vix.ing · top · new · best · stats · spec

A Comparison of the Language Skills of ELLs and Monolinguals Who Are Poor Decoders, Poor Comprehenders, or Normal Readers

2012/12/04 by Esther Geva, Angela Massey-Garrison · 1 citation
Neuroscience · Psychology · #Language Development and Disorders #Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism #Reading and Literacy Development

paper · doi:10.1177/0022219412466651

crossref issued 2012/12/04 · crossref published 2012/12/04 · crossref published-online 2012/12/04 · openalex publication_date 2012/12/04 · crossref created 2012/12/05 · crossref published-print 2013/09/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref deposited 2026/05/01 · crossref indexed 2026/07/27 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28

Abstract

The overall objective of this article is to examine how oral language abilities relate to reading profiles in English language learners (ELLs) and English as a first language (EL1) learners, and the extent of similarities and differences between ELLs and EL1s in three reading subgroups: normal readers, poor decoders, and poor comprehenders. The study included 100 ELLs and 50 EL1s in Grade 5. The effect of language group (ELL/EL1) and reading group on cognitive and linguistic skills was examined. Except for vocabulary, there was no language group effect on any measure. However, within ELL and EL1 alike, significant differences were found between reading groups: Normal readers outperformed the two other groups on all the oral language measures. Distinct cognitive and linguistic profiles were associated with poor decoders and poor comprehenders, regardless of language group. The ELL and EL1 poor decoders outperformed the poor comprehenders on listening comprehension and inferencing. The poor decoders displayed phonological-based weaknesses, whereas the poor comprehenders displayed a more generalized language processing weakness that is nonphonological in nature. Regardless of language status, students with poor decoding or comprehension problems display difficulties with various aspects of language.

Citations

Cited by

Related