Reading Comprehension in Primary Education: A Comparison Between Native and Non-Native Second Language Readers

(1)

Reading Comprehension in Primary Education:

A Comparison Between Native and Non-Native Second Language Readers

Judith Keuning

1534777

MA in Applied Linguistics

Faculty of Liberal Arts

University of Groningen

Supervisor:

Dr. H.I. Hacquebord

(2)

2

The Dutch society consists of various non-native ethnic minorities, most notably Turkish and Moroccan immigrants, and much research has been done into the educational position and the (arrears in) achievements of children of these groups. What is often neglected, however, is that there are native ethnic minorities, for example Frisian children, with arrears too. In fact, in 2002-2003 the number of disadvantaged foreign and native children in primary education is almost equal; 200.000 versus 198.000. Both groups deliver approximately 13% from the total of primary school children in the Netherlands, and both groups have weak reading

comprehension scores when compared to the national average (Vogels & Bronneman-Helmers, 2003).

Interest in reading comprehension in the Netherlands is further encouraged by the outcomes of the Onderwijsverslagen (= Educational Reports) of 2004/05 and 2005/06 of the national school inspection that have shown that approximately 25% of all Dutch primary education school children leave their school with a reading deficit (Vernooy, 2007).

Additionally, a Cito report of 2007 has detected a decline in reading comprehension abilities of Dutch primary school children, and a Taalunie report shows that the language capabilities of many children are insufficient (Hacquebord & Sanders, 2010).

As reading comprehension is an important factor in the educational career of children, it is important for schools to focus on developing a good reading ability as early as possible. Without this ability, children will experience great difficulties not only in their entire school career, but also in society, because many professions call on reading proficiency. As noted by Vernooy (2007), reading is the basis of good learning, and the foundation to participate in social, economical and political activities. The development of a good reading ability is, therefore, extremely important for the student as well as society.

Therefore, Parliamentary secretary from the Ministry of OCW (= Education, Culture and Science) Marja Bijsterveldt installed a special committee, committee Meijerink, to formulate the level and abilities, regarding reading as well as other school subjects, that children must reach at the end of primary education (Ahlers & Van de Mortel, 2009). Good education attention and instructions are essential in order to help children achieve these levels, however, the teaching of children to read properly is a difficult and complex process

(5)

5 Furthermore, in order to give children the education and attention they need, good and efficient methods and programs to monitor and assess children research should be available for and in all Dutch primary schools. One of the most well-known testing methods in the Netherlands is Cito, but less well-known and equally adequate and effective methods, such as Diataal, are also available.

In this research we will examine the reading proficiency scores of ethnic minorities, both native and non-native, and see whether or not some similarities can be discovered between these two ethnic groups regarding native language (L1) use, test scores, and number and types of errors made. We will measure the reading comprehension scores of these

students by using a newly developed digital Diataal comprehension test for group 6 in primary education. This test is shaped according to the format and standards of the existing Diataal tests for group 7 and 8, but the level of the test is adapted to younger readers; example all texts are from existing reading and learning methods of grade 6 level.

(6)

6 2. Reading Comprehension

2.1 What is reading comprehension?

There is no clear definition of reading comprehension, because the topical boundaries seem to be too broad and poorly marked and, therefore, it presents problems in specifying how, what and when components develop (Paris & Hamilton, 2009). Paris and Hamilton (2009) consider reading comprehension to be “only a subset of an ill-defined larger set of knowledge” that reflects various abilities, like interaction, content message, abilities and purposes of the reader, etc. Early definitions of the term focused on thinking and reasoning about the text, while recently the emphasis is on the constructive and interactive process of reading comprehension (Paris & Hamilton, 2009).

The models used to describe the reading process generally describe the relations between bottom-up word recognition processes and top-down comprehension processes (Droop, 1990). The difference between both models is that a bottom-up process is based upon raw input continued with refined analyses until the meaning is grasped. Meaning that by means of decoding, reading develops letter for letter and word for word. Top-down processes, on the other hand, focus on activation one‟s background and social knowledge in order to arrive at the meaning of texts (Droop, 1990). However, these models tend to describe the reading process as a linear development, and results of more recent research (for example research by Stanovich in 1991) shows that neither purely bottom-up nor completely top-down models can fully and accurately describe the reading process (Droop, 1990).

Nowadays, reading comprehension is considered an interactive or dynamic process; the ability to understand written texts and the ability to read with apprehension (Förrer & Van de Mortel, 2010). Sweet and Snow (2003) define this as “the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning.” In other words, children need to accurately figure out the meaning of the presented words and at the same time formulate or construct a meaning of the presented information by drawing on previously acquired knowledge.

(7)

7 benefited, when students know what the purposes and consequences are (Förrer & Van de Mortel, 2010; Snow & Sweet, 2003).

Reading comprehension can, therefore, be considered an active, complex process that draws upon many processes and abilities that influence each other (Brand-Gruwel, 1995; Vellutino, 2003; Aarnoutse & Schellings, 2003). In other words, it can be defined as a constructivist process, in which pupils have to draw on pre-existing knowledge, which is related to a wide range of capabilities and abilities.

2.2 Good readers versus weak readers

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, reading and reading comprehension draws on a wide range of capabilities and abilities, and cognitive processes. Central cognitive components in reading are lower-level processes, including word recognition and meaning encoding, and higher-level processes such as text-model formation, inferencing, and strategic processing (Grabe, 2009). However, there exists great variability amongst readers regarding their capabilities and abilities and their motivation, goals, and reading purposes (Vellutino, 2003). In order to comprehend a text, readers must learn to make inferences, how to integrate

information, how to utilize the text structure, and how to monitor their comprehension ability. Differences in literacy development, might, therefore, depend on individual differences, as well as, home and school characteristics (Droop, 1999).

As noticed by Sweet and Snow (2003), good comprehenders have good higher-level cognitive capacities, such as attention, memory, and inferencing, and have a good knowledge of vocabulary, domain and topic knowledge, linguistic knowledge and specific reading strategies. Furthermore, good readers tend to possess a greater interest in reading; they are more motivated than weaker readers (Baker & Carter Beall, 2009). The three major

capabilities required for becoming a good reader are defined as: (1) the ability to quickly read texts, (2) having a sufficient vocabulary, and (3) applying the right reading strategies.

Especially, the ability to read quickly and having a sufficient vocabulary strongly influence reading proficiency (Vernooy, 2007; Sweet & Snow, 2003; Droop, 1999, and Vermeer, 2005).

(8)

8 Furthermore, a recent cognitive-psychologist study of Van den Broek (2010) shows that weaker readers, as a consequence of lacking the basic fluency skills, often do not

understand the information given in a text, and are unable to make meaningful or relevant relations between the information presented in the text and their own background knowledge (Van de Meent, 2010).

Consequently, children with insufficient fluency and word recognition skills lose or do not recognize the meaning of a particular text, rather, they tend to neglect difficult words they do not understand and just read on (Brand-Gruwel, 1995). For proper understanding and interpretation of a text a reader needs to know at least 90% of all the words of that particular text, and without the necessary linguistics skills this is nearly impossible.

For L2 readers the problems are even greater, they have to acquire a completely new language and develop reading abilities in that particular language. Grabe (2009) indicates that one of the major problems in text processing in another language has to do with the difference in phonological and morphological systems in each language as well as differences in

(9)

9 3. Reading development and attitudes towards language

3.1 Reading development in L1

Children of Dutch (L1) speakers who attend primary school for the first time have already developed a big lexical knowledge of words and their meanings. Parents have a big influence in developing reading knowledge of their children, as well as, the child‟s interest in reading through communication and interaction, for example reading to them or with them. Through interaction with their parents and a rich literate context, children discover the uses and functions of texts (Droop, 1999). However, growing up in a literate environment does not imply that this child does not need formal education to develop their reading abilities. There are children who are able to read without instruction, but most of them need a large amount of formal instruction (Droop, 1999). Droop (1999) mentions two important reasons why reading is difficult to learn, and why children need formal instruction. The first reason is the

alphabetic principle, which is based on abstract units and phonemes that are not easy to grasp, and, secondly, children have to deal with a de-contextualized format, reading is different than oral communication.

Developing reading and comprehension skills draws upon various sequential phases that children go through. There are many models, that conceptualize learning to read in a series of phases that every child goes through, varying in pace, to develop reading proficiency, for example the model of Ehri and Wilce (1980), and Ehri (1995) (Paris & Hamilton, 2009). One of the most well-know models is developed by Chall (1983). She argues that every child goes through six developmental stages. Stage 0 or the pre-reading phase, includes children up to 6 years, and is characterized by the development of children‟s vocabulary knowledge and their use of spoken language. In this phase children learn, for example, that spoken words can consist out of different parts, and acquire knowledge about print and the alphabet.

Stage 1, grades 1 and 2, is the beginning of conventional reading (Paris & Hamilton, 2009). In this phase early readers develop decoding skills such as letter and sound

(10)

10 word structures and become more fluent (Chall, 1983). Both stage 1 and 2 constitute a

“learning to read stage (Chall, 1983).”

The third phase occurs in grade 4 until 8 and marks the shift from “learning to read” to “reading to learn (Chall, 1983; Paris & Hamilton, 2009).” In this stage children begin to acquire new knowledge, information and experiences by reading. The emphasis is on vocabulary development as well as the development of background knowledge, analytical skills (Chall, 1983).

The penultimate and the ultimate stage are developed from high school onwards. In these stages the focus is increasingly on comprehension of more complex texts. Students in this phase have to deal with more than one viewpoint and in depth topics (Chall, 1983).

However, one has to note that these sequential stages of literacy development are not the same for all children; they do not go through each stage in the pre-described order (Paris & Hamilton, 2009). Chall (1983) notes that the ages or grades of the stages are approximate, that reading development depends on home or classroom instruction, and that the stages are not discrete, they overlap.

Considering these stages, based on their reading development and parental

encouragement, Dutch native speaking children have already acquired a large quantity of lexical knowledge in the years before entering primary education. This knowledge is expanded during their school career, in which they are exposed to more formal vocabulary, and are familiarized with reading strategies, utilize the text, how to make inferences, and monitor their comprehension.

3.2 Reading comprehension development of non-native L2 readers

(11)

11 behind in terms of linguistic resources, like lexical a grammatical knowledge, that supports comprehension (Grabe ,2009). As a result, it can be said that these children have a gap in their vocabulary knowledge at the start of their educational careers in comparison to their Dutch peers.

One of the first problems that children of foreign ethnic minorities experience in learning Dutch is mastering the orthographic structure, the Dutch phonemes. Many members of ethnic minorities are unable to properly distinguish phonemes that do not have the same objective in their native language, for example the letters /i/ and/ ie/ are not recognized as being different by Turkish children, and the same applies for the letters /p/ and /b/ for

Moroccan, and other Arabic speaking, children. Generally, non-native children come to fully understand the Dutch phoneme system when they are nine years old, which is rather late in respect to their Dutch counterparts, who already develop some phonemic consciousness in the pre-school phase (Vermeer, 2005).

Secondly, due to less exposure to the second language and a vocabulary deficit, L2 readers often experience problems with word recognition and word decoding. According to the orthographic depth hypothesis, pre-lexical phonology knowledge plays a role in lexical access (Grabe, 2009; Schmitt, 2010). This hypothesis suggests that pre-lexical phonology plays an important role in lexical access in „shallow orthographies,‟ with more direct and consistent correspondence between graphemes and phonemes (for example Turkish), than in „deep orthographies,‟ like English, or „moderate orthographies,‟ such as Dutch, were the relation between letters and sounds is less direct and consistent (Grabe, 2009; Schmitt, 2010). As a result, for example Turkish L2 readers might experience major problems in mastering the Dutch sound and letter correspondence and word recognition, because there are certain letters not heard in the pronunciation of a word, or, sounds do not correspond with the written letter, like for example the sound /g/ in /geit/ and the sound /g/ in /school/, which is written with /sch/.

(12)

12

Table 1 Vocabulary development of native speakers versus bilingual speakers in the Netherlands by Vermeer (2005, p.39)

Leeftijd (Age) Eentalige Nederlanders (Dutch Native Speakers)

Tweetalige

Turken/Marokkanen

(Bilingual Turks/Moroccans) Vierjarigen (four year olds) 3000 1000

Vijfjarigen (five year olds) 3800 1800 Zesjarigen (six year olds) 4500 2600

Zevenjarigen (seven year olds) 5200 3400

Achtjarigen (eight year olds) 6000 4200

Negenjarigen (nine year olds) 8500 5000

Tienjarigen (ten year olds) 11000 6000 Elfjarigen (eleven year olds) 14000 8000 Twaalfjarigen (twelve year

olds)

17000 10000

As one can see, Turkish and Moroccan children have a smaller basic vocabulary knowledge than their Dutch peers at the age of four, which is the age of entering Dutch primary education. Furthermore, table 1 shows that this lexical difference between L1 readers and L2 readers does not decrease, but increases as the students grow older. Research in this area indicates that students with a small vocabulary have enormous arrears with respect to their contemporaries and this will continue to negatively affect their school career (Marzano, 2004). For example research by Verhoeven (1990) and Verhoeven and Vermeer (1996) showed that at the end of the first grade, Turkish children had more difficulty in reading longer words and direct lexical access than their Dutch peers. Additionally, not only a lack of vocabulary knowledge and problems with reading difficult words contribute to a weaker reading comprehension, also metaphoric language and expressions are difficult to grasp for L2 readers and contribute to comprehension problems (Appel en Vermeer, 1997; Kurvers & Moren, 2005). Due to these difficulties experienced by ethnic minorities, they frequently show a vocabulary deficit of two years with respect to non-disadvantaged native speakers (Vogels & Bronneman-Helmers, 2003).

(13)

13 2010). Thus, it is of vital importance that schools pay sufficient attention to vocabulary

instruction, otherwise, the reading deficit, as well as other processes linked to their reading comprehension skills, will grow even further (Stanovich,1986).

3.3 Reading development of native L2 readers

Besides non-native ethnic minorities, various native ethnic minorities also reside in the Netherlands. This chapter will focus on the school achievements of Frisian children in primary education regarding reading comprehension. Research into school performances of children in Friesland show that these children fall behind in their achievements compared to national averages (De Boer, 2009). This might due to the fact that many Frisian parents raise their children in the Frisian language, and that, consequently, these children seem to have a vocabulary deficit as well at the beginning of primary education (De Boer, 2009). These children, then, have to acquire Dutch as a second language as well, and go through the same stages of development as non-native L2 readers.

But this is not the sole reason, there are many Dutch speaking children in Friesland with arrears as well. Research has indicated that the quality of education in the north of the Netherlands is of lower standard compared to the national averages. A recent report of the Inspection of Education (2009) concluded, on the basis of data from 2003-2007, that the quality of Frisian schools are more often insufficient than the quality Dutch of schools. Furthermore, they indicated that the quality control and the subject matters are insufficient.

Research into the actual school performances of Frisian children in primary education shows that the achievements of children from Friesland are lower than Dutch children of the same age (Van Langen & Hulsen, 2001). Their research indicated that in Group 6, Frisian children scored lower on reading comprehension and math, while in group 8 Frisians scored less on math, reading comprehension and general linguistics. Van Langen and Hulsen (2001), as well as Ruijven (2003), therefore, concluded that the arrears of Frisian children originate during primary education.

(14)

14 arrear of Frisian students from lower socio-economic families compared to the national

average amounts to a total of 6 months, while the arrear of children from middle and higher socio-economic families amounts approximately three weeks. Yet, a report of Vogels & Bronneman-Helmers (2003), suggests an even greater discrepancy, and indicates that

disadvantaged native ethnic minorities have a language deficit of one year compared to their non-disadvantaged Dutch peers. Also, analysis shows that the aspiration levels of Frisian parents appears to be lower than that of parents in the rest of the Netherlands, and, therefore, the expectations of their children‟s achievements are lower, and not excessively stimulated (De Boer, 2009).

3.4 Differences in reading comprehension between L1 and L2 readers

Learning to read properly is a difficult process. Native children go through various interactive and dynamic reading stages, and their language acquisition is stimulated by interaction with their parents, other environmental stimulations, and education. This process is, however, even more complicated by the presence of multiple languages. As mentioned before, to become an advanced reader, children must master three tasks: the rules of symbol-sound correspondence, use those rules in learning words and automate word-decoding, and they must acquire

processing skills to process material and extract meaning (McLaughlin, 1987).

However, when learning to read in a second language, children have often a limited proficiency. The dual challenge, therefore, is that they are trying to learn how to read in a language that they are still trying to acquire (Droop,1999). Word recognition by L2 readers can, thus, be expected to be slower and less accurate when compared to word recognition by L1 readers (Droop, 1999). Research in L1 reading has shown that there is a clear relation between the vocabulary of children in kindergarten and reading comprehension in primary education, although there are variations in vocabulary knowledge between native speakers and non-native speakers (Hiebert, 2009). This suggests that non-native children, who are not brought up with the Dutch language have an enormous disadvantage.

(15)

15 L2 or L3 students need special attention, because their linguistics abilities are less than those of native children. According to these reports, the most important reason for their difficulties in the area of reading comprehension is a consequence of a lack of (deep) word knowledge.

Research also indicates that word knowledge strongly coincides with language skills, for example a research by Kerkhoff (1988) showed a correlation between the performances on a lexical test and tests that measure general language competence. More recent research also indicates that reading comprehension of non-native children shows more evident correlation with vocabulary knowledge than reading comprehension of autochthonous children (Droop & Verhoeven, 1995; Droop & Verhoeven, 1998; Droop, 1999; Elsäcker, 2002; Elsäcker & Verhoeven, 2003). Furthermore, Vinjé (1991) indicates that especially Turkish and Moroccan children perform more badly than other minorities.

For bilingual speakers it is, therefore, of great importance to master enough vocabulary in order to understand what is being said or written and to express themselves correctly. The development of vocabulary coincides with the amount of exposure, and language spoken at home. According to a recent report of the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) in the Netherlands, the language spoken at home greatly influences school

(16)

16

Figure 1 Mean percentage of correctly answered language questions on the Cito test, organized according to language spoken at home.

(17)

17 4. Education in the Netherlands

There are approximately 7000 primary schools in the Netherlands (Basisonderwijs, 2011). Most children in the Netherlands attend primary education at the age of four. The law on compulsory school attendance requires that children as of the age of five are obliged to attend education, this applies to all children in the country (Basis Onderwijs, 2011). The type of primary school and the selection of the school is free of choice. Until the age of eleven or twelve, children need to attend primary education and then continue with secondary

education. At the end of primary education all students are obliged to take a placement test to determine their educational level. The length of secondary education depends on the

educational level of the child. In the Netherlands there are three different levels; VMBO (the lowest and 4 years of education), HAVO (five years of education) and VWO (the highest and six years of education). The educational level of individual students varies, but all students in the Netherlands have a compulsory school attendance until the age of 16.

The school career of all Dutch children is the same until the end of primary education, then they are divided into different educational levels. However, although the school career of all students is the same, there are different types of primary education. These will be

discussed in the next paragraphs, and in chapter 4.2 bilingual education will be explained.

4.1 Types of education

In the Netherlands there are various types of primary education. There is traditional education in which the teacher explains and the students listen, but there are also certain types of

education that are considered special, for children that have problems or are handicapped, and schools with a special educational view, like Montessori education, Jenaplan schools or Delta education. Some of the most common of these different types of schools will be discussed hereafter (Typen onderwijs, 2011).

(18)

18 2. Special education. These are schools for children with behavioral problems or who are

handicapped. These children are often unable to attend regular education, and, therefore, these children attend special schools that offer extra attention and care. 3. Montessori schools. These schools are based on the principle that children can develop

the best in settings with children of various ages. In this type of education the children indicate what they want to learn (Ibid.)

4. Jenaplan schools. These types of school do not have traditional classroom settings. The form groups with children varying in age, up to three years. Each of these groups have their own room for which they are responsible. There is little frontal educational and children learn to develop social-emotional and creative abilities (Ibid.).

5. Dalton education. This educational type also offers little frontal education. Children have a number of weekly assignment and as long as they finish these assignments at the end of the week , they can arrange these assignments as they like.

4.2 Bilingual education

Bilingual education can be defined as education in two languages. Generally, one of those language is the mother language, while the other can be an international foreign language, like English or French, or a minority language existing in the country, like for example Basque or Frisian.

In bilingual education the focus is on content and language integrated learning (CLIL). This means that a part of the classes is not taught in the mother tongue, and that the content of these specific classes and the language knowledge are integrated in a long-term curriculum (Tweetalig onderwijs, 2011).

However, although some researchers indicate that bilingual education is a

(19)

19 Collier (1997) showed that the most powerful indication for academic success was schooling for at least 4 to 7 years in a native language.

4.2.1 Bilingual education in the Netherlands.

Bilingual education in the Netherlands exists since 1989. At bilingual schools a part of the non-language courses is taught in a different language than the mother language. This language is used as both the instructive as well as the communicative language during these specific courses. Examples of courses in which bilingual education usually takes place are history, biology and math. The two most important goals that bilingual education tries to achieve is the enhancement of language command of a language and it strives to give students a more international orientation (Tweetalig onderwijs - Content and Language Integrated Learning).

According to the European platform, bilingual education is still principally taught at VWO levels. Approximately 115 VWO schools teach bilingual education in the Netherlands, as opposed to 25 HAVO schools. The majority of the schools teach English as a second language (Tweetalig onderwijs - Content and Language Integrated Learning).

4.2.2 Bilingual education in Friesland

Bilingual language education has the longest tradition in primary education. From 1980 onwards all primary schools in Friesland became legally obliged to teach Frisian, and only a few school were being exempted. (Gorter, 1997). According to an article by Gorter in 1997, the majority of the primary schools on average spends one lesson per week on Frisian, and 22% of the schools does not use Frisian instructions at all. Only 13% of all schools use Frisian for over half of the time. Some of these schools have so called „Frisian days,‟ a day or part of the day where they try to use Frisian as consistently as possible.

(20)

20 5. Research question

As indicated in the previous chapters, the process of developing readings skills is a complex and difficult process. Various interconnected abilities play a central role in detracting the right information from the presented text. Especially vocabulary and fluency play an important role in the ability of a student to interpret a text in the correct way. Research has indicated that L2 learners, non-native as well as native, have difficulties with comprehensive reading, as a consequence of their language deficit, when compared to their Dutch contemporaries. It is, therefore, important that educators diagnose the problems these children experience as early as possible, in order to give them the assistance they need.

A good way of monitoring and assessing reading proficiency is by using computerized language and reading tests. A computerized reading test can give teachers valuable insights in the reading proficiency of a particular student, often right after the test was taken. However, developing a valid reading test, which properly measures the reading abilities of children, is a long and complex process.

For this research I developed a reading test as well. Using the Diataal format and standards, I developed a pre-test for grade 6. The process of developing such a test will be described in the next chapter. After completing the development of this pre-test, I

implemented it on various primary schools in the Netherlands in Amsterdam and Friesland, together with a short questionnaire on languages used at home, with friends and families, and some contextual questions.

Based on the literature, it would be expected that both Frisian and foreign L2 readers show a high level of micro errors, because of a lack of lexical knowledge. Due to the same reason, it is also expected that the scores of both groups on the comprehension test are not very high and rather similar. Although, the Frisian children will probably score a little bit higher due to the fact that the Frisian language is closer to Dutch than for example Moroccan or Turkish, which are two of the most commonly used language by the children in

Amsterdam.

(21)

21 1. L2 foreign minority children do not perform well on the Dutch reading comprehension

test.

2. Children in Friesland do not perform well on the Dutch reading comprehension test. 3. L2 Children in Friesland on average score higher than foreign L2 children.

4. Foreign second language reader make the most errors on the micro-level, while children in Friesland score lower on macro- and meso-levels.

(22)

22 6. Methodology

The research question in this thesis is to detect whether there are similarities between L2 foreign minority readers and native L2 readers regarding test scores and types of errors that are made. In order to do this I designed a digital reading comprehension test for group 6 of Dutch primary education based on the existing Diataal method. Various schools in the Amsterdam region and in Friesland were asked to participate in this research. This chapter will provide information on the participants, the test that was used, the administered questionnaire, and how the data was analyzed. The results of the test scores of the children were analyzed by using SPSS, and will be described in the result section.

5.1 Participants

This study wants to examine the similarities in reading comprehension between two ethnic minority groups, foreign and autochthonous L2 communities. The test that was developed focuses on group 6, and in order to make a proper comparison, three primary schools in Amsterdam were contacted and two school in Friesland, one of which has two group 6 classes.

The total numbers of participants for each region were: 47 Frisian students and 48 children from Amsterdam. From the 48 children that participated in Amsterdam, 40 could be considered as L2 readers. The participants from the schools in Amsterdam were all attending a regular Dutch primary school, while the students in Friesland were of two different primary schools; 32 students attend a regular Frisian primary school and 15 students attend a small bilingual Frisian school. From all these students, 52 were female, and 43 were male.

The students in the schools in Amsterdam varied in cultural background and native language, in which the most common L2 language used was Moroccan. In general the children in Friesland had a Frisian or Dutch background.

The students were all 10 or 11 years of age, and all examinees took the same test. The assigned reading comprehension test consisted out of 4 versions and the versions of the test were assigned randomly by the computer system.

(23)

23

5.1.1 Schools

All children attended traditional primary education; public or with a religious focus. From all participants, one class of 15 students received bilingual Frisian education. This education was restricted to one day a week, in which the students were obliged to speak the Frisian language instead of Dutch.

5.1.2 Task

The students in the research, were asked to participate in a reading comprehension test. For all students a personal account was created so that each participant received a personalized test. The test that a student had to take was one of the four designed test versions. These versions were randomly assigned. Each test consisted out of 5 text with 10 multiple choice items. These 10 items varied in level of comprehensions, for example there were micro, macro and meso questions. The time for the test is approximately 50 minutes.

Additionally the students were asked to fill in a with 7 questions about their language use.

5.2 Materials

5.2.1 Reading test

The first step in this research in order to be able to conduct the experiment and collect the data was to develop a reading test. This reading test was based on the existing test method Diataal, and was shaped according to its standards and the specification written by de Bot in 2008. Various steps were taken in order to design a proper comprehension test.

(24)

24 was selected from the Diataal database, which was the text “Ongelukken.” This text is part of the accredited version of Diataal and, therefore, it is certain that this text will provide

meaningful reading comprehension scores.

Finally, the texts of the corpus were divided amongst the 4 test versions.

After the finalization of the test development, the test was uploaded into the Diataal system and made available for the schools and its participants through the internet.

Text selection

The text corpus for this particular test consisted, initially, of 40 texts. These texts were

selected from existing teaching methods, amongst others: Wijzer door de Wereld, Wijzer door de Tijd, Leefwereld, Tijdstip and Brandaan, and youth magazines, like Quest and KidsWeek. The text selection was made based on the specifications of Diataal, and hereafter reduced to a final selection of 10 texts, all of various subjects and topics. The final selection was made with the help of the program TEXTSCREEN. The 10 selected texts (all can be found in the appendix) to appear in the pre-test are:

(25)

25

Text analysis

The texts were then analyzed on their degree of difficulty using the program TEXTSCREEN. TEXTSCREEN analyses a text on the number of unique words, the average word length, the average sentence length, and the amount of coverage of basic vocabulary. According to this program, the difficulty of the texts on the various levels is as follows:

Text number Av. Word length Av. Sentence length Amount coverage basic vocabulary 1. Het Klimaat 4,4 10,2 89,2 2. Onderaardse bewoner 4,4 8,7 84,6 3. Spuug 4,3 10,1 81,2 4. Egypte 4,3 9,9 87,6 5. Duinen en Dijken 4,7 10,3 83,8 6. Op de markt 4,6 8,9 88,7 7. De watersnoodramp 4,7 10,3 84,9 8. Ziek en gezond 4,5 8,4 84,6 9. Textiel in Twente 4,7 8,2 79,1 10. Van Pacht tot Macht 4,7 7,6 85,5

Afterwards, these levels were compared to the levels of degrees of text difficulty as proposed by Hacquebord and Scholman (2006). The determined degrees of these researchers can be found in table 2.

Table 2 An overview of degrees of text difficulty according to average word and sentence length by Hacquebord, H.I. & M. Scholman ( 2006).

Text level Av. word length Av. sentence length Amount coverage basic vocabulary Source of level 1 2 3 4 5 < 4,7 4,7; 4,8 4,9; 5,0 5,1; 5,2 5,2 > < 10,0 10,0 – 11,5 11,6 – 13,0 13,1 – 14,5 14,6 > > 88,5 86,0 – 88,5 83,5 – 85,9 81,0 – 83,4 81,0 < Group 7 Group 8

(26)

26 The bold numbers in table 3 indicate the levels that correspond to levels of group 7 or higher. When considering the degrees of average word and sentence length, it appears that most of the selected texts are not too difficult for children in group 6 of Dutch primary education. Most texts have an adequate score with levels below the set degrees of 4,7 and 10,0. However, when considering the amount of basic vocabulary that is covered in the text, it appears to be that the level of all texts is too difficult. Only, two texts correspond to level of group 7, and possibly group 6. While the scores of the other eight texts indicate levels matching with levels of group 8 or even secondary education.

Table 3 Results of the analysis

Text number Av. Word length Av. Sentence length Amount coverage basic vocabulary 1. Het Klimaat 4,4 10,2 89,2 2. Onderaardse bewoner 4,4 8,7 84,6 3. Spuug 4,3 10,1 81,2 4. Egypte 4,3 9,9 87,6 5. Duinen en Dijken 4,7 10,3 83,8 6. Op de markt 4,6 8,9 88,7 7. De watersnoodramp 4,7 10,3 84,9 8. Ziek en gezond 4,5 8,4 84,6 9. Textiel in Twente 4,7 8,2 79,1 10. Van Pacht tot Macht 4,7 7,6 85,5

(27)

27

Table 4 Well known words that are uncommon according to TEXTSCREEN.

Text Words

1. Het Klimaat Tawasi/Samuli (names) Rusland, graden,

koud,nul

2. Onderaardse bewoner Mol, tunnel, graaft, stevig, kevers

3. Spuug Spuug, tong, spuugde, soep, druppel, longen,

hoesten, kauwen

4. Egypte Masker, spullen, slang

5. Duinen en Dijken duinen, dijk, stevig, ramp, stormde,

wegwaaien

6. Op de Markt Spullen, sieraden, graan, parfum, volken

7. De Watersnoodramp eb, vloed, storm, dam, ramp, spullen dokter

8. Ziek en Gezond Hans, bacterie, virus, koorts, griep,

hoofdpijn, dokter

9. Textiel in Twente Boerderij, India, één, Twente, breien, spullen 10. Van Pacht tot Macht Boerderij, kastelen, veel, houten, boerderijen

5.2.2 Computers

Because Diataal for group 6, similar to the original test concept, is a digital test, we were dependent on the number of available computers in the participating school. Preferably, the test was taken by all participants on the same day. This day could be assigned by the school administrators themselves within a previously selected time frame. If there were not enough computers available, the students were divided over two separate days.

5.2.3 Questionnaire

In this research were are interested whether or not similarities in test scores and reading profiles can be detected between Frisians and foreign ethnic minorities, and if these can be related to their language use.

To get a general impression about the language use of all participants, a questionnaire was designed to map this. These questions were related to the language they spoke with their father, mother, friends and family, and addressed some specific situations and the question which language they would use in that specific context.

(28)

28

5.4 Procedure

After the finalization of the text selection, the texts were divided into 4 test versions. Each text version consisted out of one anchor texts from the Diataal database and four texts from the previously mentioned text corpus. Some texts will appear twice when all versions are combined, and others only one time, this selection was purely random. One version of the actual comprehension test and its items can be found in appendix 4.

Hereafter, the test adapted to the Diataal format and put into an excel file, from which it was uploaded into the Diataal online database. By then, all the participating school had send a list with all the names and information of the participating students, and these were inserted in the teacher account, that was available for this purpose. When all information was stored, the individual account name and password for each individual student became available and in this way they were able to enter their personal test. The account names and the passwords for the children were sent to the schools, and, hereafter, the students were able to access their personalized test.

Also, the schools were asked to give their students a paper questionnaire, which was sent back for analysis. The information of the questionnaire was inserted in an excel file, together with the students first and last name and their test scores, in order to make the available information more accessible and get a clear overview.

Depending on the available computers in the school and the number of students, the test was taken by each student of a particular school on the same day. Immediately after a student took the test, the results were stored in the Diataal system, and ready to be analyzed.

(29)

29

5.5 Design and Analysis

In this chapter, the design and analysis of the study will be discussed. The results on the language test were analyzed based on the scores of all individual participants and the

questionnaire was analyzed on the degree of bilingualism. What follows is a description of the design and analysis of the reading comprehension test and subsequently the process is

described for the questionnaire.

Comprehension

Before the actual analysis of the student‟s test scores could be carried out, the test was

analyzed on its internal consistency to see whether or not the test version could be considered as a good measurement tool. In order to do this the scores of all students per version, from Amsterdam as well as Friesland, were inserted in SPSS 16.0 and a reliability analysis was run. The number of participants in each version as well as the Cronbach‟s alpha, the reliability coefficient that measures the internal consistency or reliability, of each version is shown in table 5.

Table 5 Number of participants and Cronbach’s Alpha

Version Number of participants Cronbach’s alpha

Version 1 25 0.852

Version 2 24 0.830

Version 3 25 0.799

Version 4 21 0.869

Total number of participants 95

After the reliability analysis of the test itself, the test scores of the students was

analyzed. The participants in the comprehension test all made a version of the comprehension test that consisted out of 5 texts with 10 multiple choice questions each. This means that the total score on the test could be 50.

(30)

30 Hereafter, the scores for the different regions were calculated, as well as, the different scores for the regular Frisian speakers (native L2 readers), the non-native L2 readers and regular students in Friesland.

Errors

The test contains items on three different levels; the micro, macro and meso-level. The micro items are focused vocabulary, the macro items are focused on the general information of the text; the message of the text etc., and the meso items are focused on making relations between sentences and paragraphs.

The total number of possible errors was calculated for the different levels for both groups, as well as the total errors made and the errors made on the three different levels. Additionally, the percentage of errors was calculated for the micro-, macro- and meso-levels.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was analyzed on the degree of bilingualism of the students. The answers per question are shown in the following pie charts. This is done for both the Frisian students and the children from Amsterdam. In order to use SPSS for making the graphs the languages were transferred to numeric values; Dutch is 1 (blue), Frisian is 2 (green), Moroccan is 3 (red), other languages is 4 (beige), use of both Dutch as well as other languages is 5 (purple), and unknown is 6 (yellow).

In order to give a comparative overview, the question responses are ordered according to the question sequence in the questionnaire, in which the left pie chart represents the

answers of the children from Friesland and the right chart are the answers of the children from Amsterdam.

(31)

31

Figure 2 Response language with father Response language with father Frisian children Amsterdam children

Figure 3 Response language with mother Response language with mother Frisian children Amsterdam children

(32)

32

Figure 5 Response language with family Response language with family Frisian children Amsterdam children

Figure 6 Response language in which you count Response language in which you count Frisian children Amsterdam children

(33)

33

(34)

34 7. Results

After the students completed the test and the questionnaires, the results were analyzed with SPSS 16. In this section, the scores on the reading comprehension will be discussed as well as the types and numbers of errors made by the different groups in this study.

Test scores

When all test scores were gathered, the mean score for all students was calculated in order to be able to form a kind of score model to set the standards of the average score to which students should live up to. The mean score of all students is 34.76, which indicates that all scores below this mean can be considered to be low or bad scores.

After completing the test, the 48 students of the Amsterdam region scored a minimum of 19 points and a maximum of 48 points. The mean score of this group was 32.98 and the standard deviation (SD) is 6.85. The scores are plotted in figure 9.

Figure 9 Total scores of all the students from Amsterdam

(35)

35 be L2 readers. In total, 40 children indicated that they used their native language regularly in their home environment. The statistics for this group are as follows; the minimum score is 21 and the maximum score is 48, the mean score is 32.90 and the SD is 6.70. This can be seen in figure 10.

Figure 10 Total score of L2 readers in Amsterdam

From Friesland 47 students participated and they scored a minimum of 15 points and a maximum of 49 points out of 50. The mean score of this group of students is 36.5 and the SD is 7.26. This is shown in figure 11. The difference with the scores of the children from

Amsterdam is significant at .015 (p=0.05).

(36)

36 The group op Frisian students was also divided into L1 and L2 readers, and the results of both groups can be found in the tables below. From the 47 students, 32 students indicated that they generally speak Dutch at home, and 15 children indicated that they often speak Frisian at home and/or with friends and family.

The 15 children that are considered L2 readers performed as follows: the minimum score was 30 points and the maximum number of points was 45. Their mean score was 39.93 and the SD was 4.49 and the scores are to be found in figure 13.

The difference in mean scores between the native L2 Frisian speakers and non-native L2 readers from Amsterdam is 7.03 and is significant at .000 (p=0.05).

Figure 13 Scores of the L2 readers from Friesland.

Errors and error types

In the analysis I also took a closer look on the mistakes made by the children in the different areas. For both regions the total number of possible errors were counted, as well as the possible number of errors on each of the three levels; the micro, macro and meso-level. There is a slight difference in number of errors (50 errors), because there was one more participant in the Amsterdam region. Also, there is a difference in the number of possible errors between the two regions on the three individual levels, due to the fact that there was a difference in the distribution of participants over the four test versions.

(37)

37 the percentages of errors made are given for both regions. The exact values for all students from Amsterdam can be found in table 6, whilst the errors for the students from Friesland are presented in table 7.

Table 6 Errors made by all children from Amsterdam

Number of errors

Micro level Macro level Meso level

Total number of possible errors 2400 960 643 797 Total number of made errors 814 302 230 282 Percentages of made errors 100% 37.1% 28.3% 34.6%

Table 7 Errors made by all children from Friesland

Total number of possible errors 2350 940 633 799 Total number of made errors 628 231 198 199 Percentages of made errors 100% 36.8% 31.5% 31.7%

(38)

38

Table 8 Errors made by L2 readers from Amsterdam

Total number of made errors 685 253 194 238 Percentages of made errors 100% 36.9% 28.3% 34.8%

Table 9 Errors by L2 students from Friesland.

Total number of made errors 153 59 44 50 Percentages of made errors 100% 38.6% 28.7% 32.7%

(39)

39 8. Discussion

In order to be able to answer my thesis, whether or not there are similarities between the test scores and errors of children in Friesland and Amsterdam, I sought an answer on four sub-questions. This chapter will be used to find an answer on these following four questions;

1. L2 foreign minority children do not perform well on the Dutch reading comprehension test.

2. Children in Friesland do not perform well on the Dutch reading comprehension test. 3. L2 Children in Friesland on average score higher than foreign L2 children.

4. Foreign second language reader make the most errors on the micro-level, while children in Friesland score lower on macro- and meso-levels.

The analysis of the test scores shows that the students from Amsterdam scored between 19 and 48 points, which is a very high range of distribution. Additionally, 50% of all the children scored less than 32.98 points out of a possible 50, which seems rather low considering the fact that all students together, both Frisian and children from Amsterdam, scored a mean of 34.76; almost 2 points higher. When the group of L2 readers is singled out from these scores, one can see that the mean score of this group is 32.90, which is even, although slightly, lower than all students from Amsterdam in total.

Furthermore, when focusing on the exact number of errors of the students from Amsterdam, one can see that they answered 814 out of the 2400 questions wrong, which is 33,9%. Interestingly enough, the biggest portion of these 814 errors is made on the micro level (37,1%) and followed by errors on the meso-level (34,6%). From these 814 errors, 685 were made by the L2 readers. From these errors 253 (36,9%) were made on the micro-level, while 194 (28,3%) were made on the macro-level and 238 (34,8%) errors were counted on the meso-level.

These outcomes confirm the assumption, based on previous literature, that non-native L2 readers do not perform well on a Dutch reading comprehension test and that they make the most errors in the area of the lexicon. As earlier research of Hiebert (2009), for example, already indicated is that there is a clear relation between vocabulary and reading

(40)

40 Verhoeven, 1995; Droop & Verhoeven, 1998; Droop, 1999; Elsäcker, 2002; Elsäcker & Verhoeven, 2003). These test outcomes, as expected, also suggest that foreign L2 readers indeed have difficulty with questions on the lexical level and problems with making links on the sentence and paragraph levels. They made the least errors on the macro levels, which indicates that on the whole, they do seem to grasp the intention of the text and the general messages of it.

Since the micro-, macro- and meso-levels are relative measurements, I also took a look at the reader profiles which could be assigned to individuals within the L2 reader group. Depending on the individual scores, out of the 40 students I could assign 14 reader profiles to children, and 4 children had serious reading troubles. Ten of these students could be defined as „problem readers,‟ 3 can be called „scholastic readers,‟ while 1 student seems to be a „compensating reader.‟ Besides these reader profiles, 4 students could be singled out as having problem with questions on either the micro- and macro-level or the micro- and meso-level. This, also, confirms the assumption of problems on the micro level and is in line with previous research of Verhallen (2005) and Vernooy (2007) that one of the main reasons for difficulties with text comprehension lies in the lexical area, and a recent CBS report (2010) that language spoken at home does influence school achievements.

Schools should, therefore, be aware of the lexical abilities of their students, and in order to do this consequent measurements of the lexicon are desirable. Consequently, schools should pay more attention to methods or exercises that can help to increase the lexicon. This will greatly benefit the child in their reading abilities as well as their future school career.

Compared to the performance of the native L2 readers from Friesland, the non-native L2 readers from Amsterdam did indeed perform lower on the Dutch reading comprehension test, and a significant difference (.000 when p=0.05) was determined. The mean score of the native L2 readers was 39.93, which is 7.03 points higher than the mean score of the non-native L2 readers.

(41)

41 The scores of the native L2 readers, however, contradicts the previous statement, that Frisian student also would not perform well on the reading comprehension test. The outcome contradicts previous research and some interesting effects can be witnessed. Research of De Boer (2009) and Van Langen & Hulsen (2001) has indicated that school performances of children in Friesland fall behind national averages, and that the achievements of Frisian children are lower than Dutch children of the same age. When comparing this research with the test scores of the reading comprehension test three interesting observations can be made.

The first observation that can be made from the result analysis is that the scores of the native L2 readers that spoke Frisian on a regular basis indicate that the native L2 readers actually outperform all participating groups of students, both non-native L2 readers, as well as students that attended regular primary education in Friesland. The mean score of the native L2 readers was much higher, 39.39 versus 35 (regular Frisian school children) and 32.90 (non-native L2 readers). Also, the scores of the (non-native L2 readers are far more homogenously (SD is 4.49) than the scores of the non-native L2 readers and the regular Frisian students. The dispersion between the scores of the foreign L2 readers is 6.70 whilst the dispersion of the regular Frisian children is 7.81.

Since this outcome contradicts previous research (Van Langen & Hulsen, 2001; De Boer, 2009), it appears that for L2 readers, in this case native L2 readers who attend bilingual education, the opportunity to make a gradual transition from their native language to the Dutch language and giving them the chance to continue speaking their L1 at a national school, does enhance the performances on reading comprehension. The Frisian bilingual school, offers bilingual education in the first two grades (grade 1 and 2) depending on the teacher that is assigned to the class, whilst they continue with bilingual education in the other grades one day a week. The children in this school are obliged to speak Dutch certain days of the week, and Frisian on the other day and depending on which day it is they may not use either Dutch or Frisian. This method seems to work extremely well for the performances of the children.

(42)

42 ondernemers and Kidsweek, and there are various texts with multiple choice items available for the students in order to get used to the CITO test, which is the most used official test in the Netherlands that determines, amongst others, the level of reading comprehension.

The question remains then, whether or not the performances of the native L2 readers are higher because of bilingual education, attention on enhancing reading skills and reading performances or a combination of both factors. This active procedure in combination with bilingual education seems to bear fruit and actually increases the comprehension levels of the students. Since, it might not be (financially) possible to offer bilingual education on schools with many native or non-native L2 readers in Friesland as well as Amsterdam, I suggest that schools should pay much more attention to the reading skills of their students. This attention and focus should start as early as possible, and not just in grade 7 or 8, because then it is too late to make significant changes. Therefore, it would be better to start testing and assisting the children from grade 4 or 5 onwards, because then the child has more time to develop and enhance lexical and reading skills, which might lead to less children who leave primary education with a reading deficit.

The second interesting observation is made based on the reader profiles that can be assigned to individual students based on their test scores. In the non-native L2 group, at least 14 students could be determined as weak readers and a reader profile could be assigned. Ten students were determined as problem readers, while 3 other were labeled as scholastic readers, and one students could be called a compensating reader. This indicated that at least 14

children of the 40 have weak overall scores and major troubles with micro-questions, thus, vocabulary knowledge, whereas amongst the native L2 readers there is only 1 student who performed under the mean score of the group and the main average. This student could be called a scholastic reader with a average total score, and no real problem readers could be distinguished amongst these children.

(43)

43 education in order to make sure that the gap between these students and their Dutch peers is as small as possible or is even disappeared at the end of primary education.

The most interesting fact, however, is the analysis of the types of errors made by the native L2 students. Since these students performed above expectation, this group received special attention in the error analysis. Although they outperformed the other groups on the test scores and, thus, made less errors, the analysis shows that they also made the most errors on the micro- and meso-level. This outcome contradicts previous assumptions that Frisian student would make most errors on the macro- and meso-level, since the Frisian language is close to Dutch and that Frisian children are more exposed to Dutch. This opposite outcome is an interesting fact, since this school is actively engaged in stimulating and enhancing

children‟s lexical abilities, and the statistics of this particular school shows that their students already perform above the national average in the area of lexical knowledge.

A possible explanation could be that because of the small sample size, only 15 students, these numbers will change if a large sample of students in bilingual education was tested. Another reason could be that in the final test design more micro questions were included than macro or meso questions or that some questions were labeled as micro

(44)

44 9. Conclusion

Based on the data in this research I can conclude that there are few similarities between the performances on a Dutch reading comprehension test and the number and types of errors made between foreign and native L2 readers. Both groups cannot be considered the same, they differ in performance, number of errors, and reader profiles.

The non-native L2 readers, on the one hand, scored lower on the Dutch reading comprehension test than their L2 Frisian peers, which was as expected. However, the difference between both groups was greater and more significant than anticipated. Also, according to assumptions made based on previous research, the non-native L2 readers made more errors and most errors were made on the micro level. Additionally, in the non-native L2 reader group 14 students could be called a “weak reader,” while 10 of these students were students with serious reading problems.

The native L2 readers that attended bilingual education, on the other hand, performed not at all according to the assumptions and they are, thus, to be considered as a separate group. The opportunity to receive bilingual education, as well as the amount of attention in this school on enhancing reading comprehension levels and lexical development, seems to pay off. The children from this school performed significantly higher than the foreign L2 readers. All native L2 students from the bilingual school, except for 1, scored above the overall mean of 34. This single student, however, scored only just below the overall mean, so no real weak readers could be determined within this group.

However, although the native L2 readers did indeed make less errors and showed better test performances, the types of errors are rather similar to the non-native readers. The native L2 readers also make most errors on the micro- and meso- levels, which is an

interesting phenomenon that calls for further research. Although, this result could be achieved due to the small sample size of the native L2 readers and change when researching a bigger sample, this finding might, on the other hand, also suggest that bilingual students never fully seem to master both (or multiple) languages or that some words, sentences, or sayings in the language that is to be acquired are hard to grasp for bilingual learners.

(45)

(46)

46 Bibliography

Aarnoutse, C. & Schellings, G. (2003). Een onderzoek naar de stimulering van leesstrategieën en leesmotivatie in probleemgestuurde leeromgevingen, Pedagogische Studieën, 80, 110-126.

Ahlers, L., & Van de Mortel, K. (2009). Begrijpend lezen: een doorgaande lijn van groep 1 tot en met groep 8. Amersfoort: Drukkerij Wilco.

Aithinson, J. (1987). Words in the mind. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Allington, R.L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (2009). Comprehension Difficulties among Struggling Readers. In S.A. Israel & G.D. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension (pp.551-568). New York: Routledge.

Appel, R. & A. Vermeer. (1993). Uitbreiding van lexicale taalvaardigheid in een tweede taal. In Blankenstijn, C. & A. Scheper (Eds.), Taalvaardigheid . Dordrecht: ICG

Publications.

Appel, R., & Vermeer, A. (1997). Woordenschat en taalonderwijs aan allochtone leerlingen. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Baker, L., & Carter Beall, L. (2009). Metacognitive Processes and Reading Comprehension. In S.A. Israel & G.D. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Reading

Comprehension (pp.373-388). New York: Routledge.

Basis Onderwijs. (n.d.). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ onderwerpen/basisonderwijs?ns_campaign=Thema-Onderwijs_en_wetenschap &ro_adgrp=Basisonderwijs&ns_mchannel=sea&ns_source=google&ns_linkname=%2 Bbasisonderwijs&ns_fee=0.00

Basisonderwijs. (n.d.). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from http://www.werksite.nl/basisonderwijs Boer, H. de. (2009). Schoolsucces van Friese leerlingen in het voortgezet onderwijs.

Groningen: Universal Press.

Bogaert, N., Devlieghere, J., Hacquebord, H., Rijkers, J., Timmermans, S. & Verhallen, M. (2008). Aan het Werk! Adviezen ter verbetering van functionele leesvaardigheid in het onderwijs. Nederlandse Taalunie.

Bonset, H. & M. Hoogeveen (2009). Lezen in het basisonderwijs: Een inventarisatie van empirisch onderzoek naar begrijpend lezen, leesbevordering en fictie. Enschede: Netzodruk.

(47)

47 Brand Gruwel, S. (1995). Onderwijs in tekstbegrip: een onderzoek naar het effect van

strategisch lees- en luisteronderwijs bij zwakke lezers. Ubbergen: Tandem Felix. CBS. (2010) Jaarboek onderwijs in cijfers. Den Haag: Centraal Bureau voor de statistiek. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York: Graw-Hill.

CITO. (2008). Begrijpend lezen groep 6: handleiding. Arnhem: CITO. Diataal. (2010). Handleiding Diataal PO.

Droop, M. & L. Verhoeven. (1995). Begrijpend lezen in het Nederlands als eerste en tweede taal. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 17, 220-234.

Droop, M. & L. Verhoeven. (1998) Background knowledge, linguistic complexity, and second-language reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 253-271. Droop, M. (1999). Effects of linguistic and cultural diversity on the development of reading

comprehension. A comparative study of Dutch, Turkish and Moroccan children living in the Netherlands. Zeist: A-D Druk BV.

Ehri, L.C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 116-125.

Ehri, L.C., & Wilce, L.S. (1980). The influence of orthography on reader‟s conceptualization of the phonemic structure of words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 371-385.

Elsäcker, W. van. (2002) Development of Reading Comprehension: The Engagement Perspective. A study of reading comprehension, vocabulary, strategy use, reading motivation, and leisure time reading of third- and fourth-grade students from diverse backgrounds in the Netherlands. Nijmegen: Expertisecentrum Nederlands.

Elsäcker, W. van & L. Verhoeven. (2003). Leesvaardigheid, strategiegebruik en leesmotivatie van één- en meertalige leerlingen in groep 5 en 6. Pedagogische Studiën, 80, 127-146. Förrer, M., & Van de Mortel, K. (2010). Lezen…denken…begrijpen! Handboek begrijpend

lezen in het basisonderwijs. Amersfoort: CPS.

Rebecca Freeman. (2006). Reviewing the Research on Language Education Programs. In O. García & C.Baker (Eds.). Bilingual Education: An Introductory Reader (pp. 3-18). Toronto: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K.E. Patterson, J. C. Marshall, & M. Coultheart (Eds.), Surface Dyslexia. London: Lawrence, Erlbaum. Gorter, D. (1997). Bilingual Education in Friesland. In J. Cummings & D. Corson (Eds.)

Reading Comprehension in Primary Education: A Comparison Between Native and Non-Native Second Language Readers