Today, societies in many countries are multilingual. Multilingualism can contribute to success in school and later in working life. An individual's language development affects their reading development (Kirsch et al., 2002). Thus, in a learning context, such as in school, reading skills are effective tools for obtaining, organizing, and using information in various fields (Artelt, Schiefele & Schneider, 2001). Reading is a multi-component process (Grabe, 2009) and many students during middle school have difficulty moving from “learning to read” to “reading to learn”. Fluency, previous knowledge, experience, and word knowledge are important since the students are expected to read about, for them, unknown subjects in which words and linguistic structures are more complex (Wharton‑McDonald & Erickson, 2016). For a student who reads the information at school in a second language (L2), the reading process becomes even more complex. Grabe (2009) summarizes the major overall differences between reading in a first language (L1) and a second language (L2): “Linguistic and processing differences, developmental and educational differences and sociocultural and institutional differences” (Grabe, 2009, p.130). Research has also shown that it takes at least four to five years before an individual can use their second language (L2) as a school language (Cummins, 2017; Thomas & Collier, 2002). In PISA 2018 the students in Sweden performed at a higher level on the reading literacy test, than the average for OECD countries. However, the groups of students with a foreign background, both those born in Sweden and those born abroad, performed at a lower level than native Swedish students (National Agency for Education, 2019). Educators in several countries have expressed concern about how education for first- and second-generation immigrant students is designed (Cummins, 2011).

In this study, PISA data from 2018 was used to investigate the patterns of variation regarding the components in PISA defined as reading fluently (reading fluency) and the students' perception of the usefulness of reading strategies regarding memorizing and understanding texts(UNDREM) (awareness of the usefulness of reading strategies) effects on reading literacy performance for multilingual fifteen years old students in a Swedish context. The aim is to get a better understanding of similarities and differences in the students’ component skills reading profiles (CSRP), in this study defined as learners’ relative development of different reading subskills, between categories of students with different language backgrounds.

Two research questions were posed:

• What is the relative importance of reading fluency and the awareness of the usefulness of reading strategies in memorizing and understanding texts on an overall reading performance for native, second generation and first generation students?
• Are there similarities and differences between the three categories of students regarding the effects of reading fluency and the awareness of the usefulness of reading strategies on the processes locate information, understanding and evaluating and reflecting?

To analyse the results the theory component skills approach to reading was used. In the approach, the overall multicomponent reading process is divided into two processes, defined as lower-level processes and higher-level processes (Grabe, 2009; Koda, 2005). The approach can show if and how these processes interact and how much each of the processes contributes individually and collectively to reading comprehension for both L1 and L2 readers (Grabe, 2009; Koda, 2005). In this study reading fluency is assumed to be related to lower-level processes and awareness of the usefulness of reading strategies to higher–level processes. Both components are, in theories and research, described to be of importance in a reading process (Grabe, 2009; Koda, 2005).  Knowledge about differences and similarities in the students’ component reading profiles can potentially be used in the future development of reading instruction for multilingual students.

This study is based on a secondary analysis performed with data generated during the PISA 2018 when reading was the main subject for the third time. In Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), students' knowledge in the subjects of reading literacy, mathematics and science is examined just before the students are about to leave compulsory school (OECD, 2019). The Swedish sample consisted of 5504 students of which 4283 were native students, 556 were second generation students, and 499 were first generation students. The observed independent variables used in the study were the variables in PISA defined as “reading fluently” (reading fluency) and the students’ self-reported index variable UNDREM (Meta-cognition: understanding and remembering) (reading strategies). Data preparation and management were performed in SPSS 28, and the analyses were carried out in Mplus Version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). Weights are used according to common practice in the analysis of PISA data. In order to investigate the differences and similarities in the students’ component reading profiles (in this study defined as learners' relative development of reading subskills) between the different categories of students, five separate multigroup path analyses were conducted. In the first two analyses the overall PISA score for each of the students was used as a dependent variable. In the models three to five the scores on the processes measured in PISA, locating information, understanding and evaluating and reflecting were used as dependent variables. In this study all 10 plausible values for each of the processes were used. In the first path analysis the test-takers were divided into two groups, native students (who were born in Sweden) and first generation students (students who were born abroad with parents who were also born abroad). In the following models the three categories, native, second generation and first generation of students were measured separately. Additionally, the relations between the different categories of the students' reading fluency and awareness of the usefulness of reading and various levels of reading proficiency defined in the PISA assessment were compared and visualized.

The results revealed that there are significant differences in the effects of the lower-level process related to reading fluency (β (Native and SecGen)= 0.434), (β (FirstGen)= 0.631) and the higher-level process related to the awareness of the usefulness of reading strategies (β (Native and SecGen)= 0.349), β (FirstGen)= 0.222) on the students reading literacy performance between, on the one hand the students who were born in Sweden and on the other those who were born abroad. In model two when all three categories of students were included the effects of the two components on reading literacy performance were almost similar between the group of native students (β (RF) = 0.422, β (RS)= 0.346) and second generation students (β (RF) = 0.491, β (RS)=0.339) while for the group of first generation students the relation was much larger (β (RF) = 0.631, β (RS)=0.222). When comparing the relation between reading fluency and the students’ perceptions regarding the usefulness of reading strategies with the proficiency levels defined in PISA the results showed that the test-takers in the group of first generation students have another distribution of higher- and lower-level processes up to proficiency levels three (between 480-553 score points on the PISA test) than the test takers in the groups of native and second generation students. Thus, the result from the analysis indicates that the groups of students have different component skills reading profiles and appear to rely on partly different kinds of processes at several reading proficiency levels. The patterns with regard to both reading fluency and awareness of the usefulness of reading strategies are similar for the groups of native and second generation students but different for the group of first generation students. The results indicate that the relative importance of reading fluency and awareness of the efficiency of reading strategies is different for first generation students.

Artelt, Schiefele & Schneider, 2001). Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., & Schneider, W. (2001) Predictors of Reading Literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education 26, (3), 363. Grabe, William. (2009). Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., La Fontaine, D. McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J.,Monseur, C. (2002). Reading for change: Performance and engagement across countries. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2017). Mplus user’s guide. Statistical Analysis With Latent Variables Muthén & Muthén. National Agency for Education. (2019). PISA 2018, 15-åringars kunskaper i läsförståelse, matematik och naturvetenskap. Stockholm: National Agency for Education. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en. Wharton-McDonald, R., & Erickson, J. (2016). Reading Comprehension in the Middle Grades Characteristics, Challenges, and Effective Supports. I S.E. Israel (red), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (s 353-376.). Guilford Publications: New York.