L2 oral language proficiency predicts reading comprehension more strongly than decoding skills¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Oral language proficiency accounts for substantial variance in L2 reading comprehension, while decoding skills play only a minor role in its development. → Khatib 2011

Evidence¶

Khatib 2011¶

Khatib, M., & Fat'hi, J. (2011). The Effect of Automatization of the Phonological Component on the Reading Comprehension of ESP Students. International Education Studies, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v4n4p192

q2 · i? · causal · r2

The article reports, citing Droop and Verhoeven (2003), that bilingual Turkish-Dutch children comparable in word recognition performed more poorly in reading comprehension than monolingual peers, attributed to lower syntactic ability and oral fluency. No effect size is printed.

"both for native speakers and for L2 speakers, decoding skills played only a minor role in the development of reading comprehension, and according to the authors, decoding and reading comprehension appear to develop as independent skills from third grade on"

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
• Decoding — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Oral Language — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• 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
• Phoneme awareness is a stronger predictor of reading development than rhyme awareness — related
• Automatization of the phonological component through pronunciation practice improves ESP students' reading comprehension more than traditional translation-based instruction — 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
• Reading development proceeds from oral language through decoding and fluency to comprehension, but as an interwoven lattice rather than a simple linear process — related
• Oral language measures of syntax, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary do not predict which English learners will struggle with learning to read — reports the opposite
• English (L2) decoding shows a strong linear relationship with English reading comprehension, with the correlation decreasing as children get older — reports the opposite
• L1 decoding is positively related to English reading comprehension for Spanish- and Chinese-speaking MLs, with the correlation decreasing as children get older — reports the opposite
• The author of a 1997 conference paper reports finding no research supporting reverse transfer of skills from literacy to oral language — related
• L2 oral language shows a moderate to strong positive relationship with L2 reading comprehension for multilingual learners, and the correlation increases with age — related
• Sticht's Law holds that reading skill cannot exceed listening skill — related
• Six component reading skills show strong average relationships with reading comprehension in struggling adult readers (rs ≥ .50) — related
• Reading comprehension predicted retrieval, transfer, and retention more strongly than decoding, with a weaker modality interaction favoring lower-comprehension children in retention — related