Summary of Fitzgerald’s “English-as-a-Second Language Learner’s Cognitive Reading Processes: A Review of the Research in the United States”
Summary of Fitzgerald’s “English-as-a-Second Language Learner’s Cognitive Reading Processes: A Review of the Research in the United States”
In
this article, Jill Fitzgerald reviews the research on English-as-a-Second
Language (ESL) learners in the United States to date (1995)[1]. She notes that ethnic and racial diversity
continues to increase in our country; thus educators’ concerns about ESL
students and their instruction continues to rise. Out of necessity, there has been a growth in
ESL research, research that explores various aspects of the ESL learner and
instruction. This article is mainly
concerned with characterizing and making sense of research pertaining to ESL
learners and their cognitive processes during reading.
In
this research review, Fitzgerald uses the federal definition of ‘limited
English proficient’ as given in public law 100-297 (146). To be categorized as such, a person needs to
meet the following criteria: a.) not
born in the United States, b.) speak a native language not English, c.) be from
a country where English is not the predominant language, or d.) be American
Indians or Alaskan natives from a culture where other languages impede their
English proficiency.
Fitzgerald points out that her focus on cognitive processes with ESL learners in no way
undermines the other aspects of ESL reading.
She also alerts the reader that she is not supporting an English-only
society or mode of education; rather, she states that the research suggests
there are many benefits of bilingualism and a bilingual education. Her
rationale for conducting this research review is mainly that many teachers in
the position of working with ESL students are actually not trained in ESL. Her hope seems to be that this article will
benefit such teachers and their students.
Fitzgerald
begins her review by explaining why she chose to focus on research about ESL
learners in the United States, specifically.
There are two factors that affect the reading processes of second
language learners: 1). target language
to be learned, and 2.) the sociopolitical context in which the language is
acquired. Thus, generalizations about
all second-language learning may not necessarily apply to ESL learners. Fitzgerald then discusses ways to control for
these factors when reviewing second language reading studies: “One way….to do
this is to select a particular target language in a particular type of setting
and to review research done under those circumstances in order to see if any
in-depth characterization would emerge for each particular group. This could be done for different languages
and types of settings, and, ultimately, comparisons could be made across the
successive, highly detailed particular characterizations (145). This review is only of research done on the
cognitive processes of ESL learners in the United States.
Fitzgerald
concludes that the studies conducted were based on two views: a native language reading theory which is
widely known and accepted in the reading research community, and a second
language acquisition theory, widely known in the second language acquisition
research community. Basically, the first
view is based on ideas and theories that are held about how native readers
learn to read and actually read. The
second view is based on ideas and theories about how a people acquire second
languages and are not just reading specific.
Fitzgerald
explains that four preexisting theories of reading for all readers were used in
the studies she reviews in this article.
The psycholinguistic view posits that reading is not linear, but rather
involves text sampling, hypothesis making and predicting, and using prior
knowledge as related to context and how language operates. The schema view holds that knowledge is organized
into compartments and that readers use these compartments to anticipate text,
understand during the reading process, and to help with recall afterwards. The interactive view of reading categorizes
reading as “top down” and “bottom up,” that “part of the reading process
entails interpreting graphic information from the page (bottom up), and part
involves using knowledge already in the mind (top down,)” (150). The metacognition theory involves a reader’s
awareness of his/her reading processes.
Using metacognition, a reader is aware of their active reading
strategies and whether or not he/she comprehends the text. However, it is not clear if these theories
about reading in one’s native language apply to ESL. Fitzgerald points out that by using these
theories to guide our ESL research, our findings and research may be lacking.
Some
researchers believe that major parts of literacy transfer from one language to
another. Another major theory in this
field is that second language literacy and orality is highly related. If a student can’t read, write, or speak well
in his/her native language, then it follows that doing so in another language
will be difficult.
Fitzgerald
examines sixty-seven research reports that address vocabulary knowledge,
reading strategies, schema and activation of prior knowledge, the relationship
between ESL reading proficiency and ESL oral proficiency, the relationship
between ESL reading proficiency and other variables, and the similarities of
cognitive processes in the United States between native readers and ESL readers.
Fitzgerald
examines eight studies on vocabulary and concludes that the findings
varied. A major discovery is that the
vocabulary on standardized tests (in questions and answers) negatively affected
reading scores. In fact, vocabulary
knowledge was shown to be a strong predictor of test performance. So, in order to better prepare our ESL
students for reading, we need to build their vocabularies, and perhaps
specifically aid them in the understanding of words with multiple meanings.
Also, the research shows that idioms that don’t exist in their native language
were the hardest to acquire and understand, and that there are a variety of
vocabulary instructional strategies.
There
are thirteen studies of psycholinguistic strategies for reading that were
consulted for this article. These
strategies involve using cueing systems (graphophonics, syntax, semantics) to
recognize and understand words. In the
majority of these studies, the ESL learner read a text aloud and then retold
the story from memory. An examiner
marked any deviations made in the retold story.
In one study, the ESL learners read silently, summarized what they
thought the piece was about, identified troublesome words, and then guessed at
the definitions. Basically, these
studies were aimed at determining how a reader approaches a text. Fitzgerald dismisses these studies because
they don’t really generalize for ESL readers as a group. These studies lead to the conclusion that ESL
readers do not have a single pattern in the use of these strategies.
In
the category of metacognitive strategies, ten studies are analyzed. As the participants read, they would stop to
think aloud at pre-selected spots. These
think-alouds were analyzed. These
studies show that ESL readers do monitor comprehension. They recognize that they don’t understand
something they’ve read, stop to find out where and why the confusion began, and
then tried to rectify their problems.
Fitzgerald reports that there were over fifty metacognitive strategies
employed by ESL readers in seven studies, and nine appeared in at least
three: questioning, rereading, using
images to picture a scene or action, using a dictionary, prediction, changing
reading pace, associating, skipping, and summarizing.
In
the ten studies that explore prior knowledge and reading, Fitzgerald reports,
not surprisingly, that students better comprehend the texts that are more
familiar to them—more aligned with their native cultures. Also, if the ESL readers in the studies were
more familiar with the form the text was written in, then they had higher
comprehension and recall. The converse
is also true.
Seven
studies deal with the relationship between ESL reading proficiency and ESL
orality proficiency in the United States.
Fitzgerald reports mixed results and concludes that the relationship
between the two elements may have dependence on three factors—native language,
age, and the type of oral proficiency measure utilized. For example, there is a strong relationship
between the two for Hispanic sixth to eighth graders and a moderately strong
relationship for adult Arab and Spaniards but a negative relationship for
Cantonese sixth through eighth graders.
Also, the relationship is stronger at higher grade levels and ages.
Fitzgerald
takes a look at studies that compare ESL proficient readers and less proficient
readers. Basically, the more proficient
ESL readers use more schema knowledge, meaning-oriented strategies, a larger
variety of metacognitive strategies, and used them more often. They also actively try to reconcile their
misunderstandings more often, use cognates more frequently, have a higher
vocabulary, and make better and more frequent inferences. Proficient ESL readers are also strong
readers in their natural language, are better English writers, and have parents
who place a high value on education.
There
are seventeen reports that compare ESL readers’ processes to those of native
English speakers reviewed for this article.
Fitzgerald finds that there are some similarities and some differences,
but primarily, the processes are similar.
The differences mainly involve the extent that processes are used or the
speed that the reading occurs. An
example of a difference is that native speakers use context clues more
frequently and effectively when determining the meaning of an unknown
word. In ninth grade, ESL readers are
less able to make inferences, but there is no noticeable difference by the time
these learners reach college.
There are also seventeen reports
tbat look at native language transfer to ESL reading. Most of the studies examined for the purpose
of this review used Hispanic participants.
Fitzgerald states that there is a huge transfer and that six statements
can be made. If a student is a good
reader in English, they are a good reader in their native language, ESL
learners use the same knowledge to guide them when reading in both languages,
knowledge of vocabulary and idioms transfers to ESL, the same metacognitive
strategies are used in the native language and ESL, “a minimal number of
miscues in ESL oral reading could be attributed to native language and
syntactical knowledge” (179), and some ESL readers recode the text into their
native language. However, some transfer
could be negative, like syntax for instance or omitting the articles.
Fitzgerald suggests that
teachers of ESL students in the United States can use the same strategies we
use to teach our native English speakers to read. But teachers do need to be aware that ESL
learners read and learn the process a bit slower. Finally, teachers need to be sure to activate
prior knowledge to aid an ESL student in accessing the text.
[1]
Fitzgerald, J.
English-as-a-second-language learners’ cognitive reading processes: a
review of research in the United States.
Review of Educational Research v. 65 (Summer 1995) p. 145-90.