Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose Educational inequity in multilingual contexts is a growing concern, yet little is known about how cognitive and environmental factors jointly shape literacy outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study examined cognitive-linguistic and environmental predictors of reading in English and Malay among bilingual Malaysian children, and whether these relationships differ across two orthographies of contrasting depth. Method Ninety-seven English–Malay bilingual children (mean age 7.80 years) were assessed on phonological awareness (PA), rapid automatized naming (RAN), and receptive vocabulary in both languages. Parents completed a home literacy environment questionnaire capturing shared reading, parental teaching, book availability, and socioeconomic status (SES). Word reading accuracy and fluency were measured in each language. Hierarchical regression models were used for fluency outcomes; generalized linear mixed models fitted to by-item binary data were used for accuracy. Results Cross-language associations were asymmetric: Malay PA predicted English reading fluency and accuracy, but English PA did not predict Malay reading. English RAN predicted fluency in both languages, whereas Malay RAN did not. Environmental effects were language- and outcome-specific: SES and home literacy variables uniquely predicted English reading fluency but did not significantly predict English reading accuracy, Malay fluency, or Malay accuracy. Conclusion Orthographic depth is associated with differential patterns of both cross-language cognitive associations and environmental sensitivity in biliteracy development. English, as an opaque high-status language, showed greater susceptibility to home environment disadvantage than the more transparent Malay, with implications for educational equity in multilingual LMIC settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: