Oral language measures of syntax, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary do not predict which English learners will struggle with learning to read¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · checked against its sources 2026-10-16 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Oral proficiency measures do not predict who is likely to struggle with learning to read, whereas early reading measures administered in English screen effectively even for children who know little English. → Gersten 2007

Evidence¶

Gersten 2007¶

Gersten, R., Baker, S.K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction for English Learners in the Elementary Grades: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/6

q2 · i? · review · r2

The guide's summary, in Recommendation 1's carry-out section, of studies contrasting oral language measures with early reading measures administered in English. It reports that "oral language measures of syntax, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary do not predict" later reading difficulty; no effect size is printed.

"In fact, oral language measures of syntax, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary do not predict who is likely to struggle with learning to read."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading and Language — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Communication Skills — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Oral Language — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Syntax — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Literacy screener benchmarks predict which grade 3 students will not meet MCAS ELA expectations, but not necessarily who will meet them — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• A 1997 conference paper reports, citing Sticht, a positive correlation between preschool oral language skills and later reading achievement — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• English-language measures of phonological processing, letter knowledge, and word and text reading validly identify which English learners need additional reading support — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• L2 oral language proficiency predicts reading comprehension more strongly than decoding skills — reports the opposite
• Listening proficiency transfers to other language skills, including reading and writing, in second language learners — reports the opposite
• Cross-linguistic transfer is skill-specific: phonological awareness and print concepts are more likely to transfer across languages, while vocabulary and comprehension are more language-dependent — related
• Adaptive routing and comprehension-based passage leveling structure the MAP Reading Fluency assessment — related
• The best math-predicting model is specific to mathematics; reading requires a different model — related
• The author of a 1997 conference paper reports finding no research supporting reverse transfer of skills from literacy to oral language — related
• Sticht's Law holds that reading skill cannot exceed listening skill — reports the opposite
• Phoneme awareness is a stronger predictor of reading development than rhyme awareness — related
• A general oral language factor comprising syntax and vocabulary indicators significantly predicts reading comprehension in all grades 4–10, in models whose latent factors together account for 72%–99% of its variance — reports the opposite