Assessing the dimensionality of Chinese as a second language reading: a confirmatory factor analysis approach
-
Jia Lin
Jia Lin is currently an Assistant Professor at the School of Education in Howard University. She received her EdD from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research primarily centers around language testing, educational measurement, and world language education.
Abstract
Second language (L2) reading is a complex construct, and there is no consensus about its dimensionality. The investigation of the dimensionality of L2 reading ability is of great significance since it can provide important implications for teaching and testing. Understanding of the factor structure, subskills, and sub-knowledge of L2 reading is the starting point for language teachers and test developers to plan a syllabus, describe students’ reading proficiency, and develop reading assessments. This study investigated the factor structure of Chinese L2 reading, which has been less commonly studied compared to alphabetic languages. Three hypotheses derived from the literature review have been tested: 1) L2 reading is a unitary skill; 2) L2 reading is bi-divisible; 3) L2 reading is tri-divisible. A series of confirmatory factor analyses shows that the correlated three-factor model is the most appropriate for explaining the factor structure. L2 Chinese reading comprehension can be conceptualized as consisting of three inter-correlated components: lower-level decoding, interim-level textbase construction, and higher-level situation-model building. This study also explores subcomponents of each factor, highlighting Chinese-specific linguistic features and corresponding cognitive processes. Implications for future research, teaching, and testing are provided.
摘要
第二语言 (二语) 阅读是一个复杂的构念, 学界对其因子结构尚未达成共识。二语阅读能力因子结构的研究对教学和测试都具有重要的意义。了解二语阅读的因子结构、子技能和子知识是语言教师和语言测试开发者规划教学大纲、描述学生的阅读能力和开发阅读测试的起点。与拼音文字相比, 中文二语阅读的研究较少。本文作者基于中文二语数据, 检验了文献所支持的三个假设: 1) 二语阅读是一种单一技能; 2) 二语阅读包括两个维度的知识和技能; 3) 二语阅读是由三个维度的知识和技能所组成。一系列的验证性因子分析结果表明, 相关三因子模型最能够合理解释中文二语阅读能力的因子结构。中文二语汉语阅读能力由相互关联的三个维度组成: 低层次的解码、中层次的文本构建和高层次的情景模型构建。本研究还探讨了每个维度的子成分, 强调了中文特有的语言特征和相对应的认知过程, 希望对未来研究、教学和测试有所启发。
About the author
Jia Lin is currently an Assistant Professor at the School of Education in Howard University. She received her EdD from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research primarily centers around language testing, educational measurement, and world language education.
-
Research funding: This work was financially supported by Educational Testing Service (ETS) and Carolina Asian Center.
CSL Reading Proficiency Questionnaire.
Please indicate instructional level you are going to evaluate: _________
1st/2nd/3rd/4th-year Chinese classes
Please indicate the average reading proficiency of this instructional level according to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL 2012): _________
Novice Low, Novice Mid, Novice High, Intermediate Low, Intermediate Mid, Intermediate High, Advanced Low, Advanced Mid, Superior, and Distinguish.
Using the following scale, please evaluate the average reading proficiency of students at this instructional level, at the end of the academic year. The average reading proficiency is defined as the reading proficiency of hypothetical average-achieving, non-heritage, and English-speaking learners at this instructional level.
| Rating category | Definition |
|---|---|
| 0 | This describes a level, which is definitely beyond average learners’ capabilities. Can not be expected to perform like this. |
| 1 | Could minimally perform like this in favorable circumstances. This describes a performance that is slightly beyond average learners’ skill level. (Favorable circumstance refers to the situation in which the learners get help or hints, have time to prepare or think over; the topics are familiar; surroundings favor the performance.) |
| 2 | Could be expected to perform like this without support in normal circumstances. The average learners’ ability is on this level. |
| 3 | Could be expected to perform like this even in unfavorable circumstances with efforts. This describes a performance that is slightly below average learners’ skill level. (Unfavorable circumstance refers to the situation in which the learners do not get help or hints, have no time to prepare or think over; the topics are unfamiliar; surroundings do not favor the performance.) |
| 4 | Could be expected to perform like this with ease in all circumstances. This describes a performance that is obviously below average learners’ skill level. |
Item 1: Can use knowledge of radicals (i.e., the indexing components of characters) to help decode characters.
Item 2: Can recognize different forms of a particular radical, which have learned, in characters (e.g., 忄 and 心). [not included in data analysis].
Item 3: Can distinguish graphically similar characters, that have learned.
Item 4: Can derive meaning of sentences with coverbial phrases.
Item 5: Can derive meaning of sentences with verb complements.
Item 6: When reading text on their level, can group adjacent characters into words successfully.
Item 7: Can analyze the intra-word structure.
Item 8: Can use knowledge on word formation to help decode unknown words.
Item 9: When reading text on their level, can contextually process polysemes (words with multiple meanings).
Item 10: Can understand limited types of sentence structures, including Subject-Predicate constructions, simple SVO constructions, all in affirmative, negative, and simple question form.
Item 11: Can control certain structural sets, which have a limited number of items, including interrogatives (shuí, shén me), specifiers (zhè, nà), and very common noun measures (kuài, běn) etc.
Item 12: Can understand simple Noun + Noun modification with de and Stative Verb + Noun modification with de.
Item 13: Can comprehend preliminarily high-frequency connectors forming complex sentences (e.g., de shí hou, suī rán… kě shì).
Item 14: Can derive meaning of sentences with the aspect markers (such as le), although still makes errors.
Item 15: Can understand roughly the relationship of multiple modifiers to element being modified, but may have some confusion.
Item 16: Can comprehend sentences with following basic patterns: Relative clause modification.
Item 17: Can comprehend sentences with following basic patterns: ba-disposal.
Item 18: Can comprehend sentences with following basic patterns: bei-passive.
Item 19: Can comprehend sentences with following basic patterns: Indefinite usages of question words.
Item 20: Can comprehend sentences with following basic patterns: Exclusive usages of question words.
Item 21: Can comprehend sentences with following basic patterns: Various aspect markers.
Item 22: Can comprehend sentences with following basic patterns: Resultative compounds.
Item 23: Can comprehend sentences with following basic patterns: Directional compounds.
Item 24: Can be aware of the appropriate position of adverbial phrases in Chinese sentences.
Item 25: Can comprehend sentences with following unique Chinese syntactic features: Nominal sentences (i.e., sentences contain no verbs).
Item 26: Can comprehend sentences with following unique Chinese syntactic features: “Shi… de” structure.
Item 27: Can comprehend sentences with following unique Chinese syntactic features: Topic-comments structure.
Item 28: Can comprehend text successfully when the number of features and structural devices from the literary/classical stratum is limited.
Item 29: Can have emerging control of high-frequency grammatical constructions common to expository prose.
Item 30: When reading text on their level, can successfully identify referential expressions/antecedents.
Item 31: Can know meanings and functions of a limited number of cohesive devices. [not included in data analysis].
Item 32: Can be aware of commonly used cohesive devices within and across paragraphs.
Item 33: Can use knowledge on cohesive devices to facilitate reading comprehension.
Item 34: Can be aware of very common Chinese text structures/discourse patterns.
Item 35: Can be aware of most Chinese text structures/discourse patterns.
Item 36: Can use text structure knowledge to facilitate reading comprehension.
Item 37: Can have some appreciation of formulaic rhetorical devices common to more stylized writing.
Item 38: Can comprehend set expressions using basic vocabulary.
Item 39: Can read simple connected, specially prepared material for basic survival and social needs (Note. “specially prepared material” refers to “material specially prepared for adult second language learners of Chinese”).
Item 40: Can comprehend sufficiently specially prepared discourse for informative purposes.
Item 41: With use of a dictionary, can comprehend sufficiently main ideas and some facts in authentic material paralleling oral language.
Item 42: Can decode authentic materials, which are harder than oral language, for key points with use of a bilingual dictionary.
Item 43: Can decode critical elements of public announcements to determine who, when, and where regarding such subjects as public events by using a dictionary.
Item 44: Can follow the narrative thread in extended, specially prepared discourse.
Item 45: Can decode authentic prose (including newspapers and magazines) for general ideas.
Item 46: Can glean a range of specific facts from short authentic pieces on sports, movies, and current events, but with error.
Item 47: When reading text on their level, can be skillful in extracting concrete, minor details.
Item 48: Can comprehend authentic expository prose without reliance on a dictionary where such prose tends to reflect the spoken language.
Item 49: Can comprehend, not just decode, a narrow range of authentic, expository material, including areas of professional interest, without the use of a dictionary.
Item 50: Can comprehend, with some dictionary use, authentic material over a wide range of subject matter and topics.
Item 51: Can comprehend standard newspaper items addressed to the general public, routine correspondence, reports and technical material in field of interest.
Item 52: Can decode, with a dictionary and with substantial effort and moderate error, popular novels, essays, and most literature for the general public.
Item 53: Can understand minimally, yet with significant difficulties, prose which is more characteristic of the literary/classical style.
Item 54: When reading text on their level, can only draw simplest inferences from reading.
Item 55: Can minimally detect subjective attitudes, values, and judgments.
Item 56: Can appreciate, to a limited degree, nuances or stylistics, but gaps in detail may be frequent.
Item 57: Can use preliminarily lexical guessing strategies in dealing with authentic materials, although errors are frequent.
References
Alderson, Charles. 2000. Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Alderson, Charles, Eeva-Leena Haapakangas, Ari Huhta, Lea Nieminen & Riikka Ullakonoja. 2015. The diagnosis of reading in a second or foreign language. UK: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 1986. ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.Search in Google Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 1987. Chinese proficiency guidelines. Foreign Language Annals 20. 471–487.Search in Google Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 1999. ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.Search in Google Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2001. ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.Search in Google Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2012. ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. https://www.actfl.org/educator-resources/actfl-proficiency-guidelines (accessed 10 August 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, Charles. 1990. Testing reading comprehension skills (Part one). Reading in a Foreign Language 6(2). 425–438.Search in Google Scholar
Bachman, Lyle. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bachman, Lyle & Andrew D. Cohen (eds.). 1998. Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bachman, Lyle & Adrian Palmer. 1996. Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bachman, Lyle & Adrian Palmer. 2010. Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bassetti, Benedetta. 2004. Second language reading and second language awareness in English-speaking learners of Chinese as a foreign language. UK: University of Essex Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Bernhardt, Elizabeth. 1986. Reading in the foreign language. In Barbara H. Wing (ed.), Listening, reading, and writing: Analysis and application, 93–115. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Search in Google Scholar
Bernhardt, Elizabeth. 1991. Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Search in Google Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Timothy. 2006. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guildford.Search in Google Scholar
Browne, Michael & Robert Cudeck. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Kenneth Bollen & Scott J. Long (eds.), Testing structural equation models, 136–162. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Chalhoub-Deville, Micheline & Jia Lin. 2022. Foreign language testing constructs, frameworks, and assessments. In Susan M. Brookhart (ed.), Routledge resources online - education-assessment. Milton Park: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Davis, Frederick. 1968. Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly 3(4). 499–545. https://doi.org/10.2307/747153.Search in Google Scholar
Enright, Mary, William Grabe, Keiko Koda, Peter Mosenthal, Patricia Mulcahy-Ernt & Mary Schedl. 2000. TOEFL 2000 reading framework. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Search in Google Scholar
Everson, Michael. 2009. Literacy development in Chinese as a foreign language. In Michael Everson & Yun Xiao (eds.), Teaching Chinese as a foreign language: Theories and applications, 97–112. Boston, MA: Cheng & Tsui Company.Search in Google Scholar
Everson, Michael & Chuanren Ke. 1997. An inquiry into the reading strategies of intermediate and advanced learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 32(1). 1–20.Search in Google Scholar
Geva, Esther, Lesly Wade-Woolley & Michal Shany. 1997. Development of reading efficiency in first and second language. Scientific Studies of Reading 1(2). 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0102_2.Search in Google Scholar
Goodman, Kenneth. 1967. Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist 6. 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388076709556976.Search in Google Scholar
Grabe, William. 1991. Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly 25(3). 375–406. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586977.Search in Google Scholar
Grabe, William. 2009. Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Henning, Grant. 1992. Dimensionality and construct validity of language tests. Language Testing 9(1). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229200900102.Search in Google Scholar
Hu, Li‐tze & Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6. 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.Search in Google Scholar
Hung, Yueh-Nu. 2012. Similarities and dissimilarities in reading Chinese and English: Goodman’s reading model perspective. In Kenneth S. Goodman, Shaomei Wang, Mieko Iventosch & Yetta M. Goodman (eds.), Reading in Asian languages: Making sense of written texts in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, 32–45. UK: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Kline, Rex B. 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 2nd edn. New York: Guilford.Search in Google Scholar
Koda, Keiko. 1996. L2 word recognition research: A critical review. The Modern Language Journal 80. 450–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb05465.x.Search in Google Scholar
Koda, Keiko. 1997. Orthographic knowledge in L2 lexical processing: A cross linguistic perspective. In James Coady & Thomas Huckin (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: Rationale for pedagogy, 35–52. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Koda, Keiko. 2005. Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Koda, Keiko. 2007. Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning 57(Suppl 1). 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00411.Search in Google Scholar
Lin, Jia. 2020. Development and validation of a reading proficiency scale for Chinese as a second language. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Lin, Jia. Unpublished manuscript. Assessing Chinese as a second language reading: Factor structure and factorial invariance across proficiency levels.Search in Google Scholar
Linacre, John M. 2002. What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions 16(2). 878.Search in Google Scholar
Linacre, John M. 2012. Facets computer program for many-facet Rasch measurement. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.Search in Google Scholar
Linacre, John M. 2014. A user’s guide to FACETS: Rasch-model computer programs. http://www.winsteps.com/facets.htm (accessed 10 June 2018).Search in Google Scholar
Lund, Randall J. 1991. A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 75(2). 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05350.x.Search in Google Scholar
Min, Shangchao, Kyoungwon Bishop & Howard Gary Cook. 2021. Reading is a multidimensional construct at child-L2-English-literacy onset, but comprises fewer dimensions over time: Evidence from multidimensional IRT analysis. Language Testing 39(2). 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211045296.Search in Google Scholar
Muthén, Bengt O. 1993. Goodness of fit with categorical and other non-normal variables. In Kenneth Bollen & Scott J. Long (eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models, 205–243. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Muthén, Linda. K. & Bengt O. Muthén. 1998–2019. Mplus 8.3 [computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Search in Google Scholar
Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
North, Brain. 2000. The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York: Peter Lang Pub Incorporated.Search in Google Scholar
Perfetti, Charles. 1985. Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Portney, Leslie Gross & Mary P. Watkins. 2009. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice, vol. 892, 11–15. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Rost, Detlef H. 1993. Assessing different components of reading comprehension: Fact or fiction? Language Testing 10(1). 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229301000105.Search in Google Scholar
Sawaki, Yasuyo, Hae-Jin Kim & Claudia Gentile. 2009. Q-Matrix construction: Defining the link between constructs and test items in large-scale reading and listening comprehension assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly 6(3). 190–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300902801917.Search in Google Scholar
Sawaki, Yasuyo, Lawrence J. Stricker & Andreas H. Oranje. 2008. Factor structure of the TOEFL InternetBased Test (iBT): Exploration in a field trial sample. (TOEFL iBT Research Report No. 04; ETS Research Report No. 08–09). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Search in Google Scholar
Schedl, Mary, Ann Gordon, Patricia A. Carey & K. Linda Tang. 1996. An analysis of the dimensionality of TOEFL reading comprehension items. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Search in Google Scholar
Shen, Helen H. 2008. An analysis of word decision strategies among learners of Chinese. Foreign Language Annals 41. 501–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03309.x.Search in Google Scholar
Shin, Sang-Keun. 2005. Did they take the same test? Examinee language proficiency and the structure of language tests. Language Testing 22(1). 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt296oa.Search in Google Scholar
Song, Min-Young. 2008. Do divisible subskills exist in second language (L2) comprehension? A structural equation modeling approach. Language Testing 25(4). 435–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208094272.Search in Google Scholar
Stricker, Lawrence J. & Donald A. Rock. 2008. Factor structure of the TOEFL Internet-Based Test across subgroups. (TOEFL iBT Research Report No. 07; ETS Research Report No. 08–66). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Search in Google Scholar
Stricker, Lawrence J., Donald A. Rock & Yong‐Won Lee. 2005. Factor structure of the LanguEdge™ Test across language groups. (TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 32). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Search in Google Scholar
Sun, Chaofen. 2006. Chinese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Swender, Elvira & Robert Vicars. 2014. ACTFL oral proficiency interview tester training manual. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Search in Google Scholar
Thorndike, Robert L. 1974. Reading as reasoning. Reading Research Quarterly 9. 135–141. https://doi.org/10.2307/747131.Search in Google Scholar
Urquhart, Alexander H. & Cyril J. Weir. 1998. Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
van Steensel, Roel, Ron Oostdam & Amos Van Gelderen. 2013. Assessing reading comprehension in adolescent low achievers: Subskills identification and task specificity. Language Testing 30(1). 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212440950.Search in Google Scholar
Weir, Cyril J. & Don Porter. 1994. The multi-divisible or unitary nature of reading: The language tester between Scylla and Charybdis. Reading in a Foreign Language 10. 1–19.Search in Google Scholar
Yi, Yeon-Sook. 2017. Probing the relative importance of different attributes in L2 reading and listening comprehension items: An application of cognitive diagnostic models. Language Testing 34(3). 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216646141.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Dongbo. 2017. Developments in research on testing Chinese as a second language. In Dongbo Zhang & Chin-Hsi Lin (eds.), Chinese as a second language assessment, 67–90. Singapore: Springer Nature.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Papers in English
- Assessing the dimensionality of Chinese as a second language reading: a confirmatory factor analysis approach
- A critical review of telecollaboration in Chinese as a second language education: a post-COVID-19 outlook
- Anxiety in L2 Chinese from different angles
- Papers in Chinese
- 发展与挑战: 从一个大学的中文项目看美国中文教育的发展
- 汉语为二语项目建设的理论与实践: 从教学法、师资培训谈起
- 華語「知道類」近義詞之習得順序
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Papers in English
- Assessing the dimensionality of Chinese as a second language reading: a confirmatory factor analysis approach
- A critical review of telecollaboration in Chinese as a second language education: a post-COVID-19 outlook
- Anxiety in L2 Chinese from different angles
- Papers in Chinese
- 发展与挑战: 从一个大学的中文项目看美国中文教育的发展
- 汉语为二语项目建设的理论与实践: 从教学法、师资培训谈起
- 華語「知道類」近義詞之習得順序
