Volume 20, Number 1, April 2008

Volume 20, Number 1, April 2008
Advisory and Editorial Boards
Advisory Board
University of Hawai‘i, USA
Richard Day, Co-Editor Reading in a Foreign Language readfl@hawaii.edu

Thom Hudson, Co-Editor Reading in a Foreign Language readfl@hawaii.edu
Richard Schmidt, Director National Foreign Language Resource Center schmidt@hawaii.edu
Jean Toyama, Associate Dean College of Languages, Linguistics, and Literature toyama@hawaii.edu
Editorial Board
Charles Alderson University of Lancaster, UK c.alderson@lancaster.ac.uk
Neil J. Anderson Brigham Young University, USA neil_anderson@byu.edu
Cindy Brantmeier Washington University, USA cbrantme@wustl.edu
Andrew D. Cohen University of Minnesota, USA adcohen@umn.edu
Averil Coxhead Massey University, New Zealand A.Coxhead@massey.ac.nz
Julian Edge University of Manchester, UK julian.edge@manchester.ac.uk
William Grabe Northern Arizona University, USA william.Grabe@nau.edu
Yukie Horiba Kanda University of International Studies, Japan yukiehn@kanda.kuis.ac.jp
Batia Laufer University of Haifa, Israel batialau@research.haifa.ac.il
Sandra McKay San Francisco State University, USA smckay@sfsu.edu
Setsuko Mori Kinki University, Japan setsukomori@mac.com
Paul Nation Victoria University, NZ Paul.Nation@vuw.ac.nz
David Qian Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong egdavid@polyu.edu.hk
Françoise Salager-Meyer Universidad de Los Andes, Venezuela fmeyer@telcel.net.ve
Sandra Silberstein University of Washington, USA tq@u.washington.edu
Fredricka Stoller Northern Arizona University, USA Fredricka.Stoller@NAU.EDU
Cyril Weir University of Surrey Roehampton, UK cyril.weir@which.net
Eddie Williams University of Reading, UK CALS@reading.ac.uk
Editorial Staff
Editors: Richard Day and Thom Hudson, University of Hawai’i, readfl@hawaii.edu
Reviews Editor: Anne Burns, Macquarie University, anne.burns@mq.edu.au
Readings on L2 Reading Editor: Cindy Brantmeier, Washington University, cbrantme@wustl.edu
Assistant Editor: Zhijun (David) Wen, University of Hawai’i, readfl@hawaii.edu
Web Production Editor: Jun Nomura, University of Hawai’i, readfl@hawaii.edu
Copyright © RFL 2008

About Reading in a Foreign Language
The online journal Reading in a Foreign Language (RFL) is a scholarly international refereed
journal originally founded as a print journal in 1983 at the University of Aston, Birmingham,
England. The journal moved to the University of Hawai‘i in 2002 under the co-editorship of
Richard R. Day and Thom Hudson, and Reviews Editor Anne Burns, Macquarie University,
Australia. It is supported by the National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC), the
University of Hawai‘i College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature, and the University of
Hawai‘i Department of Second Language Studies.
Reading in a Foreign Language has established itself as an excellent source for the latest
developments in the field, both theoretical and pedagogic, including improving standards for
foreign language reading.
This fully-refereed journal is published twice a year, in April and October. The editors seek
manuscripts concerning both the practice and theory of learning to read and the teaching of
reading in any foreign or second language. Reviews of scholarly books and teaching materials,
conference reports, and discussions are also solicited. The language of the journal is English, but
lexical citations of languages other than English are acceptable. Additionally, the journal
encourages research submissions about reading in languages other than English. From time to
time, special issues are published on themes of relevance to our readers. Please see our
submission guidelines for more information.
Although RFL is a free online journal, we would appreciate your support as a subscriber. This
will assist us in continuing to obtain institutional support for the journal, keeping it free of charge.
Please take a few minutes to visit our subscription page.

Information for Contributors
Reading in a Foreign Language (RFL) seeks submissions of previously unpublished manuscripts

on any topic related to the area of foreign or second language reading. Articles should be written
so that they are accessible to a broad audience of language educators, including those individuals
who may not be familiar with the particular subject matter addressed in the article. Manuscripts
are being solicited in these three major categories: articles, discussion forum, and reviews.
Submission guidelines, general publication policies, general guidelines for reporting on both
quantitative and qualitative research are provided below.
Articles
Discussion Forum
Reviews
Features
Submission Guidelines
General Publication Policies
Guidelines for Reporting on Research
Articles
Articles should report original research or present an original framework that links previous
research, educational theory, and teaching practices. Full-length articles should be no more than
8,500 words in length, excluding appendices. Additionally, each submission should include an
abstract of no more than 150 words, and a list of five to seven keywords for index and search
purposes. We encourage articles that take advantage of the electronic format by including
hypermedia links to multimedia material both within and outside the article. All article
manuscripts submitted to RFL go through a two-step review process.
Step 1: Internal review. The editors of the journal first review each manuscript to see if it meets
the basic requirements for articles published in the journal (i.e., that it reports on original
research or presents an original framework linking previous research, educational theory, and
teaching practices), and that it is of sufficient quality to merit external review. Note that RFL
follows the guidelines of the fifth edition of the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2001.
Manuscripts submitted to RFL must conform to APA format. Manuscripts that do not meet these
requirements are not sent out for further review. This internal review takes about 1–2 weeks.

Step 2: External review. Submissions that meet the requirements above are then sent out for
blind peer review from two to three experts in the field, either from the journal’s editorial board
or from a larger list of reviewers. This second review process takes 2–3 months. Following the
external review, the authors are sent copies of the external reviewers’ comments and are notified
as to the decision (accept as it is, accept pending changes, revise and resubmit, or reject).
Discussion Forum
Short articles, usually no more than 2,000 words, in the Discussion Forum generally discuss
material previously published in RFL and may also present replies by the authors to the issues
raised in those comments. The Discussion Forum contents are meant to be constructive and
professional exchanges about an area of foreign language reading. Discussions go through the
same review process as that for full length articles.
Reviews
The journal welcomes reviews of recent publications and resources focusing on a variety of
aspects of reading, including research, professional development, classroom approaches,
teaching texts, and computer mediated materials. Reviewers should give a clear and succinct
description and provide the reader with the means of evaluating the relevance of the material to
the targeted field of theory and practice. Reviews should normally include references to
published theory and relevant research, and reviews providing a critical/evaluative overview of
several publications that have made a distinct contribution to the field of reading research and
practice are particularly welcome. Reviews of individual books or reading instructional software
are generally 1,200–1,600 words in length. Reviews of multiple texts can be longer. Reviews
should include the name, institutional affiliation, e-mail address, URL (if applicable), and a short
biographical statement (maximum 50 words) of the reviewer(s). The following information
should be included in a table at the beginning of the review:
Author(s)
Title
Publication date
Publisher
Publisher City and Country
Number of pages
ISBN
Price
Contact Anne Burns if you are interested in having material reviewed or in serving as a reviewer.
Anne Burns
Department of Linguistics
Macquarie University
Sydney Australia
anne.burns@mq.edu.au

Features
RFL has two features, Readings on L2 Reading: Publications in Other Venues, which first
appeared in the October 2005 issue, and RFL Revisited: Past Articles Today, which started in the
October 2006 issue. Both features appear once a year in the October issue.
Readings on L2 Reading: Publications in Other Venues offers an archive of articles published in

other venues during the previous year and will serve as a valuable tool to readers of RFL.
Articles may treat any topic within the scope of RFL and second language reading. Articles are
organized by topic. This feature includes titles of the articles as well as brief summaries. Two
additional sections include a list of books, volumes, and dissertations that treat second language
reading. For more information, please contact the editor for this feature, Cindy Brantmeier, an
Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics and Spanish, Washington University in St. Louis.
RFL readers are requested to send to Dr. Brantmeier titles of appropriate articles. Please include
all relevant information such as author(s), journal, date of publication, and, if possible, a brief
summary. Please send to cbrantme@wustl.edu
RFL Revisited: Past Articles Today brings past RFL articles and reprises them in current issues.
In order to find articles that still attract attention, we look at the number of hits that previous
articles receive. When we have identified an article, we ask the original author to comment on
the article as well as to have others comment on it.
Submission Guidelines
Please list the names, institutions, e-mail addresses, and if applicable, World Wide Web
addresses (URLs), of all authors. Also include a brief biographical statement (maximum 50
words, in sentence format) for each author. (This information will be removed when the articles
are distributed for blind review.) All submissions may be submitted in the following formats: (a)
HTML files, (b) Microsoft Word documents, (c) RTF documents, (d) ASCII text. If a different
format is required in order to better handle foreign language fonts, please consult with the editors.
Submissions can be transmitted in either of the following ways:
1. By electronic mail: Send the main document and any accompanying files (images, etc.) to
readfl@hawaii.edu
2. By mail: Send the material on a disk to the following address:
RFL
NFLRC
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
1859 East-West Road, #106
Honolulu, HI 96822
USA
Please check the General Publication Policies below for additional guidelines.

General Publication Policies
The following policies apply to all articles, reviews, and commentaries:
1. All submissions must conform to the requirements of the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th edition). Authors are responsible for the accuracy of references
and citations, which must be in APA format. Manuscripts may be rejected if they do not meet
APA requirements.
2. Manuscripts that have already been published elsewhere or are being considered for
publication elsewhere are not eligible to be considered for publication in RFL. It is the
responsibility of the author to inform the editor of the existence of any similar work that is
already published or under consideration for publication elsewhere.
3. Authors of accepted manuscripts will assign to RFL the permanent right to electronically
distribute the article.
4. The editors of RFL reserve the right to make editorial changes in any manuscript accepted for
publication for the sake of style or clarity. Authors will be consulted only if the changes are
substantial.
5. Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors, but if published after electronic
appearance, RFL will be acknowledged as the initial locus of publication.
6. The views expressed in RFL do not necessarily represent the views of the National Foreign
Language Resource Center, the University of Hawai‘i College of Language, Linguistics, and
Literature, or the University of Hawai‘i Department of Second Language Studies.
7. RFL expects authors to adhere to ethical standards for research involving human subjects. All
manuscripts submitted for consideration must meet the human subjects review established by
your institution.
RFL Guidelines for Reporting on Research
Research should generally include the following sections:
An Abstract
Five to seven keywords for index and search purposes
An Introduction:
1. stating the research issue to be investigated

2. presenting the underlying theoretical framework discussing how the research fits with
previous research

3. presenting a description of the methodological tradition in which the study was conducted for
qualitative research
4. defining the variables
5. stating the research hypotheses
A Method section:
1. describing the participants or subjects and research site

2. presenting a detailed description of data collection and analysis procedures
3. describing the apparatus or materials used
4. explaining the procedures and summarizing the steps employed in the research
A Results section:
1. presenting graphs and tables that help to explain the results

2. for quantitative research, presenting descriptive and inferential statistics used to
analyze the data, including the following: (a) the reliability of the instruments used, (b)
the statistic used, (c) statistical significance and effect size indicators of the results
obtained, (d) how all statistical assumptions were met
3. for qualitative research, data should reflect prolonged engagement, persistent

observation, and triangulation, with “thick description”
A Discussion section:
1. presenting an evaluation and interpretation of the results

2. discussing alternative explanations when appropriate
3. causal inferences should be cautiously made, and not based solely on correlational
approaches
4. results of the study should not be overly interpreted or generalized
5. linking the results obtained in the study to original hypotheses
6. presenting the implications and any limitations of the study
A Conclusion:
1. including a summary and general implications of the study

2. proposing suggestions for further research
References in APA format
Appendices of instrument(s) used

Contact RFL
Reading in a Foreign Language

National Foreign Language Resource Center
1859 East-West Road #106
Honolulu, HI 96822
USA
readfl@hawaii.edu

Volume 20, Number 1, April 2008
Editorial Board, About RFL, and Information for Contributors
From the Editors

pp. i–ii
Articles
Research on good and poor reader characteristics: Implications for L2 reading research in China
Jixian Pang
pp. 1–18
Spelling knowledge and reading development: Insights from Arab ESL learners
Michael Fender
pp. 19–42
Comparing the vocabulary of different graded-reading schemes

Udorn Wan-a-rom
pp. 43–69
Developing reading fluency: A study of extensive reading in EFL

Yurika Iwahori
pp. 70–91
Vocabulary recycling in children’s authentic reading materials: A corpus-based investigation of

narrow reading
Dee Gardner
pp. 92–122
Reviews
Cultural Practices of Literacy: Case Studies of Language, Literacy, Social Practice and Power.
Victoria Purcell-Gates (Ed.)
reviewed by Teresa Castineira
pp. 123–128
Reading Work: Literacies in the New Workplace

Mary Ellen Belfiore, Tracey A. Defoe, Sue Folinsbee, Judy Hunter, & Nancy S. Jackson (The In-
Sites Research Group)
reviewed by Helen de Silva Joyce
pp. 129–131
Reading Skills for College Students
Ophelia H. Hancock
reviewed by Zhijun Wen
pp. 132–135
External Reviewers
Jo Ann Aebersold, Nobuhiko Akamatsu, Steven Brown, Beatrice Dupuy, Mary Lee Field, Diana Frantzen,
Yao Hill, Joy Janzen, Xiangying Jiang, Keiko Koda, Angelia Lu, Marianne, Kouider Mokhtari, Hossein
Nassaji, Diana Pulido, Victoria Rodrigo, Norbert Schmitt, Ravi Sheorey, Etsuo Taguchi, Atsuko Takase
Copy Editors
Elisabeth L. Chan, Yue Guo, Nathan Johnson, Ann Johnstun, Myeong-hyeon Kim, Treela McKamey,
Mar Galindo Merino, Ju Young Min, Samantha Ng, Elizabeth Pfaff, Castle Sinicrope, Caroline Torres

Reading in a Foreign Language April 2008, Volume 20, No. 1
ISSN 1539-0578 pp. i–ii
From the Editors
This issue of Reading in a Foreign Language marks the start of its 7th year as a free scholarly
online journal at the University of Hawai‘i. We are able to maintain the journal at no cost to
subscribers, thanks to the support of the National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC),
the University of Hawai‘i College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature, and the University
of Hawai‘i Department of Second Language Studies. Their continued funding is deeply
appreciated.
As usual, we request that readers of RFL become subscribers. All subscribers have the option of
being notified through e-mail as soon as each new issue is released. We ask you to subscribe
because it will assist us in continuing to obtain institutional support for the journal, keeping it
free of charge. We keep all subscriber information confidential. So, please fill out the brief
subscription form for Reading in a Foreign Language.
We would also like to acknowledge and thank the following external reviewers who have
provided valuable comments on submitted manuscripts through March 2008: Jo Ann Aebersold,
Nobuhiko Akamatsu, Steven Brown, Beatrice Dupuy, Mary Lee Field, Diana Frantzen, Yao Hill,
Joy Janzen, Xiangying Jiang, Keiko Koda, Angelia Lu, Marianne, Kouider Mokhtari, Hossein
Nassaji, Diana Pulido, Victoria Rodrigo, Norbert Schmitt, Ravi Sheorey, Etsuo Taguchi, and
Atsuko Takase.
We would also like to thank the following copy editors:
Elisabeth L. Chan, Yue Guo, Nathan Johnson, Ann Johnstun, Myeong-hyeon Kim, Treela
McKamey, Mar Galindo Merino, Ju Young Min, Samantha Ng, Elizabeth Pfaff, Castle Sinicrope,
and Caroline Torres.
We would like to have your feedback to the articles; please feel free to contact us with your
reactions, comments and suggestions.
In this issue
Articles
Jixian Pang reviews research on good and poor reader characteristics and discusses the
implications for L2 reading research in China.
Michael Fender presents a study investigating the relationship between spelling knowledge and
reading development in the light of some insights from Arab ESL learners.
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl
From the Editors ii
Udorn Wan-a-rom compares the vocabulary of different graded-reading schemes.
Yurika Iwahori reports on a study examining the effectiveness of extensive reading on reading
rates of high school students in Japan.
Dee Gardner presents a corpus-based study on narrow reading from the perspective of
vocabulary recycling in children’s authentic reading materials.
Reviews
Teresa Castineira reviews Cultural Practices of Literacy: Case Studies of Language, Literacy,
Social Practice and Power, edited by Victoria Purcell-Gates.
Helen de Silva Joyce reviews Reading Work: Literacies in the New Workplace, by Mary Ellen
Belfiore, Tracey A. Defoe, Sue Folinsbee, Judy Hunter, and Nancy S. Jackson (The In-Sites
Research Group).
Zhijun Wen reviews Reading Skills for College Students (7th ed.), by Ophelia H. Hancock.
Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 1–18
Research on good and poor reader characteristics: Implications for L2

reading research in China
Jixian Pang
Zhejiang University
China
Abstract
In reading research, studies on good and poor reader characteristics abound. However,
these findings remain largely scattered in applied linguistics and cognitive and
educational psychology. This paper attempts to synthesize current theory and research on
the topic in the past 20 years along 3 dimensions: language knowledge and processing
ability, cognitive ability, and metacognitive strategic competence. A profile of good
readers follows a review of the literature. With a special reference to second language
(L2) reading research and pedagogy in China, the author argues that a key difference
between first language and L2 readers is that L2 readers typically have a gap between
their L2 proficiency and their knowledge or conceptual maturation, and this tension
determines to some degree the characteristics of good versus poor L2 readers. By
examining L2 reading research in the country, the author proposes some areas worth
exploring in the Chinese context.
Keywords: good and poor readers, L2 reading comprehension, research areas in L2 reading in
China
Proficiency in reading involves many variables, for example, automaticity of word recognition,
familiarity with text structure and topic, awareness of various reading strategies, and conscious
use and control of these strategies in processing a text. While a substantial body of literature has
been accumulated on these issues in both first language (L1) and second language (L2) reading,
the findings remain scattered in many diverse pieces of research, mainly within the fields of
applied linguistics and cognitive and educational psychology. This paper reviews current theory
and research on the topic and then presents a profile that summarizes the characteristics of good
readers in both L1 and L2 contexts. The studies identified have been mainly carried out in the
past 20 years or so. They reflect some major issues and concerns in reading research. A
discussion of research and pedagogical implications follows with special reference to the
Chinese L2 context.
In the current literature exploring reader behavior either directly or indirectly, a variety of terms
have been used to delineate different types of readers. These dichotomous modifiers include
proficient versus less-proficient, successful versus unsuccessful, fluent versus non-fluent, skilled
Pang: Research on good and poor reader characteristics 2
versus unskilled, and fast versus slow. While in most cases these terms are used interchangeably
by various authors, this paper adopts a more holistic dichotomous pair of good versus poor
readers because terms like fluent and non-fluent can refer to some specific attribute of reader
behavior. Using a more general term has the advantage of encompassing various specific
attributes of the reading comprehension process. The labels of good reader and poor reader as
used here are certainly not conclusive terms because good or poor reading behavior is only
evoked depending on various factors such as the time of reading and the complexity and the
topic of a text. Therefore, readers exhibit characteristics that may be good or poor at different
times and to varying degrees on different dimensions. Labeling them as good or poor is only a
relative and idealized conceptualization of desirable or undesirable reading behavior. For that
reason, the good and poor reader dichotomy is better viewed as being situated on a continuum
with extremely good readers at one end and extremely poor readers at the other. The concept of
poor readers as used here refers to normal individuals in comparison with other normal readers in
their reading proficiency; it does not refer to readers classified as dyslexics.
The sections that follow focus on good reader characteristics and discuss poor characteristics
only when necessary to clarify the good characteristics. Many variables are related to the topic,
such as situational and personal factors; however, this paper is limited to a discussion of readers’
abilities in terms of three dimensions: linguistic, cognitive, and metacognitive. Linguistic
knowledge and processing ability refer to readers’ formal knowledge of vocabulary, syntax, and
discourse and their abilities to use this knowledge in their interaction with texts. Cognitive ability
is concerned with readers’ use of prior knowledge and various strategies in their efforts to
construct meaning in the comprehension process. Metacognitive strategic competence reflects
readers’ monitoring and control of reading strategies. The boundary between the latter two
abilities may not always be clear-cut (Cohen, 1998), and they both represent conscious actions
taken by readers to understand and interpret the text. All three layers of ability can be seen as
arranged in a hierarchy with linguistic knowledge and processing ability as a foundation layer in
which cognitive and metacognitive abilities have important roles to play. They should also be
seen as interacting with one another simultaneously when a reader attempts to construct a
coherent mental representation of textual input during the comprehension process.
Language Knowledge and Processing Ability
Good L1 Readers
A general consensus in reading research is that linguistic knowledge and ability play a
prerequisite role in the comprehension process. In word recognition, a huge body of research,
mainly from the fields of cognitive and educational psychology, using sophisticated computer
and eye-tracking technologies, has repeatedly indicated that the process at this level is rapid,
accurate, and automatic in good readers (Just & Carpenter, 1987; Pressley, 1998; Rayner, 1997;
Stanovich, 2000; West, Stanovich, & Cunningham, 1995). For example, research by Just and
Carpenter (1987) discovered that good readers process over 80% of content words and 40% of
function words on the page. They also found that one factor that distinguishes good from poor
readers is the automaticity of word recognition. Booth, Perfetti, and MacWhinney (1999) also
claimed that good readers are proficient in word recognition skills. In their study, readers were

required to react to non-word primes and target words presented to them for a certain duration of
time. They learned that good readers activated letter and phonemic information more efficiently
than poor readers and that this activation was achieved automatically without strategic control.
Pressley (1998) also noted that when good L1 readers are reading to learn material they read
about 200 words per minute. But when they read in a more relaxed manner, they read at a rate
between 250 and 300 words per minute, which translates to about four to five words per second.
Furthermore, good readers typically do this in an effortless manner without resorting to guessing
or making use of context and background knowledge.
Thus, the general view is that rapid processing and automaticity in word recognition is a
fundamental requirement for fluent reading. This view is consonant with an earlier position
expressed by Stanovich (1980) when, after a review of a large number of studies, he questioned
hypothesis-testing models (see Goodman, 1967; Smith, 1973):
[The hypothesis-testing models] require implausible assumptions about the relative

speeds of the processes involved. . . . It seems unlikely that a hypothesis based on
complex syntactic and semantic analyses can be formed in less than the few hundred
milliseconds that is required for a fluent reader to recognize most words. . . . Fluent
readers do not use conscious expectancies to facilitate word recognition. (pp. 34–35)
Perfetti (1985) elucidated the importance of automaticity in word recognition by saying that
decoding and comprehension compete for available short-term memory capacity. Good readers
are able to use less capacity to analyze visual stimuli, allowing for more cognitive processing
capacity to be directed to comprehension processes at other levels.
In comparison with solid findings at the word recognition level in good L1 readers, research is
relatively scarce on other aspects of linguistic knowledge readers have. Research seems to have
concentrated on readers’ vocabulary knowledge and the effects of text organization on readers’
comprehension processes. For vocabulary, Alderson (2000) noted that the vocabulary size of
good L1 readers ranges from 10,000 to 100,000 words. Readers’ vocabulary knowledge highly
correlates with their proficiency level in reading and is “the single best predictor of text
comprehension” (p. 35). While not specifically referring to good readers’ vocabulary size, Grabe
and Stoller (2002, p. 77), in their review of other studies, also noted that L1 readers finishing
secondary school have a large recognition vocabulary in the range of 40,000 words and that good
readers can recognize 98–100% of all words in a text at some basic meaning level. For basic
linguistic processes, Carver’s rauding theory (1992) claimed that an approximate rate of 300
wpm is most efficient for typical college students across a wide range of difficulty levels of
reading materials. Carver argued that it “would not seem appropriate for good readers to adjust
their rate as materials decrease in difficulty, because it would be inefficient to do so” (p. 85).
Readers maximize their efficiency of reading a prose text by maintaining the optimal rate
(Carver, 1993). To sum up, the size of a vocabulary, together with an ability to rapidly and
automatically recognize words, is an important predicator of fluent reading comprehension.
Knowledge of text type and organization is believed to have a facilitative effect on reading
comprehension. Commander and Stanwyck (1997) reported on a study that investigated the
comprehension monitoring of expository text in adult L1 readers. One of their findings was

concerned with the recall of superordinate and subordinate ideas in short and longer texts. They
found that good readers demonstrated more accurate recall of superordinate ideas regardless of
text length than poor readers did. For recall of subordinate ideas, however, while good readers
did better than poor readers on short texts, poor readers outperformed good readers on longer
texts. Commander and Stanwyck suggested that good readers have a good knowledge of
structural elements of text and therefore have more accurate recall of the main ideas in the text.
Poor readers, on the other hand, focus on details at the expense of missing main ideas. Beck,
Mckeown, Sinatra, and Loxterman (1991) investigated the effect of varied text structures on
reading comprehension. They revised school history texts based on a cognitive processing
perspective (e.g., clarifying, elaborating, making given and new information more explicit). By
asking students to answer comprehension questions and do free-recalls of the texts, they found
that students understood the revised text much better than the original version. Their result
demonstrates the positive role of familiarity with discourse organization in enhancing the
reader’s comprehension processing. These findings are in agreement with the results of some
earlier studies (e.g., Meyer & Rice, 1982, 1984).
Good L2 Readers
Much like research findings for good L1 readers, a considerable number of studies in the L2
setting have pointed to the even more important role of language knowledge and processing
ability in good L2 readers (Fraser, 2004).
In a study of higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced reading

comprehension in English as a second language (ESL), Nassaji (2003) found lower-level
processes like word recognition, in addition to higher-level syntactic and semantic processes,
contributed significantly to the distinction between skilled and less-skilled ESL readers. He
concluded that efficient lower-level word recognition processes are integral components of L2
reading comprehension, and these processes must not be neglected even in highly advanced ESL
readers. Poor L2 readers are slower in word recognition and generally weak at rapid and
automatic syntactic processing because they “develop an overt knowledge of L2 grammatical
structures before they become fluent L2 readers” (Grabe & Stoller, 2002, p. 23). Chen (1998), in
his proficiency constrained model of Chinese readers of English as a foreign language (EFL) in
comprehending ambiguous English sentences, demonstrated that poor L2 readers are particularly
weak in processing more complex ambiguous sentences. He held that this weakness resulted
from their lack of syntactic knowledge in the target language, which constrained their reading
comprehension. Parry (1991) conducted a detailed longitudinal study of four college students
learning vocabulary in an academic setting over 2 years. One of her findings was that guessing
word meaning from context is not a successful strategy in students’ vocabulary development.
Although her study was not initially aimed at discovering characteristics of good readers, Parry’s
study did reveal that in respect to vocabulary growth, successful readers guess less but simply
read much more, thus exposing themselves to many more words in meaningful contexts. As for
vocabulary size for fluent L2 reading in the Dutch context, Hazenburg and Hulstijn (1996)
maintained that an L2 Dutch reader needs a minimum of 10,000 headwords to read university-
level texts successfully.
At lexical and syntactic levels, Barnett (1986), by using a recall procedure, examined

intermediate-level English-speaking readers’ abilities to comprehend a French text. She found

that readers’ recalls increased in accordance with their levels of vocabulary and syntactic
proficiency. She pointed out that both syntactic and vocabulary proficiency affect reading
comprehension but unduly stressing vocabulary-building or inferencing skills may not help those
students who lack adequate syntactic knowledge (p. 346). Chen’s (1998) study of Chinese
college EFL readers’ comprehension when processing simple ambiguous sentences revealed
little difference in comprehension between good and poor readers. However, good readers
performed much better than poor readers in processing more complex ambiguous sentences. An
L2 reader’s linguistic proficiency is therefore a key factor that constrains the reader’s text
comprehension. The Chinese college EFL readers can be considered to belong to an L2
intermediate proficiency group with a vocabulary size of about 3,000–4,000 words. Liu and
Bever (2002) also involved Chinese EFL college students as participants in their experiment to
investigate the role of syntactic analysis in reading comprehension. One of their findings was
that good readers did not exhibit apparent effort to use syntactic analysis in their comprehension
processes. They accounted for this result by claiming that good readers were able to process
sentences in a quick and subconscious manner because of their high L2 proficiency. In contrast,
poor L2 competence can severely constrain the development of readers’ abilities in cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use, thus affecting their reading comprehension.
In looking at inference generation during reading comprehension, a number of researchers (e.g.,

Barry & Lazarte, 1998; Hammadou, 1991; Lu, 1999) have claimed that L2 readers’ language
proficiencies have a direct impact on inference generation in L2 reading. For example,
Hammadou reported that readers with high L2 proficiencies were much better at making
appropriate inferences than readers with low language proficiencies. In addition, only readers
with high language proficiency were successful at identifying causal structures in the text. Lu,
after studying a group of five Chinese EFL learners’ processes of reading expository texts using
think-aloud protocols, also claimed that L2 linguistic proficiency had a decisive effect on
inference generation and on the construction and integration of propositional meaning at both the
sentential and discoursal levels.
As in good L1 readers, a knowledge of discourse organization contributes positively to reading

comprehension in the L2 context. According to Carrell (1985, 1987), when the content is kept
constant but the rhetorical structure is varied, good L2 readers recognize the discourse structures
much better than poor readers, which helps good readers significantly in their understanding of
text. In another study by Carrell (1992), 45 high-intermediate ESL students in an American
university participated. They were presented with two texts of different discourse organizations;
after reading, they were each required to provide a written recall and to explain the discourse
pattern of the texts. She observed that the good readers were those who were more aware of the
discourse organization of the original texts to recall information and who could also better
describe the patterns of the texts. This study further validated the facilitative role that discourse
organization plays in L2 learners’ reading comprehension. Good readers are more sensitive to the
structural elements of the text, which helps them to remember the main idea of the text and
comprehend better (Commander & Stanwyck, 1997).

Cognitive Ability
Good L1 Readers
Recent reading research and practice have witnessed a shift of focus from texts to readers and
their reading strategies (i.e., a reader-centered approach to reading research). This focus has led
to a better appreciation of readers’ reading processes and their uses of strategies in decoding and
building mental representations of texts.
The two terms skills and strategies can be confusing. However, a skill is generally accepted to be
an acquired ability that operates largely subconsciously, whereas a strategy is a conscious
procedure carried out to solve problems in the comprehension process. The relationship between
skills and strategies has been expounded on by Paris, Wasik, and Turner (1991), who claimed
that “an emerging skill can become a strategy when it is used intentionally. Likewise, a strategy
can ‘go underground’ and become a skill” (p. 611). Carrell, Gajdusek, and Wise (1998) provided
a summary of strategies proposed by some of the major studies in the area (e.g., Block, 1986;
Carrell, 1985, 1992; Hosenfeld, 1977; Zvetina, 1987).
In a study involving high and low achievers, and by implication, good and poor readers, Hopkins
and Mackay (1997) found that good readers often have more ready access to a variety of
purposeful reading strategies to undertake reading tasks successfully and that they use them with
greater frequency and flexibility. They are active in making inferences and using dictionaries to
resolve uncertainty about the meanings of words or larger units of discourse. Long, Seely, Oppy,
and Golding (1996) conducted an experiment to examine the relationship between reading ability
and inferential processing. Their results indicated that good readers encode knowledge-based
inferences that poor readers fail to encode and that good readers are able to construct
representations that are consistent with the topic of a text.
Good readers appear to learn and recall more important text information using a selective
attention strategy. Reynolds, Shepard, Lepan, Cynthia, and Goetz (1990) reported two
experiments that investigated the reasons for the good readers’ recalling and learning advantage.
Their results showed that good readers are able to learn and recall more important information
because they are more aware of how and when to use this selective attention strategy. They are
also able to use significantly more conceptual attention in relation to perceptual attention while
reading.1 In examining the roles of reading processes and prior knowledge in college students’
reprocessing of expository text, Haenggi and Perfetti (1992) found that while text reprocessing
helped average readers to compensate for language shortfalls in answering text-implicit
questions, good readers combined more text information with their prior knowledge bases. Prior
knowledge was found to be relatively more important than working memory for explicit and
implicit information. In a strategy training study that focused on guiding learners to become
strategic readers rather than users of individual strategies, Brown, Pressley, van Meter, and
Schuder (1996) were able to show that the greater strategy awareness and use by readers, the
better their performance in reading comprehension. They demonstrated that good readers, by
orchestrating strategies in a flexible manner as strategic readers, were able to provide more
elaborate interpretations of a text. Grabe and Stoller (2002) made a convincing observation
regarding autonomous processing in readers:

Using strategies effectively does not typically involve conscious decisions on the part of
the fluent reader. Strategic readers are able to verbalize consciously the strategies that
they use when asked to reflect, but they usually do not think consciously of these
strategic choices because they have used them effectively so often. (p. 82)
Good L2 Readers
Interest in reading strategy studies is mainly derived from instructional research, and this is
particularly true of the fields of ESL and EFL. Researchers and teachers recognize that strategy
training is an effective way of improving reading and that good readers are strategic readers.
Since the late 1970s, many researchers have studied strategies in L2 contexts (e.g., Anderson,
1991; Block, 1986, 1992; Carrell et al., 1998; Hosenfeld, 1977, 1984; Sheorey & Mokhtari,
2001). As one of the pioneering researchers in L2 reading strategies, Hosenfeld used the think-
aloud protocol and attempted to create inventories of good versus poor reading strategies based
on a series of studies (1977, 1984). Some examples of her good reading strategies are (a) keeping
the meaning of the text in mind, (b) reading in broad phrases, (c) skipping inessential words, (d)
guessing from context the meaning of unknown words, (e) having a good self-concept as a reader,
(f) reading the title and making inferences from it, and (g) continuing if unsuccessful at decoding
a word or phrase (Hosenfeld, pp. 233–234).
In a much quoted study on comprehension strategies of L2 readers, Block (1986) found that four
characteristics differentiated good from poor readers. They are (a) integration; (b) recognition of
aspects of text structure; (c) use of general knowledge, personal experiences, and associations;
and (d) response in extensive versus reflexive modes. When in a reflexive mode, readers tend to
shift their attention away from text information towards themselves in an affective and personal
way. When readers focus on the author’s ideas expressed in the text instead of relating the text to
themselves personally and affectively, they are said to be in an extensive mode. Good L2 readers
react to a text in an extensive mode by integrating information and monitoring their
understanding consistently and effectively. Other good L2 reader characteristics in terms of
strategy use include the use of meaning-based cues to evaluate what they have understood, a
focus on intersentential consistency, and the maintenance of an evaluative and critical attitude
towards the text (Block, 1992).
The use of prior knowledge to aid reading comprehension in good readers is also recognized as a
factor in comprehension (Bernhardt, 1991; Brantmeier, 2004; Haenggi & Perfetti, 1992; Spires
& Donley, 1998). Alderson and Urquhart (1985) found that a discipline-specific text on content
knowledge affects the measure of reading comprehension. Chen and Graves (1995), in a study on
the effect of providing background knowledge before reading with university students (N = 243)
in Taiwan, also provided evidence of the positive effect of background knowledge on EFL
learners’ reading comprehension. However, some studies have also documented cases where
poor L2 readers often wrongly used their prior knowledge to compensate for their target
language deficiencies (e.g., Lu, 1999).
Strategy use does not differ much across L1 and L2 reading, and both good L1 and L2 readers

report using more strategies than poor readers (Block, 1986; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). This
observation was echoed by Anderson (1991) in his claim that good L2 readers use many more
total strategies than poor readers. If anything is special and unique in L2 reading strategy use, it
is the use of the L1, a strategy that is often considered undesirable in L2 reading comprehension.
Reading in the L2 is certainly not a monolingual matter. Upton and Lee-Thompson (2001)
asserted that L2 readers, more than doing mental translation, actively tap their mother tongue
resources to help them “wrestle with and reflect on meaning as they read an L2 text” (p. 471).
They posited that “as L2 proficiency increases, the supportive (i.e., beneficial) use of the L1
increases, while at the same time the cognitive reliance on these strategies (i.e., the need to think
about the text in the L1) declines” (p. 488).
By the “supportive use of L1,” the authors meant that when the L2 reading comprehension
process is generally automatic, reliance on the L1 only occurs when processing shifts from
automatic to controlled, that is, when a reader encounters difficulties in understanding. Kern
(1994) made a similar observation after he studied mental translation as a reading strategy in the
L2. While admitting that mental translation could be a strategy of poor L2 readers, he observed
that this strategy helps L2 readers to simplify processing demands, better solve comprehension
problems, and gain accurate comprehension of the text. L1 and L2 reading performance
significantly correlate. Pichette, Segalowitz, and Connors (2004) reported on a study on the
impact of maintaining L1 reading skills on L2 reading skill development in adult speakers of
Serbo-Croatian learning French. Their study shows that maintaining L1 reading enhances the
transfer of reading skills. From the above discussion, good L2 readers may also be said to be
skillful users of their L1s in that they are well aware of when and how to turn to an L1 for help to
maximize text comprehension. Thinking in an L2 while reading is not impossible and is even
desirable; nonetheless, it would be unusual for good readers not to use their mother tongues to
aid comprehension if a need exists.
Metacognitive Strategic Competence
Good L1 Readers
Flavell (1978), the first to propose the concept of metacognition, viewed it as consisting of two
dimensions: knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Carrell et al. (1998) elaborated
on this:
In reading, the two key metacognitive factors, knowledge and control, are concerned
respectively with what readers know about their cognitive resources and their regulation.
Regulation in reading includes the awareness of and ability to detect contradictions in a
text, knowledge of different strategies to use with different text types, and the ability to
separate important from unimportant information. (p. 101)
Examples of specific metacognitive strategies may include (a) establishing objectives in reading,
(b) evaluating reading materials, (c) repairing miscomprehension, (d) evaluating the developing
understanding of text, (e) analyzing the text and paragraph structure to clarify the author’s
intention, (f) adjusting reading speed and selecting cognitive strategies accordingly, and (g)

engaging in self-questioning to determine if the objectives have been reached (Carrell et al., 1998,
pp. 100–101). Thus reading is a metacognitive process as well as a cognitive process. While
cognitive strategies refer to deliberate actions that readers take in their efforts to understand texts,
metacognitive strategies emphasize the monitoring and regulative mechanisms that readers
consciously use to enhance comprehension.
In a study that investigated whether knowledge of cognition affected regulation of cognition,

Gregory (1994) asked a group of college students to complete a reading comprehension test and
at the same time to monitor their local (i.e., during testing) and global (i.e., after testing)
performance. He found that good readers (self-appraised high monitors, in the author’s term)
performed much better on the comprehension test and were more confident and accurate when
evaluating their test performance both locally and globally, indicating a positive effect of
knowledge of cognition on reading performance. Gregory concluded by claiming that most
college students possessed metacognitive knowledge but a large proportion failed to use this
knowledge to improve their on-line regulation of performance. In another study, Karen and
Evans (1993) investigated the use of the selective rereading strategy to regulate understanding.
Students were presented with texts containing referential and factual coherence problems, and
their reading time and text memory were examined. The authors found that all students detected
textual problems and reread sentences with coherence problems longer. However, in contrast to
poor readers who reread more than good readers, good readers were better able to selectively
direct their rereading to text coherence problems and had better text memory than poor readers.
Long and Chong (2001) investigated good and poor readers’ maintenance of global coherence
during reading. They disconfirmed the hypothesis that poor readers fail to maintain global
coherence because they fail to activate prior text information. Instead, their result showed that
poor readers activated relevant knowledge during reading but failed to integrate it into their
developing representations of the input text.
Current research findings on good readers seem to converge on the belief that good readers are
strategic. Strategic readers are able not only to use various strategies skillfully but also to
monitor and regulate their strategy use with reference to the on-going comprehension process.
Good L2 Readers
Comprehension monitoring competence is particularly crucial in the L2 context. With limited

linguistic knowledge, L2 readers often have to use more cognitive strategies to decode the
meaning of text, and at the same time, comprehension monitoring is critical to ensure effective
and efficient use of strategies.
Yang and Zhang (2002) reported on a study that investigated the correlation between
metacognition and EFL reading comprehension of Chinese college students. Third-year college
students (N = 125) participated in the study that examined metacognition, EFL reading
comprehension, and EFL proficiency. The authors found that the readers’ general EFL
proficiency correlated with their reading comprehension ability at .50 (p < .01) and that their
metacognitive knowledge correlated with their reading comprehension ability at .42 (p < .01),
indicating a positive correlation between metacognitive knowledge and reading comprehension
proficiency. Their study also revealed that good readers displayed more monitoring ability than

poor readers during their on-going reading processes. For example, good readers tended to
monitor their reading processes all the time to compensate for words that had not been
previously decoded. They also appeared to be more sensitive to inconsistencies in the text than
poor readers and responded to them appropriately. The authors concluded that English language
proficiency and metacognitive awareness affect reading comprehension ability in Chinese
college EFL readers. Also, readers’ metacognition has an impact on both EFL proficiency and
EFL reading performance. When discussing the relationship between vocabulary and
metacognitive knowledge in the L2 context, Schoonen, Hulstijn, and Bossers (1998) asserted that
vocabulary knowledge has a greater influence on L2 reading than on L1 reading. This is
especially the case at the lower level of processing. However, when L2 readers reach higher
proficiency levels, metacognitive knowledge begins to play a greater role in comprehension.
A reasonable conclusion is that good L2 readers, apart from a sound L2 language base, need a
high degree of metacognitive awareness to make their comprehension processing more efficient
and effective.
A Profile of Good Readers
The above discussion indicates that many good reader characteristics are common to both L1 and
L2 readers. Although L1 and L2 reading have differences, which Grabe and Stoller (2002) have
convincingly identified, the fact that many more characteristics are shared than not between the
two types of good readers is reasonable: Good L2 readers seem to make every effort to
approximate the linguistic proficiency and repertoire of skills and strategies found in good L1
readers. A profile of good readers based on the interpretation of the previous literature on three
dimensions is presented in Table 1.
When proposing a profile of good readers, I acknowledge the similarity of characteristics

between good L1 and L2 readers. However, I argue that the demands placed on them to reach the
goal of being good readers are different. To begin with, a good L2 reader must have a sound
target language base that often takes much more time and effort to form than it does for L1
readers. In other words, L2 readers need to cross the so-called language threshold to be able to
develop and apply cognitive and metacognitive strategies in the L2 reading context. At this point,
they will also be able to take advantage of being conceptually well-developed adults and make
full use of the cognitive and metacognitive strategies already acquired in their L1 to compensate
for the possible deficiencies in their L2 and to achieve maximum comprehension in their reading.
This view is consonant with Berhnhardt’s (2005) compensatory model of L2 reading, in which
knowledge sources assist other sources that are deficient or non-existent (cf. the interactive
compensatory model of reading proposed by Stanovich, 1980).
Commenting on the differences between L1 and L2 reading, Grabe and Stoller (2002, p. 63)
outlined 14 broad differences, which they placed into three categories: (a) linguistic and
processing differences, (b) individual and experiential differences, and (c) social, cultural, and
institutional differences. However, if one major variable seems to have influence over other
variables in distinguishing L1 readers from L2 readers, and if that in turn determines to some
degree characteristics of good versus poor L2 readers, then that variable is the tension between

the L2 readers’ target language proficiency and their general knowledge or conceptual
maturation. In L1 readers, language proficiency and knowledge maturation develop naturally and
concurrently, whereas in L2 readers, the target language proficiency lags far behind their
knowledge or conceptual maturation, and the gap between the two could be immense. This
tension will inevitably make a huge impact on overall L2 reading ability development, giving
rise to problems or characteristics that make it different from L1 reading.
Table 1. A profile of good readers

Dimensions Characteristics
Language Automatic and rapid word recognition (e.g., Booth et al., 1999; Just &
knowledge and Carpenter, 1987; Nassaji, 2003; Perfetti,1985; Pressley, 1998)
processing ability Automatic syntactic parsing and semantic proposition formation (e.g.,
Chen, 1998; Fraser, 2004; Liu & Bever, 2002; Lu, 1999)
Reasonable size of vocabulary ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 (e.g.,
Alderson, 2000; Barnett, 1986; Carver, 1993; Grabe & Stoller, 2002)
Awareness of text type and discourse organization (e.g., Beck et al.,
1991; Brantmeier, 2004; Carrell, 1992; Commander & Stanwyck, 1997)
Cognitive ability Good store of cognitive strategies (e.g., Block, 1986; Carrell, 1985,
1992; Grabe, 1999)
Ready access to variety of purposeful strategies (Hopkins & Mackay,
1997; Long et al., 1996; Yang & Zhang, 2002)
Higher and proficient use of strategies (Anderson, 1991; Grabe &
Stoller, 2002; Haenggi & Perfetti, 1992; Reynolds et al., 1990)
Effective use of prior knowledge (e.g., Bernhardt, 1991; Chen & Groves,
1995; Haenggi & Perfetti, 1992)
Supportive use of mother tongue in L2 (e.g., Kern, 1994; Upton & Lee-
Thompson, 2001)
Metacognitive Good knowledge of cognition (e.g., Carrell et al., 1998; Gregory, 1994)
strategic Competence in monitoring comprehension process (e.g., Karen & Evans,
competence 1993; Yang & Zhang, 2002)
Competence in evaluating and regulating strategy use to achieve
maximum comprehension (e.g., Gregory, 1994; Karen & Evans, 1993;
Long & Chong, 2001)
New Research Directions in L2 Reading in China
Before research and pedagogical implications are drawn from the previous discussion, L2
reading research reported in the past 10 years in five relevant scholarly journals in China will be
reviewed. Journals that are specifically devoted to reading research are still lacking, and the five
journals examined consist of four journals in foreign language teaching and research and one in
educational psychology. According to the nature of the work completed, the papers fall roughly
into three categories: theoretical explorations, empirical investigations, and literature reviews.
The number of published papers of these three types is shown in Table 2. The topics explored in
those papers are described in Table 3.

Table 2. Number of papers in L2 reading research published in five journals in China (January
1997–June 2007)
Journals Theoretical Empirical Literature Total
explorations studies reviews
Foreign Language Teaching and Research 0 11 2 13
Modern Foreign Languages 2 10 0 12
Foreign Language World 18 22 6 46
Studies in Foreign Languages 7 4 0 11
Psychological Science 3 80 8 91
Subtotal 30 127 16 173
Table 3. Topics explored in L2 reading research in five journals in China (January 1997–June 2007)
Topics explored Number of published papers
Word-level issues in reading development 20
Discourse organization and text comprehension 32
Transfer of reading ability from L1 to L2 6
Reading development and instructional routines 43
Strategies, metacognition, and text comprehension 41
Extensive reading and motivation 15
Social and cultural context influences on reading 16
Total 173
Although the information in the above two tables is derived from a sample of five journals, it
reflects the status quo of L2 reading research in the country and thus suggests new research
directions that are worthy of exploration in the Chinese L2 context. The total number of studies
carried out on L2 reading research is relatively small, considering the span of 10 years.
Nevertheless, 127 (about 73%) of the 173 papers reported on empirical studies, which is an
encouraging sign. Thirty papers (about 17%) are devoted to theoretical explorations. Theorizing
is certainly important for disciplinary development. However, quite a number of papers in this
category are devoted to sharing personal and anecdotal experiences rather than dealing with
theoretical issues. As for the research topic explored, an imbalance and lack of research is clear
in certain areas. Although the research issues range widely, four general areas seem particularly
worth exploring in the present L2 reading research in China: (a) word-level issues in L2 reading
development, (b) exposure to print in L2 reading development, (c) training of a strategic reader,
and (d) the relationship between instruction and testing.
1. Word-Level Issues in L2 Reading Development
The review of previous studies and the analysis of the tension between the L2 readers’ target
language proficiency and their conceptual maturation have repeatedly indicated the utmost
importance of L2 readers’ target language proficiency. However, studies on these topics are
seriously lacking (only 11% of the papers have dealt with these issues). Studies on L2 readers’
lexical access, syntactic parsing, and the effect of automaticity training are therefore urgently
needed. Another important area of research is readers’ vocabulary development. According to
the newly issued National English Curriculum Standards for General Education (Ministry of
Education, 2001), the vocabulary requirement for high school graduates has risen from about
2,000 to 3,300 words. 2 In the current national college entrance examination in English (of which
the reading comprehension section makes up 40% of the total score), however, the required

English vocabulary is about 2,000 words, which is specified in accordance with the old “National
English Syllabus.” Testing the reading ability of a conceptually well-developed high-school
graduate with texts of about 2,000 word coverage certainly seems out of place. In the Chinese
EFL context, poor readers are often accused of being word-bound, and as a training strategy,
they are encouraged to guess from the context to aid comprehension. As is discussed elsewhere
in this paper, this is somewhat misleading. Poor readers are word-bound not because they lack
top-down skills, but instead because they lack sufficient large vocabularies and lack automaticity
in word recognition skills. All these issues need empirical investigation so as to inform policy-
making and pedagogy.
2. Exposure to Print in L2 Reading Development
Related to the first topic are the studies on the amount of exposure to print and the roles of
extensive reading in L2 reading development. These issues are important to L2 reading settings.
From the standpoint of second language acquisition, reading provides a readily available and
most important input of the language for learners in a context like China, where the
environmental support is poor (Pang, Zhou, & Fu, 2002). As for the difficulty level of reading
materials, Laufer (1989) proposed a 95% coverage of known words for fluent reading. I have
observed that Chinese EFL readers read few but difficult materials in terms of known vocabulary
coverage (a quick glance at some EFL course books and the popular English learning newspaper
21st Century will soon validate this claim of a high incidence of new words in reading
materials).3 L2 readers should be encouraged to read extensively, and appropriate materials
should be selected according to their language proficiency and interest (Brantmeier, 2006). The
whens and hows constitute good research topics.
3. Training of a Strategic Reader
Although some cognitive and metacognitive strategies are common to all good readers, some
strategies are unique to good Chinese L2 readers such as the use of the L1 in L2 reading. What
role does the use of the L1 play in L2 reading development? In pedagogical terms, what can be
done in the training of a strategic reader? Some major English reading course books used in
China often have strategy training parts; however, they are mostly used without the support of
empirical research. Research effort directed to these topics would certainly be useful.
4. Relationship Between Instruction and Testing
The current prevailing practice of using the multiple choice format to test reading comprehension
in both test and instructional settings reinforces conformity at the cost of variability of
understanding a text. If multiple choice is useful in testing a reader’s text model (i.e., a close
representation of text information), whether it is capable of testing a reader’s situation model (i.e.,
a reader’s interpretation of text information) is doubtful. Extensive use of the multiple choice
format especially in teaching and learning severely hinders the development of critical and
creative thinking in readers, destroying learners’ interest in reading in the long run. From a
research perspective, topics in this area will clarify confusion between instruction and testing,
generating insights for better practices in reading instruction.

Conclusion
The review of previous research on reading comprehension and the subsequent profile of good
readers presented in this paper may offer a new perspective for our understanding of reading in a
second language. In the Chinese EFL context, reading provides rich and abundant samples of L2
input, which is needed to improve learners’ overall language proficiency. From a utilitarian point
of view, reading is just what Chinese EFL learners need most both in their academic studies and
in their future work. China, reputed to have the biggest population learning English as a foreign
language in the world, offers a wide range of issues in L2 reading to be explored. The four areas
identified in this paper may provide a stimulus for Chinese scholars and others to carry out
research that will not only help China to catch up with international research development but
also help to explore theories applicable to EFL reading.
Acknowledgements
This study is partly supported by a research fellowship from the United College, the Chinese
University of Hong Kong (CUHK). I am indebted to Professor Joseph H. W. Hung from the
English Department, CUHK, for his time in discussing issues of interest regarding L2 reading
research. I am also grateful to Dr. Carol A. Fraser from the Department of English, Glendon
College, York University in Canada, for her insightful comments on an earlier draft of the
manuscript. Thanks also go to Tao Fengyun and Guan Jingyuan from Zhejiang University, China,
who helped in checking relevant data reported in this study. Finally, many thanks go to the two
anonymous reviewers for their valuable advice on the revision of the manuscript.
Notes
1. Perceptual attention and conceptual attention are two qualitatively different types of attention.
Perceptual attention is used to accurately decode words whereas conceptual attention is used to
get meaning from the text.
2. The National English Curriculum Standards for General Education (from primary to senior
high schools) was formally implemented in 2005. It stipulates that English instruction begins
from the third grade of primary school (generally pupils aged 9). It has nine levels or bands, with
the ninth band on the top (vocabulary requirement: 4,500 words). Band 9 is for schools with an
emphasis on English learning like foreign language schools. The vocabulary size for graduates
from ordinary high schools is set at the Band 8 level with 3,300 words. The previous vocabulary
size was 1,940 words, as specified in the national English syllabus before the new English
curriculum standard was issued.
3. 21st Century is a popular national English newspaper in China, its target audience being
students and others who are learning English as a foreign language.

References
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. H. (1985). The effect of students’ academic discipline on their
performance on ESP reading tests. Language Testing, 2, 192–204.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and
testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 460–472.
Barnett, M. A. (1986). Syntactic and lexical/semantic skill in foreign language reading:
Importance and interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 343–349.
Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. A. (1998). Evidence for mental models: How do prior knowledge,
syntactic complexity, and reading topic affect inference generation in a recall task for
nonnative readers of Spanish? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 176–193.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., Sinatra, G., & Loxterman, J. (1991). Revising social studies text from a
text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research
Quarterly, 26, 251–276.
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133–150.
Block, E. L. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly,
20, 463–494.
Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers.
TESOL Quarterly, 26, 319–343.
Booth, J. R., Perfetti, C. A., & MacWhinney, B. (1999). Quick, automatic, and general activation
of orthographic and phonological representations in young readers. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 3–19.
Brantmeier, C. (2004). Building a comprehensive theory of adult foreign language reading: A
variety of variables and research methods. Southern Journal of Linguistics, 27, 1–7.
Brantmeier, C. (2006). Toward a multicomponent model of interest and L2 reading: Sources of
interest, perceived situational interest, and comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language,
18, 89–115.
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation
of transactional strategy instruction with low-achieving second-grade students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 18–37.
Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19,
727–752.
Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 461–
481.
Carrell, P. L. (1992). Awareness of text structure: Effects on recall. Language Learning, 42, 1–
20.
Carrell, P. L., Gajdusek, L., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading.
Instructional Science, 26, 97–112.
Carver, R. (1992). Reading rate: Theory, research, and practical implications. Journal of Reading,
36, 84–95.
Carver, R. (1993). Merging the simple view of reading with rauding theory. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 25, 439–55.
Chen, H. (1998). Yingyu shuiping dui Zhongguo Yingyu xuexizhe lijie Yingyu jufa qiyi de

zhiyue zuoyong [Constraints of English proficiency on understanding English ambiguous

sentences in Chinese EFL learners]. Modern Foreign Languages, 2, 1–16.
Chen, H-C., & Graves, M. F. (1995). Effects of previewing and providing background
knowledge on Taiwanese college students’ comprehension of American short stories.
TESOL Quarterly, 29, 663–686.
Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.
Commander, N. E., & Stanwyck, D. J. (1997). Illusion of knowing in adult readers: Effects of
reading skill and passage length. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 39–52.
Evans, E. E. (1988). “Advanced” ESL reading: Language competence revisited. System, 16,
337–346.
Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.),
Structural/Process theories of complex human behavior (pp. 213–245). The Netherlands:
Sijthoff and Noordhoff.
Fraser, C. A. (2004). Reading fluency in a second language. The Canadian Modern Language
Journal, 61, 135–160.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading
Specialist, 6, 126–35.
Grabe, W. (1999). Developments in reading research and their implications for computer-
adaptive reading assessment. In M. Chalhoub-Deville (Ed.), Issues in computer-adaptive
testing of reading proficiency (pp. 11–48). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. London: Longman.
Gregory, S. (1994). The effect of metacognitive knowledge on local and global monitoring.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 143–154.
Haenggi, D., & Perfetti, C. A. (1992). Individual differences in reprocessing of text. Journal of
Hammadou, J. (1991). Interrelationships among prior knowledge, inference, and language
proficiency in foreign language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 27–38.
Hazenburg, S., & Hulstijn, J. H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second language
vocabulary for non-native university students: An empirical investigation. Applied
Linguistics, 17, 145–163.
Hopkins, N. M., & Mackay, R. (1997). Good and bad readers: A look at the high and low
achievers in an ESP Canadian studies reading and writing course. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 53, 473–490.
Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and
non-successful second language learners. System, 5, 110–123.
Hosenfeld, C. (1984). Case studies of ninth grade readers. In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart
(Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 231–240). London: Longman.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension.
Boston, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.
Karen, Z., & Evans, C. N. (1993). Rereading to understand: The role of text coherence and
reader proficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 442–454.
Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 16, 441–461.
Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren &
M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines, (pp.
316–323). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.

Liu, Z., & Bever, T. G. (2002). Jufa fenxi zai waiyu yueduzhong de zuoyong [An experimental
study of the function of syntactic analysis in reading comprehension]. Foreign Language
Teaching and Research, 34, 219–224.
Long, D. L., Seely, M. R., Oppy, B. J., & Golding, J. M. (1996). The role of inferential
processing in reading ability. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of
understanding text (pp. 189–214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Long, D. L., & Chong, J. L. (2001). Comprehension skill and global coherence: A paradoxical
picture of poor comprehenders’ abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1424–1429.
Lu, S. (1999). An investigation into EFL reading processes: Reading effectiveness, inference
construction, metacognitive strategy. Unpublished MA dissertation, Zhejiang University,
China.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1982). The interaction of reader strategies and the organization of
text. Text, 2, 155–92.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1984). The structure of text. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L.
Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 319–352). New York:
Longman.
Ministry of Education. (2001). Yingyu kecheng biaozhun [National English curriculum standards
for general education]. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading
comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 261–276.
Pang, J., Zhou, X., & Fu, Z. (2002). English for international trade: China enters the WTO.
World Englishes, 21, 201–216.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R.
Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research,
(Vol. 2, pp. 609–640). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Parry, K. (1991). Building a vocabulary through academic reading. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 629–
653.
Perfetti, C. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pichette, F., Segalowitz, N., & Connors, K. (2004). Impact of maintaining L1 reading skills on
L2 reading skill development in adults: Evidence from speakers of Serbo-Croatian learning
French. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 391–403.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that really works. New York: Guilford Press.
Rayner, K. (1997). Understanding eye movements in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1,
317–339.
Reynolds, R. E., Shepard, C., Lapan, R., Cynthia K., & Goetz, E. T. (1990). Differences in the
use of selective attention by more successful and less successful tenth-grade readers.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 749–759.
Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language-specific
knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: An empirical study
among Dutch students in grades 6, 8 and 10. Language Learning, 48, 71–106.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431–449.
Smith, F. (1973). Psycholinguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. D. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with
informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 249–260.

Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Towards an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in

the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new
frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.
Upton, T. A., & Lee-Thompson, L. (2001). The role of the first language in second language
reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 469–495.
West, R. F., Stanovich, K., & Cunningham, A. (1995). Compensatory progresses in reading. In R.
Dixon & L. Backman (Eds.), Compensating for psychological deficits and declines:
Managing losses and promoting gain (pp. 275–296). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yang, X., & Zhang, W. (2002). Yuanrenzhi yu Zhongguo daxuesheng Yingyu yuedu lijie
xiangguan yanjiu [The correlation between metacognition and EFL reading comprehension
of Chinese college students]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 34, 213–218.
Zvetina, M. (1987). From research to pedagogy: What do L2 reading studies suggest? Foreign
Language Annals, 20, 233–238.
About the Author
Pang Jixian is a professor of English and Applied Linguistics at the School of International
Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China. His research interests
include L2 reading, discourse analysis, research methods in applied linguistics, and English for
specific purposes. He supervises postgraduate students in linguistics and applied linguistics at
both MA and PhD levels.
E-mail: pjx2001@zju.edu.cn

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 19–42
Spelling knowledge and reading development: Insights from Arab ESL

learners
Michael Fender
California State University, Long Beach
United States
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between spelling knowledge
and reading skills among a group of 16 intermediate-level Arab learners of English as a
second language (ESL) and a corresponding comparison group of 21 intermediate-level
ESL learners in an English for academic purposes (EAP) program. A spelling task was
used to assess the English orthographic or spelling knowledge, and standardized reading
and listening tests were used to assess the general language processing and
comprehension skills of the two groups. The results of the tests indicated that the Arab
and non-Arab ESL students were not significantly different in listening (or auding)
comprehension, but that the Arab students scored significantly lower on the spelling test
and the reading comprehension test. This study discusses possible reasons why Arab ESL
learners may exhibit difficulties with English spelling and then discusses the link between
spelling knowledge and the development of reading fluency.
Keywords: ESL, word recognition, reading fluency, orthographic knowledge, spelling

development
Over the past several years, English as a second language (ESL) practitioners in English for
academic purposes (EAP) programs along with ESL researchers have noted a discrepancy in the
emergence of oral and aural English language skills and the emergence of English literacy skills
among Arab ESL students (Fender, 2003; Milton & Hopkins, 2006; Ryan, 1997; Ryan & Meara,
1991). The anecdotal evidence from general observations seems to indicate that Arab ESL
learners exhibit more difficulties in developing ESL reading and literacy skills relative to other
ESL learner populations; in contrast, Arab ESL learners seem to perform relatively well in the
development of listening and speaking skills. This discrepancy suggests that Arab ESL learners
may experience difficulties acquiring aspects of English literacy, namely, orthographic or
spelling representations of English words. Difficulties acquiring English spelling knowledge not
only affect word recognition skills but also constrain ESL reading skills. The present study
examines the spelling, reading comprehension, and listening comprehension skills of a group of
intermediate-level ESL Arab learners and a comparison group of non-Arab ESL learners to
examine whether Arab ESL learners exhibit more significant difficulties in spelling and reading
skills than other ESL learners. The study is aimed not only at examining the particular needs and
Fender: Spelling knowledge and reading development 20
challenges that Arab ESL students seem to face in acquiring English literacy skills but also to
better understand the nature of spelling development and how it relates to reading fluency. The
study will also explore and discuss reasons for the spelling difficulties that Arab ESL learners
exhibit, as well as the implications for pedagogical interventions.
Word Recognition and Reading Fluency: The Spelling Connection
First Language (L1) English Word Recognition Fluency and Reading Skill
There has been a considerable amount of research that has established the importance of word
recognition skills in reading. L1 reading research has shown that fluent reading involves direct
eye-fixations on most words in a text, and in particular, a vast majority of semantic content
words; consequently, the predominant reocurring process in fluent reading involves word
recognition and identification (Ehri, 2005; Perfetti, 1984; Rayner, 1998). L1 reading researchers
have also established that proficient readers have significantly faster and more accurate word
recognition skills than age-matched poor readers (Juel, 1988; Perfetti, 1985; Stanovich, 1980).
Due to these and other research findings, reading researchers have concluded that word
recognition processes must function rapidly and efficiently so that attention and resources can be
utilized for higher-level reading comprehension processes beyond the word-level which are
necessary to extract semantic propositions, generate inferences, and build a coherent situation
model or text base (Ehri, 2005; Perfetti, 1985; Perfetti & Hart, 2001; Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989).
ESL Word Recognition Fluency and ESL Reading Skills
Much like the L1 reading research, second language (L2) in general and ESL reading research in
particular have also found that word recognition efficiency is essential for the development of L2
and ESL reading proficiency and comprehension (Koda, 1996, 2005). Research conducted with
children and adults at all levels of ESL reading proficiency shows that the emergence of ESL
word recognition abilities involving phonological and orthographic decoding skills plays a major
role in ESL reading development, and that is in part independent of ESL oral language
proficiency and general vocabulary knowledge (Chiappe, Glaeser, & Ferko, 2007; Geva &
Zadeh, 2006; Koda, 2005; Nassaji, 2003). For example, skills like phonemic awareness and word
naming speed account for nearly all of the variance of reading skills among young beginning-
level ESL readers (Chiappe et al., 2007; Geva & Zadeh, 2006). Even at higher levels of ESL
reading proficiency, word recognition skills are a primary predictor of reading development.
Nassaji and Geva (1999) conducted an ESL reading study with advanced ESL learners that had
an L1 Farsi background. They found that word recognition measures such as homophone
judgment and orthographic legality judgment tasks explained a significant portion of reading
comprehension variance beyond ESL syntactic knowledge, ESL vocabulary, and working
memory capacity. Another study conducted by Nassaji (2003) with a group of 60 advanced-level
ESL readers also found that orthographic and phonological processing skills reliably
differentiated the more skilled from the less skilled readers. Crucially, Nassaji found that an
orthographic processing task accounted for more variance in the reading comprehension scores
than a phonological processing task did, which suggests that more proficient ESL readers, like
proficient L1 English readers, rely more on the use of visual orthographic information (i.e.,

spelling representations or orthographic codes) than phonological decoding processes and

phonetic codes during word recognition. There is a general consensus that L2 and ESL reading
skills are constrained by the ability to rapidly and efficiently recognize words (Birch, 2002;
Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Koda, 1996, 2005; Paran, 1996; Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993). Thus, it
is now widely acknowledged by both L1 and L2 reading researchers that reading fluency is
determined to a substantial extent by the ability to rapidly and efficiently recognize words. Slow
or inefficient word recognition processes constrain the flow of information to text interpretation
and comprehension processes and limit the amount of text information that can be taken in and
processed in a limited-capacity comprehension system (Perfetti, 1985).
L1 English Word Recognition and Spelling Skills
To account for how word recognition skills develop, some L1 researchers (Ehri, 2005; Ehri &
Snowling, 2004; Perfetti, 1992, 1997) have made theoretical claims that word recognition skills
develop as the quality of the orthographic or spelling knowledge in the orthographic lexicon
develops, and these claims have been supported by recent L1 research (Berninger, Abbot, &
Abbot, 2002; Katzir, Kim, & Wolf, 2006; Mehta, Foorman, Branum-Martin, & Taylor, 2005;
Perfetti & Hart, 2001). Essentially, English orthographic or spelling knowledge emerges in two
ways: (a) through the ability to recognize and map spelling patterns to corresponding sound
patterns at the phoneme, syllable, and word levels; and (b) through repeated exposures to the
words (Caravolas, Hulme, & Snowling, 2001; Ehri, 1997, 2005; Templeton & Morris, 2000).
According to Ehri (2005), word recognition fluency emerges as well-formed spelling
representations become tightly connected or bonded to corresponding phonological and semantic
forms. Once a word’s orthographic form or spelling becomes highly familiar, the orthographic
form or spelling begins to function much like a graphic unit that can be recognized as a whole
without attention to constituent letters. In other words, well-learned word spellings (i.e., sight
vocabulary) are established in memory in graphic form and automatically recalled when they are
encountered during reading. According to Perfetti (1992), well-learned orthographic words have
fully specified spellings that are tightly connected to corresponding phonological forms, and it is
these words that make up what he calls an autonomous lexicon (i.e., sight vocabulary). It is
important to note that orthographic word forms or spellings can be linked to corresponding
phonological forms at the phoneme, syllable, and whole word levels, and that well-learned
orthographic forms may have tight connections to phonological forms at multiple levels (Ehri &
Snowling, 2004; Perfetti, 1992). Perfetti and Hart (2001) emphasize the importance of spelling
knowledge or orthographic representation in what they call the lexical quality hypothesis, which
claims that spelling precision or specificity underpins the ability to rapidly recognize and identify
words during reading. The lexical quality hypothesis postulates that words are composed of an
orthographic constituent, a phonological constituent, and a semantic constituent. Once the
orthographic constituent or spelling representation becomes fully specified and linked to
phonological and semantic constituents, the word’s graphic display and visual input during
reading rapidly activates not only the word’s orthographic constituent but also its corresponding
phonological and semantic constituents. Regardless of the particular theoretical framework,
many working in L1 psycholinguistic and literacy development research subscribe to the notion
that English word recognition fluency is a function of spelling knowledge (Berninger et al., 2002;
Bruck & Waters, 1990; Caravolas et al., 2001; Ehri, 1997; Perfetti, 1992; Perfetti & Hart, 2001;
Templeton & Morris, 2000). Incomplete or inaccurate spelling representations or knowledge will

result in less efficient, and in some cases, less accurate word recognition skills (Burt & Tate,
2002; Ehri, 1997; Perfetti, 1992).
ESL Word Recognition and Spelling Skills
Unfortunately, very little or no research has been conducted on the effect of ESL spelling
knowledge on ESL reading skills among adult ESL learners, though research with young ESL
learners has shown that English spelling knowledge and English word reading skills are also
closely related (Chiappe et al., 2007; Geva & Zadeh, 2006; Wade-Woolley & Siegel, 1997).
Moreover, ESL children have exhibited moderate to strong correlations between English word
recognition, spelling, and reading comprehension, which mirrors the research findings with L1
English children acquiring English literacy skills (e.g., Berninger et al., 2002; Mehta et al., 2005;
Vellutino, Tunmer, & Jaccard, 2007).
Spelling as a Measure of the Orthographic Lexicon
In L1 English and ESL literacy research, word recognition skills have typically been examined
through orthographic processing and phonological decoding tasks (Brown & Haynes, 1985;
Katzir, et al., 2006; Nassaji, 2003; Perfetti, 1985; Wade-Woolley, 1999), and to a much lesser
extent through English spelling production. However, L1 researchers have argued that English
spelling production provides a clear and insightful measure of the underlying orthographic
knowledge that facilitates English word recognition skills (Ehri, 1997, 2005; Perfetti, 1992;
Worthy & Viise, 1996). In fact, there is good reason to believe that the same orthographic lexical
representations underlie both word recognition skills on one hand and spelling production skills
on the other (Ehri, 1997; Ehri & Snowling, 2004; Perfetti, 1992, 1997). L1 research has not only
found close correlations between English word recognition skills and spelling skills (Berninger et
al., 2002; Caravolas et al., 2001; Gough, Juel, & Griffith, 1992; Ehri, 1997; Katzir et al., 2006;
Mehta et al., 2005), but L1 research has also found direct evidence of connections between word
reading and word spelling (Burt & Tate, 2002; Holmes & Carruthers, 1998). Holmes and
Carruthers (1998) examined the English word reading skills and word spelling skills of native
English speaking college students. They examined the words that their participants knew but
could not accurately spell, and they found that the words their participants misspelled were not
read as rapidly as words that their participants could accurately spell. Similarly, Burt and Tate
(2002) found that L1 English speakers who were university students were slower at making
lexical decisions on low-frequency English words that they could not spell compared to low-
frequency words that they could spell. Taken together, all of these studies support the notion that
a single orthographic lexicon serves both English word recognition and spelling production, and
that words that have incomplete or inaccurate spelling representations can be visually recognized
during reading through partial spelling knowledge, though again, this results in less efficient and
accurate word recognition skills.
Development of L1 English Spelling Skills
Because of the relationship between spelling knowledge and word reading skills, spelling
development has become an area of interest among L1 reading researchers and psycholinguists
(Caravolas et al., 2001; Ehri, 1997; Perfetti, 1997; Templeton & Morris, 2000). In general, the

L1 research on English spelling development shows that spelling skills emerge in stages or
phases characterized by an early reliance on phonological codes to map sounds to letters and a
later reliance on orthographic and phonological codes that map sounds and spelling patterns to
words (Ehri & Snowling, 2004; Ganske, 1999; Henderson & Templeton, 1986; Templeton &
Morris, 2000). Early alphabetic spelling abilities at around the first grade generally involve basic
letter-to-sound mapping skills in what can be referred to as the early alphabetic stage (Ehri, 2005)
or the letter-name stage (Templeton & Morris, 2000). At this stage, each sound is typically
mapped to a letter in a one-to-one fashion and in a simple left-to-right linear order (e.g., the word
bed has three sounds that map onto three corresponding letters in one-to-one linear fashion).
Gradually, spelling patterns beyond simple one-to-one, letter-sound mappings are acquired.
These spelling patterns primarily involve the emergence of common spelling patterns with long
vowels (e.g., /i/, /e/, /ai/, /o/, /u/), such as the consonant-vowel-consonant-e (CVCe) pattern as in
made and bite and the consonant-vowel-vowel-consonant patterns (CVVC) as in boat, sleep, and
read, but also with complex vowel digraphs such as sound, chew, and taught (Ganske, 1999;
Henderson & Templeton, 1986). The latter complex vowel digraphs involve multiple-letter-
vowel-spelling patterns that are less common and productive than simple short- and long-vowel-
spelling patterns.
The next general phase of English spelling development involves the ability to discover and
acquire syllable-level-spelling patterns (Ehri & Snowling, 2004; Freeman & Freeman, 2004;
Templeton & Morris, 2000). For example, the consonant doubling rule is acquired when spellers
learn to add the suffixes -ing or -ed to words like hop as opposed to words like hope. Words with
so-called short vowels like hop, quit, clap, and bet require consonant doubling at the syllable
juncture of the root word and suffix to form hopping, quitting, clapping or betting, whereas
words with long vowels like hope, write, and ride drop the e and have no consonant doubling at
the syllable juncture (e.g., hoping). Notice that the above doubled consonant spelling involves a
syllable break between the consonants in the vowel-consonant/consonant-vowel spelling
sequence (i.e., VC/CV sequence). In contrast, words like hope and write involve a different
syllable juncture pattern with a CV/C sequence (e.g., ho/ping, wri/ting) that typically encodes
long vowels. Once the constraint of consonant doubling is acquired (i.e., VC/CV with the first
vowel short), it can facilitate the spelling patterns of words such as hap/pen and kit/ten and
extend to words like nap/kin and win/ter. Once the CV/C pattern is acquired, it can facilitate the
acquisition of long-vowel-syllable-spelling patterns in words like hu/mid, to/tal, fe/ver, and ri/val.
The final spelling phase in English incorporates derivational morphology into spelling patterns of
multisyllable words composed of root morphemes and derivational affixes (Ganske, 1999;
Henderson & Templeton, 1986; Templeton & Morris, 2000). There are several difficulties
involved in acquiring words with derivational spellings. For one, derivational affixation changes
the stress patterns and hence the pronunciation of the vowels in root words like compete to derive
morphologically complex words like competition or competitive, and this often induces spelling
errors (Ehri, 1997; Henderson & Templeton, 1986). In addition, certain consonant letters, such as
the final letter c in electric or clinic also involve a pronunciation change to derive electricity and
clinician. Yet another difficulty at this stage involves the spelling of some derivational
morphemes, such as knowing when to employ the spelling –ible or –able in words like audible,
credible, passable, and dependable.

In short, the number of fully specified word spellings in the orthographic lexicon increases as
knowledge of alphabetic, syllabic, and derivational spelling patterns is acquired (Ehri, 2005;
Perfetti, 1992, 1997; Templeton & Morris, 2000). Importantly, research indicates that ESL
children go through the same general phases of English spelling development as native English
speakers (Chiappe et al., 2007; Geva & Zadeh, 2006; Wade-Woolley & Siegel, 1997). Finally, it
is important to reiterate that as spelling development emerges, so do more accurate and efficient
word recognition skills in reading (Ehri, 2005; Perfetti, 1992, 1997; Perfetti & Hart, 2001;
Worthy & Viise, 1996).
L1 Transfer Effects on ESL Word Recognition and Spelling
Though there are similarities in the development of L1 English and ESL word recognition and
spelling skills, the ESL research indicates that previously acquired L1 literacy skills (i.e., L1
word recognition and spelling) interact with and shape the emergence of ESL word recognition
(Akamatsu, 2003; Koda, 2005) and spelling skills (Figueredo, 2006). Thus, ESL learners from
different L1 backgrounds may have distinctly different problems and consequently different
needs in developing ESL word recognition and spelling skills.
ESL Word Recognition and L1 Transfer Effects
There is a considerable amount of ESL research that indicates L1 word perception and
processing skills influence the development of ESL word recognition skills of both children and
adults (Akamatsu, 1999; Brown & Haynes, 1985; Chiappe et al., 2007; Wade-Woolley, 1999;
Wade-Woolley & Siegel, 1997; Wang, Koda, & Perfetti, 2003). ESL learners with L1 alphabetic
skills (e.g., L1 Farsi or Russian) have been shown to utilize more efficient phonemic awareness
skills and discrete phonological processing skills than ESL learners with non-alphabetic L1 skills,
such as L1 logographic reading skills developed through Chinese and Kanji characters
(Akamatsu, 1999, 2003; Brown & Haynes, 1985; Wade-Woolley, 1999). Similarly, ESL learners
with logographic L1 backgrounds (i.e., non-alphabetic) have been shown to do better in detecting
visual-orthographic spelling patterns and retrieving visual-orthographic information from
memory (Brown & Haynes, 1985; Koda, 2005; Wade-Woolley, 1999). Thus, there is evidence
that L1 word perception and processing skills shape and influence the emergence of ESL word
perception and processing skills. In other words, ESL learners with an L1 alphabetic literacy
background develop and utilize more efficient ESL phonological decoding skills, whereas ESL
learners with a logographic literacy background develop and utilize more efficient ESL visual-
orthographic processing skills (Akamatsu, 1999, 2003; Brown & Haynes, 1985; Wade-Woolley,
1999; Wang & Koda, 2005).
ESL Spelling and L1 Transfer Effects
The ESL spelling research conducted with children and adults also indicates that the emergence
of ESL spelling skills are influenced by the L1. These influences on ESL spelling development
have been found in two ways. One involves the manner in which orthographic word forms are
processed and subsequently acquired. For example, Wang and Geva (2003) found that L1
Chinese children acquiring English performed as well or better than native English speaking

children when spelling English words, but they were significantly worse than native English
speakers in spelling pseudo words. This suggests that the native Chinese speakers had acquired
English word spellings as whole lexical or visual-orthographic forms and had relied less on
phoneme-level decoding and mapping skills, the latter of which are necessary to sound out and
spell unfamiliar English words and pseudo words. Similarly, Holm and Dodd (1996) examined
the English word recognition and word spelling skills of a group of adult ESL learners from
Hong Kong. The ESL learners from Hong Kong did not differ from the other ESL groups in the
study when reading and spelling English words, but they were significantly worse in a pseudo
word spelling task, again indicating difficulty in using phonological codes and processing skills
to sound out and spell unfamiliar orthographic forms. These studies indicate that many ESL
learners with an L1 logographic literacy experience tend to rely on visual-orthographic
information to process and acquire English spellings, and they underutilize phonological
processing skills that characterize L1 alphabetic reading and spelling skills, which mirrors the
findings in the ESL word recognition research (Akamatsu, 1999, 2003; Brown & Haynes, 1985;
Wade-Woolley, 1999).
Another way that the L1 influences ESL spelling is in the transfer of phonological knowledge, or
the transfer of grapheme-phoneme correspondence skills. Several studies show that ESL learners
with an L1 Roman alphabetic literacy experience (e.g., German or Spanish) transfer not only a
familiarity of letters but also corresponding letter-sound mapping patterns (i.e., grapheme-
phoneme correspondences) when they acquire ESL reading and spelling skills (Figueredo, 2006;
Muljani, Koda, & Moates, 1998). Another transfer issue pertains to the acquisition of ESL
phonemic segments and patterns that do not exist in the Ll, and this may hinder the acquisition of
some ESL spellings, particularly at the earlier stages of English acquisition. For example, some
of the short- and long-vowel-spelling patterns may be difficult for some native Spanish speakers
to acquire, partly because Spanish has a smaller set of vowels, and in particular, short vowels
(Zutell & Allen, 1988). However, the spelling research indicates that as ESL learners develop
proficiency with English literacy skills, they exhibit less L1 effects in their spelling (Chiappe et
al., 2007; Figueredo, 2006).
L1 Arabic Literacy Experience and ESL Literacy Development Among ESL Arab
Learners
L1 Arabic Literacy Development
In order to better understand possible L1 literacy effects among ESL Arab learners acquiring
English literacy skills, it is important to look at L1 Arabic literacy education and the Arabic
orthography. L1 Arabic-speaking children learn to speak a colloquial dialect of Arabic as their
L1 but then learn to read and write using Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), which is the formal
or literary form of Arabic used for all written texts. MSA is quite distinct from colloquial Arabic
in vocabulary, and in some aspects of phonology and grammar as well; consequently, children
learn to read in what some consider an L2 (Ayari, 1996; Saigh-Hadad, 2003).
MSA utilizes an alphabetic orthography comprised of 28 letters. These primarily represent

consonants but also include three letters that correspond to long-vowel phonemes. In addition,

there are three short-vowel forms that are written as diacritics placed above or below the
consonant letters. There are also diacritics that indicate no vowel and consonant and vowel
lengthening (Bauer, 1996; Fischer, 1998). Arabic is written from right to left in cursive form, and
letters within words must be combined when possible.
Children initially learn to read and write Arabic through use of a fully-vowelized orthography in
which all the consonants and vowels are represented in the script, including the short-vowel
diacritics. Thus, beginning readers and writers learn to use a fully-specified, phonologically
transparent writing system in which every phoneme is represented in the spelling. These texts are
easy to phonologically decode or sound out since the letters and diacritics have highly consistent
and reliable grapheme-to-phoneme (letter-to-sound) correspondences. The fully-vowelized
orthography is used for children’s books, the Koran, and poetry. In contrast, all print materials in
the mass media, including newspapers, magazines, books, and textbooks, do not encode vowel
diacritic information and thus are less phonologically transparent.
At about the fourth grade, children generally transition from reading a fully-vowelized
orthography to reading an orthography without the diacritics that encode short vowels, and this
requires a different set of literacy skills (Abu-Rabia & Taha, 2006; Taouk & Coltheart, 2004). In
other words, children move from reading a phonologically transparent orthography to an opaque
orthography that lacks some phonological information in the word spellings. The latter opaque or
deep orthography requires readers to utilize extra-lexical information such as morphological
knowledge and sentence context to infer the missing phonological information. In MSA, all
words are based on a root morpheme that is typically composed of three or four consonants (e.g.,
k-t-b is the root morpheme for the general concept to write). However, as with other root
morphemes, k-t-b is not a word and has no pronunciation. Therefore the root morpheme must be
mounted on an affix pattern to generate a word, and these affix patterns include short vowels
(e.g., kataba he wrote, yaktub he writes, kitaab a book, maktab office). Even though letters and
diacritics are added to the root morpheme, the root morpheme consonants always appear in the
same order. An example of this in English would involve the words sing, song, and sang, all of
which would be represented in the same way if the short vowels were removed (i.e., as the
consonant form sng; Shimron, 1999). Thus, when reading in Arabic without diacritics (i.e.,
unvowelized Arabic), a reader must not only utilize the consonant spelling and phonological
information in the graphic display, but they must rely on extra-lexical information such as
morphological knowledge, syntactic knowledge, and sentence and discourse context (Abu-Rabia,
2002).
Though children primarily read unvowlized texts by the end of elementary school, they continue
to write in fully-vowelized spellings throughout primary school. Azzam (1993) states that
children can learn to read in the vowelized, transparent script using basic phonological decoding
skills, but that learning to spell Arabic effectively takes many years since spelling requires MSA
language skills (i.e., acquisition of MSA lexical items and MSA morphosyntax, which take many
years to acquire and master). In fact, a study by Abu-Rabia and Taha (2006) found that native
Arabic speakers in the 1st year of high school are still acquiring the MSA language skills
necessary to spell accurately.

Research on L1 Effects Among Arab ESL Learners
Aside from anecdotal evidence, there have been a few isolated studies that have examined the
development of English visual orthographic and word recognition skills among native-Arabic
ESL learners. Ryan and Meara (1991) conducted a small study using a same-different matching
judgment task with a native Arabic speaking group and a proficiency-matched ESL comparison
group. The task involved a 1-second presentation of relatively long words consisting of 10 letters
(e.g., department, experiment, revolution, photograph), followed by a 2-second blank screen, and
then the presentation of the word in either its correct spelling, or incorrect spelling with a vowel
missing in one of four positions. Some of the words had a vowel missing in the second letter
position (e.g., dpartment), some had a vowel missing in the fourth letter position (e.g.,
expriment), some had a vowel missing in the sixth letter position (e.g., revoltion), and some with
a vowel missing in the eighth letter position (e.g., photogrph). The ESL participants were
instructed to decide whether the second presentation of the word was the same (i.e., correct
spelling) or different (i.e., incorrect spelling with missing vowel). This task depends crucially on
the ability to use spelling knowledge to detect spelling errors (cf. Perfetti, 1997). Ryan and
Meara found that the Arab ESL participants made significantly more errors in all conditions
compared to the non-Arab ESL group, but also took significantly longer to make the same-
different judgments. Consequently, Ryan and colleagues (Ryan & Meara, 1991; Ryan, 1997)
argue that L1 Arabic literacy affects and shapes the ability of Arab ESL learners to extract and
process some of the vowel information encoded in the graphic display. They argue that since the
Arabic orthography used in mass media materials like magazines and newspapers does not
encode short vowels, native Arabic readers learn to focus on the consonant forms of Arabic
words, especially since the consonant structure encodes the root morpheme with general
semantic information. In fact, Abu-Rabia (2002) argues that Arabic word recognition and
identification processes rely on identifying the root morpheme and utilize the syntactic and
semantic context to infer missing vowel information (cf. Shimron, 1999, for a similar proposal in
Hebrew). Ryan and Meara further argue that native Arab ESL learners transfer their L1 word
recognition skills to English and thereby rely more extensively on consonant graphemes (i.e.,
letters corresponding to sounds) in word spellings than the vowel graphemes, and for that reason
they seem to develop lexical spelling representations that specify consonants and lack accurate
vowel spellings. The fact that English vowel spellings are irregular and inconsistent (e.g., the o
in phone, gone, done), especially in unstressed syllables, may also make them less reliable as
letter-sound spelling cues and hence less salient spelling patterns.
However, as Ryan and Meara’s (1991) study suggests, many Arab ESL students appear to
struggle more with word recognition and word reading skills than their proficiency-matched ESL
peers. A study conducted by Fender (2003) found that native Arabic ESL speakers were
significantly slower than a group of proficiency-matched Japanese ESL speakers in a lexical
decision task (i.e., an isolated word recognition task), though there were no significant
differences in reading words in sentence contexts. These results suggest that Arabic speakers
have slower and less efficient context-free word recognition skills, which again suggests
underdeveloped orthographic knowledge or spelling representations. However, in the sentence
contexts there are syntactic and semantic features (i.e., extra-linguistic cues) that may have
helped facilitate word recognition and identification processes for the Arab speakers (cf. Abu-
Rabia, 2002; Shimron, 1999).

Thus, the Fender (2003) and Ryan and Meara (1991) studies indicate that Arab ESL learners
have more difficulties recognizing English words in isolated context-free environments relative
to other proficiency-matched ESL speakers, and this may be due to difficulties in perceiving and
acquiring precise English orthographic forms or word spellings as a result of the transfer of L1
word recognition tendencies. Part of the difficulty may be due to the fact that L1 Arabic literacy
skills develop in the fully-vowelized (i.e., transparent) script with reliable and consistent
grapheme-phoneme mappings, and though the more opaque script has missing short-vowel
information which results in underspecified word spellings, it nonetheless has fairly reliable
phoneme-grapheme information. In contrast, English has some variable grapheme-phoneme
spellings, even for consonants, such as the phoneme /k/ being spelled as c as in picnic, k as in
kitchen, ck as in stuck, ch as in schedule, and the grapheme gh being pronounced as /g/ in ghost,
/f/ as in laugh, or as part of a complex vowel digraph as in through or caught, which arguably
have no straightforward phoneme-grapheme mapping. Therefore, native-Arabic ESL learners
may initially experience some difficulty acquiring English orthographic spelling patterns that
deviate from consistent and reliable grapheme-phoneme mappings. However, as Ryan and Meara
claim (Ryan & Meara, 1991; Ryan, 1997), native Arabic ESL learners may also transfer some of
their L1 word recognition skills developed to read the opaque, unvowelized script. As a
consequence, L1 Arabic readers learn to rely on partial spelling information to identify the root
Arabic morpheme, as well as the sentence context to help fully identify the word (Abu-Rabia,
2001, 2002; Ryan, 1997). If Arab ESL learners utilize these same processing skills to help them
read or decode English words in text, then this may hinder the acquisition of spelling knowledge
precision in general.
Since spelling knowledge is closely linked to word recognition skills (Berninger et al., 2002;
Burt & Tate, 2002; Holmes & Carruthers, 1998; Ehri, 1997; Mehta et al., 2005; Perfetti, 1992),
deficiencies in spelling knowledge would lead to problems in word recognition and reading
comprehension, but not necessarily in listening comprehension. Theoretically and empirically,
spelling knowledge is not directly connected to listening (or auding) comprehension, and this is
best illustrated from a component skill approach to reading. The most prevalent component skill
approach to reading postulates that reading comprehension is the product of word recognition
skills (including spelling knowledge) on one hand and listening or auding comprehension skills
on the other (Ehri, 2005; Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Koda, 2005). In fact, an extensive amount of L1
English research shows that word recognition skills and listening or auding comprehension skills
not only account for much of the variance of reading comprehension among children and adults,
but that they are dissociable skills (Gough, Hoover, & Peterson, 1996; Juel, 1988; Sticht &
James, 1979; Vellutino et al., 2007). Some poor L1 readers have problems with word recognition
but not listening or auding (dyslexics), and some poor readers exhibit good word recognition
skills but have poor listening or auding skills (hyperlexics), though it is more typical to find poor
L1 readers who have problems with both component skills (Gough et al., 1996; Leach,
Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003). From a component skills approach, spelling knowledge directly
impacts word recognition and reading comprehension; however, spelling knowledge does not
directly affect listening or auding comprehension because spelling and listening are unrelated
skills.
If acquiring English orthographic or spelling knowledge is particularly problematic for Arab ESL

learners relative to other ESL populations, then it is plausible that Arab ESL learners at an
intermediate level of proficiency may perform as well as a comparison ESL group in listening,
but because of difficulties with spelling, the Arab ESL group may exhibit lower reading
comprehension. The current study examines this question by looking at the spelling, reading, and
listening skills of a group of Arab ESL students and a non-Arab ESL comparison group. Only a
small number of studies have closely examined the word spelling and reading skills of ESL
speakers (Chiappe et al., 2007; Holm & Dodd, 1996; Wade-Woolley & Segal, 1997), and to date,
very little or no research has been done to examine the spelling production skills and reading
skills of Arab and non-Arab ESL learners that are matched on a listening comprehension
measure. This is a significant gap in the literature, especially because anecdotal evidence
suggests that Arab ESL learners struggle with both ESL spelling development and reading
fluency relative to listening and speaking skills (cf. Milton & Hopkins, 2006) and because there
is very little research that has examined both the spelling knowledge and reading skills of Arab
ESL learners in an EAP context.
If Arab ESL learners do have difficulty acquiring English spellings, then we might expect
differences between Arab and a comparison group of ESL learners in spelling and reading
comprehension, but not necessarily in listening comprehension. Consequently, the following
research questions were motivated by the present study:
1. If intermediate Arab and non-Arab ESL learners are matched on a listening proficiency
measure, will there be differences in the ESL reading comprehension skills of the Arab
and non-Arab learners?
2. Are there differences in the spelling knowledge of the Arab and non-Arab ESL
learners?
Method
Participants
There were a total of 37 ESL participants. All the participants were enrolled in the same high-
intermediate level ESL classes at the same time (i.e., same semester) in the same EAP program.
The EAP program is located in a large university in North America. Of the 20 Arab students
enrolled in the high intermediate classes at the time of the study, 16 took the paper and pencil
TOEFL reading test, TOEFL listening test, and a spelling test, and thus were included in the
study. The comparison group consisted of ESL participants (L1 Chinese, L1 Korean, and L1
Japanese) whose native language literacy skills did not include the Latin alphabet; thus, the Arab
and comparison ESL groups had minimal grapheme-phoneme correspondence skills and spelling
knowledge that could transfer from their L1 (cf. Figueredo, 2006; Muljani et al., 1998). Overall,
21 out of 26 (= 81%) of the students who were native speakers of Chinese (n = 9), Korean (n =
5), and Japanese (n = 7) took all three tests and were included in the study. All the participants
reported that their first formal study of English began upon entry into secondary school in their
home countries. All of the Arab ESL participants were enrolled in English classes in order to
enter an academic program in the United Sates in either the graduate or undergraduate level,

whereas fewer than half of the (non-Arab) comparison group participants planned on entering an
academic program at the university level.
Finally, the participants in the non-Arab ESL comparison group were nearly 2 years older (mean
age = 24.35 years) than the Arab ESL participants (mean age = 22.43 years), and though the
mean age difference between the two groups was not significant, t(34) = 2.04, p = .052, it
approached significance.
Procedure
The listening and reading subsections of a paper and pencil TOEFL test were used to assess the
students’ general listening skills and reading comprehension skills. The tests were administered
using standard procedures during the first week of a semester term, which was also the time all
the participants were beginning to study at the high-intermediate level in the same EAP program.
The 58-item spelling diagnostic was administered in the following week (Week 2) of the
semester. The participants received response sheets on which to write their spelling words. The
administrator read the target word (e.g., bottle), used the word in a sentence (e.g., I bring a bottle
of water to class everyday), and then read the target word again. Two example spelling words
were given at the beginning. After going over the two examples, the administrator then gave the
spelling test. The spelling test took 20–25 minutes to administer.
Materials
There were two primary criteria used to select the words for the spelling test. One was to select
words that would be familiar and known by students at an intermediate level of ESL proficiency.
The second was to select words that corresponded to levels of spelling difficulty so that the two
groups could be compared with regard to within-word spelling skills, basic syllable pattern
spelling skills, and multiple-syllable spelling pattern skills with unstressed syllables and
derivational spellings.
The spelling test was composed of relatively common everyday words (e.g., train, shout, bridge)
and common long words often used in academic and non-academic contexts (e.g., information,
necessary, knowledge) that were expected to be familiar to intermediate ESL learners in an EAP
program according to the Words for Students of English Vocabulary series (Rogerson,
Hershelman, & Jasnow, 1992). The spelling word list consisted of items taken from the
elementary spelling inventory (McKenna & Stahl, 2003), and from the elementary level (K-6th)
items from the Wide Range Achievement Test 3 spelling assessment (Jastak & Wilkerson, 1993).
Four of the high-intermediate ESL reading teachers in the EAP program were asked to judge
how familiar the words were for the majority of the intermediate ESL learners entering the high-
intermediate course in Week 1 (i.e., at the time of testing). Of the 58 words on the spelling test,
the teachers judged 54 words as highly familiar and part of the productive vocabulary knowledge
of most of the students entering the high-intermediate level course. Four words on the spelling
test (recognize, personal, confusion, preparation) were judged by two of the teachers as words
that were known and part of the receptive knowledge of the ESL learners entering the high-
intermediate level, whereas two teachers judged the same four words as highly familiar and part

of the productive vocabulary of the ESL learners (see Appendix A for the words used on the
spelling test).
The spelling test was designed to examine the acquisition of the English spelling rules and
constraints used by L1 English literacy researchers (Ganske, 1999; Henderson & Templeton,
1986; Templeton & Morris, 2000). Thus, the spelling test examined the within-word spelling
skills involving short vowels (e.g., cut, dress, catch), long vowels (e.g., train, reach, strange),
and complex vowels (e.g., flew, mouth, found) in single-syllable words. There were a total of 22
within-word spelling items. In addition, the spelling test assessed basic syllable-juncture-pattern-
spelling skills with words that had two or more syllables, and included syllable juncture spelling
skills with consonant doubling (e.g., written, swimming), long-vowel spellings skills with open
syllables (e.g., first syllable in music and babies), and short-vowel spelling skills with closed
syllables (e.g., first syllable in kitchen and dollar). There was a total of 18 words that assessed
basic syllable-juncture-pattern-spelling skills. Finally, the spelling test examined more complex
spelling skills, involving derivational spellings (e.g., suggestion, electrical, decision) that also
included multisyllabic words with unstressed syllables (e.g., necessary, interesting). The
Cronbach alpha reliability estimate was .91 for the spelling test.
The TOEFL listening subsection was used to assess listening comprehension or auding skills.
The listening subsection measures receptive language skills in three formats: short
conversational exchanges, minitalks, and lectures. The listening section tests auditory receptive
language skills such as receptive vocabulary knowledge, sentence parsing and processing skills,
various types of inferencing skills (e.g., with anaphora and pronoun resolution, generating
inferences from background knowledge), and integration skills (e.g., detecting key information
such as main ideas and integrating that information into a coherent text representation). There are
a total of 50 questions (i.e., maximum raw score of 50), all of which are multiple-choice items.
The TOEFL reading subsection was used to assess reading comprehension skills. There are six
passages with 7 to 10 comprehension questions for each, all of which are multiple-choice items.
There are a total of 50 test items in the reading section (i.e., maximum raw score of 50). The
reading test measures the same language comprehension skills as the listening comprehension
test (i.e., receptive vocabulary, sentence processing, inferencing skills, and information
integration), though the reading test includes a larger range of vocabulary and sentence structures
that are more indicative of expository discourse. According to the TOEFL Score User Guide
(2001), the paper-based reading and listening test scores yield a correlation of .70, which
indicates that many of the same receptive language processing skills are tested across the two
tests (also see Freedle & Kostin, 1999; Hale, Rock, & Jirele, 1989). Nonetheless, the correlation
is not perfect, and this is likely due to some of the linguistic and topic content differences in the
two sections (e.g., roughly half the mini talks or long conversations in the listening section have
academic topics, whereas all the reading passages cover academic topics; Freedle & Kostin,
1999).
Results
Table 1 summarizes the results of the TOEFL tests, which are based on a maximum raw score of

50 for both the listening and reading tests. The Arab ESL group scored higher on the TOEFL
listening test (mean of 28.13 for the Arab ESL group, mean of 25.33 for the non-Arab ESL group)
than the comparison ESL group, but the difference was not significant t(34) = 1.31, p = .20. Thus,
both groups exhibited comparable listening (auding) comprehension. In contrast, the Arab ESL
group scored significantly lower on the TOEFL reading test (mean of 20.91 for the Arab ESL
group, mean of 29.71 for the non-Arab ESL group) than the non-Arab comparison ESL group,
t(35) = 3.27, p = .002.
Table 1. TOEFL listening and reading scores (out of 50 maximum)

Listening Reading
Language group M SD M SD Group means
Arab group 28.13 6.33 20.91 7.61 49.04
Non-Arab group 25.33 6.51 29.71 8.56 55.04
Condition means 53.46 50.62
Correct items on the spelling test were tabulated as follows. Any word spelled with any incorrect
letters (e.g., desigion for decision), incorrect sequences of letters (e.g., trian for train), missing
letters (e.g., fund for found), or extra letters (e.g., shouet for shout) was incorrect. Table 2
presents the group mean results of the correctly spelled words for the Arab and non-Arab ESL
groups across the within-word spellings (n = 22), basic syllable-spelling patterns (n = 18), and
multiple-syllable and derivational spelling patterns (n = 18). Figure 1 presents the mean scores as
percentages correct for the two groups across the three sets of words in the spelling task. A 2 × 3
(Language Group × Word Condition) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with the two
language groups as the between-subjects factor and the three word conditions as the within-
subjects factor. The ANOVA revealed a main effect for group, F(1, 35) = 38.76, p < .001. The
mean scores indicated that the Arab ESL group scored significantly lower on the spelling test
than the non-Arab ESL group. Not surprisingly, there was a main effect for word condition as
well, F(2, 70) = 197.23, p < .001. There was also an interaction between language group and
word condition, F(2, 70) = 8.61, p < .001. A post hoc analysis indicated that the non-Arab ESL
comparison group was more accurate than the Arab ESL group with the within-word spellings,
t(35) = 3.57, p = .001, the syllable juncture spellings, t(35) = 5.01, p < .001, and the derivational
spellings, t(35) = 6.27, p < .001.
Table 2. Means of within-word spellings, syllable juncture spellings, and derivational spellings
Arab ESL group Non-Arab group
M SD M SD
Within-word 18.19 2.88 20.71 1.31
Syllable juncture 10.00 3.27 14.52 2.23
Derivational 8.38 2.85 14.57 3.06

100
90
80
Percentage Correct
70
60
50
40
30
Non-Arab Group
20
Arab Group
10
0
Within Word Syllable Juncture Derivational
Figure 1. Accuracy (in percentages) for both Arab and Non-Arab ESL groups across the
within-word, syllable juncture, and derivational word conditions.
Discussion
The results show that the two groups were comparable in listening (auding) comprehension skills,
yet the Arab ESL group scored significantly lower on the spelling and reading comprehension
test. These results make sense from the component skills approach when we consider two points.
First, spelling is a measure of the orthographic knowledge that underpins word recognition skills
in reading, which is supported by strong correlations between spelling knowledge and word
recognition skills (Berninger et al., 2002; Geva & Zadeh, 2006; Katzir et al., 2006; Mehta et al.,
2005) and the direct relationships between spelling performance and word recognition
performance (Burt & Tate, 2002; Holmes & Carruthers, 1998) indicating that the same
knowledge source (i.e., orthographic representations in the orthographic lexicon) informs
spelling and word recognition (Ehri & Snowling, 2004; Perfetti, 1992). Secondly, orthographic
or spelling knowledge is an important aspect of the word recognition component that supports
reading comprehension but is not directly related to listening or auding comprehension skills
(Berninger et al., 2002; Chiappe et al., 2007; Gough et al., 1996; Mehta et al., 2005). Thus, two
groups of ESL learners can have comparable listening (auding) skills, as in this study, and yet
have significantly different reading abilities if there are significant differences in orthographic or
spelling knowledge. The results of this study help to explain the discrepancy between the
listening comprehension skills and the reading comprehension skills of some Arab ESL learners
and indicate how spelling knowledge can affect the emergence of reading skills relative to
listening or auding skills.
In examining the spelling scores across the three spelling conditions, it is generally the case that
the Arab ESL participants exhibited more difficulty than the comparison ESL participants when
spelling involves orthographic or spelling pattern information that is independent of basic (i.e.,
the most common) grapheme-phoneme correspondences. For example, the Arab ESL learners
had relatively little problem in spelling most of the mono-syllabic words with relatively common

sound-letter spellings with short and long vowels (e.g., cut, dress, train); yet some spelling
problems tended to emerge with digraphs that did not involve common short- and long-vowel-
spelling patterns (e.g., flew, shout) or consonants with complex digraph spellings (e.g., bridge) or
less common grapheme-phoneme mappings (e.g., the /s/ spelled c in choice). Though both
groups had more spelling difficulties with syllable-spelling patterns (e.g., open and closed
syllable-spelling patterns in hotel and bottle) and derivational spelling patterns (e.g., spelling
unstressed vowels in words like decision or distance or furniture), the Arab speakers experienced
more drastic problems with these spellings, as is apparent in results in Figure 1. In other words, it
is natural that words with more orthographic and spelling pattern complexity will be more
difficult for both L1 and ESL learners to spell. Nonetheless, the problem is especially acute
among the Arab ESL participants who seem to struggle with orthographic complexity, especially
with the basic syllable-spelling patterns and derivational spellings. It should be added that
although the Arab participants on the whole missed around half of the multiple syllable words
(i.e., basic syllable-spelling patterns and derivational spellings), they were clearly able to spell
half of these words correctly and misspelled many words by one or two letters, indicating that
they had substantial spelling knowledge of many of the words. Nonetheless, incomplete or
partial spelling knowledge of even one letter can result in less efficient and accurate word
recognition processes (Perfetti, 1992; Perfetti & Hart, 2001), processes which are crucial to word
recognition fluency and reading comprehension.
Though the study found differences between the Arab and comparison ESL groups in spelling,
the reasons for the differences are less clear. One possibility involves L1 literacy experience and
how that experience influences or shapes the development of ESL literacy skills, and in
particular ESL spelling and orthographic skills. There is now a considerable amount of research
in the past 20 years showing that L1 word recognition skills interact with and influence the
emergence of L2 word recognition skills (e.g., Akamatsu, 1999, 2003; Koda, 2005; Wade-
Woolley, 1999). Recent work done in L1 Arabic and Hebrew literacy development indicates
native readers of Arabic and Hebrew focus on the consonant structure of printed words to
identify root word forms but then must also rely on extra-linguistic sources of knowledge
(sentence context, morphological knowledge) to identify the word since short-vowel information
is missing (Abu-Rabia, 2002; Shimron, 1999). If Arab ESL learners transfer some of these L1
word recognition tendencies to English, then this may result in ESL word recognition processes
that rely on partial spelling information (e.g., consonants and consonant structure) and extra-
lexical sentence context information to identify words during reading.
Though L1 influences are difficult to determine from paper and pencil tests, there is some
indication of this when we look at correlations between the spelling scores and reading
comprehension scores. Typically, there is a moderate to strong correlation between spelling
knowledge and reading comprehension because spelling knowledge and word recognition skills
crucial to reading are closely linked to the same orthographic representations (Berninger, et al.,
2002; Chiappe et al., 2007; Katzir, et al., 2006; Mehta et al., 2005), and this is consistent with the
spelling and reading comprehension scores for the ESL comparison group (r = .57, p < .01).
However, there is no correlation between the spelling and reading comprehension scores of the
Arab ESL group (r = -.15, ns), though a note of caution is in order when examining correlations
on relatively small numbers of subjects (cf. Wade-Woolley, 1999). With that being said, detailed
or precise orthographic or spelling knowledge as measured by the spelling test appears to have

little relationship to the reading scores for the Arab ESL participants in this study, and this seems
quite unusual when we consider the close relationship that has been found between spelling
knowledge and word recognition skills among L1 English and ESL populations (e.g., Chiappe et
al., 2007; Geva & Zadeh, 2006; Katzir et al., 2006; Mehta et al., 2005). However, if the Arab
ESL learners relied on partial spelling information and extra-lexical information (e.g., sentence
and discourse context) to identify English words during reading, then we should expect to find a
lower correlation between spelling knowledge and reading comprehension measures. This also
suggests the Arab ESL learners were relying on extra-lexical context information to help them
identify English words in a way that parallels L1 Arabic word recognition skills. The use of
extra-lexical information in L1 Arabic is essential in identifying Arabic words with incomplete
or partial spelling information in the less transparent orthography that lacks short-vowel
diacritics (Abu-Rabia, 2001, 2002). At the very least, the spelling score and reading score
correlations suggest that spelling knowledge played less of a role in the reading outcomes for
Arab ESL participants than the non-Arab ESL participants. Furthermore, word recognition
tendencies that rely on extra-lexical information to identify English words would also be less
likely to extract and encode detailed spelling information in the graphic display during ESL
reading, which would inhibit the development of ESL spelling skills.
The results of the present study are also consistent with previous research showing that Arab
ESL learners experience more difficulty than other ESL populations in processing English word
forms (Fender, 2003; Ryan, 1997; Ryan & Meara, 1991). Recall that Ryan and Meara (1991)
found that a group of Arab ESL learners was significantly less accurate and efficient than an ESL
control group in making same-different judgments in a matching task. That is, they were less
likely to detect spelling discrepancies (i.e., words with a missing vowel) and thereby made more
errors in matching up incorrectly and correctly spelled word forms. This suggests that the Arab
ESL learners had less specified spelling knowledge of the words than the control group did.
Likewise, Fender (2003) found that a group of advanced ESL proficiency Arab learners were
significantly slower than a proficiency-matched ESL group on word recognition skills in a
lexical decision task. These results, along with the present study, suggest that the learners have
less detailed spelling information in the orthographic lexicon, and this is reflected in a range of
tasks that utilize spelling or orthographic knowledge.
However, it is also plausible and likely that the Arab ESL learners in this study had less
experience processing English print materials than the other ESL learners. Recall that the
participants in the non-Arab ESL group were nearly 2 years older on average than the Arab ESL
participants, and this was close to being a significant difference. Such an age difference could
mean that the non-Arab ESL group had an additional 2 years of potential exposure to English
texts. It should be mentioned that the previous studies examining Arab ESL learners had not
conducted a thorough analysis to examine the different print processing experiences that the
Arab and non-Arab ESL learners have had in their home countries. Though it seems likely that
some of the difficulties Arab ESL learners have with English spellings can be attributed to
previous L1 print processing experiences, it also seems possible that English print processing
experience in their home country, or possibly lack thereof, is a significant factor as well. Thus,
one of the major limitations of this study is the lack of background survey data that would help
more closely examine the ESL print processing experiences and English language learning
practices of the Arab participants.

Another limitation to the present study involved the language proficiency measures. For one,
there was no direct measure of vocabulary knowledge. Though the two groups were comparable
in listening (auding) comprehension, this does not ensure that both groups of learners had the
same receptive vocabulary knowledge, which is a crucial factor in determining reading
comprehension. However, the TOEFL listening test is sensitive to general receptive vocabulary
skills and sentence processing skills, and if there were significant differences in these two areas
then this should be reflected in the listening test results. Nonetheless, future work examining the
ESL spelling and reading skills of Arab ESL learners should assess vocabulary knowledge more
directly (cf. Milton & Hopkins, 2006). Finally, it is possible that the comparison ESL group
utilized a more effective set of reading strategies than the Arab ESL group, and this could
potentially account for some of the difference between the listening and reading scores (i.e., lack
of reading strategy skill could potentially suppress the Arab ESL participants’ reading
comprehension scores). Interestingly, this latter consideration is not typically discussed in
research examining component skills (e.g., Gough et al., 1992).
Another limitation to this study pertains to the population sample and size. Though the students
were entering high-intermediate level ESL courses, many of them were at a general intermediate
level of English proficiency in the EAP program. These results would pertain to students at this
general proficiency level, which appears to be the same level as the students in the Ryan and
Meara (1991) study. Therefore, Arab ESL learners may require more time to develop English
spelling and orthographic knowledge at lower-levels of English proficiency that are not as
pronounced at more advanced levels of English proficiency. Finally, the Arab ESL group had a
smaller sample size, and this is less than ideal.
Nonetheless, this study along with other research suggests that the quality of spelling knowledge
may be a problem for many Arab ESL learners, at least at an intermediate level of English
proficiency, and that this potentially impacts the development of reading skills relative to the
development of listening comprehension skills. The results from the spelling, listening, and
reading comprehension tests in the present study are generally consistent with previous research
showing that Arab ESL learners are less efficient and accurate in English word recognition skills.
Since orthographic or spelling knowledge informs both spelling and word recognition skills, then
less developed English orthographic knowledge would result in less efficient and accurate word
recognition skills, as found by the Arab ESL participants in the Ryan and Meara (1991) and
Fender (2003) studies. Furthermore, the lack of a correlation between spelling precision and
reading comprehension suggests that the Arab ESL learners may be relying on extra-lexical
sentence and discourse context to identify words, a strategy that would work much better for
narrative texts than expository texts such as those encountered on the TOEFL reading test.
Implications
Most of the Arab ESL learners in this study demonstrated spelling knowledge of within-word-
spelling patterns with long and short vowels (e.g., train, reach, catch, dress) but exhibited more
spelling difficulty with multisyllabic words that included spelling patterns across syllables (e.g.,
customer, bottle, success) and derivational spellings (e.g., decision, knowledge, responsible).

Thus, being able to segment words into syllables and acquiring an understanding of syllable-
level-spelling patterns with open and closed syllables could be particularly helpful in being able
to both acquire syllable-level-spelling patterns and to map vowels to spellings (Bear, Invernizzi,
Templeton, & Johnston, 2004). This understanding may be crucial in helping learners understand
and acquire how English spelling patterns at the phoneme, syllable, and morpheme or word
levels correspond to pronunciations. Then, when readers see and pronounce a word, an enriched
awareness of spelling-sound relationships can be utilized, which then may potentially secure a
word’s spelling in memory. In this way, ESL learners who struggle with English spelling would
be able to acquire detailed orthographic or spelling forms more quickly and thoroughly.
References
Abu-Rabia, S. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and
Hebrew. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 39–59.
Abu-Rabia, S. (2002). Reading in a root-based-morphology language: The case of Arabic.
Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 299–309.
Abu-Rabia, S., & Taha, H. (2006). Phonological errors predominate in Arabic spelling across
grades 1–9. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 167–188.
Akamatsu, N. (1999). The effects of first language orthographic features on word recognition
processing in English as a second language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 11, 381–403.
Akamatsu, N. (2003). The effects of first language orthographic features on second language
reading in text. Language Learning, 53, 207–231.
Ayari, S. (1996). Diglossia and illiteracy in the Arab world. Language Culture and Curriculum,
9, 243–253.
Azzam, R. (1993). The nature of Arabic reading and spelling errors of young children: A
descriptive study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 355– 385.
Bauer, T. (1996). Arabic writing. In P. T. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writing
systems (pp. 559–564). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2004). Words their way: Word study for
phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. New York: Pearson Education.
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., & Abbott, S. (2002). Writing and reading: Connections between
language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 39–56.
Birch, B. (2002). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom. Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, T. L., & Haynes, M. (1985). Literacy background and reading development in a second
language. In T. H. Carr (Ed.), The development of reading skills (pp. 19–34). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bruck, M., & Waters, G. (1990). An analysis of the component spelling and reading skills of
good readers-good spellers, good readers-poor spellers, and poor readers-poor spellers. In
T. Carr & B. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches
(pp. 161–206). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Burt, J., & Tate, H. (2002). Does a reading lexicon provide orthographic representations for
spelling? Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 518–543.
Caravolas, M., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. (2001). The foundations of spelling ability: Evidence
from a 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 751–774.

Chiappe, P., Glaeser, B., & Ferko, D. (2007). Speech perception, vocabulary, and the
development of reading skills in English among Korean- and English-speaking children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 154–166.
Ehri, L. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In C. Perfetti,
L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across
languages (pp. 237–269). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ehri, L. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 9, 167–188.
Ehri, L., & Snowling, M. (2004). Developmental variation in word recognition. In C. Stone, E.
Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 433–460).
New York: Guilford Press.
Fender, M. (2003). English word recognition and word integration skills of native Arabic- and
Japanese-speaking learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics,
24, 289–315.
Figueredo, L. (2006). Using the known to chart the unknown: A review of first-language
influence on the development of English-as-a-second-language spelling skill. Reading
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 873–905.
Fischer, W. (1998). Classical Arabic. In R. Hetzron (Ed.), The Semitic languages (pp. 187–219).
New York: Routledge.
Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1999). Does the text matter in a multiple-choice test of comprehension?
The case for the construct validity of TOEFL’s minitalks. Language Testing, 16, 2–32.
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2004). Essential linguistics: What you need to know to teach
reading, ESL, spelling, phonics, and grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ganske, K. (1999). The developmental spelling analysis: A measure of orthographic knowledge.
Educational Assessment, 6, 41–70.
Geva, E., & Zadeh, Z. (2006). Reading efficiency in native English-speaking and English-as-a-
second-language children: The role of oral proficiency and underlying cognitive-
linguistic processes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 31–57.
Gough, P., Hoover, W., & Peterson, C. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading.
In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and
interventions (pp. 1–13). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gough, P., Juel, C., & Griffith, P. (1992). Reading, spelling, and the orthographic cipher. In P.
Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 35–48). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grabe, W., Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. New York: Pearson Education.
Hale, G., Rock, D., & Jirele, T. (1989). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Test of English as a
Foreign Language (TOEFL Research Reports, Report 32). Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Henderson, E., & Templeton, S. (1986). A developmental perspective of formal spelling
instruction through alphabet, pattern, and meaning. The Elementary School Journal, 86,
305–316.
Holm, A., & Dodd, B. (1996). The effect of first written language on the acquisition of English
literacy. Cognition, 59, 119–147.
Holmes, V., & Carruthers, J. (1998). The relation between reading and spelling in skilled adult
readers. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 264–289.
Jastak, J., & Wilkenson, G. (1993). Wide ranging achievement test 3. Wide Range.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first
through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.
Katzir, T., Kim, Y., & Wolf, M. (2006). The relationship of spelling recognition, RAN, and
phonological awareness to reading skills in older poor readers and younger reading-
matched controls. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 845–872.
Koda, K. (1996). L2 word recognition research: A critical review. The Modern Language
Journal, 80, 450–460.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leach, J., Scarborough, H., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading difficulties. Journal of
McKenna, M., & Stahl, S. (2003). Assessment for reading instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Mehta, P., Foorman, B., Branum-Martin, L., & Taylor, W. P. (2005). Literacy as a
unidimensional multilevel construct: Validation, sources of influence, and implications in
a longitudinal study in Grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 85–116.
Milton, J., & Hopkins, N. (2006). Comparing phonological and orthographic vocabulary size: Do
vocabulary tests underestimate the knowledge of some learners. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 63, 127–147.
Muljani, D., Koda, K., & Moates, D. (1998). The development of word recognition in a second
language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 99–113.
comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 261– 276.
Nassaji, H., & Geva, E. (1999). The contribution of phonological and orthographic processing
skills to adult ESL reading: Evidence from native speakers of Farsi. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 20, 241–267.
Paran, A. (1996). Reading in EFL: Facts and fiction. ELT Journal, 50, 25–34.
Perfetti, C. A. (1984). Reading acquisition and beyond: Decoding includes cognition. American
Journal of Education, 93, 40–60.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, &
R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Perfetti, C. (1997). The psycholinguistics of spelling and reading. In C. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & F.
Michel (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp.
21–38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In D. Gorein (Ed.), On
the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp.
67–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Rogerson, H., Hershelman, S., & Jasnow, C. (1992). A vocabulary series for ESL (Vol. 5). Ann
Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Ryan, A., & Meara, P. (1991). The case of the invisible vowels: Arabic speakers reading English
words. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7, 531–540.
Ryan, A. (1997). Learning the orthographical form of L2 vocabulary: A receptive and productive

process. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and

pedagogy (pp. 181–198). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2003). Linguistic distance and initial reading acquisition: The case of Arabic
diglossia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 431–51.
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of
speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369–385.
Shimron, J. (1999). The role of vowel signs in Hebrew: Beyond word recognition. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 301–319.
Stanovich, K. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the
development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–67.
Sticht, T., & James, J. (1979). Listening and reading. In P. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading
research (pp. 293–317). New York: Longman.
Taouk, M., & Coltheart, M. (2004). The cognitive processes involved in learning to read in
Arabic. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 27–57.
Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (2000). Spelling. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 525–544). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
TOEFL score user guide (2000–2001 ed.). (2001). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Vellutino, F., Tunmer, W., Jaccard, J. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate
evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 11, 3–32.
Wade-Woolley, L. (1999). First language influences on second language word reading: All roads
lead to Rome. Language Learning, 49, 447–471.
Wade-Woolley, L., & Siegel, L. (1997). The spelling performance of ESL and native speakers of
English as a function of reading skill. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
9, 387–406.
Wang, G., & Geva, E. (2003). Spelling performance of Chinese children using English as a
second language: Lexical and visual-orthographic processes. Applied Psycholinguistics,
24, 1–25.
Wang, M., & Koda, K. (2005). Commonalities and differences in word identification skills
among learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 55, 71–98.
Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English
word identification: A comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners. Cognition,
87, 129–149.
Worthy, J., & Viise, N. (1996). Morphological, phonological, and orthographic differences
between the spelling of normally achieving children and basic literacy adults. Reading
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 139–159.
Zutell, J., & Allen, V. (1988). The English spelling strategies of Spanish-speaking bilingual
children. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 333–340.
Appendix A
Spelling Test
Directions: Say the word once, then say the word in a sentence, and then repeat the word again.

Instruct the students to spell the words as best they can if they are not sure how to spell the word.
Example: bed I got out of bed at 7 a.m. this morning.
hand I write with my right hand.
Within-word spellings (1–22, 22 items)

1. run Billy can run fast.
2. cook My mother will cook dinner soon.
3. cut My mother will cut the cake with a knife.
4. arm John fell and broke his right arm.
5. dress She is wearing an expensive dress.
6. train The train was on time.
7. shout If you shout, everyone will hear you.
8. watch I usually watch TV on Monday night.
9. share The boy will share his food with the children.
10. choice You have the choice of taking the vocabulary class or the TOFL class.
11. catch I will catch a bus tomorrow morning.
12. found The boy finally found his ball.
13. reach The little boy cannot reach the light switch.
14. bird There is a bird in the tree.
15. strange I watched a very strange and unusual movie last night.
16. burn The food will burn if it stays in the oven.
17. cold It is cold outside.
18. bridge The bridge was built in 1989.
19. throw The child will throw the ball.
20. mouth His mouth is full of food.
21. flew The plane flew from Los Angeles to New York.
22. grown Bill’s children have grown up and are in high school.
Syllable juncture spellings (23–40, 18 items)

23. kitchen Our kitchen is small.
24. result His TOEFL test result was good.
25. advice The teacher usually gives good advice to the students.
26. surprise The students will surprise their teacher.
27. purchase The student purchased all his books at the bookstore.
28. package John received a package in the mail.
29. music I like to listen to music when I drive.
30. customer The restaurant serves the customers with good food.
31. separate We must separate the spoons and forks.
32. babies My brother and his wife have two babies.
33. written Many of the level 5 students have written research papers.
34. napkin I need a napkin to wipe my mouth.
35. swimming We like to go swimming in the ocean.
36. market My father goes to the market to get fresh fruit.
37. dollar A bottle of water costs one dollar.
38. bottle I bring a bottle of water to class everyday.
39. thirsty The thirsty boy drank all the water.
40. success The boy worked hard and had great success in his classes.
Derivational spellings (41–58, 18 items)

41. insurance You must have care insurance to drive in California.
42. suggestion Mary made a good suggestion.

43. distance The distance between Los Angeles and San Diego is 100 miles.
44. decision The students must make a decision about their elective class.
45. recognize The woman did not recognize her childhood friend.
46. necessary It is necessary to do all your homework.
47. carefully The little girl carefully crossed the busy street.
48. personal Every employee has their own personal computer.
49. confusion There was a lot of confusion about the new rules.
50. electrical I want to study electrical engineering.
51. attendance Jill had very good classroom attendance this year.
52. responsible Parents are responsible for taking care of their children.
53. information The lady at the library gave me useful information.
54. furniture My roommate and I need to buy some new furniture.
55. preparation There are some good TOEFL preparation books.
56. interesting We read an interesting story in class yesterday.
57. education Many people don’t have a college education.
58. knowledge The old man has lots of knowledge.
About the Author
Michael Fender is currently an assistant professor at California State University, Long Beach.
His primary research interests include first and second language reading development,
particularly the emergence of lower-level reading skills involving word recognition and sentence
processing. He has published articles on these topics in Language Learning and Applied
Psycholinguistics.
E-mail: mfender@csulb.edu

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 43–69
Comparing the vocabulary of different graded-reading schemes

Udorn Wan-a-rom
Mahasarakham University
Thailand
Abstract
This study compared graded-reader wordlists with the General Service List (GSL; West,
1953) and investigated the words in those lists and the words actually used in graded-
reader books. The wordlists from the 2 major graded-reader series, the GSL, and the
words actually used in the graded readers were examined using the Range program. The
comparisons showed that the lists are different from each other largely because of the
different sizes of the lists and because of the words they contain and do not contain. In
addition, the words actually used in the books do not stick closely to the words in the lists
on which they are based, especially at Level 1. Conclusions and implications are drawn
for practice in extensive reading programs.
Keywords: graded levels, graded-reading schemes, graded readers, wordlists, extensive reading
A graded-reader scheme usually has word and structure lists that are divided into levels to guide
writers and editors in designing graded-reading books. The findings of Nation and Wang’s (1999)
research show that most graded-reader schemes set up conditions that will enhance vocabulary
learning. The limited vocabulary at each level will be repeated in books of the same level. Words
from earlier levels will be repeated very often at subsequent levels, and this will provide learners
with more opportunities to encounter the words. These repetitions are believed to be crucial for
establishing word knowledge. According to Nation and Wang, about 10 repetitions are desirable,
but the more the better.
Nation and Wang (1999) also found that 84.7% of the words in the General Service List (GSL;
West, 1953) appeared in the Oxford Bookworms’ (OBW) lists,1 showing that the classic list of
the 2,000 GSL words is of practical use to writers of graded readers. A general-service
vocabulary is essential for all learners, no matter the modes in which and purposes for which
they are using English as a foreign or second language. This claim is supported by the finding
that the GSL provides around 82% average coverage of various kinds of written texts (Hirsh &
Nation, 1992; Hwang & Nation, 1989; Sutarsyah, Nation, & Kennedy, 1994),2 with higher
coverage for more informal text. However, learners need vocabulary sizes that will cover at least
98% of the texts they read (Hu & Nation, 2000). According to Nation (2006), for unsimplified
texts, this would require a vocabulary size of approximately 7,000–9,000 word families (i.e.,
headwords together with their other common forms). The notion of vocabulary size has been
taken as a guideline for devising a scheme for graded readers. Ideally, graded-reading schemes
Wan-a-rom: Comparing the vocabulary of different graded-reading schemes 44
would take learners step by step with 98% coverage at each step until they can read unsimplified
text with the same coverage. Unfortunately, as Nation and Wang (1999) showed, most schemes
of graded readers are not well designed in terms of vocabulary size.
Frequency counts of English substantially agree on the high-frequency words (Nation, 2004).
Because the levels of graded readers make use of these high-frequency words, the various
wordlists of graded readers are likely to be composed of substantially the same words. Designed
as readable texts for second language learners, graded readers use a controlled vocabulary and
structural features that are arranged in stages or levels of increasing difficulty. These stages or
levels form graded-reading schemes. The primary purpose of the wordlists in these schemes is to
provide guidelines for writers and editors of graded readers. Publishers usually set the different
levels for graded readers according to the number of headwords, and writers can use a wide
range of words in the lists, depending on the story or topic. Presumably, vocabulary is selected
chiefly on the basis of frequency, but the wordlist may be modified for a particular title based on
the requirements of the story. Different publishers cannot be guaranteed to make lists with the
same words and with the same number of headwords at the same level.
Because of this, no systematic comparison of the levels of the various schemes has been made
beyond reviews every few years, which have dealt with content, features, and the number of
headwords appearing in the catalogues to compare different schemes, as in Hill’s (1997, 2001)
reviews of graded readers. However, these reviews did not examine the wordlists in detail in
terms of the words in the wordlists and the actual words used in the books.
Although many of the graded-reader series on the world market probably depend on West’s
(1953) GSL as a basis for the choice of words used in the books, for commercial purposes, the
publishers have produced wordlists of their own, which are likely to be confidential and unique.
Various wordlists have resulted, and the words included and the number of levels vary with the
grading scheme. Little is known about the similarities of the wordlists. One way to check this is
to compare the wordlists of the series to determine the amount of overlap between the lists.
The purpose of this study was to examine the wordlists of graded readers in detail. This should
answer the question of whether the lists from the various series are similar enough to use as a
basis for setting up reading schemes for an extensive reading program or reading across series,
which pertains to language learning in general and vocabulary in particular.
The study compared sets of wordlists of two major series: those of the OBW by the Oxford
University Press and the Cambridge English Readers (CER) by the Cambridge University Press.
It also looked at the amount of overlap between the words in the two series and the GSL words.
The results of this study are discussed to answer three questions:
1. How similar are the lists?
2. How is the GSL related to the lists?
3. Do the books at specific grade levels follow the lists designed for these levels?

The Range program and manual methods were used to compare the lists.
Method
The Computer Program
The Range program is a Windows-based program developed by Paul Nation and Alex Heatley
(2002) of the Victoria University of Wellington and is freely downloadable. It can be used with
three distinct word lists, called baseword lists, on any text. The baseword lists contain word
families. For example, the headword ABLE is grouped with its family members abler, ablest, and
ably. Thus, the three family members are counted as the same word, ABLE (see Appendix A).
The Range program can sort a text's vocabulary into three categories of word families from each
list and a category of words outside all the three lists, making four categories altogether (see
Appendix B). The program can do this either by range across several texts or by frequency
within a text. It can also mark each word according to the category in which it falls. The
baseword lists can be altered depending on specific requirements. The ones that come with the
program are the first and second thousand words from the GSL and Averil Coxhead’s (2000)
Academic Word List (AWL).3 The program has self-checking routines to ensure that a word
form does not occur in more than one of the baseword lists. This program has been used with the
text-based studies of Hirsh and Nation (1992), Laufer and Nation (1995), Coxhead (2000),
Chung and Nation (2004), and Nation (2006).
Graded-Reader Schemes
Although Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Pearson Education, and
Macmillan Education are four of the largest internationally recognized publishers of graded
readers on the world market, this study only used the wordlists of the two series (i.e., OBW and
CER) by the first two publishers because they were willing to provide the wordlists for the
graded-reader schemes. For commercial reasons, the wordlists for the Penguin and Macmillan
readers are not released to the public.
Procedure
The two series both contain six levels. Because the study involved comparing words in the
wordlists, the six original wordlists from each series, which are in lemmas, had to contain the
same kinds of word families. To obtain good matches between the word families in the lists of
the two series, a standard set of word families had to be made.
Step I: Investigation and modification of the words in the original lists. The words in the original
publishers’ lists of the two series are marked with parts of speech, and each word is marked with
a number to indicate the level where it occurs. For example, “1 slow (adj.)” means the word slow
occurs at Level 1 as an adjective. The original publishers’ lists did not include numbers, days of
the week, and months of the year. When the actual books were checked, these words were found
to be used, and some letters of the alphabet and abbreviations were used as well. Nation and
Wang (1999) also noted that such words were freely used in graded readers at all levels.

Therefore, they were added to the original publishers’ wordlists. The numbers included both the
cardinal and ordinal numbers, their plural forms (threes, thirds), and the abbreviations rd, st, and
th of the ordinal numbers.
Step II: Construction of the baseword lists. In this study, a word family is defined according to
the idea put forward by Bauer and Nation (1993). A word family consists of a baseword and all
the derived and inflected forms that can be understood by a learner without having to learn each
form separately. Bauer and Nation used frequency, productivity, and regularity as the criteria for
establishing the various levels of a word family. Level 3 of the Bauer and Nation scheme was
used because this includes all the inflected forms and a small group of high-frequency, regular,
and productive derived forms. This level seemed most suitable for the proficiency of the learners
who would be reading the graded readers.
The inflectional categories are plural, third person singular present tense, past tense, past
participle, -ing, comparative, superlative, and possessive.
The derivational affixes allowed at Level 3 are -able, -er, -ish, -less, -ly, -ness, -th, -y, non-, and
un-, all with restricted uses. The following examples are of families at Level 3:
ACTOR: ACTORS
CLEAR: CLEARED, CLEARS, CLEARING, CLEARINGS, CLEARER, CLEAREST,
CLEARLY, CLEARNESS
BREAK: BREAKS, BROKE, BROKEN, BREAKABLE, UNBREAKABLE, UNBROKEN,
BREAKING
NINETY: NINETY, NINETIETH, NINETIETHS, NINETIES
Abbreviations such as the following are located under their word families.
ROAD: RD
STREET: ST
MOUNTAIN: MT
FEBRUARY: FEB
VOLUME: VOL
The Oxford and Cambridge wordlists were modified according to the following criteria: (a) The
same words in both lists must have the same family members; (b) a family member in one list
cannot be a headword in another list; and (c) a compound word in both lists is treated in a similar
manner, that is, a hyphen is taken out to let the basewords stand alone or the word is used
without a space or a hyphen in both lists.
A major weakness of the Range program is that it deals with word forms. Thus, it was not able to
distinguish words' parts of speech and meanings, namely, words that had the same written forms
but different meanings; for example, march (n.) and march (v.) were recognized as the same
word by the program. This problem also occurred with most words that do not change their
written forms to indicate tense such as put and shut. However, the latter problem does not matter
much because whether such verbs are in present or past, they do not change meaning and are
members of the same families. The same problems were found in both the wordlists compared.

Step III: Comparison of the wordlists. Before the wordlists of the two series were compared, the
baseword lists of the two series were carefully checked to make sure that all the words in the lists
were included at the levels intended by the publisher and that they all had the same family
members:
1. The baseword lists of the two series were run against the publishers’ lists to check
accurate matching of the headwords and the words in the publishers’ lists.
2. The baseword lists of each series were then combined, and that combined list was used
to make sure that the same family members were included under the same headwords.
This was to check that all family members under the same headwords in the two sets of
baseword lists were the same.
3. The six new baseword lists for each series were constructed from the combined lists.
Reestablishing the six new baseword lists after rechecking all headwords and their family
members in the combined lists avoided some errors that might happen with some
headwords in either lists.
Six OBW Six CER baseword

baseword lists lists
Check against each other

A combined OBW A combined CER
baseword list baseword list
RANGE
program
Composite
baseword list
Six OBW Six CER

publishers’ lists publishers’ lists
Run and marked by

Six new OBW the RANGE program Six new CER
baseword lists baseword lists
Completion of
six new baseword lists
Figure 1. A flowchart of how the six comparable baseword lists for each series were constructed.
The result was two sets of six levels of baseword lists (one set each for Oxford and Cambridge)
that included all the words at the right levels with the same family members for each word
family (see Appendix C). This procedure is shown in Figure 1. Then, the OBW and CER
baseword lists were used to compare and check words both in the original wordlists and in books
of the two series.
Results
Comparing the Number of Levels and the Numbers of Words at Each Level
Three findings about the two lists are shown in Table 1: (a) the number of levels, (b) the number
of word families at each level, and (c) the total number of word families used in the two series.
Each series has six levels, and this makes the wordlists easier to compare. In total, the OBW list
includes 2,257 word families, and the CER, 3,055. Thus, the CER list contains about 800 more
word families than the OBW list. However, the numbers of new and total word families at the
lower levels (1–3) are very similar between the two lists, with only small differences in the
numbers of families. At Level 3, the difference is only six families. At Levels 4–6, the CER lists
introduce many more families than the OBW lists, and the differences between the two lists are
much larger.
Table 1. Number of word families at each level and cumulative totals for the OBW and CER lists
New word families Cumulative word families Difference in new word
Level
OBW CER OBW CER families (OBW-CER)
1 496 477 496 477 19
2 328 320 824 797 27
3 306 339 1,130 1,136 -6
4 273 502 1,403 1,638 -235
5 423 670 1,826 2,308 -482
6 431 747 2,257 3,055 -798
Although the numbers of word families are very similar in Levels 1–3, the families at these
lower levels may not in fact be the same in both lists. This question is addressed next.
Comparing the Overlap Between the Two Lists
The data resulting from comparing the two sets of lists and the overlap between the OBW and
CER lists as a whole is shown in Table 2. The data can be divided into three categories: (a)
overlap at the same level, (b) overlap across the levels (with the preceding and succeeding levels),
and (c) families that do not overlap, that is, those that occur in only one series. For example, the
OBW Level 1 column shows that the 496 OBW word families at Level 1 occur at various levels
of the CER lists. Sixteen OBW families at Level 1 do not overlap with the CER words at any
level. The rows show the same kinds of data from a CER perspective. To provide a clearer
picture of each kind of overlap, the data shown in Table 2 will be broken down into separate
tables in the following sections. However, the reader will find it useful to keep referring back to
Table 2 to see where the figures in the following tables came from.
The data in Table 2 was used to calculate the overlap of the two lists as a whole. The two series
share 2,122 word families. All except 135 of the 2,257 families in the OBW list are in the CER
list. From the OBW perspective, this is a 94.01% overlap, which is very large (see Figure 2).

Table 2. Overlap between the OBW and CER wordlists for the new word families at each level
OBW level Not in any of the
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 OBW levels
CER level
1 377 67 13 5 1 1 13 477
2 80 144 44 18 14 7 13 320
3 17 77 110 41 32 5 57 339
4 4 19 83 109 92 56 139 502
5 1 2 36 73 171 124 263 670
6 1 1 7 19 82 189 448 747
Not in any of
16 18 13 8 31 49
the CER levels
Total 496 328 306 273 423 431
From the CER perspective, the overlap is 69.46%. This smaller overlap results from the differing
sizes of the two lists.
135 OBW families CER (3,055 families)
2,122
933 CER
families
families
OBW (2,257 families)
Figure 2. Overlap of the total new word families between the two series from the OBW
perspective.
Comparing the Overlap of Total Word Families at Each Level
Overlap of word families at preceding levels plus current level families. The following analyses
deal with the overlap of the actual word families occurring at each level of the OBW and CER
schemes. First, the overlap of the families at each level is examined, for example, Level 1 of
OBW with Level 1 of CER. This is one of the toughest tests of overlap: Level 2 includes the
families at Level 1 plus those introduced at Level 2, Level 3 includes the families introduced at
Level 3 plus all those of Levels 1 and 2, and so on. Next, the overlap between the families at
each level of a series is looked at with the addition of the subsequent level. This is done because
even if the overlap of families is not perfect at each level, the overlap may still be good because
some of the overlapping families are at the next level of the series. Finally, the overlap of each
level is compared with the current level and two subsequent levels.
The data in Table 3 is based on the cumulative overlap at and across the levels of the data in

Table 2. The figures were calculated in terms of total word families at the level. For example, the
668 families at Level 2 in Table 3 are the addition of the overlap at the preceding levels and
overlap of Level 2 families. That is, 524 families (377 + 67 + 80) from the preceding levels (see
Table 2) are added to 144 families as Level 2 overlap. This makes 668 families, which is the total
overlap of OBW and CER at Level 2. The 929 families at Level 3 result from an addition of the
overlap at the preceding levels (668 + 17 + 77 + 44 + 13 families) and the overlap at Level 3
(110 families), making a total of 929 families. The overlap of succeeding levels was calculated in
the same way.
Table 3. Overlap of families at preceding levels plus current level families from the OBW perspective
OBW level
1 2 3 4 5 6
CER level
1 2 3 4 5 6
Number and percentage 377 668 929 1,208 1,630 2,122
of families overlapping 76.00% 81.06% 82.21% 86.10% 89.27% 94.01%
The percentage of the total number of word families shared by the two lists at each level from the
OBW perspective is also shown in Table 3. To calculate the proportion, the total number of
overlapping families at the level is divided by the total number of OBW families at that level.
For example, 377 families are shared by OBW and CER at Level 1. From the OBW perspective,
the 377 families are 76% of the 496 Level 1 OBW families (see Table 2) overlapping with Level
1 CER families. In a similar manner, from the OBW perspective, the 668 families at Level 2 are
81.06% of the Level 2 OBW families overlapping with Level 2 CER families. The 929 Level 3
OBW families are 82.21%, and so on.
From the OBW perspective, the figures indicating overlap at each level consistently increase,
from 76% at Level 1 to 94.01% at Level 6. These figures show a sizable, but by no means perfect,
cumulative overlap at each level.
Overlap of families at preceding levels plus current level families and families at the next level.
The overlaps at the current level plus the next level are shown in Table 4, while the overlaps at
the current level combined with the next two levels are shown in Table 5. To calculate these
overlaps, the same steps of adding the overlapping families were taken as used for Table 3.
Based on the data in Table 2, for example, the 457 families at Level 1 of Table 4 are the sum of
377 families (the previous overlap) and 80 families from the next level of CER. Then, 457 is
divided by 496, which makes 92.14% at Level 1. The 1,320 families for Level 4 of Table 4 are
the sum of 1,208 (the previous overlap) and 112 (1 + 2 + 36 + 73 as overlap at the next level of
CER), which is then divided by 1,403, making 94.08% for Level 4. The proportions of the total
overlap at the other levels were calculated in the same way. For Table 5, the overlap of the next
two levels of CER was added to the total overlap at the level when proportions were calculated.
In Tables 4 and 5, we can see that the proportions of total overlap at every level are very high—
well over 90% and close to 95%. A comparison of Tables 3 and 4 shows that most overlapping
families are at the same level or the one following.

Table 4. Overlap of word families at the preceding levels plus those at the current level and the next
level from the OBW perspective
OBW level
1 2 3 4 5 6
CER level
2 3 4 5 6 6
Number and percentage 457 762 1,035 1,320 1,740 2,122
Table 5. Overlap of families at the preceding levels plus those at the current level and the next two
levels from the OBW perspective
OBW level
1 2 3 4 5 6
CER level
3 4 5 6 6 6
The following tables contain the figures calculated from data in Table 2, but from the CER
perspective. The same steps for calculating the number of families were applied to the CER lists.
The results in terms of the overlap at the preceding levels and current level families are shown in
Table 6, while more detail about the overlap at each level plus families at the next levels is given
in Tables 7 and 8.
Table 6. Overlap of word families at preceding levels plus current level families from the CER
perspective
CER level
1 2 3 4 5 6
OBW level
1 2 3 4 5 6
The overlap of families at the preceding levels plus the current level families from the CER
perspective is considerable at the three lower levels of the CER series and is less at the three
higher levels, as shown in Table 6. This is because of the greater numbers of word families at
these levels compared with OBW. The overlap ranges from 69.46 to 83.81%. When added to the
overlap at the next level, as seen in Table 7, the overlap at most levels increases, particularly at
the three lower levels, to around 90%. The same pattern is seen in Table 8, where the current
level plus the next two levels are considered.
Particularly from an OBW perspective, but to a large degree also from the CER perspective, the
two lists have a considerable degree of overlap. The differences are largely the results of
differences in the sizes of the two lists, rather than in the actual families in the lists or the
sequencing of these families into levels. This is reassuring for users of graded readers, indicating
that the two series of readers have similarities in vocabulary grading.

Table 7. Overlap of word families at the preceding levels plus those at the current level and at the
next level from the CER perspective
CER level
1 2 3 4 5 6
OBW level
2 3 4 5 6 6
Table 8. Overlap of word families at the preceding levels plus those at the current level and at the
next two levels from the CER perspective
CER level
1 2 3 4 5 6
OBW level
3 4 5 6 6 6
Overlap Between the GSL Words and the OBW and CER Lists
The most well-known general-service-vocabulary list is the GSL, and it has been the basis for
many series of graded readers. How similar are the lists used in graded readers and the GSL?
Table 9 shows that 360 word families of Level 1 in the OBW series are in the 1,000-word level
of the GSL. Level 2 has 182 families in 1,000-word level. A total of 921 out of the 990 families
in the 1,000-word level are in the OBW.
Table 9. The 1,000- and 2,000-word levels of the GSL in the OBW lists
OBW level GSL families in GSL families not Total GSL
1 2 3 4 5 6 the OBW lists in the OBW lists families
GSL
families
921
1st 1,000 360 182 131 87 90 71 69 990
93.03%
741
2nd 1,000 77 105 110 121 164 164 233 974
76.07%
1,662
Total 437 287 241 208 254 235 302 1,964
84.62%
Sixty-nine word families are in the 1,000-word level of the GSL but not in the OBW lists. These
include words like arise, affair, base, entire, and favour. The overlap with the second 1,000 of
the GSL is not as good, and the total overlap of the GSL and OBW is 84.62%, with 302 families
in the GSL but not in OBW. The overlap between the GSL and CER is higher than that between
the GSL and OBW, but this is largely because the CER list contains over 1,000 more families
than the GSL.

As shown in Tables 9 and 10, the proportions of the first 1,000 GSL families included in the two
lists are high: 93.03% in the OBW list and 96.16% in the CER list. For the second 1,000 families,
between the two series, the degree of overlap is lower: 741 families in the OBW list and 802
families in the CER list.
Table 10. The 1,000- and 2,000-word levels of the GSL in the CER lists
CER level GSL families GSL families not Total GSL
1 2 3 4 5 6 in the CER lists in the CER lists families
GSL
families
952
1st 1,000 324 191 146 116 118 57 38 990
96.16%
802
2nd 1,000 94 84 89 149 185 201 172 974
82.34%
1,754
Total 418 275 235 265 303 258 210 1,964
89.31%
Tables 9 and 10 show that 69 of the first 1,000 GSL families are not in the OBW list and that 38
of the first 1,000 GSL families do not appear in the CER list. However, 20 of these families
overlap, so 87 of the families from the 1,000-word level of the GSL are not in the two
publishers’ lists. These 20 families were association, English, forth, form, hurrah, mass, mere,
ounce, regard, scale, stock, base, difference, honour, native, production, poverty, standard,
subject, and upon. The same pattern occurred with the second 1,000 GSL families in the two lists.
The total number of GSL families that are not in the OBW and the CER lists is shown in Figures
3 and 4.
We can see in Figures 3 and 4 that the number of GSL families not occurring in the two lists is
not large. For the first 1,000 GSL words, the total number is 87, which is 8.79% of 990 families,
while for the second 1,000 GSL words, the total is 280, or 28.74% of 974 families. In total, 367
of the 1,964 families (18.85%) in the GSL do not occur in two series of readers. From the GSL
perspective, the difference is not large between the two lists and the GSL. This perspective is
preferable because the GSL (1,964 families) is smaller than the OBW lists (2,257 families) and
the CER lists (3,055 families).
87 GSL 1,000-word-level families
OBW CER
49 families 20 families 18 families
Figure 3. The families of the GSL 1,000-word level that do not occur in the OBW and the CER
lists.

280 GSL 2,000-word-level families
OBW CER
Figure 4. The families of the GSL 2,000-word level that do not occur in the OBW and the CER
lists.
The numbers of OBW and CER families not in the GSL are shown in Tables 11 and 12. This is a
less preferable perspective to see the overlap of the OBW and CER lists. Because both lists are
larger than the GSL, the number of families not occurring in the GSL is large. The number of
families not in the GSL increases in both series from the lower to upper levels. The number of
OBW and CER families not in the GSL is small at the three lower levels. That is, from 41 to 65
families not in the GSL are found in the four lower levels of the OBW, and the three lower levels
of the CER range from 45 to 104 families not in the GSL. At the two upper levels of the OBW
and the three upper levels of CER, the numbers of families in the two lists increase. Because the
CER introduces more families in the lists (3,055 families), this results in a large number of
families not in the GSL. In total, the CER includes 1,301 families not in the GSL, while the
OBW (2,257 families) includes 595 families not in the GSL.
Table 11. Number of OBW families not in the GSL

GSL Families not
OBW level OBW subtotal
1st 1,000 2nd 1,000 Total in the GSL
1 360 77 437 496 59
2 182 105 287 328 41
3 131 110 241 306 65
4 87 121 208 273 65
5 90 164 254 423 169
6 71 164 235 431 196
Total 921 741 1,662 2,257 595
Table 12. Number of CER families not in the GSL

GSL Families not in
CER level st nd CER subtotal
1 1,000 2 1,000 Total the GSL
1 324 94 418 477 59
2 191 84 275 320 45
3 146 89 235 339 104
4 116 149 265 502 237
5 118 185 303 670 367
6 57 201 258 747 489
Total 952 802 1,754 3,055 1,301
A comparison of the families not in the GSL in the two lists showed that 399 families occurred in

both series. The overlap between the two series in terms of the total number of the families not in
the GSL is illustrated in Figure 5.
Overall, the data suggests that because of the size differences between the GSL and the two
graded-reader series, particularly the CER list, none of them could representatively cover the
families in the two graded-reader series, particularly at the higher levels of the series.
1,497 families in the two series not occurring in the GSL
OBW CER
Figure 5. Number of the OBW and CER families not occurring in the GSL.
Do the Books Follow the Publishers’ Lists?
The available lists have been compared to see how similar they are. If the actual books do not
follow these lists, then the comparison is meaningless. The next step in the study, therefore, was
to see how closely the vocabulary in the books resembled that in the lists. Two books were
chosen to represent the books at each of three levels: Levels 1, 3, and 5. The books were scanned
and used as input texts to be analyzed by the Range program using the OBW and CER baseword
lists. The overlap at each level is the number of families that occur in both the books and the
publishers’ lists.
Then, from the OBW perspective, books at Levels 1, 3, and 5 from three series, CER, Penguin
Readers (PR), and Macmillan Guided Readers (MGR), were analyzed to see what coverage the
OBW list gave of these books.
Families actually used in the books from the OBW perspective. The books from the three levels
of OBW are White Death (Book 1of Level 1), The Lottery Winner (Book 2 of Level 1), The
Picture of Dorian Gray (Book 1 of Level 3), Ethan Frome (Book 2 of Level 3), The Dead of
Jericho (Book 1 of Level 5), and The Garden Party (Book 2 of Level 5). They were all examined
in the same way. Data detailing the word families actually used at each level are shown in Table
13. This first section looks at the actual word families used. The next section looks at the
coverage.
In the first book of OBW Level 1 (i.e., White Death), 303 Level 1 word families are used, and
the book contains a total of 361 word families, as shown in Table 13. Therefore, the proportion
of Level 1 word families actually used in White Death is 83.93% (303 divided by 361). When the
number of the proper nouns is added to this proportion (83.93% + 4.70%), it equals 88.63% (see
the “Families and proper nouns” column). The book also uses 22 word families from Level 2 of
the OBW scheme, 6 from Level 3, and so on. The book uses 6 families that are not on the OBW
list. Another Level 1 OBW book, The Lottery Winner, uses 84.63% Level 1 families and proper
nouns. The overlap between the list and the vocabulary in the text is not nearly as high as it
should be in both books.
A larger amount of overlap is found in the two upper levels. At Level 3, the two OBW books,
The Picture of Dorian Gray and Ethan Frome, have overlaps of 94.54 and 90.46% when proper
nouns are included. The two Level 5 OBW books also provide a rather high overlap of the
families at Level 5, that is, 92.26 and 92.88%. The details are given in Table 13. In terms of
actual families used in a book, the bigger the overlap, the better the book.
Table 13. Overlap of the word families actually used in the OBW books at each level from the OBW
perspective
OBW level Proper Families and Total word Words not in
OBW book 1 2 3 4 5 6 nouns proper nouns families any levels
B1-1 303 22 6 4 2 1 17 320 361 6
(83.93) (4.70) (88.63)
B1-2 334 36 6 7 1 1 35 369 436 16
(76.61) (8.02) (84.63)
B3-1 342 178 118 9 4 4 38 676 715 22
638 (89.23) (5.31) (94.54)
B3-2 343 210 136 13 11 4 70 759 839 52
689 (82.12) (8.34) (90.46)
B5-1 409 261 199 129 128 13 140 1,266 1,372 93
1,126 (82.06) (10.20) (92.26)
B5-2 390 241 175 134 139 23 69 1,148 1,236 69
1,079 (87.30) (5.58) (92.88)
Note. The values in parentheses are percentages. B1-1 = Book 1 of Level 1; B1-2 = Book 2 of Level 1;
B3-1 = Book 1 of Level 3; B3-2 = Book 2 of Level 3; B5-1 = Book 1 of Level 5; B5-2 = Book 2 of
Level 5.
In White Death, 303 Level 1 families were used from the available 400 headwords in the Level 1
OBW list. This is 75.75%. The Lottery Winner used 83.5% of the 400 Level 1 families in the list.
Because 95 or 98% coverage is needed, more Level 1 words should be used in the two Level 1
books to reduce the heavy vocabulary load of unknown words.
White Death uses 6 words not in any OBW levels: bedroom, courtroom, jury, toothpaste, tube,
and tubes, most of which were related to the story and made the story real to its audience when
the storyline was presented. The word courtroom occurred 13 times, and the word jury appeared
19 times in the book. Such occurrences may help the readers increase their knowledge of the two
words and decrease the burden of unknown words when the readers work through the book. In a
similar manner, readers would encounter the word tubes 22 times in the book, and may thus be
able to get the meaning during reading. As for bedroom (1 occurrence) and toothpaste (34
occurrences), single stems like bed, room, and tooth can help the reader guess their meanings
more easily.
The second major group of words used in White Death is 22 Level 2 words. Among those words
are police (30 occurrences), inspector (24 occurrences), and prison (12 occurrences). Each word
is essential for the story. Although these words are beyond the current level, they are repeated

often and do not continue to be burdens.
The Lottery Winner contains 16 words not in any levels. They are cell (3 occurrences),
champagne (5 occurrences), charity (4 occurrences), footballer (1 occurrence), lotteries (10
occurrences), lottery (44 occurrences), interestingly (1 occurrence), snatched (6 occurrences),
snatcher (3 occurrences), snatching (1 occurrence), stage (1 occurrence), sunshine (10
occurrences), huh (1 occurrence), eh (1 occurrence), mmm (1 occurrence), and ah (1 occurrence).
The word lottery, the topic word, clearly occurs the most throughout the book, and the word
snatched is also clearly important in the story. The 36 words of Level 2, including policeman (24
occurrences), winning (17 occurrences), and stole (11 occurrences), relate to the topic presented
in the story. The words that occur only once are the ones that indicate poor vocabulary control,
and the words occurring more than once or twice are unlikely to detract from the accessibility of
the text. In addition, a high number of repetitions of unknown words can help the learner guess
their meanings in the story.
Words actually used in the books from the CER perspective. The same method as used with the
OBW books was applied to six CER books: Inspector Logan (Book 1of Level 1), Parallel (Book
2 of Level 1), The House by the Sea (Book 1 of Level 3), The Ironing Man (Book 2 of Level 3),
All I Want (Book 1 of Level 5), and The Emergency Murder (Book 2 of Level 5).
The overlap of the CER lists and the six CER books from the CER perspective is shown in Table
14. At Level 1, in Inspector Logan, 280 of the 372 families are Level 1 CER families. When
added to the proper nouns (20), they provide 80.65% coverage (see the “Families and proper
nouns” column), while the other Level 1 CER book gives 77.74% coverage. The two Level 3
CER books overlap with the lists 88.39 and 86.91%, and the two Level 5 CER books overlap
88.76 and 91.73%.
Table 14. Overlap of word families actually used in the CER books at each level from the CER
perspective
CER level Proper Families and Total word Words not in
CER book 1 2 3 4 5 6 nouns proper nouns families any levels
B1-1 280 39 10 9 2 2 20 300 372 10
(75.27) (5.38) (80.65)
B1-2 249 58 6 5 4 1 20 267 346 3
(71.96) (5.78) (77.74)
B3-1 342 197 109 43 15 4 30 678 767 27
648 (84.48) (3.91) (88.39)
B3-2 365 218 144 48 15 8 50 777 894 46
727 (81.32) (5.59) (86.91)
B5-1 361 221 159 142 107 31 92 1,082 1,219 106
990 (81.21) (7.55) (88.76)
B5-2 399 254 187 208 162 13 90 1,310 1,428 115
1,210 (85.43) (6.30) (91.73)
Level 5.

A comparison of the words actually used in the two Level 1 CER books with the families in the
Level 1 CER list showed that the first book uses 70% of the 400 headwords of the Level 1 CER
list and that the other Level 1 book uses 64% of the Level 1 words. Inspector Logan and Parallel
do not provide learners with a large proportion of the current level words. Many of the words
used in the two Level 1 CER books are Level 2 words, that is, 39 and 58 words.
In Inspector Logan, the 10 words not in any levels include lunchtime (1 occurrence),
questioningly (1 occurrence), rental (2 occurrences), teabags (1 occurrence), tomorrows (1
occurrence), scientists (2 occurrences), sergeants (9 occurrences), sergeant (1 occurrence),
somethings (1 occurrence), and terrace (7 occurrences). Most of the off-list words occur once
except for the words sergeants and terrace, which are important in the story. Repetitions of the
two words may help learners recall their meanings when working through the story. In the other
Level 1 book, Parallel, the 3 words not in any levels are chin (1 occurrence), knees (2
occurrences), and prologue (1 occurrence). The word prologue is used to introduce the book
before the story was presented. With very few occurrences, these words are unlikely to affect an
overall understanding of the story.
Level 2 words are the second major group of words used in the two Level 1 CER books as in the
two Level 1 OBW books. Among the 39 Level 2 words in Inspector Logan, the word killed,
which is related to the topic, occurs 9 times throughout the book. Several of the Level 2 CER
words in Parallel, such as different (25 occurrences) and around (10 occurrences), are not
obviously topic related.
The data indicates the overlap in terms of word families. A look at the number of tokens in a
whole book will reveal a clearer picture of the coverage of texts, which is expected to assist
learners in coping with reading. Here, token refers to each occurrence of a word that is counted
each time it occurs in the text, and coverage refers to the percentage of the tokens in a text or
corpus covered by a particular word list. A high coverage indicates that vocabulary may not be a
problem in reading the text because the unknown words are few within a largely known context.
A 95% coverage is a good start (Laufer, 1989; Liu and Nation, 1985), but a 98–100% coverage is
preferable for graded readers (Nation, 2001).
Text coverage of the OBW books at each level from the OBW perspective. The six OBW books
provide a reasonable coverage from the OBW perspective, as shown in Table 15. For example, in
White Death, 303 OBW Level 1 word families occurred in the book as 6,035 tokens. Then, 6,035
divided by 6,869 running words in the book makes 87.86% coverage of the text. When the
occurrences of proper nouns (6.39%) in the book are added, the coverage of the text at Level 1 is
94.25% (see the “Tokens and proper nouns” column). This proportion is close to 95% coverage,
which is expected to enhance guessing from context when some difficult words are introduced.
As we can see in Table 15, the four books at Levels 3 and 5 give good coverage at their levels.
They cover 97.07 and 97.34% at Level 3 and 98.60 and 98.59% at Level 5. These figures
indicate that the vocabulary is not controlled as well at Level 1 in the series as it is in the later
levels. That is, Level 1 books have more words outside the level than books at Levels 3 and 5.
Text coverage of the CER books at each level from the CER perspective. A similar pattern for the
six CER books is shown in Table 16. In Inspector Logan, for example, the coverage of the Level

1 text is 92.05% (see the “Tokens and proper nouns” column). This is the result of 3,480
occurrences of Level 1 CER words (280 word families) plus 345 occurrences of proper nouns
(20 words) throughout the book, which is divided by the total number of running words in the
book (4,155 tokens). The other Level 1 book has 91.55% coverage. These are well below the
coverage needed for unassisted reading. The percentage coverage is higher at the upper levels, as
found in Levels 3 and 5. It is 98.39 and 97.63% at Level 3 and 96.58 and 98.59% at Level 5.
Table 15. Token coverage of the OBW books at each level from the OBW perspective
OBW level Tokens and
Proper Total Tokens not
OBW proper
1 2 3 4 5 6 nouns tokens in any levels
book nouns
B1-1 6,035 167 29 57 23 17 439 6,474 6,869 102
(87.86) (6.39) (94.25) (1.48)
B1-2 4,994 210 20 74 3 23 337 5,331 5,759 98
(86.72) (5.85) (92.57) (1.70)
B3-1 8,319 993 477 54 31 36 654 10,443 10,758 194
(77.33) (9.23) (4.43) (6.08) (97.07) (1.80)
B3-2 8,297 1,254 543 57 57 17 602 10,696 10,988 161
(75.51) (11.41) (4.94) (5.48) (97.34) (1.46)
B5-1 18,037 2,054 969 485 317 52 768 22,630 22,952 270
(78.59) (8.95) (4.22) (2.11) (1.38) (3.35) (98.60) (1.17)
B5-2 18,373 2,178 1,087 537 483 98 1,500 24,158 24,503 247
(74.98) (8.89) (4.44) (2.19) (1.97) (6.12) (98.59) (1.01)
Level 5.
Table 16. Token coverage of the CER books at each level from the CER perspective
CER level Tokens and Tokens not
Proper Total
CER proper in any
1 2 3 4 5 6 nouns tokens
book nouns levels
B1-1 3,480 133 28 38 11 87 345 3,825 4,155 33
(83.75) (8.30) (92.05) (0.79)
B1-2 3,645 236 34 36 32 17 251 3,896 4,255 4
(85.66) (5.89) (91.55) (0.09)
B3-1 13,403 1,619 516 72 26 26 530 16,068 16,286 94
(82.03) (9.94) (3.17) (3.25) (98.39) (0.57)
B3-2 11,633 1,721 663 145 26 14 480 14,497 14,840 158
(78.39) (11.54) (4.47) (3.23) (97.63) (1.06)
B5-1 14,707 1,845 773 548 329 263 1,952 20,154 20,866 449
(70.48) (8.84) (3.70) (2.63) (1.58) (9.35) (96.58) (2.15)
B5-2 19,048 2,859 1,062 715 369 78 915 24,968 25,322 276
(75.22) (11.29) (4.19) (2.82) (1.46) (3.61) (98.59) (1.08)
Level 5.
The books of the two series are likely to give reasonable coverage at the higher levels, as shown
in Tables 15 and 16. However, at the lower levels, the Level 1 words and proper nouns cover

only 92.60% on average, which is not close enough to 95 or 98% coverage.
To further examine the coverage in various graded-reader series, books of three series, CER, PR,
and MGR, were chosen. They were analyzed from the OBW perspective (using the OBW
baseword lists). The OBW lists were chosen as a basis for investigating the books for several
reasons. First, evidence from a descriptive analysis of the wordlists of OBW and CER shows that
94.01% of the families in the OBW list are in the CER list. This ensures that the OBW itself can
represent a large number of families shared by the CER, while the CER cannot, because of its
much larger size. When the size of the OBW list is compared with those of the PR and the MGR
(using the vocabulary size in the catalogues because the lists are not given to the public), the
differences are not large: 2,200 (MGR), 2,500 (OBW), and 3,000 (PR). Second, if the number of
levels is an issue, the OBW has six levels, as do the CER and the PR, although the MGR has
only five levels. The last reason is that the OBW graded-reading scheme provides good coverage
at higher levels for its books.
Initially, the OBW series was expected to be a good basis for investigating token coverage of
other series. The question of whether this is true will be addressed next.
To look at the effect of using the OBW lists as a standard, the words actually used in the CER
books were reexamined from the OBW perspective. The same method was applied to six books
of the PR series: The Missing Coins (Book 1of Level 1), The House of the Seven Gables (Book 2
of Level 1), The Yearling (Book 1 of Level 3), The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (Book 2 of Level
3), Prime Suspect (Book 1 of Level 5), and The Warden (Book 2 of Level 5).
Similarly, six books of the MGR series were chosen to represent the three levels. They are Alissa
(Book 1of Level 1), Paradise Island (Book 2 of Level 1), The Runaways (Book 1 of Level 3),
The Black Cat (Book 2 of Level 3), Great Expectations (Book 1 of Level 5), and The Man of
Property (Book 2 of Level 5).
To give a clearer picture of the sample books of the four series, Table 17 summarizes the text
coverage of the books at the three levels studied.
Table 17. Percentage text coverage of the books of four graded-reading schemes from the OBW
perspective
Level 1 Level 3 Level 5
Series
Book 1 Book 2 Book 1 Book 2 Book 1 Book 2
OBW 94.25 92.57 97.07 97.34 98.60 98.59
CER 92.15 90.45 97.90 96.05 95.52 97.34
PR 89.21 93.82 96.39 94.78 97.45 94.76
MGR 87.16 78.24 92.76 96.04 95.87 97.66
Generally speaking, the OBW books come out best when analyzed using the OBW list. The two
Level 5 OBW texts are the only ones to reach the desired 98% coverage. In many cases, however,
the differences in coverage between the books from the other series and the OBW books are not
great.

The coverage of the Level 1 books in all the series including OBW is not satisfactory. The
coverage figures are all below 95%, for several possible reasons. First, writing books at this level
may not be possible using such a limited vocabulary. Second, the lists are not well made and thus
cannot do the job that they are supposed to do. Finally, writers and editors may not be applying
the lists very stringently, letting the story determine the words.
Discussion
An analysis and comparison of the lists of the word families in the two major series, OBW and
CER, was carried out using the Range program. The results gave information about the wordlists
of the graded readers and furthered understanding of the relationship between them and the GSL
words.
The results of the study indicate that the wordlists of the graded readers exploit high-frequency
words to provide readable texts suitable for establishing known vocabulary and learning
unknown vocabulary. In the three lower levels of the OBW and CER series, the number of word
families in the two lists does not differ much, and the series overlap considerably.
At the higher levels of the series (Levels 4 to 6) are considerable size differences, and as a result,
only a small amount of overlap between the series for the new word families introduced at those
levels. Although the 2,000 GSL families are crucial for learners of English, the OBW and the
CER contain more families than does the GSL. The OBW has 595 more, and the CER has 1,301
more. In addition, the words actually used in the books do not stick closely enough to the
families on the lists on which they are based, especially at Level 1.
The study may provide useful information for teachers using graded readers in extensive reading
programs. The findings highlight that the number of headwords cannot be used as a good
criterion for comparing the series. For categorizing books in extensive reading, the findings
based on the size differences between the lists of the two series suggest that when the books of
various series need to be shelved or categorized in a reading room, they should be classified
separately in their own series. They cannot be sensibly compared simply on the basis of similar
numbers of headwords or levels. In addition, in practice, when using the graded-reading schemes
of various series, the differences in vocabulary sizes, divisions of levels, and actual words used
make it impossible to take one scheme as a good representative of the others and in this way
develop a categorization that will fit all schemes. This suggests that teachers need to be very
flexible when setting up standard sets of levels for a graded-reading library incorporating books
from various series.
In general, the books do not stick closely to the words in the publishers’ lists, particularly at
Level 1. One cause of this is that words that are important for a story are brought in, and some of
these words are repeated throughout the text. This is acceptable, and these words are likely to be
learned without becoming burdens for the readers. When words outside the books and the lists
are brought in and used only one or two times, this is evidence of careless simplification.
However, coverage from the OBW perspective suggests that the graded-reading schemes of each
series have attempted to provide suitable conditions for unassisted reading, particularly at higher
levels. This suggests that reading across the series is possible if learners have gained enough

knowledge of the high-frequency words needed to read at that level. From a practical perspective,
teachers may have difficulty knowing whether their learners know sufficient high-frequency
words for each level. Teachers should be aware of the different words used in the books of
different series when assigning learners to read any series of graded readers. Without careful
attention to the different numbers of headwords in the books of different series, reading across
the series might affect learners’ reading abilities and lead to unfavorable attitudes towards the
habit of reading. In sum, to promote the learning of words in graded readers, learners should be
assigned to read and work their way through the levels within one graded-reading scheme at a
time.
The difference in the sizes of the lists and actual words used in the books reminds teachers that
learners will meet quite a high proportion of different unknown words when they move to a new
level in their graded reading. If the idea of guessing from context is applied, because a
considerable proportion of the GSL words are included in the graded-reader lists, supplementing
the learning through reading with direct study of the GSL words would be wise. This helps
increase the learners’ knowledge of the essential high-frequency vocabulary required for the
learning of the unknown words in context when learners are engaged in reading various levels of
graded readers. At this point, word cards would be best used individually (Nation, 2001), with
learners making their own cards and choosing the words from the GSL lists. By doing so, the
density of unknown words will become light enough to allow more fluent reading. This should
enhance reading across the various series.
The difference in vocabulary sizes and divisions of levels found in the study also suggests that
extensive reading, particularly that done with graded readers, should be assigned with great care.
This is to control ability levels. If too many words are unknown and learners lack motivation,
they will not make many gains. Despite graded readers being used as simplified texts to increase
both the learning of words and fluency in reading, learners are probably unable to take advantage
of being exposed to more unknown language below a certain vocabulary threshold. If learners
get too much new input and it is not comprehensible, their gains are likely to be few. Conversely,
without new input, their chances to learn and demonstrate learning will be few. In other words,
learners who are given materials that are too easy are not challenged, and their growth can be
hampered (Chall & Conard, 1991). The findings clearly address a vocabulary size issue and
suggest that teachers should place learners in appropriate levels of reading to reach the ultimate
goal of extensive reading with graded readers.
In terms of placing learners at appropriate levels of graded reading, if a placement test is needed,
none of the three lists can act as a good source of words for testing for all series. Because of the
size differences between the GSL and the two graded-reader series, particularly the CER lists,
sampling words from the GSL for a placement test for extensive reading would not give a
representative coverage of words in the graded-reader series, particularly at the higher levels of
the series. If a test based on the GSL was used for the first four levels of the two series, it would
be reasonably representative, but a substantial number of words would still be in the GSL and
not in Levels 1 to 4, and a substantial number of words would still be in the two series and not in
the GSL. The size differences are large between the two wordlists and the GSL. That is, the two
series contain more words than are in the GSL. A total of 1,497 words occur in the two series but
not in the GSL. This evidence does not support the idea of making a test from the GSL words to

represent the words in the graded readers. The GSL is not a feasible source of words for a
placement test for extensive reading. The findings of this study answer the question of whether
words from the wordlists of graded readers and the GSL could be a good source of words for a
vocabulary size test for graded-reading schemes. They suggest that using the GSL as a source of
words for a placement test is problematic. Moreover, as the two series differ from each other
considerably in size, beyond the first three levels of the series, expecting a vocabulary measure
to properly represent the words across the two series is clearly not feasible. Teachers or
researchers who are looking for a word source for making such tests should look elsewhere.
This study has worked within a narrow focus. It has looked only at the wordlists of graded
readers and the GSL in terms of a word source for the learning of words in simplified texts. This
study has attempted to examine similarities and differences in the sizes of lists and actual words
used in the books, which provides an understanding of the wordlists in detail. Most graded
readers are designed according to their own wordlists and deliberately not set up as a way of
presenting new vocabulary; rather, they are seen as being supplementary readers that help
establish vocabulary already met in language courses. This is in line with the results of the
Nation and Wang study (1999).
Despite the limitations in the size of the study, the findings add to our understanding of the
wordlists of graded readers and their relationship with the GSL and actual words used in the
books. An interesting issue for further study would be to develop the teaching and learning of
vocabulary through extensive reading with graded readers when control of ability is needed. For
example, how can we measure a vocabulary size that may enhance reading across series? What
measures can be assigned to test the learning of words from graded readers? Is a placement test
for graded-reading schemes feasible?
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Professor Paul Nation, my PhD advisor, at Victoria University of Wellington, for
his generous help with access to the OBW and CER wordlists and for his comments on an earlier
draft of this article. I also thank the two publishers and the anonymous reviewers who provided
valuable comments to clarify this article. This research was supported by a grant from the
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Mahasarakham University, Thailand. Without all
mentioned, this study would never have been completed.
Notes
1. The GSL, developed in the 1940s, contains 2,000 headwords. The frequency figures for most
items are based on a 5 million-word written corpus. Percentage figures are given for different
meanings and parts of speech of the headwords. In spite of its age, occasional errors, and solely
written base, it remains the best of the available lists not only because of its information about
the frequencies of meanings but also because of West’s careful application of criteria other than
frequency and range. The 2,000 GSL words are of practical use to teachers and curriculum
planners because they are contained within word families, each with its own frequency.

2. Coverage refers to the percentage of the tokens in a text or corpus contained in a particular
word list. Text coverage helps readers guess from context and build fluency in reading by
providing good proportions of known words. See more details in Schmitt and McCarthy (1997,
pp. 6–19).
3. The AWL contains 570 word families and does not include words that are in the most frequent
2,000 word families of English. For information on the development and evaluation of the AWL,
see Coxhead (2000).
References
Bauer, L., & Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6,
253–279.
Chall, J. S., & Conard, S. S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students? The case for easier or
harder books. New York: Teacher College Press.
Chung, T. M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2004). Identifying technical vocabulary. System, 32, 251–263.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.
Hill, D. (1997). Survey review: Graded readers. English Language Teaching Journal, 51(1), 57–
81.
Hill, D. (2001). Graded readers. English Language Teaching Journal, 55, 300–324.
Hirsh, D., & Nation, I. S. P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts
for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 689–696.
Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403–430.
Hwang, K., & Nation, I. S. P. (1989). Reducing the vocabulary load and encouraging vocabulary
learning through reading newspapers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 6, 323–335.
M. Nordmann (Eds.), From humans thinking to thinking machines (pp. 316–323).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Laufer, B., & Nation, I. S. P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written
production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322.
Liu, N., & Nation, I. S. P. (1985). Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. RELC
Journal, 16, 33–42.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2004). A study of the most frequent word families in the British National Corpus.
In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection,
acquisition, and testing (pp. 3–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82.
Nation, I. S. P., & Wang, M. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 12, 355–380.
Nation, I. S. P., & Heatley, A. (2002). Range: A program for the analysis of vocabulary in texts
[Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-

nation/nation.aspx
Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sutarsyah, C., Nation, I. S. P., & Kennedy, G. (1994). How useful is EAP vocabulary for ESP? A
corpus based study. RELC Journal, 25, 34–50.
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longman.
Appendix A
Three Baseword Lists
Some examples of the word families with their family members in the baseword lists for the Range
program are shown below. The program compares the word forms in texts with three baseword lists built
into the program consisting of the first 1,000 and the second 1,000 families of the GSL and the AWL.
The first baseword list consists of the first 1,000 word families.
The second baseword list consists of the second 1,000 word families

The third baseword list consists of academic word families
Appendix B
Samples of the Output of the Range Program
The following screenshot illustrates the output of the Range program using the three baseword lists and a
short text taken from Level 1 of the OBW series.
The box on the right shows the three baseword lists and a processed file produced when a text (from
Level 1 of the OBW) was input to the Range program.
The following output shows how many word families in the input text were found in each list. For
example, 109 word families were in the first list, 21 in the second list, none in the AWL, and 6 words
were outside the word lists. In addition, text coverage can be determined to see whether this text supports

reading ability at a certain level. This text had 84.59% coverage, which means that it is likely to contain
many Level 2 words, unknown at Level 1, and this could affect reading ability at Level 1 if
comprehension and fluency in reading is required.
Processing file: C:\Documents and Settings\adminstrator\Desktop\Baseword123\OBW 1.txt

Number of lines: 9
Number of words: 305
Reading: C:\Documents and Settings\adminstrator\Desktop\Baseword123\BASEWRD1.txt

WORD LIST TOKENS/% TYPES/% FAMILIES
One 258/84.59 132/82.50 109

Two 31/10.16 22/13.75 21
Three 0/ 0.00 0/ 0.00 0
Not in the lists 16/ 5.25 6/ 3.75 ?????
Total 305 160 130
A marked text can show which baseword lists each word in the input text belongs to. It can be used to
examine all the words in the text in detail. For example, in the following, unmarked words were in the
first list, words marked with <2> were in the second list, words marked with <3> were in the third list,
and words marked with <!> were not in any of the lists. This helps check the words that might affect
reading ability at a certain level.
ONE SATURDAY {2}AFTERNOON IN A SMALL TOWN, {!}EMMA {!}CARTER CAME OUT OF A

{2}SHOE {2}SHOP WITH SOME NEW {2}SHOES. THEY WERE {2}CHEAP {2}SHOES, BUT
{!}EMMA WAS VERY PLEASED WITH THEM. SHE WAS SEVENTY THREE YEARS OLD AND
DID NOT HAVE MUCH MONEY. SHE BEGAN TO WALK HOME. ‘A {2}NICE {2}CUP OF
{2}TEA,’ SHE THOUGHT, ‘AND THEN I CAN GO FOR A WALK IN MY NEW {2}SHOES.’
IT WAS A {2}QUIET TOWN AND THERE WAS NOBODY IN THE STREET. {2}SUDDENLY,
{!}EMMA HEARD SOMETHING BEHIND HER. SHE DID NOT HAVE TIME TO LOOK, BECAUSE
JUST THEN SOMEBODY RAN UP BEHIND HER, {2}HIT HER ON THE HEAD, AND
{!}SNATCHED HER {2}BAG OUT OF HER HANDS. {!}EMMA FELL DOWN ON HER BACK.
THEN SHE LOOKED UP, AND SAW A {2}TALL YOUNG MAN WITH LONG, {2}DIRTY
{2}BROWN {2}HAIR. HE STOOD AND LOOKED DOWN AT HER FOR A SECOND; THEN HE
RAN AWAY WITH {!}EMMA’S {2}BAG UNDER HIS ARM.
‘HELP! HELP!’ {!}EMMA CRIED. BUT NOBODY CAME, AND AFTER TWO OR THREE MINUTES
{!}EMMA {2}SLOWLY GOT UP AND WENT TO THE NEAREST HOUSE.
THE PEOPLE THERE WERE VERY KIND. THEY GAVE {!}EMMA A {2}CUP OF {2}TEA, AND
SOON AN {!}AMBULANCE CAME AND TOOK HER TO {2}HOSPITAL. AT THE {2}HOSPITAL A
DOCTOR LOOKED AT {!}EMMA’S HEAD AND BACK. ‘YOU’RE GOING TO BE {!}OK,’ HE SAID.
‘JUST TAKE IT EASY FOR A DAY OR TWO. CAN YOUR HUSBAND HELP YOU AT HOME?’
‘MY HUSBAND DIED EIGHT YEARS AGO,’ SAID {!}EMMA. ‘THERE’S ONLY ME AT HOME.’
‘WELL,’ THE DOCTOR SAID, ‘WE DON’T WANT YOU TO FEEL ILL AND FALL
{2}DOWNSTAIRS AT HOME. SO I THINK YOU MUST STAY IN {2}HOSPITAL FOR {2}TONIGHT,
AND PERHAPS {2}TOMORROW NIGHT, TOO.’ LATER, A {2} POLICEMAN CAME TO THE
{2}HOSPITAL AND {!}EMMA TOLD HIM ABOUT THE {2}BAG {!}SNATCHER. ‘DID ANYBODY
SEE THIS YOUNG MAN?’ HE ASKED.

Appendix C
The Six Baseword Lists Established From the Wordlists of the OBW and CER Series
OBW baseword lists. The six OBW baseword lists included all the words at the levels established by the
publisher.
Level 1 OBW basewords Level 2 OBW basewords
CER baseword lists. The six CER baseword lists included all the words at the levels established by the
publisher.

Level 1 CER basewords Level 2 CER basewords
About the Author
Udorn Wan-a-rom is an assistant professor and a full-time lecturer at the Department of Western
Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Mahasarakham
University, Thailand. He received his MA and PhD in applied linguistics from the Victoria
University of Wellington, New Zealand. His main research is in second language (L2) reading,
L2 testing, and L2 vocabulary acquisition.
E-mail: romud2505@yahoo.com

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 70–91
Developing reading fluency: A study of extensive reading in EFL

Yurika Iwahori
Nirayama High School
Japan
Abstract
Due to the great interest of practitioners on reading fluency in first language (L1) and
second language (L2) English classroom settings, fluency has become a hot topic. A
number of studies have suggested that an extensive reading (ER) program can lead to
improvement of L2 learners’ reading rate; however, studies about high school students
are scarce. Inspired by current issues in reading and previous ER investigations, this
study examined the effectiveness of ER on reading rates of high school students in Japan.
In this study, students were provided with graded readers and comic books as reading
material they would find enjoyable. Pretests and posttests of reading rate and language
proficiency were administered and a t test was used to compare means of the rates and
language proficiency within groups. Results indicate that ER is an effective approach to
improve students’ rate and general language proficiency.
Keywords: extensive reading, reading rate, reading fluency, automaticity, 1-minute reading probe,
t test, C-test
Characterized with the motto “reading gain without reading pain” (Day & Bamford, 1998, p. l21),
extensive reading (ER), an approach to second language (L2) reading instruction, aims to make
covering large amounts of reading material enjoyable for students. The goal of ER is
straightforward: to help students become fluent, independent, and confident readers (Day &
Bamford, 1998). ER is one way that L2 learners are exposed to English, especially in an
environment of English as a foreign language (EFL). According to Day and Bamford (2002), ER
promotes reading fluency and increases reading speed (p. 138). As students are assigned to read
a large amount of comprehensive materials, speed becomes important as it facilitates the
enjoyment and comprehension of materials.
A number of experimental and quasi-experimental studies have been conducted to examine the
effectiveness of ER and to provide support for the use of ER in English as a second language
(ESL) and EFL classroom settings. In studies on reading rate, for example, ER has been shown
to increase learners’ reading speed (see Table 2 for a list of the studies). Samuels (2006) and
Blevins (2005) claimed that ER is an effective approach to improving learners’ reading fluency.
However, research has been limited to junior high schools and tertiary educational institutions,
and little attention has been given to it in high schools in EFL environments. Many practitioners
in Japan have used ER in their classes, suggesting that they intuitively know that their students
Iwahori: Developing reading fluency 71
need a large quantity of English input (Schmidt, 1996). The lack of studies has in part reflected
the difficulty in administering experimental or quasi-experimental studies at high schools in
Japan.
Extensive Reading
Day and Bamford (1998) credited Harold Palmer as the first to use the term extensive in referring
to a large amount of reading with a focus on the meaning of the text. For Palmer, reading
extensively has the advantage of being both informative and pleasurable. In other words, ER has
real-world purposes in reading. Day and Bamford (2002, pp. 137–140) posited 10 principles of
ER: The reading material is easy; a variety of reading material on a wide range of topics must be
available; learners choose what they want to read; learners read as much as possible; the purpose
of reading is usually related to pleasure, information, and general understanding; reading is its
own reward; reading speed is usually faster rather than slower; reading is individual and silent;
teachers orient and guide their students; and the teacher is a role model of a reader.
Table 1. Results of selected L2 ER studies with junior high school, high school, university, and adult
learners of English
Study N Population Results
Vocabulary
Cho & Krashen, 1994 4 ESL; adults; USA Gains
Horst, 2005 21 ESL; adults; Canada Gains
Pitts, White, & Krashen, 51 ESL; adults; USA Gains
1989
Writing
Hafiz & Tudor, 1990 25 EFL; high school; Pakistan Gains
Tsang, 1996 48 EFL; junior high school, high school; Gains
Hong Kong
Reading comprehension
Masuhara, Kimura, Fukuda, 46 EFL; college; Japan Gains
& Takeuchi, 1996
Reading comprehension and speed
Bell, 2001 14 EFL; young adults; Yemen Gains
Robb & Susser, 1989 (About 62) EFL; university; Japan Gains
Sheu, 2003 65 EFL; junior high school; Taiwan Gains
Taguchi, Takayasu-Maass, 10 EFL; university; Japan No gains
& Gorsuch, 2004
Reading comprehension, writing, and speed
Lai, 1993 266a EFL; junior high school; Hong Kong Gains
Reading comprehension, writing, and attitude
Mason & Krashen, 1997 20, 71, 76 EFL; university; Japan Gains
(3 studies)
Note. N = the number of participants in the ER treatment groups.
a
The actual number of participants whose reading speed was analyzed was 207.
In addition to these principles, Ono, Day, and Harsch (2004) provided some tips for teachers.

They suggested that teachers have students avoid using dictionaries and train them to skip
unknown words. This is in contrast to the traditional practice in English language teaching
pedagogy, which encourages students to try to guess words in context as much as they can.
Furthermore, teachers should encourage students to simply stop reading if texts they are reading
are not interesting. Following these principles and tips, ER studies have shown that their
participants improved in areas such as reading comprehension, expanding vocabulary knowledge,
and enhancing writing skills (see Table 1). Moreover, the studies reported that students who
engaged in ER gained positive attitudes toward reading and increased their motivation to read.
Some of the results of experimental and quasi-experimental ER studies are summarized in Table
1. The studies presented in the fourth and fifth rows are the most directly relevant in designing
the methodology for the study, because the focus of the present study will be on the relationship
between ER and reading rate. These will be discussed in more detail later.
The theoretical frameworks supporting ER include input hypothesis (Krashen, 1985, pp. 2–3)
and pleasure hypothesis (Krashen, 2004). According to Krashen (1982, 1985, 1989), language
learners acquire languages by understanding messages in a low anxiety context. Specifically,
Krashen (1989) explained the hypothesis in this way: “comprehensible input is the essential
environmental ingredient—richly specified internal language acquisition device also makes a
significant contribution to language acquisition” (p. 440). Following the predictions of the
hypothesis, when the language acquisition device is involved, learners subconsciously acquire
target languages (Krashen, 1989). By focusing on meaning rather than form, learners are less
conscious of language acquisition and achieve what is called incidental learning (Krashen, 1989,
p. 440). If the hypothesis is correct, the more comprehensible aural and written input is provided,
the more language acquisition occurs. A number of ER studies yielded results that support this
hypothesis (see Table 1). In ER programs, L2 learners can choose reading texts whose levels are
appropriate for them. Therefore, they get a so-called flood of comprehensible input. Since the
English proficiency among participants in these studies is heterogeneous, it is quite clear that
comprehensible input is effective on any level of language learners.
Krashen’s (2004) pleasure hypothesis proposed that pedagogical activities which help language
acquisition are those that are enjoyable, “but enjoyment does not guarantee language acquisition”
(p. 28). He noted that there is evidence that voluntary reading outside the classroom is pleasing.
For example, the participants in ER studies in Mason and Krashen (1997) indicated growth of
positive attitudes toward reading.
Reading Fluency
Paran (1996) claimed that “if L1 readers possess attributes in reading which L2 readers do not,
then it is the task of the language teacher to develop ways of encouraging the development of
these attributes” (p. 30). He also stated that if automatic word decoding is a major attribute of L1
reading, a way of fostering automaticity should be found. The most widely accepted theory for
reading fluency is the automatic information processing (hereafter “automaticity theory”),
proposed by LaBerge and Samuels (1974; see also Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Mathson, Allington, &
Solic, 2006; Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003). Although many learners are able to recognize words
accurately, they spend excessive time and energy in the process of word identification, which

may lead to a breakdown of comprehension. When learners are able to recognize words
accurately and rapidly, they have greater capacity for attention leading to comprehending a text.
To explain automaticity theory, Samuels (1994) discussed two types of attention: external
attention and internal attention (p. 817). Internal attention is central to the theory of automaticity
in reading. It has three characteristics: alertness, selectivity, and limited capacity (pp. 818–819).
Alertness refers to the active attempt to come in contact with the source of information.
Selectivity is the ability to select individual processes used at any given moment. For example,
while reading these sentences, the process of selective attention enables you to choose which line
you will process, though you can see the lines above and below. Limited capacity means that the
human mind has a limited capacity to perform difficult tasks. For example, a novice car driver
must focus his or her attention on driving. An experienced driver, however, can drive a car while
listening to music, talking to someone, and sometimes even watching TV. Samuels’ (2006, p. 8)
made four assumptions to explain the automaticity theory for reading: The human mind has a
limited capacity to perform difficult tasks; in performing difficult tasks, such as decoding words
and comprehending a text, people make efforts and as a result consume their limited mind
capacity; through practice over time, the amount of effort needed for the tasks becomes less; and
eventually, the effort required for performing the tasks drops drastically.
According to the automaticity theory, two steps are involved to get meaning from printed words:
decoding and comprehension. In reading, decoding is a process wherein printed words are
translated into spoken words (Samuels, 1994). Eskey (1988) claimed that decoding is believed to
play a major role in the reading process. He also argued that the rapid and accurate decoding of
words is crucial to any kind of reading, especially L2 reading.
In comprehending a sentence, words must be interrelated and combined to construct meaning.

Samuels (1994) stated that “comprehension is a constructive process of synthesis and putting
word meanings together in special ways, much as individual bricks are combined in the
construction of a house” (p. 820). Even if a sentence is easy, attention is still needed for
comprehension to occur. When learners’ language proficiency is limited, they may exhaust their
attention finishing the decoding. As a result, they have little attention remaining for
comprehending the text.
Components of Reading Fluency: Accuracy and Speed
As explained above, the most widely accepted understanding of reading fluency is the
automaticity theory. Samuels (2006) argued that the essence of reading fluency is the ability to
decode and comprehend a text simultaneously. In dealing with components of reading fluency,
Martinez, Roser, and Strecker (1999) suggested that fluency depends on “appropriate rate,
accuracy, phrasing, and expression” (p. 327). Reutzel (2006) claimed that major elements of
fluency are speed of reading, accuracy, and proper expressions (p. 63). Blevins (2005) noted that
a fluent reader is one who can read rapidly, recognize words automatically, and interpret phrases
correctly (p. 13). He stated that recognizing words automatically represents accuracy or
smoothness of word decoding. Rasinski (2004) argued that there are three dimensions in reading
fluency: accuracy in word decoding, automatic processing, and prosodic reading (p. 46). He
claimed that learners’ automatic processing in decoding can be assessed by looking at their
reading speed. Although some researchers mentioned the components of oral reading fluency or

prosodic reading, such as appropriate or correct phrasing and expression, most researchers and
practitioners seem to agree on the following two components of silent reading fluency: (a)
accuracy of word recognition, and (b) speed of reading.
Relationship Between ER and Reading Fluency
Decoding words automatically is essential for fluency in reading. Words that learners can
recognize rapidly, accurately, and automatically have been called sight vocabulary. When
learners encounter the same words a number of times, these words may enter their sight
vocabulary (Day & Bamford, 1998; Ehri, 1995; Grabe, 1988; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). Sight
vocabulary is elemental for improving reading fluency. When learners have a large sight
vocabulary, they decode more words automatically. As a result, they can save their finite
cognitive resources to comprehend a text. It is crucial that learners have opportunities to keep
seeing the words that they have seen before. Thus, a number of researchers recommend ER to
increase sight vocabulary (Renandya & Jacobs, 2002; Samuels, 2006).
According to Samuels (1994), “automatic word-decoding skills and prior knowledge of a text’s
content may interact and strongly affect success in comprehension” (p. 831). Due to the fact that
learners read a number of different kinds of texts in ER programs, it can be an effective approach
to increase the learners’ variety of topical knowledge (Renandya & Jacobs, 2002). That
knowledge can facilitate learners’ reading comprehension (Bernhardt, 1991; Harris & Sipay,
1985; Taylor, 2006). Several ER studies indicate the effectiveness of the treatment for syntactic
knowledge (e.g., Elley & Mangubhai, 1983; Nassaji, 2003). Nation (2001) claimed that when
learners read, they not only learn new words and enrich known ones, but they can improve their
syntactic knowledge. A number of ER studies show participants’ improvement in the number of
vocabulary items (see Table 1). Learners can develop their knowledge of the world, syntactic
knowledge, and general vocabulary by reading extensively.
Some studies on ER rate in EFL contexts are presented in the fourth and fifth row in Table 1. In
these studies, participants’ reading rate and comprehension were measured. However, the
reading rate is the main focus. A summary of the main findings and methodological features for
the ER studies in EFL contexts are presented in Table 2. This table shows participants’ reading
rate differences in before and after treatments. It also displays how researchers measured rate and
decided the readability of the rate texts (the texts used to measure rate).
Bell (2001) conducted his study over two semesters to determine if young adult students’ reading
rate could be increased through ER in Yemen. He used an intensive reading (IR) class as a
control group. The participants’ English proficiency was at a beginning level. The mean rate in
the posttests of the treatment group improved from 68.10 to 127.53 words per minute (wpm) and
the control group showed gains from 78.45 to 92.54 wpm. He used t tests on pretests and
posttests to compare means between groups and found that the differences were statistically
significant. To measure rate, participants first read two different texts for 3 minutes. Next, their
rates were calculated by looking at the number of words they were able to read per minute. To
measure texts’ readability, the researcher used Fry’s readability evaluations. The number of the
books that participants in the ER group read was not mentioned.

Table 2. Results and measurement of selected rate studies in ER

Readability of
Pretest Posttest Texts for pretests and
Study N Results texts for pretests
(wpm) (wpm) posttests; measurement
and posttests
Bell, 2001: EFL; young adults; Yemen
Treatment
14 68.10 127.53 Two identical texts;
(ER) Fry’s readability
Sig (BG) time for reading for 3
evaluations
Control (IR) 12 78.45 92.54 minutes
Lai, 1993: EFL; junior high school; Hong Kong
Treatment 1
86 165 226 Sig (WG)
(ER)
Two different texts;
Treatment 2
88 85 181 Sig(WG) time for reading an Not mentioned
(ER)
entire text
Treatment 3
33 106 121 Not Sig (WG)
(ER)
Robb & Susser, 1989: EFL; university; Japan
Treatment
62a 79.31 86.55
(ER) Sig (BG) Not mentioned Not mentioned
Control (IR) 62b 78.50 76.75
Sheu, 2003: EFL; junior high school; Taiwan
Treatment
31 59.7 95.8 Sig (WG)
(GR) Two different texts;
Flesch-Kincaid
Treatment time for reading an
34 98.6 136.0 Sig (WG) readability
(BNESC) entire text using
formula
Nuttall’s assessment
Control 33 85.2 118.6 Sig (WG)
Taguchi, Takayasu-Maass, & Gorsuch, 2004: EFL; university; Japan
Treatment
10 80.88 64.48 Two different texts; Flesch-Kincaid,
(ER)
Not Sig (BG) time for reading an Fog, and Fry
Control
10 84.84 82.28 entire text formulas
(RR)
Note. ER = extensive reading; IR = intensive reading; GR = graded readers; BNESC = books for native
English-speaking children; RR = repeated reading; BG = between groups; WG = within groups; Sig =
statistically significant.
a
The authors did not mention the exact number of participants in the treatment group and control group.
Thus, this number is approximate. bThe same as the above.
Lai (1993) conducted a study over 4 weeks on lower secondary students aged 11 to 15 in Hong
Kong. There were three treatment groups, no control group,1 and the students’ English
proficiency was heterogeneous. Participants took pretests and posttests, and the researcher used a
t test to compare means within groups. The mean rate in the posttests in Treatment 1 improved
from 165 to 226 wpm, in Treatment 2 from 85 to 181 wpm, and in Treatment 3 from 106 to 121
wpm. The differences between the pretests and posttests of the two treatment groups were
statistically significant, but not in the third treatment group. The participants in the treatment
groups read an average of 16.2 books every 4 weeks. To measure the rate, the participants first

read a text, and when they finished reading they recorded the time they spent. Their rates were
then calculated by wpm. In the rate test, the participants knew there were eight true or false
questions after reading. The readability of the rate texts was not mentioned.
Robb and Susser (1989) conducted a study over two semesters, on freshmen, at a university in
Japan. The participants’ English proficiency was not mentioned. They were divided into two
groups: an ER group and IR group. They took pretests and posttests, and researchers conducted
an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to compare the means between the groups. The mean rate
of the posttest in the treatment group (ER) improved from 79.31 to 86.55 wpm, but not in the
control group (IR), which fell from 78.50 to 76.75 wpm. They found that the mean differences in
the posttest were statistically significant. Readability of the rate texts was not mentioned.
Sheu (2003) conducted a study on junior high school students in Taiwan. The participants’
English proficiency was at a beginning level. There were two treatment groups and one control
group in this study. The participants in the first treatment group read graded readers, and the
participants in the second treatment group read books for native English-speaking children.
There was no mention of the duration of the study. The participants in the treatment groups read
books during classes, but not outside of school. Sheu used t tests to compare mean differences
between the pretests and posttest within groups. The mean rate in the posttests improved from
59.7 to 95.8 wpm in the first treatment group, from 98.6 to 136.0 wpm in the second treatment
group, and from 85.2 to 118.6 wpm in the control group. The mean differences of all three
groups were statistically significant. For measuring rate, he adopted Nuttall’s assessment. In this
assessment, calculating wpm was done by dividing the number of words in the text by the
number of 10-second intervals the participants spent in reading the text. Following this, the
number from the formula was multiplied by six. To check the readability of the texts, the
researcher used the Flesch-Kincaid readability formula.
Taguchi et al. (2004) conducted a study on university students for 17 weeks in Japan. Their
English proficiency was at a beginning level. The participants were divided into two groups: an
ER group and a repeated reading group. The total amount of time the participants in the ER
group spent on sustained silent reading was from 733 to 901 minutes, and the number of pages
they read was from 147 to 337 with an average of 205 pages. To measure rate, the participants
read an entire text, measured the time they spent, and calculated their wpm. They read the
passage 5 times, and their rate was measured each time. To compare means, only their first
reading rate was targeted. Researchers used the Mann Whitney U tests to compare means
between the groups. The mean rate decreased from 80.88 to 64.48 wpm in the treatment group
(i.e., the ER group) and from 84.84 to 82.28 wpm in the control group (i.e., the repeated reading
group). The mean difference between groups in the posttest was not significant. Researchers
used Flesch-Kincaid, Fog, and Fry formulas to check the readability of the rate texts.
The present study focused on the reading rate of ER for Japanese high school students. It also
examined the improvement of students’ general language proficiency through a C-test because
other ER studies (see Table 1) reveal the effectiveness of various ER treatments. Taking these
purposes into account, the following two research questions were addressed in this study:
1. Do high school students’ reading rates improve through ER, and if so, to what degree?

2. Do high school students’ general language proficiency improve through ER, and if so,
to what degree?
Method
Subjects
This study was conducted for 7 weeks from June to August 2006. The participants were public
high school students in Japan. They were drawn from an average-level coeducational high school.
Thirty-three students, who were in the 2nd year of high school, were selected. Their ages were 16
to 17, and there were 19 female and 14 male students. The students’ native language was
Japanese, and they were learning English as a foreign language. They had attended 4, 50-minute
English reading classes and 2 writing classes per week. Japanese was the medium of instruction
in these classes, and the translation method was used with a focus on memorization and
knowledge accumulation. In these classes, they did not engage in any kind of ER follow-up
activities, grammar classes, or special grammar treatment during this study. The study lasted 4
weeks during the semester and 3 weeks during the holiday because the students began their
summer holiday when it was conducted. They had already studied English for 4 to 8 years, with
a mean of 7 years. Based on reports from the Society for Testing English Proficiency (STEP)
test,2 the participants’ English proficiency was at a beginning level. Eighteen participants were
able to report their STEP Test levels, and their levels ranged from 4 to 2.3 One participant had
lived in the US for 6 years because of their father’s work.
Treatment
The students were provided with graded readers as homework for 7 weeks. Following Day and
Bamford (1998), who suggested that students need to be motivated to achieve goals, the amount
of reading assigned was 28 books. This set number of books for them to read in 7 weeks was the
goal. When the same researcher conducted an ER pilot test in the spring of 2006, the
participants read 13 books, on average, with the goal of 16 books during the 4-week research
period.4 Reading 28 books would be a challenging but feasible number for the students to
achieve. Therefore, the number was determined with the hope that the students’ would feel more
confident in themselves and in their reading abilities after achieving success. Graded readers
usually show readability levels and are controlled for syntax, sentence length and complexity,
and vocabulary (Bamford, 1984). In the present study, graded readers were chosen from
publishers such as Macmillan, Oxford University Press, and Pearson Longman, with a range of
basic vocabulary from 200–1,000 words. In addition to graded readers, students were supplied
with comic books, such as Archie, Richie Rich, and Casper.5 One hundred seven graded readers
and 30 comic books, totaling 137 books, were provided for the 33 students. Thus, students could
choose books from a range of topics that they were interested in.
Measurement of Reading Rate
The studies listed in Table 2 show that although three of the researchers used the entire text

method,6 it is not clear whether there is an agreed-upon method by which L2 researchers and
practitioners should use for measuring silent reading rate. The entire text method may be
described as an authentic reading measure because students read a whole text just as people do in
the real world (Rasinski, 2003). However, this method takes longer than a 1-minute reading
probe, and it is uncertain how to determine the appropriate length of a text. Therefore, this study
turned to the L1 literature for a method of operationalizing reading rates. To measure silent
reading rates in L1 classroom settings, researchers and practitioners use two methods: 1-minute
reading probe and entire text method (Harris & Sipay, 1985; Ream, 1977; Rial, 1977). In the
present study, I chose the 1-minute reading probe to measure rate.
Materials for Reading Rate and Text Readability
To measure the reading rate, the students read a text extracted from Spargo (1989a) that had
content at a level similar to what high school students usually read (see Appendix A). According
to Harris and Sipay (1985) and Rasinski (2003), a passage for measuring rate should be at the
student’s grade level. In order to check readability of the rate text, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade
Level was used. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level is one of the most commonly used measures
(Readability formulas, n.d.). The readability of a text is measured based on factors such as the
number of words in the sentences and the number of letters or syllables per word. Some texts that
the students read in classes were measured by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, with a mean of
6.2. The rate text measured by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 6.1. The students were told
that they would be asked three comprehension questions about the text after the rate test so that
they should read the rate text at their normal speed (Cziko, 1980; Rasinski et al., 2005).
Questions were drawn from the first 120 words of the rate text. The students answered the
questions; however, their comprehension was not being tested. The students were given a time
limit of 1 minute for reading before answering the questions. Immediately following the reading
period, they answered the questions. They read the same text for both the pretest and posttest.
C-Test Design
To measure general language proficiency, the students took the C-test. The C-tests, invented by
Klein-Braley and Raatz, were based on the cloze test (Jafapur, 1995). A number of researchers
claim that the C-tests are thought to be an effective measure of overall language proficiency (e.g.,
Dörnyei & Katona, 1992; Eckes & Grotjahn, 2006; Grotjahn, 1986; Klein-Braley, 1997). Klein-
Braley stated that the C-tests are useful for FL learners for research purposes. The cloze test is
made from one text and can bias results for those who already know the subject matter of the text.
To solve this problem, the C-tests usually include four to five different texts. Each text contains
20–25 items and deals with a different topic with around 75 to 100 words (Norris, 2006). Words
in the first sentence are not deleted for participants’ comprehension. After the first sentence, the
second half of every other word is deleted, but words with only one letter are skipped (Connelly,
1997). If a word has an odd number of letters, the larger half is deleted. Every deleted letter was
replaced by a dash (Jafapur, 1995). In this study, a 100-item C-test was designed by the
researcher following these rules (see Appendix B), with texts selected from Krahnke (1996),
Morizumi (2003), and Spargo (1989a, 1989b).
The readability of the texts was set at a level that students were expected to attain at the end of

the study. The order of the 4 texts went from easy to difficult levels (Connelly, 1997): Flesch-
Kincaid Grade Level from 5.6 to 7.3 with a mean of 6.6. Taking the texts’ readability into
consideration, the C-test in the present study was slightly more difficult than the texts that the
students read in classes. Since the students were taking the C-test for the first time, they were
given a sample C-test before the pretest to become familiar with the test format (see Appendix C).
The C-tests were then administered as pretests and posttests for all students. The time needed for
working through each text is generally 5 to 7 minutes (Connelly, 1997). The C-test with 100
items from four texts took 24 minutes.7 Students took the same C-test for the pretest and posttest.
Procedure
Before the tests and questionnaire were administered, students read a consent form that explained
the purpose of the study and they agreed to participate. Following the tests, students filled out a
questionnaire on which they recorded their gender, age, past experience of English education,
living abroad, and English level based on results from the STEP Test. Students took the pretest in
June and the posttest in August.8 Graded readers and comic books were placed on a book shelf in
their classroom, and when students borrowed books they wrote their name and the title of each
book taken in the loan notebook. Students were asked to write a book report as a way of
verifying the amount of reading completed. In this report, students wrote the title of the book and
a very brief comment in either English or Japanese (see Appendix D). Based on their book
reports, the researcher interviewed all the students after school in the middle of the study period
so that their progress could be checked and advice given.
Analyses
In this study, there were two dependent variables (reading rates and C-test) and one
independent variable (a 7-week ER treatment). To compare means of each test within the group,
a paired t test was used. There are four assumptions for a t test: (a) independence of groups, (b)
independence of observations, (c) normality of the distributions, and (d) equal variances (Brown,
1992, pp. 644–645). Although the results of the pre-C-test exhibited skewness and kurtosis, there
was still space for two or three standard deviations on either side of the mean, and no outliers.
Therefore, the distribution can be described as normal (Brown, 1992). All of these assumptions
for this statistic were met. In this calculation, the null hypothesis of no difference within group
means was chosen. A Bonferroni adjustment was made to the alpha level to account for the two
separate t tests. The alpha level was set to .025.
Results
Reading Rates
Descriptive statistics for the reading rates are presented in Table 3. The mean reading rate from
the pretest to the posttest improved from 84.18 to 112.82 wpm. Similar improvements in the
median and mode scores were also found. The standard deviation (SD) remained stable (28.76
and 29.39), but the range widened from 106 to 148. The two distributions had neither significant
skewness nor kurtosis problems. The reliability of reading rates was α = .76 (Cronbach’s alpha).

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of pre- and post-reading rates in wpm (N = 33)

Test M Median Mode SD SE Range Min Max Skew Kurtosis
Pre-rate 84.18 80.00 52.00 28.76 5.01 106 45 151 0.74 0.20
Post-rate 112.82 113.00 130.00 29.39 5.12 148 52 200 0.85 1.67
Figure 1 displays the comparison of differences of each student’s pre- and post-reading rates in
wpm. It indicates that most of the students’ posttest reading rates increased. Seven students in
particular (4, 8, 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23) were able to boost their rate from 50 to 70 wpm.
250
Pre-Rate
Post-Rate
200
Rate (wpm)
150
100
50
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Student
Figure 1. Comparison of pre- and post-reading rates in wpm.
C-Tests
Descriptive statistics for the C-test results are presented in Table 4. The means on the post-C-test
improved somewhat from 47.58 to 51.00. Similar small-sized improvements in the median and
mode scores were also found. The standard deviation (SD) and range remained stable (going
from 11.06 to 11.50, and from 55 to 57, respectively). The distributions in the pre-C-test were
positively skewed; that is, many students scored low. The kurtosis statistic was positive,
suggesting that the distribution may be too peaked (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The reliability
of the C-test was α = .92 (Cronbach’s alpha).
Table 4 Descriptive statistics of pre- and post-C-test results (N = 33; k = 100)

Test M Median Mode SD SE Range Min Max Skew Kurtosis
Pre-C 47.58 46.00 35.00 11.06 1.93 55 28 83 1.03 2.09
Post-C 51.00 52.00 52.00 11.50 2.00 57 27 84 0.35 1.04

Figure 2 displays the comparison of the differences of each student’s scores on the pretest and
posttest of C-test. The scores on the posttest of the C-test exhibit the same histogram as those of
the pretest, and those of the posttest are slightly better than the pretest.
90
Pre-C-Test
80
Post-C-Test
70
60
C-Test
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Student
Figure 2. Comparison of pre- and post-C-test results.
Paired t Test
The results of a paired t test of reading rates (M = -28.636,9 SD = 25.58, at a 99 % confidence

interval of the difference, [-40.83, -16.44]) showed that the difference was statistically significant,
t(32) = -6.43, p < .0005, 2-tailed. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference within group
means was rejected. That is, the average difference of 28.64 wpm between reading rate in June
(pretest) and August (posttest) was statistically significant. This suggests that the students
increased in their reading rate to a statistically significant degree in the 7-week period, during
which they engaged in ER.
The results of paired t test of C-test (M = -3.42, SD = 6.22, at a 99 % confidence interval of the
difference, [-6.39, -0.46]) showed that the difference is statistically significant t(32) = -3.16, p
= .003, 2-tailed. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference within group means was rejected.
However, the actual mean difference of less than 4 points on a test with a total of 100 suggests
that the growth in general proficiency is very small, although statistically significant.
Discussion
The results of the present study showed that high school students’ reading rates improved after a
7-week ER treatment. According to the pretest and posttest results, students’ C-test scores also
improved. However, to appropriately address the results of reading rate, they should be
interpreted with caution.

Differences in Reading Rates
The differences in students’ reading rates of pretest and posttests are meaningful because the
differences are large. According to Robb and Susser (1989) and Taguchi et al. (2004), the
average reading rate of Japanese university students is from about 65 to 90 wpm. Nuttall (1982)
estimated that secondary school students’ average reading rate in ESL may be from 120 to 150
wpm and university students’ rate in ESL may be at about 200 wpm (p. 35). In comparison,
students’ rates in the present study are within a similar range. Nuttall claimed that improvement
of students’ rate by about 50 percent or doubling the rate is not uncommon after training;
however, she did not explain the length of the training, particularly when their rate is limited,
such as 40 wpm (p. 35). Although in the present study the participants’ rate in the pretest was not
so slow, reading rates were shown to increase by about 30 percent in the ER treatment period.
The results of the present study support the research question that high school students’ rates
would improve through ER.
Possible explanations for the differences within a group may be found by considering the
following three factors: (a) participants’ expectations, (b) participants’ readiness to be exposed to
English, and (c) measurement. First, students may have expected some improvement in their
rates and general language proficiency after the treatment. This is because the purposes of the
study and of ER were explained to them before the treatment. In addition, the consent form they
read was translated from English into Japanese, and thus they understood the purpose of the
study.
Second, it was possible that students were ready to be exposed to English. Due to the prevalence
of the grammar-translation method at Japanese junior and senior high schools, students have
accumulated a fundamental English syntactic and lexical knowledge (LoCastro, 1996). In other
words, participants in the present study may have been ready to be exposed to comprehensible
flood of English to expand their potential abilities. The number of the books that students read in
the treatment period ranged from 1 to 10, with an average of 4 books. Despite reading a small
amount of books, their reading rates increased.
Third, the rate results could be different depending on the way they were measured. In this study,
a 1-minute reading probe was adopted. A 1-minute reading probe is an efficient form of rate
assessment (Rasinski, 2003), but this method differs from those used by other researchers to
measure rate (see Table 2). For example, one researcher utilized Nuttall’s assessment. In this
assessment, students’ reading rate is counted at 10-second intervals without single figures; hence
their accuracy rate is not measured. Other researchers utilized an entire text method.
Differences in C-Test
The difference in the pre- and post-C-test results is statistically significant, despite the difficulty
in achieving rapid improvement of general language proficiency. Since the difference between
the pre- and post-C-test results was only 3.42 points, the results of the present study somewhat
support the research hypothesis that high school students’ general language proficiency would
improve through ER. The overall low means and the positive skewness suggest that the C-test
was difficult for the students. Although a number of ER studies have revealed its effectiveness in

ESL and EFL contexts (see Table 1) and many advantages are presented by several researchers,
the results of this study are less robust. Whereas the results indicate students’ improvement in
English skills, it was not clearly established that they experienced language learning in areas
such as spelling, vocabulary, grammar, and text structure.
Limitations of the Study
There are some limitations in this study. First, there was no control group. Unfortunately, it was
not allowed to test students who were not participating in the treatment. Not having a control
group at the same institution hinders the evaluation of ER studies in high schools. Generally,
without a control group, it is rather difficult to claim conclusively that improvements were the
result of the ER treatment. Second, it is difficult to measure different kinds of proficiency, such
as knowledge of the world, vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and text structure using a C-test.
Hence it is hard to determine what the students learned through the ER program. Third, they had
the ability to decode faster at the end of the study period; however, it is not clear whether
students were decoding and comprehending the text at the same time. In terms of automaticity
theory, the ability to decode and comprehend a text at the same time is the essence of reading
fluency (Samuels, 2006). Fourth, there is a possible practice effect on the result of posttests
because students took the same reading rate and C-test as a pretest and posttests. Finally, there is
a limitation in the context of the population, which included only Japanese high school students
whose English proficiency was at a beginning level. Learning behavior is different in each
culture, and because of this, the background at this particular group must be taken into account.
Despite these limitations, the results of this study show that ER improves one aspect of reading
fluency and general language proficiency of Japanese high school students with a few books and
short treatment period. Based on these results, it is recommended that ER as fluency instruction
be incorporated into English class curriculums. ER provides a possible way for students to
become fluent readers by being exposed to English, to increase their vocabulary size, syntactic
knowledge, and knowledge of the world.
For fluency reading, vocabulary plays an important role. Thus, further research will be needed on
how much participants increase their vocabulary in ER in addition to their reading rate. Although
a number of studies prove effectiveness of ER treatment, to my knowledge, no studies have been
conducted to measure vocabulary and rate in the same study.
To most effectively measure reading rate, establishing a unified measurement is essential for
both achievement and analytic purposes. This study adopted a 1-minute reading probe to
measure rate. However, there is no consensus among L2 researchers on how to measure reading
rate, much less reading rate texts’ readability. Although this method only measured one aspect of
fluency, it is necessary to develop reliable and valid methods to measure reading rates in the ESL
and EFL contexts.
One test developer created a test, the Reading Fluency Indicator,10 for the purpose of measuring
oral reading rate, accuracy, comprehension, and prosody. Another test for measuring reading
fluency is under development by another test developer (Samuels, 2006). However, these tests
are for oral reading fluency. In terms of text readability, researchers selected grade-appropriate

texts from the Lexile Framework for Reading (n.d.) for a large-scale assessment of reading
fluency in L1 context (Johnston, 2006). To enhance future research, it should be possible to use
the materials that these test developers make. Once researchers adopt the same test materials and
the same measures, it will be more feasible to compare results and accurately determine the
effectiveness of ER treatment.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Professor Richard R. Day and Professor Lourdes Ortega, University of
Hawai‘i at Mānoa, for their insightful and valuable comments on this paper, and Munehiko
Miyata, Takako Yamaguchi, Yusuke Okada, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful
suggestions. A special thanks to Bruce Lindquist for his constructive advice and strong support.
Notes
1. The researcher conducted the study on the first treatment group in 1988, on the second
treatment group in 1989, and on the third group in 1991. Participants in three groups were from
three different schools.
2. The STEP Test is the most popular English proficiency test among high school students in
Japan. Every year, about 2,500,000 people, including test takers who take the test abroad, take
the STEP Test (Eiken, n.d.). There are seven proficiency levels in this test, and the first is the
most advanced level.
3. According to the STEP information, the 4th and 3rd levels of the STEP are equivalent to the
English proficiency of Japanese junior high school students, and pre-2nd and 2nd levels are
equivalent to that of high school students (Eiken, n.d.). In this study, four students were in 4th
level of the STEP, 10 were in 3rd, three were in pre-2nd level, and one was in 2nd.
4. The pilot test was conducted in the US. There were 4 participants who were international
students studying English in the US. They volunteered to participate in the pilot study. Their
motivation to read books seemed strong since they were in the US to study, and for the reward
they would receive after the study period.
5. Krashen (2004) claimed that comic books help readers’ comprehension with pictures without
negative effects on school accomplishment and language development. In addition, comic book
readers tend to have more positive attitudes toward reading.
6. In the entire text method, students read an entire text. The number of words in the text and the
number of seconds it takes them to read are subjected to the following formula:
# words read
× 60 = reading rate in words per minute
# of seconds to read
7. In the pilot test, the participants were given 28 minutes for the 100-item C-test. The C-test was

the same test that was administered in this study except one text. It was found that there was
ample time for participants to finish the C-test; therefore, the time for the C-test was set for 24
minutes in this study.
8. It is rather muggy in August in Japan, but the posttest was conducted under the same
conditions as the pretest because air-conditioners were equipped in all the classes.
9. This mean is the d-value. The formula of the d-value is
d-value = Mpre-rate – Mpost-rate
10. Pearson AGS Globe (2006) developed this oral reading fluency test for children aged 5 to 8.
References
Bamford, J. (1984). Extensive reading by means of graded readers. Reading in a Foreign

Language, 2, 218–260.
Bell, T. (2001). Extensive reading: Speed and comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 1. Retrieved
October 28, 2006, from http://www.readingmatrix.com/archives/archives_vol1_no1.html
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical and
classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blevins, W. (2005). The importance of reading fluency and the English language learner. The
Language Teacher, 29, 13–16.
Brown, J. D. (1992). Statistics as a foreign language part 2: More things to consider in reading
statistical language studies. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 629–664.
Cho, K., & Krashen, S. D. (1994). Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet Valley Kids series:
Adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading, 37, 662–667.
Connelly, M. (1997). Using C-test in English with post-graduate students. English for Specific
Purposes, 16, 139–150.
Cziko, G. A. (1980). Language competence and reading strategies: A comparison of first- and
second-language oral reading errors. Language Learning, 30, 101–114.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in
a Foreign Language, 14,136–141.
Dörnyei, Z., & Katona, L. (1992). Validation of the C-test amongst Hungarian EFL learners.
Language Testing, 9, 187–206.
Eckes, T., & Grotjahn, R. (2006). A closer look at the construct validity of C-tests. Language
Testing, 23, 290–325.
Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of
Research in Reading, 18, 116–125.
Eiken. (n.d.) Eiken toha [About Eiken]. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from
http://eiken.or.jp/about/index.html
Elley, W. B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning.
Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53–67.

Eskey, D. (1988). Holding in the bottom: An interactive approach to the language problems of
second language readers. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive
approaches to second language reading (pp. 93–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Grabe, W. (1988). Reassessing the term “interactive.” In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.),
Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 56–70). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Grotjahn, R. (1986). Test validation and cognitive psychology: Some methodological
considerations. Language Testing, 3, 159–185.
Hafiz, F. M., & Tudor, I. (1990). Graded readers as an input medium in L2 learning. System, 18,
31–42.
Harris, A. J., & Sipay, E. R. (1985). How to increase reading ability: A guide to developmental
and remedial methods (8th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Horst, M. (2005). Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A measurement study. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 355–382.
Jafapur, A. (1995). Is C-testing superior to cloze? Language Testing, 12, 194–216.
Johnston, S. (2006). The fluency assessment system: Improving oral reading fluency with
technology. In T. V. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction:
Research-based best practices (pp. 123–140). New York: Guilford.
Klein-Braley, C. (1997). C-tests in the context of reduced redundancy testing: An appraisal.
Language Testing, 14, 47–84.
Krahnke, K. (1996). Reading together a reading/activities text. New York: St. Martin’s.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York:
Prentice-Hall.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Krashen, S. D. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for
the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.
Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research (2nd ed.). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
Lai, F.-K. (1993). The effect of a summer reading course on reading and writing skills. System,
21, 87–100.
Lexile Framework for Reading (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2006, from
http://www.lexile.com
LoCastro, V. (1996). English language education in Japan. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the
language classroom (pp. 40–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martinez, M., Roser, N. L., & Strecker, S. (1999). “I never thought I could be a star”: A readers
theatre ticket to fluency. The Reading Teacher, 52, 326–334.
Mason, B., & Krashen, S. D. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System,
25, 91–102.
Masuhara, H., Kimura, T., Fukada, A., & Takeuchi, M. (1996). Strategy training or/and
extensive reading? In T. Hickey & J. Williams (Eds.), Language, education, and society
in a changing world (pp. 263–274). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Mathson, D. V., Allington, R. L., & Solic, K. L. (2006). Hijacking fluency and instructionally
informative assessments. In T. V. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency
instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 106–119). New York: The Guilford Press.
Morizumi, S. (2003). EXCEED English Series I. Tokyo: Sansei Do.
comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 261–276.
University Press.
Norris, J. (2006). Development and evaluation of a curriculum-based German C-test for
placement purposes. In R. Grotjahn (Ed.), The C-test: Theory, empirical research,
applications (pp. 45–83). Frankfurt: Lang.
Nuttall, C. (1982). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London: Heinemann
Educational Books.
Ono, L., Day, R. R., & Harsch, K. (2004). Tips for reading extensively. English Teaching Forum,
42(4), 12–19.
Paran, A. (1996). Reading in EFL: Facts and fictions. English Language Teaching Journal, 50,
25–34.
Pearson AGS Globe (2006). Reading fluency indicator. Retrieved November 8, 2006, from
http://www.agsglobe.com/group.asp?nGroupInfoID=a24550
Pitts, M., White, H., & Krashen, S. D. (1989). Acquiring second language vocabulary through
reading: A replication of the clockwork orange study using second language acquirers.
Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition,
fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.
Rasinski, T. V. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61, 46–51.
Rasinski, T. V., & Hoffman, J. V. (2003). Oral reading in the school literacy curriculm. Reading
Research Quarterly, 38, 510–522.
Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., McKeon, C. A., Wilfong, L. G., Friedauer, J. A., & Heim, P.
(2005). Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading? Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49, 22–27.
Readability formulas (n.d.) Retrieved November 8, 2006, from
http://csep.psyc.memphis.edu/cohmetrix/readabilityresearch.htm
Ream, M. (1977). The Merrill Ream 10-lesson speed reading course. Mission, KS: Sheed
Andrews and McMeel.
Renandya, W. A., & Jacobs, G. M. (2002). Extensive reading: Why aren’t we all doing it? In J. C.
Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of
current practice (pp. 295–302). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reutzel, D. R. (2006). “Hey, teacher, when you say ‘fluency,’ what do you mean?”: Developing
fluency in elementary classrooms. In T. V. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.),
Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 62–85). New York: Guilford.
Rial, A. F. (1977). Speed reading made easy. New York: Doubleday & Company.
Robb, T. N., & Susser, B. (1989). Extensive reading vs skills building in an EFL context.
Samuels, S. J. (1994). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading, revisited.
In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of
reading (4th ed.) (pp. 816–837). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Samuels, S. J. (2006). Reading fluency: Its past, present, and future. In T. V. Rasinski, C.
Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp.
7–20). New York: The Guilford Press.
Schmidt, K. (1996). Extensive reading in English: Rationale and possibilities for a program at
Shirayuri gakuen. Sendai Shirayuri Gakuen Journal of General Research, 24, 81–92.
Sheu, S. P.-H. (2003). Extensive reading with EFL learners at beginning level. TESL Reporter,
36, 8–26.
Spargo, E. (1989a). Timed readings, Book 1 (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Jamestown Publishers.
Spargo, E. (1989b). Timed readings, Book 4 (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Jamestown Publishers.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York:
Harper Collins.
Taguchi, E., Takayasu-Maass, M., & Gorsuch, G. J. (2004). Developing reading fluency in EFL:
How assisted repeated reading and extensive reading affect fluency development.
Taylor, S. E. (2006). Fluency in silent reading. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from
http://www.readingplus.com/schools/pdfs/FluencyInSilentReading.pdf
Tsang, W.-K. (1996). Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing performance.
Applied Linguistics, 17, 210–233.
Appendix A
Reading Rate Sheet

(Extracted from Spargo, 1989a)
Do you plan to visit Italy someday? If so, it’s a good idea to know about the country and its people. Italy
has two very different areas. The business centers and large cities of the North hum with noise. The South,
on the other hand, enjoys the sleepy charm of the country. People of the North like the bustle of city life.
They enjoy all the things a city has to offer. Those from the South like a slower pace. They like their rural
surroundings. One thing all Italians have in common is their zest for life.
The climate of Italy is like that of California. It is sunny and warm all year in the South. Except in the
mountains, summers are warm all over the country. Winter brings snow, sleet, cold rain, and fog to the
North. Central Italy is mild in winter.
Many Italians are happiest when in groups. Wherever they gather, you are likely to hear fine singing and
happy laughter.
A building boom is going on in the cities of Italy. Steel and glass skyscrapers tower over ancient ruins.
Italy throbs with life and color. Talk on the street corners is lively. The background music coming from
open windows could be classical or the latest hit tune. Donkeys and street peddlers sometimes add to the
color and noise.
The city streets are busy. Here you will see well-dressed people. These people are going to work in new
office buildings. The street traffic includes different kinds of cars. You can even spot some motor
scooters and bicycles.
Italians also like food. They are good cooks. Each city and region has its own specialties. Bologna, for

instance, is known for its sausages. Olive oil, garlic, and tomatoes are used more freely in cooking in the
South than in the North. Some Northerners use butter instead of olive oil. You will see rice on their plates
instead of pasta.
An Italian dinner begins with appetizers and ends many courses later with a fine dessert. In the course of a
dinner, you can sample some of Italy’s fine cheeses. There are many to choose from. There are also many
fine wines, and they are reasonably priced.
You may never visit Italy. Still, it’s nice to read about its lively and colorful personality. Maybe someday
you will be lucky enough to see part of this wonderful land.
Appendix B
C-Test
TEXT 1: A Message From Forty Years Ago

(Extracted from Morizumi, 2003)
Here is a picture of Japanese killifish or medaka. Not lo _ _ ago w _ saw a l _ _ of th _ _ in lit _ _ _

streams al _ _ _ rice fie _ _ _ in t _ _ country si _ _. But mo _ _ of th _ _ are go _ _ now. W _ _? One o _
the rea _ _ _ _ is th _ _ farm insect _ _ _ _ _ _ we us _ _ on t _ _ fields ma _ _ the wa _ _ _ of t _ _
streams unsui _ _ _ _ _ for kill _ _ _ _ _ to li _ _ in. As time goes on, they may die out completely. We
are now in the age of ecological crisis.
TEXT 2: Sleeping Through the Winter

(Extracted from Spargo, 1989a)
To survive, animals learn how to adjust to changes in their world. Some ha _ _ learned h _ _ to li _ _
through co _ _ winters wh _ _ food i _ in sh _ _ _ supply. Th_ _ _ secret i _ a win _ _ _ sleep cal _ _ _
hibernation. Wh _ _ temperatures dr _ _, these ani _ _ _ _ go t _ sleep. T _ _ best-known hiber _ _ _ _ _ is
t _ _ bear. A _ _ bears c _ _ hibernate. B _ _ mainly i _ is th _ _ _ that li _ _ in col _ _ _ climates that do.
TEXT 3: Computer and Communication

(Extracted from Krahnke, 1996)
Our great-grandparents communicated face-to-face or by writing notes and letters to each other. If th _ _
were sepa _ _ _ _ _ by mo _ _ than a f _ _ miles, commun _ _ _ _ _ _ _ had t _ wait un _ _ _ they co _ _ _
travel t _ _ distance a _ _ see ea _ _ other o _ until som _ _ _ _, a mess _ _ _ _ _ or pos _ _ _ service wor
_ _ _, could del _ _ _ _ the no _ _ or let _ _ _ . Much h _ _ changed i _ the la _ _ hundred ye _ _ _ . The
tele _ _ _ _ _ became com _ _ _ in much of the world by the 1930s, and it allowed instant voice
communication over wires.
TEXT 4: Water, Water Everywhere

(Extracted from Spargo, 1989b)
Most people know that water is unevenly distributed over the earth’s surface in oceans, rivers, and lakes.
Few rea _ _ _ _, however, h _ _ very une _ _ _ the distri _ _ _ _ _ _ actually i _ . It i _ important t _ think
o _ the to _ _ _ amount o _ water o _ the pla _ _ _ Earth, t _ _ areas wh _ _ _ the wa _ _ _ occurs, a _ _
the lo _ _ -term impor _ _ _ _ _ of t _ _ findings. T _ _ oceans o _ the wo _ _ _ cover 140 mil _ _ _ _

square mi _ _ _ of t _ _ Earth’s surface. The average depth of the ocean basins is about 12,500 feet. If the
basins were shallow, seas would spread far onto the continents.
Appendix C
Sample C-Test
Directions: The following tests have been developed by removing the second half of every second word
in a text. You are supposed to reconstruct the texts.
Example Text
(Extracted from Morizumi, 2003)
Kina Shokichi is one of my favorite musicians. He w _ _ born i _ Okinawa i _ 1948. H _ began t _ play
mu _ _ _ when h _ was i _ junior hi _ _ school.
Example Answers
Kina Shokichi is one of my favorite musicians. He was born in Okinawa in 1948. He began to play music
when he was in junior high school.
Appendix D
Book Report
(Adapted from Bamford, 1984, p. 220)
Title of Book:
( ):
I read all. / pages of the book. (circle one) 途中で読むことをやめた時のページ数を記入
How did you like the book? (circle one)

1. Great! (I loved it)
2. Good (I liked it)
3. OK (I didn’t mind reading it)
4. Boring/Stupid (I wish I hadn’t read it)
Write your feeling about the book: 英語でも、日本語でも記入可（どちらか片方で感想を書いて下さい）

This book was very interesting and easy to understand the story.
非常におもしろかった、また内容も簡単に理解できた。

About the Author
Yurika Iwahori holds an MA degree in Second Language Studies from the University of Hawai’i
at Mānoa. She has seven years of experience in teaching English in Japanese high schools. She
currently teaches at Nirayama High School. Her research interests are in reading fluency and
vocabulary development in ESL and EFL contexts.
E-mail: iwahori68@yahoo.co.jp

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 92–122
Vocabulary recycling in children’s authentic reading materials:

A corpus-based investigation of narrow reading
Dee Gardner
Brigham Young University
United States
Abstract
Fourteen collections of children’s reading materials were used to investigate the claim
that collections of authentic texts with a common theme, or written by one author, afford
readers with more repeated exposures to new words than unrelated materials. The
collections, distinguished by relative thematic tightness, authorship (1 vs. 4 authors), and
register (narrative vs. expository), were analyzed to determine how often, and under what
conditions, specialized vocabulary recycles within the materials. Findings indicated that
thematic relationships impacted specialized vocabulary recycling within expository
collections (primarily content words), whereas authorship impacted recycling within
narrative collections (primarily names of characters, places, etc.). Theme-based
expository collections also contained much higher percentages of theme-related words
than their theme-based narrative counterparts. The findings were used to give nuance to
the vocabulary-recycling claims of narrow reading and to more general theories and
practices involving wide and extensive reading.
Keywords: narrow reading, vocabulary, themes, registers, authorship
Over the past 30 years, a large body of literature has touted reading as the major source of
students’ vocabulary development (e.g., Cunningham & Stanovich, 2003; Krashen, 1989, 1993a,
1993b; Nagy & Anderson, 1984; Nagy & Herman, 1985, 1987). This claim has also received
some empirical support from studies that have found small, incremental gains in word
knowledge through contextual exposure during reading (reviewed in Swanborn & de Glopper,
1999), as well as studies that have correlated amount of print exposure with large vocabulary
differences among school-aged children (reviewed in Cunningham & Stanovich, 2003). As a
result, wide reading (reading large amounts of “authentic” material) and its more robust
conceptualization, extensive reading, have been advocated for expanding the vocabularies of
various learners in first-language (L1), second-language (L2), and foreign-language instructional
settings (Cunningham & Stanovich, 2003; Day & Bamford, 1998, 2002; Graves, 2006; Krashen,
1989, 1993a, 1993b).
At the heart of this issue is the assumption that readers will encounter new (unfamiliar) words
multiple times in multiple and varied contexts during extensive reading experiences, eventually
Gardner: Vocabulary recycling in children’s authentic reading materials 93
resulting in the “incidental acquisition” of those words (Nagy, 1997; Nagy, Anderson, & Herman,
1987; Nagy & Herman, 1987; Shu, Anderson, & Zhang, 1995). Proponents have also put forth
this hypothesis as being the best explanation of how young L1 learners acquire the bulk of their
large vocabularies through the 12th grade, with estimates ranging somewhere between 40,000
(Nagy & Herman, 1987) and 80,000 words (Anderson, 1996; Anderson & Nagy, 1992),
depending on what is counted as a word.
As appealing as this hypothesis has been in reading research and pedagogy, there remains a
relative dearth of research studies that have carefully considered the vocabulary input of
children’s authentic reading materials to determine how well, and under what conditions, they do
recycle vocabulary, particularly those words that are not from the relatively small pool of high-
frequency forms found in most texts (the, of, and, a, take, get, mother, play, etc.). The much
larger group of more specialized vocabulary items—to which the words of this study belong—
constitutes the bulk of the English word stock (Nation, 1990), thus effectively representing the
large-scale vocabulary (e.g., 40,000 to 80,000 words) that can potentially be acquired during the
school years and beyond.
With this background in mind, the aim of the current study is to extend the earlier work of
Gardner (2004), in which he analyzed the vocabulary input of a 1.5 million-word extensive
reading corpus, consisting of seven children’s narrative collections (four texts each) and seven
grade-equivalent expository collections (four texts each). One of his major findings was that the
words children are exposed to during narrative reading are vastly different than those they are
exposed to during expository reading, particularly at the more specialized, content-rich levels of
vocabulary (i.e., beyond the high-frequency words of the language) where 17,921 of 23,857
word types (72.5%) were either found in narrative texts only or grade-equivalent expository texts
only (i.e., zero overlap). Additionally, this lack of sharing of critical word types occurred even
though many of the narrative and expository collections were related by common themes—one
of two conditions proposed by advocates of narrow reading for improving vocabulary recycling
in reading curricula of English as an L2 or a foreign language (e.g., Cho, Ahn, & Krashen, 2005;
Day, 1994; Krashen, 1981, 1985, 2004; Schmitt & Carter, 2000), the other being authorship (i.e.,
using texts written by the same author). Krashen (1985) has articulated these two conditions as
follows:
If the Input Hypothesis is correct . . . it suggests that narrow input is more efficient for L2
acquisition, that early specialization rather than late specialization is better, that students
should be encouraged to read on only one topic at a time, or several books by the same
author, in the intermediate stage, and that [L2] students stay on somewhat familiar
ground when they first enter the mainstream. . . . In addition, each topic has its own
vocabulary, and to some extent its own style; the same can be said for each author.
Narrow input provides many exposures to these new items in a comprehensible context
and built-in review. (p. 73)
The current study examines this assertion from the standpoint of authentic vocabulary input from
the children’s reading corpus (Gardner, 2004), considering theme (topic) and authorship, in
addition to register, as primary variables of interest in order to tease apart nuances of specialized
vocabulary recycling in authentic reading collections.

At the outset, the potential benefits of narrow reading are recognized to extend beyond
vocabulary recycling only (e.g., exposing L2 readers to consistent stylistic and discourse moves
of certain authors). However, because vocabulary recycling is a central tenet of this position, it
deserves more careful examination. A clearer understanding of the impact of text relationships
on vocabulary recycling will serve as a guide for theories and practices in English language
education in general, particularly in the areas of wide and extensive reading and vocabulary
development. The findings may also prove informative in L1 settings, where the assumed
language benefits of theme-based instruction (e.g., Walmsley, 1994) and the known challenges
with content-area, nonfiction reading materials (e.g., Bamford, Kristo, & Lyon, 2002; Vacca &
Vacca, 1996) have also received a great deal of attention.
Why a Focus on Authentic Reading Materials?
Before proceeding, it is important to note that the existence of narrow reading and similar
approaches (e.g., Dubin, 1986) is largely a result of the linguistic characteristics of authentic
reading materials. Such materials, unlike graded readers (e.g., Waring, 2003; Wodinsky &
Nation, 1988), basal readers (e.g., Bello, Fajet, Shaver, Toombs, & Schumm, 2003), decodable
texts (e.g., Mesmer, 2001), or other linguistically engineered materials, do not intentionally
control for the presentation of vocabulary and other language structures. By their nature,
authentic reading materials are fairly unpredictable in terms of the language demands they place
on readers, as well as the language-learning opportunities they afford. While authentic oral
communication is often simplified and repeated in order to achieve the conditions of
comprehensible input, the same is not true for most authentic written language, which is made
permanent in print, thus removing the author from the reader in terms of both time and space.
While modern technology may hold the key to making written text more flexible as a language
learning tool (Cobb, 2007; Huang & Liou, 2007), and while such technology has also introduced
e-mailing, on-line chatting, and text-messaging with their real-time, two-way communication
capabilities, these modes of written communication are vastly different from the linguistically
frozen materials of printed school English (novels, trade books, textbooks, etc.). By extension,
narrow reading is simply one attempt to deal with this challenge of authentic written input by
suggesting that collections of authentic texts written on similar topics or by one author will
improve the chances that essential linguistic redundancy will actually take place, or in other
words, that readers, especially L2 readers, will be exposed to necessary levels of repetitive,
comprehensible input as they move from one text to the next.
Essentially, vocabulary learning from extensive reading is very fragile. If the small
amount of learning of a word is not soon reinforced by another meeting, then that
learning will be lost. It is thus critically important in an extensive reading program that
learners have the opportunity to keep meeting words they have met before. (Nation, 1997,
p. 15)
A clearer understanding of how relationships between authentic reading materials might affect
such crucial vocabulary recycling is at the heart of the current study.

Why a Focus on Specialized Vocabulary?
The work of Paul Nation and his colleagues has been instrumental in showing the distributions of
vocabulary in authentic written and spoken materials. Table 1 is a repurposing of Nation’s (2001)
analysis of the distribution of vocabulary in the American Heritage Intermediate (AHI) corpus
(Carroll, Davies, & Richman, 1971), which consists of 5 million running words taken from a
random selection of third- through ninth-grade texts. This corpus is particularly important to the
current study because it was the primary source for the landmark claims associated with the
incidental hypothesis (Nagy & Anderson, 1984) and the call for wide reading in reading
instruction (Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985).
Table 1. Vocabulary coverage in the American Heritage Intermediate corpus

Number of word families Cumulative % of text coverage
10 23.7
100 49
1,000 74.1
2,000 81.3
3,000 85.2
4,000 87.6
5,000 89.4
12,448 95
43,831 99
86,741 100
Note. Adapted from Nation (2001, p. 15).
Table 1 shows clearly that a small subset of high-frequency word families (i.e., base forms plus
their inflections and transparent derivations, e.g., climb, climbs, climbing, climbed, climber,
climbers) covers most of the running words of the AHI corpus. For instance, the top 100 word
families cover nearly half (49%) of the running words, and the top 1,000 word families cover
nearly three-fourths (74.1%) of the running words. Examples of these high-frequency words
include function words (the, of, and, a, to, in, etc.) and high-frequency content words (take, get,
said, people, find, water, words, know, etc.), many of which can be found in authentic children’s
texts.
However, the remaining 85,741 word families in the AHI corpus (86,741 minus 1,000) cover
only slightly more than one-fourth (25.9%) of the running words. This means that they repeat
much less frequently in general than the 1,000 high-frequency word families. In most cases,
however, these less frequent word families characterize a particular text or content area. They are
also the words that children are less likely to know, and for which the long-term vocabulary
learning benefits of extensive reading are most likely to be realized (nourishment, saturated,
tomb, mineral, topographic, prohibition, tomahawk, etc.). Determining how often, and under
what conditions, these words actually repeat in collections of authentic reading materials is the
focus of this study.

Linguistic Studies of Vocabulary Recycling in Narrow-Reading Materials
Most of the linguistic studies that consider the impact of text-level variables such as theme or
authorship on vocabulary recycling have focused on adult-level materials. The findings are
nonetheless important to the current study. For instance, Hwang and Nation (1989) performed an
analysis of the vocabulary load in running stories from newspapers versus the vocabulary load in
unrelated stories, concluding that
[A] higher proportion of word families outside the 2,000 [most frequent] words will recur
in stories from the same series, thus reading running stories reduces the vocabulary load
to a greater extent than reading unrelated stories … [and] running stories provide more
repetitions of more words outside the first 2,000 words [italics added] than unrelated
stories, and thus provide more favorable conditions for learning vocabulary [italics added]
than unrelated stories. (p. 332)
The authors also suggested that their findings have implications for other texts besides
newspapers, especially in settings of English as a foreign language, where several disparate
topics often comprised textbooks.
Sutarsyah, Nation, and Kennedy (1994) also found substantial differences in the distribution of
vocabulary between a single content text (economics), consisting of approximately 300,000
words, and a corpus of 160 shorter academic texts (from over 15 subject areas), consisting of
approximately the same number of words. While the diverse corpus contained a much larger
vocabulary base than the single text, the words were mostly of lower frequency. In contrast, “a
small number of words that were closely related to the topic of the text occurred with very high
frequency in the economics text” (p. 34). Additionally, with the exception of higher general
frequency words (from the 2,000 word family list) and a few subtechnical terms common to
many disciplines, there was little overlap in vocabulary between the narrower textbook and the
broader corpus, leading the researchers to conclude the following:
Most English courses make use of a series of unrelated texts. This can increase the
vocabulary load of the course enormously. If teachers or course designers wish to avoid
this, it is worth considering making the course consist of a few themes so that the texts
within a theme bear more relationship to each other and thus make use of a smaller
vocabulary. (p. 49)
It is important to note that the single text in this particular study was an expository textbook,
consisting of a tight theme (macroeconomics) written by one author.
Finally, Schmitt and Carter (2000) compared the vocabulary of a series of nine theme-related
newspaper stories (the tragic death of Princess Diana) to the vocabulary of nine unrelated stories
from the same newspapers, containing the same number of total running words (7,843). The
findings indicated that the theme-related Diana stories contained 156 fewer types (different
words) for L2 readers to deal with, and repeated those types more often in general than the
unrelated stories. This overall trend was also true when content words and proper nouns were
examined, leading the researchers to the general conclusion that narrow reading may facilitate

earlier access to authentic L2 reading materials “by lowering the lexical load required of the
learner” (p. 8).
The important point for purposes of the current study is that the theme-related texts were tightly
related to each other (i.e., death of Princess Diana), whereas the unrelated stories had no
connections beyond the fact that they belonged to the newspaper register in general. It is also
crucial to note that only five of the content words actually listed in the study (crash, palace,
photographers, police, princess—all occurring in the Diana stories) would be considered as
specialized vocabulary in the current investigation, as the rest would have been identified as
general high-frequency forms (e.g., said, car, pay, school, people, work, time, one, year); in
other words, they come from the relatively small pool of general high-frequency forms and are
therefore likely to occur in many texts, regardless of the relationships between those texts. While
there is no question that continued exposure to such high-frequency forms is essential for
building general reading fluency and text comprehension, it is equally clear that they do not
represent the types of topic- and content-related words upon which a reader can build an
extensive vocabulary.
Taxonomy of Textual Relationships
To date, very little has been done to formalize the potential relationships between authentic
reading materials in terms of how such relationships might affect language sharing and recycling.
While popular book-leveling schemes in elementary education (e.g., Fountas & Pinnell, 1996,
1999, 2005) have provided important guidelines for grouping texts according to general
linguistic and print characteristics (percentages of higher-frequency vs. lower-frequency words,
numbers of morphologically and conceptually complex words, font size, words per line, etc.),
they do not address specific vocabulary redundancy that may occur as a result of thematic,
authorship, or similar relationships between those texts (e.g., genre and register). Viewed another
way, traditional leveling schemes tend to relate two or more texts based on the linguistic
demands they place on young readers (i.e., how well such readers will be able to comprehend
those texts), not on the potential redundancy of the textual content. Therefore, a book about
plants and a book about outer space could both be rated at the same difficulty level, even though
there is likely to be very little overlap in the topic-related words of the two texts (e.g., blossom
and root vs. star and comet). Likewise, a children’s adventure novel and a children’s trade book
about magnets could both be rated as at the same level, depending on their general linguistic and
print characteristics.
Figure 1 depicts a proposed taxonomy for classifying relationships between authentic texts that
could directly impact specialized (topic-related) vocabulary recycling within such materials. The
taxonomy is in essence a classification scheme that could be used to more accurately predict the
chances that blossom and root or, alternatively, star and comet, will appear in Text 1, Text 2, and
so forth. Three primary text relationships are considered in the taxonomy: themes, authorship,
and registers. In the case of themes, the primary considerations are twofold: (a) the general
presence or absence of thematic relationships between texts and (b) the relative tightness of a
given theme. For instance, mummy is a tighter theme than mystery in this study and might
therefore be expected to recycle specialized vocabulary more efficiently. In general, Gold Rush

is a tighter theme than Westward Movement, which is a tighter theme than American History;
bees is a tighter theme than insects, and so forth.
Specialized Vocabulary Recycling
No No
themes
themes
Less
vocab
Loose Loose
themes themes
More vocab
Semi-tight Semi-tight NAa
themes themes
vocab
Tight Tight
themes themes vocab
vocab
Narrative Expository vocab
Multiauthor Multiauthor
vocab
Narrative Expository
Uniauthor Uniauthor
Figure 1. Proposed taxonomy of textual relationships for specialized vocabulary recycling in

collections of authentic reading materials.
a
There are no collection possibilities for the two cells on this particular row (Expository
Uniauthor and Narrative Uniauthor) because uniauthor creates a potential relationship between
the texts, even though they are not related by a content theme.
With regard to authorship issues, it has been broadly accepted that text collections written by one
author (uniauthor) are more efficient in recycling vocabulary than text collections written by
multiple authors (multiauthor). Finally, regarding register issues, the primary consideration has
been the differences between the culturally- and socially-oriented vocabulary of narrative fiction
(storybooks) and the informationally-oriented vocabulary of expository nonfiction.

The possible combinations of these variables are depicted in Figure 1 and will subsequently be
referred to as the taxonomy of textual relationships.
A fourth dimension, content-area, may also have a bearing on vocabulary recycling in text
collections. For instance, science-based materials may exhibit different vocabulary
characteristics than history-based materials. However, because of the practical constraints of
using an existing corpus, this dimension will only be addressed loosely in the current study by
analyzing possible differences between the history-based collections under Westward Movement
and the science-based collections under Mummy and Mystery.
It is clear that relatively little is known about vocabulary recycling as a function of text
relationships, especially with regard to authentic children’s reading materials. The current study
will more carefully examine this issue by analyzing the specialized vocabulary of several
collections of children’s texts (Gardner, 2004) written at approximately the fifth- to sixth-grade
level. The following question will be used to focus the analyses:
To what extent do specialized words recycle within various collections of authentic

children’s reading materials that are related by (a) theme (Mystery, Westward Movement,
Mummy), (b) authorship (texts written by different authors vs. texts written by one
author), (c) register (narrative fiction vs. expository nonfiction), and (d) the various
combinations of (a–c) above?
Method and Procedure
Constructs of Word, Vocabulary, and Type
The terms word, vocabulary, and type are used broadly and interchangeably in this study, and all
three are defined conservatively as “unique spellings.” While it is realized that some children
may be able to make connections during reading between the morphologically related words of
English (e.g., climb, climbs, climbing, climbed, climber), there is growing evidence of disparities
in this ability based on children’s individual reading skills (Carlisle, 2000; Mahony, Singson, &
Mann, 2000; Singson, Mahony, & Mann, 2000) and the amount of direct instruction they receive
in raising their morphological awareness (Carlo et al., 2004; Cunningham, 1998; Stahl & Shiel,
1992). Furthermore, differences in children’s awareness of morphological relationships have
been isolated as one of several significant variables predicting early vocabulary acquisition
(McBride-Chang, Wagner, Muse, Chow, & Shu, 2005). The fact that many of the studies cited
above deal with native English-speaking children or bilinguals suggests that this morphological-
awareness problem may be even more pronounced for nonnative children trying to negotiate the
complex morphological system of English. In fact, Schmitt and Zimmerman (2002) found that
even adult learners of English (university students) struggle to make many morphological
connections without explicit help, particularly when derivation is involved.
It should also be noted that the definition of word, vocabulary, and type used in this study does
not account for multiword items (phrasal verbs, idioms, etc.) or variant meaning for the same

word forms (homonymy and polysemy). However, the more specialized nature of the words in
this study suggests that there will be fewer chances for form-meaning error than if high-
frequency words were being analyzed (Ravin & Leacock, 2000).
Children’s Thematic Corpus
The actual corpus of children’s extensive reading materials comes from Gardner’s (2004) earlier
study. Hereafter the corpus will be referred to as the Children’s Thematic Corpus. With the aid of
an experienced fifth-grade teacher and a children’s librarian, Gardner established four collections
of four texts each for each of three popular themes used in upper elementary education (fifth and
sixth grades): Mummy (tight, science-based theme), Westward Movement (semitight, history-
based theme), and Mystery (loose, science-based theme). This collaboration resulted in the 12
text collections outlined in Appendix A. A total of 48 texts were used to establish the four
collections in each of the three themes: 3 × 4 × 4 (Themes × Collections × Texts).
Of the 48 texts in the 12 collections, 27 are from documented (published) thematic units (see the
theme unit source key in Appendix A), and 21 were chosen with the expert assistance of the
fifth-grade teacher and children’s librarian, based on (a) subjective grade-level readability
assessments or readability scores printed on the back covers of several books, (b) thematic fit,
and (c) popularity of texts. A narrative and an expository control collection (no thematic or
authorship relationships between the texts) were also established with the assistance of the
teacher and children’s librarian (see Appendix A). The control narrative collection consisted of
four popular Newbery Medal books from four different genres of fiction (science, mystery,
adventure, and romance), and the control expository collection consisted of four grade-
equivalent informational books from four different content-areas (earth science, political science,
life science, and geography-culture). From the perspective of the current investigation, the two
control collections could alternatively be viewed as examples of wide reading, whereas the
thematic collections would be more appropriately labeled as narrow reading.
Preliminary Procedure for Analyzing Vocabulary
Scanning. Each of the 56 texts (48 thematic and 8 control) was scanned into the computer using
Omnipage text scanning software. Words not able to be scanned because of font and background
problems were entered into the computer by keyboard. Each electronic document was then
carefully edited to correct the relatively few scanning errors that occurred.
Equalization of word counts. For comparative purposes in the current study, each of the
electronic texts was reduced to equal chunks of running words as follows: the first 5,000 running
words of each text, beginning with the first word on page one.
This was done for two reasons: to account for differences in text length, especially between the
lengthy narrative texts and the relatively short expository texts at the same grade level, and to
allow comparisons of vocabulary repetition within a consistent number of running words that a
child could encounter in a normal reading experience.
Identification of specialized vocabulary. The texts in each of the 14 collections (12 thematic and

2 control) were run, by collection, through the Range vocabulary program (Heatley, Nation, &
Coxhead, 2002) and sorted into lists of High-Frequency Words and Other Words. The
predetermined high-frequency list consisted of words from the first 1,000 word families of the
General Service List (GSL; West, 1953), which accompanies the Range program, and which,
unlike the second 1,000 GSL word families, have been found to be fairly stable over time
(Nation & Hwang, 1995). An additional 108 function words and numerical terms that were not
found in the first 1,000 GSL list were also added (e.g., ahead, amid, billion, eighths, during).
The Other Words (i.e., not in the high-frequency list) were subsequently identified as being
specialized if they appeared in at least three texts of a four-text collection.
Hereafter these words are referred to as specialized words, specialized vocabulary, or specialized
types interchangeably. These are the words of interest in the current study, because they tend to
characterize the content of the various collections of extensive reading materials (e.g., mummy,
pyramids, museum, archeologist, buffalo, prairie, investigation). It is crucial to reiterate that
these are shared, specialized words, occurring in several different texts of a collection instead of
one text only (e.g., Hirsh & Nation, 1992). They are thus more representative of the types of
words that children could encounter in an extensive reading program that uses themes, authors,
and registers to organize instruction. They also fulfill the well established assumption for
successful incidental word acquisition, namely, that children will encounter new words multiple
times in multiple and varied contexts within a reasonable time frame.
Data Analysis
Once the specialized words were identified, three measures of vocabulary recycling were
selected for comparison purposes:
1. Total number of specialized types (number of different words occurring in several

texts). For instance, the words mummy and prairie would be counted as one type each,
even though they might repeat 100 times and 4 times respectively.
2. Total number of specialized tokens (raw frequency counts). For instance, the word
mummy would have a token count of 100 in the example above, and the word prairie
would have a token count of 4.
3. Total number of specialized types that repeat at least six times (6+). For instance, the
word mummy would be counted as one 6+ type in the scenario above (i.e., it repeats at
least six times), whereas prairie would not be counted (i.e., it does not occur at least six
times). The 6+ figure is a fairly conservative estimate of the number of incidental
encounters that is generally necessary for new vocabulary to be acquired during extensive
reading (see Zahar, Cobb, & Spada, 2001, for review.)
Each of these three measures addresses a different aspect of vocabulary recycling in authentic
extensive reading collections. The first gives a general sense of how many different specialized
words are drawn together by the relationships between texts or collections. The second provides
an indication of how often these different words repeat in general, and the third provides
information about specific specialized words that reach repetition levels conducive to incidental

vocabulary acquisition while reading (i.e., 6+ times).
Results and Discussion
Table 2 lists all 14 collections according to their average rank for the three vocabulary recycling
measures (types, tokens, and 6+ types) based on the first 5,000 running words in each text (i.e.,
20,000 per collection). It is clear that large differences exist in the number of specialized types,
tokens, and 6+ types in the various collections. Looking first at the extremes, the Mummy
Expository Uniauthor collection has 136 more specialized types than the non-thematic Control
Expository Multiauthor collection (164 minus 28), 1,717 more specialized tokens (1,925 minus
208), and 85 more 6+ types (97 minus 12). These recycling differences become even more
staggering when one considers that all of this happens in roughly 80 pages of text (20,000
running words). Additionally, the Mummy Expository Multiauthor collection is only slightly
behind the Mummy Expository Uniauthor collection in this regard. This suggests that presence
of a tight theme (Mummy) may have an important impact on vocabulary recycling.
Table 2. Rank order of collections considering specialized types, tokens, and 6+ types appearing in at
least three of four texts in each collection (based on 5,000 tokens per text, i.e., 20,000 per collection)
Type Token 6+ Type Average
Theme Register Authorship Rank Rank Rank
total total total ranka
Mummy Expository Uniauthor 164 1 1,925 2 97 1 1.3
Mummy Expository Multiauthor 141 2 1,935 1 95 2 1.7
Westward Narrative Uniauthor 108 3 1,467 4 60 3 3.3
Westward Expository Multiauthor 93 4.5 1,004 5 54 4 4.5
Mystery Narrative Uniauthor 90 6 1,643 3 47 6.5 5.2
Westward Expository Uniauthor 80 7 720 7 48 5 6.3
Mummy Narrative Uniauthor 93 4.5 708 8 42 8 6.8
Mystery Expository Multiauthor 72 8.5 751 6 47 6.5 7.0
Westward Narrative Multiauthor 72 8.5 616 9 38 9 8.8
Mystery Expository Uniauthor 54 12 473 10 33 10 10.7
Control Narrative Multiauthor 58 10 360 11 21 11.5 10.8
Mystery Narrative Multiauthor 56 11 334 13 21 11.5 11.8
Mummy Narrative Multiauthor 52 13 346 12 20 13 12.7
Control Expository Multiauthor 28 14 208 14 12 14 14.0
Note. Westward = Westward Movement.
a
Rank order based on average of three ranks for types, tokens, and 6+ types.
However, while Mummy Narrative Uniauthor appears to recycle specialized words much more
efficiently than Control Narrative Multiauthor (no theme), the same is not true of its multiauthor
counterpart (Mummy Narrative Multiauthor), which actually has fewer specialized types, tokens,
and 6+ types than the narrative control. In fact, two of the theme-based narrative collections have
average ranks that fall below the narrative control collection. The same is not true for the
expository collections, which all exhibit more vocabulary recycling than the expository control
collection. This suggests that theme may have a more important impact on vocabulary recycling
in expository collections than in narrative collections. Also noteworthy in these data is the great
disparity between Mummy Expository Uniauthor (tight, science-based theme) and Mystery
Expository Uniauthor (loose, science-based theme) in terms of specialized types (164 vs. 54),

tokens (1,925 vs. 473), and 6+ types (97 vs. 33). Roughly the same disparity exists between
Mummy Expository Multiauthor and Mystery Expository Multiauthor. The same is not true of
their narrative equivalents. In fact, the order is exactly reversed, with the Mystery narratives
(loose theme) showing slightly more specialized word recycling than the Mummy narratives.
Interestingly, the Westward Movement collections (semitight, history-based theme) appear to
congregate more toward the middle of the rankings as a whole. Again, these findings add support
to the ongoing conclusion that thematic relationships between texts have their greatest impact on
vocabulary recycling in expository, rather than narrative, text collections.
Table 3 reflects the major register distinction between expository and narrative texts as this
distinction appears to be the primary variable of interest. The table reflects two clear vocabulary
differences between the expository and narrative collections:
1. The Mummy expository collections (tight theme) occupy the top two rankings among
expository texts; yet their Mummy narrative counterparts are ranked much lower among
narratives, with the Mummy Narrative Multiauthor collection actually coming in last
among narratives, falling below the Control Narrative Multiauthor collection (no theme)
and the Mystery Narrative Multiauthor collection (loose theme).
2. The three highest ranked narrative collections, Westward Narrative Uniauthor (3.3),
Mystery Narrative Uniauthor (5.2), and Mummy Narrative Uniauthor (6.8) are all single-
author collections. This same pattern does not hold true for the expository collections.
While the Mummy Expository Uniauthor collection (1.3) is slightly higher than the
Mummy Expository Multiauthor collection (1.7), the exact opposite is true for the
Westward Movement expository texts (multiauthor, 4.5; uniauthor, 6.3) and the Mystery
expository texts (multiauthor, 7.0; uniauthor, 10.7). This suggests that single authorship
has its greatest impact on vocabulary recycling within narrative text collections.
Table 3. Rank order by expository and narrative collections

Theme Authorship Average rank
Expository collections
Mummy Uniauthor 1.3
Mummy Multiauthor 1.7
Westward Multiauthor 4.5
Westward Uniauthor 6.3
Mystery Multiauthor 7.0
Mystery Uniauthor 10.7
Control Multiauthor 14.0
Narrative collections
Westward Uniauthor 3.3
Mystery Uniauthor 5.2
Mummy Uniauthor 6.8
Westward Multiauthor 8.8
Control Multiauthor 10.8
Mystery Multiauthor 11.8
Mummy Multiauthor 12.7

In summary, the major differences in vocabulary recycling seem to be at the register level, that is,
between narrative and expository texts. With regard to the narrative collections, neither presence
of theme (see Narrative Control vs. Narrative Mystery Multiauthor and Narrative Mummy
Multiauthor) nor tightness of theme (see Mummy vs. Mystery) appears to make any real
difference in terms of vocabulary recycling. Number of authors, on the other hand, appears to
make a big difference, with all three uniauthor collections recycling specialized vocabulary
better than their multiauthor counterparts.
With regard to expository collections, the situation is completely reversed. Not only does
presence of theme make a difference (i.e., the Control Expository Collection is ranked last, and
by a good margin), but the relative tightness of the themes matches the taxonomy perfectly (see
Figure 1), with the two thematically tight Mummy collections ranked the highest, followed by
the two thematically semitight Westward Movement collections, and, lastly, the two thematically
loose Mystery collections. Number of authors, on the other hand, appears to produce inconsistent,
even random differences in specialized vocabulary recycling within the expository collections.
Table 4 provides the top 10 most frequent specialized words appearing in all 14 collections. (See
Appendix B for a list of all specialized words by collection.) The table is arranged horizontally
by theme and vertically by register and authorship. An examination of these words is very
informative. First, the presence of theme can be clearly identified in the theme-based expository
collections (e.g., Mummy = mummy, Egypt, tombs, pyramids, preserved; Westward Movement
= trail, cattle, wagon, fort, Indians; Mystery = bones, evidence, clues, buried, horror). This is in
stark contrast with the more semantically random words of the expository control collection (e.g.,
feet, America, area, huge, ice).
However, this same contrast is not so readily apparent between the theme-based narrative
collections and the narrative control collection. With the exception of two words in the Narrative
Mummy Multiauthor collection (Egypt and Egyptian), it is difficult to find any theme-related
differences between the two Mummy narrative collections and the narrative control collection.
There is also no discernable, theme-related difference between the specialized vocabulary of the
two Mystery narrative collections and the narrative control collection. However, several words in
the Westward Movement narratives do exhibit some of the same thematic characteristics as their
expository counterparts (e.g., wagon, prairie, Indians). Such similarities may be a result of the
content area that they are drawn from (history vs. science)—a topic that should be more carefully
considered in future research.
Also apparent in the table is the role of character names in the narrative uniauthor collections,
along with their large token counts (e.g., Anthony, 150; Laura, 198; Pa, 192; Kayo, 338; Rosie,
327). Even the words bone and breath in the Mystery Narrative Uniauthor collection refer
primarily to the name of a dog (Bone Breath), and the word club in the same collection refers
primarily to a children’s club for animals (Care Club). Obviously, the repetition of names
(people, places, groups, organizations, etc.) is one of the vocabulary advantages of reading
fictional stories written by one author (e.g., a series), and it likely explains why the narrative
uniauthor collections are ranked higher than their narrative multiauthor counterparts in terms of
vocabulary recycling (see Tables 2 and 3). Interestingly, only one of the single-authored

expository collections seems to be impacted by names—the Westward Expository Uniauthor

collection. Here, however, one might argue that there are important characteristic differences
between names of historical significance (e.g., John, James, George) and names in fictional
narratives.
Table 4. Top 10 specialized types (with token counts) appearing in at least 3 of 4 texts in each
collection (based on 5,000 tokens per text, i.e., 20,000 per collection)
MUMMY EXP MA MUMMY EXP UA MUMMY NAR MA MUMMY NAR UA
MUMMY 166 EGYPT 189 HALL 46 ANTHONY 150
MUMMIES 161 PYRAMID 124 HAIR 18 LOT 19
EGYPTIANS 77 PYRAMIDS 80 EGYPT 15 DESK 17
EGYPT 56 EGYPTIANS 72 LOT 13 FINALLY 14
EGYPTIAN 50 BC 65 EGYPTIAN 10 LIKED 12
TOMBS 46 EGYPTIAN 51 ANGRY 10 SUDDENLY 12
PYRAMID 46 TOMBS 42 JOB 10 TEA 12
BURIED 45 DYNASTY 41 SUDDENLY 9 JOB 11
TOMB 43 NILE 41 FINALLY 9 BIT 10
PRESERVED 40 TOMB 34 KITCHEN 9 CORNER 10
WESTWARD EXP MA WESTWARD EXP UA WESTWARD NAR MA WESTWARD NAR UA
TRAIL 69 AMERICAN 46 WAGON 69 LAURA 198
CATTLE 52 CALIFORNIA 43 PRAIRIE 33 PA 192
WAGON 41 AMERICANS 34 GRASS 29 MA 113
WAGONS 38 AMERICA 29 WAGONS 27 MARY 94
FORT 35 JOHN 25 MA 22 WAGON 87
AMERICAN 33 JAMES 22 INDIANS 20 JACK 44
MISSOURI 30 INDIAN 21 HAIR 15 BROWN 23
INDIANS 28 SMITH 20 SLOWLY 15 PATH 23
TERRITORY 24 GEORGE 17 FEET 13 TALL 23
SAN 23 MISSISSIPPI 17 SUDDENLY 13 FEET 19
MYSTERY EXP MA MYSTERY EXP UA MYSTERY NAR MA MYSTERY NAR UA
BONES 67 ISLAND 59 SHOP 21 KAYO 338
JOHN 66 FEET 33 FAT 18 ROSIE 327
BONE 51 FINALLY 28 JEANS 16 CAT 99
EVIDENCE 51 CREATURE 18 FUNNY 11 BREATH 62
SKULL 31 AMERICAN 13 JACKET 11 BONE 60
TEETH 17 BURIED 13 CORNER 10 SAMMY 55
CLUES 15 HORROR 13 HAIR 10 CLUB 49
HAIR 14 MAD 13 LOT 10 SAUNDERS 35
FOOT 14 EVIL 12 SUDDENLY 9 HOMER 33
PHYSICAL 13 HOLE 12 PROBABLY 8 BENTON 31
CONTROL EXP MA CONTROL NAR MA
FEET 32 FEET 21
AMERICA 16 CLIFF 20
AREAS 14 HAIR 18
AREA 12 FOOT 15
PACIFIC 12 KITCHEN 13
HUGE 10 SUDDENLY 12
OCEAN 10 RUG 11
CALIFORNIA 8 NOSE 10
ALASKA 8 SKIN 10
ICE 7 CHAIR 10
Note. EXP = Expository; NAR = Narrative; MA = Multiauthor; UA = Uniauthor.
“Theme” Word Rating Comparison
Observed differences in the thematic nature of the specialized words prompted a subsequent in-

depth analysis of this variable. Two master’s-level linguists, not associated with the study, were
given an alphabetized list of the specialized words appearing in all 14 collections (759 distinct
types, some of which were shared between collections) and were asked to independently rate
each word based on the following criteria:
1. The word definitely or possibly belongs to the Mummy theme

2. The word definitely or possibly belongs to the Mystery theme
3. The word definitely or possibly belongs to the Westward Movement theme
4. The word does not seem to belong to any of the three themes
The raters were instructed that a given word could be rated only once per theme, for example,
definitely or possibly, but not both. However, raters could rate a particular word as definitely or
possibly belonging to more than one theme (e.g., the word burial was rated as possibly Mummy,
possibly Mystery, and possibly Westward Movement). Specialized words from the two control
collections (Narrative and Expository) were also included in the list to serve as controls for the
rating process. It was assumed that most of the specialized words in the control collections would
be rated as not belonging to any theme. The raters used dictionaries and internet searching
browsers (e.g., Google) to gain understanding of specialized words they were not familiar with in
the lists (e.g., Abusir—a site in ancient Egypt). Initial interrater agreement was 56.7%, with 430
of 759 total words rated exactly the same. The raters subsequently compared their ratings;
differences were worked out through discussion and by collapsing the definitely and possibly
distinction into one category—In Theme. Because the purpose of the ratings was to arrive at a
consensus for each word, initial ratings were only used as points of reference for discussion
purposes.
The words in the alphabetized list along with their ratings were then assigned back to the original
themes from which they were drawn, and appropriate descriptive calculations were run. Table 5
displays the results of the thematic ratings for all 12 thematic collections and for the two control
collections. The order of the theme-based collections is based on highest-to-lowest percentage of
specialized types that were rated as being In Theme. Note that the results of this analysis
highlight a divide (see the broken line in Table 5) that coincides with the natural distinction
between the two macroregisters. Several important conclusions can be drawn from the figures in
Table 5:
1. Percentages of theme-related specialized words are higher in the expository collections

than in the narrative collections, with a high of 51.2% in Mummy Expository Uniauthor
and a low of 3.6% in Mystery Narrative Multiauthor.
2. The percentages of thematic types among the expository collections follow the
taxonomy of textual relationships perfectly—that is, Mummy expositories (tight theme)
have the highest percentages of thematic types, followed by Westward Movement
expositories (semitight theme), and then Mystery expositories (loose theme). The same is
not true of the narrative collections.
3. The number of theme-related specialized words in the narrative collections is abysmal,

with the best case being 14 of 72 (Westward Narrative Multiauthor), and the worst case

being 2 of 56 (Mystery Narrative Multiauthor).
Table 5. Theme-word-rating comparisons by theme-based collections and control collections

Total Number and percentage (%)
Theme Register Authorship
Types In Theme Not in Theme In Different Theme
Theme-Based Collections
Mummy Expository Uniauthor 164 84 51.2 70 42.7 10 6.1
Mummy Expository Multiauthor 141 66 46.8 69 48.9 6 4.3
Westward Expository Multiauthor 93 40 43.0 49 52.7 4 4.3
Westward Expository Uniauthor 80 31 38.8 45 56.3 4 5.0
Mystery Expository Uniauthor 54 13 24.1 36 66.7 5 9.3
Mystery Expository Multiauthor 72 17 23.6 53 73.6 2 2.8
Westward Narrative Multiauthor 72 14 19.4 57 79.2 1 1.4
Westward Narrative Uniauthor 108 11 10.2 94 87.0 3 2.8
Mummy Narrative Multiauthor 52 4 7.7 47 90.4 1 1.9
Mystery Narrative Uniauthor 90 4 4.4 80 88.9 6 6.7
Mummy Narrative Uniauthor 93 4 4.3 81 87.1 8 8.6
Mystery Narrative Multiauthor 56 2 3.6 53 94.6 1 1.8
Control Collections
Control Narrative Multiauthor 58 NA NA 55 94.8 3 5.2

Control Expository Multiauthor 28 NA NA 21 75.0 7 25.0
Note. Words in the In Different Theme category of the theme-based collections were judged by raters
to belong to a theme that they did not actually appear in, whereas words in this same category of the
control collections were judged by raters to belong to a theme even though no thematic relationships
were assumed in the control collections.
The data for the control collections provide useful validation of the subjective ratings themselves.
As was expected, most of the specialized words in the narrative control collection (no theme)
were rated as not belonging to any of the themes (55 of 58, i.e., 94.8%). The three narrative
control words judged to be theme related were cliff (Mystery), screamed (Mystery), and stomach
(Mummy). While only 75% (21 of 28) of the specialized words in the expository control were
rated as not belonging to any theme, a visual inspection of the seven that were judged to be
thematic suggests why this is the case: Alaska, America, Atlantic, California, Louisiana, Oregon,
and Pacific. All seven were rated as definitely or possibly belonging to the Westward Movement
theme. Overall, it appears that the raters’ intuitions were consistent with the expectation that
most of the words in the control collections would be rated as not belonging to a theme, thus
providing a secondary validation of the rating accuracy itself.
General Summary and Extensions to Pedagogy
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the vocabulary-recycling claims of narrow
reading, namely, that authentic reading materials related by a common theme or written by a
single author will recycle content vocabulary more efficiently than unrelated materials, thus

providing English language learners with more exposure to such items for potential acquisition.
In this regard, the linguistic findings of the study suggest the following five conclusions:
1. Themes have their greatest impact on specialized vocabulary recycling among

authentic informational (expository) materials, with little or no impact among authentic
fictional (narrative) materials. While all theme-based expository collections exhibited
more specialized vocabulary recycling (and by quite a large margin) than the expository
control collection (no thematic relationship), the same was not true with the narrative
collections, where two collections actually exhibited less specialized vocabulary
recycling than the narrative control.
2. Tighter themes draw together and recycle specialized vocabulary more efficiently
among authentic expository materials than looser themes, but relative thematic tightness
has no bearing on specialized vocabulary recycling in authentic narrative collections.
While the trend in specialized vocabulary recycling among the expositories followed the
proposed taxonomy of textual relationships perfectly (i.e., more specialized vocabulary
recycling in the tight Mummy theme, followed by the semitight Westward Movement,
followed by the loose Mystery, followed by the Control), the same was not true among
the narratives, with one loose Mystery collection ranked highest among the seven
narrative collections, and one tight Mummy collection actually ranked last among all
narratives, even falling below the narrative control collection.
3. The specialized words in the expository collections were more recognizably theme
based (i.e., Mummy-related, Westward Movement-related, Mystery-related) than their
narrative counterparts. Furthermore, the extent of thematic fit among the specialized
vocabularies of the expository collections followed the proposed taxonomy perfectly (i.e.,
more theme-specific words in the tight Mummy theme, followed by the semitight
Westward Movement theme, followed by the loose Mystery theme). No such theme-
specific pattern existed among the specialized vocabulary of the narratives, which, with
the possible exception of the history-based Westward Movement collections, were
essentially theme-less.
4. Authentic children’s narratives written by the same author have substantially more
specialized vocabulary recycling than narratives written by several different authors, but
authorship has no observable impact on specialized vocabulary recycling among
authentic children’s expository materials. While all three of the narrative uniauthor
collections exhibited more specialized vocabulary recycling than their four multiauthor
counterparts, the same was not true among the expositories, where no such pattern was
observed.
5. Advantages in specialized vocabulary recycling among authentic narrative collections

written by one author can be largely accounted for by the repetition of names in stories
(characters, places, etc.), not thematic content. By far, the highest repetitions of
specialized words in the uniauthor narratives were names of characters (Anthony, Laura,
Pa, Ma, Mary, Kayo, Rosie, etc.).

Taken together, these linguistically based conclusions indicate that narrow reading has some
concrete advantages in terms of specialized vocabulary recycling, but that such advantages may
be much more complex than previously indicated (e.g., Cho et al., 2005; Day, 1994; Krashen,
1981, 1985; Schmitt & Carter, 2000). For one, the impact of themes and the impact of authorship
on specialized vocabulary recycling may not be mutually supportive constructs, appearing
instead to be heavily register-sensitive. That is, themes work best for expository collections, and
single authorship works best for narrative collections.
Second, the impact of themes and authorship on vocabulary recycling is as much an issue of
what vocabulary as it is what register. English language educators should not assume that
because a group of fictional narratives have been classified as theme based, they will greatly
improve their learners’ exposure to theme-based words and concepts, nor should they assume
that a fictional series written by a single author (theme-based or not) will provide substantially
more specialized vocabulary redundancy than unrelated materials, with the noted exception of
character names and places. This should not be taken to mean that there are no additional
advantages to narrow fiction reading that might lead to gains in word knowledge (lowering the
overall lexical load, increasing motivation to read, etc.). However, one must be somewhat
skeptical of the loose claims that such reading leads to increased, repetitive exposures to new or
less familiar words.
Conversely, the power of themes to draw together and recycle the specialized vocabulary of
expository materials should also be duly noted in many areas of English language education,
especially in content-based instruction and English for academic purposes. Indeed, there is irony
in the fact that the expository collections, which are not known for being friendly to incidental
word learning from context (Anderson, 1996; Coté, Goldman, & Saul, 1998), produce the best
conditions for recycling specialized, theme-specific vocabulary, especially when they are related
by tighter themes such as Mummy.
Pedagogically, this apparent paradox of improved vocabulary recycling in learner-unfriendly

contexts suggests that any vocabulary recycling advantages gained through theme-based
expository reading may still need to be augmented by direct vocabulary instruction and more
“word consciousness” raising for young L1 and L2 readers (Graves, 2006; Zahar et al., 2001). In
other words, the findings regarding narrow (tight-themed) expository reading should not
necessarily be translated into more opportunities for incidental vocabulary acquisition. However,
the lexical advantages of narrow expository reading should also be recognized. Because such
reading tends to draw together and recycle a greater proportion of specialized words that are
more easily identifiable as being theme related (e.g., mummy, pyramid, tombs, Egypt, embalming,
pharaoh, mummification), several potential advantages accrue for classroom instruction: (a) the
reading materials will likely have more connections and relevance to other theme-related
classroom discussions or projects; (b) the words in such materials are prime candidates for direct
vocabulary instruction because of their salience to both the theme in general and the reading
materials that support that theme; and (c) there appears to be a greater likelihood of specialized,
theme-based vocabulary redundancy between different expository reading materials from the
same tight theme, thus allowing teachers to more confidently choose from a variety of grade-
equivalent authentic materials that will recycle many of the same crucial vocabulary items.

Finally, the proposed taxonomy of textual relationships (Figure 1) appears to require some
revision based on the disparities in specialized vocabulary recycling noted between the narrative
and expository text collections (see Figure 2). The separation of narrative fiction and expository
nonfiction in the revised taxonomy reflects the register-related nuances of narrow reading:
Number of authors affects specialized vocabulary recycling in collections of narrative fiction, but
not in collections of expository nonfiction; conversely, thematic relationships affect specialized
vocabulary recycling in collections of expository nonfiction, but not in collections of narrative
fiction. The revised taxonomy also reflects the general advantages of narrow reading over wide
reading in terms of exposing young readers to repetitive encounters with new or less familiar
vocabulary, and in reducing the overall lexical load placed on such readers.
Specialized Vocabulary Recycling
Less No themes
(Wide reading)
Loose
themes
Less
Multiauthor
(Wide reading)
More Semi-tight
themes
More
Uniauthor Tight
themes
Narrative Expository
Fiction Nonfiction
Figure 2. Revised taxonomy of textual relationships for specialized vocabulary recycling in collections of
authentic reading materials.
Conclusion
More research is needed to validate the findings of this study. Future research could include
different themes, texts, and controls, perhaps using a more randomized selection of materials. In
addition, the definition of word used in this study (i.e., unique spellings) is open to challenge on
several grounds, including the potential for children to link morphologically related words and
the potential presence of multiword items, homonymy, and polysemy. However, there was no
visual indication in the data to suggest that any of these variables would have altered the primary
findings of the study, which clearly suggest major vocabulary-recycling differences based on the
textual relationships between authentic reading materials. For example, Appendix B provides
evidence of rich morphological relationships between several of the specialized words in the
theme-based expository collections.
There would also appear to be some obvious strengths in the type of corpus-based research
conducted in this study, particularly in bringing some degree of accountability to the broad
claims of new vocabulary exposure through extensive reading of authentic materials, which have
often lacked the nuances necessary to make them truly informative for pedagogical purposes. All
too often, people are simply told that young readers must read widely or extensively in class or at
home in order to substantially grow their vocabularies, without careful consideration of the types
of materials that they could possibly read, the types of words that such reading will expose them
to, and the varying levels of essential lexical redundancy that come about as a result of choices
regarding which text to read first, second, third, and so forth. In fact, the findings of this corpus-
based study suggest that even the more pedagogically focused approach of narrow reading, with
its assumed vocabulary-exposure benefits, may have been greatly oversimplified. In short, there
is no adequate substitute for real data, in this case, actual words and actual word repetitions in
actual authentic reading materials.
It should be emphasized, however, that this study examined specialized, content-rich vocabulary
(i.e., the types of words that are representative of long-term, large-scale vocabulary growth
during the school years—mummy, embalming, laboratory, anthropologist, frontier, etc.), and did
not consider the recycling of the relatively small set of high-frequency words (2,000 to 3,000
words) that L2 readers must first gain proficiency with in order to achieve basic reading
comprehension and to utilize context as a means of building vocabulary knowledge (Laufer,
1989; Nation, 2001). However, given the nature of general high-frequency words (i.e., they
appear in many texts) and given that authentic texts are not controlled for the presentation of
vocabulary, it is doubtful that narrow reading would provide any appreciable differences in
vocabulary recycling at the high-frequency level either. Future research could examine the verity
of this assertion.
Finally, it is hoped that the findings of this study and the revised taxonomy of textual
relationships will prove useful to English language teachers and curriculum designers who must
ultimately make the choices about what their students will be encouraged to read throughout the
course of a term, semester, or school year. If the goal is to improve their learners’ repetitive
exposure to the vocabulary of school, then consideration of the relationships between texts can
make a profound difference. In this regard, narrow reading of theme-related expository materials
will provide better conditions for such exposure, provided that the theme is sufficiently tight to
draw together and recycle theme-related content words in an advantageous manner—in short, not
just any theme will do. For instance, a tight expository-based Mummy theme would be better
than a loose Mystery theme, but both would be superior to no theme at all (e.g., wide reading). A
tight bee theme would be better than a loose insect theme, but again both would be better than no

theme at all, and so forth. Given the apparent vocabulary-recycling advantages of such thematic
decisions, the logical next step is to test whether young L2 readers can actually utilize these
benefits to gain vocabulary knowledge through reading or whether the nature of the words in
expository materials, and the concepts they often entail, require extratextual support before they
can be acquired. A final point with regard to expository materials is that there are no apparent
vocabulary-recycling advantages for utilizing text collections written by one author.
In contrast, narrow reading of fictional storybooks written by one author will improve the
chances for specialized vocabulary recycling. However, the lexical advantages to the language
learner will likely involve issues of general reading fluency (repetition of character names, places,
etc.), rather than repeated exposures to theme-based or content-area vocabulary (i.e., the
language of school). Indeed, there is no indication in the data that theme-relatedness plays any
facilitative role in specialized vocabulary recycling within collections of narrative fiction.
The marked disparities noted in this study between theme-based narrative and expository
collections adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting major differences between
children’s narrative and expository reading materials and reading experiences (reviewed in
Grabe, 2002). In this regard, and in line with Gardner’s (2004) assertions, the findings of this
study suggest that more attention should be paid to the what of reading and vocabulary exposure,
not merely the how much.
References
America’s journal. (1996). New York: Scholastic.

Anderson, R. C. (1996). Research foundations to support wide reading. In V. Greaney (Ed.),
Promoting reading in developing countries (pp. 55–77). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1992). The vocabulary conundrum. American Educator, 16(4),
14–19, 44–47.
Bamford, R. A., Kristo, J. V., & Lyon, A. (2002). Facing facts: Nonfiction in the primary
classroom. The NERA Journal, 38(2), 8–15.
Bello, M., Fajet, W., Shaver, A. N., Toombs, A. K., & Schumm, J. S. (2003). Basal readers and
English language learners: A content analysis study. Reading Research and Instruction,
42(2), 1–16.
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex
words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 169–
190.
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., Lively, T.
J., & White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-
language learners in bilingual and mainstream classroom. Reading Research Quarterly,
39, 188–215.
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). The American heritage word frequency book.
New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning and
Technology, 11, 38–63.

Cho, K.-S., Ahn, K.-O., & Krashen, S. (2005). The effects of narrow reading of authentic texts
on interest and reading ability in English as a foreign language. Reading Improvement, 42,
58–64.
Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text:
Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1–53.
Cunningham, P. (1998). The multisyllabic word dilemma: Helping students build meaning, spell,
and read “big” words. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties,
14, 189–218.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Reading matters: How reading engagement
influences cognition. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook
of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Day, R. R. (1994). Selecting a passage for the EFL reading class. English Teaching Forum, 32(1),
20–23, 38.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in
a Foreign Language, 14, 136–141.
Dubin, F. (1986). Dealing with texts. In F. Dubin, D. E. Eskey, & W. Grabe (Eds.), Teaching
second language reading for academic purposes (pp. 127–160). Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1999). Matching books to readers: Using leveled books in
guided reading, K-3. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2005). The Fountas and Pinnell leveled book list, K-8, 2006–
2008 edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gardner, D. (2004). Vocabulary input through extensive reading: A comparison of words found
in children’s narrative and expository reading materials. Applied Linguistics, 25, 1–37.
Grabe, W. (2002). Narrative and expository macro-genres. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the
classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 249–267). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning & Instruction. Williston, VT: Teachers
College Press.
Heatley, A., Nation, I. S. P., & Coxhead, A. (2002). RANGE and FREQUENCY programs
[Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-
nation/RANGE32.zip
Hirsch, D., & Nation, I. S. P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts
for pleasure. Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 689–696.
Huang, H-T., & Liou, H-C. (2007). Vocabulary learning in an automated graded reading
program. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 64–82.
Hwang, K., & Nation, I. S. P. (1989). Reducing the vocabulary load and encouraging vocabulary
learning through reading newspapers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 6, 323–335.
It’s a mystery. (1996). New York: Scholastic.
Krashen, S. (1981). The case for narrow reading. TESOL Newsletter, 15(6), 23.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the
input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.

Krashen, S. (1993a). The case for free voluntary reading. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 50(1), 72–82.
Krashen, S. (1993b). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Krashen, S. (2004). The case for narrow reading. Language Magazine, 3(5), 17–19.
M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines (pp.
316–323). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological
relations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 191–218.
McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Muse, A., Chow, B. W. Y., & Shu, H. (2005). The role of
morphological awareness in children’s vocabulary acquisition in English. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 26, 415–435.
Mesmer, H. A. E. (2001). Decodable text: A review of what we know. Reading Research and
Instruction, 40, 121–142.
Nagy, W. E. (1997). On the role of context in first- and second-language vocabulary learning. In
N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy
(pp. 64–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English?
Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context
during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237–270.
Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. (1985). Incidental vs. instructional approaches to increasing reading
vocabulary. Educational Perspectives, 23, 16–21.
Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications
for acquisition and instruction. In M. McKeown & M. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of
vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading
Research Quarterly, 20, 233–253.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House
Publishers.
Nation, I. S. P. (1997). The language learning benefits of extensive reading. The Language
Teacher, 21(5), 13–16.
University Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Hwang, K. (1995). Where would general service vocabulary stop and special
purposes vocabulary begin? System, 23, 35–41.
Paulson, K. J. (1994). Westward movement: A fifth grade theme. In S. A. Walmsley, Children
exploring their world: Theme teaching in the elementary school (pp. 217–242).
Ravin, Y., & Leacock, C. (2000). Polysemy: An overview. In Y. Raven & C. Leacock (Eds.),
Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 1–29). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2000). The lexical advantages of narrow reading for second language
learners. TESOL Journal, 9(1), 4–9.
Schmitt, N., & Zimmerman, C. (2002). Derivative word forms: What do learners know? TESOL

Quarterly, 36, 145–171.

Shu, H., Anderson, R. C., & Zhang, H. (1995). Incidental learning of word meanings while
reading: A Chinese and American cross-cultural study. Reading Research Quarterly,
30(1), 76–95.
Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and
morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 219–252.
Stahl, S. A., & Shiel, T. G. (1992). Teaching meaning vocabulary: Productive approaches for
poor readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 8, 223–
241.
Sutarsyah, C., Nation, I. S. P., & Kennedy, G. (1994). How useful is EAP vocabulary for ESP?
A corpus based case study. RELC Journal, 25(2), 34–50.
Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 261–285.
Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (1996). Content area reading (5th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Walmsley, S. A. (1994). Children exploring their world: Theme teaching in the elementary
schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Waring, R. (2003). The Oxford University Press guide to the why and how of using graded
readers. Tokyo: Oxford University Press.
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longman.
Willcox-Schnabl, T. (1994). Egyptian mummies: A sixth grade theme. In S. A. Walmsley,
Children exploring their world: Theme teaching in the elementary school (pp. 243–270).
Wodinsky, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (1988). Learning from graded readers. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 5, 155–161.
Zahar, R., Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of
frequency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 541–
572.
Appendix A
References of Books in Children’s Thematic Corpus
Theme Unit Source Key: Source A = (Egyptian Mummies: A Sixth Grade Theme, Willcox-Schnabl,
1994); Source B = (Westward Movement: A Fifth Grade Theme, Paulson, 1994); Source C = (America’s
Journal, 1996); Source D = (It’s a Mystery, 1996); Source E = (Children’s Librarian and Fifth-Grade
Teacher)
Bantam Doubleday Dell. [Source A]

Books in Thematic Collections Voight, C. (1991). The Vandemark mummy. New York:
Fawcett Juniper. [Source A]
Mummy Narrative Multiauthor
Mummy Narrative Uniauthor
Masterman-Smith, V. (1982). The great Egyptian
heist. New York: Four Winds Press. [Source A] Bellairs, J. (1978). The treasure of Alpheus
Peck, R. (1986). Blossom Culp and the sleep of death. Winterborn. New York: Harcourt Brace
New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell. [Source A] Jovanovich. [Source E]
Snyder, Z. K. (1967). The Egypt game. New York: Bellairs, J. (1983). The mummy, the will, and the crypt.

New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.

[Source B] Blumberg, R. (1989). The great American gold rush.
Bellairs, J. (1984). The dark secret of Weatherend. New York: Bradbury Press. [Source B]
New York: Dial Books for Young Readers. Freedman, R. (1983). Children of the wild west. New
[Source E] York: Scholastic. [Sources B & C]
Bellairs, J. (1996). The curse of the blue figurine (rev. Sandler, M. W. (1994). Cowboys. New York: Harper
ed.). New York: Puffin Books. [Source B] Collins. [Sources B & C]
Tunis, E. (1961). Frontier living (chapters 9–19).
Mummy Expository Multiauthor Cleveland: The World Publishing Company.
[Source B]
Bendick, J. (1989). Egyptian tombs. New York:
Franklin Watts. [Source A] Westward Movement Expository Uniauthor
Lauber, P. (1985). Tales mummies tell. New York:
Thomas Y. Crowell. [Source A] Hakim, J. (1994a). A history of US (Book 5): Liberty
Putnam, J. (1993). Eyewitness books: Mummy. New for all (chapters 1–9). New York: Oxford
York: Alfred A. Knopf. [Source A] University Press. [Source E]
Wilcox, C. (1993). Mummies & their mysteries. Hakim, J. (1994b). A history of US (Book 5): Liberty
Minneapolis: Carolrhoda Books. [Source A] for all (chapters 10–18). New York: Oxford
University Press. [Source E]
Mummy Expository Uniauthor Hakim, J. (1994c). A history of US (Book 5): Liberty
for all (chapters 19–27). New York: Oxford
Millard, A. (1982). Ancient Egypt. London: Granada. University Press. [Source E]
[Source A] Hakim, J. (1994d). A history of US (Book 5): Liberty
Millard, A. (1987). Great civilizations: Egypt 3118 for all (chapters 28–36). New York: Oxford
BC-AD 642. New York: Franklin Watts. [Source University Press. [Source E]
A]
Millard, A. (1995). Mysteries of the pyramids. Mystery Narrative Multiauthor
Brookfield, Connecticut: Copper Beech Books.
[Source E] Brenner, B. (1972). Mystery of the plumed serpent
Millard, A. (1996). Pyramids. New York: Kingfisher. (rev. ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. [Source D]
[Source E] Elmore, P. (1992). Susannah and the purple mongoose
mystery. New York: Dutton Children’s Books.
Westward Movement Narrative Multiauthor [Source D]
Konigsburg, E. L. (1967). From the mixed-up files of
Conrad, P. (1985). Prairie songs. New York: Harper Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler. New York: Atheneum.
& Row, Publishers. [Source B] [Source D]
Fleischman, S. (1988). By the great horn spoon (rev. Wortis, A. (1991). Windcatcher. New York: Avon
ed.). Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Books. [Source D]
[Source B]
Lawlor, L. (1986). Addie across the prairie. Niles, IL: Mystery Narrative Uniauthor
Albert Whitman & Company. [Source B]
Moeri, L. (1994). Save Queen of Sheba (rev. ed.). New Kehret, P. (1995a). Frightmares: Cat burglar on the
York: Puffin Books. [Source B] prowl. New York: Pocket Books. [Source E]
Kehret, P. (1995b). Frightmares: Don’t go near Mrs.
Westward Movement Narrative Uniauthor Tallie. New York: Pocket Books. [Source E]
Kehret, P. (1996a). Frightmares: Backstage fright.
Wilder, L. I. (1971a). Little house in the big woods New York: Pocket Books. [Source E]
(rev. ed.). New York: Harper & Row. [Source E] Kehret, P. (1996b). Frightmares: Screaming eagles.
Wilder, L. I. (1971b). Little house on the prairie (rev. New York: Pocket Books. [Source E]
ed.). New York: Harper & Row. [Source E]
Wilder, L. I. (1971c). Farmer boy (rev. ed.). New Mystery Expository Multiauthor
York: Harper & Row. [Source E]
Wilder, L. I. (1971d). On the banks of Plum Creek Beattie, O., & Geiger, J. (1992). Buried in ice. New
(rev. ed.). New York: Harper & Row. [Source E] York: Scholastic. [Source D]
Bisel, S. C. (1990). The secrets of Vesuvius. New York:
Westward Movement Expository Multiauthor Scholastic. [Source D]

Jackson, D. M. (1996). The bone detectives. Boston:

Little, Brown and Company. [Source D] L’Engle, M. (1962). A wrinkle in time. New York:
Sheely, R. (1993). Police lab: Using science to solve Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. [Source E]
crimes. Silver Moon Press. [Source D] O’Dell, S. (1960). Island of the blue dolphins. New
York: Dell Publishing. [Source E]
Mystery Expository Uniauthor Paterson, K. (1977). Bridge to Terabithia. New York:
Harper & Row. [Source E]
Simon, S. (1976). Ghosts. Philadelphia: J. B. Raskin, E. (1978). The Westing game. New York:
Lippincott. [Source E] Viking Penguin. [Source E]
Simon, S. (1979). Creature from lost worlds. New
York: J. B. Lippincott. [Source E] Control Expository Collection
Simon, S. (1981). Mad scientists, weird doctors, &
time travelers in movies, TV, & books. New York: Dow, L. (1990). Whales: A great creature of the world
J. B. Lippincott. [Source E] book. New York: Weldon Owen Pty Limited.
Simon, S. (1997). Strange mysteries from around the [Source E]
world (rev. ed). New York: Morrow Junior Books. Heinrichs, A. (1992). America the beautiful: Montana
[Source E] (2nd ed.). Chicago: Children’s Press. [Source E]
Maestro, B., & Maestro, G. (1996). The voice of the
people: American democracy in action. New York:
Books in Nonthematic Collections Lothrop, Less & Shepard Books. [Source E]
Ride, S., & Okie, S. (1986). To space & back. Orlando,
Control Narrative Collection FL: Harcourt Brace. [Source E]
Appendix B
Specialized Types (With Token Counts) Appearing in At Least Three of Four Texts per Collection
(Words marked with asterisks were rated as being In Theme)
GRAVE * 17 BRAIN* 9 PROCESS 6
EMBALMERS* 16 CARVED* 9 SANDS* 6
Mummy Exp MA SAND* 16 JACKAL* 9 SKULL* 6
(141 specialized types)
PHARAOH * 15 SACRED 9 TOE 6
ANUBIS* 15 SEALED 9 CENTURY * 5
MUMMY * 166
HAIR 15 CUSTOMS 8 BOTTOM 5
MUMMIES * 161
WRAPPINGS* 15 EXTRA 8 FREEZING 5
EGYPTIANS* 77
ORGANS* 14 GREEK 8 FUR 5
EGYPT * 56
BANDAGES* 14 OUTER 8 HORUS * 5
EGYPTIAN * 50
KHUFU * 14 LOT 8 STATUE 5
TOMBS * 46
PRIESTS * 13 MUMMIFICATION* 8 STUFFED 5
PYRAMID * 46
DECORATED 12 STATUES 8 UNDERGROUND 5
BURIED * 45
ROBBERS 12 WARM 8 WASHED 5
TOMB* 43
STRIPS 12 FINALLY 7 WET 5
PRESERVED* 40
EMBALMED* 12 JEWELRY * 7 PRACTICED 4
LINEN* 37
HUGE 12 LAYER 7 CLIFF 4
PYRAMIDS * 33
PRESERVE * 12 FLINT 7 CURIOUS 4
WRAPPED* 28
NATRON * 11 GRAVES* 7 DUG 4
NILE* 25
JARS* 11 INTESTINES* 7 EUROPE 4
EMBALMING* 25
PERIOD 11 LUNGS* 7 FERTILE * 4
CAVES* 24
CLOTHING 10 PATRON 7 FINGER 4
MUMMIFIED * 23
REMOVED 10 AREA 6 GOVERNMENT 4
BURIAL* 22
BITUMEN * 10 CEREMONY* 6 ITEMS 4
PROBABLY 21
COFFINS* 10 ARCTIC 6 KNIFE 4
SKIN 21
PASSAGE 10 CEREMONIES* 6 NOSE 4
PHARAOHS* 20
SPELLS 10 CLOTHES 6 PERFORMED 4
OSIRIS* 19
STOMACH* 10 EXACTLY 6 PRESERVING* 4
BACTERIA * 18
TREASURES* 10 HERODOTUS* 6 QUICKLY 4
CAVE * 18
WRAPPING * 10 ICY 6 SHELTERS 4
DECAY * 18
CLOTH 9 INTERNAL 6 SIMILAR 4
COFFIN* 17
FEET 9 LAYERS 6 SKELETON * 4
RESIN * 17
FUNERAL* 9 LIVER * 6 STICKY 4

TOOLS 4 ISIS * 10 SKILL 4 BUSY 6

YARDS 4 GODDESSES* 9 VAST 4 DIRTY 6
BOTHER 3 CARVED* 9 ABUSIR * 4 DUMB 6
CIVILIZATION * 3 HEIGHT 9 ACCOMPANIED 4 FEET 6
EVERYDAY 3 MEDITERRANEAN*9 AMULETS* 4 INTERRUPTED 5
EVIL 3 PHARAOH * 9 ARCHAIC* 4 AFTERNOON 5
EXACT 3 SKILLED 9 BANDAGES * 4 AREA 5
FEATHERS 3 STRAIGHT-SIDED 9 CALENDAR 4 BOTTOM 5
FINGERS 3 ARCHITECT* 8 CULTURE 4 GRAY 5
MOLDED 3 DECORATED 8 DOUBLE 4 LIKED 5
NARROW 3 DRAGGED 8 FOOT 4 NOSE 5
PACKED 3 GRAIN 8 FOREVER 4 OKAY 5
POURED 3 PROBABLY 8 HATHOR* 4 QUICK 5
SAWDUST 3 ASWAN* 8 IVORY 4 SIGHED 5
SERIES 3 BLOCK * 8 LEBANON 4 STUCK 5
SHARP 3 PRAYERS 8 MASTABA* 4 ANNOUNCED 4
SPICES* 3 PUNT 8 NARROW 4 BUTTON 4
WEIGHED 3 QUARRY * 8 OXEN 4 CLOCK 4
REEDS * 8 POURED 4 LOCKED 4
ZOSER* 8 PROFESSIONAL 4 NARROW 4
COMPLEX 7 REGULAR 4 NODDED 4
Mummy Exp UA ROMANS * 4 PALE 4
(164 specialized types) DIVINE * 7
HUGE 7 TREATED 4 PLENTY 4
II 7 BASKETS * 3 PROBABLY 4
EGYPT * 189
REED * 7 BEER 3 SEARCH 4
PYRAMID* 124
AFFORD 7 CANALS 3 SLIPPED 4
PYRAMIDS* 80
BENT 7 CEILING 3 STARED 4
EGYPTIANS* 72
CENTURIES * 7 DESCENDED 3 ATTENTION 3
BC* 65
CENTURY* 7 DIG * 3 BURIED * 3
EGYPTIAN* 51
CROPS 7 DITCHES 3 CARVED * 3
TOMBS* 42
GEB* 7 DONKEYS* 3 HELLO 3
DYNASTY* 41
HOLY * 7 EMPTY 3 HEY 3
NILE* 41
INVENTED 7 FAMINE * 3 KNEES 3
TOMB* 34
MAGIC 7 GOVERNORS 3 MESS 3
PERIOD 25
NUT 7 HIERATIC * 3 NICE 3
NUBIA* 25
SENUSRET* 7 HIEROGLYPHIC* 3 PICK 3
BLOCKS* 24
TREASURES* 7 HUNI* 3
GOODS 22
FINALLY 6 PEASANT 3
OSIRIS * 21
IV 6 PLANETS 3
HORUS* 20
PTOLEMY* 3
Mummy Nar UA
BURIED * 20 WRAPPED * 6 (93 specialized types)
ANUBIS * 6 RAINS 3
GIZA * 20
CEREMONY * 6 RUBBLE 3
THEBES* 19 ANTHONY 150
CIVILIZATION * 6 SMOOTH 3
PRIESTS * 18 LOT 19
DEIR* 6 STEEP 3
DYNASTIES* 16 DESK 17
ETERNAL* 6 TALLER 3
RAMP 16 FINALLY 14
FEET 6 TREASURE * 3
CHAMBER* 16 LIKED 12
FERTILE * 6 VICTIM 3
UPPER 16 SUDDENLY 12
RAMPS 6 WEAPONS 3
MUD 15 TEA 12
PAPYRUS* 15 SHU* 6 JOB 11
COPPER 14 SURVIVED 6 BIT 10
TEXTS 14 TIMBER 6 Mummy Nar MA GRAY 10
HIEROGLYPHS* 14 FLOODED 5 (52 specialized types) STARED 10
III 14 JARS* 5 TALL 10
KHUFU * 14 POTTERY 5 HALL 46 CORNER 10
MONUMENTS* 13 QUARRIES* 5 HAIR 18 NICE 10
MEMPHIS* 13 AREA 5 EGYPT * 15 CLOCK 9
THRONE * 13 BRICK 5 LOT 13 FUNNY 9
FLOOD 12 COURTIERS* 5 EGYPTIAN* 10 HALL 9
STRAIGHT 12 DEMOTIC* 5 ANGRY 10 HIT 9
BURIAL * 12 EDUCATION 5 JOB 10 JOHN 9
MUMMIES* 12 EL* 5 SUDDENLY 9 KITCHEN 9
SCRIBES* 12 ETERNITY* 5 FINALLY 9 MYSTERIOUS* 9
LINEN* 11 GUARDED 5 KITCHEN 9 SLOWLY 9
PRESERVED* 11 IMHOTEP* 5 KID 8 CHAIR 8
SAND * 11 MASTABAS* 5 THIN 8 TOWER 8
GOVERNMENT 11 PASSAGE 5 EXACTLY 7 CREAM 8
ROBBERS 11 PERIODS 5 HOLE 7 WORRIED 8
BRICKS 10 ROOF 5 THICK 7 CHAPTER 7
INUNDATION 10 SCRIBE* 5 GRINNED 6 FEET 7
STATUE 5

GONNA 7 Westward Exp MA SOIL 5 OCEAN 7

NOSE 7 (93 specialized types) WYOMING* 5 TH-CENTURY 7
ODD 7 CORNER 4 LIBERTY* 6
SICK 7 TRAIL* 69 ESPECIALLY 4 ORLEANS* 6
LEATHER 7 CATTLE* 52 FERTILE 4 CLOTHES 6
RADIO 7 WAGON* 41 GULF 4 PHILADELPHIA* 6
GRINNED 6 WAGONS* 38 PICK 4 POET 6
QUICKLY 6 FORT * 35 PUEBLO* 4 REGION 6
ANGRY 6 AMERICAN * 33 QUICK 4 SAMUEL 6
CAP 6 MISSOURI* 30 WEATHER 4 WILLIAM 6
CHESS 6 INDIANS* 28 BUSY 3 ACADEMY 5
HAIR 6 TERRITORY* 24 CAMP* 3 FOUNDED 5
SCARED 6 SAN 23 CIVIL 3 SPAIN 5
SIGH 6 OXEN * 23 CLAY 3 THOMAS 5
BATHROOM 5 INDIAN * 22 EL 3 CAPE 4
CHEERFUL 5 PRAIRIE* 22 EXTRA 3 FINALLY 4
COFFEE 5 TEXAS * 22 MALE 3 HARVARD 4
DOORWAY 5 MEXICO* 21 PICKED 3 HORN 4
HMMM 5 FRONTIER * 21 QUICKLY 3 JOURNEY* 4
MUTTERED 5 RANGE * 16 RARE 3 LIKED 4
NODDED 5 ST 15 RAW 3 MIGHTY 4
OKAY 5 AMERICANS * 14 SITE 3 OVERLAND* 4
QUIETLY 5 JOB 14 STRAIGHT 3 PAIR 4
SCREEN 5 RANCHES * 14 TIN 3 TERRITORIES* 4
SIGHED 5 LOUIS 12 TWENTY-FOUR 3 AFRAID 3
SNAPPED 5 MEXICAN* 12 UNSETTLED* 3 ATLANTIC* 3
STUCK 5 MISSISSIPPI* 12 BOTHERED 3
AFRAID 4 IOWA * 12 BROWN 3
BROWN 4 GRASS* 11 CLOTHING 3
CARVED* 4
Westward Exp UA EUROPEAN 3
AMERICA * 11 (80 specialized types)
FLAKES 4 SPANISH 11 FEET 3
FUN 4 DUST 10 HIRED 3
AMERICAN * 46
LIQUOR 4 KANSAS* 10 HORRIFIED 3
CALIFORNIA* 43
NARROW 4 TRIP 10 KANSAS*3
AMERICANS* 34
PAIR 4 FEET 9 LOT 3
AMERICA* 29
POCKET 4 JOHN 9 PENNSYLVANIA* 3
JOHN 25
ROOF 4 MULES* 9 PIONEERS* 3
JAMES 22
ROTTEN* 4 RAILROAD* 9 PLENTY 3
INDIAN* 21
SHUT 4 HERDS 8 POETRY 3
SMITH 20
STARING 4 TOUGH 8 PROFESSOR 3
GEORGE 17
TONE 4 GOVERNMENT * 8 TREATED 3
MISSISSIPPI* 17
BLOTTER 3 JOURNEY* 8 WAGONS* 3
SLAVE* 16
CLUTCHED 3 SADDLE 8 ENGLAND 14
DIGGING* 3 SLAVES* 7 TERRITORY* 14
DIRTY 3 ARKANSAS* 6 Westward Nar MA
WASHINGTON* 14
DISCONTENTED 3 CONGRESS 6 (72 specialized types)
YORK 13
DUG 3 SHOPS 6 ST 11
ELDERLY 3 VAST 6 WAGON* 69
TH 11
GASPED 3 ACRES* 6 PRAIRIE * 33
CENTURY 11
GLOW 3 CENTS 6 GRASS* 29
STEAMBOAT * 11
HIDING 3 CRUDE 6 WAGONS* 27
JEFFERSON* 10
KIDS 3 FOOT 6 MA* 22
PARENTS 10
LONELY 3 FRAME 6 INDIANS* 20
ROUTE 10
NEST 3 KNIVES 6 HAIR 15
MISSOURI* 9
RIDICULOUS 3 PATENT 6 SLOWLY 15
SIERRA* 9
SINISTER 3 PLOW 6 FEET 13
TRIP 9
SOMEHOW 3 RUSH 6 SUDDENLY 13
FRONTIER* 8
STAIRS 3 MAP 5 STARED 11
SLAVERY* 8
STRAIGHT 3 BOOTS* 5 BABY 11
TALL 8
SWEAR 3 EQUIPMENT 5 BROWN 11
FORT* 8
SWEPT 3 FENCES 5 ALIVE 10
LOUIS 8
TONGUE 3 HORN 5 KNEES 9
OREGON* 8
UPSTAIRS 3 HORSEBACK* 5 SHUT 9
SPANISH 8
WET 3 LOADED 5 BARREL* 9
ESPECIALLY 7
YEAH 3 OCCUPIED 5 CORNMEAL* 9
HAIR 7
PACK 5 HENRY 7 DIRT 9
PLENTY 5 OHIO* 7 PILE 8
RIFLES * 5 DEMOCRACY * 7 COW * 8
RIO* 5 GOVERNMENT* 7 QUIET 8
SLAVERY* 5 QUIETLY 8

SMELL 8 SUPPER 13 ACHED 3 PROCESS 6

THIN 8 YELLOW 13 ARCHED 3 RESEARCH 6
COOL 7 CLEAN 12 BREATH 3 SMOOTH 6
DUST 7 TINY 12 CIDER * 3 UPPER 6
HAT* 7 ROOF 12 COMBED 3 ITEMS 5
STRAIGHT 7 CLIMBED* 11 COMFORTABLE 3 TALL 5
WHISPERED 7 HAIR 11 EXCITED 3 CHECK 5
HUNGRY 6 THICK 11 FUR 3 PICKED 5
QUICKLY 6 FLAT 11 HALF-PINT 3 QUIET 5
COAT 6 STOVE 11 HUGE 3 WASHINGTON 5
GUESS 6 FAT 10 MELTED 3 ARCHES 4
LEGS 6 NOSES 10 NEATLY 3 BOTTOM 4
PALE 6 TIED 10 OAK 3 CRACK* 4
TALL 6 BARE 9 PICKED 3 EMPTY 4
WORSE 6 WARM 9 POURED 3 INVOLVES 4
YELLOW 5 SMOKE 9 ROOTS 3 JOB 4
AFRAID 5 TIRED 9 SHOUTED 3 SEARCHES* 4
AWFUL 5 BIT* 8 SMELLED 3 SHOUTED 4
CHICKENS* 5 EMPTY 8 STOMACH 3 CORNER 3
DINNER 5 SNUG 8 STUCK 3 COUPLE 3
FEVER * 5 THIN 8 TONGUES 3 DAMAGE 3
FINGERS 5 TIN 8 TROTTED 3 GRISLY* 3
INSTANT 5 BOTTOM 8 HIT 3
LOUD 5 HOLE 8 IMMEDIATELY 3
RAIN 5 PORK 8 Mystery Exp MA INVESTIGATE* 3
SKIN 5 QUICKLY 8 (72 specialized types) RIDGE 3
SLIGHT 5 SHUT 8 SCATTERED 3
WARM 4 TIGHT 8 BONES* 67 SEARCHING* 3
DELICATE 4 CLIMB * 7 JOHN 66 TOOL 3
ESPECIALLY 4 CURVED 7 BONE* 51
FOREHEAD 4 PALE 7 EVIDENCE* 51
GULPED 4 PAN 7 SKULL* 31 Mystery Exp UA
PICKED 4 PLATE 7 TEETH 17 (54 specialized types)
RIFLE* 4 SLOPE 7 CLUES* 15
SACKS 4 WET 7 HAIR 14 ISLAND 59
THICK 4 OVERHEAD 6 FOOT 14 FEET 33
THUMB 4 WASHED 6 PHYSICAL 13 FINALLY 28
TWISTED 4 CRACK 6 FILE 13 CREATURE* 18
WASHED 4 FOOT 6 SOLVE* 13 AMERICAN 13
WHEEL 4 HURRIED 6 EXAMINING 12 BURIED* 13
WIPED 4 HURT 6 CRIMINALS * 12 HORROR* 13
YELL 4 MITTENS 6 EXAMINE 11 MAD 13
ANGER 3 QUIET 6 TINY 11 EVIL* 12
BISCUITS* 3 SUDDENLY 6 RIDGES 11 MYSTERIOUS* 12
CREPT 3 SMOOTH 5 AREA 10 HOLE 12
PLENTY 3 TAILS 5 FEET 10 HUGE 11
PUSHING 3 TONGUE 5 INVESTIGATION *10 LABORATORY* 11
SLID 3 AX * 5 LEG 10 ORIGINAL 11
TIED 3 BITS* 5 WEIGHT 10 PROFESSOR* 9
DISHES 5 WILLIAM 10 FRIGHTENING* 8
FENCE 5 SUDDENLY 9 LONDON 8
Westward Nar UA FUN 5 ANTHROPOLOGIST 9 SUDDENLY 8
(108 specialized types) GRAY 5 CHAPTER 9 YORK 8
GREASED 5 SKELETON* 9 EMPTY 7
LAURA 198 PUSHED 5 FINALLY 8 FEATURES 7
PA* 192 SLICES 5 BAG 8 HIDDEN* 7
MA* 113 STEEP 5 EXAMINED 8 SERIES 7
MARY 94 TONIGHT 5 NARROW 8 IMAGINE 6
WAGON* 87 BOILED 4 QUICKLY 8 BURIAL * 6
JACK 44 CLOTHES 4 SEARCH* 8 FINAL 6
TALL 23 FRIGHTENED 4 BURIED * 7 FOOTPRINTS* 6
BROWN 23 INDIANS* 4 COLLECTED 7 HORRIBLE* 6
PATH 23 KNEES 4 LABORATORY* 7 ODD 6
FEET 19 LOGS 4 LOT 7 PROBABLY 6
EDGE 18 LONELY 4 MALE 7 PUBLISHED 6
LEGS 18 MANES* 4 SKIN 7 THOMAS 6
SLOWLY 15 RAIN 4 BENT 6 WEIRD 6
CARRIE 15 ROPES 4 NODDED 6 CANNOT 5
LOG 14 STRETCHED 4 PLENTY 6 EXCITING 5
CHAPTER 13 WHISPERING 4 PROBABLY 6 EXPEDITION 5

JACK 5 BUSY 3 BIKE 5 CREATED 3

REPTILES 5 CRAZY 3 EDGE 5 FEATURES 3
TERROR * 5 ESPECIALLY 3 HAIR 5 PREFER 3
ENGLAND 4 FINAL 3 HUGE 5
ROBERT 4 GRINNING 3 LEG 5
BOTTOM 4 INFORMED 3 LICKED 5 Control Nar MA
BRITISH 4 MINIATURE 3 PUSHED 5 (58 specialized types)
CAMERA 4 NERVOUS 3 SLIPPED 5
ELECTRIC 4 TALL 3 STUCK 5 FEET 21
ENTIRE 4 WORST 3 WAGGED 5 CLIFF 20
HIT 4 YELLOW 3 BICYCLE 4 HAIR 18
JOHN 4 CHEST 4 FOOT 15
PLANE 4 GROOM 4 KITCHEN 13
CONFUSED 3 Mystery Nar UA II 4 SUDDENLY 12
RID 3 (90 specialized types) III 4 RUG 11
SHELTER 3 WELL-BEING 4 NOSE 10
TERRIBLE 3 KAYO 338 ATTENTION 4 SKIN 10
WORSE 3 ROSIE 327 CHEEK 4 CHAIR 10
CAT 99 GRABBED 4 TIRED 10
BREATH 62 LEGS 4 DUMB 9
Mystery Nar MA BONE* 60 PICKED 4 KIDS 9
(56 specialized types) SAMMY 55 SNIFF 4 AFRAID 7
CLUB 49 VETERINARIAN 4 AFTERNOON 7
SHOP 21 SAUNDERS 35 BACKPACK 3 BREATH 7
FAT 18 HOMER 33 BET 3 EDGE 7
JEANS 16 BENTON 31 CAIRN 3 SCREAMED 7
FUNNY 11 DIAMOND 28 CLIMBED 3 GRAY 6
JACKET 11 WEBSTER 23 DARLING 3 SLOWLY 6
CORNER 10 FEET 20 GRINNED 3 WHISPERED 6
HAIR 10 BASEBALL 18 HA 3 FINGERS 5
LOT 10 POLICE 17 NICE 3 LEGS 5
SUDDENLY 9 FUR 14 OKAY 3 BOTTOM 5
PROBABLY 8 PROJECT 13 PEERED 3 NODDED 5
NOISE 8 KIDS 13 PENCIL 3 QUICKLY 5
AFTERNOON 7 PROBABLY 12 PETS 3 STARED 5
FEET 7 PARENTS 12 PLOPPED 3 BARE 4
CARD* 7 NOSE 11 REPEATED 3 CAP 4
PICK 7 OAKWOOD 11 WORRIED 3 FADED 4
PICKED 7 NOTEBOOK 10 GAZE 4
SMELL 7 QUICKLY 10 LUNCH 4
GRABBED 6 WHISPERED 10 Control Exp MA MANAGED 4
BOTTOM 6 EXTRA 9 (28 specialized types) PUSHED 4
GLANCED 6 VOCABULARY 9 SLAMMED 4
WHISPERED 6 CUSHMAN 9 FEET 32 SLID 4
HEY 5 UNDERSIGNED 8 AMERICA 16 STOMACH 4
KID 5 WHEREAS 8 AREAS 14 TIGHT 4
LEGS 5 APARTMENT 8 AREA 12 TIPTOED 4
LOTS 5 LOCKED 8 PACIFIC 12 TONGUE 4
PILE 5 PET 8 HUGE 10 TWISTED 4
POCKETS* 5 AFTERNOON 7 OCEAN 10 WARM 4
PUSHED 5 HURRIED 7 CALIFORNIA 8 WORRY 4
HESITATED 4 NODDED 7 ALASKA 8 AUTUMN 3
CLEAN 4 POCKET* 7 ICE 7 BOTHER 3
COOL 4 REMOVED 7 JOHN 7 DAMP 3
DOORWAY 4 TAIL 7 SWIM 6 DELIGHT 3
FADED 4 KITCHEN 7 ATLANTIC 5 ESPECIALLY 3
FINALLY 4 LOT 7 FLORIDA 5 HIPS 3
GUESS 4 TELEPHONE 7 GRADUALLY 5 HURRIED 3
HI 4 QUIT 6 LOUISIANA 5 KNEES 3
PARK 4 RELIEF 6 ORANGE 5 LUCKY 3
PRACTICE 4 SORRY 6 APART 4 PICKED 3
QUIET 4 FUN 6 DELAWARE 4 POP 3
REPEATED 4 HULENBACK 6 EDUCATION 4 TAIL 3
SIGHED 4 CREATURES* 5 HAWAII 4 TEETH 3
SLIPPED 4 FRIGHTMARES* 5 LOT 4 UNLIKE 3
SLOWLY 4 PROJECTS 5 OREGON 4 WARNED 3
STRAIGHT 4 SICK 5 SPLIT 4
WORRIED 4 SLOWLY 5 WEATHER 4

About the Author
Dee Gardner is an associate professor of Applied Linguistics and TESOL at Brigham Young
University in Provo, Utah, United States. His primary research and teaching interests are in the
areas of vocabulary acquisition, literacy development, and applied corpus linguistics.
E-mail: dee_gardner@byu.edu

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 123–128
Reviewed work:
Cultural Practices of Literacy: Case Studies of

Language, Literacy, Social Practice and Power.
(2007). Victoria Purcell-Gates (Ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pp. 256. ISBN
805854924. $27.50
Reviewed by
Teresa Castineira
Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla
Mexico
http://www.leaonline.com/
This book was carried out under the aegis of the Cultural Practices of Literacy Study, whose
principal investigator is Victoria Purcell-Gates. The work of the Cultural Practices of Literacy
Study has two main goals: “(a) to theorize marginality in relationship to schooling in ways that
will suggest real possibilities for schooling; and (b) to design curricula that promise to disrupt the
persistent, almost perfect, correlation between social status and/or marginality and academic
achievement” (p. 16). Therefore, this book with its critical position contributes to raising
awareness among educators and literacy practitioners on certain issues such as power relations,
colonization, and resistance in literacy practices.
Today, literacy is much more than reading and writing due to the multiple modes of meaning-
making that are available in a post-industrial society. Hobbs (1997, as cited in Chauvin, 2003, pp.
119–120) stated that literacy is “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate
messages in a variety of forms.” This book, however, deals with two specific literacy practices:
reading and writing. The whole book was greatly influenced by the French philosopher Pierre
Bourdieu’s (1991) ideas of cultural and linguistic capital and by the Australian critical literacy
researcher Allan Luke’s (2003) concern of the link between out-of-school and in-school literacy
practices.
Castineira: Review of the book Cultural Practices of Literacy 124
This book presents a collection of 10 case studies (chapters 2–11) around four major areas: (a)
language, literacy and hegemony, (b) the immigrant experience: language, literacies and
identities, (c) literacy in and out of school and on the borders, and (d) new pedagogies for new
literacies.
In chapter 1 (“Complicating the Complex”), the editor sets the theoretical foundations and
background for the different tendencies when researching literacy. She discusses the various
conceptions held by educators, political leaders, and the general public of what literacy entails.
She knowledgeably considers the various labels that literacy has acquired in the contemporary
world. Such labels include the new perspective on literacy, multiple literacies, literacy as social
practice (or social literacies), and new literacies (p. 2). Purcell-Gates gives a brief account of the
work of different researchers on out-of-school (vernacular) literacies who, under Bourdieu’s
(1991) influence, “work to resist this hegemony [the academy] and to find ways to ‘legitimate’
the literacies of marginalized groups within academic settings” (p. 6). However, she asserts that
the study of vernacular literacies is not enough to give a full account of literacy. The editor
points out that other scholars are trying to bridge the gap between vernacular and academic
literacies by bringing the vernacular into the school. She believes that literacy research should be
carried out on both sides, out of school and in school. Purcell-Gates states that when theorizing
and researching literacy, it should be taken as “social, multiple and ideological” (p. 10).
Therefore, she adheres to the “literacy-as-social-practice paradigm” (p. 10), taking into account
that literacy is practiced by different sociocultural groups who live in a globalized world.
Purcell-Gates (2004) advocated an ethnographic approach when researching literacy. Her main
reason was that “ethnography is grounded in theories of culture and allows researchers to view
literacy development, instruction, learning, and practice as it occurs naturally in sociocultural
contexts” (p. 92). The case studies in this book all take a quasi-ethnographic, qualitative
approach, where literacy is seen in practice. Researchers in each case study assume an active
participant role within the community under study. Procedures used by the researchers include
observation, interviews, artifact collection, and analysis and coding of sociotextual domains.
The first section (“Language, Literacy, and Hegemony”) presents two case studies. The first case
study “Appropriation and Resistance in the (English) Literacy Practices of Puerto Rican
Farmers”, reported in chapter 2 by Catherine Mazak, focuses on a family of land owners and
farmers in a rural community in Puerto Rico. The researcher first presents a Puerto Rican
language history where the struggle between Spanish and English is central. Mazak’s case study
“explores the ways in which reading and writing in both Spanish and English are used by two
farmers in the interior of the island. It is a study of language appropriation and resistance, where
English is taken up by the participants to meet their own needs on their own terms” (p. 28).
These needs mainly consist of access to information in the scientific and economic domains. An
interesting finding in this study is the fact that those who know English can act as brokers in the
community that resists English colonization. As an English teacher in a Spanish speaking context,
I found this case study extremely meaningful as it raises issues of power, identity, and resistance
(for issues on language resistance, see Canagarajah, 1999).

Chapter 3 (“Language and Literacy Issues in Botswana”), by Annah Molosiwa, is the second
case study in the first section. The researcher first outlines the geographical, historical, and
language contexts of Botswana. She points out the absence of a print literacy culture in the
country, where the oral word is highly appreciated. However, her informants (four women living
in the US) link English with power and literacy, a condition that devalues Setswana and other
minority languages. The researcher concludes that more research into the “cultural practices of
literacy for the different ethnic groups in Botswana” (p. 54) is needed in order to enhance
educational policy. One thing that is less convincing in this study is that the participants’ own
words are rarely heard. Instead, the researcher summarizes the respondents’ answers or gives her
own interpretations.
The second section of the book (“The Immigrant Experience: Languages, Literacy, and
Identities”) contains three case studies. The first case study “Sharing Stories, Linking Lives:
Literacy Practices among Sudanese Refugees” (chapter 4), by Kristen H. Perry, is an
investigation “of the literacy practices of southern Sudanese refugee youth—the so-called ‘Lost
Boys’—in Michigan” (p. 57). The researcher first outlines the historical context of Sudanese
refugees. Through the testimonies of the four Sudanese refugees who participated in this study,
Perry has found that they view “literacy as an important tool in the struggle against inequality
and injustice in the Sudan” (p. 67). From my point of view this is a very complete case study and
one of the most interesting because it challenges some general traditional beliefs, such as that
held by many English teachers who assert that if one does not know how to write in one’s mother
tongue one cannot write in a foreign language. The researcher, influenced by Barton and
Hamilton (2000), convincingly concludes that “literacy practices change and new ones are
frequently acquired through processes of informal learning and sense making” (p. 58).
The second study (chapter 5) by Gaoming Zhang, “Multiple Border Crossings: Literacy Practices
of Chinese American Bilingual Families,” deals with “literacy practices, beliefs, and values in
two Chinese American bilingual families” (p. 85). The researcher, a teacher of a weekend
Chinese school, examines the relationship between in-school and out-of school literacy practices
in these families. Zhang also addresses the question of how two different languages are used
across and within sociotextual domains. The researcher also analyzes the role that Chinese
American bilingual parents play in shaping their children’s literacy practices. One interesting
facet in this study is that the researcher examines not only print and oral texts but also drawings
and artifacts. I consider this a very well thought out and complete ethnographic study.
The third study in this section (chapter 6), “Literacy Practices in a Foreign Language: Two
Cuban Immigrants” by Kamila Rosolová, has as a main goal “to explore the ways in which
literacy and language intersect and are negotiated by immigrants” (p. 99). After investigating and
providing solid evidence on the two participants’ backgrounds and their literacy practices in
Cuba, the researcher suggests that “their immigrant experiences as regards their English literacy
practices vary and appear to be influenced heavily by family literacy practices in their native
countries. These practices influenced predilections, values, attitudes and language
knowledge…[that] intersect with the social, political, and cultural contexts in which both
participants live ” (p. 110). I found this study well supported and interesting in the way the
researcher shows the contrast between each participant’s needs and interests in terms of literacy
practices.

The third and largest section of the book “Literacies in and out of School and on the Borders” is
influenced the most by the work of Luke (2003), who stated that “[l]iterate practice is situated,
constructed, and intrapsychologically negotiated through an (artificial) social field called the
school, with rules of exchange denoted in scaffolded social activities around particular selected
texts” (p. 140). This section is composed of six case studies.
In the first study “Breadth and Depth, Imports and Exports: Transactions Between the In- and
Out-of-School Literacy Practices of an ‘At Risk’ Youth” (chapter 7), Stephanie Collins explores
the case of an 11-year-old academically unsuccessful student. She explores the sociotextual
domains to which the participant has access and where she is successful. These domains include
bureaucracy, community organizations, entertainment, personal and public writing, and social
cohesion. The last domain is important because of the acquisition of symbolic capital (Bourdieu,
1990, 1991) that it entails. Social cohesion in this case includes reading of “hip-hop lyrics and
brand names labels on clothing—both forms of cultural capital among their peers, both vehicles
for signifying community-appreciated style [italics added], be the community actual or
imagined” (pp. 126–127). I found this case study interesting because it demonstrates how this “at
risk” youth obtains validation from the community, and not from the school. However, I found
the writing overly sentimental, possibly due to the involvement between the participant and the
researcher who was the youth’s literacy tutor.
In chapter 8, the study “Literacy and Choice: Urban Elementary Students’ Perceptions of Links
Between Home, School, and Community Literacy Practices”, by Jodene Kersten, explores the
connection between literacy practices at home and in school with elementary school children.
One of the most interesting things that I found in this study is the way the researcher converted
her young participants into ethnographers and researchers in their communities and how they
reflected on their literacy practices. They identified such sociotextual domains of literacy
practice as the church, shopping, eating out, journaling, and creative writing. The results of the
study show the disconnections between home and school literacy practices. The researcher
concludes by stating that “the onus is on schools and educators to acknowledge the values and
literacy practices children are bringing to the classroom and use these to inform and shape
pedagogy to move toward academic achievement for all students” (p. 153). I consider this study
innovative and well evidenced.
In chapter 9 (“‘You Have to Be Bad or Dumb to Get in Here’: Reconsidering the In-School and
Out-of-School Literacy Practices of At-Risk Adolescents”) David Gallagher analyzes the case of
four at-risk adolescents who were “identified as being deficient and/or resistant of academic
literacy” (p. 157) and were being offered literacy tools to succeed in their classes. Influenced by
Moje (2002), Gallagher concludes that it is necessary to do more investigations into the spheres
of homes, communities, youth cultures, and classrooms in order to understand “how the students
negotiate the boundaries of these different spheres” (p. 159). In this way literacy researchers can
better understand the nature of literacy in the lives of at-risk adolescents. One of the most
interesting points in this study is how these students imported and exported their literacy
practices from informal to formal settings and vice versa, thus creating a hybrid literacy. I would
have liked to listen more to the participants’ own voices in this study and to actually read one or
two samples of their written texts.

In the study “School and Home: Contexts for Conflict and Agency” (chapter 10), Chad O’Neil
analyzes narratives, which led to memory and insights, about literacy practices of two
undergraduate students. Their literacy practices seemed to be influenced, both positively and
negatively, by two sociotextual domains: the family and the school. The researcher analyzes sites
of conflicts between these two domains and finds the development of agency in both students “as
they sorted out their likes and dislikes and as they responded to the various types of textual
practices within the different social domains in their lives” (p. 175). The study is well
documented and the voices of the participants are heard in the study.
The last case study “Digital Literac(ies), Digital Discourses, and Communities of Practice:
Literacy Practices in Virtual Environments” (chapter 11), by Douglas Eyman, deals with a
different domain, that of technology for literacy practice. The study focuses on a writing and
technology class at the university level whose goals are “concerned with practices of writing
with new technologies and efforts to understand and critically reflect on how these new
technologies transform writing” (p. 182). The methodology used in this study was based on
observation of the class as well as examination of the coursework produced by the students.
These students created a community of practice where they could interact with each other. The
researcher could also interact with students in a synchronous and asynchronous way.
Interestingly, for these students digital literacy was “seen as a transference of traditional literacy
practices (reading and writing) to new media” (p. 186). I found this study well supported
theoretically and well evidenced with opinions and illustrations from the participants’ work.
In the final chapter (“Comprehending Complexity”), Purcell-Gates wraps up the book by

identifying some common themes recurring in the case studies presented in the book. She
provides information on the evolving database of the Cultural Practices of Literacy Study and
summarizes and draws conclusions from those case studies. Finally, she encourages researchers
to continue investigating literacy practices in order to better design literacy curricula at school.
Despite the use of formal terms, this book is reader friendly, with a few typological errors. The
book contains two appendices. The first is an example of a semistructured interview of literacy
practices, and the second is a format for keeping records of demographic information. The book
also contains two useful indices: an author index and a subject index. It is worth mentioning that
the book is enhanced in some sections by black and white pictures, drawings, and samples of
digital writing. I recommend this book to language and literacy teachers and researchers, literacy
curriculum designers, policy makers, literacy tutors, and sociologists, among others. Being
interested in critical studies, I found this book very illustrative in terms of literacy practices as
sources of power, knowledge, resistance, and agency.
References
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivani
(Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7–15). London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Chauvin, B. A. (2003). Visual or media literacy? Journal of Visual Literacy, 23, 119–128.
Hobbs, R. (1997). Literacy for the information age. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.),
The handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual
arts (pp. 7–14). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Moje, E. (2002). Re-framing adolescent literacy research for the new times: Studying youth as a
resource. Reading Research and Instruction, 41, 211–228.
Luke, A. (2003). Literacy and the other: A sociological approach to literacy research and policy
in multilingual societies. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 132–141.
Purcell-Gates, V. (2004). Ethnographic research. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.),
Literacy research methodologies (pp. 92–113). New York: The Guilford Press.
About the Reviewer
Teresa Castineira is a full-time professor at the Facultad de Lenguas of the Benemérita

Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Mexico. She has an MSc in Teaching English from Aston
University, UK, and is currently doing her doctorate in Applied Linguistics at Macquarie
University. Her main interests are critical discourse analysis, literacy, and English for academic
purposes.
E-mail: tere_aurora@yahoo.com

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 129–131
Reviewed work:
Reading Work: Literacies in the New Workplace.

(2004). Mary Ellen Belfiore, Tracey A. Defoe, Sue
Folinsbee, Judy Hunter, & Nancy S. Jackson (The In-
Sites Research Group). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. Pp. 306. ISBN 0805846220.
$37.50
Reviewed by
Helen de Silva Joyce
NSW Department of Education and Training
Australia
http://www.leaonline.com/
Across industrialised nations there is a concern that the literacy levels of adults are inadequate
for the demands of reading and writing at work. This situation is often described in terms of a
crisis and governments reach for simplistic back-to-basics approaches that ignore the
complexities of learning to read and write and the context-embeddedness of literacy skills.
Reading Work: Literacies in the New Workplace takes a social practices view of literacy in the
workplace through ethnographic research in four workplaces in North America. A social
practices view of literacy rejects the concept of literacy as “simply the isolated skills of reading
and writing” (p. 4) and is concerned with how readers and writers use their literacy skills to be
participating members of social contexts. This social focus adopts a multidimensional view of
literacies “as plural and as complex, multifaceted social and cultural practices” (pp. 4–5). The
main concern of the book is how literacies fit into everyday working life in the new workplace
and its primary audience is workplace educators, although the book offers much that academics
could integrate into university courses concerned with adult literacy.
The introduction presents theoretical ideas that have underpinned the research of the authors and
their concern for workplace education—changing ideas of literacies and understandings of the
new workplace (Barton, 1994; Cope & Kalantzis, 1999; Gee, 1990; Hull, 1995). The book is
then divided into two parts. Part I contains four chapters presenting narratives of working life in
Joyce: Review of the book Reading Work 130
the research sites—“a food processing plant, a textile factory, an urban tourist hotel and a high-
tech metal parts manufacturer” (p. xii). Using pseudonyms, the authors describe these
workplaces as “diverse in their products, their levels of technological innovation, their degrees of
conformity to the ‘new workplace’ and the cultural profiles of their workforce, but showing a
great deal of similarity in the dynamics and dilemmas surrounding the changing practice of
workplace literacies” (p. xii). The narratives in Part I are told by the researchers who spent 6–8
months in the workplaces they describe. The narratives are first-person stories of engagement;
for example,
It’s three p.m. My feet are killing me and my whole body aches. I am absolutely
exhausted from being on my feet for eight hours in my new, stiff unbearable steel-toed
shoes. … It’s the end of my first full day as a participant observer at Texco. (p. 63)
Through these narratives the reader is given an overall picture of the workplaces and how issues
are viewed differently by managers and employees. For example, documentation in workplaces
is crucial under quality systems such as the International Standards Organization (ISO) 9001 and
this aspect of literacy is explored in the narrative around the textile factory. Here managers are
concerned with
better completion of the forms that employees have to fill out when something goes
wrong, and they want more responses in the ‘Comments’ section of the form on how a
product runs through each stage of its process for the purposes of new products being
developed. (p. 70)
However, the researcher in this context, Sue Folinsbee, is able to pick up a mismatch between
the need to respond quickly to customer requirements and to complete documents, which gives
mixed messages about paperwork. Workers reported to her that “there are subtle and not-so-
subtle messages that getting the product done and out the door is more important than
paperwork” (p. 75).
Part II contains four chapters that reflect on what can be learned from the research, with one
chapter examining barriers to learning and using literacies that were revealed through the
research. For example, there is a tendency for managers to interpret non-completion of
paperwork as simply a lack of skills on the part of employees. However, at all sites the
researchers identified resistance to participating in this literacy practice, resulting from
unresolved issues around “social relations, power, risk and blame” (p. 232). Two chapters
explore the challenges and possibilities offered by a social practices view of literacies for
workplace educators. One interesting example presented in Part II is of the researcher and
practitioner, Tracy Defoe, discovering her own illiteracy in reading engineering drawings. The
writers draw from this exploration an affirmation of “how dynamic, relative and relational
literacies are in real life” (p. 225) and use this example to remind workplace educators that no-
one can attain all literacies and people in the workplace have a range of different literacy skills
from which workplace educators can learn. The final chapter is a conversation between the
researchers about the “joys and pitfalls of collaborative research” (p. xiii). The appendix focuses
on the research methods and offers further reading suggestions on ethnographic research.

Joyce: Review of the book Reading Work 131
The strength of this book is in the in-depth research that the authors were able to undertake over
6–8 months in the four workplaces, giving insights into inconsistent workplace practices and
perspectives that make it difficult to plan workplace literacy programs. These include over-
simplified analyses by managers of employee skills, resistance to literacy practices that can mask
abilities, inabilities to deal with workplace documents, and the tendency to view literacy as
simply a set of skills outside of social practices. The narrative style of the first part gives the
reader a sense of shadowing the researchers and first-hand understandings of how simplistic
back-to-basics individualistic approaches can often lead to blaming individual employees for
systemic problems. The second part offers workplace educators ways of understanding
theoretical orientations to literacy and their relevance to workplace literacy education, the
complexity of workplace practices that involve literacy, and ideas for implementing more
effective programs.
For those who want to dip in and out of the book, the chapter and section titles can be a little
elusive and could have been more directly signalled. The narrative style at times becomes a little
too personal. However, for me as an experienced workplace educator, the stories in this book
resonated. I think it provides an interesting insight into the complexities of the constantly
changing modern workplace. It is especially relevant as governments internationally emphasise
adult literacy outcomes for work and look for simplistic approaches, with no understanding of
how people practise multiple literacies and not a single literacy. A more complex view of reading
and writing is essential in workplace education where educators are trying to understand
complex networks of social and cultural practices in which the literacy skills of employees are
embedded. The authors “see the workplace as a tapestry and literacies as the multiple threads
woven into the whole” (p. 2), and their book makes an interesting contribution to understanding
the intricate networks of workplace literacy practices.
References
Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford:

Blackwell.
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (1999). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social
futures. London: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press.
Hull, G. (1995). Controlling literacy: The place of skills in ‘high performance’ work. Critical
Forum, 3(2/3), 3–26.
About the Reviewer
Helen de Silva Joyce is the Director of Community and Migrant Education in the NSW
Department of Education and Training, Australia. She has more than 25 years experience in
language research and language education. She has published extensively including a wide range
of theoretical and practical articles and resource materials. Her major research areas are spoken
language and intertextuality in social and work contexts.
E-mail: helen.desilvajoyce@det.nsw.edu.au

ISSN 1539-0578 pp. 132–135
Reviewed work:
Reading Skills for College Students (7th ed.). (2007).

Ophelia H. Hancock. Upper Saddle Rivers, NJ: Prentice
Hall. Pp. 469. ISBN 0132208121. $70.00
Reviewed by
Zhijun Wen
United States
http://www.prenhall.com
No one denies the importance of strong reading skills, especially for college and graduate
students who often have to complete extremely long readings each week. Inexperienced students
are sometimes overwhelmed by their intimidating reading assignments. Reading proficiency is
undoubtedly crucial to academic success, and students definitely need guidance and practice in
order to become efficient readers. Reading Skills for College Students offers some advice and
practice which may help these students achieve their goals.
The textbook is designed to help college students develop advanced English reading abilities. It
consists of three parts; the first two parts constitute the main body of the textbook. Part 1 aims to
help students develop basic reading skills, such as building vocabulary, finding main ideas,
reading for detail, drawing inferences, reading critically, and increasing reading speed. It is 13
chapters long. The first chapter gives some general advice on study skills, such as how to
manage time well, how to make effective study plans, and how to find learning resources.
Chapters 2–13 deal with 12 major reading skills, with each chapter focusing on a different skill.
Each skill is accompanied by one to four exercises. Part 2 attempts to familiarize students with
six major subject areas: literature, history, psychology, biology, computer science and data
processing, and business. Each subject area spans one chapter, which is also accompanied by
exercises for consolidating the skills taught in Part 1 and for testing comprehension. Each
chapter from the first two parts ends with suggestions for further study. Part 3 provides 15
supplementary reading passages for honing the reading skills and for expanding background
knowledge. Each selection is followed by vocabulary and comprehension exercises.
Wen: Review of the book Reading Skills for College Students 133
According to Hancock, the book is intended to foster college students’ general reading skills and
enable them to enjoy reading. I am not in a position to assess whether people can achieve these
goals by using this book because that would require longitudinal studies. In this review, I will
examine the basic principles and underlying theoretical assumptions on which Hancock’s
methodology is based.
Hancock’s theoretical assumptions are consistent with the interactive approach to reading. On
the one hand, he assumes that reading is a bottom-up process, which involves building up
meaning from text. This assumption can be inferred from his perspective on what constrains
students’ reading speed. He writes that good readers perceive several words during one fixation
of the eyes and that vocalizing or subvocalizing each word slows the reading process. These
claims indicate that he is primarily concerned with low-level decoding processes in tackling the
issue of reading speed. On the other hand, Hancock takes it for granted that context, prior
knowledge, and schemata play important roles in reading. He devotes a large portion of the
textbook to teaching different subject areas and to providing background information. This
reveals that his approach to reading also subsumes top-down ingredients.
As for the relationship among different reading skills, Hancock assumes that they are separable.
This can be seen from how he handles them in his book. Altogether, he teaches 12 separate
reading skills: making use of contextual clues, using word structural knowledge (root words,
prefixes, and suffixes), developing dictionary skills, reading for main ideas, finding details, using
signal words, understanding organizational patterns (comparison-contrast, cause-effect, etc.),
understanding purpose and tone, drawing inferences, reading critically, understanding graphs,
and increasing reading rate. This way of handling the reading skills may result from practical
pedagogical necessities. For example, organizing activities around a separate skill makes the
teaching objectives narrower and easier to assess. The reading skills fall into five broader
categories: vocabulary (using contextual clues, word structure knowledge, and dictionary skills),
comprehension (reading for main ideas, finding details, using signal words, understanding
organizational patterns, understanding purpose and tone, and drawing inferences), critical
reading, graph reading, and speed reading skills. This categorization of reading skills is
compatible with the current trends in reading research, which favor broad categories such as
word-attack, comprehension, fluency, and critical reading skills (Hudson, 2007, p. 103). Of
course, Hancock does not start from word-attacking skills. He assumes that college students have
already developed low-level processing skills such as letter recognition.
However, despite this assumption, many international students who are studying in English-
speaking countries are not native speakers of English. For many of these students, low-level
processing ability in their second language (L2) is still a major concern, because automaticity of
lower-level processing abilities is essential to efficient reading comprehension. According to
Perfetti’s (1985, 1988, 1991) verbal efficiency theory, automaticity of local text processes is the
most important prerequisite of reading success. If lexical access is not automatic, it will tax the
attention needed for high-level processing and as a result limit comprehension. Most L2 learners’
reading speed is much slower than that of first language (L1) readers. This phenomenon is well
documented in studies on L2 online sentence processing (Marinis, 2003; Papadopoulou, 2005),
which reveal that L2 learners’ local text processes are not automatic.

Hancock does not say explicitly whether the book is designed for native speakers of English or
learners of English as a second language (ESL). It can certainly be used as a textbook for ESL
learners, but it obviously does not address ESL learners’ concerns and their language
backgrounds. Reading research has demonstrated that different orthographies require different
decoding strategies (Hudson, 2007). For example, Chinese and Japanese writing systems are
logographic, and readers of such languages may use direct visual-meaning mapping rather than
the phoneme-grapheme correspondences that are commonly used by readers of alphabetic
writing systems such as English. Koda’s (1992, 1997, 1999) studies showed that low-level L1
processing routines are often transferred to L2. According to Hudson, inappropriate transfer of
L1 visual processing routines impedes L2 reading comprehension (p. 96). Thus, textbooks for
effective training of L2 reading must consider L1 background.
In addition to failing to address ESL learners’ concerns, Hancock’s handling of the reading
activities is also unsatisfactory. Most of the exercises are like items in reading tests, which
require nothing but accurate answers. Almost none of the exercises in the book are designed to
engage readers in interactive and communicative activities. In fact, effective reading requires
readers to actively interact with the text. According to Pearson and Tierney (1984), effective
reading calls for the reader to actively negotiate meaning with the author. Readers should
anticipate, plan, compose, edit, and monitor the message as they read it. The book fails to include
any such activities. On the other hand, the book devotes a large proportion of the exercises to
building vocabulary. It is easy to see that Hancock considers vocabulary to be the most important
factor in determining reading success. However, reading is certainly not confined to acquisition
of new vocabulary, although reading and academic success do indeed presuppose a large
vocabulary.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that Hancock treats reading as a skill separate from other
language skills such as writing. None of the reading exercises in the book include writing
activities. However, L2 researchers widely agree that the four language skills (i.e., listening,
speaking, reading, and writing) are not really separable. It is doubtful whether teaching them
separately will be fruitful.
Hancock’s Reading Skills for College Students is intended to help students gain confidence in
reading. Its underlying assumptions about reading processes and reading skills are compatible
with the general principles of current reading theories. Overall, however, the book fails to
address ESL learners’ concerns and lacks interactive and communicative exercises. Hancock’s
decision to treat reading as a skill separate from other language skills is also questionable.
References
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koda, K. (1992). The effects of lower-level processing skills on FL reading performance:
Implications for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 76, 502–512.

Koda, K. (1997). Orthographic knowledge in L2 lexical processing: A cross-linguistic

perspective. In J. Coady & T. N. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition
(pp. 35–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koda, K. (1999). Development of L2 intraword orthographic sensitivity and decoding skills. The
Modern Language Journal, 83, 51–64.
Marinis, T. (2003). Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research. Second
Language Research, 19, 144–161.
Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second
Language Research, 21, 98–120.
Pearson, P. D., & Tierney, R. J. (1984). On becoming a thoughtful reader: Learning to read like a
writer. In A. C. Purves & O. S. Niles (Eds.), Becoming readers in a complex society (pp.
144–173). Chicago, IL: National Society of the Study of Education.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C. A. (1988). Verbal efficiency in reading ability. In G. E. MacKinnon, T. G. Waller, &
M. Daneman (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 6, pp.
109–143). New York: Academic Press.
Perfetti, C. A. (1991). Representations and awareness in the acquisition of reading competence.
In L. Rieben & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its
implications (pp. 33–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
About the Reviewer
Zhijun Wen is a PhD student in the Department of Second Language Studies at the University of
Hawai‘i at Mānoa. He is interested in bilingualism, cognition in second language acquisition,
connectionist modeling, corpus linguistics, cross-linguistic processing, generative approach to
SLA, psycholinguistics, sentence processing, speech perception, statistics, and testing. His
current research concentrates on second language processing and second language reading.
E-mail: zhijun@hawaii.edu

Volume 20, Number 1, April 2008

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Volume 20, Number 1, April 2008

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Volume 20, Number 1, April 2008

Advisory and Editorial Boards

Richard Day, Co-Editor Reading in a Foreign Language readfl@hawaii.edu

Copyright © RFL 2008

Copyright © RFL 2008

Reading in a Foreign Language (RFL) seeks submissions of previously unpublished manuscripts

Copyright © RFL 2008

Copyright © RFL 2008

Readings on L2 Reading: Publications in Other Venues offers an archive of articles published in

2. By mail: Send the material on a disk to the following address:

Copyright © RFL 2008

The following policies apply to all articles, reviews, and commentaries:

RFL Guidelines for Reporting on Research

Research should generally include the following sections:

Five to seven keywords for index and search purposes

1. stating the research issue to be investigated

Copyright © RFL 2008

1. describing the participants or subjects and research site

1. presenting graphs and tables that help to explain the results

3. for qualitative research, data should reflect prolonged engagement, persistent

1. presenting an evaluation and interpretation of the results

1. including a summary and general implications of the study

References in APA format

Appendices of instrument(s) used

Copyright © RFL 2008

Reading in a Foreign Language

Copyright © RFL 2008

Editorial Board, About RFL, and Information for Contributors

From the Editors

Comparing the vocabulary of different graded-reading schemes

Developing reading fluency: A study of extensive reading in EFL

Vocabulary recycling in children’s authentic reading materials: A corpus-based investigation of

Reading Work: Literacies in the New Workplace

Copyright © RFL 2008

From the Editors

We would also like to thank the following copy editors:

Udorn Wan-a-rom compares the vocabulary of different graded-reading schemes.

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)

Research on good and poor reader characteristics: Implications for L2

Language Knowledge and Processing Ability

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)

[The hypothesis-testing models] require implausible assumptions about the relative

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)

In a study of higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced reading

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)

intermediate-level English-speaking readers’ abilities to comprehend a French text. She found

In looking at inference generation during reading comprehension, a number of researchers (e.g.,

As in good L1 readers, a knowledge of discourse organization contributes positively to reading

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)

Metacognitive Strategic Competence

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)

In a study that investigated whether knowledge of cognition affected regulation of cognition,

Comprehension monitoring competence is particularly crucial in the L2 context. With limited

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)

A Profile of Good Readers

When proposing a profile of good readers, I acknowledge the similarity of characteristics

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)

Table 1. A profile of good readers

New Research Directions in L2 Reading in China

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)

1. Word-Level Issues in L2 Reading Development

Reading in a Foreign Language 20(1)