Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognition, engagement, and motivation as factors in the reading comprehension of Dual Language Learners and English Speakers: Unified or distinctive models?

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies offer mixed evidence regarding whether a unified model of reading comprehension predictors applies to Dual Language Learners (DLLs) and English Speakers (ESs), or whether distinctive models across language groups are empirically supported. The present study adds another dimension to this body of work by examining multiple reading engagement and motivation predictors alongside cognitive predictors of reading comprehension. The participants—188 DLLs and 166 ESs in the fourth and fifth grades—completed measures of word identification, linguistic comprehension, cognitive strategy use, internal motivation, and extrinsic motivation, and their teachers rated their reading engagement. Language status did not moderate the relations of any predictors with either concurrent reading comprehension performance or growth of reading comprehension across the school year, supporting a unified model of reading comprehension for DLLs and ESs. Word identification and linguistic comprehension showed the strongest relations with concurrent reading comprehension and growth. While the role of reading engagement was less prominent, it was demonstrated to be a plausible partial mediator of the relation of word identification with concurrent reading comprehension.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. WIDA Level 1 consists of basic “use of words, phrases, or chunks of language when presented with one-step commands, directions, WH questions, or statements with visual graphic support” as well as pictorial academic language. Level 3 indicates “oral or written language with phonological, syntactic, or semantic errors that may impede the communication but retain much of its meaning when presented with oral or written, narrative or expository descriptions with occasional visual and graphic support.” Level 5 denotes “oral or written language approaching comparability to that of English proficient peers when presented with grade level material”.

References

  • Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.5.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129–154. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022185502996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ammi, S., & Cain, K. (2014). Children’s comprehension monitoring of inconsistencies in text: A reading time and eye-tracking study. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Chicago, IL.

  • Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In D. P. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452–477. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Summers, C. L., Boerger, K. M., Resendiz, M. D., Greene, K., et al. (2012). The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 616–629. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728912000090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 57, 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L. K. S., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacognition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 1–41). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, S. A., & Shankweiler, D. P. (1991). Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman (pp. 129–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008084120205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2007). Reading comprehension difficulties: Correlates, causes, and consequences. In K. Cain & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective (pp. 41–75). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2014). Reading comprehension and vocabulary: Is vocabulary more important for some aspects of comprehension? Psychological Year/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 11, 647–662. https://doi.org/10.4074/s0003503314004035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M. M., Davis, L. H., & Spharim, G. (1999). Relationship of metalinguistic capabilities and reading achievement for children who are becoming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716499004014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., et al. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W. (2018). The simple view of reading: Advancements and false impressions. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518767563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the Simple View of Reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, 49, 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, E., Capin, P., Roberts, G., Roberts, G. J., & Vaughn, S. (2019). Examining sources and mechanisms of reading comprehension difficulties: Comparing English learners and non-English learners within the simple view of reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 982–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corp, I. B. M. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2013). Growth and predictors of change in English language learners’ reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 36, 389–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrir.12003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. B., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 277–294. https://doi.org/10.2307/747389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froiland, J. M., & Oros, E. (2014). Intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and classroom engagement as longitudinal predictors of adolescent reading achievement. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 34, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.822964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geva, E., & Farnia, F. (2012). Developmental changes in the nature of language proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading comprehension in ELL and EL1. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1819–1845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9333-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1987). Taking account of time lags in causal models. Child Development, 58, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 282–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., & Klauda, S. L. (2016). Engagement and motivational processes in reading. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 41–53). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Klauda, S. L., & Ho, A. (2013). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–257. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, E. W., Nolen, S. B., & Abbott, R. D. (2013). Developing measures of motivational orientation to read and write: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences: Journal of Psychology and Education, 28, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00401799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 29, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieffer, M. J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Initial English proficiency, concentrated poverty, and the reading growth of language minority learners in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 851–868. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieffer, M. J., & Vukovic, R. K. (2012). Components and context: Exploring sources of reading difficulties for language minority learners and native English speakers in urban schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. G. (2017). Why the Simple View of reading is not so simplistic: Unpacking component skills of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2015). Comparing relations of reading motivation, engagement, and achievement among struggling and advanced adolescent readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 239–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9523-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kush, J. C., Watkins, M. W., & Brookhart, S. M. (2005). The temporal-interactive influence of reading achievement and reading attitude. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 11, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500110141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Language and Reading Research Consortium, & Muijselaar, M. M. L. (2018). The dimensionality of inference making: Are local and global inferences distinguishable? Scientific Studies of Reading, 22, 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1371179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesaux, N. K., & Kieffer, M. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 596–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesaux, N. K., Rupp, A. A., & Siegel, L. S. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 821–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary school reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.1.3-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Schatschneider, C. (2018). Examining the simple view of reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518764833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, K. S., LaForte, E. M., & Schrank, F. A. (2014). Woodcock Johnson IV technical manual. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, S., & Bus, A. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., & Manis, F. R. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of English language learners’ word decoding and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 691–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9045-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (Tech. Rep. No. 00-4769).

    Google Scholar 

  • Netten, A., Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2011). Predictors of reading literacy for first and second language learners. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9234-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2007). Issues of causality in children’s reading comprehension. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 47–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.529219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 657–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orellana García, P. (2018). To what extent is reading motivation a significant predictor of reading achievement when controlling for language and cognitive achievement? A systematic review. In P. Orellana García & P. Baldwin Lind (Eds.), Reading achievement motivation in boys and girls: Field studies and methodological approaches (pp. 79–96). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341880080105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Forrest-Pressley, D. L., Elliott-Faust, O. J., & Miller, G. E. (1985). Children’s use of cognitive strategies, how to teach strategies, and what to do if they can’t be taught. In M. Pressley & C. I. Brainerd (Eds.), Cognitive learning and memory in children (pp. 1–47). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (2006). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 265–286). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, C. P., Daley, S., Louick, R., Leider, C. M., & Gardner, G. (2014). How motivation and engagement predict reading comprehension among native English-speaking and English learning middle school students with disabilities in a remedial reading curriculum. Learning and Individual Differences: Journal of Psychology and Education, 36, 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, C. P., & Louick, R. (2018). Development of vocabulary knowledge and its relationship with reading comprehension among emergent bilingual children: An overview. In A. Bar-On & D. Ravid (Eds.), Handbook of communication disorders: Theoretical, empirical, and applied linguistics perspectives (pp. 643–655). Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Protacio, M. S., & Jang, B. G. (2016). ESL teachers’ perceptions about English learners’ reading motivation. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65, 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336916661532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. Christensen, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–173). New York, NY: Springer Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roebers, C. M., & Feurer, E. (2016). Linking executive functions and procedural metacognition. Child Development Perspectives, 10, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 6, 479–530. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royer, J. M., & Carlo, M. S. (1991). Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language. Journal of Reading, 34, 450–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1996). Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1996.10476908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saarnio, D. A., Oka, E. R., & Paris, S. G. (1990). Developmental predictors of children’s reading comprehension. In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 57–79). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (2016). Factorial and construct validity of a new instrument for the assessment of motivation. Reading Research Quarterly, 51, 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Moller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 427–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrank, F. A., Mather, N., & McGrew, K. S. (2014). Woodcock–Johnson IV tests of achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. (2018). Simple and not-so-simple views of reading. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 313–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518770288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22, 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taboada, A., Townsend, D., & Boynton, M. J. (2013). Mediating effects of reading engagementon the reading comprehension of early adolescent English language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29, 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.741959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taboada Barber, A., Buehl, M. M., Kidd, J., Sturtevant, E., Richey, L. N., & Beck, J. (2015). Reading engagement in social studies: Exploring the role of a social studies literacy intervention on reading comprehension, reading self-efficacy, and engagement in middle school students with different language backgrounds. Reading Psychology, 36, 31–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.815140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taboada Barber, A., Buehl, M. M., Beck, J. S., Ramirez, E. M., Gallagher, M., & Archer, C. J. (2018). Literacy in social studies: The influence of cognitive and motivational practices on the reading comprehension of English Learners and Non-English Learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34, 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2017.1344942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Kuang, D. (2002). Quick and easy implementation of the Hochberg procedure for controlling the false positive rate in multiple comparisons. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986027001077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tofghi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692–700. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torppa, M., Tolvanen, A., Poikkeus, A., Eklund, K., Lerkkanen, M., Leskinen, E., et al. (2007). Reading development subtypes and their early characteristics. Annals of Dyslexia: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the International Dyslexia Association, 57, 3–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-007-0003-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unrau, N., & Schlackman, J. (2006). Motivation and its relationship with reading achievement in an urban middle school. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 81–101. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.2.81-101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 162–186. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations to children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. A., Denton, C. A., York, M. J., & Francis, D. J. (2014). Adolescents’ motivation for reading: Group differences and relation to standardized achievement. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 503–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9454-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported herein was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A160280 to the University of Maryland. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Counseling, Special Education, and Higher Education, University of Maryland, 1311 Benjamin Building, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

    Ana Taboada Barber & Susan Lutz Klauda

  2. Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park, USA

    Laura M. Stapleton

Authors
  1. Ana Taboada Barber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Lutz Klauda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laura M. Stapleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Taboada Barber.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 82 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 69 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taboada Barber, A., Lutz Klauda, S. & Stapleton, L.M. Cognition, engagement, and motivation as factors in the reading comprehension of Dual Language Learners and English Speakers: Unified or distinctive models?. Read Writ 33, 2249–2279 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10034-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10034-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation