View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Impact of Online Learning during the Pandemic on Language and Reading Performance in English-French Bilingual Children

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Impact of Online Learning during the Pandemic on Language and Reading Performance in English-French Bilingual Children
Language: English
Authors: Zein Abuosbeh (ORCID 0000-0001-9547-8637), Diana Burchell, Klaudia Krenca, Xi Chen
Source: Journal of Research in Reading. 2024 47(3):330-347.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Early Childhood Education
Grade 1
Primary Education
Grade 2
Descriptors: COVID-19, Pandemics, Language Proficiency, Reading Achievement, Bilingual Students, English, French, Second Language Learning, Distance Education, Elementary School Students, Grade 1, Grade 2, In Person Learning, Vocabulary, Reading Fluency, Phonological Awareness, Differences, Age Differences
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9817.12450
ISSN: 0141-0423
1467-9817
Abstract: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic created a unique learning experience, characterised by school closures and a shift to online learning. Research suggests that online learning during the pandemic negatively impacted the reading development of elementary school children. However, little is known about the challenges of learning a second language (L2) remotely. Therefore, this study investigates the impact of online learning during the pandemic on language and reading development among French immersion (FI) students who learn French as an L2. Methods: A total of 137 Grade 1 and Grade 2 students from two cohorts were included in the study. The in-person cohort consisted of 72 students who attended school in person and were tested in person before the pandemic. The online cohort consisted of 65 students who received virtual instruction during the pandemic and were tested online. Measures of vocabulary, word reading accuracy and fluency, and phonological awareness were administered in English and French to both cohorts. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were carried out to assess the effects of cohort and grade on the measures, with guardian education as a covariate. Results: Students in the in-person cohort performed significantly better on French vocabulary and English word reading accuracy than students online. The cohort effect was not significant for other French and English measures. Grade 2 students significantly outperformed Grade 1 students in both English and French vocabulary and word reading. Conclusions: The current results suggest that online learning may have had a moderately negative effect on French vocabulary but no impact on French phonological awareness or word reading. FI students' English skills were also largely unaffected. Therefore, FI students made progress on their language and literacy skills through online learning during the pandemic. The findings point to the importance of enhancing L2 vocabulary input during online learning.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1440562
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGJJwBWQTRZ2t9jJrQGiMbpAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOEfdJX9rWo24H524AIBEICBm9j3EdElI0TZbWGl91hFmAK8mnimlmuyBsdrNN4zduA5JwMJ1vHy1KyTRShY2pDeI2OOTOle6sfNz39fNrxW1IqpFvqhwFtsMLTLjBmiVX0rggkshsSfz5e39MGMrIA6bhoFrF_zP352fhvexYEX4zjL8QeSyHR0r35prrn-7FOTB7t9a3sgCC9X8Ysy-Ld53QG8-ib5rrCIKWkn
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0179808889;d8c01aug.24;2024Sep26.03:56;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0179808889-1">The impact of online learning during the pandemic on language and reading performance in English–French bilingual children </title> <p>Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic created a unique learning experience, characterised by school closures and a shift to online learning. Research suggests that online learning during the pandemic negatively impacted the reading development of elementary school children. However, little is known about the challenges of learning a second language (L2) remotely. Therefore, this study investigates the impact of online learning during the pandemic on language and reading development among French immersion (FI) students who learn French as an L2. Methods: A total of 137 Grade 1 and Grade 2 students from two cohorts were included in the study. The in‐person cohort consisted of 72 students who attended school in person and were tested in person before the pandemic. The online cohort consisted of 65 students who received virtual instruction during the pandemic and were tested online. Measures of vocabulary, word reading accuracy and fluency, and phonological awareness were administered in English and French to both cohorts. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were carried out to assess the effects of cohort and grade on the measures, with guardian education as a covariate. Results: Students in the in‐person cohort performed significantly better on French vocabulary and English word reading accuracy than students online. The cohort effect was not significant for other French and English measures. Grade 2 students significantly outperformed Grade 1 students in both English and French vocabulary and word reading. Conclusions: The current results suggest that online learning may have had a moderately negative effect on French vocabulary but no impact on French phonological awareness or word reading. FI students' English skills were also largely unaffected. Therefore, FI students made progress on their language and literacy skills through online learning during the pandemic. The findings point to the importance of enhancing L2 vocabulary input during online learning.</p> <p>Highlights: What is already known about this topicElementary school children experienced learning losses in reading due to school closures and online learning.Learning losses were more pronounced for younger students, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and immigrant children.The very few studies that have investigated the impact of online learning on reading development in bilinguals have focused primarily on English second language learners who are educated in the societal language with ample exposure to English at school and in the community. What this paper addsThis study examines how online learning during the pandemic affects the language and literacy skills of Grade 1 and Grade 2 French immersion students, who only learn French at school.This paper provides a comparison between an in‐person and online cohort in English and French vocabulary, word reading accuracy and fluency, and phonological awareness.Students in the in‐person cohort demonstrated significantly higher scores on French vocabulary than students educated online during the pandemic. Implications for theory, policy or practiceLower French vocabulary during the pandemic may be due to reduced French language exposure in an online setting.Language teachers should intentionally increase second language exposure to directly target vocabulary development in an online environment.</p> <p>Keywords: language development; online learning; reading acquisition; second language; vocabulary</p> <p>Children experienced interrupted learning during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In 2020, 107 countries around the world shut down schools and shifted to online learning to curb COVID‐19 cases (Hodges et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref1">28</reflink>]; Viner et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref2">63</reflink>]). Emerging research has shown that online learning may have had a negative effect on the reading performance of students (Engzell et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref3">14</reflink>]; Kuhfeld et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref4">35</reflink>]; Ludewig et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref5">42</reflink>]; Schult et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref6">50</reflink>]). However, these studies focused primarily on either monolingual students or immigrant children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Little is known about the challenges of learning a second language (L2) remotely.</p> <p>In the present study, we examined the reading performance of English–French bilinguals enrolled in Canadian French immersion (FI) programmes who received online instruction during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We focused on vocabulary, word reading accuracy and fluency, and phonological awareness in English and French, as these skills strongly predict reading comprehension (Huo et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref7">31</reflink>]; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref8">62</reflink>]). We compared two cohorts of FI children in Grades 1 and 2 from two different years. One cohort received exclusive in‐person instruction several years before the pandemic, whereas the other one received a mix of online and in‐person instruction during the pandemic.</p> <p>Given that French is an official language of Canada along with English, a large number of non‐Francophone children receive their education in publicly funded FI programmes (Genesee, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]). Typically, FI programmes begin in kindergarten or Grade 1, with children attending both language and academic classes in French. English language classes are introduced at a later grade (e.g., Grade 4), and the amount of English instruction gradually increases to 50% between Grades 6 and 8 (Ontario Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref10">44</reflink>]). FI children come from homes where English is typically the first language (L1) and often also the dominant language of the community. As such, they develop English and French skills simultaneously despite reduced instruction in English, leading to additive bilingualism (e.g., Genesee & Jared, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref11">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-2">Literacy Development of FI Children</hd> <p>The simple view of reading (SVR) framework conceptualises reading comprehension as the product of listening comprehension and decoding (Gough & Tunmer, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref12">25</reflink>]; Hoover & Gough, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]). Indeed, research has shown that the product of these two skills predicted more variance in reading comprehension than their linear combination in monolinguals (de Jong & van der Leij, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]) and bilinguals (Hoover & Gough, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref15">29</reflink>]; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref16">62</reflink>]). The importance of the SVR framework in explaining reading comprehension was subsequently supported in other bilingual populations, including FI (e.g., Huo et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref17">31</reflink>]). A central component of listening comprehension is vocabulary, which has been found to predict reading comprehension in both English (Jared et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref18">33</reflink>]) and French (Erdos et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>]) in FI children. Both the quantity and quality of language input impact vocabulary development in bilinguals (Paradis & Jia, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref20">46</reflink>]). Bilingual children become more dominant in the language that they are most frequently exposed to (Place & Hoff, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref21">47</reflink>]; Thordardottir, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref22">58</reflink>]). Thordardottir ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref23">58</reflink>]) found that when Canadian children had equal amounts of English and French language exposure, they performed comparably on English and French vocabulary measures. However, as exposure to one language increased relative to the other, so did vocabulary in that specific language.</p> <p>Although FI students receive their school instruction primarily in French in the early grades, they are frequently exposed to English at home and in the broader community, allowing them to develop English vocabulary skills that are comparable with those of students in English‐stream programmes (Genesee, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]). The early studies conducted in Québec, a predominantly French‐speaking province, showed that FI students initially fell behind children educated in English‐stream programmes in English vocabulary but quickly caught up to their peers once English was introduced into the curriculum (Barik & Swain, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]; Genesee, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref26">18</reflink>]). As FI programmes are now implemented nationwide, recent studies conducted in the English‐speaking regions of Canada demonstrated that FI children scored at or above average on standardised English measures even before they received English instruction (Burchell et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>]; Hipfner‐Boucher et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]). On the other hand, FI students typically perform below French L1 speakers in French oral vocabulary in both elementary (Au‐Yeung et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>]; Genesee, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref30">18</reflink>]) and middle schools (Harley & King, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]) because they learn French only in the classroom with little to no input at home.</p> <p>Like vocabulary, decoding, also known as word reading, is an essential component of the SVR because readers need to recognise printed words in order to comprehend text (e.g., Gough & Tunmer, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref32">25</reflink>]). Generally, decoding has been measured as the ability to read isolated words accurately. Studies have shown that word reading accuracy predicts reading comprehension performance in both English and French among FI students (e.g., Huo et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>]; Sohail et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref34">54</reflink>]). Phonological awareness, the ability to identify and manipulate the constituent sounds of words, is a strong predictor of word reading (e.g., Goswami & Bryant, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref35">24</reflink>]). Phonological awareness is related to word reading in both English and French among FI children (Comeau et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref36">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to word reading accuracy, word reading fluency is important for reading comprehension (Kirby & Savage, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref37">34</reflink>]; Language and Reading Research Consortium, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref38">38</reflink>]; Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref39">48</reflink>]). LaBerge and Samuels' ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref40">36</reflink>]) automaticity theory postulates that when decoding becomes automatic, the reader is able to focus their attention on higher level comprehension processes (e.g., semantic operations and reading strategies). Given its key role in reading comprehension, Kirby and Savage ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref41">34</reflink>]) argue that fluency should be added to the SVR model. Among FI children, there is evidence that word reading fluency predicts reading comprehension in both English and French (Huo et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref42">31</reflink>]; Lee & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref43">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Early research on English word reading revealed that FI students performed at a lower level than English‐speaking monolingual students in the early grades but caught up to their peers once English instruction was introduced in Grades 3 or 4 (Genesee, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref44">18</reflink>]; Lambert & Tucker, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref45">37</reflink>]). More recent research revealed that even young FI students performed comparably with English monolingual children on English word reading accuracy (Au‐Yeung et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>]; Jared et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref47">32</reflink>]) and fluency (D'Angelo et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref48">8</reflink>]; Shakory et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref49">51</reflink>]). On the other hand, FI students between Grades 1 and 3 performed higher in English than French in both word reading accuracy and fluency, suggesting that French was the weaker language (e.g., Shakory et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref50">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>A number of studies evaluated the phonological awareness skills of FI students (e.g., Bruck & Genesee, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>]). Bruck and Genesee ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref52">3</reflink>]) found that Grade 1 English‐stream students outperformed FI students in English phonemic awareness, whereas Grade 1 FI students surpassed English‐stream students on English syllable segmentation. It seems that receiving formal schooling in English gave monolingual children a greater understanding of grapheme–phoneme correspondences in English. However, because syllables are more salient in French, FI children drew on their knowledge of French to succeed in the English segmentation task, suggesting cross‐language transfer of phonological awareness. Indeed, phonological awareness has been found to transfer between English and French and play a key role in FI children's literacy development (Comeau et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-3">Reading Achievement During Online Learning</hd> <p>With government‐mandated lockdowns during the pandemic, schools around the world experienced closures of varying lengths and switched to online learning (e.g., Viner et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref54">63</reflink>]). Research undertaken during this time generally revealed a decline in reading achievement. Declines in reading comprehension and word reading have been reported in many countries, including the United States (Kuhfeld et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref55">35</reflink>]), Canada (Georgiou, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref56">22</reflink>]), the Netherlands (Engzell et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>]), Germany (Ludewig et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref58">42</reflink>]; Schult et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref59">50</reflink>]) and Finland (Lerkkanen et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>]). For example, Kuhfeld et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref61">35</reflink>]) analysed the potential loss in reading comprehension among over 5 million American students between Grades 3 and 8 during the pandemic and observed a remarkable decline in performance from 2020 to 2021 due to virtual learning.</p> <p>To our knowledge, Coskun and Kara's ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref62">7</reflink>]) study was the only one that examined the impact of school closures on phonological awareness. The researchers compared the performance on a phonemic awareness task between two cohorts of Grade 1 students in Turkey. While the first cohort received 6 months of in‐person schooling before switching to remote learning, the second cohort attended school virtually for the entire school year. As expected, the students in the second cohort had lower phonemic awareness scores than those in the first cohort. Across different studies, researchers attributed the learning losses that occurred during the pandemic to disrupted teacher–student interactions, reduced instructional time, limited experience with technology, inadequate digital infrastructure and a lack of parental support and learning spaces at home (e.g., Coskun & Kara, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref63">7</reflink>]; Georgiou, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>]; Huber & Helm, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref65">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Still, other research during the pandemic suggests that online learning did not impede reading development (Förster et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref66">16</reflink>]; Gore et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref67">23</reflink>]). For example, Förster et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref68">16</reflink>]) compared the performance of Grade 2 students from two pandemic cohorts who received online instruction with four pre‐pandemic cohorts on a reading comprehension measure in Germany. Surprisingly, students from the first pandemic cohort outperformed students from the pre‐pandemic cohorts in reading comprehension, while students from the second cohort had comparable reading comprehension skills to the pre‐pandemic cohorts. The researchers argued that parents spent more time reading with their children at home during the lockdowns, and the increased reading time countered the negative impact of the pandemic.</p> <p>In addition to general learning losses, previous research has examined the impact of the pandemic on certain learner groups, such as immigrant children and children who are L2 learners. Generally speaking, studies that explored the effect of immigration background on learning losses yielded weak and divergent results (Förster et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref69">16</reflink>]; Ludewig et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref70">42</reflink>]). Moreover, researchers often attribute the lower performance of immigrant children to a lack of sociocultural capital rather than challenges related to L2 learning during the pandemic (Kuhfeld et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref71">35</reflink>]). To our knowledge, Sun et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref72">55</reflink>]) were one of the few studies that focused on L2 learning during the pandemic. The researchers compared the growth in reading skills among monolingual English, Chinese–English and Spanish–English students before and during the pandemic. All three groups came from relatively high‐socioeconomic status (SES) homes and were attending English‐only programmes. Bilingual students experienced greater growth in English vocabulary than monolingual students throughout online learning; they also maintained age‐appropriate progress in phonological awareness and word reading. The bilingual groups' good progress may be explained by their independent reading practices during the pandemic, rich English exposure in the community and high‐SES backgrounds.</p> <p>Because FI students typically speak English, the majority language of Canada, as their L1 and come from middle‐class families (Sinay et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref73">52</reflink>]), the learning challenges they faced during the pandemic were different from those faced by immigrant children from low‐SES families. Parent interviews revealed that parents were concerned about their children's reduced French input in a remote learning environment, and they struggled to provide support because they were not French speakers themselves (Dobrin‐De Grace et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref74">11</reflink>], in press). In response to the challenges, parents developed a variety of strategies to help their children, such as creating homework schedules, promoting independent reading practices and securing French educational materials (Dobrin‐De Grace et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref75">11</reflink>], in press). In another qualitative study, teachers emphasised the difficulty of finding online resources for FI, particularly with little support from school boards (Smith & Arnott, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref76">53</reflink>]). They had trouble monitoring learning in virtual classrooms due to multiple distractions at home, leading to limited engagement with the material.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-4">The Present Study</hd> <p>While previous studies have examined the impact of digital schooling during the pandemic on children's literacy skills, little is known about its impact on L2 learning. Therefore, the objective of our cross‐sectional study was to examine how online learning affects the English and French language and literacy skills of FI students. We focused on vocabulary, word reading accuracy and fluency, and phonological awareness. To achieve this objective, we compared two cohorts of FI children in Grades 1 and 2 from two different years. One cohort received exclusive in‐person instruction several years before the pandemic, whereas the other one received a mix of online and in‐person instruction during the pandemic. We utilised analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) to determine the effects of cohort and grade on these literacy skills, with guardian education as the covariate.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-5">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179808889-6">Participants</hd> <p>The present study was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the University of Toronto, Canada. The participants included two cohorts of FI students selected from two multi‐year projects that took place in a large metropolitan city in an English‐speaking region of Canada. The in‐person cohort consisted of 72 students from three different schools, with 51 students in Grade 1 (<emph>M =</emph> 80.32 months, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.56, 55% male) and 21 students in Grade 2 (<emph>M =</emph> 92.86 months, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.03, 43% male). These students attended school entirely in person and were tested in person between January and May 2016. The online cohort consisted of 65 students from seven schools, with 18 students in Grade 1 (<emph>M =</emph> 82.56 months, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.07, 44% male) and 47 students in Grade 2 (<emph>M =</emph> 91.93 months, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.95, 68% male). These students were tested online during the pandemic between January and June 2021. We matched the schools from both cohorts on the Learning Opportunity Index (LOI; Toronto District School Board [TDSB], [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref77">61</reflink>]), a socioeconomic index that measures external challenges affecting student success (e.g., parent income and education). The mean LOI rankings for the in‐person and online cohorts were 218.64 and 230.25, respectively, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref78">135</reflink>) = −0.59, <emph>p</emph> = .56. This indicates that the two cohorts did not differ significantly in their SES.</p> <p>Since senior kindergarten, the students have received their language and content instruction in French, with the exception of art, music and physical education, which were delivered in English (Sinay et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref79">52</reflink>]; TDSB, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref80">61</reflink>]). The FI curriculum is provincially mandated (Ontario Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref81">44</reflink>]). Therefore, students from both cohorts received the same French content. However, the delivery method changed significantly during the pandemic. While the in‐person cohort attended school entirely in person, the online cohort experienced a combination of in‐person, online synchronous and online asynchronous instruction coinciding with lockdowns throughout the pandemic. Between March and June 2020, schools in southern Ontario were shut down, and online learning was primarily asynchronous (Gallagher‐Mackay et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref82">17</reflink>]). Students watched or read instructions and did their work independently. In September 2020, a hybrid model was implemented that combined online synchronous and in‐person instruction (Davidson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref83">9</reflink>]). Students in our online cohort were tested between January and June 2021. This coincided with the second wave of the pandemic, and the schools recruited for our study experienced almost 4 months of school closures within the testing period, consisting of synchronous virtual learning.</p> <p>According to the guardian demographic questionnaire, 88% of the students in the in‐person cohort and 71% of the students in the online cohort never or rarely spoke French at home. About 60% of the students in the online cohort and 24% of the students in the in‐person cohort read French books at home every day. Children were classified as English L1 (EL1) if the combined English language input from both guardians was at least 50% and as English language learners (ELLs) if the combined language input of a language other than English was more than 50%. There were 13 (18%) and 8 (12%) students classified as ELLs in the in‐person and online cohorts, respectively. The mean education level of guardians was college or university in both cohorts.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-7">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179808889-8">Guardian Demographic Questionnaire</hd> <p>Guardians completed a demographic questionnaire adapted from the Alberta Language Environment Questionnaire (Paradis, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref84">45</reflink>]). They answered questions such as languages spoken and literacy activities at home. Level of education was rated on a 5‐point scale: 0 = <emph>primary</emph>, 1 = <emph>secondary</emph>, 2 = <emph>college</emph>, 3 = <emph>university</emph>, 4 = <emph>master's degree</emph> and 5 = <emph>doctorate</emph>. A guardian education value was produced for each child by averaging both guardian ratings. Because guardian education is an important measure of SES (e.g., Myrberg & Rosén, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref85">43</reflink>]), we controlled for it in subsequent analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-9">English and French Vocabulary</hd> <p>English vocabulary was measured using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test‐4 (PPVT‐4; Dunn & Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref86">12</reflink>]). This test consists of 228 items. In each item, students listen to a word and must select one image out of the four presented that corresponds to the word they heard. Testing was stopped once eight errors were reached in a set of 12 items. Cronbach's alpha was.92 for the in‐person cohort and.95 for the online cohort. The Échelle de Vocabulaire en Images Peabody (EVIP) was used to measure French vocabulary (Dunn et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref87">13</reflink>]). This test consists of 170 items and was terminated after six errors in a set of eight items. The Cronbach's alpha was.95 for the in‐person cohort and.98 for the online cohort.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-10">English and French Word Reading Accuracy</hd> <p>With the in‐person cohort, the Woodcock–Johnson Test of Achievement III (WJ‐III): Letter Word‐Identification Subtest was used to measure word reading accuracy (Woodcock et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref88">66</reflink>]). In the online cohort, the Woodcock–Johnson Test of Achievement IV (WJ‐IV): Letter Word‐Identification Subtest was used (Schrank et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref89">49</reflink>]). The WJ‐III consists of 76 items, including 14 letters followed by 62 words. The WJ‐IV includes a total of 78 items, with 10 letters and 68 words. For both tests, students were asked to read the letters and list of words out loud. The test was stopped once the six highest numbered items in a set were incorrect. Cronbach's alpha was.97 for both cohorts.</p> <p>French word reading accuracy was measured with the Lecture de Mots subtest of the Test de Rendement Individuel Wechsler II: WIAT‐II (Wechsler, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref90">65</reflink>]). The measure contains 84 words, which students were asked to read out loud. After seven consecutive errors, students were asked to stop reading. Cronbach's alpha value for both cohorts was.97.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-11">English and French Word Reading Fluency</hd> <p>The Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE; Torgesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref91">60</reflink>]) was used to measure English word reading fluency. This measure includes a total of 104 words, separated into multiple columns. Children were timed for 45 seconds and asked to read as many words as they could as fast as possible. Cronbach's alpha was.98 for both cohorts. To measure French word reading fluency, a translated version of the TOWRE (Torgesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref92">60</reflink>]) was used, which followed the same format and contained the same number of items as the English measure. Cronbach's alpha for this measure was.97 in person and.98 online.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-12">English and French Phonological Awareness</hd> <p>English phonological awareness was measured using the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing 2 (CTOPP‐2): Elision Subtest (Wagner et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref93">64</reflink>]). There were 34 items in this test. In the first nine items, children were asked to remove a syllable from a two‐syllable word (e.g., Say cowgirl. Now say cowgirl without saying girl). For the remaining 25 items, students were asked to delete a phoneme from a word (e.g., Say cup. Now say cup without saying /k/). The test was stopped after three consecutive errors. Cronbach's alpha was.92 for both cohorts.</p> <p>French phonological awareness was assessed using an experimental measure with 26 items. The first three items assessed syllable deletion (e.g., Dis surtout. Maintenant dis surtout sans dire tout), whereas the remaining 23 items assessed phoneme deletion (e.g., Dis boeuf. Maintenant dis boeuf sans dire /b/). Testing was discontinued after six consecutive errors. Cronbach's alpha was.91 in person and.89 online.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-13">Procedure</hd> <p>During in‐person data collection, children met one‐on‐one with a research assistant at school during school hours. Online data were collected individually via the videoconferencing platform Zoom. In both cases, testing for each child took place in six sessions (three sessions per language) over six consecutive weeks. Each testing session took 45–60 minutes. The testing procedure and materials were almost identical in the two modalities. For vocabulary knowledge, the only difference is that students were asked to point to the image representing the target word when they were tested in person. Online, they were asked to provide the number of the target image. As for the word reading measures, in person, students received a paper list of words that they were asked to read. Online, a pdf version of the list was shared with students using the Zoom share screen function. Because the phonological awareness measures were administered aurally, the administration protocols were identical in the two cohorts.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-14">Results</hd> <p>The descriptive statistics for the English and French measures for each cohort are summarised in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Both raw and standard scores are reported for standardised measures, whereas raw scores are reported for experimental measures. The standard scores for English and French vocabulary, as well as English word reading accuracy and fluency, were based on a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. For English phonological awareness, the scale (standard) scores were based on a normal distribution with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. Skewness and kurtosis values indicated that the assumption of normality was met for all variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref94">56</reflink>]). Several moderate outliers were detected but were kept in the analyses because removing them did not change the patterns of results.</p> <p>1 Table Descriptive statistics of the English measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th>Variables</th><th>In‐person cohort (N = 72)</th><th>Online cohort (N = 65)</th></tr><tr><th>Grade 1</th><th>Grade 2</th><th>Total</th><th>Grade 1</th><th>Grade 2</th><th>Total</th></tr><tr><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Min–max</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Min–max</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Min–max</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Min–max</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>PPVT</td><td align="char" char=".">127.16</td><td align="char" char=".">13.82</td><td align="char" char=".">89–152</td><td align="char" char=".">134.48</td><td align="char" char=".">10.33</td><td align="char" char=".">108–154</td><td align="char" char=".">129.29</td><td align="char" char=".">13.26</td><td align="char" char=".">128.56</td><td align="char" char=".">14.07</td><td align="char" char=".">96–148</td><td align="char" char=".">140.47</td><td align="char" char=".">16.80</td><td align="char" char=".">100–168</td><td align="char" char=".">137.17</td><td align="char" char=".">16.86</td></tr><tr><td>PPVT SS</td><td align="char" char=".">112.98</td><td align="char" char=".">11.35</td><td align="char" char=".">86–134</td><td align="char" char=".">107.67</td><td align="char" char=".">8.00</td><td align="char" char=".">89–121</td><td align="char" char=".">111.43</td><td align="char" char=".">10.71</td><td align="char" char=".">112.11</td><td align="char" char=".">11.65</td><td align="char" char=".">88–130</td><td align="char" char=".">113.70</td><td align="char" char=".">13.77</td><td align="char" char=".">85–138</td><td align="char" char=".">113.26</td><td align="char" char=".">13.14</td></tr><tr><td>WRA</td><td align="char" char=".">30.62</td><td align="char" char=".">12.57</td><td align="char" char=".">14–75</td><td align="char" char=".">39.67</td><td align="char" char=".">14.18</td><td align="char" char=".">18–76</td><td align="char" char=".">33.30</td><td align="char" char=".">13.61</td><td align="char" char=".">32.82</td><td align="char" char=".">16.10</td><td align="char" char=".">5–61</td><td align="char" char=".">44.26</td><td align="char" char=".">13.32</td><td align="char" char=".">15–67</td><td align="char" char=".">41.17</td><td align="char" char=".">14.89</td></tr><tr><td>WRA SS</td><td align="char" char=".">111.34</td><td align="char" char=".">17.52</td><td align="char" char=".">86–175</td><td align="char" char=".">104.81</td><td align="char" char=".">21.37</td><td align="char" char=".">75–158</td><td align="char" char=".">109.41</td><td align="char" char=".">18.83</td><td align="char" char=".">95.12</td><td align="char" char=".">22.25</td><td align="char" char=".">55–136</td><td align="char" char=".">101.78</td><td align="char" char=".">19.40</td><td align="char" char=".">62–140</td><td align="char" char=".">99.98</td><td align="char" char=".">20.25</td></tr><tr><td>WRF</td><td align="char" char=".">24.86</td><td align="char" char=".">16.16</td><td align="char" char=".">2–62</td><td align="char" char=".">42.43</td><td align="char" char=".">21.70</td><td align="char" char=".">3–70</td><td align="char" char=".">30.06</td><td align="char" char=".">19.56</td><td align="char" char=".">34.24</td><td align="char" char=".">23.98</td><td align="char" char=".">0–71</td><td align="char" char=".">43.91</td><td align="char" char=".">20.17</td><td align="char" char=".">3–69</td><td align="char" char=".">41.30</td><td align="char" char=".">21.50</td></tr><tr><td>WRF SS</td><td align="char" char=".">95.34</td><td align="char" char=".">16.14</td><td align="char" char=".">74–141</td><td align="char" char=".">94.57</td><td align="char" char=".">21.13</td><td align="char" char=".">58–123</td><td align="char" char=".">95.11</td><td align="char" char=".">17.61</td><td align="char" char=".">100.59</td><td align="char" char=".">23.37</td><td align="char" char=".">64–136</td><td align="char" char=".">97.85</td><td align="char" char=".">20.30</td><td align="char" char=".">55–126</td><td align="char" char=".">98.59</td><td align="char" char=".">21.01</td></tr><tr><td>PA</td><td align="char" char=".">18.27</td><td align="char" char=".">7.07</td><td align="char" char=".">0–32</td><td align="char" char=".">20.38</td><td align="char" char=".">6.78</td><td align="char" char=".">9–32</td><td align="char" char=".">18.89</td><td align="char" char=".">7.01</td><td align="char" char=".">17.24</td><td align="char" char=".">5.96</td><td align="char" char=".">7–29</td><td align="char" char=".">19.65</td><td align="char" char=".">6.63</td><td align="char" char=".">4–31</td><td align="char" char=".">18.97</td><td align="char" char=".">6.49</td></tr><tr><td>PA SS</td><td align="char" char=".">10.96</td><td align="char" char=".">2.51</td><td align="char" char=".">7–18</td><td align="char" char=".">9.29</td><td align="char" char=".">2.85</td><td align="char" char=".">4–14</td><td align="char" char=".">10.46</td><td align="char" char=".">2.71</td><td align="char" char=".">9.76</td><td align="char" char=".">2.33</td><td align="char" char=".">6–15</td><td align="char" char=".">9.21</td><td align="char" char=".">2.60</td><td align="char" char=".">3–15</td><td align="char" char=".">9.37</td><td align="char" char=".">2.52</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: PA, phonological awareness; PPVT, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (English receptive vocabulary); SS, standard scores; WRA, word reading accuracy; WRF, word reading fluency.</p> <p>2 Table Descriptive statistics of the French measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th>Variables</th><th>In‐person cohort (N = 72)</th><th>Online cohort (N = 65)</th></tr><tr><th>Grade 1</th><th>Grade 2</th><th>Total</th><th>Grade 1</th><th>Grade 2</th><th>Total</th></tr><tr><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Min–max</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Min–max</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Min–max</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Min–max</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>EVIP</td><td align="char" char=".">32.57</td><td align="char" char=".">10.75</td><td align="char" char=".">12–53</td><td align="char" char=".">40.10</td><td align="char" char=".">17.45</td><td align="char" char=".">15–82</td><td align="char" char=".">34.83</td><td align="char" char=".">13.44</td><td align="char" char=".">25.83</td><td align="char" char=".">13.63</td><td align="char" char=".">11–48</td><td align="char" char=".">30.70</td><td align="char" char=".">16.17</td><td align="char" char=".">11–67</td><td align="char" char=".">29.51</td><td align="char" char=".">15.60</td></tr><tr><td>EVIP SS</td><td align="char" char=".">66.98</td><td align="char" char=".">10.27</td><td align="char" char=".">46–90</td><td align="char" char=".">64.33</td><td align="char" char=".">15.10</td><td align="char" char=".">43–100</td><td align="char" char=".">66.19</td><td align="char" char=".">11.87</td><td align="char" char=".">58.42</td><td align="char" char=".">12.06</td><td align="char" char=".">46–78</td><td align="char" char=".">57.74</td><td align="char" char=".">14.21</td><td align="char" char=".">41–91</td><td align="char" char=".">57.91</td><td align="char" char=".">13.57</td></tr><tr><td>WRA</td><td align="char" char=".">11.41</td><td align="char" char=".">10.74</td><td align="char" char=".">0–44</td><td align="char" char=".">27.65</td><td align="char" char=".">17.58</td><td align="char" char=".">3–57</td><td align="char" char=".">15.59</td><td align="char" char=".">14.58</td><td align="char" char=".">12.50</td><td align="char" char=".">14.65</td><td align="char" char=".">0–54</td><td align="char" char=".">21.60</td><td align="char" char=".">17.51</td><td align="char" char=".">0–66</td><td align="char" char=".">19.08</td><td align="char" char=".">17.15</td></tr><tr><td>WRF</td><td align="char" char=".">23.22</td><td align="char" char=".">12.70</td><td align="char" char=".">2–53</td><td align="char" char=".">40.24</td><td align="char" char=".">16.87</td><td align="char" char=".">11–75</td><td align="char" char=".">28.25</td><td align="char" char=".">15.98</td><td align="char" char=".">21.72</td><td align="char" char=".">16.93</td><td align="char" char=".">2–57</td><td align="char" char=".">36.54</td><td align="char" char=".">19.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5–69</td><td align="char" char=".">32.02</td><td align="char" char=".">19.50</td></tr><tr><td>PA</td><td align="char" char=".">11.12</td><td align="char" char=".">5.60</td><td align="char" char=".">2–24</td><td align="char" char=".">11.81</td><td align="char" char=".">6.36</td><td align="char" char=".">3–23</td><td align="char" char=".">11.32</td><td align="char" char=".">5.80</td><td align="char" char=".">12.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.15</td><td align="char" char=".">4–23</td><td align="char" char=".">11.69</td><td align="char" char=".">5.92</td><td align="char" char=".">2–23</td><td align="char" char=".">11.77</td><td align="char" char=".">5.91</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Abbreviations: EVIP, Échelle de Vocabulaire en Images Peabody (French receptive vocabulary); PA, phonological awareness; SS, standard scores; WRA, word reading accuracy; WRF, word reading fluency.</p> <p>One‐sample <emph>t</emph>‐tests were run to determine how children's performance on the standardised measures compared with the normative samples. The mean of English vocabulary was significantly higher than average for both cohorts: <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref95">71</reflink>) = 9.06, <emph>p</emph> < .001 for the in‐person cohort and <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref96">64</reflink>) = 8.13, <emph>p</emph> < .001 for the online cohort. The mean of English word reading accuracy was significantly higher than average for the in‐person cohort: <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref97">70</reflink>) = 4.21, <emph>p</emph> < .001. The mean of English word reading fluency was significantly lower than average for the in‐person cohort: <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref98">70</reflink>) = −2.34, <emph>p</emph> = .02. However, descriptively, the mean scores were only about 5 points lower than 100 for both grades and still within one standard deviation from the mean. With respect to French vocabulary, the means of both cohorts were significantly lower than average because the normative sample consisted of Canadian Francophone children: <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref99">69</reflink>) = −23.83, <emph>p</emph> < .001 for the in‐person cohort and <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref100">46</reflink>) = −21.26, <emph>p</emph> < .001 for the online cohort. Children's performance on other standardised measures was not significantly different from the normative means. In line with previous research, the standard scores confirm that the FI students' English proficiency was comparable with that of monolingual English speakers, whereas their French skills were lower than those of French L1 speakers.</p> <p>A two‐way ANCOVA was conducted to examine the effects of cohort (online vs in person) and grade (Grade 1 vs Grade 2) on vocabulary, word reading accuracy and fluency, and phonological awareness in both languages after controlling for SES (guardian education) as a covariate. Raw scores were used for all analyses, except for English word reading accuracy. As two different measures of English word reading accuracy were administered to each cohort, standard scores were used to compute the results. Standardised scores already take grade into consideration; as a result, a one‐way ANCOVA was used to assess the effect of cohort on English word reading accuracy, with guardian education as a covariate.</p> <p>For French vocabulary, the main effect of cohort was significant. The in‐person cohort outperformed the online cohort, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref102">114</reflink>) = 7.38, <emph>p</emph> = .008, partial <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .06. The effect of cohort on the other French measures was not statistically significant. For French vocabulary and French word reading accuracy and fluency, the main effect of grade was statistically significant, with Grade 2 students scoring higher than Grade 1 students: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref104">114</reflink>) = 4.58, <emph>p</emph> = .035, partial <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .04 for French vocabulary; <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref105">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref106">126</reflink>) = 19.38, <emph>p</emph> < .001, partial <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .13 for French word reading accuracy; and <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref107">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref108">125</reflink>) = 28.34, <emph>p</emph> < .001, partial <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .19 for French word reading fluency. The main effect of grade was not significant for French phonological awareness. Additionally, the Cohort × Grade interaction was not significant for any of the variables.</p> <p>The main effect of cohort in the two‐way ANCOVA was not significant for English vocabulary, English word reading fluency or English phonological awareness. For English vocabulary and English word reading fluency, the main effects of grade were significant, with Grade 2 students outperforming Grade 1 students: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref109">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref110">132</reflink>) = 12.93, <emph>p</emph> < .001, partial <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .09 for English vocabulary and <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref111">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref112">129</reflink>) = 13.06, <emph>p</emph> < .001, partial <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .09 for English word reading fluency. However, the main effect of grade was not significant for English phonological awareness. Additionally, there was no significant interaction between cohort and grade for any of the three variables. Finally, the one‐way ANCOVA on English word reading accuracy revealed that the in‐person cohort scored significantly higher than the online cohort, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref113">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref114">131</reflink>) = 8.57, <emph>p</emph> = .004, partial <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .06.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-15">Discussion</hd> <p>We evaluated the impact of online learning during the pandemic on FI students by comparing the performance between an in‐person cohort tested before the pandemic and an online cohort tested during the pandemic. The in‐person cohort scored significantly higher on French vocabulary, but the cohort effect was not significant for the other French measures. Furthermore, with the exception of English word reading accuracy, no cohort effects were observed for the English measures. In addition, we found that Grade 2 students outperformed Grade 1 students on French vocabulary and French word reading accuracy and fluency, as well as English vocabulary and English word reading fluency. No significant interactions between cohort and grade were observed for any of the measures, suggesting that the effect of the cohort was similar for both grades.</p> <p>As predicted, FI students who attended school online performed significantly worse on French vocabulary than students who attended school in person. Several factors may explain this negative impact. The online cohort had less exposure to French due to reduced interaction between teachers and students in online classrooms (Timmons et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref115">59</reflink>]). Aside from reduced instructional time, parents reported that teachers frequently responded to students' inquiries in English to keep them engaged (Dobrin‐De Grace et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref116">11</reflink>], in press). The quality of interaction also suffered due to a lack of online language resources, difficulties adapting to online teaching and learning and technical problems (Smith & Arnott, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref117">53</reflink>]; Timmons et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref118">59</reflink>]). As language exposure has an important impact on vocabulary development (Paradis & Jia, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref119">46</reflink>]; Thordardottir, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref120">58</reflink>]), FI students experienced a drawback in French vocabulary during the pandemic. Notably, the students in both cohorts performed one to two standard deviations below the mean according to the norms based on Canadian Francophone children. This is expected as FI students learn French as an L2 in the classroom but have little exposure to the language at home.</p> <p>The cohort effects were not significant for French phonological awareness or French word reading accuracy and fluency, suggesting that digital learning did not have a negative impact on these skills. Because phonological awareness and word reading skills transfer between English and French (e.g., Comeau et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref121">6</reflink>]), FI students likely drew on their strengths in English to support their French literacy development during the pandemic. Indeed, strong correlations were observed between English and French on phonological awareness (<emph>r</emph>[<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref122">47</reflink>] = .58, <emph>p</emph> < .001), word reading accuracy (<emph>r</emph>[<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref123">63</reflink>] = .71, <emph>p</emph> < .001) and word reading fluency (<emph>r</emph>[<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref124">58</reflink>] = .81, <emph>p</emph> < .001) in the online cohort. It is worth noting that our findings on phonological awareness were different from those of Coskun and Kara ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref125">7</reflink>]), who reported lower phonemic awareness scores for Turkish students educated online. Their participants only attended school 2 days a week for 8 months of the school year during the pandemic, whereas ours attended school daily. Reduced instruction may explain why the former lagged behind in phonological awareness skills.</p> <p>In addition, the impact of digital learning might have been mitigated by FI students' literacy practices during the pandemic. Interestingly, evidence points to a greater focus on independent reading activities and related literacy growth during remote learning periods (Schult et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref126">50</reflink>]; Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref127">55</reflink>]). This also seems to be true for our participants. Parents of the online cohort reported that 60% of the students read French almost daily. In contrast, only 24% of the students read French every day in the in‐person cohort. It is possible that increased independent reading activities in French helped counter the negative impact of the pandemic and resulted in similar performance on French phonological awareness and word reading measures.</p> <p>With respect to the English measures, we did not observe cohort differences for English vocabulary, English word reading fluency or English phonological awareness. Without English instruction at school, the FI students developed English skills through language and literacy activities in the home and the community. These activities largely stayed the same during the pandemic; as a result, online instruction did not affect FI students' English skills. On the other hand, the in‐person cohort outperformed the online cohort on English word reading accuracy. As two different versions of the test were used for the two cohorts, the difference may be unrelated to the effect of online learning.</p> <p>Across English and French, the grade effect was significant for some but not all variables. It is difficult to interpret these effects because our participants came from a number of different schools. In some schools, FI students attended combined grade classes that included both Grade 1 and Grade 2 students. The coexistence of combined and separate classes, coupled with pandemic disruptions, may have diminished the grade effects. Importantly, there was no significant interaction between grade and cohort for any of the French or English measures, suggesting that the observed cohort effects were applicable to students in both grades.</p> <p>In sum, our study found that virtual learning during the pandemic had a moderately negative impact on French vocabulary but no impact on French phonological awareness or word reading skills. FI students' English skills were also largely unaffected. Our findings diverge from previous studies showing that students educated online during the pandemic lagged behind in word reading skills (Georgiou, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref128">22</reflink>]; Lerkkanen et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref129">40</reflink>]). However, some of those studies also reported a larger negative impact of online learning on low‐SES children due to a lack of family support and resources (e.g., Engzell et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref130">14</reflink>]; Kuhfeld et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref131">35</reflink>]). As FI students typically come from high‐SES families (Sinay et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref132">52</reflink>]), they only experienced minor learning losses during the pandemic. Our findings are consistent with those of Sun et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref133">55</reflink>]), who found that bilingual children from high‐SES backgrounds made similar gains to monolinguals in English literacy skills. Taken together, it appears that receiving remote instruction during the pandemic had a limited impact on L2 learners from middle–high‐SES families.</p> <p>The findings of our study must be considered in the context of its limitations. First, our study contained a relatively small sample size, with unbalanced numbers of participants in terms of grade, gender, language status (EL1 vs ELL) and SES. As such, our findings need to be replicated by future studies with larger and more balanced samples. Another limitation was that we were unable to assess reading comprehension with the online cohort due to time constraints. Future research should include reading comprehension measures to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the pandemic on L2 learners. Additionally, data from the in‐person and online cohorts were collected from two different years (prior to and during the pandemic). Therefore, societal changes during the pandemic may have had an unspecified impact on children's learning performance. Finally, we cannot rule out the possibility that the comparison between the two cohorts was affected by differences in testing modalities. That said, studies have shown that face‐to‐face and online language testing modalities yield comparable results (e.g., Castilla‐Earls et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref134">5</reflink>]). Because students from both cohorts had almost identical testing modalities for our French vocabulary measure, the observed drawback is likely due to the potentially negative impact of virtual schooling, not testing.</p> <p>Because we did not anticipate a global pandemic, it was not possible to design an experimental study with perfectly matched samples. Nonetheless, this comparison allowed us to evaluate the impact of online learning on a bilingual population that has rarely been explored in this context. We extended previous findings by focusing on the essential component skills of reading comprehension and including both decoding (phonological awareness and word reading accuracy and fluency) and listening comprehension (vocabulary) components as outcomes. We found that French vocabulary was negatively impacted for FI students who received online learning as compared with their peers who received in‐person instruction. This disadvantage may be due to online teaching practices. Therefore, it is important to provide teachers with effective instructional strategies for L2 vocabulary building in an online environment. In contrast, online learning did not significantly impact French reading, phonological awareness or any of the English measures apart from English word reading accuracy. While the pandemic era is coming to an end, online learning will likely remain an important component of learning (Lockee, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref135">41</reflink>]). In Canada, for example, school boards across multiple provinces still offer a remote learning option (Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref136">57</reflink>]). Furthermore, even in traditional classrooms, there is a greater digital component. Students bring their laptops to school and work on their assignments digitally. Moving forward, teachers could increase L2 input through explicit vocabulary instruction, both in person and in an online environment, to strengthen children's L2 vocabulary.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-16">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This study was designed and implemented with support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We would like to thank the school boards, schools, principals, teachers and students who made this study possible. In addition, we would like to thank the research assistants at the Multilingualism and Literacy Lab for their invaluable contribution to our research.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-17">Conflict of Interest Statement</hd> <p>The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.</p> <hd id="AN0179808889-18">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <ref id="AN0179808889-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Au‐Yeung, K., Hipfner‐Boucher, K., Chen, X., Pasquarella, A., D'Angelo, N., & Hélène Deacon, S. (2015). Development of English and French language and literacy skills in EL1 and EL French immersion students in the early grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 50 (2), 233 – 254. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.95</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref25" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barik, H. C., & Swain, M. (1975). Three‐year evaluation of a large scale early grade French immersion program: The Ottawa study. Language Learning, 25 (1), 1 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐1770.1975.tb00106.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref51" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bruck, M., & Genesee, F. (1995). Phonological awareness in young second language learners. Journal of Child Language, 22 (2), 307 – 324. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900009806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref27" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Burchell, D., Hipfner‐Boucher, K., Selvachandran, J., Cleave, P., & Chen, X. (2020). Evaluating the oral language skills of English‐stream and French immersion students: Are the CLB/NCLC applicable? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23 (2), 118 – 140. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2020.30461</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref134" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Castilla‐Earls, A., Ronderos, J., McIlraith, A., & Martinez, D. (2022). Is bilingual receptive vocabulary assessment via telepractice comparable to face‐to‐face? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 53 (2), 454 – 465. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_LSHSS‐21‐00054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref36" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, É., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (1), 29 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.91.1.29</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref62" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Coskun, K., & Kara, C. (2022). Impact of school closure due to COVID‐19 on phonemic awareness of first‐grade primary school children. Humanities and Social Science Communications, 9, 196. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599‐022‐01218‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref48" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> D'Angelo, N., Krenca, K., & Chen, X. (2020). The overlap of poor reading comprehension in English and French. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref83" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Davidson, S. (2020, July 29). Ontario unveils plan to reopen schools in September. Here's what you need to know. CTV News. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario‐unveils‐plan‐to‐reopen‐schools‐in‐september‐here‐s‐what‐you‐need‐to‐know‐1.5044038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6 (1), 51 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0601_03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dobrin‐De Grace, R., Burchell, D., Kay‐Raining Bird, E., Hipfner‐Boucher, K., & Chen, X. (2023). The impact of Covid‐19 on French immersion students and families. Chapter submitted for publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L., & Dunn, D. (2007). PPVT‐4: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. M., & Thériault‐Whalen, C. M. (1993). Échelle de vocabulaire en images Peabody. PSYCAN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (17), e2022376118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022376118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erdos, C., Genesee, F., Savage, R., & Haigh, C. A. (2011). Individual differences in second language reading outcomes. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15 (1), 3 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006910371022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Förster, N., Forthmann, B., Back, M. D., & Souvignier, E. (2022). Effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic on reading performance of second grade children in Germany. Reading and Writing, 36, 1 – 27. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐022‐10379‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallagher‐Mackay, K., Srivastava, P., Underwood, K., Dhuey, E., McCready, L., Born, K., Maltsev, A., Perkhun, A., Steiner, R., Barrett, K., & Sander, B. (2021). COVID‐19 and education disruption in Ontario: Emerging evidence on impacts. Science Briefs of the Ontario COVID‐19 Science Advisory Table, 2 (34). https://doi.org/10.47326/ocsat.2021.02.34.1.0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Genesee, F. (1978). A longitudinal evaluation of an early immersion school program. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de l'éducation, 3 (4), 31 – 50. https://doi.org/10.2307/1494684</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Genesee, F. (2009). Early childhood bilingualism: Perils and possibilities. Journal of Applied Research on Learning, 2, 1 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Genesee, F., & Jared, D. (2008). Literacy development in early French immersion programs. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49 (2), 140 – 147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708‐5591.49.2.140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students? In T. K. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism and multiculturalism (pp. 547 – 576). Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Georgiou, G. (2021). Covid‐19's impact on children's reading scores: Data trends and complementary interview study. The Reading League Journal, 2, 34 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gore, J., Fray, L., Miller, A., Harris, J., & Taggart, W. (2021). The impact of COVID‐19 on student learning in New South Wales primary schools: An empirical study. Australian Educational Researcher, 48 (4), 605 – 637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384‐021‐00436‐w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (2016). Phonological skills and learning to read. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 7 (1), 6 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harley, B., & King, M. (1989). Verb lexis in the written compositions of young L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11 (4), 415 – 439. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hipfner‐Boucher, K., Lam, K., & Chen, X. (2014). The effects of bilingual education on the English language and literacy outcomes of Chinese‐speaking children. Written Language & Literacy, 17 (1), 116 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.17.1.06hip</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the‐difference‐between‐emergency‐remote‐teaching‐and‐online‐learning</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoover, A., & Gough, B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huber, S. G., & Helm, C. (2020). COVID‐19 and schooling: Evaluation, assessment and accountability in times of crises‐reacting quickly to explore key issues for policy, practice and research with the school barometer. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32 (2), 237 – 270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092‐020‐09322‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huo, M. R. Y., Koh, P., Cheng, Y., Marinova‐Todd, S. H., & Chen, X. (2021). The simple view of reading in French second language learners. Learning and Individual Differences, 92, 102082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jared, D., Cormier, P., Levy, B. A., & Wade‐Woolley, L. (2013). Discrimination of English and French orthographic patterns by biliterate children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114 (4), 469 – 488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jared, D., Cormier, P., Levy, B. A., & Wade‐Woolley, L. (2011). Early predictors of biliteracy development in children in French immersion: A 4‐year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (1), 119 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021284</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby, J. R., & Savage, R. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42, 75 – 82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741‐4369.2008.00487.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhfeld, M., Lewis, K., & Peltier, T. (2022). Reading achievement declines during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Evidence from 5 million U.S. students in grades 3–8. Reading and Writing, 36, 245 – 261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐022‐10345‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information language and literacy. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 28, 191 – 230. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716407070117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Newbury House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). Learning to read: Should we keep things simple? Reading Research Quarterly, 50 (2), 151 – 169. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.99</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, K., & Chen, X. (2019). An emergent interaction between reading fluency and vocabulary in the prediction of reading comprehension among French immersion elementary students. Reading and Writing, 32 (7), 1657 – 1679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐018‐9920‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerkkanen, M. K., Pakarinen, E., Salminen, J., & Torppa, M. (2022). Reading and math skills development among Finnish primary school children before and after COVID‐19 school closure. Reading and Writing, 36, 263 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐022‐10358‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lockee, B. B. (2021). Online education in the post‐COVID era. Nature Electronics, 4, 5 – 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928‐020‐00534‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ludewig, U., Kleinkorres, R., Schaufelberger, R., Schlitter, T., Lorenz, R., König, C., Frey, A., & McElvany, N. (2022). COVID‐19 pandemic and student reading achievement: Findings from a school panel study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 876485. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.876485</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myrberg, E., & Rosén, M. (2008). A path model with mediating factors of parents' education on students' reading achievement in seven countries. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14 (6), 507 – 520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610802576742</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013). The Ontario Curriculum, French as a second language: Core, grades 4–8, extended, grades 4–8; immersion, grades 1–8, 2013. Retrieved from the Government of Ontario website: https://<ulink href="http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/fsl18‐2013curr.pdf">www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/fsl18‐2013curr.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paradis, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child‐internal and child‐external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1 (3), 213 – 237. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.3.01par</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paradis, J., & Jia, R. (2017). Bilingual children's long‐term outcomes in English as a second language: Language environment factors shape individual differences in catching up with monolinguals. Developmental Science, 20 (1), e12433. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12433</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Place, S., & Hoff, E. (2011). Properties of dual language exposure that influence 2‐year‐olds' bilingual proficiency. Child Development, 82 (6), 1834 – 1849. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2011.01660.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 159 – 169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.98.1.159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schrank, F. A., Mather, N., & McGrew, K. S. (2014). Woodcock‐Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 239 – 256.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schult, J., Mahler, N., Fauth, B., & Linder, M. A. (2022). Did students learn less during the COVID‐19 pandemic? Reading and mathematics competencies before and after the first pandemic wave. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 33, 544 – 563. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2022.2061014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shakory, S., Krenca, K., Marinova‐Todd, S. H., & Chen, X. (2022). A 3‐year longitudinal investigation of the overlap and stability of English and French word reading difficulties in French immersion children. Annals of Dyslexia, 73 (1), 53 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881‐022‐00265‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinay, E., Presley, A., Armson, S., Tam, G., Ryan, T. G., Burchell, D., & Barron, C. (2018). Toronto District School Board French as a second language program review: Developmental evaluation (Research Report No. 18/19‐03). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, C., & Arnott, S. (2022). "French teachers can figure it out": Understanding French as a second language (FSL) teachers' work in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25 (1), 88 – 109. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2022.32024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sohail, J., Hipfner‐Boucher, K., Deacon, H., & Chen, X. (2022). Reading comprehension in French L2/L3 learners: Does syntactic awareness matter? Language, 7 (3), 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7030211</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, X., Marks, R. A., Eggleston, R. L., Zhang, K., Lau, C., Yu, C. L., Nickerson, N., & Kovelman, I. (2023). Impacts of the COVID‐19 disruption on the language and literacy development of monolingual and heritage bilingual children in the United States. Reading and Writing, 36 (2), 347 – 375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐022‐10388‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, N. (2023, August 30). More than 3 years since pandemic started, some still take advantage of virtual school. CBC News.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thordardottir, E. (2011). The relationship between bilingual exposure and vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15 (4), 426 – 445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Timmons, K., Cooper, A., Bozek, E., & Braund, H. (2021). The impacts of COVID‐19 on early childhood education: Capturing the unique challenges associated with remote teaching and learning in K‐2. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49 (5), 887 – 901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643‐021‐01207‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. PRO‐ED Publishing, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toronto District School Board. (2023). The 2023 Learning Opportunities Index: Questions and answers. Retrieved from the Toronto District School Board website: https://<ulink href="http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/research/docs/reports/LOI2023.pdf">www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/research/docs/reports/LOI2023.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2012). The simple view of second language reading throughout the primary grades. Reading and Writing, 25 (8), 1805 – 1818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐011‐9346‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viner, R. M., Russell, S. J., Croker, H., Packer, J., Ward, J., Stansfield, C., Mytton, O., Bonell, C., & Booy, R. (2020). School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID‐19: A rapid systematic review. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4 (5), 397 – 404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352‐4642(20)30095‐X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., Rashotte, C., & Pearson, N. (2013). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing: CTOPP2. Pro‐ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wechsler, D. (2005). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (2nd ed.). Pearson Canada Assessment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock‐Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Riverside.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Zein Abuosbeh; Diana Burchell; Klaudia Krenca and Xi Chen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Zein Abuosbeh is a PhD student in the Developmental Psychology and Education programme at the University of Toronto. Her research focuses on the contribution of oral language skills to reading comprehension among English‐French emergent bilingual children studying in the French Immersion programme. She is also conducting research on the Arabic and English narrative and discourse skills of Syrian refugee children in Canada. Zein is especially interested in using her research to help create evidence‐based resources for multilingual learning environments.</p> <p>Diana Burchell is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at the University of Alberta, under the supervision of Dr MacLeod. She is an English, French and special education high school teacher. She is passionate about investigating and improving the accessibility of our education system for multilingual students and students with disabilities.</p> <p>Klaudia Krenca received her PhD in the Developmental Psychology and Education programme from the University of Toronto. She completed a Donald Hill Postdoctoral Fellowship at Dalhousie University. Broadly, Klaudia's research investigated the assessment of children's reading comprehension in digital environments and the role of oral language in the literacy development of emerging English‐French bilingual children. Currently, Klaudia is working as a Researcher at the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada.</p> <p>Xi Chen is a professor in the Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada. She is co‐editor‐in‐chief for Annals of Dyslexia. Her research specialises in the reading development and difficulties of bilingual children. In recent years, most of the studies conducted in her Multilingualism and Literacy Lab involve children in French immersion programmes, including both English–French bilinguals and trilingual children who speak a minority language at home.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref136"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1440562
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Impact of Online Learning during the Pandemic on Language and Reading Performance in English-French Bilingual Children
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zein+Abuosbeh%22">Zein Abuosbeh</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9547-8637">0000-0001-9547-8637</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Diana+Burchell%22">Diana Burchell</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Klaudia+Krenca%22">Klaudia Krenca</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xi+Chen%22">Xi Chen</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Reading%22"><i>Journal of Research in Reading</i></searchLink>. 2024 47(3):330-347.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22COVID-19%22">COVID-19</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pandemics%22">Pandemics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Proficiency%22">Language Proficiency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bilingual+Students%22">Bilingual Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English%22">English</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22French%22">French</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Distance+Education%22">Distance Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22In+Person+Learning%22">In Person Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary%22">Vocabulary</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Fluency%22">Reading Fluency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonological+Awareness%22">Phonological Awareness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Differences%22">Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/1467-9817.12450
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-0423<br />1467-9817
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic created a unique learning experience, characterised by school closures and a shift to online learning. Research suggests that online learning during the pandemic negatively impacted the reading development of elementary school children. However, little is known about the challenges of learning a second language (L2) remotely. Therefore, this study investigates the impact of online learning during the pandemic on language and reading development among French immersion (FI) students who learn French as an L2. Methods: A total of 137 Grade 1 and Grade 2 students from two cohorts were included in the study. The in-person cohort consisted of 72 students who attended school in person and were tested in person before the pandemic. The online cohort consisted of 65 students who received virtual instruction during the pandemic and were tested online. Measures of vocabulary, word reading accuracy and fluency, and phonological awareness were administered in English and French to both cohorts. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were carried out to assess the effects of cohort and grade on the measures, with guardian education as a covariate. Results: Students in the in-person cohort performed significantly better on French vocabulary and English word reading accuracy than students online. The cohort effect was not significant for other French and English measures. Grade 2 students significantly outperformed Grade 1 students in both English and French vocabulary and word reading. Conclusions: The current results suggest that online learning may have had a moderately negative effect on French vocabulary but no impact on French phonological awareness or word reading. FI students' English skills were also largely unaffected. Therefore, FI students made progress on their language and literacy skills through online learning during the pandemic. The findings point to the importance of enhancing L2 vocabulary input during online learning.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1440562
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1440562
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1467-9817.12450
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 330
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: COVID-19
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pandemics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Proficiency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bilingual Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: French
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Distance Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 1
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 2
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: In Person Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Fluency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonological Awareness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Impact of Online Learning during the Pandemic on Language and Reading Performance in English-French Bilingual Children
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zein Abuosbeh
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Diana Burchell
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Klaudia Krenca
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xi Chen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-0423
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-9817
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 47
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Reading
              Type: main
ResultId 1