The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Carol A. Chapelle

cognitively mature readers who have completed formal literacy education in their first language when they begin to receive reading instruction in a second language. The basic assumption underlying the investigation of reading development in these learners is that second language reading ability evolves through complex crosslinguistic interaction between well‐established cognitive and conceptual resources in the first language and emerging knowledge of the target language (Koda, 2007). Under this assumption, three factors have been identified as the key determinants that explain individual differences in reading development in a second language (Koda, 2016, 2017). These include first language reading ability, linguistic distance between two languages, and second language linguistic knowledge.

The contributions of first language reading ability have been examined in crosslinguistic transfer studies (Reddy & Koda, 2012; Zhang & Koda, 2013; Ke & Koda, 2019). By isolating word meaning retrieval subskills, results from those studies have shown (a) that first language morphological awareness makes a unique contribution to word meaning inference in a second language (Zhang & Koda, 2013); (b) that variations in word form analysis are systematically related to distinct first language orthographic properties (Zhang & Koda, 2017; Ke & Koda, 2019); and (c) that higher proficiency learners draw on their first language resources, such as prior knowledge and metalinguistic awareness, to a greater extent than their lower proficiency counterparts, during reading (Koda & Ke, 2018; Koda & Miller, 2018). Collectively, these findings provide solid evidence suggesting that first language reading subskills are used in second language reading; that transferred subskills differentially affect distinct reading operations among linguistically diverse learners; and that insufficient linguistic knowledge constrains the learner's access to the resources available in her first language.

      Linguistic distance is another factor uniquely associated with second language reading, in general, and word meaning retrieval, in particular (Muljani, Koda, & Moates, 1998; Koda, 2007; Hamada & Koda, 2010). Linguistic distance refers to the degree of structural similarity between two languages. Given the significant role that orthographic knowledge plays in word meaning retrieval, we can predict that the degree of similarity between two writing systems directly affects the ease with which the graphic form of a word is segmented into its phonological and morphological constituents. When the two writing systems are closely related, first language word form analysis skills function in the new language without any modifications. Conversely, when the two systems are typologically diverse, transferred skills must undergo substantial refinement through repeated exposure and experience with the printed form of specific words in the target language. Although all subskills, in principle, are transferrable from one language to another (Koda, 2007), facilitation benefits bought about through first language subskills vary across learner groups with diverse first language backgrounds.

      Insufficient linguistic knowledge also generates unique variance in second language reading. Besides its obvious contributions to word meaning retrieval and word meaning integration, linguistic knowledge plays a role in the process of personalizing text meanings for deeper text understanding. Although personalization in itself does not entail linguistic information processing, sufficient linguistic knowledge is necessary for gaining access to nonlanguage‐specific information acquired through real‐life experiences. As Clarke (1980) put it almost four decades ago, “limited control over the language ‘short circuits’ the good reader's system causing him/her to revert to poor reader strategies when confronted with a difficult or confusing task in the second language” (p. 206).

      In sum, the involvement of two languages is a fundamental characteristic that separates second language reading from general learning and first language reading. From a crosslinguistic perspective, knowledge of the target language (grammar and vocabulary, in particular) is essential for making links between text information in a second language and the reader's knowledge stored in her first language. The significance of personalization should be understood as the core mechanism through which externally presented information is internalized to become part of the reader's knowledge bases.

Reading Assessment in a Second Language

Given the centrality of personalization in knowledge expansion through reading, it is important that the notion of broad‐based reading ability be addressed in second language reading instruction and assessment. According to a brief survey of textbooks used in third‐year Chinese courses in US colleges (Koda & Ke, 2018), reading ability is viewed as a facet of language proficiency. Post‐reading exercises in these textbooks primarily focus on the reinforcement of the grammar and vocabulary items introduced in a particular unit. Their survey also revealed that widely used foreign language proficiency guidelines also assign a prominent role to linguistic knowledge in describing reading ability. In the guidelines, reading development is regarded as a gradual increase in the ability to understand written texts that demand progressively more sophisticated knowledge of the language and text types (Council of Europe, 2011; American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2012). Apparently, reading pedagogy in language classrooms gives weight to using reading to enhance knowledge of the language, rather than promoting the autonomous use of language through which linguistic knowledge could be augmented and refined during reading.

      There are a number of important potential consequences of the treatment of reading as language practice for the end state of second language reading proficiency. First, the language‐focused reading pedagogy generally does not provide the learner authentic purposes of reading, other than answering comprehension questions. Such a practice offers students little incentive to tap into their cognitive and conceptual resources to achieve a deeper text understanding. Knowledge of the language may be sufficient for answering post‐reading questions, but, in itself, does not allow the learner to go beyond text information to generate new insight through reading. Without personalization, moreover, text information remains external to the learner and irrelevant to her internal self. Should this be the case particularly in advanced courses, the language‐focused practice could produce apathy on students to take part in active learning.

      The language‐focused view could also lead to an unsubstantiated assumption that augmented linguistic knowledge enables the learner to “read” increasingly more demanding texts in the target language. As mentioned earlier, linguistic knowledge alone is far from sufficient for word meaning integration, let alone personalization. A demanding text is understood only to the extent that the reader knows about its topic. There is much to gain if reading pedagogy explores ways of simultaneously promoting reading ability and linguistic knowledge by exploiting their developmental reciprocity.

      In a nutshell, second language reading entails complex crosslinguistic interaction between text information presented in a second language and the reader's cognitive and conceptual resources stored in her first language. What supports this interaction is knowledge of the target language (grammar and vocabulary). Conversely, it is only through the autonomous use of language for meaning making that fosters the expansion and refinement of linguistic knowledge. For reading assessment to yield positive washback effects, it is essential that student‐centered tasks be incorporated to demand the learner to dig into real‐life knowledge to create personalized responses. Scoring student‐centered responses is labor intensive, but the higher investments are likely to generate higher returns.

Unique Challenges in L2 Reading Assessment

      Reading assessment, within the reading‐as‐language view, focuses on estimating linguistic sophistication, rather than promoting the ability to use language for constructing and generating meanings during reading. Linguistic features, such as syntactic complexity and vocabulary density, are treated as key factors that largely determine comprehension obstacles and are used to manipulate item difficulty to construct tests with the desired level of difficulty. From this perspective, reading assessment relies on two layers of deductions—first, gauging reading ability based on observed behaviors elicited, and then inferring linguistic sophistication from the estimated reading ability. For assessment results to be reasonably accurate as an indicator of linguistic sophistication, manipulated features, such as word frequency and structural complexity, must be unambiguously linked to the item difficulty levels. In practice, however, such calibration