Umeå University's logo

This study examines to what extent reading and writing performance in L1 can predict educational attainment levels in the language subjects Swedish (L1) and English (L2) in upper secondary school. Participants were 138 students (56 girls, 82 boys, aged 17-18) attending a vocational or a higher education preparatory programme. Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine if a model including word recognition, reading comprehension, writing performance, gender and study programme as independent variables could predict attainment in language subjects. Writing performance was the strongest contributor of the L1-literacy measures in predicting the attainment level in L1, while writing and reading comprehension in L1 were strong contributors to the attainment level in L2. Furthermore, study programme predicted attainment levels for both language subjects across all three years. The results indicate that reading and writing in L1 are fundamental for gaining medium to high attainment levels in Swedish (L1) and English (L2) also when controlling for previously known predictors as gender and study programme.

This study examined the educational attainment of 139 upper secondary school students in Sweden. More specifically, the aim was to explore the educational attainment of upper secondary students with reading difficulties (n = 49) or with typical reading (n = 90) who had studied Swedish in year 1 (study background 1,SB1) or years 1 and 2 (study background 2, SB2) respectively. After screening for word recognition and reading comprehension, students were divided into two reader subgroups: students with reading difficulties (RD, i.e., poor word recognition and/or poor reading comprehension) and students with typical reading (TR). A chi-square test was performed to explore the proportion of low attainment (F-, E- and D-marks) and high attainment (C-, B- and A-marks) in the foundation subjects Swedish, English, social science, and history. Results showed that students with reading difficulties had lower educational attainment, and especially the SB1-group with RD seemed vulnerable. No significant differences in educational attainment between TR and RD in the SB2-group were observed. Results highlight the need for reading instruction across school subjects, as well as special education support, in upper secondary school.

Introduction: Self-efficacy for writing (SEW) and reading ability are some of several factors that may be related to the quality of written text that students produce. The aim of the current study was (1) to explore the variation in SEW and written text quality in L1-Swedish and L2-English among upper secondary students with different reading profiles in L1 (typical reading vs. reading difficulties) and with different study backgrounds (SB1year or SB2years = one or two years of studies of Swedish and English, respectively), and in the next step (2) to explore if individual variations in L1-reading and SEW may explain variation in written text quality.

Methods: Participants were 100 upper secondary students (aged 17–18) with different reading profiles operationalized as typical reading and reading difficulties. Data consisted of screening for word recognition and reading comprehension, text quality results from argumentative L1- and L2-writing tasks, school information on study background in Swedish/English, and students' responses from an online survey about SEW.

Results: As to SEW results, an ANOVA revealed significant main effects for reading profile and study background in L1, but in L2 there was only a significant main effect for reading profile. Written text quality results indicated that there was a significant interaction effect between reading profile and study background in L1, indicating that the significant main effect for reading profile on written text quality was influenced by the group of students with reading difficulties and SB1year. There was a significant main effect for reading profile and study background on written text quality in L2. Students with reading difficulties and SB1year were the most vulnerable group, and they had the lowest scores in L1/L2 SEW and written text quality in L1 and L2. Multiple regression results indicated that word recognition and SEW contributed significantly to L1-text quality, and word recognition, reading comprehension, and SEW contributed significantly to L2-text quality. Thus, this study sheds light on the under-researched area of L1/L2 SEW and text quality of students with reading difficulties at the level of upper secondary school.

Discussion: Pedagogical implications are discussed and highlight the need for writing instruction across subjects in upper secondary school and for extra writing support/scaffolding for students with reading difficulties and shorter study background in the language subjects L1 (Swedish) and L2 (English).

Writing has been identified as a challenge for students with reading difficulties. This study contributes to previous research by exploring argumentative writing in L1 (Swedish) and L2 (English) in a group of students with reading difficulties in upper secondary school. Participants were 19 students with typical reading, 19 students with poor decoding, and 9 students with poor comprehension. A majority of students attended vocational programmes. Written text quality was assessed by using an adapted version of Jacobs et al.'s (1981) analytic scoring scheme including content, organisation, cohesion, vocabulary, language use, spelling, and punctuation. Students with reading difficulties (regardless of reader subgroup) were found to perform poorly in all categories in both L1 and L2, with spelling being particularly challenging in L1, and cohesion, language use, spelling, and punctuation in L2. Significant differences were found between students with poor comprehension and students with typical reading in cohesion, language use and spelling in L2. Few other significant differences were identified possibly due to an overall poor writing outcome also for students with typical reading. This general poor outcome in writing is discussed in relation to previous studies on writing among students with reading difficulties and writing in vocational programmes.