attention among second language reading researchers. Findings from this research, if properly incorporated, could substantially improve interpretability of assessment outcomes, and, in so doing, enhance their utility in language classrooms.
Another way of increasing the legitimacy of second language reading assessment is to foster broad‐based reading ability by adopting the notion of student‐centered learning. Central to the student‐centered approaches is the principle that the exponential growth in knowledge—be it of language or content—occurs when the student is allowed to bring her personal experiences to the process of learning (Caccamise, Snyder, & Kintsch, 2008). The notion can be easily extended to the process of demonstrating progress in learning. Personalization is an optimal way of giving the student agency over learning. By broadening the conception of reading ability, assessment could serve as the catalyst for a shift of learning responsibilities from teachers to students—that is, the most fundamental commitment in student‐centered approaches.
In today's world, a large number of learners strive to read in a second, or a later acquired, language for learning new concepts. Despite its centrality in deeper text understanding, the capacity for personalizing text information has attracted far less attention than it deserves in second language reading assessment. As a process of connecting text information with the reader's knowledge, personalization allows the second language learner to build links between linguistic and nonlinguistic resources in two languages, and thus, promotes the ability to use language autonomously for meaning making. This ability in turn supports exponential growth of vocabulary and other facets of linguistic knowledge during reading. Obviously, we have much to gain from adopting the notion of broad‐based reading ability in second language instruction and assessment.
SEE ALSO: New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension; Uses of Language Assessments; Validation of Language Assessments
References
1 Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). Proficiency guidelines: Reading. New York, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
3 Anderson, R. C., & Davison, A. (1988). Conceptual and empirical bases of readability formulas. In A. Davison & G. M. Green (Eds.), Linguistic complexity and text comprehension (pp. 23–54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4 Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1991). Word meaning. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 690–724). New York, NY: Longman.
5 Balota, D., Pollasek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364–90.
6 Baumann, J. F., & Bergeron, B. S. (1993). Story map instruction using children's literature: Effects on first graders' comprehension of central narrative elements. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 407–37.
7 Beck, I. L., & Dole, J. A. (1992). Reading and thinking with history and science text. In C. Collins & J. M. Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: An agenda for the twenty‐first century (pp. 1–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8 Buss, R. R., Ratliff, J. L., & Irion, J. C. (1985). Effects of instruction on the use of story structures in comprehension of narrative discourse. National Conference Yearbook, 34, 55–8.
9 Caccamise, D., Snyder, L., & Kintsch, E. (2008). Constructivist theory and the situation model. In C. C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research‐based best practices (pp. 80–97). New York, NY: Guilford.
10 Clarke, M. A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading—or when language competence interferes with reading performance. The Modern Language Journal, 64, 203–9.
11 Council of Europe. (2011). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
12 Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme‐phoneme knowledge is essential to learning to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13 Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 5–21.
14 Frost, R. (1998). Towards a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 71–99.
15 Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 263–329.
16 Garner, R., Alexander, P., Slater, W., Hare, V. C., Smith, T., & Reis, R. (1986). Children's knowledge of structural properties of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 411–16.
17 Gathecole, S., & Baddeley, D. (1993). Working memory and language. Hove, England: Erlbaum.
18 Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A., Jr. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 311–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19 Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 126–35.
20 Goodman, K. S. (1973). Psycholinguistic universals of the reading process. In F. Smith (Ed.), Psycholinguistics and reading (pp. 21–9). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
21 Hamada, M., & Koda, K. (2010). The role of phonological decoding on second language word‐meaning inference. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 513–31.
22 Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1978). Reading skill and the role of verbal experience in decoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 717–29.
23 Jeon, E. H. (2011). Contribution of morphological awareness to K2 reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 217–35.
24 Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixation to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–54.
25 Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
26 Ke, S., & Koda, K. (2019). Is vocabulary knowledge sufficient for word–meaning inference? An investigation of the role of morphological awareness in adult L2 learners of Chinese. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 456–77. doi: 10.1093/applin/amx040
27 Kim, J., & Cho, Y. (2015). Proficiency effects on relative roles of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language reading. English Teaching, 70(1), 75–96.
28 Kintsch,
