Annegien Simis

First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge

In this study the relative importance of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, and fluency or accessibility of this linguistic knowledge in both first language (L1; Dutch) and second language (L2; English) writing was explored. Data were collected from 281 grade 8 students. Using structural equation modeling, the relative importance of the three components was studied and compared across L1 and L2 writing. The results showed that the fluency measures were correlated with overall writing performance in both L1 and L2. However, when compared to linguistic knowledge resources, these fluency measures turned out to have no additional value in predicting L1 or L2 writing performance. L2 writing proficiency turned out to be highly correlated with L1 writing proficiency, more than with either L2 linguistic knowledge or the accessibility of this knowledge.

Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis

The authors report results of a study into the role of components of first-language (L1; Dutch) and second-language (L2; English) reading comprehension. Differences in the contributions of components of L1 and L2 reading comprehension are analyzed, in particular processing speed in L1 and L2. Findings indicate that regression weights of the L1 and L2 components are different. Although correlations between most processing speed components and reading comprehension are substantial, there are no unique contributions to the explanation of either L1 or L2 reading comprehension when linguistic and metacognitive knowledge are accounted for. In addition, L1 reading comprehension is shown to have a large contribution to L2 reading comprehension, supporting theories of L1-L2 transfer of reading skills. Results are discussed from a developmental perspective.

Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and processing speed in L3, L2 and L1 reading comprehension A structural equation modeling approach

In this article we present an analysis of the relationship between L3 reading comprehension and its constituent skills for bilingual Dutch students for whom English is a third language(L3) compared to monolingual Dutch students for whom English is a second language(L2). An analogous analysis is made for their Dutch reading comprehension, Dutch being their L2 and L1 respectively. Participants are 13/14 year-old secondary school students. The point of departure in the analyses is a regression model in which reading proficiency is decomposed into three types of constituent components: linguistic knowledge(vocabulary and grammar), speed of processing linguistic knowledge(lexical access and sentence comprehension), and metacognitive knowledge(of text characteristics and strategies for reading and writing). Using structural equation modeling, we determined the contribution of constituent skills to Dutch L2 and L1, and English L3 and L2 reading comprehension. The results showed that, despite differences between the two groups in Dutch and English reading comprehension, no differences between the groups were found in the pattern of regression weights on the three types of constituent skills. Possible implications of these findings are discussed.

Linguistic Knowledge, Metacognitive Knowledge And Retrieval Speed In L1, L2 And Efl Writing A structural equation modelling approach

This chapter presents an analysis of the Dutch and English writing proficiency of students who learned Dutch as a second language, compared to students for whom Dutch is the first language. Participants are 13/14 year-old secondary school students. The point of departure in the analyses is a regression model in which writing proficiency is decomposed into three types of constituent subskills: linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar, and orthographic knowledge), speed or fluency of processing linguistic knowledge (word retrieval and sentence building), and metacognitive knowledge of both text characteristics and reading and writing strategies. This study investigates whether there are structural differences in both the Dutch writing and the English writing of the non-native speakers of Dutch compared to their native Dutch-speaking peers. Our hypothesis is that the two groups will differ in their Dutch writing, but not so much in their English writing. Using structural equation modelling, we firstly test whether the writing model for the native Dutch writers, with respect to the explanatory value of the constituent skills, holds for the non-native Dutch writers as well. Secondly, we test whether the English writing ‘decomposition’ is the same across the two student groups. Despite the differences in writing proficiency, no essential differences between the two groups were found in the pattern of weights of either Dutch or English writing proficiency on the three types of predictor variables (language knowledge, retrieval speed, and metacognitive knowledge).