The Visual Processing Skills of ESL University Students

Jennifer Ball

Table of contents

Table of contents................................................................................................................................1

List of Tables......................................................................................................................................3

Table of Figures..................................................................................................................................3

The Visual Processing Skills of ESL University Students.................................................................0

Visual Perception............................................................................................................................1

Cognitive Style...............................................................................................................................3

Orthographies.................................................................................................................................4

The significance of the research.....................................................................................................5

Research questions.........................................................................................................................6

Literature Review...............................................................................................................................8

Reading as information processing.................................................................................................9

Information processing models..................................................................................................9

Implications for ESL Students..................................................................................................14

Current Models of English Reading.............................................................................................16

Current Models of Word Recognition......................................................................................17

Cognitive Stream Modals.........................................................................................................21

Implications for ESL Students..................................................................................................24

Visual Perception..........................................................................................................................25

Visual Spatial............................................................................................................................28

Visual analysis..........................................................................................................................30

Research Design...............................................................................................................................42

Tools.............................................................................................................................................49

Developmental Test of Visual Perception Adult (DTVP)........................................................52

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale version IV (WAIS IV)......................................................52

Computer Based Testing..........................................................................................................53

Questionnaire............................................................................................................................53

Participants...................................................................................................................................53

Procedure......................................................................................................................................57

Participant Recruitment............................................................................................................57

Data collection..........................................................................................................................58

Analyses and Reporting................................................................................................................59

Relevance of results......................................................................................................................61

Timeline........................................................................................................................................62

Limitations....................................................................................................................................63

Ethical issues................................................................................................................................63

References........................................................................................................................................64

List of Tables

Table 1 Visual Perception Skills.....................................................................................................40

Table 3 Subtests..............................................................................................................................51

Table 2 Sampling Matrix.................................................................................................................55

Table of Figures

Figure 1 The importance of context in visual information processing (Randall, 2007).....................3

Figure 2 Information Processing Model Developed from information in (Palmer, 1999)...............10

Figure 3 - Reading Models..............................................................................................................20

Figure 4- A multistream model of word processing (Allen et al., 2009).........................................23

Figure 5 – Visual Perception Skills..................................................................................................27

Figure 6 Visual Closure....................................................................................................................34

Visual Perception in ESL University Students.

Currently more than 500,000 full-fee paying international students are enrolled in Australia

on student visas, with the higher education sector ranked first by volume of enrolments of all

education sectors (Australian Education International, 2012). Of these, by far the majority come

from non-English speaking countries. Added to this, a substantial number of domestic students

identify as coming from culturally diverse backgrounds. All students must prove that they have

reached a required level of English before they enter Australian University and most universities

provide additional language support services. Despite these safeguards, students who speak

English as a Second Language (ESL) frequently struggle academically. This research uses an

information processing model to explore the role of Visual Perception in ESL students’ academic

progress. Central to information processing models is the concept of a fixed and limited capacity

of the cognitive system. This research hypothesises that the additional difficulty of visual a script

in a second language, puts strain on this capacity for ESL students, leaving less capacity available

for comprehension and critical thinking.

While all students admitted into Australian universities have demonstrated the ability to

read and write English at a level high enough to score 6.5 or above in the International English

Language Test Score (IELTS), it may be that reading English still causes a higher cognitive load

for them than it does for native English speakers. Native speakers have reached a high level of

automatization in performing the basic visual processes involved in text recognition. They do not

need to consciously focus on these processes when reading. This leaves the majority of their

working cognitive capacity free for comprehension and critical thinking so they can

simultaneously decode, comprehend and consider the text. On the other hand, ESL students may

need to consciously apply strategies to decode the text, even at the fundamental perceptual level of

visual recognition of words and letters. This is may occur if the student’s first language (L1)

orthography is substantially different to English and therefore utilises different visual perception

skills or perhaps uses the same skills but in slightly different ways. Because the cognitive system

can work with only a limited number of pieces of information at one time (Miller, 1956), low

levels of appropriate visual perception skills may mean ESL students use much of this capacity

simply decoding the text. Of course this does not mean that ESL students cannot comprehend or

consider the text, but they may need a second or even third reading in order to separate the

cognitive loads of text decoding, comprehension and then critical evaluation. This is obviously an

important consideration for both teaching and assessing ESL students. This research attempts to

measure and compare across four language groups, the specific visual perception skills required to

decode English text. With this method the study attempts to compare the relative cognitive loads

that ESL and domestic university students may experience in reading English. By measuring only

the language free visual perception skills, the study will separate the issue of lexical knowledge

from that of comparative levels of perceptual skills.

Visual Perception

Borsting offers this definition of visual perception:

Visual perception or visual information processing refers to a group of visual skills used to

extract or organise visual information from the environment and to integrate it with information

from other sensory modalities and higher cognitive functions. (Borsting, 1995, p 150)

By this definition, any act of vision has two directions of processing. Firstly the viewer

must “extract or organise” the external information. “Extract” suggests the active selection of

information, where as “organise”, suggests sorting of a broader incoming stream of information.

These processes account for a bottom up flow of data. The second step is to “integrate” this

information with other information received at the same time as well as with our previously

acquired knowledge and understanding. This is top down or higher level processing. According to

this description, vision is “fundamentally a cognitive activity” (Palmer, 1999 p5). The data being

collected through the sense of sight is just one part of the final construct. We are not passive

recipients of the incoming information. We are actively involved in “a continuous and integrative

process” (Hoffman, 1996 p1). Figure 1 demonstrates this reciprocal relationship between bottom

up and top down processing in perception. The visual input of the graphic details cannot be

interpreted as a particular letter without the context of the word. This research explores this

element of cognitive involvement in visual perception and the role of environmental factors such

as native orthography and previous educational experience in developing the unconscious

automatic skills used in visual perception.

Figure 1 The importance of context in visual information processing (Randall, 2007)

In Figure 1 the combination of the central three lines appears as H in the vertical context of the word THE, but as A in

the horizontal context of the word CAT.

There are a number of reasons to suspect that ESL students may have different perceptual

skills than those of domestic students. In a review of the cross cultural cognitive assessment

literature, Rosselli and Ardilla (2003) found that even nonverbal visual perception test results were

far from culture free. She looked at cross cultural differences in performance on visuoperceptual

and visuoconstructional ability tasks and found much research that has highlighted cross cultural

differences. This indicates that even basic visual perception skills are moulded by past

environmental influences.

Cognitive Style

One important factor in the development of perceptual skills is cognitive style. This refers

to the thinking or learning style that participants have developed through formal education as well

as other cultural influences. Cognitive style theory states that “ individuals process information

differently on the basis of either learned or inherent traits” (Rahal & Palfreyman, 2009). Cognitive

style can influence things such as whether a learner favours bottom up over top down strategies in

reading. Cognitive style can also influence a learner’s preferred perceptual modality: Auditory,

Visual, Tactual, or Kinaesthetic. There has been a substantial amount of cross cultural research

using well validated instruments such as the Dunn and Dunn model (Dunn & Dunn, 1975) and the

Perceptual Learning Style Questionnaire (Reid, 1987), which, viewed as a body of work, identify

clear trends in cognitive style of cultural groups. For example, studies drawing samples from

cultures with strong oral traditions have found participants to be less reliant on visual and more on

aural information (Feild & Aebersold, 2011; Hvitfeldt, 1992; Rahal & Palfreyman, 2009) What is

important about style differences in terms of this research, is that not only do people tend to be

stronger in the skills and strategies associated with their preferred style, but weaker in the others

(Dunn & Dunn, 1979). These limits can be reflected in academic achievement in an English

setting. On reviewing the results of the Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment Reading

Test, Abbot found the subtests favour certain cultural groups in keeping with established cognitive

style preferences for those groups. (Abbot, 2004). These findings raise questions of equity in

cognition.

Orthographies

A second cross cultural differences that may influence perceptual skills is orthography.

Orthography refers to the applied design of a writing system within a specific language. This term

is used over ‘writing’ because while English and German have the same writing system, they have

different orthographies (Taylor & Olson, 1995). The various orthographies of the world can be

classified into three main types: logographic, syllabic and alphabetic. The term logograph comes

from the terms logo, which means word, and graph which means written sign. The individual

characters in these scripts primarily represent the meaning of the word or morpheme and have only

a secondary connection to its phonetics (Perfetti et al., 2007). Scripts in this group include

Japanese Kanji and Chinese (Taylor & Olson, 1995). The second language classification is

syllabic. In syllabaries, each character represents a syllable; usually a consonant and a vowel or

just a vowel (Ager, 2012). Syllabaries, therefore, have a clear phonetic link to the words they

represent. Both Japanese Hiragana and Katakana are examples of syllabic orthographies. The

third type of orthographic system is alphabetic. Each sign in this kind of language represents a

phonetic value and these must be connected to reach the meaning of the word. This group of

languages use a variety of graphitic symbols as alphabets. Arabic and English are both classified

in this group (Taylor & Olson, 1995). Much of the cross cultural cognitive research to date has

focused on comparing subjects from each of the three systems. The research suggest that not only

are there differences in the cognitive strategies involved in reading these different kinds of

languages (Chen & Tang, 1998; Randall & Meara, 1988) but that learners apply their L1 strategies

when they read English, though often inappropriately (Grigornko, Sternberg, & Ehrman, 2000;

Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006).

The significance of the research

To continually examine and critique the Australian education experiences of international

students is not just a good business strategy; it is actually a legal requirement. The Australian

Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) legislative framework, incorporating the

National Code 2007, states that educational institutions which are CRICOS providers, that is those

which are accredited to provide places for international students, must address the particular needs

of international students in regard to both content and delivery of education (Australian

Government Department Of Education, 2008). In response, The Queensland Studies Authority

requires that teaching and learning should be not only socially and culturally inclusive but also

responsive (Queensland Studies Authority, 2011). This can be interpreted to mean that providers

“must strive to identify, understand and adapt to the specific requirements of the various cultural

groups participating in Australian education” (Midgley, 2009). By assessing and comparing

students’ visual perception skills, this research attempts to further this goal by adding to our

understanding of potential differences that should be accommodated to ensure equity in teaching

and assessment practices.

This study aims to apply psychological research methodology to an education context.

To date, much of the cross cultural comparisons of cognitive skills have been undertaken in the

field of cognitive neuroscience. As such, these studies have been primarily interested in setting

clinical norms for various populations for the purpose of detecting disability. This study

examines a broader spectrum of visual processing skills than has previously been studied across

this range of language groups at university level, using tools which can capture the high levels of

proficiency expected of tertiary students. By sampling from an English speaking university, the

research is positioned to look at the levels of these skills that are reached with high level English

language proficiency. In this way it differs from studies that have looked at culturally related

cognitive skill levels across broader populations of varying education levels. Furthermore, as

publications of research in this area are generally directed to professionals within the cognitive

psychology field, the level of technical jargon in the reporting often makes it largely inaccessible

to most ESL teachers. This research, therefore, will then attempt to present this information in a

form more accessible to educators; both those preparing ESL students for university and those

teaching ESL students already in university.

Research questions

This research asks the following questions

What are the relative levels of Visual Perception skills of international and domestic

students in an Australian university?

Are there differences in the strengths and weaknesses in particular Visual Perception skills

that can be linked to language background?

Is there a link between Visual Perception skills and University Grade Point Average

(GPA)?

Literature Review

An inter-disciplinary literature review has been undertaken to gain a broad overview

of visual processing in a cross cultural context. Firstly, an attempt is made to reconcile

models from three fields of study; Education, Psychology, and Cognitive Science. A current

two way model of reading from the Education literature, which incorporates bottom up and

top down processing, is situated within a similar two way information processing model from

the Psychology literature which introduces the concept of cognitive load. The review then

looks at research from the Cognitive Science literature to understand how these processes are

enacted by the cognitive system. After correlating the information from these three

disciplines, the models are then considered in the light of information from the Applied

Linguistics and ESL literatures to suggest that English reading models may differ from that of

non-English readers in terms of both what the cognitive system is required to do and

therefore the processes it might utilize to achieve them. The most commonly identified

visual information processing skills are defined and the role of each skill in reading is

considered in terms of what, if any, problems ESL students might have with these skills, and

how this may impact their performance in an English language education setting.

Current Models of English Reading

By far the majority of the current Education literature supports a two way model of

reading. Such models incorporate both “bottom-up” analytic processes and “top-down”

global processes. While the relative importance of top down or bottom up processes is

controversial, it is seldom disputed that “the reader uses both graphic and contextual

information to grasp the meaning of a text” (Verhoeven, Reitsma, & Siegel, 2011). It

should, therefore, be remembered, that while it is useful to separate top down and bottom up

processes for the purposes of analysis, they are certainly not completely discrete skills.

It has been found that English readers use bottom up processing on almost every

word, with the exception of just a few non content words (K Rayner, 1998; Scheiman, 2002;

Stanovitch, 1991). Although they do not necessarily fixate every word, English readers are

able to quite thoroughly process words even in parafoveal vision (Balota, Pollatsek, &

Rayner, 1985). In reading, parafoveal vision includes the area just ahead of the fixated word.

It is believed that readers can get at least basic information about a word from parafoveal

vision such as its general shape and length (Inhoff, Radach, Eiter, & Juhasz, 2003; Whiteley

& Walker, 2007). This is consistent with the theory that low spatial frequencies can be

processed in parafoveal vision (Rucci, Iovin, Poletti, & Santini, 2007), giving low resolution

or blurry information. It is believed that if a word can easily be guessed, using contextual

and parafoveal clues, it is skipped. This guessing is part of top down processing

In the top down processes described by hypothesis testing reading models, readers

scan for contextual clues by which they check their hypothesis about the meaning of the text

(Smith, 1971). Smith claimed that the speed of silent reading proves that readers are

“sampling the text for meaning rather than to identify words” (Smith, 1971, p103). While

this sampling has proven to be far more dense than Smith originally proposed (Balota et al.,

1985; Keith Rayner, 2009; Stanovitch, 1991), the basic premise of the model is usually

incorporated, at least to a certain extent, into current two way models. However, it is worth

noting that even Smith stressed that effective sampling could not happen until readers had

reached a high level of automatization in their word recognition skills (Smith, 1971).

Current Models of Word Recognition

It is believed that English readers use two distinct methods of word recognition. This

is generally referred to as the dual route of word recognition (Coltheart, Rastle, Perry,

Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001). This should not be confused with two way reading models as it

refers primarily to bottom up processes, proposing that there are two main forms of bottom

up processing involved in word recognition. The first method uses a direct visual route,

processing the whole word as one symbol. The second uses an indirect, phonological route,

requiring serial translation of letters into sounds.

The direct route is the fastest route to word identification. In fact, the speed at which

these words can be processed has been given as evidence that these words are being

processed visually, as whole words (Pollatsek & Rayner, 2005). It is claimed serial

phonological processing could not occur within such short time frames. Also, evidence of a

word superiority effect is often held up as evidence of whole word processing (Besner,

Davelaar, Alcott, & Parry, 1984; Pollatsek & Rayner, 2005; M. Wang, Koda, & Perfetti,

2003). This is the tendency for readers to recognise words better than letters but also to

recognise letters better within words. It should be noted that while whole word processing is

usually referred to as the ‘direct; route, in the context of much of the research in this area this

can only be thought of as direct to the final pronunciation of the word as opposed to its

meaning. This is because much of this research employs rapid naming in the methodology

which gives no indication when or if the participants reach the meaning of the word.

The direct route can only be used on known words. Unfamiliar words will not be

recognised, and the second method will be needed to ‘sound out’ the word. That serial

phonological processing is sometimes used for word identification is evidenced by studies

that have shown a word length effect in which longer words take longer to process than

shorter ones, suggesting they are being processed serially from beginning to end (Wydell,

Vuorinen, Helenius, & Salmelin, 2003). However, just as it is not possible to reach the

meaning of all words via the visual route, it is equally impossible to reach the meaning of all

English words via the phonological method. English is a deep orthography as there are very

few graphemes in English that are invariant in terms of grapheme phoneme relationship.

There are many English letter combinations that cannot be read phonetically. There is no

way to know how the word should be pronounced without having previously heard the word.

Some commonly used examples are ‘one’ and ‘two’.

Evidence clearly supports the theory that English readers use both phonetic and direct

visual decoding for the bottom up processing of printed words. In fact, it seems likely that the

majority of words are identified using a combination of the two. If a word cannot be

predicted from its shape alone the reader may search for a phonological cue in the important

initial or final letters. This is facilitated by parallel processing in which more than one letter

is identified at the same time. However, as previously discussed, English readers also use top

down processing such as referring to context. Pelli and Tillman (2007) designed an

experiment in which they manipulated text is such a way that in each test, participants were

unable to utilize one of the methods of text decoding out of whole word, letter by letter

processing or referring to sentence context. Interestingly, they found a marked separation of

these skills. That is, one route was not more utilised when another was lost. This suggests a

triangular model of reading which incorporates dual input routes with top down processing.

Figure 3A provides a simple model of this. M and P at the bottom of the diagram refer to

cognitive streams which will be discussed later. Figures 3B-D will also be discussed in a

later section.

meaning

meaning

meaning

meaning

Figure 2A English ReadingEnglish readers rely on two routes of bottom up processing: whole word and phonological letter by letter processing, believed to be processed by the M and P streams respectively. These 2 bottom up routes are combined with top down processing such as referring to context or logic.

Figure 3C Arabic ReadingBecause neither route is sufficient to identify words Arabic readers rely primarily on context. Of the 2 bottom up routes, whole word is probably favoured because identifying individual letters is visually difficult.

Figure 3B Chinese ReadingBecause there is little phonetic information in Chinese characters, this route is much less significant in reading Chinese. The whole word, direct to meaning route is the most important but the necessity to discriminate details to identify the characters may mean this processing is not done by the M stream.

Figure 3D Korean ReadingAs Korean provides accurate phonological information, this is likely to be the preferred route in Korean reading. However,

Context

Context

Context

Phonological

M P

Context

Phonological

evidence that the phonological route is faster than the direct route, raises questions about which cognitive stream is used.

The models in Figure 3 simply illustrates the combination of these 3 processes to read

English. They are a simplified version of The Seidenberg McCelland’s 1989 Triangular Model

of English Word Production and Writing which was expanded by Randall (2007) to address

reading in Chinese, Arabic and Malay. To understand how the cognitive system enacts these

processes, it is necessary to look to the cognitive science literature.

Reading as information processing

Some authors such as (Beard, 1995; Birch, 2007) have suggested that Education practice has

often ignored relevant research from Psychology. For this reason, this research attempts to

understand reading in terms of an information processing model from the psychology

literature.

Information processing models

Information processing models account for both bottom up processing which flows

from data driven sensual input, and top down processing from experience or knowledge

driven higher level cognitive processes (Palmer, 1999). An adaption of these models,

incorporating Badderly and Hitch’s 1974 model of Working Memory (Baddeley, 2002) is

given in Figure 2.

Iconic MemoryVery short duration/ Unlimited capacity

Echoic Memory

PhonologicalLoop

touch

taste

hearing sight

smell

Long Term MemoryVery long duration/ Unlimited capacity

Semantic Procedural Episodic

VisuospatialSketchpad

Working Memory (Baddeley, 2002)Short duration/ Limited capacity

Central Executive

INFORMATION PROCESSING

Figure 3 Information Processing Model (Developed from information in (Palmer, 1999))

Figure 2 shows a model of information processing including three levels of memory store. Starting from the bottom; sensual input initially enters a sensual buffer or very brief initial memory. It is theorised that each sense has its own sensorial buffer although to date only the Iconic memory (sight) and Echoic Memory (hearing) have been identified. The central area of the model incorporates the three components model of Working Memor proposed by Baddeley and Hitch in 1974 (Baddeley, 2002). This includes the Phonological Loop which enables the short duration of WM to be extended by means of aural rehearsal, and the Visiospatial Sketchpad which manipulates purely visual data. An additional arrow from WM back to the data input level has been added to Baddeley and Hitch’s model to show the role WM plays in directing attention and, as a consequence, Oculomotor Behaviour or eye movements. Similarly double arrows between the sensory stores and WM signify WM’s active role the selection of data from these stores.Finally, three components of Long Term Memory are shown.

The premise of current visual information processing models is that the cognitive

system incorporates a series of three memory stores. These stores vary in duration, which is

the length of time they can hold information, and capacity, which is the quantity of

information they can hold. Three types of memory are described in the literature; Iconic

Memory, Working Memory and Long Term Memory.

Iconic Memory

The first memory store is referred to by many names including Iconic Memory, the

Episodic Buffer, Visual Sensory Information Store, Very Short Term Memory, and

Information Persistence. It is described as a buffer zone, for the collection of information

before it is extracted into the information processing system. Unlike the other levels of

memory it is sense specific, that is, it is only for visual information.

Iconic memory has an extremely short duration of about 400 milliseconds (ms)

(Keysers, Xiao, Foldiak, & Perrett, 2005) to 1 second (Palmer, 1999). Because of this limited

duration, most people are able to report only four to five characters of a briefly exposed

image before they forget the rest of the image. However, if cued immediately after the

display vanishes, as to which characters to report, they can report any four to five characters

proving that they have remembered the entire array (Palmer, 1999). Such partial report

experiments have found the qualitative recall from iconic memory to be equal to that of a

sustained image (Keysers et al., 2005). It seems the capacity of iconic memory is as large as

the visual field but the extremely limited duration makes fast accurate extraction crucial.

The very short duration of iconic memory is an important consideration in reading.

Good readers must be able to extract the salient information from print as if they have been

cued, that is their word identification strategies need to be automatic. This enables readers to

extract the information from iconic memory while the eyes saccade to the next word. If

extraction strategies are inappropriate or not fast enough, the memory will be lost and a

regression or backward eye movement will be needed to re-fixate the word. Obviously this

would slow the pace of reading.

Working Memory

The central component in most information processing models is the idea of a

working or short term memory. This can be understood as the ‘thinking’ part of the

processing system. It is responsible for the integration of new incoming data by holding it

until enough data has been collected to render the target information comprehensible.

Working memory also has access to long term memory so can refer to previous experience

and knowledge in order to make associations to assist the integration of data. There is

evidence that some highly discriminable information is automatically extracted from Iconic

Memory to Working Memory, but extracting details requires top down control (Gao, Li, Yin,

& Shen, 2010). Working Memory is therefore responsible for directing attention or actively

choosing what we notice or don’t notice.

Working Memory is believed to have a duration of around 12- 15 ms (Goldstein,

2010) although this can be temporarily extended by a process of aural rehearsal. This is

when we mentally repeat verbalised information over and over. In their 1974 working

memory model, Badderly and Hitch proposed this was facilitated by the Phonological Loop

(Baddeley, 2002). Working Memory also has very fixed and limited capacity, most

commonly accepted to be 7+ or – 1 or 2 (Miller 1956 ). However, the capacity of Working

Memory can also be increased by the process of combining “lower- level features into higher-

level chunks” (Orbán, Fiser, Aslin, & Lengyel, 2008), for example by the combination of

lines and dots into one letter or direct recognition of multi-letter units and whole words

(Randall, 2007). Randall stresses that a high level of automaticity in the extraction of salient

elements of the incoming information must first be reached before readers will be capable of

chunking them together. Letters can only be chunked when it is no longer necessary for the

reader to look carefully at the details of each one in order to recognise it (Randall, 2007).

Long Term Memory

Also known as Schema or Permanent Memory, Long Term Memory is the most

permanent of the stores of perceived information. There are no known limits to either the

capacity or duration of Long Term Memory. Three parts of long term memory are identified.

Semantic Memory which includes general knowledge of concepts such as vocabulary or the

shape of a letter. Procedural Memory which concerns how to use this knowledge, for

example how to write a letter; and Episodic Memory which contains information about

specific or individual things or events, for example a specific time when a word was heard.

Long Term Memory provides the knowledge bank on which the perceptual system can draw

to recognise and sort incoming data.

Together these three components of memory form a two directional “information

processing system which is constantly interpreting information in the light of previous

experience” (Randall p 32). The models summarise how we perceive or understand sensual

input. An important element in these models is the concept of Cognitive Load, or the very

fixed and limited capacity of the processing system. This makes it essential that the bottom

up skills such as word recognition, are automatic so that they don’t take up capacity needed

for higher level comprehension (Beard, 1995).

Implications for ESL Students

There are important implications for ESL students within each of the memory levels

of information processing models. The extremely short duration of Iconic Memory may be a

limiting factor because if ESL students cannot extract salient features with the necessary

speed, they will have to maintain each fixation until they have extracted the information.

This would explain Rayner's (1998) finding that ESL students make longer fixations when

they read English than native English speakers as they must remain fixated to extract the

information rather than extracting it from iconic memory during the saccade. It may even be

the case that ESL students have developed a level of automaticity in their extraction strategies

for reading in their L1 that are inappropriate for reading English. Having extracted

innappropriate information in the first saccade they may require a second, backward saccade

to extract the necessary information.

Inappropriate automatic or habitual responses learnt from L1 are also important in

terms of Working Memory as consciously overriding or blocking them may take up some of

the limited capacity of Working Memory (Randall, 2007). Even without considering the

additional load of L1 interference some researchers argue that the limits of working memory

may be an important factor in ESL reading simply because the English word identification

skills of ESL students may not yet be automatic (Birch, 2007; Randall, 2007) and would

therefore make a higher demand on the cognitive system. Given that automaticity in

recognition is a requirement for chunking, lack of automaticity may also reduce ESL

students’ ability to group visual data into appropriate chunks in order to reduce cognitive

load. Furthermore, it is possible that “chunking is a function of learning experiences that

may very well be domain-specific” (Yeh, Li, Takeuchi, Sun, & Liu, 2003). That is, the

methods learnt to chunk one orthography may not necessarily transfer to another. This idea is

considered further under the heading of Visual Closure. On reviewing the literature,

(Fitzgerald, 1995) found ESL readers use fewer metacognitive or top down strategies than

native speakers, and those they did use they used less frequently. Randal suggests this is due

to the load on the processing system caused by a lack of automatization of bottom up skills,

specifically those involved in word identification. ESL learners, therefore, have “less

capacity for a holding longer stretches of language for integrating with incoming information

and, thinking about the wider contextual environment with which to interpret the text”

(Randall, 2007, p 93).

The concept of Long Term Memory as an important factor in perception is also

significant for ESL students. If this element of the processing system is a memory store

rather than a ‘hardwired’ a priori knowledge bank, then past learning experiences will affect

how we perceive or quite literally how we see things. Because Long Term Memory must

inevitably be culturally regulated (Abu-rabia, 2003), perception must consequently be

moderated by the limits of experience. This idea is also discussed further under the heading

of Closure.

Cognitive Stream Modals

Within the cognitive and vision science literatures, a number of multi-stream models

have been proposed to explain visual information processing (Bar, 2004; Palmer, 1999). Two

main cognitive streams have been identified, as important in reading English.

The first cognitive stream is called the Magnocellular (M) stream because it originates

in the M ganglion cells in the retinal area. The M stream is associated with Visiospatial and

motion analysis . Primarily fed by the Transient or Dorsal pathways, this stream is often

referred to as the ‘where’ stream because it is thought to be important in locating objects.

Information in this stream reaches the central processor the fastest so reading will be fastest

when working memory selects information from the M stream. The M stream carries high

temporal frequency and high contrast sensitivity but low spatial resolution (blurry)

information such as the general shape of the object. The M stream can respond to high

spatial frequencies but is inaccurate in in the transfer of this level of detail. However, with

the addition of top down processing, including contextual clues, this information may be

enough to identify an object. Some research suggests that the M stream facilitates direct,

visual word recognition (Allen, Smith, Lien, Kaut, & Canfield, 2009), perhaps by capturing

information about the general shape of the word such as the length and whether it contains

ascenders (eg: b d f) or descenders (e.g.: g j p).

When information from the M stream is insufficient to identify the object or word,

information from the second stream, the Parvocellular (P) stream can be used. Fed from the

Sustained or Ventral pathway, the P stream originates in the P ganglion cells and is often

referred to as the ‘what’ stream for its role in identifying objects. It is slower to reach the

central processor but carries information of higher spatial frequency though low temporal

frequency and relatively low contrast sensitivity. This stream is thought to be responsible for

recognising form and colour. It is therefore used for sustained attention to detail. Allen et al

propose this stream is used for the more detailed letter by letter word identification (Allen et

al., 2009). However, in considering the strength of these theories it should be remembered

that the roles of the cognitive streams are not strictly separated and research has found at least

some degree of convergence.

Figure 4 shows the model proposed by Allen, Smith, Lien, Kaut, & Canfield, (2009)

to explain how these two streams could account for the bottom up processing of a dual route

to word recognition, with each stream being primarily, though not exclusively responsible for

one method of word recognition. Cognitive stream models refer to the very early stages of

perception. The exact relationship between the cognitive streams and reading is still not fully

understood but it is generally agreed that deficiency in either stream can lead to English

reading difficulties, although problems with M stream processing seems to feature most

prominently in the special education literature (Boden & Giaschi, 2007; Cornelissen et al.,

1998; Facoetti, Paganoni, & Lorusso, 2000).

Figure 4- A multistream model of word processing (Allen et al., 2009)

Figure 4 shows the two streams in the visual pathway, passing through three anatomical levels. The final level

(C V1) is the Primary Visual Cortex. This model actually shows three streams: the magnocellular-dominated

‘where’ stream (MD) or M stream which is sensitive to high temporal but low spatial frequencies, object

direction, disparity, and orientation (Essen & Anderson, 1995) and two streams named after their physiological

features that make up the ‘what’ P stream. The Blob-Dominated (BD) stream is sensitive to colour and texture,

and the Inter Blob-dominated (IB) stream which is the most sensitive to shape. (Felleman, Xiao, & McClendon,

1997). Allen et al propose the streams are involved in a race to the central processor. Generally the faster MD

stream will win but when the low spatial frequency information carried by this stream is insufficient for word

identification as in the case of unfamiliar letter strings, information from the P stream will be used.

Implications for ESL Students

It is probably not the case that reading in all languages will fit the same triangular

model as that of reading English. For example, clearly, reading logographic script does not

involve serial processing of letters. Even between alphabetic systems, there are significant

differences that may impact on the cognitive processes involved in reading. An important

point is that alphabetic writing systems differ vastly in their orthographic depth (Hussain,

1995 p136). Serbo-Croatian, for example has almost 100% grapheme-phoneme (letter-

sound) correspondence and thus is considered to be a shallow orthography. The

pronunciation of a word is always obvious from its spelling. It is possible to read a shallow

orthography using only serial phonological processing. Wydell et al ( 2003) demonstrated

this by measuring a greater word length effect with less sensitivity to lexical variance in

Finnish than English readers. This suggests that because Finnish is a shallow orthography,

readers rely more on phonological serial processing than direct whole word processing or

using lexical clues.

As a consequence of the differences in the process used to read various orthographies

it seems unlikely that that the cognitive processes involved in reading them could be similarly

mapped within the cognitive system. In fact, it is very well established in the literature that

there are differences in the cognitive processes employed to read different orthographies

(Hung & Tzeng, 1981). This has been established in studies using neural imaging (H.-C.

Chen, Vaid, Bortfeld, & Boas, 2008; Goh et al., 2007; Perfetti et al., 2007),as well as many

behavioural studies (Koda, 1995; Randall & Meara, 1988).

Of course in any language, learners need a minimum level of fundamental cognitive

skills in order to perform read and write (Starfield, 1990). Undoubtedly, at least some of

these skills transfer from their first language to English. This is supported by studies which

have found a positive correlation between learners’ proficiency in their L1 and their ESL

achievement (Birch, 2007; Dweik, Abu, & Mustafa, 2007; Starfield, 1990). However, Birch,

(2007) argues that, the degree to which these skills transfers across languages is limited by

the basic level of similarity in the processes involved in reading in the two language systems.

Given the “emerging evidence that the basic processes in reading are not universal but may

be quite language specific” (Randall p 74) it seems likely that some ESL students will not

have developed some English specific skills to the level of their domestic peers. The

following section explores more precisely the visual processing skills involved in reading

English and considers the possible difficulties readers from other L1 backgrounds may have

with these skills.

Visual Perception

In Borsting’s definition of visual perception, cited in the introduction, he refers to “a group of

visual skills (Borsting, 1995, p150)” These are the Higher Level Visual skills, often referred

to as Visual Information Processing or Visual Cognition, that combine lower level visual

processing with cognitive elements as described in information processing models. They are

often referred to as Developmental Visual Information Processing skills because they are

learnt skills that are generally developed through exposure to learning experiences (Garzia

2008). In the Vision Science literature visual perception skills are generally divided into a

number of theoretical constructs as shown in Figure 4. They are by no means discrete skills

but are heavily interconnected. However, their theoretical division is useful for skill level

diagnosis. Most commonly, Visual Perception is initially divided into Visual Spatial Skills

and Visual Analysis.

VisualPerception

Spatial

Laterality

Directionality

Bilateral Integration

Analysis

Visualisation

Form Perception

Form Discrimination

colour Shape

Size Orientation

Form Constancy

Closure

Figure Ground

Attention

Coming to Attention

Maintaining Attention

Perceptual Speed

Visual Memory

Spatial Memory

Sequential Memory

= associated with M stream

= associated with P stream

Figure 5 – Visual Perception

Skills

Visual Spatial

Visual Spatial skills are used to understand directional concepts and spatial position

(Borsting, 1995). Spatial skills include Laterality, Directionality and Bilateral Integration.

Laterality is an internal awareness of right and left within one’s own body which underpins

Directionality or the external awareness of the relationship of one object in space to another

(Garzia et al., 2008). These are the skills required to accurately perceive the spatial location

of letters with reference to other letters in order to facilitate serial decoding of words.

Directionality facilitates the ability to discriminate between letters that can only be

identified by their orientation: b/d p/q. Bilateral Integration refers to gross and fine motor

skills including hand eye coordination as required for writing. The key to these skills is a

strong awareness of a central point or midline either side of which left and right, front and

back, or top and bottom can be located (McMains, 2012). Spatial skills allow us to achieve

the cognitively demanding task of crossing the midline from opposing directions, as in the

ability to write a continual figure 8. Evidence suggests that spatial skills are strongly

connected to M stream function.

Many researchers have made a strong case that spatial skills are necessary for

efficient English reading (Baccino & Pynte, 1998; Martelli, Di Filippo, Spinelli, &

Zoccolotti, 2009; Vinckier et al., 2006; Waechter, Besner, & Stolz, 2011). For example, in

a study using the computer based CSeeRite Reading Diagnostic Programme (SRDP) and

the paper based Developmental Eye Movement Test (DEMT), Larter, Herse, Naduvilath, &

Dain (2004), found strong links between lower than average reading age and low spatial

skills. The DEM manipulates the difficulty of the task in terms of position, and the SRDP

in terms of both position and orientation. Interestingly there was no corresponding

correlation between high spatial skill and high reading ability, suggesting there is a certain

threshold of spatial skills necessary for good reading.

There are a number of reasons why different orthographies might not make the same

high demands on spatial skills as English. One important point is that not all orthographies

include graphemes that require crossing the midline from opposing directions as b and d

which have circles formed in opposite directions, or w which utilizes both top to bottom and

bottom to top strokes. Furthermore, not all orthographies include graphemes that are

distinguished only by their orientation. Another consideration is that not all orthographies

require the same sequential decoding skills that English does. Logographs are not made up of

sequences of letters like alphabetic orthographies. Even syllabaries present a more simplified

sequencing task than alphabets as there are less individual components in the sequence. A

final but important consideration is that the direction of the writing is not left to right in all

orthographies, nor necessarily horizontal. While there has been some research on some

aspects on text directionality such as its relationship to scanning habits (Schuett, Heywood,

Kentridge, & Zihl, 2008; Vaid, Rhodes, Tosun, & Eslami, 2011) and attention (H. C. Chen &

Tang, 1998), there has been little research on the effect of text direction on laterality and

directionality skills. Hung & Tzeng, (1981) reviewed the work of Albert (1975) who found

quite profound differences in the directionality skills of native speakers of the right to left

Arabic and Hebrew languages, to those of English native speakers. Although Hung and

Tzeng questioned Albert’s findings, and suggested more research was needed in the area, to

date I have not found either Albert’s original research or other research answering Hung &

Tzeng’s request.

Visual analysis

Visual analysis skills are needed to “recognize, recall and manipulate visual

information” (Borsting, 1995). They are the skills used to select and identify the salient

features of script in order to recognise letters and words. As such, Visual Analysis skills “are

the most fundamental and essential of all reading skills ” (Vellutino, Scanlon & Tanzmen,

1994, p. 280). Pointing out “that features are probably script-specific if not language

specific” (Randall, 2007, p. 62), Randall suggests we must consider whether “the processes

involved in feature extraction differ from one scriptal system to another” (Randall, 2007, p.

62). It is believed that our visual analysis abilities develop according to individual

experience and need. Snowden, Thompson and Troscianko suggest that this “nurture”

element in the development of visual analysis skill, could explain “why we tend to think that

people from other races all look the same” (Snowden, Thompson, & Troscianko, 2006, p.

241). If it is true that we have difficulty seeing human features we don’t usually need to

notice, it is possible ESL students are less efficient at seeing English orthographic features

that differ from their L1 orthographic features. Visual analysis skills include Form

Perception, Visual Attention, Visual Memory and Perceptual Speed.

Form Perception

“Form Perception is the ability to discriminate, recognize, and identify forms and

objects (Garzia, 1996, p. 159) Form perception skills can be further divided into Visual

Discrimination, Visual Constancy and Visual Closure.

Visual Discrimination

Visual Form Discrimination is the awareness of distinctive features of objects and

written language (Borsting, 1995). It is required to identify the necessary words on a page

containing other graphical images and to distinguish between different words and letters. It

requires “the ability to differentiate objects in terms of their attributes” (Terry, 2003, p.1),

including colour, size, shape and orientation. Visual Discrimination is thought to be

primarily reliant on information from the P (What) stream, which appears to be concerned

with manipulating details and object identification. However, distinguishing between

letters by their orientation probably falls to the M stream as some P stream neurons do not

recognise orientation.

It is possible that ESL readers may not have acquired the same discrimination skills as

English speakers. Readers must be aware of the salient features of words and even letters in

order to identify them (Terry, 2003) but it is clear that these features vary across

orthographies. For example, not all orthographies require discrimination in terms of size nor

do they use capital letters. Therefore, noticing the difference between S/s or o/O might not be

automatic for all students. Furthermore, the salient features within a script can be quite

specific details of shape. Some studies have shown the importance of vertical lines in Roman

script perception (Lanthier, Risko, Stolz, & Besner, 2009), but this may not be the case in all

languages. Significantly, the awareness is generally unconscious and automatic. Although

university level ESL students can discriminate between English letters, if noticing the salient

features is not automatic it would increase cognitive load leaving less capacity for deeper

understanding .

Visual Form Constancy

Also known as Perceptual Invariance, Visual Form Constancy is the “recognition of

the dominant features of certain figures or shapes when they appear in different sizes,

shadings, textures, and positions” (Elliott et al., 2010). This skill allows us to realise that an

object is the same object regardless of our perspective. For example, we recognise a book as

the same book if it is open or closed, or if it is moved from one shelf to another. Probably

because of the role of the P stream in identifying objects, some neurons in the P stream show

invariance for colour, size, position (Booth & Rolls, 1998), and orientation (Logothetis &

Pauls, 1995).

In reading Visual Form Constancy allows us to recognize letters when they are

written in different fonts or case. However, English orthography also requires the

suppression of this skill to discriminate between letters that vary only by direction. This

makes reading English very different to other forms of perception. Vinckier claims the

default invariance for mirror symmetry must be unlearned by the P stream in the particular

case of reading English (Vinckier et al., 2006).

For several reasons, ESL learners may not have needed to develop their form

constancy skill in the same way as English readers have. Firstly, not all alphabets make use

of capital letters, nor do they all have two forms equivalent to the printed and the cursive

form. Furthermore, as the dominant language in computing and the internet, English has

routinely become available in a multitude of fonts but this has not happened to the same

degree in all languages. Therefore, ESL readers may not automatically apply constancy and

consciously applying it could cause cognitive load.

Visual Closure

Visual Closure is the ability to identify or recognize a symbol or object when the

entire object is not visible (American Optometric Association, 2000). Figure 5 shows only

dots, yet a whole circle is automatically visualized. In keeping with Gestalt psychology, the

visual system shows a tendency to automatically aggregate “discrete stimulus elements into

larger wholes” (Ben-Av, Sagi, & Braun, 1992). The resulting perception is greater than the

sum of the observed parts. On the other hand, In Figure 5 some dots are relegated to the

background. This ability to separate non related visual information is Perceptual Segregation

or Parsing. It is the ability to recognise the parts within the whole. It facilitates Visual Figure

Ground Discrimination which is the ability to select and process an object or a specific

feature of an object from a background of competing stimuli (American Optometric

Association, 2000).

Figure 6 Visual Closure

Fig 1 is actually just dots but we perceived a circle by perceptually grouping some dots and excluding or

perceptually parsing others. The brain guesses the most likely shape or object in the light of long term memory

and context. This guess is constantly reviewed as new information is received.

Visual Closure is fundamental to fast efficient reading. Perceptual Grouping is

elemental to the chunking of lines into letters and letters into words while parsing allows

morphological word analysis. Closure is the underpinning skill in the hypothesis testing

model of reading, allowing readers to “sample” the text and guess the fuller meaning. This

happens not just at sentence level but also at word level. Readers can predict upcoming

letters according to their “expectations of commonly occurring letter pairs and clusters”

(Randall). In this way closure is probably responsible for word superiority effect. Closure

also happens at the level of letter identification. It is known that the top half of English

letters hold the most salient information (Birch, 2007) most sentences can be guessed if only

the top half of the letters are noticed.

Two aspects of closure are potentially important to ESL learners. Evidence suggests,

readers tend to be Bayesian Predictors in terms of the closure decisions they make. A

Bayesian Predictor “forms chunks in a statistically principled way, without any strong prior

knowledge of the possible rules for their construction” (Orbán et al., 2008). This means

experience plays a larger role than knowledge of grammar or spelling rules. Secondly,

Closure is automatic (Ben-Av et al., 1992). ESL readers may need to apply top down control

to override L1 interference creating inappropriate closure. This would cause additional

cognitive load rather than reducing it as L1 closure does.

Visual Attention

Palmer defines attention as “those processes that enable an observer to recruit

resources for processing selected aspects of the retinal image more fully than non selected

aspects” (Palmer, 1999, p 532). The analogy of a spotlight is often used to describe attention.

While there is “an enhancement of visual processing in a location that is attended” (Steinman

& Steinman, 1998), there is reduced processing to those areas ‘in the dark’. This is necessary

because of the limited capacity of the processing system. “Attended stimuli make demands

on processing capacity, while unattended ones often do not.” (Desimone & Duncan, 1995,

p194). By attending only to the salient features of the letter or word, maximum salient

information is extracted while placing minimum burden on working memory. Two stages of

attention must be considered. Firstly there is coming to attention. According to Bundesen &

Habekost (2005), this stage has been most thoroughly investigated in the Cognitive

Psychology literature. Second, is sustaining attention, which appears to have been more

thoroughly investigated in the Education literature, probably because sustaining attention and

perceptual noise exclusion, or the ability to not be distracted by non salient information, have

been found to be lower in poor readers (Ahissar, 2007; Boden & Giaschi, 2007; Shovman &

Ahissar, 2006). Steinman & Steinman believe that both aspects can “be initiated by either

top down or bottom up processes” (Steinman & Steinman, 1998, p153) and are primarily

associated with the M stream (Boden & Giaschi, 2007; Steinman & Steinman, 1998).

Differences have been observed between the allocation of attention of good and poor

English readers as well as across cultural groups. Poor readers have been found to distribute

their attention more broadly than normal readers (Facoetti et al., 2000). Specifically, poor

readers “allocate more processing capacity to peripheral than to fovial areas of the visual

field” (Williams et al., 1995 p288). Differences in the strategic allocation of attention have

also been found to exist across cultural groups (Boden & Giaschi, 2007). In a study

comparing East Asian to American participants, Boduroglu, Shah, & Nisbett (2009) found

the East Asians allocated their attention more broadly than the Americans. Unfortunately, this

research is limited by the rather broad grouping of “East Asian”. The group comprised of

Chinese, Korean and Japanese, three very distinct cultures with completely different

orthographies. It would have been interesting to have seen the statistical breakdown between

these groups in the results. Despite this, the research is worth noting because these

differences may impact on ESL performance, especially given that attention habits have been

found to be extremely robust (Pollatsek & Rayner, 2005; Vaid et al., 2011). For example, in

a longitudinal study Randall & Meara (1988) found the English word scan strategies of ESL

students did not become more like those of English native speakers over a two year time

frame even though their English levels improved. Randall claims that redirection of attention

for ESL readers will include not just new “noticing” but also active “not noticing” previously

salient features that are not salient in English. Suppressing habitual noticing may use

capacity in Working Memory, as will non automatic new noticing (Randall, 2007).

Inappropriate attention could help to explain the slower reading speed and lower

comprehension rates some researchers such as Hayes-Harb (2010), Koda (1995) and Ryan &

Meara (1992) have identified in ESL learners compared to native speakers. A non-native

speaker may, because of L1 reading habits, at first pay attention inappropriately, therefore

collecting insufficient salient information. The need to search for more useful information

could explain Rayner's finding that non-native speakers make longer eye fixations and a

larger number of regressions or backward eye movements (Rayner 1998). Thus far the

research in this area has predominantly looked at word scanning strategies through the study

of oculomotor behaviour. However, given the visual differences in the world’s orthographies

it is possible that attention differences are also present at the level of letter identification or

even below that at feature level, that is, at the level of the component parts of the letter. This

is consistent with the perceptual theory of recognition by features (Goldstein, 2010; Palmer,

1999).

Visual Memory

“Visual memory is the ability to recognize or recall previously presented visual

stimuli, whether individual or grouped in a specific sequence” (American Optometric

Association, 2000, p 4). Of course sub vocalisation is often used to remember nameable

visually presented stimuli such as letter strings. This makes it difficult to study purely visual

memory. Some studies, for example Shovman & Ahissar (2006) have attempted to eliminate

the possibility of sub vocalisation by using non nameable stimuli. However, if we are to

adopt Badderley’s model incorporating a phonological loop into working memory, then this

subvocalisation can be viewed as an integral part of memorising visually presented

information. Ruchkin, Grafman, Cameron, & Berndt (2003) said “rehearsal is an integral

process, no matter what the type of material” (Ruchkin et al., 2003). For the purposes of this

study, visual memory refers to the process of memorising visual information, whether or not

that process contains a nonvisual component.

Vellutino et al say that in English reading “the load on visual memory is

extraordinary” (Vellutino, Scanlon, & Tanzmen, 1994, p289). Two aspects of visual memory

are important for reading English: Visual Sequential Memory and Visual Spatial Memory.

Visual Sequential Memory is the ability to remember stimuli in a set order. It is important for

English spelling given the lack of phonological recoverability of English. Visual Spatial

Memory requires recall of the spatial location of a previously seen stimulus. It is used to

inform backward saccades. Readers often need to perform a backward saccade when their

prediction for the meaning of upcoming text is not correct. They will sometimes need to

review what they have read to take a more accurate sample. Readers use spatial memory in

order to backtrack in “a single large saccade to the exact area in the sentence where the

information needed” can be found (Baccino & Pynte, 1998).

Visual Memory might be expected to be strongly influenced by both the learning

culture from which the student has come and their orthographic background. While rote

memorization is used to varying degrees in most education systems the preferred method can

vary from visual (flashcards) to aural (listening to the teacher or a recording) to kinaesthetic

(writing lines or repeating aloud). Furthermore, different orthographies may place different

demands on visual memory. For example, Visual Sequential Memory is not necessary to

spell phonologically shallow languages where it is possible to correctly spell all words by

sounding them out and applying the rules (Birch, 2007).

Perceptual Speed

Perceptual speed relates to the speed at which all of the above skills can be performed.

It has an obvious direct relation to reading speed but is also important because of the time

restraints on both Iconic and Working Memory. Speed is a culturally related skill, as speed

not necessarily as highly regarded in all cultures as it tends to be in western cultures

(Roivainen, 2010; Rosselli & Ardila, 2003). Roivainen (2010) proposed that differences in

the cross cultural scores in the WAIS test were a result of the way the different cultures

valued speed. They found that “Americans opt for speed in their performance, while

Europeans pay more attention to avoiding mistakes” (Roivainen 2010, p191). These

differences have been captured in studies measuring learning style on a scale from impulsive

to reflective (Rahal & Palfreyman, 2009).

When considering Visual Perception skills as discrete constructs, it is important to

remember that they are highly interdependent. For example, visual discrimination in terms of

orientation cannot be achieved without directionality. Visual Memory is enabled by first

recognising the shapes to be remembered using Visual Analysis. For this reason the

possibilities for discrete skill testing are limited. It is necessary to test a range of skills and

produce a visual skill profile.

Table 1 summarises of the sub-skills of visual perception skills and their relationship

to reading. Some additional considerations in regard to ESL students are given in column

three.

Table 1 Visual Perception Skills

Skill Use in English Reading ESL NotesLaterality/ Directionality/ Bilateral

IntegrationAwareness of right and leftSpatial relationship of one object to another.SequencingDiscriminate in terms of orientation

Serial decoding of the lettersDiscriminate between letters that can only be identified by their orientation: b d p and q.Position of letters on line: Pp and Yy (requires visualisation of the line)

Logographic Languages do not require serial encoding skillsArabic letters change shape according to their position in the word so sequential discrimination is less important because shape discrimination can also be used to distinguish the relative position of letters in wordsNot all orthographies include graphemes that are distinguished in terms of orientationDirection of the writing not left to right/ horizontal in all orthographies.

Form DiscriminationAwareness of distinctive features of objects including colour, size, shape and direction

Distinguish words from other graphical imagesDistinguish between different words and lettersShape: ability to detect small but salient differences - c/eSize: oO, sS - The ability to scan for capital letters is crucial to fast search strategies for English text.

Details are important in Chinese script: this could be an advantage although over noticing (noticing non salient information) could cause cognitive load.

Korean, does not include letters that are distinguished in terms of size. In fact, Korean letters change size according to their place in the syllable.

Capital letters and the associated idea that a larger letter marks an important word are not part of all orthographies.

Form ConstancyRecognise objects when they appear in different sizes, shadings, textures, and positions

Recognize letters in different fonts or case, cursive or printing.

Suppression of this necessary to discriminate between letters that vary only by direction.

Not all orthographies use two forms equivalent to the printed and the cursive form. Eg: Korean uses only printing and Arabic uses only cursive.Readers not necessarily exposed to a wide range of fonts in L1Not all orthographies require discrimination in terms of size or orientation so the suppression of this normal perceptual function required for English may be new to some ESL students

Visual ClosureRecognize a symbol or object when the entire object is not visiblePerceptual Groupingautomatically linking related parts, and Perceptual parsingability to separate non related visual information as inFigure Ground

Fast reading: readers “sample” the text and guess the fuller meaning, at sentence, word and letter levelPerceive words as whole units made up of letters but also as separate units within a sentenceReaders group or chunk commonly occurring letter pairs and clusters

Experience related and automatic. ESL readers may need top down control to override L1 automatic closure which would add to cognitive load.

In Korean, syllables are separated visually which would assist parsing.Parsing and grouping phonetic parts within words is not as complex in languages where each phoneme is represented by only one grapheme.

select an object from the backgroundFacilitates “chunking” to reduce cognitive load

Visual AttentionSelective processing of incoming visual dataNecessary because of the limited capacity of the processing systemAttended information is processed faster and more accurately, but with detrimental effects on the processing of non-attended informationDrives saccadic eye movements; firstly attention shifts and then the saccadic eye movement followsIncludes coming to attention and sustaining attention and perceptual noise exclusion.

Directs word scanning strategies: Information carried across saccades is limited by attentional focus. If non salient information is carried to the next saccade creating ambiguity, a regression may be needed to collect more salient information. This will cause slower reading.

Poor readers have been found to distribute attention more broadly than normally readers

Sustaining attention and perceptual noise exclusion, reported to be lower in poor readers.

ESL students tend to maintain inappropriate L1 word scanning strategies.The effective visual field is to the right of the visual field of readers of left to right orthographic backgrounds but to the left of the visual field in readers from right to left orthographic backgrounds, perhaps biasing attention inappropriately for EnglishCultural differences have been found in the allocation of attention.Maintaining attention and not being distracted may require the active suppression of noticing features previously salient in L1.Western classrooms tend to require strong visual attention but students from strongly oral cultures may have difficulty inhibiting Aural attention.Readers from devowelled orthographies such as Arabic, Urdu and Hebrew might allocate attention to vowels differently.Arabic attention maybe broader due to the importance of diacritic marks above and below the letters in Arabic.

Visual MemorySequential

remember stimuli in a set orderSpatial

recall of the spatial location of a previously seen stimulus

Necessary for spelling because phonetic tactics or rules are not sufficient in English.

Used to inform backward saccades.

Not necessary to spell phonologically shallow languages where it is possible to correctly spell all words by sounding them out and applying the rules

Korean grammar uses suffixes instead of word order to mark the subject and object in the sentence. This could mean Koreans are less reliant on visual spatial cues in reading.

Perceptual SpeedSpeed at which perceptual skills can be performed

Important because of the time restraints on both Iconic and Working Memory.

Affected by culturally influenced cognitive style: speed not as highly regarded in all cultures: Americans have been found to prioritise speed (impulsive style) while Europeans pay more attention to avoiding mistakes (reflective style)

The following section looks more closely at three orthographies with particular differences

to English: Chinese, Korean and Arabic, in order to examine the structure of these orthographies

and considers what particular processing strategies might be used to read them and how this could

have affected the visual skill sets developed by students with these L1s.

Chinese

Chinese provides a good contrast to English as it uses a logographic writing system. It is

traditionally written from top to bottom, right to left with no spaces between the characters. Each

character, regardless of complexity, is scaled to fit into the same sized square. There are more than

50,000 different characters in Chinese and it is necessary to know around 3,000 of these to read

most Chinese newspapers and magazines (Ager, 2012). It could therefore be expected that

Chinese readers might have strong visual memory skills.

Research suggests that at the level of word recognition, Chinese is primarily read by a

direct to meaning, visual route (Cook, 1997; Tong & McBride-Chang, 2009) (Simpson & Kang,

2006). Using FMRI scans, (Chou, Chen, Fan, Chen, & Booth (2009) detected that reading Chinese

caused greater activation in areas known to be associated with semantic processing than had

previously been observed in English readers. This could be because of the limited phonetic

information contained in a logograph or because the large number of homophones in Chinese,

make it difficult to link the phonology of an individual word, out of context, to its meaning. In

Chinese one word, on average, has up to six homophones so phonetics alone is insufficient to

decipher its meaning (Perfetti et al., 2007). Bypassing the phonological connection and linking

directly to meaning, also has the advantage of allowing the one writing system to be applied to

many dialects. Heavily visual rather than phonological reading strategies could be a contributing

factor in why Chinese learners tend to favour a visual learning style (Tavassoli, 2002), and

suggests they might have generally strong visual perception skills.

The large number of characters in the orthography means that individual Chinese

characters need to be very complex in shape compared to alphabetic characters. Therefore, it

seems likely that Chinese students will be particularly strong in Visual Analysis. Perhaps because

of this Chinese students have shown a high level of attention to detail (Hung & Tzeng, 1981)

Interestingly Chen & Tang, (1998) found that the effective visual field of their Chinese readers

was only two characters or 3.2 degrees. This is considerably less than the average for English

readers of around 15 letter spaces or about 5 degrees of visual angle (Scheiman, 2002). Perhaps

this reflects a smaller, more detailed focus. It also suggests that a type of parallel processing of the

individual features of the logograph might be used to identify the word. This raises the question of

whether the words are processed by the M stream as English whole word reading is thought to,

given that very specific details need to be recognised. Furthermore Chinese characters are regular

in size without any obvious ascenders or descenders so overall shape might not offer much

discriminable information. This could lead Chinese readers to habitually choose information from

the P rather than the M stream.

Although reading Chinese seems to take a primarily direct to meaning route, some degree

of phonological processing is believed to take place. Most Chinese logographs contain what is

known as a semantic radical on the left and a phonetic radical on the right, although in about 10%

of characters this is reversed. In regular phonograms, the ‘phonetic radical’ gives some indication

of the pronunciation of the character but in the less common irregular phonograms, contain “an

invalid phonetic cue” (Hsiao, 2011p89). In a study using Event-Related Potential (ERP) brain

imaging, Lee, Tsai, Huang, Hung, & Tzeng (2006), found that, within the first 50 to 100 ms of

perceiving the character, the semantic information of the phonetic radical was preserved. That a

reasonable level of processing must have occurred in this time is demonstrated because the

researchers were able to observe a difference in the ERP images of the reading of regular

phonograms to irregular phonograms. Despite this early recognition, the researchers concluded

that no semantic information was retained for longer than 300 ms (Lee et al., 2006). It would seem

that the semantic information is not extracted from Iconic Memory. This suggests an interesting

model in which there is some very brief, fast phonetic processing followed by primarily direct

visual processing. This is, of course, the reverse of the English native speaker model and invites

speculation on the cognitive streams employed in Chinese reading. It may be possible that the

facilitating streams are also reversed. It may be that the M stream carries a clue, even though it is

sometimes an inaccurate one, about the simple phonetic radical which can be interpreted within the

context of the whole word. The P stream may then more thoroughly process the details of the

remainder of the logograph. Fig 3 B shows a speculated model of Chinese reading.

There is evidence that for English word recognition, Chinese students continue to favour a

whole word, rather than the phonological method (Chen & Tang, 1998; K. Wang, 2011), and that

they tend to rely more heavily on other bottom up rather than top down processing strategies

(Koda, 1995). For example, Abbott found that Mandarin speakers scored well on test questions

that required breaking lexical items into smaller parts. She proposed that this is because Chinese

ESL learners “are taught to use bottom-up strategies as they are expected to carefully scrutinize

each word in the text and memorize grammar rules and exceptions” (Abbot, 2004). This suggests

that in reading English, Chinese students continue to favour a slower, more accurate processing

technique.

Arabic

Arabic uses a 28 character alphabet written horizontally from right to left. The difference

in direction combined with the fact that no Arabic letters are discriminated in terms of direction

could mean Arabic students might not have needed to develop the same directionality skills as

English readers. Visual analysis in terms of orientation as in b/p might be especially challenging

for Arabic readers given that these sound are not distinguished in Arabic. A further visual analysis

challenge could come from the fact that Arabic does not use capital letters and no letters are

discriminated in terms of size. Some Arabic letters have the same basic shape but are

discriminated using small marks above and below them. These small marks or diacritics appear to

provide far more salient information than the vertical lines known to be important in English. It is

also interesting that these marks are above and below the main text, suggesting Arabic readers

need a divided broader attention pattern compared to English readers. Within words the letters are

always written connected to one another, with the exception of five letters that are never

connected. Most letters change form depending on whether they appear at the beginning, middle

or end of a word. Spatial sequential discrimination therefore, is less important in reading Arabic

because shape discrimination also can be used to distinguish the relative position of letters within

words.

There are several indicators that a whole word direct route might be preferred over

phonological processing for Arabic word recognition. Although Arabic is a shallow orthography

using a highly consistent set of grapheme-phoneme (letter- sound) correspondences (Abbot, 2004),

Arabic is a diglossic language “whereby the spoken language is totally different from literary

Arabic, the language of books and school instruction” (Abu-rabia, 2000, p147). This could lead to

a closer link between words and their meanings rather than their sounds. In a study using a

masked priming technique in a lexical decision task, Abu-Rabia and Awwad concluded Arabic

words “are represented in their whole shape in the mental lexicon” (Abu-Rabia & Awwad, 2004,

p1) and that this would facilitate whole word, direct lexical access. the researchers claim that a

connected orthography like Arabic is too cognitively demanding to break into lexical items so

readers do not notice morphological decomposition of words(Abu-Rabia & Awwad, 2004). This,

combined with the fact that most Arabic words are less than six characters long (Randall & Meara,

1988) could mean that Arabic readers may not have developed the same perceptual parsing skills

as English readers. Although Arabic readers might prefer a whole word processing technique, it is

not clear whether this would be primarily processed by the M stream like English whole word

processing. Recognising the fine details of the important diacritics may require P stream

information.

It seems that top down strategies play an important role in Arabic reading. Arabic is a

consonantal orthography which means that the short vowels are not usually represented. Because

of this means that neither route of bottom up processing is sufficient to reach the meaning in

Arabic without reference to contextual meaning because different words can be written with the

same spelling when they are devowelled. To know which word is meant, the reader must rely on

context. A possible model of Arabic reading is given in Figure 3C.

There is evidence that Arabic readers continue to rely heavily on context when they read

English. Fender (2003) found Arabic learners used meaning and context more than the Japanese

learners, and Abbot, (2004) found Arabic L1 students tended to score higher on questions

requiring, global reading or top- down strategies when answering English test questions. This

idea is further supported by learning style research that has found Arabic learners to demonstrate

a global as opposed to an analytic style (Rahal & Palfreyman, 2009).

In contrast to Chinese learners, Arabic learners have been observed to have a very low

tendency to be visual learners. Rahal & Palfreyman, (2009) found the majority their students

prefer a verbal learning style, that is, they prefered to learn by talking. This is probably a

consequence of Arabic culture tending to be a strongly oral culture. Such an environment is less

likely to foster a visual learning style. However, the orthographic features of Arabic may also

have a role in solidifying the learning style that Arabic learners bring to the English classroom.

Abbot, (2004) claims that the devowelling of Arabic script makes Arabic readers less likely to

refer to visual clues in general. As a result their overall visual processing skills may not be at the

level of learners coming from more visually orientated Education environments. Typically,

Middle Eastern Arabic speakers show an ESL learning profile in which their English reading and

writing skills progress more slowly than their listening and speaking skills (Randall, 2010). It

has been noted that for many of this group the problems begin with “processing at a word level”

(Randall & Meara, 1988, p133).

Korean

Korean L1 speakers are an interesting group because Korea utilizes an alphabetic script and

a logographic script. The most commonly used system is an alphabet of 24 characters. Koreans

also use some Chinese characters to express Korean words. Most literate Koreans can read at least

some of these characters. Research indicates Koreans are able to switch between phonological and

whole word processing to read these two systems and can apply whole word processing to the

alphabetic script (Simpson & Kang, 2006).

For the Korean alphabetic system, the traditional direction of writing is vertically from top to

bottom, although it is increasingly being written horizontally from left to right. There is no cursive

form. While there are letters that are discriminated in terms of orientation alone, stroke direction

when writing Korean letters is always top to bottom, left to right. There is only one circular

character in Korean and it is always written clockwise so the level of bilateral integration required

to write Korean is not as high as it is for English. While not strictly speaking a syllabry, Korean

letters are arranged in syllable blocks to fit into a consistently sized word square; letters change

height and width depending on which other letters share the syllable, without any consequent

change in status of the letter. Capital letters are not used. Therefore, suppressing form constancy

as is necessary in English reading so could be more difficult for Koreans. Because they are used to

the visual separation of syllables, Koreans could also have difficulty with the more difficult

parsing required in English reading.

Korean is a very shallow orthography. Furthermore, the shapes of the letters were designed

to represent the shape of the mouth when articulating the corresponding sound. Also, letters that

represent related phonemes are visually similar and pronunciation aspects such as aspiration are

indicated with regular markers. (Korean Language Institute, 1997; The Language Institute of

Seoul National University, 1993). Overall, the link between grapheme and phoneme is very clear

in Korean writing. Simpson and Kang (2006) claimed phonological processing of Korean script to

be faster than direct visual processing indicating that Koreans are very strong in this skill and

probably use it as the default route. However, it should be noted that one limitation of this

research is that it uses naming of the words to register identification. While the research makes a

good case that whole word processing reaches the phonetics of the word more slowly. It cannot

really comment on how quickly the meaning is reached. While in phonological processing the

sound of the word must be reached before the meaning, in whole word processing, the meaning

must be reached and then the pronunciation recalled. Like all rapid naming studies, Simpson and

Kang’s findings only indicate which method leads to the fastest articulation and cannot indicate

when the meaning is reached. However, their findings are interesting and raise a question about

which cognitive stream Koreans use when they engage in whole word processing. It is not clear

whether the English model in which whole words are processed by the usually faster M stream can

be applied to reading Korean. Processing by the m stream is also placed in doubt because of the

regular square shape of Korean syllables. With no obvious ascenders of descenders, Korean

syllables may not show enough vareiation in over all shape to be accurately discriminated by the

low spatial frequencies of the M stream. Fig 3D shows a possible reading model for Korean.

Research Design

This research proposes to compare the visual perception skills of domestic and

international Griffith University business students. From the literature, seven Visual Perception

skills have been identified as important to English Reading but potentially problematic for English

as a Second Language (ESL) students. Although these skills constitute a very broad range of skills

to address in a single study, the high level of interdependence between the skills suggests that

discrete evaluation is not useful and perhaps not even possible. For this reason, the study has been

designed to explore and measure potential differences in all the skills across four language groups.

The rationale is that any nationality based trends in skill levels, could warrant further investigation

and consideration of potential equity issues.

The methodology for the study was chosen with an educational context in mind. By using

behavioural tests, it is hoped that results will be achieved in terms of can and can’t do skills which

can be readily interpreted in the context of a classroom. It is an explanatory quantitative study,

using a using two commercially available cognitive assessment tools and some original computer

based tests. The research design also incorporates some opportunities for qualitative data

collection as described in the test kits. This will be used to contextualise the quantitative results

and to deduct some potentially influential factors worthy of further investigation.

Tools

No individual test battery seemed to offer appropriate coverage of the visual perception

skills for this study for two reasons. Firstly, because of the developmental aspect of these skills,

the majority of tests of visual perception have been developed to assess children. The second

difficulty is that because these tests are developed from a neuropsychological perspective, they are

designed to detect disability. As a result, ceiling effects have been encountered with their use on

normal populations as was the case when (Bonello, Rapport, & Millis (1997) and Herrera-

Guzmán, Peña-Casanova, Lara, Gudayol-Ferré, & Böhm (2004) used the VOSP for normal

populations. This is an important consideration for the university level participants in this study as

they might be expected to have higher than average cognitive abilities. Therefore, selected

subtests from two commercially available paper based test batteries; the Developmental Test of

Visual Perception Adult (DTVP-A) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale version IV (WAIS

IV) will be combined. These will also be supplemented with some original computer based tests.

This mix seems to reflect the need to process both print and digital visual information in modern

academic settings. A total of nine sub-tests will be used as shown in Table 3. This is in keeping

with Stevens’ (1980 cited in Field, 2005) recommendation to keep dependant variables < 10 to

maintain an acceptable level of test power in MANOVA. Total testing time for each participant is

expected to be less than one hour.

Table 2 Subtests

Test Subtest Spatial`

Form Discrimination Constancy Closure Attention Visual Memory Perceptual

Speed

DTVP-A(Motor

reduced perceptual

index)

Form Constancy

Shape/ Size/ Orientation

Figure Ground

ParsingCognitive Style

Closure Grouping

WAIS IV

Picture completion Spatial

Block Design Spatial

Letter Number

SequencingSequential

Symbol Search Sustained

Computer

Crowding Tolerance to Visual Noise

Speed

Developmental Test of Visual Perception Adult (DTVP)

(Pro-Ed International)

The DTVP appears to have the strongest credentials of the specific visual processing assessment tools currently in use. It is recommended in the

American Optometric Association Clinical Practice Guideline (Garzia et al., 2008) for testing Visual Analysis skills. In reviewing the DTVP, Leverett found

the test reliability to be “solid” (Leverett, 2002) The tests internal consistency is quite high; calculated using Cronbach's alpha the subtest coefficients as given

in the manual, range from .70 to .92. for the 14 age levels defined in the test. The test re test as well as the inter-marker reliability scores were also quite good

though the latter was not tested across the whole age range. On a less positive note, a review by Hodgson (2002), questions the construct validity of the test.

While Hodgson believes the test is valid in what it claims to test, he cites more recent research that describes a more complex picture of visual processing, not

captured by the limited scope of this test, expressing the concern therefore, that the test has quite limited utility. This is acknowledged in designing this study

by supplementing the DTVP-A Motor Reduced Perceptual Index subtests with other tests not included in the battery.

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale version IV (WAIS IV)

(Pearson Education)

The WAIS test has been published in increasingly updated editions since 1939, with this fourth edition being published in 2008. Strong reliability

indicators are given in the manual. For example the internal consistency measured using Spearman-Brown corrected split-half across the 13 age groups for the

subtests was from .71- .96 (Canivez, 2008). The test authors make a case for criterion validity by reference to high correlation to other similar tests (although

some are their own). The main criticism of the WAIS IV in the literature, is that construct validity is weak because it too narrowly defines intelligence in terms

of western academic skills which are valued by western societies but not necessarily valued and therefore practiced in other societies (Joy, Kaplan, & Fein,

2010; Schraw, 2008; Shuttleworth-Edwards, Donnelly, Reid, & Radloff, Sarah, 2004). Of course this is the very point of this study: that these are learned

skills and not innate abilities. Although the test’s validity as an IQ test may be weak, its ability to test learned cognitive skills has not been challenged.

Furthermore, in their review of the latest version of the WAIS test, Canivez and Schraw said the WAIS IV showed “strong concurrent relationships with

academic achievement measures” (Canivez & Schraw, 2008, p1), suggesting it tests skill necessary in English speaking academic settings.

Computer Based Testing

Computer based testing will be added as it can most accurately measure perceptual speed and may provide a more complete description of attention

skills.

Questionnaire

A paper based questionnaire will be used to collect potentially relevant background information about the participants such as education and other

language experiences. This information can be used in the analysis to control for other possible influences on visual processing skills. It will also ask for

details of programme of enrolment and current GPA.

Participants

All participants will be Griffith University Undergraduate Business students to minimise the potential differences of general or academic aptitude that

might occur if participants were drawn from different degrees with different entry requirements. Also, as an International Student Advisor (ISA) for business

the researcher has links with this school, that should facilitate access. Exclusions will include students who have been bilingual in any languages from

childhood (under 13 years), have a known learning disability or have a physical disability that may influence test participation and students under 18 years old.

The descriptors for sample selection, as outlined in the sample matrix, Table 2, are broad in order to maximise the chances of filling the sampling requirements.

The final the sample will be selected from the volunteer pool, to achieve maximum variation in age, year of study at Griffith and a representative split of gender

where possible. Students from four language groups will be included.

Australian

Native English Speakers will be tested as representatives of the dominant culture. Of course not all Australians are native English speakers but for the

purposes of this study, only native English speaking students will be included in this group. Presumably their skill level is the expected norm for Australian

university students and would be a better comparative level than the norms for the general population as given by the tests’ authors. Test norms have been set

for clinical practice and are concerned with detecting low performance suggesting disability. As a general rule scores increase with education (Roivainen,

2010; Shuttleworth-Edwards et al., 2004) and so the levels of university students is expected to be higher than average.

Chinese

Chinese students will be included because they are by far the largest international student group in Griffith University. This is representative of the

international student numbers in Australia as a whole. The year to date figures indicate Chinese students accounted for 40.6% of enrolments of full fee paying

international students studying on student visas in Australia. This figure is well above the second highest country, being Malaysia at 7.6% (Australian

Education International, 2012).

Arabic

Middle Eastern Arabic speakers are an important group in Australian tertiary institutions. Saudi Arabia has been particularly important in recent years,

with student enrolments growing by 61% from 2008 to 2009, requiring it to be included in statistical records as an individual country rather than as part of the

larger ‘Middle Eastern’ group.

Korean

Korean students represent the third largest group in the Australian international student market, being 5.1% of overall student enrolments.

Table 3 Sampling Matrix

Language English Chinese Korean Arabic Any Other Language

Defined as

students who

lived in a Western,

English speaking country

and went to an English

medium school in that

country for the majority of

their school years.

lived in Mainland China

and went to a Chinese

medium school (Mandarin

or Cantonese) for the

majority of their school

years.

lived in Korea and went to

a Korean medium school

for the majority of their

school years.

lived in an Arabic

speaking country and went

to an Arabic medium

school for the majority of

their school years.

Opportunistic sampling of

any other language group

with a high volunteer rate

21 students 21 students 21 students 21 students

1st preference

selection:All Australian

All Mandarin or all

Cantonese Speakers)

Preference weighted

towards maximum

number of years of

Korean medium schooling

in Korea.

All one country All one country

2nd preference

selection:

Mixed English speaking

country

Mixed Mandarin and

Cantonese L1

Mixed Arabic speaking

Countries

Mixed countries but same

language background

All groups chosen for maximum variation: age, year of study, gender

The sample size of 84 was calculated using the online tool Statistics Calculators: A-priori

Sample Size Calculator for Multiple Regression (Soper, 2006) with power set at .8 and predicting a

medium effect size (f = .25) based on results from other studies using WAIS cross culturally

(Jacobs et al., 1997; Shuttleworth-Edwards et al., 2004). An additional 21 participants may be

added to take advantage of opportunistic sampling if any other language group has a high

volunteer rate. Alternatively such a group may be used to replace one of the other groups with an

insufficient volunteer rate. This sample size meets the requirement of cell size ≥ 20 to enhance the

robustness to violations in the conditions of parametric data (Warner, 2008). With 21 per cell it

also meets the general requirement in MANOVA that cases per cell (21) > dependant variables (9)

(Dugard, Todman, & Staines, 2010). This sample size is achievable given the enrolment statistics

for semester 2, 2011 (IAS Data Base), which show 1735 Chinese, 367 Korean and 85 Middle

Eastern students enrolled in Undergraduate Business degrees at Griffith University. Obviously

Arabic speakers will be the most difficult set to fill because a high percentage of this group is

needed for the sample. Fortunately, the ISA’s have had a good response recruiting research

participants from this group in the past.

Procedure

Participant Recruitment

The researcher will approach Griffith Business School, course convenors and then teachers,

by e-mail, to gain access to classrooms. With permission the researcher will introduce herself at

the end of class, briefly explain the research and the reimbursement incentive. Students can then

take an information sheet if they are interested in participating in the research. If the sampling

matrix is not filled by this method, targeted e-mails will be sent to students from those groups (as

identified by Griffith International Office Data Base) which need to be filled. Selected students

will be contacted by their indicated preferred contact method and a suitable testing time will be

arranged. Excess numbers of students will be contacted and asked if they would join a wait list to

cover for drop outs and no shows.

Data collection

There will be three main methods of data collection in the research, all of which will be

done by the researcher herself. Firstly, demographic data about participants age, education

background and language experience will be collected through a brief questionnaire which

participants will fill out prior to undertaking the next stage of testing. Informed consent will be

collected as the first part of this survey. Participants will also be asked to give permission for the

researcher to access their student file on Peoplesoft and extract non identifying information for the

duration of their degree. This will not only ensure that this information such as GPA is correct but

opens the possibility of follow up tracking of participants. This follow up could be undertaken and

the end of each semester. Participants current GPA and programme of enrolment could be added

to the data set, each semester until the participants leave Griffith University.

The second form of data collection will be the administration of individual cognitive tests.

Each subtest will be administered according to the directions in the tests instruction manuals.

Because there is no required order of presentation for any of the subtests, they will be administered

in rotation across participants to minimise fatigue effects.

The final form of data will be qualitative notes recorded by the researcher during and

immediately after each test as described in the test manuals. These may supply additional

information regarding participants general learning and attention styles (Borsting, 1995)

Analyses and Reporting

The results will be recorded in and analysed using SPSS. Before beginning the analysis the

data will be cleaned by creating histograms for each of the tests across all L1s and creating box

plots to isolate outliers (Field, 2005). The original raw data will be referred to for correction if

necessary.

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) will be used to compare overall test

performance across the four L1s. The nine subtests from the WAIS IV and the DTVP will be

included as continuous dependent variables in a four-group MANOVA. Semester of study and sex

will be included as covariates. There are particular benefits of MANOVA of which this research

may be able to take advantage. For example, it will enable the examination of the associations

between the sub tests and L1as well as comparisons across L1s. The power of convergence may

help in understanding how the different components of visual processing work together. Added to

this is the chance that some effects will only be detectable if two or more variables are combined

so there is an increased chance of detecting difference with MANOVA than ANOVA (Warner,

2008). Furthermore, MANOVA does not have the disadvantage of increased risk of type 1 error

associated with repeated ANOVA measures.

A check will be done to establish that the data meets the assumptions of parametric data.

Firstly, in order to check multivariate normality of distribution new histograms and box whisker

diagrams will be generated from the cleaned data and checked visually for skewness or kurtosis.

Also the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test will be applied to each subtest: p > .05 and the z scores for

skewness or kurtosis will be calculated: p < .01 due to the fairly small sample size in each group.

Second, equality of covariate matrices will be checked using SPS to perform Levene’s test; p

> .05. However, as sample sizes will be equal or close to equal, the MANOVA is expected to be

fairly robust to violations of homogeneity of covariance matrices. The third requirement, with

regard to level and measurement is met in that the independent variables are categorical (First

Language) and the dependent variables are continuous (numerical test scores). So too is the final

requirement of independence because the students will be tested individually and will not know or

be affected by each other’s scores.

Prior to undertaking MANOVA, initial descriptive statistics will be presented in table form

showing mean, range and standard deviations for each of the four L1 groups across each of the

subtests. American ops recommend the use of z scores to allow the expression score as a percentile

rank by comparing it to a standard normal distribution. However this study will compare to our

Australian sample. AM ops propose A test result with a z-score that is ≥1.5 standard deviations

below the mean (percentile rank = 6.68) should definitely be considered anomalous and clinically

significant.182 scores falling between 1.0 and 1.5 standard deviations below the mean should be

considered suspicious and perhaps clinically relevant,” Borsting : “Systems analysis” Performance

that is 1sd below norm is abnormal – observations help confirm diagnosis

Omnibus analysis will then be run to establish if there are any main effects or interactions

among the independent variables. Test statistics for Pillai’s Trace, Wilks’ Lamda, Hotelling’s

Trace and Roy’s Largest Root will be generated. The previous results of the tests of parametric

assumptions will help guide the interpretation of these subsequent tests. For example, because the

cell sizes will be equal, the Pillai-Bartlett trace may be the most powerful if the assumptions can’t

be met, as this test has been shown to be robust to such violations (Field, 2005). This test is also

suited to the fairly small sample size.

If an overall multivariate effect is established, post hoc univariate ANOVAs will be used to

determine which subtests contributed significantly to this effect. A Bonferroni corrected alpha

level of p < .006 (.05/8) will be used to determine statistically significant univariate differences.

Finally, discriminant analysis will be used to further investigate the relationship between the

various subtest scores, by generating separate groups and total covariance matrices to supplement

the within groups correlation and covariance matrices generated in the main MANOVA.

Relevance of results

When low scores in tests such as those above are scored by a person with an otherwise

normal IQ, the person may be diagnosed with a nonverbal learning disability (Boden & Giaschi,

2007; Bonello et al., 1997; Bonsall & Dornbush, 1969). Such a diagnosis would mean that the

person would be eligible for special consideration in teaching and assessment. For example,

multiple choice questions may prove difficult for the person because the act of decoding the text

would be slower. They may need to reread each possible answer several times before noticing

the slight differences in the details. To ensure that what was being tested was the student’s

subject knowledge and not their reading ability, the usual practice would be to give such a

student extra time to complete the test.

Because all subjects in this study have reached university entry level, it is not

unreasonable to presume that they all have at least average IQ levels. In fact, the international

students have done so in their second language, suggesting above average IQs. Controversially,

cognitive tests have consistently identified differences in cognitive skills across cultural groups

(Insua, 1983; Isemonger & Sheppard, 2003; Jacobs et al., 1997; Nelson, 1995; Rossi-Le, 1995)

even when education level is controlled for. For example, Roivainen’s comparison of the WAIS

III performance subtest norms of five developed European countries with those of the original

US norms,still found significant differences despite the similar levels of education in the

populations (Roivainen, 2010). This result can be explained by presuming that different

cognitive skills are required to read and write and perform other academic tasks in different

languages and cultures. What has not been assessed in any study prior to this, is to what exent

those visual perception skills used in an English speaking academic environment are necessarily

aquired by reaching an English level equivalent to 6.5 in IELTS. Given evidence for the

robustness of these cognitive differences(Boduroglu et al., 2009; Pollatsek & Rayner, 2005;

Randall & Meara, 1988; Vaid et al., 2011), this study hypothesises that significant visual

perceptual differences will remain between the cultural groups. If this is the case, then certainly

a case can be made that ESL students should be given special consideration in order to ensure

equity in the classroom. At the very least, the need for further investigation into the potential

equity issues in teaching and assessing ESL students would be indicated.

Timeline

December 2012 Begin data collection and initial collation

June 2013 - Complete data collation including 1st semester

information from Peoplesoft.

July 2013 Data analysis

January 2014 Writing up of dissertation

January 2015 Editing of dissertation

December 2015 Submission of dissertation for examination

Limitations

Students will be informed that they are going to be tested, or assessed, and given some

information about what they will be expected to do. Their confidence in and perceptions of “tests”

in general may influence their decision on whether or not to volunteer and lead to a sample not

necessarily representative of the population. It may be possible to avoid the words test or

assessment but this seems misleading. However, this influence will, at least be constant across all

groups. Tester fatigue is also a potential problem so the number of tests per day will be will be

kept at a maximum of five.

Ethical issues

This study has Ethical clearance from Griffith University. Documentation outlining

possible Ethical issues including a data management plan is attached.

References

Abbot, M. (Centre for R. in A. M. and E. (2004). The Identification and Interpretation of Group

Differences on the Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment Reading Items. Annual

Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) San Diego,

California, USA (pp. 1–41). San Diego, California, USA.

Abu-Rabia, S., & Awwad, J. (Shalhoub). (2004). Morphological structures in visual word

recognition: the case of Arabic. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(3), 321–336.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00235.x

Abu-rabia, S. (2000). Effects of exposure to literary Arabic on reading comprehension in a

diglossic situation. Reading, 13, 147–157.

Abu-rabia, S. (2003). Cognitive and Social Factors Affecting Arab Students Learning English as a

Third Language in Israel. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 347–360.

doi:10.1080/0144341032000096247

Ager, S. (n.d.). The Structure of the Chinese script. Omniglot: The onlline E. Retrieved May 9,

2012, from http://www.omniglot.com/chinese/structure.htm

Ager, S. (2012). Syllabaries. Omniglot. Retrieved August 19, 2012, from

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/syllabaries.htm

Ahissar, M. (2007). Dyslexia and the anchoring-deficit hypothesis. Trends in cognitive sciences,

11(11), 458–65. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.015

Allen, P. A., Smith, A. F., Lien, M. C., Kaut, K. P., & Canfield, A. (2009). A multistream model of

visual word recognition. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(2), 281–296.

doi:10.3758/APP

American Optometric Association. (2000). Care of the Patient with Learning Related Vision

Problems. Quick reference guide 21. Retrieved August 2, 2011, from

http://www.aoa.org/documents/QRG-20.pdf

Australian Education International. (2012). International student numbers 2011 (p. 1).

Australian Government Department Of Education, E. A. W. R. (2008). Good Practice Principles.

Good Practice Principles for English Language Proficiency for International Students in

Australian Universities – Final Report. Retrieved October 26, 2010, from

http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/Pages/GoodPracticePrinciples.aspx

Baccino, T., & Pynte, J. (1998). Spatial Encoding and Referential Processing during Reading.

European Psychologist, 3(1), 51–61.

Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Is Working Memory Still Working? European Psychologist, 7(2), 85–97.

doi:10.1027//1016-9040.7.2.85

Balota, D. a, Pollatsek, a, & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and

parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive psychology, 17(3), 364–90. Retrieved

from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4053565

Bar, M. (2004). Visual objects in context. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 5(8), 617–29.

doi:10.1038/nrn1476

Beard, R. (University of L. (1995). Does Teacher Training Neglect Psychological Research. In E.

Funnell & M. Stuart (Eds.), Learning to Read (pp. 2–29). UK: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Ben-Av, M. B., Sagi, D., & Braun, J. (1992). Visual attention and perceptual grouping. Perception

& psychophysics, 52(3), 277–94. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17904187

Besner, D., Davelaar, E., Alcott, D., & Parry, P. (1984). Wholistic Reading of Alphabetic Print:

Evidence from the FDM and the FBI. In L. Henderson (Ed.), Orthographies and Reading:

Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology Neuropsychology and Linguistics (pp. 121–135).

London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Birch, B. M. (2007). English L2 Reading. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,

Publishers. doi:PE 1128.A2 B4972007

Boden, C., & Giaschi, D. (2007). M-stream deficits and reading-related visual processes in

developmental dyslexia. Psychological bulletin, 133(2), 346–66. doi:10.1037/0033-

2909.133.2.346

Boduroglu, A., Shah, P., & Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Cultural Differences in Allocation of Attention in

Visual Information Processing. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 40(3), 349–360.

doi:10.1177/0022022108331005

Bonello, P., Rapport, L., & Millis, S. (1997). Psychometric properties of the visual object and

space perception battery in normal older adults. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 11(4), 436–

442. doi:10.1080/13854049708400475

Bonsall, C., & Dornbush, R. L. (1969). Visual perception and reading ability. Journal of

educational psychology, 60(4), 294–9. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5811796

Booth, M. C. A., & Rolls, E. T. (1998). View-invariant Representations of Familiar Objects by

Neurons in the Inferior Temporal Visual Cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 8(6), 510–523.

Borsting, E. J. (1995). Visual Perception and Reading. Vision and Reading (pp. 149–191).

Bundesen, C., & Habekost, T. (2005). Attention. In K. Lamberts & R. L. Goldstone (Eds.), The

Handbook of Cognition (pp. 105–129). Sage Publications.

Canivez, G. L., & Schraw, G. (2008). Review of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth

Edition. Mental Measurements Year Book, 18. Retrieved from C:\Users\barbaravic\Desktop\

Jenny\Dr Jenny\test reviews\WAIS.mht

Chen, H. C., & Tang, C. K. (1998). The effect of visual field in reading Chinese. In C. K. L. K.

Tamaoka (Ed.), Cognitive processes of Chinese and Japanese Languages. London: Klewer

Academic Publishers.

Chen, H.-C., Vaid, J., Bortfeld, H., & Boas, D. A. (2008). Optical imaging of phonological

processing in two distinct orthographies. Experimental brain research, 184(3), 427–33.

doi:10.1007/s00221-007-1200-0

Chou, T.-L., Chen, C.-W., Fan, L.-Y., Chen, S.-Y., & Booth, J. R. (2009). Testing for a Cultural

Influence on Reading for Meaning in the Developing Brain: The Neural Basis of Semantic

Processing in Chinese Children. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 3(November), 9. Retrieved

from http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.027.2009

Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A Dual Route

Cascaded Model of Visual Word Recognition and Reading Aloud. Psychological Review,

108(1), 204–256.

Cook, V. J. (1997). L2 Users and English Spelling. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development, 18(6), 474–488. doi:10.1080/01434639708666335

Cornelissen, P. ., Hansen, P. ., Gilchrist, I., Cormack, F., Essex, J., & Frankish, C. (1998).

Coherent motion detection and letter position encoding. Vision Research, 38(14), 2181–2191.

doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00016-9

Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual

Review of Neuroscience, 18(1), 193–222. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7605061

Dugard, P., Todman, J., & Staines, H. (2010). Approaching Multivariate Analysis: A practical

Introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1975). The learning Style Inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.

Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Learning Styles/Teaching Styles: Should They...Can they...be

matched. Educational Leadership, 36, 238 – 244.

Dweik, B., Abu, A., & Mustafa, D. (2007). (2007) The Effect of Arabic Proficiency on the English

Writing of Bilingual-Jordanian Students. Online submission: Eric ED497505.

Elliott, S., Brown, T., Sutton, E., Burgess, D., Bourne, R., Wigg, S., Glass, S., et al. (2010). the

Reliability of Three Visual Perception Tests Used To Assess Adults 1,2. Perceptual and

Motor Skills, 111(1), 45–59. doi:10.2466/03.24.27.PMS.111.4.45-59

Essen, D. C. V., & Anderson, C. H. (1995). Information Processing Strategies and Pathways in the

Primate Visual System .

Facoetti, a, Paganoni, P., & Lorusso, M. L. (2000). The spatial distribution of visual attention in

developmental dyslexia. Experimental brain research. Experimentelle Hirnforschung.

Expérimentation cérébrale, 132(4), 531–8. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10912834

Feild, M. L., & Aebersold, J. A. (2011). Cultural attitudes Toward reading. Implications for

teachers of ESL ESL / bilingual Readers. Reading, 33(6), 406–410.

Felleman, D. J., Xiao, Y., & McClendon, E. (1997). Modular organization of occipito-temporal

pathways: cortical connections between visual area 4 and visual area 2 and posterior

inferotemporal ventral area in macaque monkeys. The Journal of neuroscience : the official

journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 17(9), 3185–200. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9096153

Fender, M. (2003). English word recognition and word integration skills of native Arabic- and

Japanese-speaking learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics,

24(02), 289–315. doi:10.1017/S014271640300016X

Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995). Learners  ’ English-as-a-Second-Language Cognitive Reading Processes : A

Review of Research in the United States. Educational Research, 65(2), 145–190.

GANADA Korean Language Institute. (1997). Korean for Foreigners. (Translated by Hae Young

Lee, Ed.). Seoul: SISA Education.

Gao, Z., Li, J., Yin, J., & Shen, M. (2010). Dissociated mechanisms of extracting perceptual

information into visual working memory. PloS one, 5(12), e14273.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014273

Garzia, R. P. (Ed.). (1996). Vision and Reading. Mosby.

Garzia, R. P., Borsting, E. J., Nicholson., S. B., Press, L. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Solan, H. A.

(2008). CARE OF THE PATIENT WITH LEARNING RELATED VISION PROBLEMS

Reference Guide for Clinicians. The American Optometric Association. Retrieved from

retrieved 23.11.11

Goh, J. O., Chee, M. W., Tan, J. C., Venkatraman, V., Hebrank, A., Leshikar, E. D., Jenkins, L., et

al. (2007). Age and culture modulate object processing and object-scene binding in the ventral

visual area. Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 7(1), 44–52. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17598734

Goldstein, E. B. (2010). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday

Experience (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning, 2010.

Grigornko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A Theory-Based Approach to the

Measurement of Foreign Language Learning Ability: The Canal-F Theory and Test. The

Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 390–405. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00076

Hayes-Harb, R. (2010). Native Speakers of Arabie and ESL Texts : Evidence for the Transfer of

Written Word Processes Identification. Tesol Quarterly, 40(2), 321–339.

Herrera-Guzmán, I., Peña-Casanova, J., Lara, J. P., Gudayol-Ferré, E., & Böhm, P. (2004).

Influence of age, sex, and education on the Visual Object and Space Perception Battery

(VOSP) in a healthy normal elderly population. The Clinical neuropsychologist, 18(3), 385–

94. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15739810

Hodgson, J. M. (2002). Review of the Developmental Test of Visual Perception-Adolescent and

Adult. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 16. Retrieved from C:\Users\barbaravic\Desktop\

Jenny\Dr Jenny\test reviews\Developmental Test of Visual Perception-Adolescent and

Adult..mht

Hoffman, L. G. (1996). Introduction. In R. P. Garzia (Ed.), Vision and Reading (pp. 1–5). Mosby.

Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an

intensive English learning context. System, 34(3), 399–415. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.02.002

Hsiao, J. H.-W. (2011). Visual field differences in visual word recognition can emerge purely from

perceptual learning: evidence from modeling Chinese character pronunciation. Brain and

language, 119(2), 89–98. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.04.003

Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. (1981). Orthographic variations and visual information processing.

Psychological bulletin, 90(3), 377–414. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7302050

Hussain, R. (1995). Sound and Meaning of Scripts. In I. Taylor & D. R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and

Literacy Reading and Learning to Read Alphabets, Syllabries and Characters (pp. 131–144).

Dordrecht: Klewer Academic Publishers.

Hvitfeldt, C. (1992). Oral orientations in ESL Academic Writing. College ESL, 2(1), 29–39.

Inhoff, A. W., Radach, R., Eiter, B. M., & Juhasz, B. (2003). Distinct subsystems for the

parafoveal processing of spatial and linguistic information during eye fixations in reading.

The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology,

56(5), 803–27. doi:10.1080/02724980244000639

Insua, a. M. (1983). Wais-R Factor Structures in Two Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 14(4), 427–438. doi:10.1177/0022002183014004003

Isemonger, I., & Sheppard, C. (2003). Learning Styles. RELC Journal, 34(2), 195–222.

doi:10.1177/003368820303400205

Jacobs, D., Sano, M., Albert, S., Schofield, P., Dooneief, G., & Stern, Y. (1997). Cross-cultural

neuropsychological assessment: A comparison of randomly selected, demographically

matched cohorts of English-and Spanish-speaking older adults. Journal of Clinical and

Experimental Neuropsychology, 19(3), 331–339. doi:10.1080/01688639708403862

Joy, S., Kaplan, E., & Fein, D. (2010). Digit Symbol – Incidental Learning in the WAIS- III :

Construct Validity and Clinical Significance Digit Symbol – Incidental Learning in the

WAIS-III : Construct Validity and Clinical Significance. Clinical Neuropsychologist, (August

2011), 37–41.

Keysers, C., Xiao, D.-K., Foldiak, P., & Perrett, D. I. (2005). Out of Sight but not out of Mind: The

Neuropsychology of Iconic Memory in the Superior Temporal Sulcus. In R. I. Rumiati & A.

Caramazza (Eds.), The Multiple Functions of Sensory -Motor Representations (pp. 316–332).

Koda, K. (1995). Cognitive concequences of L1 and L2 Orthographies. In I. Taylor & D. R. Olson

(Eds.), Scripts and Literacy Reading and Learning to Read Alphabets, Syllabries and

Characters (p. 326). London: Klewer Academic Publishers.

Lanthier, S. N., Risko, E. F., Stolz, J. a, & Besner, D. (2009). Not all visual features are created

equal: early processing in letter and word recognition. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 16(1),

67–73. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.1.67

Larter, S. C., Herse, P. R., Naduvilath, T. J., & Dain, S. J. (2004). Spatial load factor in prediction

of reading performance. Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British

College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 24(5), 440–9. doi:10.1111/j.1475-

1313.2004.00219.x

Lee, C.-Y., Tsai, J.-L., Huang, H.-W., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. L. (2006). The temporal

signatures of semantic and phonological activations for Chinese sublexical processing: an

event-related potential study. Brain research, 1121(1), 150–9.

doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.117

Leverett, R. G. (2002). Review of the Developmental Test of Visual Perception-Adolescent and

Adult. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 16. Retrieved from C:\Users\barbaravic\Desktop\

Jenny\Dr Jenny\test reviews\Developmental Test of Visual Perception-Adolescent and

Adult..mht

Logothetis, N. K., & Pauls, J. (1995). Psychophysical and Physiological Evidence for Viewer-

centered Object Representations in the Primate. Cerebral Cortex, 5(3), 270–288.

doi:10.1093/cercor/5.3.270

Martelli, M., Di Filippo, G., Spinelli, D., & Zoccolotti, P. (2009). Crowding, reading, and

developmental dyslexia. Journal of Vision, 9(4), 1–18. doi:10.1167/9.4.14.Introduction

McMains, M. (n.d.). VisionandLearning.org | Visual Perceptual Skills. VisionandLearning.org A

Guide for Parents and Educators. Retrieved May 6, 2012, from

http://www.visionandlearning.org/visualperception08.html

Midgley, W. (2009). They are, he is, and I am: different adjustment accounts of two male Saudi

Arabian nursing students at an Australian university. Studies in Learning, Evaluation,

Innovation and Development, 6(1), 82–97. Retrieved from http://eprints.usq.edu.au/5302

Nelson, G. L. (1995). Cultural Differences in Learning Styles. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning Styles

in the ESL/EFL Classroom (pp. 3 – 19). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. doi:PE

1128.L423

Orbán, G., Fiser, J., Aslin, R. N., & Lengyel, M. (2008). Bayesian learning of visual chunks by

human observers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America, 105(7), 2745–50. doi:10.1073/pnas.0708424105

Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology. MIT Press.

Perfetti, C. a., Liu, Y., Fiez, J., Nelson, J., Bolger, D. J., & Tan, L.-H. (2007). Reading in two

writing systems: Accommodation and assimilation of the brain’s reading network.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(02), 131. doi:10.1017/S1366728907002891

Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2005). Reading. In K. Lamberts & R. L. Goldstone (Eds.), The

Handbook of Cognition (pp. 276–293). London: SAGE Publications Inc.

Queensland Studies Authority. (2011). Equity statement. Brisbane: Queensland Government.

Rahal, T., & Palfreyman, D. (2009). Assessing learning styles of students at Zayed University.

TESOL Gulf Perspectives, 6(2), 34–42.

Randall, M. (2007). Memory, Psychology and Second Language Learning. John Benjamins B.V.

Randall, M. (2010). What makes spelling so difficult for Emirati students? (Vol. 6, pp. 411–431).

Sharjah: Sharjah Womens College. doi:10.1159/000026407

Randall, M., & Meara, P. (1988). How Arabs Read Roman Letters. Reading in a foreign

Language, 4(2), 133–145.

Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.

Psychological bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9849112

Rayner, Keith. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual

search. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 62(8), 1457–506.

doi:10.1080/17470210902816461

Reid, J. (1987). The Learning Style Preferences of ESL Students. Tesol Quarterly, 21(1), 87 – 111.

Roivainen, E. (2010). European and American WAIS III norms: Cross-national differences in

performance subtest scores. Intelligence, 38(1), 187–192. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2009.10.001

Rosselli, M., & Ardila, A. (2003). The impact of culture and education on non-verbal

neuropsychological measurements: A critical review. Brain and Cognition, 52(3), 326–333.

doi:10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00170-2

Rossi-Le, L. (1995). Learning Styles and Strategies in Adult Immigrant ESL Students. (J. M. Reid,

Ed.)Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom (pp. 118 – 127). Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers. doi:PE 1128.L4231995

Rucci, M., Iovin, R., Poletti, M., & Santini, F. (2007). Miniature eye movements enhance fine

spatial detail. Nature, 447(7146), 851–4. doi:10.1038/nature05866

Ruchkin, D. S., Grafman, J., Cameron, K., & Berndt, R. S. (2003). Working memory retention

systems: a state of activated long-term memory. The Behavioral and brain sciences, 26(6),

709–28; discussion 728–77. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15377128

Ryan, A., & Meara, P. (1992). The case of the invisible vowels: Arabic speakers reading English

words. Reading in a foreign language, 7, 531–531. Retrieved from

http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/RFL/PastIssues/rfl72ryan.pdf

Scheiman, M. (2002). Understanding and Managing Vision Deficits a Guide for Occupational

Therapists (2nd ed.). New Jersey: SLACK Inc.

Schraw, G. (2008). Review of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition. Mental

Measurements Year Book, 18.

Schuett, S., Heywood, C. A., Kentridge, R. W., & Zihl, J. (2008). The significance of visual

information processing in reading: Insights from hemianopic dyslexia. Neuropsychologia,

46(10), 2445–2462. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18533203

Shovman, M. M., & Ahissar, M. (2006). Isolating the impact of visual perception on dyslexics’

reading ability. Vision Research., 46, 3514–3525.

Shuttleworth-Edwards, A., Donnelly, M., Reid, I., & Radloff, Sarah (Rhodes University,

Grahamstown, S. A. (2004). A Cross-cultural Study with Culture Fair Normative Indications

on WAIS-III Digit Symbol―Incidental Learning. Journal of Clinical and Experimental

Neuropsychology, 26(7), 921–932. doi:10.1080/13803390490370789

Simpson, G. B., & Kang, H. (2006). Developmental, Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Visual Word

Recognition. Language and Speech, 49(1), 55–73. doi:10.1177/00238309060490010401

Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading : a Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to

Read. London: Imprint.

Snowden, R., Thompson, P., & Troscianko, T. (2006). Basic Vision: An introduction to visual

perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:QP 475.S593 2006

Soper, D. S. (2006). Statistics calculators:A-priori Sample Size Calculator for Multiple Regression.

Retrieved September 24, 2011, from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3/calc.aspx?id=1

Stanovitch, K. E. (1991). Changing Models of Reading and Reading Aquisition. In L. Rieben & C.

A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to Read (pp. 19–32). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Starfield, S. (1990). Science and languag: a new look at some old issues. SAJHE/SATHO, Vol.

4(N0.2), 84 –89.

Steinman, S. B., & Steinman, B. A. (1998). Vision and attention. I: Current models of visual

attention. Optometry and Vision Science, 75(2), 146–155. Retrieved from

http://www.software-in-motion.com/Downloads/Publications/I Current Models of

Attention.pdf

Tavassoli, N. T. (2002). Spatial Memory for Chinese and English. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 33(4), 415–431. doi:10.1177/00222102033004004

Taylor, I., & Olson, D. R. (1995). An introduction to reading the World’s scripts. In I. Taylor & D.

R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and Literacy Readuing and Learning to Read Alphabets, Syllabaries

and Characters (pp. 1–18). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Terry, B. (2003). Perceptual skills and how they affect learning. Conduct Disorders. Retrieved

February 12, 2011, from http://www.conductdisorders.com/forum/f16/perceptual-skills-how-

they-affect-learning-412/

The Language Institute of Seoul National University. (1993). Korean Through English. Seoul:

Hollym.

Tong, X., & McBride-Chang, C. (2009). Chinese-English biscriptal reading: cognitive component

skills across orthographies. Reading and Writing, 23(3-4), 293–310. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-

9211-9

Vaid, J., Rhodes, R., Tosun, S., & Eslami, Z. (2011). Script Directionality Affects Depiction of

Depth in Representational Drawings. Social Psychology, 42(3), 241–248. doi:10.1027/1864-

9335/a000068

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzmen, M. S. (1994). Components of Reading Ability Issues

and Problems in Operationalizing Word Identification, Phonological Coding, and

Orthographic Coding. In G. Reid Lyon (Ed.), Frames of Reference For the assessment of

learning Disabilities.New Views on Measurement issues (pp. 279–331). Baltimore: Paulh

Brookes Publishing.

Verhoeven, L., Reitsma, P., & Siegel, L. S. (2011). Cognitive and linguistic factors in reading

acquisition. Reading and writing, 24(4), 387–394. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9232-4

Vinckier, F., Naccache, L., Papeix, C., Forget, J., Hahn-Barma, V., Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L.

(2006). “What” and “where” in word reading: ventral coding of written words revealed by

parietal atrophy. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 18(12), 1998–2012.

doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.1998

Waechter, S., Besner, D., & Stolz, J. A. (2011). Basic processes in reading : Spatial attention as a

necessary preliminary to orthographic and semantic processing. Visual Cognition, 19(2), 171–

202.

Wang, K. (2011). An electrophysiological investigation of the role of orthography in accessing

meaning of Chinese single-character words. Neuroscience letters, 487(3), 297–301.

doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2010.10.041

Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English

word identification: a comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners. Cognition,

87(2), 129–149.

Warner, R. M. (2008). Applied Statistics: From Bivariate Through Multivariate techniques. Sage

Publications.

Whiteley, H. E., & Walker, P. (2007). The activation of multiletter units in visual word recognition

The Activation of Multiletter Units in Visual Word Recognition. Visual Cognition,

(September 2011), 37–41.

Williams, M. C., LeCluyse, K., & Littell, R. (1995). A Wavelength specific intervention for

Reading Disability. In R. P. Garzia (Ed.), Vision and Reading (p. 283). California: Mosby.

Wydell, T. N., Vuorinen, T., Helenius, P., & Salmelin, R. (2003). Neural correlates of letter-string

length and lexicality during reading in a regular orthography. Journal of cognitive

neuroscience, 15(7), 1052–62. doi:10.1162/089892903770007434

Yeh, S.-L., Li, J.-L., Takeuchi, T., Sun, V., & Liu, W.-R. (2003). The role of learning experience

on the perceptual organization of Chinese characters. Visual Cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 729–

764). doi:10.1080/13506280344000077