UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Bilingualism and reasoning ability 1986

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1986_A8 T74.pdf [ 3.76MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078374.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078374+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078374.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078374+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078374+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078374+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0078374.ris

Full Text

BILINGUALISM AND REASONING ABILITY BY Monique Marie G a b r i e l l e T r i t e s B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1983 Teaching C e r t i f . , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Education We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1986 © Monique Marie G a b r i e l l e T r i t e s , 1986 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department o r by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of fccWcJ^c/v^ ^ S y ^ o V o ^ oti/A Ŝ > •'ECJIM.IAVOIM The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date Q c V o W {^L i i ABSTRACT The purposes of the present study were (1) to investigate relationships between levels of verbal and non verbal reasoning ability and second language acquisition and (2) to examine the concurrent validity of the Test Of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI) using the WISC-R and the Children's Word Finding Test as criteria and to verify the equivalence of the two forms of the TONI. The present study was conducted because of the controversy that exists in the literature, over the relationship between bilingualism and cognitive ability. While previous research used "general intelligence" tests to investigate differences between unilinguals and bilinguals, the present study examined a more precise construct: verbal and non-verbal reasoning ability in Grade 3 French Immersion students as compared to Grade 3 Non French Immersion Students. All students came from homes in which English was the only language spoken, had been continuously enrolled from kindergarten through the end of Grade 3 in their current academic programs, and were not attending Learning Assistance centers. The two groups came from families with high socioeconomic status. An analysis of variance was used to compare the two groups on the WISC-R, the TONI and the Children's Word Finding Test. Correlations between scores on the three tests were calculated to verify the level of equivalence of the two forms of the TONI, and of the validity of H i the TONI c o n c u r r e n t l y with the WISC-R and with the C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g T e s t . The French Immersion group scored higher than the Non-French Immersion group on the TONI -A (p = .07) and the C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test (p = .10) and s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the Performance Scale and F u l l Scale of the WISC-R. A f t e r c o n t r o l l i n g f o r v a r i a b i l i t y on c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y l e v e l s (WISC-R), the French Immersion group s t i l l scored higher than the Non-French Immersion group on the TONI A and the C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test (p = .09). The TONI c o r r e l a t e d p o o r l y with the WISC-R, as w e l l as with the C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g T e s t . The low c o r r e l a t i o n of the TONI with the WISC-R was e x p l a i n e d by the d i f f e r e n c e i n the range of the age i n t e r v a l of the norms of each t e s t . The c o e f f i c i e n t of equivalence of the two forms of the TONI was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than that r e p o r t e d by the authors of the t e c h n i c a l manual. Furthermore, an order e f f e c t was found f o r both French Immersion and Non-French Immersion groups, when the Form A of the TONI was administered f i r s t (This was not however, the case when the Form B of the TONI was administered f i r s t ) . When the TONI A was given f i r s t the c o r r e l a t i o n between the scores of the TONI A and TONI B was high for the French Immersion group but not f o r the Non-French Immersion group. I t was concluded t h a t although i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s i s confounded by p o s s i b l e i n i t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s between groups, the French i v Immersion group demonstrated a t e n d e n c y towards b e t t e r v e r b a l and n o n - v e r b a l i n d u c t i v e and d e d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y (p = .09). F u r t h e r , i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t the two forms of the TONI a r e not e q u i v a l e n t and t h a t t h e r e i s an o r d e r e f f e c t when TONI A i s a d m i n i s t e r e d f i r s t , but not when TONI B i s a d m i n i s t e r e d f i r s t . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed on t h i s t e s t b e f o r e i t can be c o n s i d e r e d a r e l i a b l e s u b s t i t u t e f o r the WISC-R. V TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES , i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the problem 6 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 10 B i l i n g u a l i s m and Cogni t i v e Development and A b i l i t y , E a r l y Studies 10 B i l i n g u a l i s m 17 Socioeconomic Status 20 S o c i a l Context 21 Fairness of the Tests Used 22 Number of Books at Home 24 The Late s t Studies 25 Conclusion 25 Research Questions 31 I I I METHODOLOGY 32 The Design 33 The Sample 34 Questionnaire 35 v i S a m p l i n g 36 D e s c r i p t i o n of the T e s t s Used 38 WISC-R 38 T e s t of N o n v e r b a l I n t e l l i g e n c e 42 C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g T e s t 44 T e s t i n g 45 S c o r i n g and Data P r e p a r a t i o n 46 Data A n a l y s i s 46 IV RESULTS 49 D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s 49 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e 51 A n a l y s i s of C o v a r i a n c e 57 TONI: C o n c u r r e n t V a l i d i t y and E q u i v a l e n c e of the Two Forms 60 V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 65 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 76 C o n c l u s i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r P r a c t i c e 76 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h 78 REFERENCES 80 APPENDIX A 88 L e t t e r t o p a r e n t s 89 Consent Form 91 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 92 Vancouver S c h o o l Board Map 94 v i i LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3-1 Number of L e t t e r s r e t u r n e d i n Each S c h o o l 37 3-2 E l i m i n a t i o n of S t u d e n t s by C r i t e r i o n 39 3-3 R e c a p i t u l a t i v e T a b l e o f t h e F o r m a t i o n o f t h e Sample 40 3- 4 N e s t e d A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n M a t r i x . . . 4 7 4- 1 Indexes of Home Book Numbers and SES by Type of S c h o o l . . . . 5 0 4-2 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Number o f Books and SES i n F r e n c h Immersion and Non-French Immersion Groups 50 4-3 WISC-R S c a l e Means by Type of S c h o o l 52 4-4 TONI R e s u l t s by Type of S c h o o l 53 4-5 C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g T e s t R e s u l t s by Type of S c h o o l 54 4-6 Range of T e s t S c o r e s f o r the WISC-R, t h e TONI, and the CWFT by Type of S c h o o l 56 4-7 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness of F i t T e s t 54 4-8 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e on the WISC-R 56 4-9 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e on the TONI 56 4-10 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e on the C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g T e s t . . 5 8 4-11 A n a l y s i s of C o v a r i a n c e o f the TONI and t h e CWFT w i t h t he WISC-R as C o v a r i a t e 58 4-12 F r e n c h Immersion V e r s u s Non-French Immersion U n a d j u s t e d and A d j u s t e d Means f o r C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t y on t he TONI. A, TONI. B, and C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g T e s t 59 4-13 P e a r s o n C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e E n t i r e Sample 59 v i 11 4-14 P e a r s o n C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t he F r e n c h Immersion Group 61 4-15 P e a r s o n C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t he Non-French Immersion Group 62 4-16 P e a r s o n C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Each Type of S c h o o l Between TONI A and TONI B, A c c o r d i n g t o the Order of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e TONI 62 i x LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 5-1 D i f f e r e n c e s Between Scores on the WISC-R and the TONI A by Age f o r the E n t i r e Sample 72 X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Patricia Arlin and my graduate student colleagues and friends for their valuable comments, particularly at the proposal stage of my thesis research. I am indebted to Lydia Bergant, Suzanne Jacobsen, Cathy Nolan, and Maria Iaquinta for their help in testing and scoring. I greatly appreciated the help of Dr. William Bruneau in clarifying my thoughts and expression of ideas through numerous discussions. I am especially grateful to my husband for his support, help and encouragement a l l through the preparation of this project. I wish also to express my appreciation to my research supervisor, Dr. Julianne Conry, for sharing her expertise and for her availability, and to my committee members: Dr. Robert Conry, who helped me with the methodology and the use of the computer, and Dr Robert Roy for his support and his perspicacious input. A final word of appreciation goes to those Vancouver School Board students, principals, teachers, and research department o f f i c i a l s who contributed their time and energy to the project. 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There has been a lengthy c o n t r o v e r s y concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p between b i l i n g u a l i s m and c o g n i t i v e development. Some re s e a r c h e r s have argued t h a t b i l i n g u a l i s m enhances c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y while others say t h a t b i l i n g u a l i s m hinders i t . Saer (1922) and Smith (1923), f o r ins t a n c e , s t u d i e d Welsh c h i l d r e n whose mother tongue was I r i s h , but who attended s c h o o l i n E n g l i s h . Saer s t a t e d that "mental c o n f u s i o n " occurred more o f t e n i n the b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n than i n the monoglots, and Smith concluded that b i l i n g u a l i s m seemed to be an i n t e l l e c t u a l disadvantage. Nowadays, when French Immersion i s becoming more and more popular i n Canada, parents, r e s e a r c h e r s and p r o f e s s i o n a l s are once again i n t e r e s t e d i n the q u e s t i o n whether b i l i n g u a l i s m enhances c o g n i t i v e development or not. There i s c o n s i d e r a b l e disagreement as to the answer. For example, Lambert and Peal (1962) found, on the one hand, t h a t E n g l i s h - F r e n c h b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n performed b e t t e r than u n i l i n g u a l on a type of non-verbal t e s t i n v o l v i n g concept-formation or symbolic " f l e x i b i l i t y " as d e f i n e d by Ahmed (1954) as the a b i l i t y to r e o r g a n i z e m entally the elements of a problem. E n g l i s h - F r e n c h b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n a l s o performed b e t t e r than u n i l i n g u a l s on v e r b a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s . However, a f t e r the two groups had been matched on nonverbal t e s t r e s u l t s and on the socioeconomic s t a t u s of the parents, the authors found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups on v e r b a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s . 2 Barik and Swain's (1976) l o n g i t u d i n a l study found no d i f f e r e n c e over a three year p e r i o d (Grade 1 to 3) between r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program students and French Immersion students with r e s p e c t to I.Q. measure or s u b t e s t scores f o r c h i l d r e n from grade 1 to 3 when the scores had been a d j u s t e d f o r i n i t i a l I.Q. d i f f e r e n c e s . They c l a s s i f i e d b i l i n g u a l s u b j e c t s as "high" French a c h i e v e r s and "low" French a c h i e v e r s , and looked a t the i n c r e a s e of t h e i r I.Q. over the three year p e r i o d . High a c h i e v e r s were those who scored a t the top t h i r d on four t e s t s of French performance; low a c h i e v e r s were those who scored at the bottom t h i r d on the same four t e s t s of French performance. The a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e of the I.Q. of the high French a c h i e v e r s group over the three year p e r i o d , while there was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e f o r the low French a c h i e v e r s . These f i n d i n g s suggest that b i l i n g u a l i s m may i n c r e a s e the I.Q. of those b i l i n g u a l s who have a t t a i n e d a c e r t a i n l e v e l of p r o f i c i e n c y i n t h e i r second language. However, the authors do not take a stand and conclude by s a y i n g t h a t "the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s suggest that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between b i l i n g u a l i s m and c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g i s a complex one" and t h a t "the issue warrants f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . " (Barik and Swain, 1976, p. 261) The opposing f i n d i n g s on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between b i l i n g u a l i s m and c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g can i n p a r t be e x p l a i n e d by sampling and methodological d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s t u d i e s , such as the type of t e s t to measure c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , the matching of the s u b j e c t s on socioeconomic s t a t u s , the d e f i n i t i o n of b i l i n g u a l i s m , and so on. 3 The i n f l u e n c e of socioeconomic s t a t u s on I.Q. has been demonstrated i n s e v e r a l s t u d i e s . However, i n most e a r l i e r s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g b i l i n g u a l s and i n some of more recent ones, u n i l i n g u a l s and b i l i n g u a l s have not been matched on the socioeconomic s t a t u s of t h e i r p a r e n t s. T h i s methodological step i s e s p e c i a l l y important f o r s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g French Immersion c h i l d r e n because they g e n e r a l l y come from higher socioeconomic background than do c h i l d r e n i n r e g u l a r classrooms ( T r i t e s and P r i c e , 1980). Another major problem i n t h i s kind of r e s e a r c h may be the f a i r n e s s of the t e s t s used r e g a r d i n g the language and c u l t u r e of the po p u l a t i o n concerned. Because i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s are language-oriented, they might be u n f a i r to French Immersion students when given i n E n g l i s h before these students are f o r m a l l y taught E n g l i s h language a r t s . N i e l s e n (1983) conducted r e s e a r c h to see whether the WISC-R t e s t , when administered i n E n g l i s h to French Immersion grade 2 students, puts them a t a disadvantage. She compared r e s u l t s on WISC-R t e s t s given i n E n g l i s h to grade 2 French Immersion students with those of grade 2 students from the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program. Although the French Immersion group mean was higher, a n a l y s i s of the 12 s u b t e s t s and three IQ sco r e s r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups. The c o n c l u s i o n was t h a t the WISC-R t e s t , when administered i n E n g l i s h to French Immersion students does not put them at a disadvantage. One s o l u t i o n to the problem of the f a i r n e s s of the t e s t used, has been to administer a t r a n s l a t i o n of the t e s t . In her review of the e f f e c t of b i l i n g u a l i s m upon the measurement of i n t e l l i g e n c e , Darcy 4 (1953) r e p o r t e d on s t u d i e s using t r a n s l a t i o n s of standard i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s . She s a i d t h a t the r e s u l t s of s u b j e c t s t e s t e d i n t h e i r second language were lower than t h e i r r e s u l t s when t e s t e d i n t h e i r f i r s t language. However, she suggested t h a t "the t r a n s l a t i o n of a st a n d a r d i z e d t e s t i s not an e q u i v a l e n t to the t e s t i n the language i n which i t was o r i g i n a l l y s t a n d a r d i z e d . " (1953, p. 25) Another s o l u t i o n to the problem of f a i r n e s s has been to use nonverbal t e s t s as a measure to compare the general i n t e l l i g e n c e of b i l i n g u a l and u n i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n . However, there i s only a moderate c o r r e l a t i o n between these t e s t s and v e r b a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s such as the WISC-R or the B i n e t . Lambert and Tucker (1972) used the Raven's P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s t e s t as a nonverbal I.Q. t e s t . However, the purpose of the t e s t i s to measure reasoning c a p a c i t y and i t y i e l d s only p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e s . Items do not t e s t v e r b a l or mathematical a b i l i t y ; they were c o n s t r u c t e d to d e a l with v i s u a l s p a t i a l reasoning a l o n e . Raven's i n t e n t i o n was to provide a r e l i a b l e estimate of a person's c a p a c i t y to think c l e a r l y when allowed to work s t e a d i l y , to form comparisons and reason by analogy (Raven, 1976). Although c o r r e l a t i o n s between the Raven's P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s and the WISC-R range from +.54 to +.86 (Raven, 1976), the concurrent v a l i d i t y of the t e s t with standard i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s has not been c o n v i n c i n g l y e s t a b l i s h e d . The Raven's P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s cannot be used as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r the WISC-R s i n c e the l a t t e r o f f e r s much greater v e r s a t i l i t y i n i t s assessments of mental a c t i v i t y (Mehrota, 1968); the Raven and the WISC-R t e s t have been shown not to be e q u i v a l e n t (Holmes, 1981) 5 The use of i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s to compare c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g between the two groups as t r a d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s have done, presents another d i f f i c u l t l y . The v a r i e t y of d e f i n i t i o n s f o r the concept of i n t e l l i g e n c e and the v a r i e t y of t e s t s used to measure i t , have caused c o n f u s i o n . Furthermore, a b i l i t i e s measured by i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s seem too v a r i e d , e a s i l y to permit the d i s c o v e r y of c o n s i s t e n t d i f f e r e n c e s between b i l i n g u a l and u n i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n . Memory, v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n , v i s u a l motor i n t e g r a t i o n , o r g a n i z a t i o n , knowledge of b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n , problem s o l v i n g i n s o c i a l context, as w e l l as conceptual and l o g i c a l reasoning, are only a few examples of the a b i l i t i e s i n v o l v e d i n standard i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s . When comparing two groups using t h i s kind of t e s t , d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e s u l t s on s u b - s e c t i o n s of the t e s t s , both p o s i t i v e and negative, may balance each other out. Thus, d i f f e r e n c e s among f i n a l o v e r a l l r e s u l t s may not be s i g n i f i c a n t . G e n e r a l l y , s t u d i e s comparing b i l i n g u a l s and u n i l i n g u a l s d i d not i n v o l v e students with l e a r n i n g problems unless r e s e a r c h had d i r e c t l y to do with l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . The choice of s u b j e c t s f o r the samples who have average or above-average academic success reduces the chances of f i n d i n g d i f f e r e n c e s on i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s between the samples. For the preceeding reasons, i t seems to be more a p p r o p r i a t e to compare b i l i n g u a l s and u n i l i n g u a l s on s p e c i f i c a b i l i t i e s such as i n d u c t i v e and deductive reasoning, which might be developed through the a c q u i s i t i o n of a second language. Lambert and Tucker (1972) s a i d t h a t b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n from French Immersion scho o l s have developed " l i n g u i s t i c d e t e c t i v e s k i l l s " which they d e f i n e as "an a t t e n t i v e , p a t i e n t , i n d u c t i v e concern with 6 words, meanings and l i n g u i s t i c r e g u l a r i t i e s " (1972, p.208). The authors based t h i s i n f e r e n c e on the better-than-expected r e s u l t s of b i l i n g u a l s on t e s t s of French word d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , l i s t e n i n g comprehension, and decoding. I t seems n a t u r a l that c h i l d r e n develop such s k i l l s i n French Immersion s i t u a t i o n where a l l s u b j e c t s are taught i n French from Kindergarten to the end of grade 3. Teachers use g e s t u r e , mimes and p i c t u r e s to communicate t h e i r message; the c h i l d r e n have to pay v e r y c l o s e a t t e n t i o n to these c l u e s , and use t h e i r i n d u c t i v e and deductive reasoning a b i l i t y i n order to understand the meaning of what i s s a i d . The goal of the study of reasoning a b i l i t y here proposed was to demonstrate whether those who a c q u i r e a second language develop s u p e r i o r reasoning a b i l i t y . I t was a l s o to c o n t r i b u t e to the h i s t o r i c d i a l o g u e concerning the p o s s i b l e c o r r e l a t i o n between second language l e a r n i n g and i n t e l l i g e n c e . T h i s study should o f f e r a new p e r s p e c t i v e to i n v e s t i g a t o r s on how best to t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y between b i l i n g u a l s and u n i l i n g u a l s . T e s t i n g f o r reasoning s k i l l s as proposed here emphasizes s p e c i f i c t h i n k i n g processes r a t h e r than learned f a c t s . Statement of the Problem The goal of t h i s study was to compare l e v e l s of reasoning a b i l i t y a t the end of grade 3 of b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n and u n i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n matched on socioeconomic background. 7 B i l i n g u a l s c h i l d r e n w e r e d e f i n e d a s s t u d e n t s r e g i s t e r e d I n e a r l y F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n s i n c e K i n d e r g a r t e n a n d c o m i n g f r o m a n g l o p h o n e f a m i l i e s w h e r e t h e o n l y l a n g u a g e u s e d i n t h e home w a s E n g l i s h . U n i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n w e r e d e f i n e d a s s t u d e n t s r e g i s t e r e d i n a r e g u l a r E n g l i s h p r o g r a m s i n c e K i n d e r g a r t e n a n d c o m i n g f r o m a n g l o p h o n e f a m i l i e s w h e r e t h e o n l y l a n g u a g e u s e d i n t h e home w a s E n g l i s h . R e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y w a s m e a s u r e d a c c o r d i n g t o r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d b y t h e s t u d e n t s o n a n o n v e r b a l r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y t e s t ( t h e T e s t o f N o n v e r b a l I n t e l l i g e n c e ) a n d o n a v e r b a l r e a s o n i n g t e s t ( t h e C h i l d r e n ' s W o r d F i n d i n g T e s t ) , b o t h t e s t s i n v o l v i n g i n d u c t i v e a n d d e d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g . T h e r e w a s o n e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e , t h e c o n d i t i o n b i l i n g u a l o r u n i l i n g u a l . T h e r e w e r e t w o d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s , t h e l e v e l o f v e r b a l r e a s o n i n g a n d t h e l e v e l o f n o n v e r b a l r e a s o n i n g . T h e o b j e c t i v e o f t h e s t u d y w a s t o s e r v e t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p u r p o s e o f a n s w e r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n b i l i n g u a l i s m a n d t h e l e v e l o f v e r b a l a n d n o n v e r b a l r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e u s e o f t h e TONI a s a n o n v e r b a l r e a s o n i n g t e s t l e d t o v e r i f y i n g t h e e q u i v a l e n c e o f F o r m A a n d F o r m B o f t h e t e s t a n d t o e s t a b l i s h i t s c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y w i t h t h e WISC-R a n d w i t h t h e C h i l d r e n ' s W o r d - F i n d i n g T e s t . T h i s w a s i m p o r t a n t t o d o b e c a u s e no s t u d y h a d b e e n d o n e o n t h e c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y o f t h e TONI w i t h t h e WISC-R f o r n o r m a l p o p u l a t i o n s . 8 A l t h o u g h I t i s c a l l e d a n i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t , t h e T O N I ' s i t e m s f o c u s e x c l u s i v e l y o n p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a s i n t h e R a v e n ' s P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s . T h e a u t h o r s p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e i r t e s t o f n o n v e r b a l i n t e l l i g e n c e m e a s u r e s a s m a l l p i e c e o f t h e c o n s t r u c t o f i n t e l l i g e n c e ( m a n u a l p . 2 5 ) . T h e c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y o f t h e T . O . N . I . w i t h t h e WISC-R h a s b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d o n l y w i t h v e r y s m a l l s a m p l e s (N=10 t o 1 6 ) o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n g r o u p s ( e g ; d e a f , l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d , m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d ) a n d r a n g e s f r o m +.46 t o +.95 9 ( m a n u a l , p . 1 4 ) . F o r n o r m a l g r o u p s , a s o p p o s e d t o s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n g r o u p s , s c o r e s o n t h e TONI a r e c o m p a r e d o n l y t o g r o u p I . Q . ( O t i s L e n n o n M e n t a l A b i l i t y T e s t ) . R e v i e w e r s o f t h e t e s t i n t h e l a s t M e n t a l M e a s u r e m e n t Y e a r b o o k s a i d t h a t " T . O . N . I . n e e d s m u c h m o r e e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e o f c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y t h a n h a s b e e n p r e s e n t e d t o d a t e " ( M a y o , 1 9 8 5 , p . 1 5 8 1 ) . C o m p a r i n g t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s o f t h e TONI w i t h t h e WISC-R a n d t h e TONI w i t h t h e C h i l d r e n ' s W o r d F i n d i n g T e s t s h e d some l i g h t o n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e r e s u l t s o n t h e TONI f o r n o r m a l g r o u p s . I n s u m m a r y , t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y w a s t o a n s w e r t h r e e q u e s t i o n s : 1. I s t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e o n t h e l e v e l o f r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y b e t w e e n g r a d e 3 F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n s t u d e n t s a n d g r a d e 3 N o n - F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n s t u d e n t s , a n d i f t h e r e i s o n e , i n w h i c h d i r e c t i o n ? 2. W h a t i s t h e c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y o f t h e TONI t e s t w i t h t h e WISC-R t e s t a n d w i t h t h e C h i l d r e n W o r d F i n d i n g T e s t ? A r e t h e 9 val id i ty coefficients different in magnitude between French Immersion and Non-French Immersion? 3. Are the two forms of the TONI test equivalent? 10 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE T h i s C h a p t e r r e v i e w s t h e p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e c o n c e r n i n g b i l i n g u a l i s m a n d c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . I t b e g i n s b y b r i e f l y r e v i e w i n g e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h . I t t h e n p r o c e e d s t o o u t l i n e s t u d i e s t h a t may h a v e i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s o n t h e v a r i a b l e s u s e d i n t h i s s t u d y ; i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f b i l i n g u a l i s m , t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , t h e s o c i a l c o n t e x t , t h e k i n d s o f t e s t s u s e d , a n d t h e n u m b e r o f b o o k s o w n e d b y t h e f a m i l y . T h e C h a p t e r c o n c l u d e s b y r e v i e w i n g t h e m o s t r e c e n t l y c o m p l e t e d r e s e a r c h . B i l i n g u a l i s m a n d C o g n i t i v e D e v e l o p m e n t a n d A b i l i t y , E a r l y S t u d i e s T h e c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n o f t h i s s t u d y r e q u i r e s p r i o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a b r o a d e r i s s u e : t h a t o f t h e r o l e o f l a n g u a g e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c o g n i t i o n . T h i s b r o a d e r p r o b l e m i n t e r e s t e d , a m o n g o t h e r s , b o t h P i a g e t ( 1 9 2 3 ) a n d W h o r f ( 1 9 5 6 ) . A l t h o u g h P i a g e t a r g u e d t h a t l a n g u a g e h a s o n l y a m i n i m a l c a u s a l r o l e i n c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t , W h o r f s u g g e s t e d t h a t p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a n d . i t s m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n d e p e n d e s s e n t i a l l y o n l a n g u a g e . V i g o t s k y ( 1 9 6 2 ) a l s o d e v o t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e t o s t u d y i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n l a n g u a g e a n d c o g n i t i o n . He s a w l a n g u a g e a s h a v i n g a l e a d i n g r o l e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c o g n i t i o n . I n b r i e f t h e s e r e s e a r c h e r s may b e c a t e g o r i z e d i n t w o " s c h o o l s " : f i r s t W h o r f ' s s c h o o l , w h i c h c l a i m s t h a t l a n g u a g e p r e c e d e s a n d i s n e c e s s a r y t o c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t , 1 1 a n d P i a g e t ' s s c h o o l , w h i c h d e f e n d s t h e v i e w t h a t l a n g u a g e I s n o t c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t . B e c a u s e t h e s e t h e o r i e s a r e i n s o me r e s p e c t s o p p o s e d , v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e s u b s e q u e n t l y c o n d u c t e d e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s w i t h b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n t o t e s t t h e v i a b i l i t y o f e a c h . B a i n ( 1 9 7 5 ) a t t e m p t e d t o r e c o n c i l e t h e s e t w o s c h o o l s i n h i s s t u d y o f s i x y e a r o l d b i l i n g u a l s a n d u n i l i n g u a l s . T h e s u b j e c t s ' t a s k i n v o l v e d t h e d i s c o v e r y o f r u l e s a n d t h e i r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t o o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s . He f o u n d t h a t a t t h e p r e o p e r a t i o n a l s t a g e t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n b i l i n g u a l s a n d u n i l i n g u a l s i n d i s c o v e r y t i m e was s i g n i f i c a n t i n f a v o u r o f t h e b i l i n g u a l s ; h o w e v e r , a t t h e c o n c r e t e o p e r a t i o n s t a g e t h e b i l i n g u a l g r o u p h a d a s l i g h t b u t n o n - s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a d v a n t a g e . T h e r e w e r e n o d i f f e r e n c e s i n t r a n s f e r t i m e a t e i t h e r s t a g e . He c o n c l u d e d b y s a y i n g : " T h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i s c o v e r y t i m e w e r e s e e n a s s u p p o r t f o r V i g o t s k y ' s v i e w t h a t s p e c i f i c k i n d s o f l a n g u a g e e x p e r i e n c e g i v e u n i q u e d i r e c t i o n t o d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e l a c k o f d i f f e r e n c e i n t r a n s f e r t i m e was s e e n a s s u p p o r t f o r P i a g e t ' s v i e w t h a t d e v e l o p m e n t a l l e v e l o f o p e r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s d e t e r m i n e p e r f o r m a n c e l i m i t s o f p r e v i o u s l y l e a r n t m a t e r i a l . " ( 1 9 7 5 , p . 1 3 ) . T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s i n t h e 1 9 2 0 ' s p r o v i d e d a n o t h e r i m p e t u s f o r s t u d y , e s p e c i a l l y o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e s u l t s o f b i l i n g u a l s a n d u n i l i n g u a l s o n t h e s e t e s t s , a n d o f a n y p o s s i b l e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d b i l i n g u a l i s m . 12 B e f o r e 1 9 6 0 , m o s t s u c h s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d l o w e r r e s u l t s o n IQ t e s t s f o r b i l i n g u a l s t h a n f o r u n i l i n g u a l s . D a r c y ' s r e v i e w ( 1 9 5 3 ) i s v a l u a b l e a s a c a t a l o g u e o f e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h o r d e r e d i n t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : s t u d i e s w h i c h f o u n d a " f a v o r a b l e e f f e c t " , s t u d i e s w h i c h f o u n d a n " u n f a v o r a b l e e f f e c t " , a n d s t u d i e s w h i c h f o u n d " n o e f f e c t " o f b i l i n g u a l i s m u p o n m e a s u r e m e n t o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . F o l l o w i n g a r e t w o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t u d i e s o f t h e o n e s s h e p r e s e n t s i n h e r r e v i e w . I n W a l e s , S a e r ( 1 9 2 3 ) was t h e f i r s t t o p u b l i s h r e s e a r c h o n b i l i n g u a l i s m a n d i n t e l l i g e n c e . He t e s t e d 1 4 0 0 c h i l d r e n e a c h y e a r f r o m t h e a g e o f 7 t o t h e a g e o f 11 w i t h t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t t e s t . He a d m i n i s t e r e d a n o n - s t a n d a r d i z e d W e l s h t r a n s l a t i o n t o c h i l d r e n w h o s e m o t h e r t o n g u e was W e l s h a n d who w e r e a t t e n d i n g a n E n g l i s h s c h o o l . When he c o m p a r e d t h e r u r a l b i l i n g u a l g r o u p t o t h e r u r a l o r u r b a n u n i l i n g u a l g r o u p , he f o u n d t h e u n i l i n g u a l g r o u p t o b e s u p e r i o r . H o w e v e r , w h e n h e c o m p a r e d t h e u r b a n b i l i n g u a l g r o u p t o t h e u r b a n u n i l i n g u a l g r o u p h e f o u n d n o d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o . D a r c y r e p o r t e d t h a t h e c o n c l u d e d h i s s t u d y b y s t a t i n g t h a t " c h i l d r e n who b e c o m e b i l i n g u a l a t a n e a r l y a g e , b y l e a r n i n g t h e s e c o n d l a n g u a g e d u r i n g t h e i r p l a y a n d i n c o n t a c t w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n , h a v e a n a d v a n t a g e o v e r t h o s e who l e a r n t h e s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a t s c h o o l " ( D a r c y , 1 9 5 3 , p . 2 5 ) . H i s c o m m e n t s c h a n g e d w h e n he g a v e a v o c a b u l a r y t e s t t o t h e s ame s u b j e c t s a n d f o u n d t h a t t h e mean r a n g e o f v o c a b u l a r y o f u n i l i n g u a l s w a s h i g h e r t h a n t h a t o f t h e b i l i n g u a l s i n b o t h E n g l i s h a n d W e l s h . He e x p l a i n e d t h i s f i n d i n g b y s t a t i n g t h a t " m e n t a l c o n f u s i o n " o c c u r s i n t h e b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n m o r e o f t e n t h a n 1 3 I n t h e u n i l i n g u a l s . T h e s e f i n d i n g s d o n o t s u p p o r t W h o r f ' s s c h o o l o f t h o u g h t , s i n c e S a e r f o u n d no d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o g r o u p s w i t h r e g a r d t o c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . I n a d d i t i o n , m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s - s u c h a s t h e u s e o f a t r a n s l a t i o n i n W e l s h o f t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t t h a t h a d n o t b e e n s t a n d a r d i z e d i n t h a t l a n g u a g e - p r e v e n t u s f r o m a r r i v i n g a t a c l e a r c o n c l u s i o n o n t h e p r o b l e m . P i n t n e r ( 1 9 3 2 ) c o m p a r e d t h e r e s u l t s o f 4 3 0 c h i l d r e n f r o m t h r e e e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s u s i n g t h e P i n t n e r - C u n n i n g h a m P r i m a r y M e n t a l T e s t a n d t h e P i n t n e r P r i m a r y N o n - L a n g u a g e T e s t . I n o r d e r t o c l a s s i f y c h i l d r e n a s b i l i n g u a l o r u n i l i n g u a l , o n l y t h e i r s u r n a m e s o r t h e j u d g e m e n t s o f t h e i r t e a c h e r s w e r e u s e d . T h i s w a y o f c l a s s i f y i n g u n i l i n g u a l s a n d b i l i n g u a l s i s l i k e l y i n a c c u r a t e . P i n t n e r o b t a i n e d d i s p a r a t e r e s u l t s : i n o n e s c h o o l t h e b i l i n g u a l g r o u p s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n t h e u n i l i n g u a l , i n t h e s e c o n d o n e t h e u n i l i n g u a l g r o u p s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n t h e b i l i n g u a l g r o u p a n d i n t h e t h i r d s c h o o l h e f o u n d n o d i f f e r e n c e . I n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t s u b j e c t s w e r e n o t m a t c h e d o n s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s a n d t h a t t h e l e v e l o f b i l i n g u a l i s m was n o t c o n t r o l l e d a t a l l . A m o ng t h e 33 s t u d i e s s h e r e v i e w s , D a r c y r e c o r d e d o n l y t w o w h i c h f o u n d b i l i n g u a l i s m t o b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a h i g h e r l e v e l o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . I n t h o s e s t u d i e s , s h e a r g u e s , v a r i a b l e s s u c h a s s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , s e x a n d d e g r e e o f b i l i n g u a l i s m w e r e n o t a d e q u a t e l y c o n t r o l l e d . E l e v e n s t u d i e s f o u n d n o d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n u n i l i n g u a l s a n d b i l i n g u a l s o n i n t e l l i g e n c e . 14 D a r c y a r g u e d t h a t i n m o s t c a s e s v e r b a l I . Q . m e a s u r e s i n a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e w e r e n o t a d e q u a t e m e a s u r e s o f t h e I . Q . o f b i l i n g u a l s , s i n c e a ) b i l i n g u a l s m o s t o f t e n s c o r e d h i g h e r o n n o n v e r b a l m e a s u r e s t h a n o n v e r b a l m e a s u r e s , a n d b ) t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h o s e t w o m e a s u r e s w e r e l a r g e r f o r b i l i n g u a l t h a n f o r u n i l i n g u a l g r o u p s . D a r c y a r g u e s t h a t b i l i n g u a l s s u f f e r f r o m a " l a n g u a g e h a n d i c a p " w h e n t e s t e d w i t h v e r b a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s . A s we r e p o r t l a t e r , N i e l s e n ( 1 9 8 3 ) f o u n d t h a t b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n , d e f i n e d a s F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n s t u d e n t s , a r e n o t d i s a d v a n t a g e d b y i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s a d m i n i s t e r e d i n t h e i r f i r s t l a n g u a g e . F r o m t h e s e e a r l i e r s t u d i e s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o s a y w h e t h e r t h e r e i s a p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n b i l i n g u a l i s m a n d c o g n i t i o n l e v e l b e c a u s e o f t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r i n t h e s e s t u d i e s . I n t r y i n g t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s o f t h i s k i n d , r e s e a r c h e r s a r e f a c e d w i t h a n o t h e r p r o b l e m : t h e y h a v e t o d e a l w i t h human s u b j e c t s . F r o m a c o n c e p t u a l p o i n t o f v i e w , a t r u e e x p e r i m e n t c o u l d n o t b e p e r f o r m e d t o e s t a b l i s h a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n b i l i n g u a l i s m a n d c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . F o r e v e n i f s u c h a n e x p e r i m e n t w e r e p o s s i b l e , i n n u m e r a b l e c o n f o u n d i n g v a r i a b l e s w o u l d p r e v e n t r e s e a r c h e r s f r o m a r r i v i n g a t a c l e a r c o n c l u s i o n . A s M a c N a b ( 1 9 7 9 ) p o i n t s o u t , " m o s t s t u d i e s a r e c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n d g i v e n o i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e c a u s e o f a s s o c i a t i o n s f o u n d b e t w e e n l a n g u a g e s k i l l s a n d c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y " ( 1 9 7 9 , p . 2 5 0 ) . 1 5 T h e s t u d y o f P e a l a n d L a m b e r t ( 1 9 6 2 ) w e r e t h e f i r s t t o g i v e e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e t h a t b i l i n g u a l i s m m i g h t b e p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t . I n M o n t r e a l P e a l a n d L a m b e r t ( 1 9 6 2 ) s e l e c t e d 364 s u b j e c t s f r o m F r e n c h s c h o o l s o f t h e C a t h o l i c S c h o o l B o a r d . I n o r d e r t o d i s t i n g u i s h u n i l i n g u a l s f r o m b i l i n g u a l s , t h e y a d m i n i s t e r e d 4 t e s t s t o t h e s u b j e c t s ( W o r d A s s o c i a t i o n T e s t , W o r d D e t e c t i o n T e s t , P e a b o d y P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y T e s t , S u b j e c t i v e S e l f - R a ' i i n g S c o r e ) . F r o m t h e s e , t h e a u t h o r s o b t a i n e d a g r o u p o f 89 " b a l a n c e d b i l i n g u a l s " a n d 7 5 m o n o l i n g u a l s . S u b j e c t s who d i d n o t o b t a i n t h e n e c e s s a r y s c o r e t o be c l a s s i f i e d i n o n e c a t e g o r y o r t h e o t h e r w e r e e l i m i n a t e d . A " b a l a n c e d b i l i n g u a l " was d e f i n e d a s a p e r s o n who i s e q u a l l y s k i l l e d i n F r e n c h a n d E n g l i s h . H o w e v e r , a s C u m m i n s ( 1 9 7 6 ) r e m a r k e d , r e f e r r i n g t o P e a l a n d L a m b e r t s t u d y ( 1 9 6 2 ) , " t h e c r i t e r i o n f o r b a l a n c e h a s b e e n q u i t e l e n i e n t " . A c h i l d c o u l d be c l e a r l y m o r e p r o f i c i e n t i n E n g l i s h a n d s t i l l b e c l a s s i f i e d a s •» b a l a n c e d . M a c n a m a r a ( 1 9 6 6 ) c r i t i c i z e d P e a l a n d L a m b e r t ' s m e t h o d o f s e l e c t i n g b i l i n g u a l s , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e u s e o f l i n g u i s t i c m e a s u r e s f o r s o d o i n g i n v a l i d a t e s a n y l i n g u i s t i c c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n b i l i n g u a l a n d u n i l i n g u a l g r o u p s . A f t e r t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t s a s b i l i n g u a l s o r u n i l i n g u a l s , P e a l a n d L a m b e r t ( 1 9 6 2 ) t e s t e d t h e t w o g r o u p s o n i n t e l l i g e n c e , a t t i t u d e a n d a c h i e v e m e n t . T h r e e m e a s u r e s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e w e r e u s e d : a v e r b a l m e a s u r e , t h e L a v o i e - L a u r e n d e a u G r o u p T e s t o f G e n e r a l I n t e l l i g e n c e i n F r e n c h , a n o n v e r b a l m e a s u r e : t h e R a v e n P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s T e s t a n d t h e s u b t e s t s f r o m t h e T h u r s t o n e P r i m a r y M e n t a l A b i l i t i e s t r a n s l a t e d i n F r e n c h w h i c h d r e w l e a s t d i r e c t l y o n v e r b a l a b i l i t y ( 1 9 6 2 , p . 9 ) . F o r t h e s t a t i s t i c a l 16 a n a l y s i s , t h e s u b j e c t s w e r e m a t c h e d o n s e x , a g e , a n d s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s . R e s u l t s s h o w e d t h a t t h e b i l i n g u a l g r o u p p e r f o r m e d b e t t e r o n n o n v e r b a l s u b t e s t s i n v o l v i n g c o n c e p t - f o r m a t i o n a n d m e n t a l r e o r g a n i z a t i o n , c a l l e d b y t h e a u t h o r s " m e n t a l f l e x i b i l i t y , " w h i l e t h e t w o g r o u p s p e r f o r m e d s i m i l a r l y o n n o n v e r b a l t e s t s r e q u i r i n g o n l y p e r c e p t u a l s p e e d . P e a l a n d L a m b e r t o f f e r e d a n h y p o t h e s i s f o r e x p l a i n i n g t h i s r e s u l t . T h e y s a i d t h a t c o m p o u n d b i l i n g u a l s ( t h o s e who l e a r n e d b o t h l a n g u a g e s a t t h e same t i m e ) d e v e l o p m o r e f l e x i b i l i t y i n t h i n k i n g b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e c o n s t a n t l y t o s w i t c h f r o m o n e c o d e t o a n o t h e r , a n d t o make u s e o f t w o d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s . T h e b i l i n g u a l s a p p e a r e d t o p e r f o r m b e t t e r o n v e r b a l t e s t s . H o w e v e r , w h e n t h e t w o g r o u p s w e r e m a t c h e d o n n o n v e r b a l a b i l i t y a s w e l l a s o n a g e , s e x , a n d s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , t h e r e was n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e m o n v e r b a l i n t e l l i g e n c e . T h e a u t h o r s c o n c l u d e d t h a t b i l i n g u a l s a p p e a r t o h a v e a m o r e " d i v e r s i f i e d s e t " o f m e n t a l a b i l i t i e s t h a n t h e m o n o l i n g u a l s . I t i s u n c l e a r , h o w e v e r t o w h a t a s p e c t s o r c r i t e r i a o f " d i v e r s i t y " t h e a u t h o r s a p p e a l e d i n m a k i n g t h i s j u d g m e n t . T h i s s t u d y b r o u g h t n e w l i f e t o r e s e a r c h o n i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d b i l i n g u a l i s m . I t g a v e i n s i g h t i n t o t h e i m p o r t a n c e a n d t h e r o l e o f v a r i a b l e s n o t p r e v i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s f i e l d o f r e s e a r c h . T h e m o s t r e c e n t s t u d i e s i n t h e f i e l d , a r e p r e c e d e d b y f i n d i n g s o n t h e f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : b i l i n g u a l i s m , s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , s o c i a l c o n t e x t , f a i r n e s s o f t h e t e s t s u s e d , a n d t h e n u m b e r o f b o o k s a t home. 17 B i l i n g u a l i s m B i l i n g u a l i s m w as t h e l e a s t w e l l d e f i n e d v a r i a b l e i n t h e e a r l i e r s t u d i e s . I n some s t u d i e s , t h e o n l y n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a s a b i l i n g u a l w a s s i m p l y t o h a v e b e e n i n c o n t a c t w i t h t w o l a n g u a g e s i n t h e home ( T s u s h i m a a n d H o g a n , 1 9 7 5 ) , o r e v e n t o h a v e a s u r n a m e w h i c h s o u n d e d o t h e r t h a n E n g l i s h ( P i n t n e r , 1 9 3 7 ) . A t t h e o t h e r e n d o f t h e s c a l e , a r e s o m e w h a t m o r e p r e c i s e o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f b i l i n g u a l i s m , a s i n P e a l a n d L a m b e r t ' s s t u d y ( 1 9 6 2 ) . W h i l e n o n r i g o r o u s d e f i n i t i o n s o f b i l i n g u a l i s m s u c h a s t h e f o r m e r c a n n o t b e e x p e c t e d t o p r o d u c e c l e a r r e s u l t s , p r e c i s e m e a s u r e s o f l i n g u i s t i c b a l a n c e may i n t r o d u c e a b i a s i n t o t h e c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e b i l i n g u a l a n d u n i l i n g u a l g r o u p s . I n t h e P e a l a n d L a m b e r t s t u d y 2 0 0 s u b j e c t s o u t o f 364 w e r e r e j e c t e d o n t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t u n a m b i g u o u s l y b e c l a s s i f i e d a s e i t h e r m o n o l i n g u a l o r b i l i n g u a l . I t i s t h e n p o s s i b l e t h a t s e l e c t e d b a l a n c e d b i l i n g u a l s h a d d i f f e r e n t c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s t h a n t h e r e j e c t e d b i l i n g u a l s . I n o r d e r t o f i n d o u t i f t h e m e t h o d o f s e l e c t i n g b i l i n g u a l s u s e d b y P e a l a n d L a m b e r t ( 1 9 6 2 ) i n v a l i d a t e s l i n g u i s t i c c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n b i l i n g u a l s a n d u n i l i n g u a l s , C u m m i n s ( 1 9 7 5 ) e x a m i n e d t h e v e r b a l a n d n o n v e r b a l a b i l i t y o f b a l a n c e d a n d n o n - b a l a n c e d b i l i n g u a l s i n o n e o f h i s s t u d i e s a n d f o u n d n o d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o g r o u p s o n t h e s e a b i l i t i e s . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s o n m e a s u r e s o f d i v e r g e n t t h i n k i n g b e t w e e n b a l a n c e d a n d n o n - b a l a n c e d b i l i n g u a l s . He c o n c l u d e d b y s a y i n g t h a t t h e c r i t e r i o n 18 o£ b a l a n c e i n r e c e n t s t u d i e s i n c l u d i n g t h e P e a l a n d L a m b e r t ( 1 9 6 2 ) ? t u d y h a d b e e n l e n i e n t a n d t h a t " a h i g h l e v e l o f l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g a p t i t u d e c, i n t e l l i g e n c e , i s u n l i k e ' y t o h a v e b e e n n e c e s s a r y t o a t t a i n t h e c r i t e r i o n o f b a l a n c e " a n d t h a t " t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e s u s e d t o s e l e c t t h e b i l i n g u a l s a m p l e s i n s u b s e q u e n t s t u d i e s b i a s e d t h e c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n b i l i n g u a l a n d m o n o l i n g u a l s a m p l e s . " ( 1 9 7 6 , p . 1 7 ) . T h e b i a i s r e f e r s t o r e s u l t s o n c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y t e s t s . B i l i n g u a l s c a n b e b a l a n c e d a n d s t i l l a t t a i n a l o w l e v e l o f e x p e r t i s e i n b o t h o f t h e i r l a n g u a g e s . C u m m i n s ( 1 9 7 6 ) s u g g e s t e d t h a t b i l i n g u a l s m u s t a t t a i n a n a d e q u a t e l e v e l i n t h e i r f i r s t l a n g u a g e a s w e l l a s i n t h e i r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e i n o r d e r t o a v o i d c o g n i t i v e d i s a d v a n t a g e . Some s t u d i e s ( S k u t n a b b - K a n g a s a n d T o u k o m a a , 1 9 7 6 ) h a v e u s e d b a l a n c e d b i l i n g u a l s who s t i l l o b t a i n e d l o w e r r e s u l t s t h a n u n i l i n g u a l s i n e i t h e r o f t h e i r l a n g u a g e s w h e n a c h i e v e m e n t t e s t s w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d i n b o t h o f t h e i r l a n g u a g e s . C u m m i n s ( 1 9 7 6 a n d 1 9 7 9 ) p r o p o s e d t w o h y p o t h e s e s t o e x p l a i n l o w e r r e s u l t s o f b i l i n g u a l s i n i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s i n s t u d i e s w h e r e b i l i n g u a l s w e r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y a s c o m p e t e n t i n b o t h l a n g u a g e s : d e v e l o p m e n t a l i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e , a n d m i n i m u m t h r e s h o l d l e v e l o f c o m p e t e n c e i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e . T h e i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e t h e o r y s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e l e v e l o f c o m p e t e n c e i n a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e i s a f u n c t i o n o f c o m p e t e n c e i n t h e f i r s t l a n g u a g e . T h e t h r e s h o l d h y p o t h e s i s s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e may b e a f i r s t t h r e s h o l d l e v e l o f l i n g u i s t i c c o m p e t e n c e w h i c h b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n m u s t a t t a i n i n t h e i r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e i n o r d e r t o a v o i d c o g n i t i v e d i s a d v a n t a g e . T h e n , t h e y m u s t a t t a i n a s e c o n d t h r e s h o l d o f l i n g u i s t i c c o m p e t e n c e 19 i n t h e i r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e i n o r d e r t o b e n e f i t f r o m t h e a d v a n t a g e o f b e i n g b i l i n g u a l f r o m t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h e i r c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g . C o n c e r n i n g t h e t h r e s h o l d h y p o t h e s i s , C u m m i n s made t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t s t u d i e s w h i c h o b t a i n e d l o w e r r e s u l t s f o r b i l i n g u a l s t h a n f o r u n i l i n g u a l s o n c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , i n v o l v e d b i l i n g u a l s who h a d n o t a t t a i n e d t h e f i r s t t h r e s h o l d l e v e l i n t h e i r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e . S t u d i e s f i n d i n g n o d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n b i l i n g u a l s a n d u n i l i n g u a l s o n c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y i n v o l v e d b i l i n g u a l s who h a d n o t a t t a i n e d t h e s e c o n d t h r e s h o l d l e v e l . T h i s w o r k o n d e f i n i t i o n s o f b i l i n g u a l i s m , a n d C u m m i n s ' h y p o t h e s e s , s u g g e s t t h e i m p o r t a n c e , i n a s t u d y s u c h a s t h e p r e s e n t o n e , o f a s a m p l e o f b i l i n g u a l s who h a v e a t l e a s t t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : a ) a r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y a s s k i l l e d i n b o t h o f t h e i r l a n g u a g e s , b) a r e c o m p e t e n t i n t h e i r f i r s t l a n g u a g e b e f o r e c o m i n g t o s c h o o l , a n d c ) h a v e a t t a i n e d a n a d e q u a t e l e v e l o f c o m p e t e n c e i n t h e i r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e s o t h a t t h e y a r e n o t b e i n g d i s a d v a n t a g e d b y c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y t e s t s . S u c h a p o p u l a t i o n i n v i t e s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n b i l i n g u a l i s m a n d c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . T h e p r e s e n t s t u d y w a s a r r a n g e d s o a s t o i n v o l v e a r a n d o m ( a s o p p o s e d t o a s e l e c t e d s a m p l e o f " b a l a n c e d b i l i n g u a l s " ) s a m p l e o f b i l i n g u a l s u b j e c t s f r o m F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n s c h o o l s w h i c h w o u l d be a s c o m p a r a b l e a s p o s s i b l e t o t h e m o n o l i n g u a l s a m p l e . T h e s a m p l e was c h o s e n a t t h e e n d o f g r a d e 3 o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a t t h a t p o i n t i n t h e i r e d u c a t i o n , t h e i r E n g l i s h a n d F r e n c h l a n g u a g e l e v e l s w o u l d b e a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u i v a l e n t . I n f a c t , s t a r t i n g i n g r a d e 4, e a r l y F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n c h i l d r e n s p e n d 5 0 % o f t h e i r t i m e b e i n g t a u g h t i n F r e n c h 20 a n d 5 0 % o f t h e i r t i m e b e i n g t a u g h t i n E n g l i s h . T h i s t e a c h i n g s t r u c t u r e p r e s u m e s t h a t f r o m g r a d e 3 o n , s t u d e n t s a r e e q u a l l y s k i l l e d i n E n g l i s h a n d i n F r e n c h . H o w e v e r , t h i s h a s n o t b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d b y a n y s t u d y . A l t h o u g h C u m m i n s ' t h e o r y h a s n o t b e e n y e t s u p p o r t e d b y e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h a n d a l t h o u g h t h e t h r e s h o l d l e v e l s a r e n o t o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d , C u m m i n s ' h y p o t h e s e s b e a r some i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e c h o i c e o f b i l i n g u a l s u b j e c t s i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . I n t h i s s t u d y t h e b i l i n g u a l s u b j e c t s came f r o m u n i l i n g u a l E n g l i s h h omes a n d a t t e n d e d F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n s c h o o l f r o m K i n d e r g a r t e n t o g r a d e 3. I n t h e V a n c o u v e r S c h o o l B o a r d ( V . S . B . ) , t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t i m e s p e n t i n F r e n c h i n e a r l y i m m e r s i o n c l a s s e s i s 1 0 0 % f r o m K i n d e r g a r t e n t o t h e - e n d o f g r a d e 2. I n g r a d e 3, 8 0 % o f t i m e i s s p e n t i n F r e n c h w h i l e t h e r e m a i n i n g 2 0 % i s s p e n t o n E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e a r t s . I t i s a s s u m e d t h a t a t t h e e n d o f g r a d e 3, c h i l d r e n a r e p r o f i c i e n t e n o u g h i n t h e i r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e t o e n c o u n t e r n o c o g n i t i v e d i s a d v a n t a g e o f t h e k i n d d e s c r i b e d b y C u m m i n s . Socioeconomic S t a t u s A b o d y o f e v i d e n c e now s h o w s how e s s e n t i a l i t i s t o c o n t r o l f o r t h e v a r i a b l e o f s o c i o e c o n o m i c b a c k g r o u n d i n a n y s t u d y o f c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c b a c k g r o u n d o n s t u d e n t a s p i r a t i o n s , c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t , a s w e l l a s a c h i e v e m e n t , h a s b e e n well d o c u m e n t e d i n t h e U n i t e d - S t a t e s ( C o l e m a n , 1 9 6 6 ; B l a u 2 1 a n d D u n c a n , 1 9 6 7 ) a s w e l l a s i n C a n a d a ( H a r v e y , 1 9 7 4 ; L a x e r e t a l , 1 9 7 4 ) . B u r n s ( 1 9 8 2 ) c o n d u c t e d r e s e a r c h i n N o r t h e r n O n t a r i o i n o r d e r t o s t u d y F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n p a r e n t s ' s o c i o e c o n o m i c b a c k g r o u n d s - w i t h r e g a r d t o i n c o m e , o c c u p a t i o n , a n d e d u c a t i o n - a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n . He f o u n d t h a t F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n c h i l d r e n r e p r e s e n t a n e l i t e c o h o r t ; t h e i r p a r e n t s h a v e a h i g h e r i n c o m e a n d a m o r e e x t e n s i v e f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n t h a n t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , p r o f e s s i o n a l s a r e h e a v i l y r e p r e s e n t e d a m o n g F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n p a r e n t s . A l t h o u g h t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o f B u r n s ' s t u d y a r e l i m i t e d t o t h e N o r t h e a s t e r n R e g i o n o f O n t a r i o , B u r n r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e T o r o n t o S c h o o l B o a r d h a s c o n d u c t e d t h e same k i n d o f s t u d y , a n d h a s f o u n d t h a t F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n p u p i l s w e r e f r o m f a m i l i e s o f a h i g h e r s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s t h a n p u p i l s i n r e g u l a r E n g l i s h p r o g r a m s . C o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s t u d i e s o n s o c i o e c o n o m i c b a c k g r o u n d , i t a p p e a r s i m p o r t a n t t o m a t c h b i l i n g u a l s w i t h u n i l i n g u a l s o n t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s o f t h e i r p a r e n t s , o r t o make s t a t i s t i c a l a d j u s t m e n t s i n t h e d a t a a n a l y s e s . T h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c v a r i a b l e s h o u l d r e f e r t o l e v e l s o f f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n a s w e l l a s i n c o m e o r o c c u p a t i o n . S o c i a l C o n t e x t H e r e , " s o c i a l c o n t e x t " h a s t o d o w i t h t h e w a y t h e s e c o n d l a n g u a g e i s v i e w e d b y s o c i e t y . L a m b e r t ( 1 9 7 5 ) made t h e d i f f e r e n c e 22 between " a d d i t i v e " and " s u b t r a c t i v e " b i l i n g u a l i s m . In a d d i t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m , t he b i l i n g u a l i s a d d i n g a s o c i a l l y r e l e v a n t l anguage t o h i s f i r s t l a n g u a g e a t no c o s t t o h i s f i r s t l a n g u a g e competence. T h i s i s t h e c a s e i n C a n a d i a n F r e n c h Immersion s c h o o l s . In s u b t r a c t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m , t he b i l i n g u a l i s r e p l a c i n g h i s f i r s t l a n guage by h i s second one, more s o c i a l l y a c c e p t e d . Lambert (1977) a s s o c i a t e d t he s t u d i e s i n which b i l i n g u a l s s c o r e d lower t h a n u n i l i n g u a l s on c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y t e s t s w i t h a s o c i a l c o n t e x t of s u b t r a c t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m . He a s s o c i a t e d t h e m a j o r i t y o f s t u d i e s i n which b i l i n g u a l s s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n u n i l i n g u a l s on c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y t e s t s w i t h a s o c i a l c o n t e x t of a d d i t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m . The s o c i a l c o n t e x t of C a n a d i a n F r e n c h Immersion s c h o o l s - which l e a d s t o an a d d i t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m - s h o u l d n o t be the s o u r c e of d i s a d v a n t a g e f o r b i l i n g u a l s i n a s t u d y of b i l i n g u a l i s m and c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . F a i r n e s s of the T e s t s Used E a r l i e r s t u d i e s o f t e n r e p o r t e d t h a t b i l i n g u a l s were t e s t e d i n t h e i r second language ( D a r c y , 1953). Moreover, t h e y were m o s t l y from a c u l t u r e o t h e r t h a n t he one i n which t h e y were l i v i n g . D a r c y p o i n t e d out t h a t some b i l i n g u a l s s u f f e r e d from a language h a n d i c a p . On the b a s i s o f t h e s e e x p e r i e n c e s , one might ask whether i t i s f a i r e r t o t e s t F r e n c h Immersion c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r f i r s t l a n g u a g e , E n g l i s h , or i n t h e i r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e , F r e n c h . 23 N i e l s e n ( 1 9 8 3 ) a s k e d t h i s q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e u s e o f t h e WISC-R t e s t a m o n g g r a d e 2 F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n s t u d e n t s i n B.C. S h e f o u n d t h a t " u s e o f t h e WISC-R d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o b e d i s a d v a n t a g e o u s f o r u s e w i t h h i g h e r S E S F r e n c h i m m e r s i o n c h i l d r e n w h o s e m a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e home i s E n g l i s h . " S h e m a t c h e d h e r t w o g r o u p s o n t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s o f t h e f a t h e r ; h o w e v e r h e r s u b j e c t s w e r e a l l f r o m a h i g h e r s o c i o e c o n o m i c c l a s s . S h e i n d i c a t e d t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f h e r s t u d y ' s r e s u l t s b y s t a t i n g t h a t h e r t w o g r o u p s o f c h i l d r e n w e r e " q u a s i - m a t c h e d . " B y t h i s s h e m e a n t t h a t t h e r e w e r e p o s s i b l e i n i t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s o t h e r t h a n s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s o f t h e f a t h e r b e t w e e n t h e F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n a n d t h e r e g u l a r p r o g r a m g r o u p . T h e r e s u l t s o f h e r s t u d y d o n o t g i v e a n y i n d i c a t i o n o n how F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n c h i l d r e n w o u l d p e r f o r m i f t h e y h a d b e e n c o n t i n u o u s l y i n a r e g u l a r p r o g r a m . I t o n l y s h o w s t h a t t h e y d o n o t s c o r e l o w e r t h a n N o n - F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n c h i l d r e n w h e n a d m i n i s t e r e d t h e WISC-R t e s t i n E n g l i s h . O n c e a g a i n i n t h i s m o s t r e c e n t s t u d y , t h e l i m i t e d r a n g e o f s o c i o e c o n o m i c b a c k g r o u n d o f t h e s u b j e c t s t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r h a d t o c h o o s e f r o m , p r e v e n t s a c l e a r c o n c l u s i o n o n t h e e f f e c t o f b i l i n g u a l i s m u p o n c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g . D ' A n g l e j a n e t a l ( 1 9 7 8 ) s t u d i e d t h e a b i l i t y o f g r o u p s o f l e a r n e r s o f E n g l i s h a s a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e t o s o l v e p r o b l e m s o f d e d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g i n t h e i r n a t i v e a n d s e c o n d l a n g u a g e . T h e y f o u n d t h a t t h e i r s u b j e c t s t o o k m o r e t i m e t o p r o c e s s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e i r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e t h a n i n t h e i r f i r s t l a n g u a g e w h a t e v e r t h e i r p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l was i n t h a t s e c o n d l a n g u a g e . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t , 24 even though those subjects were b i l i n g u a l s , t h e i r f i r s t language was s t i l l dominant. On t h i s s u b j e c t , Cummins (1976) i n d i c a t e d that "balance" does not imply complete e q u i l i n g u a l i t y and that the q u a n t i t a t i v e procedure used to s e l e c t "balanced b i l i n g u a l s " was designed only to el i m i n a t e those who were more dominant i n one of t h e i r two languages. This statement i m p l i e s that c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion remain dominant i n t h e i r f i r s t language. This has a l s o been my observation i n French Immersion schools. This research suggests that i t might be more f a i r to t e s t grade 3 French Immersion c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r f i r s t language, E n g l i s h , e s p e c i a l l y i f the t e s t s were o r a l t e s t s . Number o f B o o k s a t Home Furthermore, the summary report of the B r i t i s h Columbia Reading Assessment ( J e r o s k i , 1984, p.41) reported that the number of books i n the homes of the students was an e f f e c t i v e p r e d i c t o r of student achievement i n reading. A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups on t h i s v a r i a b l e would i n f l u e n c e the r e s u l t s of students on the t e s t s used i n t h i s study. Therefore, t h i s information was c o l l e c t e d and analysed. 25 The L a t e s t S t u d i e s Since the Peal and Lambert experiment (1962), research on b i l i n g u a l i s m and c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y may be summarized under three heads: general c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , l i n g u i s t i c f l e x i b i l i t y , and divergent or c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g . No researchers have stud i e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between b i l i n g u a l i s m and verb a l and non-verbal reasoning a b i l i t y . Because o f 1 i t s l o n g i t u d i n a l aspect the study conducted by Barik and Swain (1976) may e v e n t u a l l y show a causal r e l a t i o n s h i p between b i l i n g u a l i s m and c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . However, some i n e v i t a b l e confounding v a r i a b l e s such as s o c i a l m i l i e u have prevented the authors from making such a l i n k (MacNab, 1979). Barik and Swain c o l l e c t e d IQ data (using the Otis-Lenon Mental A b i l i t y Test) over a 5 year period with p u p i l s from Kindergarten through grade 4 i n a French Immersion sc h o o l . Considering Grade 1 to 3 only, the Immersion group scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the comparison group over the three-year period on both c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and analogies but not on the f o l l o w i n g of v e r b a l d i r e c t i o n s where there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups. Because there was an i n i t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups' IQ, the authors adjusted the scores for i n i t i a l IQ and found no s i g n i f i c a n t increase or decrease i n the IQ of the two groups over the three-year period. F i n a l l y , the authors noted that the study d i d not Involve balanced b i l i n g u a l s already b i l i n g u a l l y competent, but rather p u p i l s moving toward b i l i n g u a l i s m . For t h i s reason, they asked the question 26 whether those p u p i l s had a t t a i n e d the Cummins' th r e s h o l d l e v e l (1976). According to Cummins' hypothesis, i f they had, they would avoid c o g n i t i v e disadvantage, or might p o t e n t i a l l y , score higher on c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g t e s t s . To answer the question whether those p u p i l s had a t t a i n e d the Cummins' threshold l e v e l (1976), Barik and Swain (1976) tes t e d the French Immersion p u p i l s on t h e i r p r o f i c i e n c y i n French using the Test de rendement en f r a n c a i s . From the r e s u l t s of t h i s t e s t , they formed two new groups: high French achievers and low French a c h i e v e r s . They then compared the Increase of both groups' i n d i v i d u a l s ' IQ over a three-year period (K-3). The scores of the low French achievers remained unchanged while the score of the high French achievers increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y from Kindergarten to grade 3. This study gives some support to Cummins' threshold hypothesis. However, nothing here proved that low French achievers f a i l e d to reach the th r e s h o l d and there i s no evidence that they have experienced c o g n i t i v e disadvantage as t h e i r IQ remained unchanged from Kindergarten to grade 3. Other authors have used P i a g e t i a n tasks instead of i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n between b i l i n g u a l i s m and c o g n i t i o n . Liedke and Ni e l s o n (1968) observed b e t t e r performance among b i l i n g u a l s on P i a g e t i a n concept formation tasks a f t e r c o n t r o l l i n g for age, sex, socioeconomic s t a t u s and i n t e l l i g e n c e . Bain (1975) reported that b i l i n g u a l s at the pr e o p e r a t i o n a l stage showed an advantage on u n i l i n g u a l s at tasks r e q u i r i n g d i s c o v e r y of r u l e s a f t e r being matched on socioeconomic s t a t u s , IQ, and school grades . However, at the concrete operation stage there was no 27 s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the b i l i n g u a l group and the monolingual group. Some of the recent s t u d i e s were more o r i e n t e d towards l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s of b i l i n g u a l s and t h e i r m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. Ianco-Worral (1972) studied compound b i l i n g u a l s i n South A f r i c a and found that they attended more to the semantic than to the phonetic r e l a t i o n between words. Monolinguals i n t e r p r e t e d more s i m i l a r i t i e s between words more often according to t h e i r a c o u s t i c r a t h e r than t h e i r semantic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Because b i l i n g u a l s have two codes for each o b j e c t , they tend to conceptualize things and events i n terms of t h e i r general p r o p e r t i e s rather than t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c symbols. Ben-Zeev (1977) stud i e d middle-class Hebrew-English b i l i n g u a l s and lower-class Spanish-English b i l i n g u a l s and matched them for IQ with monolinguals. She found that b i l i n g u a l s had l e s s vocabulary and took longer to respond on a word a s s o c i a t i o n task, but showed more advanced processing of v e r b a l m a t e r i a l , and better d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n making perceptual d i s t i n c t i o n s . Several s t u d i e s have shown that b i l i n g u a l s are bette r at an a l y s i n g l i n g u i s t i c input than are monolinguals. Cummins (1978) gave a t e s t to b i l i n g u a l s and monolinguals i n which p a r t i c i p a n t s had to use t h e i r deductive powers to determine i f c o n t r a d i c t o r y statements were t r u e , f a l s e or n e i t h e r . B i l i n g u a l s scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than monolinguals. Another study from Cummins and Mulcahy (1978) found that U k r a i n i a n - E n g l i s h b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n were b e t t e r able to analyse ambiguities i n sentence s t r u c t u r e than a group of anglophones matched for IQ, socioeconomic s t a t u s and 28 sch o o l . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of these f i n d i n g s f o r the present study Is that b i l i n g u a l s seem to attend more to the l o g i c a l aspect of sentences, and semantic aspect of words, and a l s o to do bette r on problems i n v o l v i n g various forms of deductive l o g i c than u n i l i n g u a l s . In s o l v i n g the word-finding problems i n t h i s study, subjects had to attend to the conceptual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the words to be found, and to use i n d u c t i v e and deductive l o g i c . The r e s u l t s of Ianco-Worral (1972) and Cummins (1978) supported the hypothesis that b i l i n g u a l s might obtain a higher score on the C h i l d r e n Word-Finding Test than u n i l i n g u a l s . The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking has been used by various researchers to compare b i l i n g u a l s and monolinguals (Landry, 1974; C a r r i n g e r , 1974; Cummins, 1975; Torrance, Gowan, Wu, and A l i o t t i , 1970). Most of them found b i l i n g u a l s to be super i o r compared to monolinguals on the f l e x i b i l i t y , f l u e n c y , e l a b o r a t i o n and o r i g i n a l i t y s c a l e s . Torrance et a l (1970) found that t h e i r sample of Chinese-English, whose l e v e l of b i l i n g u a l i s m was not given, scored b e t t e r than u n i l i n g u a l s on o r i g i n a l i t y and e l a b o r a t i o n s c a l e s , but lower than u n i l i n g u a l s on flu e n c y and f l e x i b i l i t y s c a l e s . This r e s u l t might be explained by i n t e r f e r e n c e between the two languages, were the subjects not balanced b i l i n g u a l s . In summary, these various s t u d i e s suggest that the experience of l e a r n i n g a second language i s as s o c i a t e d with d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , l i n g u i s t i c p erception, a n a l y t i c power and verba l express ion. 29 However, none of these s t u d i e s compared how w e l l b i l i n g u a l s d i d , as compared to u n i l i n g u a l s on deductive and i n d u c t i v e reasoning. Only one group of researchers (D'Anglejan, Gagnon, Hafez, Tucker, Winsberg 1978) have done a study that examines the a b i l i t y of groups o f . English-French b i l i n g u a l s to solve problems of deductive reasoning (sy l l o g i s m ) i n t h e i r n a t i v e , E n g l i s h , and second language, French. Three groups of b i l i n g u a l s from the Canadian Forces were formed i n accordance to t h e i r l e v e l of p r o f i c i e n c y i n the second language. The r e s u l t s showed that the b i l i n g u a l s succeeded i n reasoning b e t t e r i n t h e i r f i r s t language than i n t h e i r second language, and t h i s independently of t h e i r l e v e l of b i l i n g u a l i s m . They took a longer time to process information and solve problems i n t h e i r second language, a l l the while making more mistakes. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to g e n e r a l i z e these r e s u l t s to French Immersion students since the l e a r n i n g of the second language was not i n an immersion s i t u a t i o n , and as a r e s u l t , the l e v e l of b i l i n g u a l i s m may have been d i f f e r e n t . Furthermore, the study of D'Anglejan et a l focused on d i f f e r e n c e s i n problem-solving i n f i r s t and second language and not on the p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n problem s o l v i n g a b i l i t y of b i l i n g u a l s compared to monolinguals. *** In c o n c l u s i o n , the r e s u l t s of the research were s t i l l i n c o n c l u s i v e regarding the hypothesis that b i l i n g u a l s may have higher c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y than monolinguals. From a l i n g u i s t i c point of view, i t has been demonstrated that b i l i n g u a l s attend more to the 30 s e m a n t i c t h a n t h e p h o n e t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e words, and t h a t t h e y s c o r e g e n e r a l l y h i g h e r on t h e f l u e n c y and f l e x i b i l i t y s c a l e s of th e T o r r a n c e T e s t of C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g as w e l l as on t h e i m a g i n a t i o n and o r i g i n a l i t y s c a l e s . Some s t u d i e s seem t o i n d i c a t e t h a t b i l i n g u a l s have b e t t e r d e d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g . The r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s a r e v a l u a b l e from a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p o i n t of v i e w . R e s e a r c h e r s have been a b l e t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t some v a r i a b l e s , such as b i l i n g u a l i s m , s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , s o c i a l c o n t e x t , language of the t e s t a d m i n i s t e r e d , and number of books owned by the f a m i l y , p l a y an i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n a s s e s s i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between b i l i n g u a l i s m and c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . They have a l s o been a b l e t o show how such v a r i a b l e s c o u l d be c o n t r o l l e d i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n l e s s ambiguous r e s u l t s . However, the human c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e s e s t u d i e s a r e done p r e v e n t us from c o n t r o l l i n g e v e r y p o s s i b l e c o n f o u n d i n g v a r i a b l e . S u b j e c t s t a k e n from F r e n c h Immersion s c h o o l s r e p r e s e n t a s e l f - s e l e c t e d group. The d e c i s i o n of p a r e n t s t o send t h e i r c h i l d r e n t o F r e n c h Immersion s c h o o l or r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program depends on unknown v a r i a b l e s which might a l s o i n f l u e n c e t h e r e s u l t s of the s t u d i e s . In the p r e s e n t s t u d y , i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e s such as s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , l e v e l of b i l i n g u a l i s m , number of books a t home and so on have been c o n t r o l l e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e the p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between b i l i n g u a l s and u n i l i n g u a l s on measures of n o n v e r b a l and v e r b a l r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y . 31 Our reason for studying reasoning a b i l i t y r a t h e r than c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , as measured by general IQ t e s t s , i s that reasoning a b i l i t y as defined here i s a more s p e c i f i c a b i l i t y than the broad concept of general c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . Although reasoning a b i l i t y i s part of c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , i t i s a narrower concept than that of c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . Moreover, the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s that a r e l a t i o n s h i p may e x i s t between reasoning a b i l i t y and the a c q u i s i t i o n of a second language. Research Q u e s t i o n s In the present study, the question was posed whether there was a d i f f e r e n c e i n v e r b a l and nonverbal reasoning a b i l i t y between Grade 3 French Immersion students and Grade 3 Non-French Immersion students. A nonverbal reasoning t e s t i n v o l v i n g perceptual problem s o l v i n g t a s k s : the Test Of Nonverbal I n t e l l i g e n c e (TONI) was used to measure nonverbal reasoning a b i l i t y . A v e r b a l reasoning t e s t i n v o l v i n g vocabulary problem s o l v i n g tasks (the Children's Word F i n d i n g Test) was used to measure verba l reasoning a b i l i t y . The concurrent v a l i d i t y of the TONI with the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale for C h i l d r e n - Revised (WISC-R) and with the C h i l d r e n Word Fi n d i n g Test (CWFT), was i n v e s t i g a t e d and f i n a l l y , the equivalence of the two forms of the TONI was v e r i f i e d . 32 CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY The purpose of the present study was to compare l e v e l s of v e r b a l and non-verbal reasoning a b i l i t y between Grade 3 b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n and u n i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n matched on socioeconomic background. The Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f or C h i l d r e n - Revised (WISC-R), the Test of Nonverbal I n t e l l i g e n c e (TONI) Form A and B and the Childr e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test (CWFT) were administered to two groups of students (French Immersion and Non-French Immersion) drawn from a t o t a l of s i x schools. An a n a l y s i s of variance t e s t e d f o r any d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups (French Immersion and Non-French Immersion) on socioeconomic s t a t u s and on the number of books owned by the parents. Another a n a l y s i s of variance compared the two groups on the WISC-R, the TONI and the CWFT. In a d d i t i o n , c o r r e l a t i o n s among the three t e s t s were then c a l c u l a t e d to assess the concurrent v a l i d i t y of the TONI with the WISC-R and with the CWFT and the equivalence of the two forms of the TONI. F i n a l l y , an a n a l y s i s of covariance was conducted, using the WISC-R t e s t as a c o v a r i a t e , to analyse the d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups on the TONI and the Child r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test when the l e v e l of i n t e l l i g e n c e was kept constant. 33 A complete d e s c r i p t i o n of the methodology i s presented i n t h i s Chapter. The design and the sampling procedure are d e s c r i b e d . S i m i l a r l y the t e s t s , the q u e s t i o n n a i r e used and the data analyses are presented. The Design The study was designed to compare l e v e l s of v e r b a l and non-verbal reasoning a b i l i t y of b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n and u n i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n at the end of Grade 3 matched f o r socioeconomic l e v e l . B i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n were d e f i n e d as students r e g i s t e r e d i n e a r l y French Immersion s i n c e K i n d e r g a r t e n and coming from anglophone f a m i l i e s where the only language used i n the home was E n g l i s h . U n i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n were students r e g i s t e r e d i n a r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program s i n c e K i n d e r g a r t e n and coming from anglophone f a m i l i e s where the only language used i n the home was E n g l i s h . V e r b a l and nonverbal reasoning a b i l i t y were measured a c c o r d i n g to r e s u l t s obtained by the students on a nonverbal reasoning a b i l i t y t e s t (the Test of Nonverbal I n t e l l i g e n c e ) , and on a v e r b a l reasoning t e s t (the C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g T e s t ) . There was one independent v a r i a b l e , the c o n d i t i o n b i l i n g u a l or u n i l i n g u a l . There were two dependent v a r i a b l e s , the l e v e l of v e r b a l reasoning and the l e v e l of nonverbal reasoning. 34 Furthermore, the use of the TONI enabled an a n a l y s i s of i t s concurrent v a l i d i t y with the WISC-R and the C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test and, to v e r i f i c a t i o n of the equivalence between the two forms of the TONI, administrated i n counter-balanced order. The Sample The sample for t h i s study was s e l e c t e d from Grade 3 classrooms at s i x schools from the West and Centre areas of the Vancouver School Board. Three schools were French Immersion s i n g l e track schools and three were regu l a r E n g l i s h program schools. A l l the schools were chosen i n the West and Centre areas of the Vancouver School Board on the assumption t h a t these were homogeneous areas regarding the general s o c i a l and economic standing of the r e s i d e n t s . This was important, as the l i t e r a t u r e on comparisons of socioeconomic backgrounds between u n i l i n g u a l s and b i l i n g u a l s showed that French Immersion students came from f a m i l i e s of higher socioeconomic s t a t u s than Non-French Immersion students (Burns, 1983). Each French Immersion school was yoked with a regular E n g l i s h program school drawing students from approximately the same area (see map i n Appendix A). A t o t a l of 60 Grade 3 students, 10 i n each of the s i x schools was chosen randomly. The French Immersion sample represented 14.85% of the t o t a l of the students r e g i s t e r e d i n French Immersion at the Vancouver School Board i n 1985-86. The Non-French Immersion sample represented 35 0.86% of the t o t a l number of students r e g i s t e r e d i n Non-French Immersion schools at the Vancouver School Board i n 1985-86. Questionnaire L e t t e r s informing parents of the purpose and nature of the study were sent home to every Grade 3 student e n r o l l e d i n the schools s e l e c t e d . The l e t t e r s were accompanied by forms requesting p a r e n t a l consent, and by a questionnaire to obtain background information. Copies of the l e t t e r , p a r e n t a l consent form and questionnaire are provided i n Appendix A. The questionnaire included questions on parents' education and occupation. The B l i s h e n s c a l e (1976) was used to determine the socioeconomic index of each f a m i l y , from the information on occupation. The index scores of the B l i s h e n s c a l e are T scores with a mean of 50 and a standard d e v i a t i o n of 10. In the case of a f a m i l y where both parents were working, the higher index was used. Data on parents' education were, a l s o used as a means of cross-checking the information on occupation. In some cases a more p r e c i s e d e s c r i p t i o n of the p r o f e s s i o n of the parents was required i n order to assure the correspondence with the B l i s h e n s c a l e . Furthermore, the i n v e s t i g a t o r phoned the parents to ask them how many books they owned. They could choose among 6 c a t e g o r i e s : 36 1. 0 to 9 books;, 2. 10 to 24 books; 3. 25 to 99 books; 4. 100 to 249 books; 5. 250 to 499 books; 6. 500 or more. Information obtained on the questionnaire provided a basis f or s e l e c t i n g the f i n a l sample for t h i s study. The s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a were: (1) P a r e n t a l consent had been obtained for the c h i l d ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study. (2) Enrolment i n the current language of i n s t r u c t i o n had been continuous from Kindergarten through to the time of t e s t i n g ; (3) E n g l i s h was the only language spoken at home; (4) Students were not atte n d i n g Learning Assistance Centers; and (5) Students had not been administered the t e s t s used i n the study during the l a s t year. Sampling Of the 254 l e t t e r s sent to the parents, 187 were returned. Table 3-1 shows how many l e t t e r s were returned i n each s c h o o l . S l i g h t l y more French Immersion parents (76%) returned the l e t t e r s than Non-French Immersion parents (71%). Table 3-1 Number of L e t t e r s Returned i n Each School School Number L e t t e r s of Sent Number of L e t t e r s Returned Percent Returned Immersion 1 2 3 59 24 48 41 21 38 69 88 79 To t a l Immersion 131 100 76 Non Immersion 1 2 3 50 47 26 37 27 23 74 57 88 T o t a l Non Immersion 123 87 71 T o t a l 254 187 74 38 Among the 187 students whose parents returned the l e t t e r s , 84 were e l i m i n a t e d on the basis of one or more of the c r i t e r i a described i n the preceding paragraph. Table 3-2 describes how many students were el i m i n a t e d on the basis of each c r i t e r i o n i n each s c h o o l . 27% of the students used a language other than E n g l i s h at home, both i n the French Immersion group and i n the Non-French Immersion group. Of the French Immersion parents 6% d i d not give t h e i r consent compared to 18% in the Non-French Immersion group. F i n a l l y , students were randomly chosen i n each school from the group l e f t a f t e r successive e l i m i n a t i o n . Table 3-3 r e c a p i t u l a t e s the d i f f e r e n t steps of e l i m i n a t i o n i n a r r i v i n g at the f i n a l sample of 10 i n each school. The o r i g i n a l i n t e n t of the study was to s e l e c t equal numbers of boys and g i r l s , keeping i n mind sampling requirements. E r r o r s i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the gender of two subjects arose from ambiguity i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n t h e i r C h r i s t i a n names. Therefore, there were 15 boys and 15 g i r l s in the French Immersion sample and 13 boys and 17 g i r l s i n the Non-French Immersion sample. D e s c r i p t i o n of the Tests Used Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r Children-Revised (WISC-R) The Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f or C h i l d r e n - Revised i s a general i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t f i r s t used i n 1949. The e n t i r e t e s t can be administered i n 75 minutes. I t covers an age range from 6-0 to 16-11 39 Table 3-2 E l i m i n a t i o n of Students by C r i t e r i o n School Number of L e t t e r s Returned Number of Students E l i m i n a t e d on the basis of: (1) Consent not Given (2) Lang, of I n s t r c t . (3) Lang, spoken at home (4) Learning A s s i t . (5) Prev. Tested Immersion 1 2 3 41 21 38 13 2 13 Non Immersion 1 2 3 37 27 23 7 6 11 To t a l 187 22 11 52 15 2 40 Table 3-3 R e c a p i t u l a t i v e Table of the Formation of the Sample School Number of Number of Number of Students F i n a l L e t t e r s L e t t e r s A f t e r E l i m i n a t i o n Sample Sent Returned Based on C r i t e r i o n Size (1) to (5) Immersion 1 59 41 23 10 2 24 21 17 10 3 48 38 19 10 Non Immersion 1 50 37 24 10 2 47 27 10 10 3 26 23 10 10 To t a l 254 187 103 60 41 y e a r s . I t c o n s i s t s of 12 s u b t e s t s . S i x of t h e s e measure v e r b a l s k i l l s , w h i l e t h e o t h e r s i x measure p e r f o r m a n c e s k i l l s . The p e r f o r m a n c e s u b t e s t s p r o v i d e a n o n v e r b a l measurement o f c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , and r e f e r t o v i s u a l - m o t o r p e r c e p t i o n . A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of what each s u b t e s t measures f o l l o w s ( S a t t l e r , 1982, pp. 188-189): INFORMATION - The w e a l t h of a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d as a r e s u l t o f n a t i v e a b i l i t y and e a r l y c u l t u r a l e x p e r i e n c e . SIMILARITIES - V e r b a l c o n c e p t f o r m a t i o n . ARITHMETIC - N u m e r i c a l r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y . VOCABULARY - V a r i e t y o f f u n c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g language development, l e a r n i n g a b i l i t y , and fund of i n f o r m a t i o n . COMPREHENSION - S o c i a l judgement: the a b i l i t y t o use f a c t s i n a p e r t i n e n t , m e a n i n g f u l , and e m o t i o n a l l y - a p p r o p r i a t e manner. DIGIT SPAN - S h o r t - t e r m memory and a t t e n t i o n . PICTURE COMPLETION - A b i l i t y t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e e s s e n t i a l from n o n e s s e n t i a l d e t a i l s . PICTURE ARRANGEMENT - N o n v e r b a l r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y and p l a n n i n g a b i l i t y . 42 BLOCK DESIGN - Visual-motor c o o r d i n a t i o n and pe r c e p t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . OBJECT ASSEMBLY - P e r c e p t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a b i l i t y . > CODING - V i s u a l motor c o o r d i n a t i o n , speed of mental o p e r a t i o n , and short-term memory. MAZES - Planning a b i l i t y and perc e p t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . Scaled scores from 10 s u b t e s t s are combined to y i e l d three summary IQ s c o r e s , each with a mean of 100 and a standard d e v i a t i o n of 15: the Verb a l IQ, the Performance IQ, and the F u l l s c a l e IQ. The remaining two s u b t e s t s , D i g i t Span and Mazes, are supplementary ,tests used to r e p l a c e i n v a l i d a t e d r e s u l t s on r e g u l a r s u b t e s t s and to gain f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . Scaled scores for i n d i v i d u a l s u b t e s t s have a mean of 10 and a standard d e v i a t i o n of 3. The r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the V e r b a l , Performance and F u l l s c a l e s are reported i n the manual as high (averages of .94, .90 , and .96, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) with a standard e r r o r of measurement f o r the F u l l s c a l e of about three IQ p o i n t s . The WISC-R shows adequate concurrent v a l i d i t y with other measures of i n t e l l i g e n c e ( S a l v i a & Ysseldyke, 1981; S a t t l e r , 1982). The Test of Nonverbal I n t e l l i g e n c e i s "a language-free measure of c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . " I t covers the age range from 5-0 to 85-11. I t was crea t e d i n 1972 to answer the need f o r a measure to evaluate the 43 i n t e l l e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l of s p e c i f i c groups of i n d i v i d u a l s such as the aphasic, the retarded, the l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d , the deaf, non-English speakers and the c u l t u r a l l y " d i f f e r e n t " . A l l items chosen r e q u i r e problem s o l v i n g a b i l i t y , defined as the a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y one or more r u l e s f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among a b s t r a c t f i g u r e s . The r u l e s include simple matching, a n a l o g i e s , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , i n t e r s e c t i o n s , and progressions. The subject s e l e c t s the c o r r e c t f i g u r e among e i t h e r four or s i x a l t e r n a t i v e s to complete a set of f i g u r e s i n which one or more of the f i g u r e s are missing. The t e s t i s a language-free measure. I t may be administered e n t i r e l y without the use of o r a l or w r i t t e n language, by using gestures. The subject has only to point out the f i g u r e he or she has chosen among the four or s i x p o s s i b i l i t i e s . There are two equivalent form? of the t e s t c o n t a i n i n g 50 items each. The e n t i r e t e s t can be administered i n 15 to 30 minutes. The t e s t has a mean of 100 and a standard d e v i a t i o n of 15. I t s i n t e r n a l c o n sistency and i t s s t a b i l i t y r e l i a b i l i t y f o r s p e c i a l populations i s .80 or higher. Observed c o r r e l a t i o n s between the TONI and the WISC-R, ranges from .46 to .95 for the Learning Disabled and the Educable Men t a l l y Retarded. The c o r r e l a t i o n for Normal groups has been e s t a b l i s h e d only with the Otis-Lennon Mental A b i l i t y t e s t for age 8-1, and i s .86 and .81 for Forms A and B r e s p e c t i v e l y . Equivalence of the two forms of the TONI has been c a l c u l a t e d by the authors of the t e s t and reported i n the t e c h n i c a l manual. The 44 c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the two forms a l l exceed r = .80, except for the age range 8-6 to 10-11 where i t i s .78. Children's Word Fi n d i n g Test This t e s t was formulated i n 1976, on the model of Reitan's Word Fi n d i n g Test (1972), designed for a d u l t s . In t h i s t e s t subjects must d i s c e r n the meaning of a nonsense word through a p p r e c i a t i o n of i t s v e r b a l context. The t e s t serves as the v e r b a l counterpart of nonverbal problem s o l v i n g tasks most often used i n neuropsychological b a t t e r i e s . There are 13 items i n t h i s t e s t . Each item i s composed of f i v e sentences i n which "grobnick" i s to be replaced by a word which i s the same for a l l f i v e sentences w i t h i n the item. The sentences are tape-recorded with an i n t e r v a l of 5 seconds between each sentence. The e n t i r e t e s t takes approximately 15 minutes to administer. The students receive one point for each c o r r e c t answer. For example, the f i r s t item i s as f o l l o w s : 1- Every classroom has at l e a s t one grobnick. 2- Grobnicks u s u a l l y hang on the w a l l . 3- The teacher w r i t e s on the grobnick. 4- Grobnicks can be green or black. 5- You w r i t e on a grobnick with chalk. P r e l i m i n a r y norms have been e s t a b l i s h e d for c h i l d r e n from 6 to 10 years o l d . The t e s t has been administered to 20 c h i l d r e n i n each age group (6-7-8-9-10). Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s for number of 45 c o r r e c t responses were c a l c u l a t e d f o r normal c h i l d r e n i n 1982. For the age group 9, the mean was 36.80 and the standard d e v i a t i o n 7.61. T e s t i n g A l l t e s t s were administered to each of the 60 c h i l d r e n , a c c o r d i n g to the procedures d e s c r i b e d i n the t e s t manuals. A l l t e s t i n g was done by 5 Level C t e s t e r s (Cronbach, 1970) who had been t r a i n e d and supervised i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and s c o r i n g of the WISC-R, TONI and C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test. T e s t i n g took place i n the c h i l d r e n ' s schools during the r e g u l a r i n s t r u c t i o n a l day i n the p e r i o d between May 26 and June 13, 1986. Each a d m i n i s t r a t i o n r e q u i r e d approximately 2 hours. The order of the WISC-R and the TONI was counter-balanced. Half of the students were administered the TONI f i r s t and h a l f were administered the WISC-R f i r s t . Furthermore, the two forms of the TONI were administered s u c c e s s i v e l y and i n a randomized order. The CWFT was always administered l a s t . Schools were contacted i n advance to arrange time and a p p r o p r i a t e space f o r t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . A student code number, language of i n s t r u c t i o n , b i r t h d a t e , gender and socioeconomic index of the parents was recorded on each t e s t p r o t o c o l . No names appeared on the p r o t o c o l s . This procedure allowed necessary i n f o r m a t i o n for the a n a l y s i s while guaranteeing the anonymity of each s u b j e c t . 46 Scoring and Data Preparation Completed p r o t o c o l s were scored by the r e s p e c t i v e t e s t e r s , f o l l o w i n g d i r e c t i o n s i n the t e s t manuals. A l l of the p r o t o c o l s were then checked for e r r o r s by a second party. F i n a l l y , scores were coded and entered i n t o computer disk f i l e s f o r a n a l y s i s . Data A n a l y s i s An a n a l y s i s of variance was performed to t e s t for any d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups (French Immersion and Non-French Immersion) on socioeconomic status and number of books owned by the parents. A nested a n a l y s i s of variance was then performed to detect p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s among the types of school (French Immersion and Non-French Immersion) and w i t h i n the schools of a type on the r e s u l t s of each of the t e s t s administered. A mixed model was used: the type of school provided the f i x e d e f f e c t s f a c t o r , and the schools w i t h i n type the random-effects f a c t o r . The t h i r d l e v e l was the students themselves. The design i s given i n Table 3-4. In t h i s a n a l y s i s , the independent v a r i a b l e s were: a) the type of school ( f i or n f i ) b) the school w i t h i n type ( 1 - 2 - 3 ) and the dependent v a r i a b l e s were the scores on each of the t e s t s administered. 47 Table 3-4 Nested A n a l y s i s of Variance Experimental Design Matrix School Tests Administered I M M E R S I 0 N N I 0 M N M E R S I 0 N 1 WVS. . f l WPS. , f l WFS. f l TA. f 1 TB. f l F. f l 2 WVS. ,f2 WPS. ,£2 WFS. f2 TA. f 2 TB. .£2 F. f2 3 WVS, ,f3 WPS. ,f3 WFS. f3 TA. f 3 TB. f3 F. f3 T o t a l WVS, .£ WPS. ,f WFS. f TA. f TB. f F. f 1 WVS, . n f l WPS. . n f l WFS. . n f l T A.nfl TB. . n f l F. n f l 2 WVS, .nf 2 WPS, .nf2 WFS. ,nf 2 TA.n£2 TB. ,n£2 F. n£2 3 WVS ,n£3 WPS, .n£3 WFS. ,nf3 TA.nf3 TB, ,n£3 F. nf3 T o t a l WVS .nf WPS .nf WFS. .nf TA.nf TB, .nf F. nf Note: WVS Wechsler Scale of I n t e l l i g e n c e f or C h i l d r e n Verbal Scale WPS Wechsler Scale of I n t e l l i g e n c e f o r C h i l d r e n Performance Scale WFS Wechsler Scale of I n t e l l i g e n c e f o r C h i l d r e n F u l l Scale TA Test of Non Verba l I n t e l l i g e n c e , Form A (counter-balanced order with TONI B) TB Test of Non Verbal I n t e l l i g e n c e , Form B (counter-balanced order with TONI A) F C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test f French Immersion nf Non-French Immersion Revised, Revised, Revised, 48 The necessary computations were performed using the computer program BMDP P8V, General Mixed Model A n a l y s i s of Variance - Equal C e l l Sizes ( J e n r i c h and Sampson, 1985) An a n a l y s i s of covariance was conducted for the TONI Form A and Form B, and for the C h i l d r e n Word Fi n d i n g Test (CWFT), with the WISC-R t e s t F u l l Scale as a c o v a r i a t e . This a n a l y s i s was performed to t e s t for any d i f f e r e n c e s between the two types of schools, when the l e v e l of c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y was c o n t r o l l e d . The necessary computations were performed using the computer program SPSS-X (Nie & a l l , 1975), A n a l y s i s of Covariance. F i n a l l y a m u l t i p l e Pearson r c o r r e l a t i o n was c a l c u l a t e d for a l l the t e s t s , s u c c e s s i v e l y with each type and with the combined types. S p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n was paid to the c o r r e l a t i o n between the TONI and the other t e s t s for the purpose of concurrent v a l i d i t y , and between the two equivalent forms of the TONI. The necessary computations were performed using the computer program SPSS-X (Nie & a l l , 1975), M u l t i p l e Pearson r C o r r e l a t i o n . A l l computations were performed on a AMDAHL 470/V8 computer maintained by the Computing Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. 49 CHAPTER IV RESULTS This Chapter presents the d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s of the study and contains the r e s u l t s of the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o u t l i n e d i n the previous Chapter. D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s Care was taken to ensure that the analyses r e l e c t e d a comparison between the l e v e l s of language l e a r n i n g : French Immersion students and Non French Immersion. In p a r t i c u l a r , the socioeconomic s t a t u s of the student's f a m i l i e s and the number of books owned at home were i d e n t i f i e d as two p o t e n t i a l confounding v a r i a b l e s that could influe n c e the r e s u l t s of the t e s t s administered. Indices of the socioeconomic s t a t u s and of the number of books owned by the student's f a m i l i e s were obtained from questionnaire responses (Table 4-1). A n a l y s i s of variance on these two indexes i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two types of schools (Table 4-2). The f a m i l i e s of both French Immersion students and Non-French Immersion had on average between 250 to 499 books (index l e v e l 5). The number of books owned by the f a m i l i e s of the students i n the sample of t h i s study i s higher than the p r o v i n c i a l average for Grade 4 reported i n the B r i t i s h Columbia Reading Assessment (1984). None of the students i n t h i s study were at index l e v e l 2 or 1 ( l e s s than 24 books) compared to 9% i n the p r o v i n c i a l average. Only 1% of 50 Table 4-1 Indeces of Home Book Numbers and SES by Type of School French Non French T o t a l Immersion Immersion Sample Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. number of 5.03 0.93 5.10 0.89 5.07 0.90 books index socioeconomic 64.50 11.81 65.17 10.06 64.83 10.88 st a t u s index Note: A l l information was obtained from q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The book index used was (1) 0-9 books, (2) 10-24, (3) 25-99, (4) 100-249, (5) 250-499, (6) 500 books or more. Table 4-2 A n a l y s i s of Variance for Number of Books and SES in French Immersion and Non-French Immersion Groups df SS MS Books/Between Type of School Books/Within Type of School SES/Between Type of School SES/Within Type of School 58 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.78 47.67 0.82 6.67 6.67 0.06 0.82 58 6973.67 120.24 51 the students i n the e n t i r e sample were at the index 3 compared to 20% in the p r o v i n c i a l average. A high percentage of the sample i n t h i s study (41.67%) came from f a m i l i e s who owned more than 500 books (index l e v e l 6) compared to a p r o v i n c i a l average of 25.4%. Both French Immersion and Non-French Immersion students' f a m i l i e s had a socioeconomic s t a t u s (index 65) that was higher than average (index 50). The r e s u l t s of analyses of the WISC-R, the TONI, Form A and B and the CWFT are di s p l a y e d i n Tables 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6. An a l y s i s of Variance One of the assumptions of the a n a l y s i s of variance i s that the samples were taken from normal populations. This was teste d by appl y i n g the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness of F i t to the scores of a l l the WISC-R s u b t e s t s , subscales and f u l l s c a l e , the TONI A and B, and the CWFT (Table 4-7). Expected frequencies from a normally d i s t r i b u t e d population were c a l c u l a t e d f or each t e s t and compared to the scores obtained. A l l the d i s t r i b u t i o n s , except f o r the TONI.B, proved to be normal. The TONI.B d i s t r i b u t i o n was l e p t o k u r t i c and d i d not appear to s e r i o u s l y threaten the v a l i d i t y of a n a l y s i e s of vari a n c e . French Immersion students scored higher than Non-French Immersion Students i n a l l three sets of t e s t s administered. In the WISC-R, TONI A f TONI B, and CWFT the French Immersion students scored 114, 102, 106, and 40 r e s p e c t i v e l y ; whereas the Non-French Immersion Table 4-3 WISC-R Scale Means by Type of School French Non French T o t a l Immersion Immersion Sample Mean S. D. Mean S. D. Mean S. D. Information 10. 80 3. 10 9.77 2. ,37 10, .28 2. 79 S i m i l a r i t i e s 12. 87 3. ,29 11.67 3. ,28 12 .27 3. ,31 A r i t h m e t i c 11. 17 2. 45 12.03 2. ,68 11 .60 2. 59 Vocabulary 12. 97 2. ,59 12.60 2. ,50 12 .78 2. ,53 Comprehension 11. 73 3. ,06 11.37 2. ,86 11, .55 2. ,94 D i g i t Span 10. 77 2. .28 10.13 2, .11 10 .45 2. .21 P i c t u r e 12. 27 2. .24 10.43 2, .81 11 .35 2. .69 Completion P i c t u r e 12. 10 2, .55 11.40 2. .90 11 .75 2. .73 Arrangement Block 13. ,13 3, .08 12.00 2, .41 12 .57 2, .80 Des ign Object 12. ,30 2. .84 11.07 2, .12 11 .68 2, .56 Assembly Coding 10. ,37 2, .36 8.90 2, .51 9 .63 2, .52 Verbal IQ 111. ,57 13, ,90 108.77 10. .31 110 .17 12, .22 Perform. IQ 114. ,00 11 .18 105.97 11 .99 109 .48 12 .36 F u l l Scale IQ 114. .20 12, .21 107.67 9, .87 110 .93 11, .49 53 Table 4-4 TONI Results by Type of School French Non French T o t a l Immersion Immersion Sample Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S. D. TONI A 102.87 14.00 96.07 10.10 99.47 12. 58 TONI B 1 0 6 . 3 3 1 4 . 3 7 9 9 . 8 3 1 1 . 8 1 1 0 3 . 0 8 1 3 . 4 5 Table 4-5 Child r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test Results by Type of School French Non French T o t a l Immers ion Immersion Sample Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S. ,D. Child r e n ' s Word Fi n d i n g 40.17 5.72 36.60 5.16 38.38 5. .69 Test Note: The above r e s u l t s are given i n raw scores. The maximum raw score on t h i s t e s t i s 65. For the age group 9, the mean i s 36.80 and the standard d e v i a t i o n i s 7.61 Table 4-6 Range of Test Scores f or the WISC-R, the TONI, and the CWFT by Type of School WISC-R WISC-R WISC-R Verbal P e r f o r . F u l l TONI.A TONI.B CWFT I.Q. I.Q. Scale Immersion 92-147 82-139 71-141 82-140 69-145 26-53 55 57 50 58 76 27 Non Immersion 85-128 80-128 89-124 82-126 79-120 27-46 43 48 35 . 44 41 19 A l l 85-147 80-139 89-141 82-140 69-145 26-53 62 59 52 58 76 27 Table 4-7 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness of F i t Test Kolmogorov-Smirnov 2 T a i l e d Z Value P Value WISC-R Information 0.92 0.36 S i m i l a r i t i e s 0.88 0.42 A r i t h m e t i c 0.96 0.31 Vocabulary 1.03 0.24 Comprehension 0.83 0.50 D i g i t Span 1.05 0.23 P i c t u r e Completion 1.15 0.14 P i c t u r e Arrangement 0.71 0.70 Block Design 1.06 0.21 Object Assembly 0.65 0.79 Coding 1.10 0.18 Verbal IQ 0.72 0.67 Performance IQ 0.66 0.77 F u l l Scale 0.55 0.93 TONI A 1.02 0.25 TONI B 1.56 0.02 Chi l d r e n ' s Word 0.72 0.68 Fi n d i n g Test 55 students scored 107, 96, 100, and 37 r e s p e c t i v e l y . The d i f f e r e n c e s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t on the Performance Scale (p = .01) and on the F u l l Scale (p = .05). The grea t e s t d i f f e r e n c e was i n the Performance Scale of the WISC-R where French Immersion scored 114 and the Non-French Immersion scored 105. French Immersion students scored s l i g h t l y lower than Non-French Immersion students on only one of the WISC-R su b t e s t s , A r i t h m e t i c . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of these r e s u l t s was determined by an a n a l y s i s of var i a n c e . The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of variance on the WISC-R are shown i n Table 4-8. They i n d i c a t e a d i f f e r e n c e between the French Immersion and Non-French Immersion group on the Performance Scale at p < .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e and on the F u l l Scale (p < .05). However, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (p > .05) was found between the two groups on the Verbal Scale of the WISC-R t e s t . The r e s u l t s of the TONI are contained i n Table 4-9. A d i f f e r e n c e between French Immersion and Non-French Immersion (p = .07) was found on the TONI Form A, and no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found on the TONI Form B. An a n a l y s i s of variance of the Children's Word F i n d i n g Test found a d i f f e r e n c e (p = .10) between French Immersion and Non-French Immersion groups and i s shown i n Table 4-10. In summary, the a n a l y s i s of variance showed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the French Immersion scores and the Non-French Immersion scores on the WISC-R F u l l Scale (p < .05) and WISC-R Performance Scale (p < .01). A d i f f e r e n c e was found on the TONI.A Table 4-8 A n a l y s i s of Variance on the WISC-R Source of Var iance Degrees Sum of Mean Freedom Squares Square WISC-R FULL SCALE Between Type of School 1 Within Type of School 4 Within School 54 640.27 640.27 16.39 0.02 156.27 39.07 0.30 0.88 6993.20 129.50 WISC-R PERFORMANCE SCALE Between Type of School 1 Within Type of School 4 Within School 54 WISC-R VERBAL SCALE Between Type of School 1 Within Type of School 5 Within Type of School 54 1224.02 1224.02 28.29 0.01 173.07 43.27 0.31 0.87 7619.90 141.11 117.60 117.60 1.44 0.30 327.73 81.93 0.53 0.72 8359.00 154.70 Table 4-9 A n a l y s i s of Variance on the TONI Source of Variance Degrees Sum of Mean Freedom Squares Square TONI A Between Type of School 1 693.60 693.60 5.87 0.07 Within Type of School 4 472.73 118.18 0.78 0.54 Within School 54 8168.60 151.27 TONI B Between Type of School 1 633.75 633.75 2.20 0.21 Within Type of School 4 1150.73 287.68 1.75 0.15 Within School 54 8886.10 164.56 57 (p = .07), and on the CWFT (p = .10). However, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on the WISC-R Verbal Scale and on the TONI.B. A n a l y s i s of Covariance The c e n t r a l problem of t h i s study was to t e s t the d i f f e r e n c e i n ve r b a l and non-verbal reasoning a b i l i t y between the students of the two types of schools. This was accomplished by using the TONI as a non-verbal reasoning t e s t and the CWFT as a verbal reasoning t e s t . However, i t i s p o s s i b l e that the d i f f e r e n c e s between French Immersion students and Non-French Immersion students were due i n part to d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s . Using the WISC-R as a c o v a r i a t e to measure c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s , an a n a l y s i s of covariance was done to t e s t whether there was a d i f f e r e n c e between French Immersion Schools and Non-French Immersion schools on the TONI and the CWFT scores. The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of covariance (Table 4-11) confirmed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on the TONI.A (p ~= .09) and on the CWFT (p = .09). There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on the TONI.B as i n the previous a n a l y s i s a f t e r c o n t r o l l i n g f or d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s . The adjusted means were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each t e s t and were found to be higher f or the French Immersion group than for the Non-French Immersion groups, although not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (Table 4-12) . Table 4-10 An a l y s i s of Variance on the Chil d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test 58 Source of Variance Degrees Sum of Mean Freedom Squares Square CWFT Between Type of School 1 Within Type of School 4 Within School 54 190.82 190.82 4.45 0.10 171.67 42.92 1.50 0.22 1547.70 28.66 Table 4-11 An a l y s i s of Covariance of the TONI Form A and B, and of the CWFT with the WISC-R as c o v a r i a t e Source of Variance Degrees Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Square TONI A Covariate 1 191.22 191.22 1.27 ns. Between Type of School 1 449.56 449.56 ' 2.99 0.09 Within Type of School 4 400.10 100.03 0.66 ns. Within School 53 7977.38 150.52 TONI, B Covariate 1 Between Type of School 1 Within Type of School 4 Within School 53 CWFT Covariate 1 Between Type of School 1 Within Type of School 5 Within Type of School 53 993.38 224.03 1204.88 7892.72 251.16 74.51 154.52 1296.54 993.38 224.03 301.22 148.93 251.16 74.51 38.63 24.46 6.67 1.50 2.02 10.27 3.05 1.58 0.01 ns. ns. 0.01 0.09 ns. Table 4-12 French Immersion Versus Non-French Immersion Unadjusted and Adjusted Means for Level of Cogni t i v e A b i l i t y on TONI.A, TONI.B, and Children's Word F i n d i n g Test Test French Immersion Unadjusted Adjusted Means Means Non-French Immersion Unadjusted Adjusted Means Means TONI A TONI B CWFT 1 0 2 . 8 7 1 0 6 . 3 3 4 0 . 1 7 1 0 2 . 3 3 1 0 5 . 1 0 3 9 . 5 5 9 6 . 0 7 9 9 . 8 3 3 6 . 6 0 9 6 . 6 1 1 0 1 . 0 6 3 7 . 2 2 Table 4-13 Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s for the E n t i r e Sample WISC-R WISC-R WISC-R Verbal Perfrm. F u l l TONI.A TONI.B CWFT I.Q. I.Q. Scale WISC-R Verbal IQ WISC-R Perfrm. IQ WISC-R F u l l Scale TONI. A TONI. B CWFT 0.34 0.84 0.16 0.28 0.40 0.79 0.25 0 . 3 1 0 . 3 1 0.24 0.35 0.45 0.52 0.36 0.38 60 TONI, Concurrent V a l i d i t y and Equivalence of the Two Forms The second purpose of t h i s study was to v e r i f y the concurrent v a l i d i t y of the TONI with the WISC-R and CWFT. This was accomplished by c a l c u l a t i n g the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between each t e s t for the e n t i r e sample and for each subgroup (Tables 4-13, 4-14, and 4-15). A t t e n t i o n should be drawn to two r e s u l t s i n p a r t i c u l a r : (1) The c o r r e l a t i o n s of the TONI Form A and B, with the WISC-R and with the CWFT are extremely low for the Non-French Immersion group. (2) The c o r r e l a t i o n s of the TONI Form A and B appear to be higher with the Childr e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test than with the WISC-R; although, a t - t e s t showed no s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the c o r r e l a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s (o = .05, 2 t a i l s , 57 d f ) . The t h i r d question d e a l t with the equivalence of the two forms of the TONI. A Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t (r = .52) was c a l c u l a t e d between the TONI.A and the TONI.B for the e n t i r e sample of French Immersion and Non-French Immersion students combined (Table 4-12). This value i s much lower than that reported i n the t e c h n i c a l manual (r = .78) f o r the same age group (8 years 6 months to 10 years 11 months). In f a c t , these two c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t according to the F i s h e r ' s Z-transformation t e s t (Z = 0.57, df = 57, p < .01). The low c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t found between the two forms of the TONI t e s t prompted a f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s on the e f f e c t of treatment order. A procedure o u t l i n e d by Gart (1969) was used to t e s t for the d i f f e r e n c e i n response between the two s e q u e n t i a l l y a p p l i e d Table 4-14 Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s for the French Immersion Group WISC-R WISC-R WISC-R Verbal Perfrm. F u l l TONI.A TONI.B CWFT I.Q. I.Q. Scale WISC-R Verbal IQ WISC-R 0.42 Perfrm. IQ WISC-R 0.90 0.78 F u l l Scale TONI.A 0.17 0.26 0.24 TONI.B 0.41 0.46 0.50 0.60 CWFT 0.47 0.40 0.53 0.46 0.53 Table 4-15 Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s for the Non Immersion Group WISC-R Verbal WISC-R Perfrm. WISC-R F u l l TONI.A TONI.B CWFT I.Q. I.Q. Scale WISC-R Verbal IQ WISC-R Perfrm. IQ 0.20 WISC-R F u l l Scale 0.78 0.77 TONI.A 0.06 0.05 0.07 TONI .B 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.29 CWFT 0.28 0.06 0.22 0.07 0.05 Table 4-16 Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s for Each Type of School Between TONI A and TONI B Accordinq to the Order of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the TONI TONI A F i r s t TONI A Second F l / NFI Combined French Immersion 0.78 0.43 0.60 Non-French Immersion F l / NFI Combined 0.02 0.58 0.53 0.46 0.29 0.52 63 treatments, TONI.A and TONI.B, and to t e s t whether the order of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n had an e f f e c t on the scores. A contingency t a b l e of the observed and expected number of students that scored higher and lower on the second administered TONI was te s t e d by the chi-square t e s t . The r e s u l t s showed that the scores on the TONI.A and B were a f f e c t e d by the order i n which they were administered (X = 5.91, p < .025) and suggests a l e a r n i n g e f f e c t . When the two TONI t e s t s are given one a f t e r another, the score of the second should be be t t e r than the f i r s t because the f i r s t t e s t i s a form of t r a i n i n g . This was indeed the case when the TONI.A was given before the TONI.B. The average increase In score was 5.60 and was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero (t = 2.46, p = .02). However, there was an average decrease i n score of -1.63, although not s i g n i f i c a n t (t = -0.69, p = .50), when the TONI.B was given before the TONI.A. The l e a r n i n g e f f e c t was a l s o compared between French Immersion and Non-French Immersion and support the r e s u l t s of the combined samples. There was an increase i n the TONI.B score when the TONI.A t e s t was given f i r s t (t = 1.78, p = .09 F I ; t = 1.73, p = .11 NFI) but no detec t a b l e increase i n the TONI.A score was found when the TONI.B was given f i r s t (t = - .61 p = .55 F I ; t = -0.31 p = .76 NFI). As p r e v i o u s l y noted, the c o r r e l a t i o n s of the TONI, Form A and B, with the WISC-R and with the CWFT were extremely low for the Non-French Immersion group, ranging from .02 to .29 (Table 4-15). C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were r e c a l c u l a t e d to see i f these r e s u l t s might have been due to the order e f f e c t . TONI.A and TONI.B scores were segregated by the order the t e s t s were administered and by the 64 type of s c h o o l , French Immersion and Non-French immersion. A f t e r t h i s breakdown, there were 15 subjects i n each of the subgroups. The Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t between Form A and B was high for a l l ca t e g o r i e s (Table 4-16) except for the Non French Immersion group when the TONI.A was administered f i r s t (r = .018). This i s i n sharp c o n t r a s t to the French Immersion group (r = .78). 65 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The r e s u l t s of the WISC-R, the TONI, Form A and Form B, and the Childr e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test (CWFT), as administered to 30 Grade 3 French Immersion students, were compared to the r e s u l t s of the same t e s t s administered to 30 Grade 3, Non French Immersion students. A l l students came from homes - i n which E n g l i s h was the only language commonly used, and a l l had been e n r o l l e d c o n t i n u o u s l y since Kindergarten i n the current language of i n s t r u c t i o n . The purpose of the study was to answer three questions: 1. Is there a d i f f e r e n c e i n the l e v e l of ve r b a l and non-verbal reasoning a b i l i t y of Grade 3 French Immersion students and that of Grade 3 Non French Immersion students? 2. What i s the concurrent v a l i d i t y of the TONI with the WISC-R and with the CWFT? 3. Are the two forms of the TONI equivalent? As a f i r s t step, the socioeconomic s t a t u s and the s i z e of personal l i b r a r i e s of parents from the two groups (French Immersion and Non-French Immersion), were compared. These v a r i a b l e s have been found to be c o r r e l a t e d with l e v e l of achievement and c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y of the c h i l d r e n ( J e r o s k i , 1984). No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between the two groups on the number of books (p (F = .0811) = .78), and on socioeconomic s t a t u s (p (F = .0554) = .81). Therefore, we 66 assumed that the socioeconomic s t a t u s and l i b r a r y s i z e s of f a m i l i e s i n the two groups were e q u i v a l e n t . As a r e s u l t , there was no need to use these v a r i a b l e s as c o v a r i a t e s i n f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of the data. The two groups on the other hand d i d come from f a m i l i e s whose socioeconomic s t a t u s was higher than average (1.4 SD above the mean). On the average, t h e i r home l i b r a r i e s contained between 250 and 499 books. In regard to the three questions, various analyses l ed to the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s : 1. D i f f e r e n c e i n the l e v e l s of ve r b a l and non-verbal reasoning a b i l i t y between Grade 3 French Immersion group and Grade 3 Non-French Immersion group: Data a n a l y s i s shows that the French Immersion group scored higher on a l l the t e s t s than d i d the Non-French Immersion group. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups on the WISC-R Performance Scale (p = .01), and on the WISC-R F u l l Scale (p = .02). There was a d i f f e r e n c e on the TONI A (p = .07), and on the CWFT (p = .10). There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on the WISC-R Verbal Scale, nor on the TONI B. The r e s u l t s on the WISC-R t e s t d i f f e r from those of Nielsen (1983) who found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on the F u l l Scale and subscales of the WISC-R for Grade 2 students. The f a c t that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups on the Performance Scal e , and no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on the Verbal Scale may be due to the f a c t that French Immersion students had only one hour every day of 67 formal E n g l i s h i n Grade 3 and none before. Although they speak E n g l i s h at home, they may be at a disadvantage as compared to Non-French Immersion students on subtests such as Vocabulary, Comprehension and A r i t h m e t i c . In f a c t , i t i s i n these subtests that the sma l l e s t mean d i f f e r e n c e s are found between the two groups. Moreover, i n the Ar i t h m e t i c subtest the d i f f e r e n c e favours the Non-French Immersion group. On t h i s a n a l y s i s , the l e v e l of ve r b a l and non-verbal reasoning a b i l i t y , seems higher f o r French Immersion students than f or Non-French Immersion students, although i t i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (p = .07 for TONI A and p = .10 f o r CWFT). One might suppose that t h i s was due to the higher c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , of French Immersion students as compared to Non-French Immersion students, as measured by the WISC-R; A f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of data c o n t r o l l i n g f or the l e v e l of c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y was there f o r e undertaken to compare the r e s u l t s of the two groups i n the TONI Form A and B and the CWFT. The adjusted means were s t i l l higher f or French Immersion than f or Non-French Immersion students on a l l three t e s t s . The r e s u l t s showed a d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups on the TONI Form A (p = .09), on the TONI Form B (p = .21) and on the CWFT (p = .10). Those d i f f e r e n c e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t . One might speculate that these r e s u l t s are explained by the l e a r n i n g process through which French Immersion students must go i n order to le a r n a second language. In t h i s process, they must attend more c l o s e l y to the general p r o p e r t i e s of things i n order to understand new words that are explained to them. They have to analyse 68 what the teacher says and reason c o n s t a n t l y to v e r i f y whether what they understand make sense to them or not. F i n a l l y , they tend to think at a more a b s t r a c t l e v e l s i n c e they have two codes for each word. This s p e c i f i c language l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y c o n s t i t u t e s an intense t r a i n i n g i n in d u c t i v e and deductive reasoning, the a b i l i t i e s required f or the TONI and f or the CWFT. Other v a r i a b l e s could e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups on reasoning a b i l i t y . Any v a r i a b l e that would e x p l a i n why parents chose French Immersion f or t h e i r c h i l d r e n , could be resp o n s i b l e f or the d i f f e r e n c e found i n the two groups on the three t e s t s . M o t i v a t i o n i s c e r t a i n l y an important v a r i a b l e i n need of fu r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . A l s o , l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y i n French Immersion classroom should be compared with that i n the Non-French Immersion classroom. Research i s needed to determine whether e i t h e r treatment - French Immersion or Non-French Immersion - makes the d i f f e r e n c e , or whether the subjects (those who chose French Immersion and those who don't) make the d i f f e r e n c e , or whether the explanation i s a combination of the treatment and of subjects* c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The r e s u l t s of the CWFT were compared to the norms c a l c u l a t e d i n 1982 (Table 4-3). The mean was higher f or the e n t i r e sample (38.80) 'than the mean of the norms (36.80) for the same age group. However, i t i s important to note that i n t h i s study, the students had no l i m i t a t i o n of time i n which to give t h e i r answers. I t i s p o s s i b l e that such a l i m i t a t i o n would have given r e s u l t s lower or equal to the 1982 69 norms. The standard d e v i a t i o n was smaller i n the present study because of the r e s t r i c t i o n of range The CWFT seems to involve memory. The t e s t e r s n o t i c e d , while a d m i n i s t e r i n g the t e s t , that some c h i l d r e n d i d not use t h e i r i n d u c t i v e or deductive reasoning a b i l i t i e s because they d i d not remember the clues given i n previous sentences. I t would be valuable to conduct a study on the c o r r e l a t i o n between r e s u l t s on a ve r b a l memory t e s t and on the CWFT to f i n d out what part memory plays i n the score obtained on CWFT F i n a l l y , the CWFT appears to be a u s e f u l t o o l to t e s t verbal reasoning a b i l i t y . The f a c t that CWFT measures something d i f f e r e n t than general i n t e l l i g e n c e was demonstrated i n t h i s study by the d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups a f t e r c o n t r o l l i n g for d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , as measured by the WISC-R. More research i s needed on t h i s promising t e s t for purposes of s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n , construct v a l i d i t y and concurrent v a l i d i t y . 2. Concurrent v a l i d i t y of the TONI with the WISC-R and the CWFT: C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the TONI and the WISC-R were not very high (r = .45 for both forms). This was a l s o the case for c o r r e l a t i o n s of the TONI with the CWFT (r = .36) for Form A, and (r = .39) for Form B. The TONI manual i n d i c a t e s moderate to high c o r r e l a t i o n s between the TONI and the WISC-R (.62 to .95). However, those c o r r e l a t i o n s were e s t a b l i s h e d with Learning Disabled and Educable MentaDy Retarded groups; t h e r e f o r e , probably with a r e s t r i c t e d range of scores mainly at the lower end of the s c a l e . I t i s 70 p o s s i b l e that subjects i n those c a t e g o r i e s would score low on any t e s t of c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . Thus, c o r r e l a t i o n s between various t e s t s r e l a t e d to c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y would be f a i r l y high. In the present study, the subjects scored at the higher end of the s c a l e and the range of scores was wide. The low c o r r e l a t i o n s obtained i n t h i s study c o n s t i t u t e a warning against using the TONI as a s u b s t i t u t e f or the WISC-R with normal populations. Although i t might be tempting to use the TONI Instead of the WISC-R i n French Immersion s i t u a t i o n s as a language-fair t e s t , i t would be dangerous to do so f o r the r e s u l t s of t h i s study show that the two t e s t s are not e q u i v a l e n t . The d i f f e r e n c e In age range norms i n the TONI and the WISC-R could o f f e r an explanation f or the low c o r r e l a t i o n s between the two t e s t s . In t h i s study, the age i n t e r v a l was 8-5 to 9-11, with only three c h i l d r e n age 8-5. This age i n t e r v a l corresponds to only one age i n t e r v a l i n the norms of the TONI (8-6 to 10-11), except for the three c h i l d r e n aged 8 years 5 months, while i t corresponds to f i v e age i n t e r v a l s i n the norms of the WISC-R (8-4 to 8-7, 8-8 to 8-11, 9-0 to 9-3, 9-4 to 9-7 and 9-8 to 9-11). In the age range 8-5 to 9-11, c o g n i t i v e development i s important and d i f f e r e n c e s between the r e s u l t s of a c h i l d at 8-5 and at age 9-11 are expected to be l a r g e . However, the TONI gives only one set of norms for the huge i n t e r v a l of 29 months between 8-6 and 10-11. I f the WISC-R and the TONI were equivalent t e s t s , and assuming that norms of the TONI were based on the middle of the age i n t e r v a l (8-5 to 10-11), we should expect large d i f f e r e n c e s at the two ends of the age i n t e r v a l (8-6 to 10-11) and 71 small d i f f e r e n c e s at the middle of the age i n t e r v a l (9-9). In t h i s case a graph of the d i f f e r e n c e s between the WISC-R scores and the TONI scores should be p o s i t i v e l y skewed, si n c e we only d e a l with the lower h a l f of the TONI age i n t e r v a l . This was v e r i f i e d by p l o t t i n g the d i f f e r e n c e between the WISC-R and the TONI A scores against the age of each s u b j e c t , then f i t t i n g a smooth curve to the data (Figure 5-1). The s c a t t e r p l o t was smoothed using the LOWESS procedure (LOcally WEighted Smoothing of S c a t t e r p l o t s , Cleveland (1979)). The f i g u r e lends support to the hypothesis; i t shows an increase between age 8-4 to 8-8 followed by a decrease through the age 9-9. This e x p l a i n s i n part the low c o r r e l a t i o n s found i n the age group with which t h i s study i s concerned (8-5 to 9-11), between the TONI and the WISC-R scores. Because of the d i f f e r e n c e i n age range norms between the TONI and the WISC-R, i t i s recommended not to use the TONI t e s t i n place of the WISC-R t e s t e s p e c i a l l y when the age of the students corresponds to a wide age i n t e r v a l of the TONI. Although the way i n which the TONI t e s t i s normed could be re s p o n s i b l e for the low c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the TONI and the WISC-R, t h i s s t i l l does not e x p l a i n why those c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s are lower (.07 and .02) for the Non-French Immersion group than for the French Immersion group (.24 and .50). The i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n between the Performance sca l e and the Verbal Scale of the WISC-R i s lower for the Non-French Immersion group (.20) than for the French Immersion group (.42), both being compared to the s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n group (.64). An unexplained c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the Non-French Immersion group d i s t i n g u i s h e s i t from the s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n 72 D i f f e r e n c e Between Scores on the WISC-R and the TONI by Age f o r the E n t i r e Sample • c. o o to a c. o u CO (J cn o n o m o (U o o o I o CM 8.4 B.6 8.8 B.O 9.2 9.4 9.6 Declnel Age of Subject 9.8 10.0 Figure 5-1 Dif f e r e n c e s between scores on the WISC-R and the TONI A by Age f or the e n t i r e sample. The s c a t t e r p l o t was smoothed using the LOWESS procedure ( L O c a l l y WEighted Smoothing of S c a t t e r p l o t s , Cleveland (1979)). The f i g u r e confirms the hypothesis that the scores are d i f f e r e n t because of the age i n t e r v a l ; i t shows an increase between age 8-4 to 8-8 followed by a decrease through the age 9-9. 73 group, on the a b i l i t i e s required to complete v i s u a l and perceptual t a s k s . This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c could p a r t l y e x p l a i n the low c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the TONI and the WISC-R found i n the Non-French Immersion group. Before we can use the TONI r e l i a b l y , i t would be appropriate to e s t a b l i s h norms for smaller age i n t e r v a l s e s p e c i a l l y where c o g n i t i v e development i s important. In comparing c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the TONI Forms A and B and the WISC-R on one hand, and between the TONI Forms A and B and the CWFT on the other hand, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found for TONI A (.20 < p (t > - .94) < .50), nor for TONI B (p (t > -.20) > .50). From t h i s a n a l y s i s i t appears that the TONI i s no more c o r r e l a t e d with the WISC-R than i t i s with the CWFT. Although i t i s c a l l e d an " I n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t " , the TONI does not measure general i n t e l l i g e n c e as the WISC-R does. On the other hand, the moderate c o r r e l a t i o n between the TONI and the CWFT could be explained by the fa c t that the kind of a b i l i t y necessary to solve problems i n the TONI i s d i f f e r e n t from that needed i n the CWFT. The TONI as w e l l as the CWFT measure reasoning a b i l i t y . However, the TONI re q u i r e s v i s u a l and perceptual a b i l i t i e s while the CWFT requ i r e s v e r b a l and l i n g u i s t i c c a p a c i t i e s . Those two reasoning t e s t s might d i s c r i m i n a t e between l e a r n i n g s t y l e s of students, some being more v i s u a l and other being more v e r b a l . 74 3. Equivalence of the two forms of the TONI: This study found a moderate c o r r e l a t i o n between Form A and Form B of the TONI t e s t (r = .52). This r e s u l t i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p < .01) from r e s u l t s obtained by the authors (r = .78) for age range 8-6 to 10-11. Among the equivalence c o e f f i c i e n t s by age reported i n the t e c h n i c a l manual for the t e s t , the equivalence c o e f f i c i e n t f o r age range 8-6 to 10-11 was the lowest of age ranges. This f i n d i n g suggests the wisdom of not using one form of the TONI as equivalent to the other i n age range of 8.6 to 10-11. Furthermore, the a n a l y s i s showed that the order i n which the two forms were administered had an e f f e c t on the r e s u l t s of the students. When Form A was administered f i r s t there was a s i g n i f i c a n t l e a r n i n g e f f e c t on the r e s u l t s , whereas when Form B was administered f i r s t , there was no s i g n i f i c a n t l e a r n i n g e f f e c t . These r e s u l t s show that the two forms are not e q u i v a l e n t . The c a l c u l a t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the two forms of the TONI, se p a r a t i n g the order e f f e c t shows i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s . When TONI A i s given f i r s t , the c o r r e l a t i o n between the two forms of the TONI i s high (r = .78) for the French Immersion group and low (r = .02) for the Non-French Immersion group. The order e f f e c t seems to favour the French Immersion group and not to favour the Non-French Immersion group. I t appears that the French Immersion group g e n e r a l i z e s and c o n s i s t e n t l y a p p l i e s i n Toni B the r u l e s they have learned i n TONI A whereas the Non-French Immersion population does not. Bain's study (1975), on the d i f f e r e n c e i n d i s c o v e r y time and 75 t r a n s f e r time between u n i l i n g u a l s and b i l i n g u a l s when presented with problem s o l v i n g , found no d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups a t the concrete o p e r a t i o n stage. This study i s d i f f e r e n t i n the sense that i t i n v e s t i g a t e s the c o n s i s t e n c y , as opposed to the time, with which u n i l i n g u a l s and b i l i n g u a l s g e n e r a l i z e the r u l e s d i s c o v e r e d i n one task to other t a s k s . The a b i l i t y to g e n e r a l i z e and t r a n s f e r i s higher f o r French Immersion than f o r Non-French Immersion. The TONl's c e i l i n g r u l e suggests another e x p l a n a t i o n of the low c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the two forms of the t e s t , and a l s o between the TONI and the WISC-R. According to the r u l e , the t e s t e r must " d i s c o n t i n u e t e s t i n g when the s u b j e c t has missed three out of f i v e items" ( T e c h n i c a l manual, p. 20). The c e i l i n g r u l e f o r most t e s t s of t h i s kind i s , by way of c o n t r a s t , f i v e items missed i n a row. As a r e s u l t , the students end up meeting the c e i l i n g when they might have been able to get more items c o r r e c t under the r u l e of f i v e items missed out of f i v e , T h i s would be e s p e c i a l l y so i f the order of d i f f i c u l t y of the items were not s t r i c t l y c o n t r o l l e d . A r u l e of f i v e out of f i v e items missed would give more s t a b l e r e s u l t s . D i f f e r e n c e s i n m o t i v a t i o n between the two groups could a l s o o f f e r another e x p l a n a t i o n as to why in French Immersion the c o r r e l a t i o n s between TONI Form A, TONI Form B, WISC-R, and CWFT were moderately s t r o n g , while they were extremely low f o r Non-French Immersion. In t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n , one assumes that French Immersion students are more motivated than are Non-French Immersion students. As a consequence, French Immersion students would do t h e i r best on a l l t e s t s while one would expect Non-French Immersion students to o b t a i n i n c o n s i s t a n t 76 r e s u l t s on the three t e s t s . However, t h i s assumption has not been teste d here or elsewhere and i s not a strong argument i n e x p l a i n i n g the r e s u l t s . Before drawing any con c l u s i o n from t h i s r e s u l t , i t would t h e r e f o r e be necessary to r e p l i c a t e the study using another sample, and measuring the l e v e l of motivation i n each group. L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study While the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s study are encouraging -- they show that French Immersion students scored higher on c o g n i t i v e a b i l t y t e s t s , such as the WISC-R , they a l s o i n d i c a t e that French Immersion students have a tendency to obtain higher r e s u l t s , although not s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher, on reasoning a b i l i t y t e s t s — there are some r e s e r v a t i o n s . F i r s t , the study was l i m i t e d to a small sample (N = 30) of French Immersion c h i l d r e n at only one grade l e v e l (Grade 3). Second, the choice of schools was a r b i t r a r y and not random; a l l the students were from f a m i l i e s with high socioeconomic s t a t u s . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of r e s u l t s to d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s or even to a l l Grade 3 French Immersion students from any or a l l socioeconomic s t a t u s , i s not yet j u s t i f i e d . Conclusions and I m p l i c a t i o n s for P r a c t i c e The r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e that f or the age group 8-4 to 9-11 the TONI c o r r e l a t e s only moderately with the WISC-R as w e l l as 77 with the CWFT. Therefore, the TONI Is an u n r e l i a b l e s u b s t i t u t e for the WISC-R e s p e c i a l l y for the age group mentioned above. The two forms or the TONI have a very low c o e f f i c i e n t of equivalence f or the age range 8-6 to 10-11. They are not comparable enough to be considered e q u i v a l e n t . Furthermore, there i s a l e a r n i n g e f f e c t when Form A i s administered f i r s t and no l e a r n i n g e f f e c t when Form B i s administered f i r s t . The French Immersion group scored higher than the Non-French Immersion group on the TONI A, and on the CWFT and s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the Performance Scale and F u l l Scale of the WISC-R. A f t e r c o n t r o l l i n g f or v a r i a b i l i t y on c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y l e v e l s , the French Immersion group s t i l l scored higher, although not s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher, than the Non-French Immersion group on the TONI A and CWFT. The French Immersion group has been shown to be bette r able c o n s i s t e n t l y to t r a n s f e r r u l e s learned i n the TONI A to the TONI B than the Non-French Immersion group. Despite the f a c t that confounding d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups - such as motivation or the reasons that make parents chose French Immersion or not - we can conclude that i n t h i s study French Immersion students demonstrated higher general c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , as measured by the WISC-R, but no s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t v e r b a l and non-verbal reasoning a b i l i t y than Non-French Immersion students. The r e s u l t s on the TONI t e s t suggest that more research i s needed with regard to n o r m a l i z a t i o n , concurrent v a l i d i t y and equivalence of 78 the forms before i t can be considered as a r e l i a b l e s u b s t i t u t e f or the WISC-R t e s t . I m p l i c a t i o n s f or Further Research The conclusions drawn from t h i s study are l i m i t e d to Grade 3 students from high socioeconomic s t a t u s . I t would be wothwhile to conduct f u r t h e r research on c h i l d r e n from other grade l e v e l s , and from a wider range of socioeconomic status to v e r i f y the consistency of the r e s u l t s . More research i s a l s o needed to i n v e s t i g a t e the importance that motivation may have had on the r e s u l t s of the French Immersion group. Moreover, there i s a need to f u r t h e r study and compare the a b i l i t y of French Immersion groups and Non-French Immersion groups to c o n s i s t e n t l y g e n e r a l i z e and t r a n s f e r r u l e s . This would provide f u r t h e r i n s i g h t s i n t o how l e a r n i n g a second language might a f f e c t l e a r n i n g development with regard to c o g n i t i v e processes. This study questioned the equivalence of the two forms of the TONI and the d i f f e r e n c e i n l e a r n i n g e f f e c t according to the order of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the two forms. Therefore, a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s should be conducted to compare the equivalence of the two forms of the TONI and the order e f f e c t with other groups, at various age, grade and from a wide range of socieconomic s t a t u s . 79 This study found a l s o a need for s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of the TONI using smaller age i n t e r v a l s , e s p e c i a l l y between age 8 and 12, when c o g n i t i v e development i s s i g n i f i c a n t . F i n a l l y , because the CWFT shows d i f f e r e n c e s other than c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y between groups such as French Immersion and Non-French Immersion students, i t would be worthwhile conducting research on t h i s t e s t with regard to i t s s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n and the establishment of i t s concurrent and construct v a l i d i t y . 80 REFERENCES Ahmed, M.A.S. (1954), Mental manipulation. Egyptian Yearbook of Psychology,1,23-88. Bain, B. (1975) Toward an i n t e g r a t i o n of Piaget and Vygotsky: b i l i n g u a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . L i n g u i s t i c s . 160, 5-20. Balkan, L. (1970), Les e f f e t s du bi l i n g u i s m e f r a n c a i s - a n g l a i s sur l e s apt i t u d e s i n t e l l e c t u e l l e s . Aimav, B r u s s e l s . B a r i k , H.C. & Swain, M. (1976), A l o n g i t u d i n a l study of b i l i n g u a l and c o g n i t i v e development. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Journal of Psychology. 11(4), 251-263. Ben-Zeev, S. (1977), The inf l u e n c e of b i l i n g u a l i s m on c o g n i t i v e development and c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y . C h i l d Development. 48 f 1009-1018. Bi n e t , A. (1916), The Development of I n t e l l i g e n c e i n C h i l d r e n (The Binet-Simon S c a l e ) . Baltimore: Williams & W i l k i n s . Blau, P. & Duncan, O.D. (1967), with Andrew Truce. The American Occupational S t r u c t u r e . New York: Wiley. E l i s h e n , Bernard, R. and Mc Roberts, Hugh, A. (1976) A re v i s e d socioeconomic index for occupations i n Canada. Revue Canadienne de S o c i o l o g i e et d'Anthropologie/Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. 13.(1), 71-79. 81 Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. & D o l l a r , S. (1982), The Test of Nonverbal I n t e l l i g e n c e Manual, pro-ed, Texas. Burns, G.E. (1982), Charges of E l i t i s m i n Immersion Education: The Case for Improving Program Implementation. Toronto: The Ontario I n s t i t u t e for Studies i n Education. Buros, O.K. (1985), the Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook. New Jersey: Gryphon Press. C a r r i n g e r , D.C. (1974), Creative t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s of Mexican youth: The r e l a t i o n s h i p of b i n l i n g u a l i s m . J o u r n a l of C r o s s - C u l t u r a l Psychology,5, 492-504. Cleveland, w. s. (1979), "Robust L o c a l l y Weighted Regression and Smoothing S c a t t e r p l o t s " , JASA, 74., 829-836. Coleman, J . (ed) ( 1966 ), E q u a l i t y and Educational Opportunity. Washington, D. C : U.S. Governement P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . Cronbach, L. J . (1970), E s s e n t i a l s of P s y c h o l o g i c a l Testing (3rd ed.). N.Y.: Harper & Row. Cummins, J . (1975), Cognitive f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d with intermediate l e v e l s of b i l i n g u a l s k i l l s . Unpublished manuscript, Educational Research Centre, St P a t r i c k ' s C o l l ege, Dublin. Cummins, J , (1976), The i n f l u e n c e of b i l i n g u a l i s m on c o g n i t i v e growth: a s y n t h e s i s of research f i n d i n g s and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m , 9, 1-43. 82 Cummins, J . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , B i l i n g u a l i s m and the development of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. Journal of C r o s s - C u l t u r a l Psychology,9, 131-149. Cummins, J , (1979), L i n g u i s t i c interdependance and the educational development of b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n . Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251. Cummins, J . , & Gulutsan, M. (1974), Some e f f e c t of b i l i n g u a l i s m on c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g . In S.T. Carey (ed), B i l i n g u a l i s m , B i c u l t u r a l i s m and Education, Edmonton: the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a Press. Cummins J.& Mulcahy, R. (1978), O r i e n t a t i o n to language i n U k r a i n i a n - E n g l i s h b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n , C h i l d Development, 49, 1239-1242. D'Anglejan, A. Gagnon, N. Hafez, M. Tucker, G.R. Winsberg, S. (1978), S o l v i n g problems i n deductive reasoning: three experimental s t u d i e s of a d u l t second language l e a r n e r s . Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m , 17., 1-23. Darcy, N. (1953), A review of the l i t e r a t u r e on the e f f e c t s of b i l i n g u a l i s m upon the measurement of i n t e l l i g e n c e . Journal of Genetic Psychology, 8_2, 21-57. Gart, J . J . (1969), An exact t e s t for comparing matched proportions i n crossover designs. Biometrika, 56, 75 - 80. Harvey, F.B. (1974), Educational Systems and the Labour Market, Don M i l l s , Ontario: Longman Canada L t d . 83 Heath, S.B. (1982), What no bedtime s t o r y means: n a r r a t i v e s k i l l s at home and school. Language i n Society,, 11, 49-76. Holmes, B. J . (1981), I n d i v i d u a l l y - a d m i n i s t e r e d i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s : An a p p l i c a t i o n of anchor t e s t norming and equating procedures i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Doctor of Education t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Ianco-Worrall, A.D. (1972), B i l i n g u a l i s m and c o g n i t i v e development. C h i l d Development, £3, 1390-1400. J e n r i c h , R. & Sampson P. (1985), General mixed model a n a l y s i s of variance - equal c e l l s i z e . In Dixon, W. J . ( c h i e f ed.), BMDP S t a t i s t i c a l Software, 1985, P r i n t i n g . Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. J e r o s k i , S., C. Tolsma, G. Labercane. (1984), B r i t i s h Columbia Reading Assessment: Summary Report. Lambert, W.E. (1974), Culture and language as f a c t o r s i n l e a r n i n g and education. In F. Aboud and F. D. Meade (eds), C u l t u r a l Factors i n Learning. Bellingham: Western Washington State C o l l e g e . Lambert, W.E. (1977), E f f e c t s of b i l i n g u a l i s m on the i n d i v i d u a l . In Hornby, P.A. (ed), B i l i n g u a l i s m : P s y c h o l o g i c a l , S o c i a l and Educational I m p l i c a t i o n s . New york, San F r a n c i s c o , London: Academic Press Inc. Lambert, W.E. & Tucker, G.R. (1972), B i l i n g u a l education of c h i l d r e n . The St Lambert experiment.Rowley: Newbury House. 84 Landry, R.G.(1974), A comparison of second language learners and monolinguals on divergent t h i n k i n g tasks a t t h e elementary school l e v e l . Modern Language J o u r n a l r 58, 10-15. Laxer, G. et a l (1974), Student S o c i a l and Achievement P a t t e r n s . Toronto: OISE, H.S. 1 Studies. Liedke W.W. and Nie l s o n L.D. (1968), Concept formation and b i l i n g u a l i s m . A l b e r t a J o u r n a l of Educational Research,, 14. 225-232. MacNab, G.L. (1979), Cognition and b i l i n g u a l i s m : a r e a n a l y s i s of s t u d i e s . L i n g u i s t i c s . 17, 231-255. Macnamara, J.(1966), B i l i n g u a l i s m and primary education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh U n i v e r s i t y Press. Mehrotra, K.K. (1968), A Comparative study of WISC and Raven's Progressive M a t r i c e s , P s y c h o l o g i c a l Studies, 13, 47-50. Nie, N. H., C. H H u l l , J . G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D. H. Bent. (1975) SPSS. S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the S o c i a l Sciences. 2nd e c L McGraw H i l l , New York. N i e l s e n , B. (1983), V a l i d a t i o n of the WISC-R f o r grade two French immersion students. Unpublished Master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i s t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. N i n i o , A. (1980), Picture-book reading i n mother-infant dyads belonging to two sub-groups i n I s r a e l . C h i l d Development, 51, 587-590. 85 P e a l , E. & Lambert, W.E.,(1962), The r e l a t i o n of b i l i n g u a l i s m to i n t e l l i g e n c e , P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 76, 1-23. P i a g e t , J . ( 1 9 2 3 ) , Le language et l a pensee chez 1'enfant, Neuchatel et P a r i s : Delacheux et N i e s t l e . P i n t n e r , R. (1932), The i n f l u e n c e of language background on i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s . S o c i a l Psychology, 3, 235-240. Raven, J.C. Court, J.H. & Raven, J . (1976), Manual f o r Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. H. K. Lewis & Co L t d . : London. Re i t a n , R. M., (1972) Verbal problem s o l v i n g as r e l a t e d to c e r e b r a l damage. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 34, 515-524. Rourke, Byron, P. and F i s k John, L. (1976), C h i l d r e n ' s Word Fi n d i n g Test (Revised). U n i v e r s i t y of Windsor and Windsor Western H o s p i t a l Centre. Saer, D.J. (1923), E f f e c t of b i l i n g u a l i s m on i n t e l l i g e n c e . B r i t i s h . J o urnal of Psychology, 14, 25-38. S a l v i a , Y., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1978), Assessment i n S p e c i a l Remedial Education. Boston, N. Y.: Houghton M i f f l i n . B a t t l e r , ' J . M. (1982 ) Assessment of C h i l d r e n I n t e l l i g e n c e (2nd ed.) Boston, N.Y.: A l l y n & Bacon. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Toukomaa, P.(1976), Teaching Migrant Chi l d r e n Mother Tongue and Learning the Language of the Host Country i n 86 the Context oi the soclo-cultural Situation of the Migrant Family. H e l s i n k i : The F i n n i s h N a t i o n a l Commission f o r UNESCO. Smith, F.(1978), Understanding Reading. New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 2nd ed. Smith, F. (1923), B i l i n g u a l i s m and mental development. B r i t . J ournal of Psychology, 13, 270-282. Teale, W.H. (1982), Reading to Young C h i l d r e n : I t s S i g n i f i c a n c e for L i t e r a c y Development. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (eds), Awakening to L i t e r a c y , London: Heinemann Educational Books. Torrance, E.P. Gowan, J.C. Wu, J.M. & A l i o t t i , N.C. (1970), Creative f u n c t i o n i n g of monolingual and b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n i n Singapore. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 72-75. T r i t e s , R. & P r i c e , M.A. (1980), Assessment of Readiness for Primary French immersion: Grade one Follow-up Assessment. Toronto: M i n i s t r y of Education, Ontario. Tsushima, W.T. « Hogan, T.P. (1975), Verbal a b i l i t y and school achievement i n b i l i n g u a l and monolingual c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t ages. Journal of Education Research, 68, 349-353. Vigotsky, L.S. (1962), Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Wechsler, D. (1974), Manual for the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale for C h i l d r e n - Revised. The P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporation, New York. Whorf, B. (1956), Language, Thought and R e a l i t y . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT 88 APPENDIX A LETTER TO PARENTS CONSENT FORM QUESTIONNAIRE VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD MAP CHILDREN'S WORD FINDING TEST 89 Dear Parents: 's School has agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a research p r o j e c t : " B i l i n g u a l i s m and Reasoning A b i l i t y " . The pr o j e c t i n v o l v e s the use of i n d i v i d u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s (verbal and nonverbal) and ve r b a l reasoning t e s t s i n E a r l y French Immersion schools and regu l a r anglophone schools. The p r o j e c t r e q u i r e s the cooperation of 60 c h i l d r e n i n the Vancouver School D i s t r i c t to take t e s t s which are widely used. In a d d i t i o n , the parents of p a r t i c i p a t i n g students w i l l be asked to complete a short questionnaire which w i l l be used i n e s t a b l i s h i n g home background info r m a t i o n . The researcher seeks to discover a p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between b i l i n g u a l i s m and the l e v e l of reasoning a b i l i t y of Grade 3 French Immersion c h i l d r e n . A l s o , the p r o j e c t w i l l compare these c h i l d r e n with t h e i r Grade 3 E n g l i s h classroom counterparts. A f u r t h e r purpose of the study i s to s t a t i s t i c a l l y check the v a l i d i t y of a nonverbal t e s t of i n t e l l i g e n c e when used with normal c h i l d r e n . The research p r o j e c t i s being undertaken as a master's t h e s i s i n the department of Educational Psychology at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. I t has been approved by the Vancouver School Board's Student Assessment and Research o f f i c e and by the p r i n c i p a l of your school. p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h i s research, p a r t i c i p a t e , 's name was chosen as a p o s s i b l e I f you and your c h i l d agree to w i l l be asked to take part i n 91 BILINGUALISM AND REASONING ABILITY PARENT CONSENT FORM I consent to 's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the t e s t i n g research study at sch o o l . I am aware that t h i s w i l l involve t e s t i n g sessions t o t a l l i n g approximately two hours d u r a t i o n . I understand that c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of t e s t r e s u l t s w i l l be maintained and that no i n d i v i d u a l scores w i l l be rele a s e d . I a l s o understand that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s p r o j e c t i s vol u n t a r y and may be terminated at any time. Signature I. would l i k e a copy of the group r e s u l t s to be mailed to: I am u n w i l l i n g to have involved in the t e s t i n g research study. Signature 92 BILINGUALISM AND REASONING ABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE Your a s s i s t a n c e i n p r o v i d i n g the f o l l o w i n g information would be very h e l p f u l i n making t h i s a meaningful study: 1 - What i s the main language spoken i n your home? 2 - Do you sometimes use another language i n the home? Yes ; No If Yes, which one? 3 - Has your c h i l d been e n r o l l e d i n the French Immersion program continuously from Kindergarten through to the present time? Yes No 4 - Has your c h i l d been e n r o l l e d i n the re g u l a r E n g l i s h program continuously from Kindergarten through to the present time? Yes No 5 - Do you read to your c h i l d ? Yes No I f Yes, How often? Do you discuss with him/her what you have read? Yes No Sometimes How old was your c h i l d when you s t a r t e d reading to him/her? Did you read to him/her, more often when he/she was younger? Yes No 6 - How many hours a day on the average does your c h i l d watch T.V. 7 - Approximately how many hours a week does your c h i l d read? 8 - QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO THE MOTHER 8a) Do you work outside the home? Yes, part-time No . Yes, f u l l - t i m e 8b) What i s your occupation? 8c) Please c i r c l e the number In f r o n t of the category below, which best describes your completed l e v e l of education. I Less than High School completion I I High School completion I I I Post-Secondary, no degree IV U n i v e r s i t y or College degree 9 - QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO THE FATHER 9a) Do you work outside the home? Yes, part-time No Yes, f u l l - t i m e 9b) What i s your occupation? 9c) Please c i r c l e the number i n f r o n t of the category below, which best describes your completed l e v e l of education. I Less than High School completion I I High School completion I I I Post-Secondary, no degree IV U n i v e r s i t y or College degree. 94 Location of the Schools P a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the Study i n the Vancouver School Board D i s t r i c t West/east street or avenue addresses start with, their unit blocks at Ontario Street (one block west ot Main Street). WITH AREA GROUPINGS Communication Services 1986

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 4 0
Canada 2 0
United Kingdom 1 0
China 1 0
City Views Downloads
Mountain View 3 0
Calgary 2 0
Unknown 1 3
Beijing 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items