Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 4
December 2020
L2 Chinese Reading Comprehension among Beginning-Level, K-12
L2 Chinese Reading Comprehension among Beginning-Level, K-12
Learners: A Literature Review
Learners: A Literature Review
Diane E. Neubauer University of Iowa
Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cltmt Part of the Chinese Studies Commons
How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know! How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Neubauer, Diane E. (2020) "L2 Chinese Reading Comprehension among Beginning-Level, K-12 Learners: A Literature Review," Chinese Language Teaching Methodology and Technology: Vol. 3 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cltmt/vol3/iss2/4
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Confucius Institute at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chinese Language Teaching Methodology and Technology by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected].
L2
Chinese
Reading Comprehension
among
Beginning
Level,
K-12
Learners:
A
Literature
Review
Diane
E.
Neubauer
University
of
Iowa
Abstract
Thisreviewfocuses on beginning-level,K-12, L1 English learners,
and
considers theirreading
comprehension of
texts
written inChinese characters andliteracydevelopment. Instructional
approaches,
materials
design, andteachingand
learning
strategies related to reading texts in Chinese charactersin these settings arereviewed. Thisreviewincludes both empirical studies and think pieces that appeal to prior empirical work in L2 Chinesereading to understandwhat Chineseas
a
Second Language scholars
research,
discuss, and advocate about reading comprehension forL2 learners mainly at beginning levelsof K-12 education. This literature review therefore includes a variety of sourcematerials: empirical research, research-informed
advocacy and think
pieces,
and
action research studies byChinese language instructors. The article concludeswith observationsabout the state of research and
current
recommendations in Chineseas
a
second language readingcomprehension.
Keywords: Chinese as a second language, Chinese literacy, reading comprehension
Introduction
Chinese remains a less commonly taught language in K-12 schools inthe UnitedStates
(National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages/NCOLCTL,2017). As arelatively small and
young
field
within foreign language education, Chinese as
a
second language (CSL)
instruc
tion does not have as extensive a history astheinstruction of languages such as Spanish
and French, which are more similarto English. CSL researchers andteachers continueto seek effectivepractices to develop students’ L2 Chinese, including their Chinese character reading
comprehension. The orthography of Chinese,which lacks obviousphonetic correspondence to
orallanguage, particularly for
beginning-level learners,presents quite
a different
experience than
English as afirstlanguage/L1. Learnersfrom an L1 English background, who
are also new tothe vocabulary, syntax,
and
structure of Chinese
language
faceadditional challenges
when
reading texts written inChinese characters. Questions about how to introduce students efficiently and
effectively to Chinese
character
texts continueto interestChinese language
teachers
and
researchers. The
field
has notyet come to definitive conclusions, butresearch related to Chinese language
and
literacy instruction showssome trends
and
themes which will
be
seeninthis
literature review.
Thegoal of this literature reviewis to understand
how
and
what
scholars inthe fieldof CSL research, discuss, and advocate about CSLtext-levelreadingcomprehension
for
young, beginning-level learners. This literature reviewtherefore necessarily includes
a
variety of source
materials: empirical research, research-informed advocacy
and
think
pieces,
and action research studies byChinese language instructors. The great majority of sources reviewed are published in
English and thetypeof source material is noted
throughout
thisreview sothat empiricalstudies
34 Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 2020
aredistinguished from other pieces. CSL literature has manystudies of
individual
Chinese
character and word learning (Li, 2020; Zhang & Ke, 2018). Those arenotin
view
inthis article. Thisreviewalso differs from arecent, thorough, historicalreviewof CSL readingby Ke (2020), sincethatstudy
focused
onempirical studies and includedstudiesof CSLreading at all proficiency levels andages of learners. One qualification
for
inclusion in
the
present review is a focus on early stages ofL2 Chinesereading comprehension, whichI will defineas learners
developing abilities to
make
meaning from Chinesecharactertextsbeyond word-level
recognition(Grabe, 2009). Whileword and character knowledge has been found relevantto
strong reading comprehension, character knowledgealone doesnot somehow
become
strong
reading comprehension (Grabe, 2009; Ke, 2020; cf. studies mentioned later in this review). Grabe (2009) noted in thepreface of his book,Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practicethat during the process ofwriting of the book, evidence “remained
constant
-
we only learn to read by reading” (p. v). He reiterated
and
upgradedthat comment later in the
volume:
“
one learns to read by reading(and byreadinga
lot) ” (Grabe,2009, p. 328). Understanding how young L2 learners begin
to read Chineseis an importantquestionin
developing
classroom
practices
for
students’ readingproficiency.
Thisreviewfocuses on publications relevant to beginning-level,K-12, L1 English learners, andtheir text-level, Chinese character reading comprehension. Beginning level
for
the
purposesof thisreviewincludes the firstyear of immersion programs andthe first200-300 hours of foreign language programs.
Empirical
studies atthe university level
have
foundthatbeginning CSL learners are
different
from intermediate and advanced learners inreadingstrategiesthey use and prefer (Ke & Chan, 2017; Kuo, 2015) and in the specificreadingchallengesthey encounter
(Kuo, 2015). University-aged beginners’ morphologicalawareness ofseparable words also
differed from more advanced Chinese language learners (Shen, 2019) as didtheir perceptions and preferences aboutreadingaloudas a meansof learning (Shen, Zhou, & Gao,2020). Inferring from those findings, it seems quite possible thatK-12beginninglearners couldalso differ from
more advanced K-12 learners,justifying specific
attention
on beginningK-12 learnersin this review. Scholars support
a
distinction betweenadults and
children
in learning toreada new language, sometimes citing “
age-related
cognitive
and
affective factors” as well asthe fact that
children arestill developing reading skills intheirfirst language,
which
may
affect
their progress in developing L2 reading skills (Lu, 2017, p. 311). Instructional approaches, materials design,
and studentstrategiesrelated to reading inChinese characters were all of interest.
A
few studies and think piecesthatdealt withearly development ofChineseL2 readingwere included when
they didnot necessitatea universityclassroom as
the
context and when strong support existsin
other literature formanyages oflearners, as in the case ofExtensive
Reading
(Grabe, 2009;
Zhou & Day, 2020). This
literature
review
began
withabroader topic: L2 Chinese reading developmentin
comparison to L1 Chinese reading development. Searches were conducted throughGoogle
Scholar, the database Linguistics and Language Behavior
Abstracts
(LLBA), and through following up citedworks in articles.
A
very large number ofstudieswithuniversity learners was found.To
narrow
the scope of this literature review, therefore, those studiesthat specifically targeted university classroomsand other adult learners of Chinesewere generally eliminated.
Fewer publications were found directly about reading Chinese as a second languageat K-12
levels, and I havesought to be comprehensive in
this
review, including all publications which I found that fit thatcategory. The age ofthe sources includedvaries from the late 1980’s through 2020. From
this
surveyofthe literature onL2 Chinese reading development, itappearsthatsome
35 https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cltmt/vol3/iss2/4
studies have been replicated, or at least that very
similar
topics have been investigatedfollowing
a study. Some older work, however, seems to include strategies or aspects of Chinese reading
that were unrepresentedby newer studies. Therefore, age of the article was not
a
primary consideration forinclusion, although recent studies were deliberately sought.
The review is divided into three main sections: themesin the literature, researchmethods,
and conclusion, with subheadings within each section. The next section includes an overview of
research methods used toinvestigate K-12 L2 Chinesereading. I
then
review findings in research literature
and
relevant advocacy
and
think pieces, as wellas someaction research studies,
grouping them around themes which became salientas I reviewedthe literature. In the final section,I make observationsabout
what
points of consensus have developedand what areas may
be
addressedbyfutureresearchstudies.
Appendix
A contains definitions of terms used.
Themes
in
the Literature
This section of the review synthesizes empiricalstudies, think pieces,
and
action research
in CSLrelevanttobeginning-level reading comprehension, primarilycentered on young, K-12
learners.
Expectations
for literacy
development
Several studies referred tothe need to match expectations for Chinese literacytothe time
availablewith learners as well as to their developmental level. In reportingon immersion programs inUtahandtheirresultswithreading, Kimura and Mikesell (2017) observed weaker
results
for
Chinese literacy than resultsin asimilar French
immersion
program. Students
struggled withcomprehension aurally aswell as withunderstanding texts. However, descriptions
of the class environmentsuggestedthatbeginning-level students sometimesunderstoodonlya
word ortwo out of an entire story toldbytheteacher. Since vocabulary, syntactic, and
grammatical
knowledge
was apparentlysignificantly below the students’ linguistic ability, it
seems
reasonable
thatreading materials were
likewise
beyond their comprehension.
Shen (2013) summarized main controversies related to L2Chinese literacy, pointing to
related research on those topics. Shen advocated that given the time available, itis unreasonable
to
expect
students to reach3000-character (8000-word) knowledge in4years of a university
level Chineseprogram. Shen further suggestedthatthe3000-character level is generally agreed
byeducators as the level needed“to read and
write
freely
in daily life” (p. 380). Asa result, some Chinese teachers may work towards that goal with their students regardlessof the actual time requiredto accumulate that level of readingskill. Based on Shen’s assessment, it would
seem
reasonable
to
expect
that foreign language
programs
in middle and high school withfewer
hoursof instruction should expect yet smaller vocabulary sizes. Shen(2018) also more recently restated that Chinesereading comprehension
developed
more slowlyfor learners thanotherL2s. Ina think
piece
published in 2008, Allen prioritized reading comprehension over the
writing of characters by hand. Headvocated thatstudents should spend their limited timefor
Chinese learning on recognizing characters that match upto or surpass their spokenChinese proficiency. According to Allen, such proficiency in reading characters wouldpermit students to composetexts electronically, greatly reducingthe gap thatChinese language learners typically
have between their spoken and written Chinese.
Ina white paper written to address controversies about what teachingmethods were appropriate
for
young learners in STARTALK programs, Curtain et al. (2016)
noted
that
36 Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 2020
STARTALK programliteracy goals must be
decided
based on timeavailable, and adapted to
student age, language background, and students’ interests. They basedtheiradvice on research evidence about the development of Chinese
literacy
bynative and non-native young learners. STARTALK is aUS government-sponsoredprogram
for
less commonlytaughtlanguages,
including teacher training and
student
summer programs(STARTALK,2019).As such,
STARTALK
programs
have an influence on teachingpractices in K-12 Chinese education across
the US.
Intheir advocacy
piece
thatdrewupon research literature, Everson,Chang, and Ross (2016) noted thatgoals foraCSLprogram with young learners need to align with “continuity of
learning and timeon task” so that
reasonable
outcomesfor students
can
be
determined
and achieved (p. 4). They considereditnecessaryto recognizethe differences between learning
Chineseas
a
first and as a second language to avoidjudgingL2 children’s outcomes with children in L1 Chinese schooling, asthat would be “bothunfair
and
unrealistic” (Everson et al.,
2016, p. 4).
These studies and think pieces revealed thatChineselanguage programs may notyet
have
developed
consistencyintheir expectations
for
new learners’ readingcomprehension.
Additionally, CSL programs may need to give more consideration to
the
instructional approaches
and
materials
used with young L2 Chinese learners for reading. Chinese language teachers may need more developmentally appropriateexpectations
about
their students’ reading
comprehension
and
the goals chosen
for
their courses, given the time in class.
Character and
word
knowledge
as
related
to
text-level
reading
comprehension
Scholarsacknowledge thatword-levelrecognitionis a critical elementintext-level reading comprehension (Grabe, 2009), and some CSL studies
have
investigated both character-and word-levelrecognitionaswell as textcomprehension. Francis (2010)notedthatwhile character- andword-level studieshave an important contribution,studiesof text comprehension
must
also
be
pursued to understand Chinese reading. However, in CSL research, many studies are specific to radical
and
component
knowledge
without atext-level reading comprehension
context. Everson (2011) noted theprevalence of an emphasis towards characterand word recognition, even instudiesthat have includedtext-level reading, since “many of the findings center on the characteror word” (p. 253). Studies
may
be
better able tohelpusunderstand Chineseliteracy holistically when both factorsare investigated. Characterandwordrecognition
must
not be treatedas if they arethe equivalent of, ormore important than, wholetext comprehension.
Curtain et al. (2016) related character/wordrecognition in its advocacypieceabout young CSLlearners and developing their reading comprehension. Theyreportedthat “successful higher-level readingdepends on quick and accurate lower-level processing”because of cognitive limits
on
how
much
thebrain can retain at a time (2016, p. 9). Studies surveyed by Grabe (2009) found
likewise. This finding suggests that if a reader needs to work hard to recognize characters, they willhave less mental processingabilityremaining for higher-levelaspects of reading, such as interpreting thewholemeaning. Zhou andMcBride-Chang (2015) likewiseobserved that
“vocabulary knowledge was a key correlate of Chineseword reading” (p. 10).
In advocating
for
instructionalapproaches inChineseprograms
for
young learners, Everson et al. (2016) suggested thathandwriting characters, including
learning
strokes andstroke order, “makes iteasierto learn characters” and time spentonthesetasks are “investments” in
liter
acy development,including text-levelreading comprehension (p. 3). Likewise, they
viewed
37 https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cltmt/vol3/iss2/4
learners’ reading comprehensionto benefit when learnersstudied radicalsand components of characters, statingthatsuch learning makes themeasierto recall, recognize, and estimate
meaning and sometimespronunciationwhen an unfamiliar characteris encountered during
reading (Everson et al., 2016). They were less concerned about which script (simplified or traditional) was introduced at early levels, because they
expected
for
“an experiencedlearner” whofirst studied one form of characters, learning the other script“willnot be difficult” (Everson et al., 2016, p. 3).
Shum, Ki, andLeong(2014) studied 13-
and
14-year-old learnersof Chinese, mainly
from Hindi andUrdu language backgrounds, in
Hong
Kong.
Through
their multipart study,they concluded that students need to know both “the structure and function of Chinese characters and
words,”butthatknowledgeis “notsufficient
for
Chinese text comprehension” (p. 168). They
suggestedthattheirresults support previous research showingword-levelidentification is
important in reading comprehension, butalso that reading in contextis critical to developing text comprehension. CitingWangand Leland (2011), theylikewise found that studying
“
characters
and wordsin isolation facilitates their identification, whilelearning themincontextenhancesthe
comprehension of meaning” (Shum et al., 2014, p. 170).Theyalso foundthat
different
proficiency levels of learnersseemed to
have
different most
significant
factors fortext
comprehension. Learners at a more beginning level had comprehension correlated more totheir scores of verbal spanworking memory while more advanced L2 Chinese learners’ scores of
word identification were more
closely
linked (p. 166).
Wong (2017) studied thereadingcomprehension, listening comprehension, andword
level decoding skillsof learners of Chinese in HongKong. Wong found “statistically significant
and uniquecontributionsof character reading andlisteningcomprehensionto reading
comprehension” (p. 969). Characterrecognition had a greater explanatory
effect
thandid
listening comprehension. They suggested caution about that finding, though: they
lacked
an oral vocabularycomponent of the listening test, which they considered more
closely
related to
“
lower
level decoding skills” (p. 980), since theirlistening comprehension test includedcontext beyond word level. They found
a
reciprocal
relationship
betweencharacterandwordrecognitionand readingcomprehension, each linked totheotherskill, leadingto their recommendationthat
“
in addition to initial
character
knowledge, asubstantialamount of reading” was necessary to
develop both skillsin
character
recognitionandreading comprehension (p. 981). They alsonoted that these learners were required to develop listeningandreading skills simultaneously, perhaps
leadingto a more “interwovendevelopment” as a result (p. 981).
Knell
and
West(2017)
advocated
a combined approach to literacyinstruction. Whilethey
noted thatcharacters always must be taughtandshownas linkedto sound
and
meaning, Knell
and West (2017)found thatthe more importantfactor in having students learn to hand-write
Chinese characters may not
be
when
tobegin,but how. The experience thatstudents had in
writing characters byhandmatteredmore, they found, than exactlywhenstudentsbegan hand
writing characters. They recommendedthatteachersneedto
know
how to adapt
character
handwriting
instruction
to different schoolsettingsand student populations. They foundthat “introducing twoto
four
charactersperlesson, from thebeginning of instruction, and allowing
regular, sufficient, and varied reading and writing practiceoffer an effective and age-appropriate
approachto integratingoral
and
written language
for
middleschool learners” (2017, p. 528).
They therefore encouraged some focus on single characters,butalsomultiple opportunities to
encounter those characters in reading materials.
38 Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 2020
Nearly all publications attributed strong links between character andwordrecognitionto readingcomprehension, withonenoteworthy exception: DeCourcy (2002) noted that
immersion
studentsof L2Chinese frequentlyreportedthat
they
couldreadtextaloudbutnotunderstandits
meaning. The students also reportedunderstandingwords inisolationbutbeing
unable
topiece togetherwholetext meaning. DeCourcy (2002) went on to report that even one or two significant
words could determine their
lack
of comprehension of thewhole sentence, preventingthemfrom
completing clozeexercises.Nonetheless, the students mainly sought to understandtexts
by
“lookingfor key vocabulary” (p. 116). The “strategies of ‘imagery’ and ‘visualisation’ were used veryfrequentlybythe learners of Chinese” (p. 117). Sincethis study was
conducted
in the same
immer
sion programin which students reported very lowaural comprehension at times, further
understanding of thatclassroom situation may help clarify its difference from other studiesthat showedstrong links between word
and
textcomprehension. Findings aboutthe relevance of listening comprehensiontoreading comprehension, as in
Wong
(2017), may also be usefulin understandingtherelationshipbetweenaural language developmentand written text
comprehension.
Studies thatinvestigated both characterandwordrecognitionandreading comprehension have foundthat without relatively effortlessword-level recognition, wholetext comprehension
willalso
be
compromised. Many publications therefore recommend attending to both aspects of liter
acy in Chinese as a second language.
Aural/oral
language
and
Chinese
reading
ability
Chinese characters generally lack clearphonetic markers thataidbeginning-level, L2 Chinese readers, yetstudies
have
revealed there arepossiblerelationshipsbetween aural andoral
knowledge and
successful text-level reading comprehension. Some controversy in the field
relates to how L2 Chinese learners mayrely on phonology as a path to semanticunderstandingof Chinese characters and/or character texts, or if
they
bypass phonology with a direct path to
meaning(Francis, 2010). This latter position would suggest something unique about Chinese
reading, sincestudiesof reading with
more
phonetically written languages have so far shown
learners’ path to comprehension isdependent on
phonology. Another issue in empirical research and think pieces is
how
oral language and written
character textcomprehension may relate to each other. Zhao and Poole (2017) noted thatoral
knowledge of Chinese doesnotmap easily to its written forms; thatis, oral languagemay
therefore
have
little aidfor learners
when
they encounter written texts. However, Shum, Ki, and
Leong (2014) found empirical evidence thatthecontextualized listening comprehension of young
teenage learnersof Chinese in
Hong
Kong (as wellas character
and
word recognition) had
a predictive effect on readingcomprehension. Curtain etal. (2016), in theirresearch-informed list of
recommendations
for Chinese language STARTALK programs, included“Literacy development
for
Chinese L2 learners is dependent on and
integrated
with rich andmeaningful oral language experiences. Oral language developmentis enhanced bymeaningful connections
with written
language
” (2016, p. 2). Perhapsthe apparent contrast in these comments arebecause theauthorswere writing about two
different
things:
for
Zhao and Poole (2017), they were considering thereadingprocesses of learners,but
for
Curtain et al.(2016), they were writing
about effective instructionalpractices for
teachers. These differences of belief and practice about
the
relationship
of aural/oral language andreading seem to be
a
factor addressed inthe CELIN
briefwrittenfor early language programs byEverson, Chang, and Ross (2016). They encouraged a strong foundation of oral language asthe basis
for
reading
and
writing, and integrationof
39 https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cltmt/vol3/iss2/4
readingandhandwritingwith communicative purposes andtasks. A consensusof scholarship is thatreadingChinese
character
texts should be done in a larger context of communicative
language instruction, relatingspokenandwritten language to each other (Everson et al., 2016; Shen, 2014).
The degree to which Chinese language classroomsat K-12 levels usepracticesthat
connect aural/oral languageand reading suggests thatsuchrecommendations may notalways be followed. In more traditional Chineseinstructionalapproaches such as thatdescribedby Bell (1995), a whole language experience was not an especiallystrong considerationin teaching
Chineseliteracy, and extensive hand-writingpractice was viewed as
the
starting point which may
lead to later reading ability. Lo-Philip(2014)likewisefound in classroom observations that
classroom literacyworkinvolvedrecitationand drills more than communicativecontexts. Yue
(2019)alsofound inhercase study of agradefive Chinese classroom intheUS thattheteacher
lessoften usedreadingincontextor connected
extended
discourse to activities to learn reading and writinginChinese.
Sofar,CSL studies have shownthat learners may
be
using
both phonology and appearance todraw out meaningfromcharacters inreading, though the
exact
relationship
and
processes are still under investigation. In termsof teaching practices, CSL researchers and
advocates have encouraged reading andliteracy work in connection with aural and oral language,
but whether those practices are prevalent in CSL K-12 classrooms remains unclear. Some
empirical evidence hasshown thatreading may betaught without much of a communicative context.
Implicit
and
explicit
learning
Manystudiesmentionedapproaches to reading comprehension
and
wordrecognitionthat
could
be
categorized as implicit or explicit. Research on implicit
and
explicit language learning
includestheideathatthe level of attention toforms ormeaningare an aspect of distinguishing
these types of learning (Jin, 2018). Therefore, an approach that emphasizes more whole text readingandtypingmay be
considered
somewhat more implicit, whilean approach that
emphasizes handwriting charactersand analyzing
character
forms may be considered more
explicit learning.Allen (2008) advocated for less handwritingand morecomputer-based compositional writing, but he alsowondered if characters would
be
retained more through
readingandtyping than byhandwriting. Allen recommended longitudinal studies to test this premise. He believed that prior to extensive handwriting of characters, studentsfirst need strong capabilitiesin listening and speaking, includingaccuracy in distinguishingand producing
“syllablesand tones,” andstrong abilities in “reading and writing electronically”through
extensive experience(p.247).
Intheirempirical study inapreschool-agedChinese language classroom, Changand Watson(1988) asserted that an
“
overemphasis onthe use of graphic cues in reading instruction causes
children
to use
far
more visualinformationthan would
be
necessary if the same
inform
ation were
embedded in an instructional unit based onwhole,natural
language
” (p. 37).
They appeared to
be
callingfor more implicit, meaning-focused reading, based on theirfindings
with young
learners of Chinese, countering prevalent instructional practices which emphasize
individual character and wordrecognition.
By contrast, however, Zhao andPoole (2017) advocated
for
more explicit instruction
within at
least
a certain context. They argued that words should be pre-taught directly
before
readingtextthatincluded them. Apparentlyintheirstudy, many words inreading texts werenot 40 Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 2020
familiar at all aurally or visually, and they believed explicitvocabulary work priorto
encountering them in context was preferable. Explicitvocabularyinstruction was therefore followed bycontextualized exposure to thewords, which isyeta differencefrom traditional,
word-only activities. Shen (2014) noted thatisolatedwordrecognition exercises mean
vocabularyis “isolatedfrom a meaningful communicativesetting, which notonlyincreases
learning difficulty,butalso dampens learners’ enthusiasm toward learning” (p. 282). Zhao and
Poole(2017) describedtheir approach as aimed at increasing students’ readingcomprehension.
They followed explicit vocabularyinstructionwithmore contextualizedreading, suggesting that they valued comprehension of whole
texts
as an end goal of any explicit instructional strategies.
Yu
and
Pine(2006)
studied
preschool L1 Chinesereadingapproaches based on Western
early reading strategies, which
have
not
yet
been widely used in China. These approaches
included some implicit work with meaning in focus,
and
some explicit work noticing characters,
but withoutextensive study. Their
study
found thatthe teachers’ varied vocabulary use,
discourse and questions about picture books, modelingreading,
and
encouraging imagination and thinkingaboutideas resulted in
greater
interest in books andreadingbythe children. Perhaps such methods have applications inL2 Chinese classrooms, especially to those with studentsnot yetliterate in L1 English. Willis’ (2018) study of teacher beliefsabout literacyinstructionnoted that teachersin theUS could anddo sometimes adopt new approacheswhen they seestudentsin need of something different from traditionalpractices.
Thisreview of the literature found that both implicitandexplicit teaching approaches were advocated
for
CSL reading. While researchers didnot find
fault
with explicit teaching
approaches as such, they also advocated for more implicit approaches. Theyalso encouraged
educatorsto find developmentally appropriate ways to work with learners to develop Chinese
literacy.
L1
English
transfer to
Chinese
character
reading
Research findings related to L1 Englishreading transfer to L2 Chinese readinghave suggested some beneficial transfer, though
perhaps
notmuchbeyond general readingskills. Kimura and Mikesell (2017) noted that research on emerging bilingualchildren in Chinese
immer
sion programs indicatedbeneficial transfer to and from each language, showing thatthe languages offeredmutual supporttothe learner. They believed that some generalreading abilities probably applied to reading in both languages
and
noted that children were ableto
discern the differencesin how written English andChineseworkedwithoutmuchexplicit instruc
tion about them. They suggested thatthistransfer of reading abilities might
be
better harnessed
for
literacy development, butthatif so, the topic required further exploration. In addition, they believed thatstudents benefit when family members
and
teachers model
acceptance of both languages andliteracies, even if those adults donot
know
or read both languagesthemselves.
Zhou and
McBride-Chang (2015) comparednative and non-nativechildren ina dual
immer
sion school (Mandarin
and English). They found that children who were
learning Chinese as a new language had “
a significant lag”in developing Chinesereadingability(p. 10). They found severalfactors wererelated to reading skills inChinese as a foreign language, including
“Chinesevocabulary
knowledge
as afoundation, phonological awareness skills,
especially
at the lexicaltonelevel,
and
both pure
visual
and orthographicskills of Chinese” (p. 10). These studies
have
suggestedthat L1 English learners face challenges in developing L2 Chinesereading ability, someofwhich heritage Chinese learners and thosefrom other East
41 https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cltmt/vol3/iss2/4
Asianlanguagebackgrounds have less difficultyovercoming. In developing reading skills, students who arealready strong readers in English and those who have positivesupport from adults may benefit as they developtheirChinese reading.
Pinyin
and
character
reading
The use ofpinyin,either
exclusivelyfora period of time prior to introducing characters,
oras a concurrent aid with character texts, has been a controversial point in the literature. Lu
(2017) spoke ofpotential benefits for pinyin use inbilingual children’s literacydevelopment:
1. Pinyinis a useful tool
for
children to retrieve and connectthe phonetic, semantic, andvisual
inform
ation that is necessary
for
character
recognition and reading comprehension;
2. children can
utilize Pinyin to build up or strengthen such relationships incidentally;
3. Pinyin skills andChinese phonological awareness may be mutually facilitative; and 4. the experienceof learning Pinyin promotes Chinese literacy learning longitudinally; but
5. thefacilitative
effect
ofPinyin onlearning is sensitive to the conceptual
difficulty
of annotated words, annotation format, andchildren’s overall literacy skills (p. 310).
However, Lu also noted thatthis study of pinyin ability with bilingual children didnot establish causalit
y
between
pinyin reading and later characterreading abilities, since Lu didnotemploy an experimental research design (2017). Other scholars found nocorrelation between pinyin
knowledge and
character
reading ability. Castro(2014)reported that pinyin reading
ability
and character recognition held no apparent correlation. Likewise, Lu concludedthat pinyin skills “neither help nor hinder the acquisition of the orthographic form of new vocabularyinL2 Chinese” (2014, p. ii).
When to teachpinyin in elementary school Chinese
programs
has been
“
controversial”
(Everson, et al.,2016, p. 3). Yue (2017)
interviewed
nineK-12 CSL teachers, asking about how theytaught pinyin, characters, and reading. Teachersinherstudyhada variety of approaches, some teaching pinyin first andothers characters first; oneteacherdidnot directly teach pinyin explicitly at all. “Increasingly”
programs
intheUS delay pinyin instruction until later in an elementary
immersion
program, first teachingoral languageand high frequencycharacters (Everson et al, 2016, p. 3). Nonetheless, some scholars have recommendedusingpinyin or one
ormoreways while students are still acquiring
recognition
of characters encountered in texts.
Curtainetal. (2016)recommended using texts with a mixof pinyin and characters, thereby increasing
a
student’s comprehension of readingmaterial andreducingfrustration. They
suggested that English reading skills will transfer to pinyin reading, butnot so much to character reading. Likewise, Lee and
Kalyuga
(2011) found thatpinyin above
character
texts (with English meaning below) was an aid to comprehension, but side-by-sidepresentation ofpinyin and
characterswithEnglishmeaning split readers’ attention toomuchto attendwell to meaning. They noted that reading
materials
were often designed without theoretical or research study
investigationsof what worked bestfor L2 learners. They drew on cognitive loadtheory to suggestmaterials design that would minimally impact cognitive resources available for
comprehension. However,their study soughtoverall text comprehension withoutdifferentiating
how students derived that meaning (from pinyinannotations or from characters). If
character
reading comprehension is the goal,therefore, their findingshavelessrelevance.
In conclusion, in CSL, scholars have recommended
the
useof pinyin as away to increase theaccessibility of written Chinesematerials, particularlyfor L1 English learners. Pinyin can
help learners connect aural language to a written form and can aidinpreparation
for
character
42 Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 2020
literacy. Reading in Chinese charactersalone, however, is a different skill
and
must
be
developed in addition toanypinyin reading skills.
Materials
design
Several studies gave specific recommendations aboutdesign of reading materials. Chang
and Watson (1988) encouragedtheuse of predictabletexts created bythe teacher, based on backgroundknowledge students have rather thanintroducing unfamiliar
topics
inreading texts.
Afterreading, studentswereinvited to add to
and
changethereadingin creative ways. Other scholarsagreed withtheidea of adapted texts, as statedby Curtain et al.(2016). They advocated
that teacherscan adapt
and
modify reading
materials
to their students’ needs
for
comprehension,
their ages,
and
language proficiency levels as needed. How, orif, to combinepinyin and characters in
texts
forlearners was a topicdiscussed in the research. Lu (2017) made anindirect call formore nonnative, school-age appropriate reading
materials withpinyin above characters, noting that L1 Chinese childrenwere able to draw upon pinyin for
unknown
characters withoutbeing distracted from characterreading. However, Lu
noted thatstudieswithL2 readers neededto
be
doneon
this
point. Giventhenote from Everson
et al. (2016) about the
need
to recognize differences between L1 andL2 Chinese readers,Lu’s call
for
studies with L2readers
identifies
an area forfurther research. L2 readers ofChinese
cannot
be
assumed toexperience texts that show characters andpinyin together in the same way
as Chinese children
who
have a very different
language
backgroundand environment.
Chinese character
texts
do not include spacesbetweenwords, but some studieshave explored possibleeffects of adding interwordspacing
for
beginningreaders. Shenet al. (2012)
conducted astudy to determine whether adding spaces would benefit beginning students. For those learners, students’ word recognition and text comprehension both improved when Chinese
character texts included spaces
between
words (Shen et al., 2012). The researchers used eye
tracking equipment to check for readingspeeds persentence,
how
long, and where their eyes
were focused. Their results led them to report that“word spacingmanipulationis a helpful tool in learning to read Chinese as a second language” (p. 196).
In all of the studies considered,
the
researchers found that modifying
texts
for use with
beginning learners was beneficial totheir reading, whetherthosemodificationswere in
the
content orthephysical layoutof text onthepage. Typicaltextbook formats forthe presentation
of reading materials werenot found to
be
models for reading materials.
Student
beliefs
and
attitudes
Several researchers stated that student interestand enjoymentshould bepartof
literacy
activities and planning by
teachers
(Chang &Watson, 1988; Curtain et al., 2016; Everson, 1994).
Two scholars
made
additional recommendations towardsthat end. Lo-Philip (2011), in speaking
of native Chinese teachers, saidthat they should understand andtalkwith students about the literacy practices they experienced in their first language. This dialogue was importantin helping
teacher
s tofind literacy practices that learners will find “comfortable and acceptable” in theirL2 Chineseliteracyaswell (p. 249). She warnedthat neglected to consider students’ experiences andperspectives “mayresult in demotivation and loss of interest”in gaining Chinese reading skills (p. 249). Shen (2014)noted that critical pedagogy principles, such aslearners’ self
reflectionon learning strategies andmetalinguistic awareness, would be
beneficial
to incorporate into Chinese programs. Perhaps followingthisline of thinking, ShenandXu (2015)
tested
and
surveyedfirst-yearChinese languagestudents’ responses to more active and collaborative ways
43 https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cltmt/vol3/iss2/4
of being introduced to and working with new vocabulary in context. Students reportedpositive
learning gainsfrom several of
the
testedstrategies, including characternetworks (forming
associations between words), team-based tasks,
and
problem-solving.
These findings suggest that student motivation may be linkedto teaching practices, and that teachers may increase their effectiveness byasking about their students’ experiences with
Chinese reading.
Teaching
approaches
Theliterature reviewedon
teachingapproaches
for
Chinese reading comprehension included awide rangeof subtopics. Somestudies suggestedthatChinesereading instructional
approaches
shared
manyfeatures in commonwith English reading instruction; other studies found that Chinese readingis distinct and ought nottobe attempted in ways
similar
to English
liter
acy practices. The literature reviewed included
a number of classroomreadingactivities, and
some studiesof Extensive Reading
werefound. Lastly,teaching approaches thatinvolveda delay
to
character
reading, character handwriting, or both were located. These studies are reviewed in detail in
the
next section.
Chinese literacy instructionalpractices that shared similarities with English literacy instruction. ChangandWatson
conducted
alongitudinal study of L2 Chinese
young
learners.
They observedthat “whether ornot
different
writing systems call
for
the useof
different
reading instruc
tion is an important issue” (1988, p. 39). The teacher usedpredictable, teacher-created texts modeled off of English emerging reader texts. Thesetexts were used in many ways.
Teacher-guided,prediction-developingstrategies suchaspre-teachingthe content of reading,
repeated reading aloud tothe students, and
dialogic reading with the students were part of the
students’ encounters with readingmaterials. They
concluded
thatonlyafew adjustments to strategies borrowed from emerging English literacyapproaches were required. They argued that this was because in both Chinese and English, “prediction of meaningfrom on-the-page and off-the-page context of classroom
instruction
and text
on
the pages” is generally achievable in
classroom settingswhere
teachers
are attending to learners’ first stepstoreadChinese character
texts (p. 43). They additionally argued thatteacherscould therefore use “prediction strategies and predictable materials” based on aural/oral language used inthe classroom (p.43). They
claimed thatreadinginvolvedmanyaspects all working together at the same time,including
phonetic and
visual
elements
and
contextual elements such as “meaning and syntax” (p. 43).
Therefore, they
concluded
thatinthereading of
any
language, irrespective of
the
orthography,
“rhyme, repetition, rhythm, and
recognition
of unique relationships withina complete text” aid the reader and can be harnessedinreadinginstruction(1988, p. 43).
Everson (1994)likewise suggestedthatbuilding
on
learners’ L1 English reading skills
could inform teachingpractices for
Chinesereading. Hegavecounterexamples about
what
practices
teachers
ought to avoid: difficulttexts made students resort to intensive glossary work
and “slow
and
laborious decoding”that means they “never begin to read in
a
rapid manner” (p.
6).Everson went on to state that an over-emphasis on character memorization may mean neglect
of teachingstudents to read
extended
texts
efficiently, or toenjoy theprocess. He therefore
recommended pinyin readingand “firm grounding inthe spoken languagevia romanization” before
readingcharactertexts (1994, p. 7).
Additional
recommendations includedgiving more time spent on reading, including strategiessuchas re-reading, recycling priorvocabulary in new
texts, and to encouragetimedreadingto encourage speed rather than
laboredcharacter decoding.
44 Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 2020
Lastly, Everson consideredtheinclusion of familiar topicsan important aspect of reading materialso that students’ backgroundknowledge aids comprehension.
Chinese literacy instructionalpractices as distinct from English literacy instruction. Some studiesof Chinesereading found thattraditional approachessuch as an early and strong
emphasis on
character
handwriting
was importantforL2 Chinese literacyaswell. Bell’s (1995) study of L2 Chinese literacy suggestedthatChineseliteracyshould
be deeply rootedin L1 Chinesetraditionsin order to be
authentic forL2 learners. Thesepractices includea heavy
emphasis on the aestheticsof characterhandwriting and littleto no contextualized encounters with those characters in wordsor longer texts. Lo-Philip(2014) noted thatliteracy practicesare
“multimodal”inherstudy of a Chinese immersion school
using
predominately traditional
approaches (p. 238). She
stated
thatinteractionwiththe teacher andotherlearners, rather than
solely cognitive or linguisticfactors, should be considered in studiesof Chinese literacy. She observed that teachers used repeated handwritingand oral repetition ofnew vocabularyas well
as explicit instruction about radicalswithincharacters. Teachers alsousedchoralreading aloud of textswith immediate error correction
for
pronunciation. She attributes these practicesin part to Confucian educational practices thathave a history ofmore than 2000 years. Furthermore,she found that teachers didnot question suchtraditionalmethods. Thesesocioculturalaspects of teaching Chinese literacy were importantto understand along with
materials
used, shefound, because they helpto contextualize practices and
balance
instructionaldesigns. However,the
position thatexclusivelytraditionalChineseapproaches to literacy should
be
used with
beginningL2 learners was inthe minority in
the
literature found. Scholars more typically sought
either to adapt L1 reading approaches andsometimes suggestedthatL2 Chinese reading may take aquite
different
path from L1 Chinesereadingdevelopment. For example, Shen (2014)
suggests thatstudents should be permitted to read and
write
in a
combination
of characters and pinyinas their Chinesedevelops, and thattheir handwritten knowledge of characters doesnot
need to
be
linked closely to theirreadingcomprehension.
Classroom reading activities. Reading activities during class included many differentoptions.
Zhao and Poole (2017) recommendeda variety of pre-reading,
whole-class reading, and post reading activities to make
text reading more engaging andaccessible, such as sentenceprompts, givingbackground knowledge, predictionquestions, and
having
peers
read aloud together. They suggestedunscrambling sentences as
a
wayto encourage sentence-level comprehension, and recommended showing words in context,notin
a
list. They also recommended more time for
Chineseliteracydevelopment than
for
L2 languages thatshare an alphabet with English. Reading aloud chorally and repeated reading were seen asbeneficial for early readers byShenandJiang (2013).Zhao
and
Poole(2017), however, recommended graded readersinstead of therepeated reading of short texts. Graded readers,they said, provide
multiple
exposurestovocabularyand
sentence structure while being less
tedious
for
learnersthan repeated reading.
Yu
and
Pine(2006)
studied
the effectsof trainingpreschool teachers in emerging
literacy
strategiesto use withChinese preschoolers. They found that encouraging children towards active
engagement “with interesting, meaningful, and functional writtenlanguage” was critical to their progress (p. 13). By posting charactersin
the
classroom
environmentandmakingprinted characters visually and regularlyavailable, they found thatyoung
children
seemed “to activate
the children to explorethe function andmeaning of print
and the relationship betweenwritten language and
theirhere-and-nowactivities” (2006, p. 13). They found, therefore, thatchanging
45 https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cltmt/vol3/iss2/4
teachers’ instructional practicesledtomore student engagementandinterestinChinese text. Everson et al. (2016) similarly suggested that a print-rich classroom environment was beneficial.
They recommendedthat teachers
display
written Chinese and thatschools devote classroom space for Chinese learning so thatwalls can be
usedforsuch decorations (Everson et al., 2016). Neubauer (2018) described
a
reading approach calledCold
Character
Reading (Waltz, 2015). Inthat call forattentioninresearch
on
newer reading practices, the author describedthe
general sequence of
instruction
and anecdotal evidence so
far
of resultsfrom thepractices. Cold
Character
Reading
firstseeks todevelop strongaural comprehension
for
all words thatappearin anupcomingreading text. That aural
instruction
is
followed
by choral reading of carefully-designed
texts
thatinclude somewhat unpredictable,
yet
repeated exposure to
newly-seen
Chinesecharacters. Based onanecdotal accounts, studentsdraw upon their sense of theaural languageto aidinwholetextreading,with individual Chinesecharacterrecognitiondeveloping
over time throughthat processand additional, independentreading. However, at present no empirical studies specifically about ColdCharacter
Reading
in Chinese classrooms have yet been
published.
Considered
together, these surveys of reading activities seen in Chinese language classes all included benefits fromfostering connectionsbetweenaurallanguage
and
social,
teacher-supportedprocesses for readingChinesecharactertexts aloud with learners.
Extensive Reading. Two studies relateddirectly to Extensive Reading (ER) amongbeginning Chineselearners. Extensive Reading is when learners read many books at a veryhigh
comprehension level, developing fluencyand building vocabulary in the process (Grabe, 2009).
Research on ER has been shownbeneficial for many ages of learnersin both L1
and
L2 (Grabe,
2009). First, Zhang, and Koda (2011) noted that
for
heritage learnersof Chinese, home
literacy
activities such asERrequiredathreshold in ordertoproduceword
knowledge
gains. That is, freereadingmaterialsthat were readonlyonce or twicepermonth had no impact on children’s vocabulary.
OnlineER
materials
by Shen and Tsai (2010) includedaccesstopinyin
and
bilingual
dictionar
y support for
character texts. Learners from around theworld wereable to accessthe
library, since it was online and free. Their program includedreading comprehension questions after
eachreading. Theysuggestedthat teachers need to guide students about use of an ER library and to model reading strategies,partly to ensurethat students read
texts
with“only about
1% unfamiliar characters” (p. 44) sothat
the
program would encouragevocabulary gains and readingfluency.
Two studies relate toERwithquite
different
types of learners yet finding similar positive outcomes
for
vocabularyacquisition through readingextensively.
A
studybyShu, Anderson, and Zhang (1995)
looked
at word
learning
through reading among US, L1 English children and
China,L1 Chinese children. Among theirfindings relevant to some degreehere, they foundthat Chinese children who read moreat home were able to pick
up
more new vocabulary from even
one exposure inaChinese character
text, aswere the American children. Their findings held for
studentsof all
ability
levels.However, theypointed outthatERisnota considerable part of the Chinese education the children were likely to receive,
and
instructional time is more often given
to explicitvocabularyinstruction. Although they (likeZhang & Koda, 2011) found thatER takes time to show benefits, the cumulative effects are potentially very great. Additional studies of ER
outcomes andclassroom practices could benefitK-12 CSL programs
and teacher education. The
46 Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 2020
ways in which these findingsmight relate to younger, L2 learners atbeginninglevels isyetto be studied, as
far
as thisreview hasfound. These studies
have
shown that ERinChinese language programs can
be conducted
in
accord with ER practices
for
other languages. Ample opportunities to see known wordsand
minimizingthepercentage of unfamiliar characters that learners willencounter arepartofthe
processof using ER in Chineselanguage instruction. How CSL
teachers
andlearners in K-12
enactER in
classroom
settings has notyet been explored in empiricalstudies found inthis
review.
Delaying character reading and/orhandwriting. Two studies included in thisreview directly considered whether ornotto delaythe introduction of characters to learners, or ifpinyin reading should precedecharacterreadingfor
a
time. Knelland West (2017)found no benefit to delaying characters in oral language development, inreading comprehension incharacters, nor in student-reportedaffectiveresponses at
the
end of the year. Ye(2013)
considered
student
goals and circumstances as a deciding factor. However,
Ye
expected a
delay
of characterintroduction was probably preferable at
least
withyounger learners, whothe researcher
expected
might acquire new orthographies differentlyfromcollege-level students of Chinese.
Allen (2008) also called
for
a
delay
incharacterhandwritingin CSL generally, though
didnot necessarily call foradelay in reading characters. He recommendedusingtypingas an
instructional activity very early, in which studentstypefamiliar sentences. Allen’s
rationale
was
thathand-writingChinese characters isverytime-consumingand would necessarily take upeven
more time if
conducted
before students have the “linguistic frame onto which to attach the rote
memory” (2008, p. 237). Early stagesof Chinese
learning
therefore should not heavily involve
character handwriting practice,
he
asserted. In asimilarway, the advocacy pieces by Everson et
al. (2016) andby Curtain et al. recommendedthathandwriting
be
incorporatedas onlyone part of
literacy
training
for
motivationalreasons as well as linguisticones. Accordingto Curtain et
al.,
“
CFL learners who have
developed
some degree of syntactic awareness are better at reading
and understanding texts” (Curtain etal., 2016, p. 5). Theyalsorecommendedincluding handwritingas oneapproachto learning characters, butnot
the
only means used.
The questions of whether todelay characterreadingandcharacterhandwriting has
mainly
taken
place with university-level students (Packard, 1990), and so far, one study with middle school students hassuggested no
significant
gains from delaying either character reading
orhandwriting. Further research with K-12 learners of Chinese andwhen and
how
to introduce
character readingandhandwriting will helpto address on-going questionson thistopic.
Research
Methods
Inthis section, a review ofempirical studies and the
methods
used to understandand
investigate CSL reading comprehension are discussed. Quantitative and
qualitative
approaches
both werecommon, and a fewstudies took a mixed methods approach. Quantitative observational andquasi-experimental designs
Several studies featured quasi-experimental design to correlate teachingstrategies with student outcomes. Knell andWest (2017)
conducted a quasi-experimental study which compared two groups of middle-school Chineseas a
ForeignLanguage learners, onewith delayed
introduction of characters andonewithoutdelay. Other variables were controlledbyconducting the study with same teacher
and
materials for all students. Lee andKalyuga (2011) conducted
47 https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cltmt/vol3/iss2/4
experimental comparisonsof various pinyin placements compared tocharacters andassessed
novice L2 Chinese learners’ comprehension and
short-term
retention. Shenetal. (2012)
compared various types of word
and
non-word spacing tohelp determine how adding spaces
between words might bean aid to beginninglearners. Theyused eye-tracking equipment to
measure the time required
for
reading texts,and used equipment that recorded theireye focus whilereading todetermine the length learners spent on
different
aspects of the text. Some studiesused quantitative methods to investigate
and
observe different aspects of reading comprehension in young learners.
Using
modified versionsof tests usedin other studies, Shum, Ki, andLeong(2014) investigatedtwo groupsof Hong Kong-dwelling,
non-native
teenagers’ Chinesereadingcomprehensionfrom many angles, comparing themto native Chinese
peers. They used multi-part quantitative analysis of tests of various aspects of cognitive
processing(workingmemory, nonverbal generalability) andfactors believed relevant to reading
comprehension (wordrecognition without and within sentencecontexts, sentence
grammaticality
choice)and self-evaluationby learnersof theirtime in
Hong
Kong and motivations and beliefs related to learning Chinese (Shum,Ki, and Leong,2014).Multiple regression ledthemto concludewhichfactors more significantlyaffectedlearners’ reading comprehension. Another Hong Kong-basedstudy of young CSL learners was
conducted
byWong(2017). Participants
were studentsin grades 4 and5 who learned Cantonese but had a variety of
Indo-European
home
languages.Tests of listening comprehension, character recognition, and reading comprehension
were given tothe same studentsingrades 4 and 5. These components were chosen based on the Simple
View
of Reading, atheoretical explanation which considersreading comprehension to be explained by two components: aural/oral language knowledge andword-level decoding skills (Gough& Tumner, 1986; cf. Wong,2017, p. 970). Wong’s (2017)quantitative data was analyzed using regressionand path analysis around those factors.
Quantitative studies of K-12 CSLreading comprehension were not numerous, with some
quasi-experimental designstounderstand how instructionalpractices and text featuresmight
affe
ct learners. Other studies used quantitative analysisto investigate components of reading
comprehension.
Longitudinal studies
A few longitudinalstudies relevant to CSLreading comprehension have been done.
Chang
and
Watson (1988) spent more
than
a year of observation of
young
L2 Chineselearners
and literacy practices, including in-depth noteson instructional approachesused. A
year-long
qualitative study with asocioculturalframework wasconducted by Lo-Philip(2014)in a one
way
immersion
school on theWest coast of theUS. She used an embedded ethnography approach. She was aschool volunteer for a year priortothe study,
and
during the study year,
Lo-Philip continuedas a volunteer, observing many classes. She also audio or video recordedeach class whensheobserved. Zhou
and
McBride-Chang (2015) comparedgroups of nativeandnon
native children in adual-immersionschoolthattaught in Mandarin
and
English,noting formative
and summative reading outcomes among learners. Knell and
West (2017) based their year-long
studywith7thand 8th grade CSL learners on
the research design Packard (1990) used with beginning-level, university learners ina study of
delayed
and non-delayed introduction of Chinesecharacters. Wong (2017) also had somelongitudinal aspects in itsdesign bytesting reading comprehension across two consecutiveschool years.
These longitudinal studies areable to take into
account
longer-term outcomesin Chinese
reading, but it can
be
seen from thelist of studiesthat longitudinal designs vary considerably,
48 Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 2020
with qualitativedesigns used to understand patterns of classroom behaviors andlearners’ experiences overtime.
Quantitative
studiesthatincorporated longitudinal datadidso tocompare progress and outcomes for learners. Interviews and think-aloud protocols
Several studies included interviews and think-aloud protocols withChinese language learners. DeCourcy(2002) used think-aloud protocolsto investigate the Chinese reading
comprehension strategiesyoung learners used to copewith highly incomprehensible
texts
they
encountered inimmersionclasses. Knell
and
West (2017) study of delayed orimmediate
character introduction involved oral interviews in Chinese as proficiency check at
the
end of the first
semester
and then the end of theyear-long study. These studiesreveal someof
the
ways in
which learners navigatetheirownChinesereading through strategies to comprehendtexts, and some students’ attitudes about their experienceswithChinese reading.
One studyinthisreviewincluded interviews aboutCSLliteracy from teachers. Five K-12
CSLwho were raisedin China and
now
teach
in theUS wereinterviewedand
observed
in their
classrooms in adissertation study by Willis (2018). She foundthatthe teachers’ educational and culturalbackground influenced their approach to literacy instruction, generally preferring
bottom-up skillswork suchas
character
memory work andhandwriting. The teachers also modifiedthat
instruction
based on the apparent needs of thelearners, andalsoused
student centered
and
top-down reading strategies. Willis (2018) notedthat teacher trainingandCSL
research would benefit from giving attention to the backgroundsof CSL teachers in research and
teacher development.
Questionnaire surveys
Inthisreview,onlytwo studies included a questionnaire, eachdesignedto survey
studentsof Chinese. Inadditiontothepreviouslymentionedelements of theirresearchdesign,
Knell
and
West(2017) also used an 11-item questionnaire with
a
Likertscale, asking
for
student attitudes about characterreading, writing, and the
timing
of their introduction of characters. Lee and Kalyuga(2011) used
a
questionnaire about learners’ perceived cognitive load during their
study of words with pinyin
and
characters shown in different configurations. These questionnaires wereaimed at being able to compare
different
approaches to instruction based on the students’ ownperceptions.
Criticism of research methods
Research in CSL generally, including research into L2 Chinesereading, has notbeen
without criticism. Jiang
and
Cohen (2012) called
for
more rigorous designinstudies of Chinese language
learning
and Chinese reading. Theycritiquedtheresearch
methods
usedinstudies,
particularly the useof self-reporting questionnaires oflearners, andtheways in which case
studies weredesigned
and
reported. These researchersbelievedthatfindings from some of the
studies listedinthisreview, as well as other studieswithuniversity-levellearners, could be
called intoquestion because of weaknessesat this level. Ke (2018) expressed similar concerns about researchdesign and validity of findings, calling for more
rigorous
attention to data
collection and statistical analysis. Ke also calledfor more studies from a socio-cultural
framework,which would enrich our understanding of
how
students’ identitiesand learning
environments relate totheirChinese learning.
49 https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cltmt/vol3/iss2/4
