UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Bilingualism and reasoning ability Trites, Monique Marie Gabrielle 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A8 T74.pdf [ 3.76MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078374.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078374-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078374-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078374-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078374-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078374-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078374-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078374-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078374.ris

Full Text

BILINGUALISM  AND REASONING A B I L I T Y BY  Monique M a r i e G a b r i e l l e  Trites  B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1983 T e a c h i n g C e r t i f . , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ,  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS MASTER  FOR THE DEGREE OF OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY  OF GRADUATE  Department  of E d u c a t i o n  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s to  the required  THE UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  as c o n f o r m i n g standard  OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  O c t o b e r 1986 ©  Monique M a r i e G a b r i e l l e  T r i t e s , 1986  1984  In p r e s e n t i n g  this  requirements  f o r an  of  British  it  freely  agree for  available  that  in partial  Library  shall  for reference  and  study.  I  for extensive  that  financial  h i s or  her  copying or  gain  be  shall  copying of  g r a n t e d by  the  not  be  of  make  further this  thesis  head o f  representatives. publication  the  University  the  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may  understood  the  I agree that  permission  by  f u l f i l m e n t of  advanced degree a t  Columbia,  department or  for  thesis  this  my  It is thesis  a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  written  permission.  Department of  fccWcJ^c/v^  ^Sy^oVo^  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1Y3  Date  Q c V o W  {^L  Columbia  oti/A S^>  •'ECJIM.IAVOIM  ii  ABSTRACT  The purposes relationships between ability and second  of the present levels  study were  of verbal  language  acquisition  (1) to investigate  and non verbal and (2)  reasoning  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  exists in the and  of the controversy that  literature, over the relationship between bilingualism  cognitive ability.  While  previous  research  used  "general  intelligence" tests to investigate differences between unilinguals and bilinguals, the present verbal and non-verbal  study  examined  a more precise construct: in Grade 3 French Immersion  reasoning ability  students as compared to Grade 3 Non French Immersion Students. All  students came  language spoken,  had been  through the end of Grade were not attending Learning  from homes  in which  continuously  English was the only  enrolled from  3 in their current academic Assistance centers.  kindergarten programs, and  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 between scores on the three tests were  Test. Correlations  calculated to verify the level  of equivalence of the two forms of the TONI, and of the validity of  Hi the TONI c o n c u r r e n t l y  w i t h t h e WISC-R and  w i t h the C h i l d r e n ' s Word  Finding Test. The French Immersion group  Immersion group s c o r e d on the TONI -A (p =  higher than  .07) and  F i n d i n g Test (p = .10) and s i g n i f i c a n t l y S c a l e and F u l l S c a l e of the WISC-R.  the Non-French  the C h i l d r e n ' s Word  h i g h e r on  the Performance  After controlling for variability  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 s c o r e d h i g h e r 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 T e s t (p = .09). The  TONI c o r r e l a t e d p o o r l y with the WISC-R,  C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g  Test.  the WISC-R was e x p l a i n e d  The  as w e l l as with the  low c o r r e l a t i o n of the TONI with  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 e q u i v a l e n c e of the two  forms of the TONI was  s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than t h a t r e p o r t e d by the a u t h o r s 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 a d m i n i s t e r e d f i r s t ( T h i s was not however, the case when the Form B of t h e TONI was a d m i n i s t e r e d  f i r s t ) . When the TONI  the c o r r e l a t i o n between the s c o r e s for the French  of the TONI A and  A was g i v e n f i r s t TONI B was high  Immersion group but not f o r the Non-French Immersion  group. It confounded  was concluded t h a t a l t h o u g h 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 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  iv Immersion g r o u p  demonstrated  a tendency  towards  better  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 = . 0 9 ) . F u r t h e r , i t was c o n c l u d e d equivalent  and  that  administered f i r s t ,  there  t h a t t h e two forms i s an  b u t n o t when  order TONI  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 r e l i a b l e s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h e WISC-R.  of  effect B  t h e TONI when  TONI  i s administered  are not A is first.  b e f o r e i t c a n be c o n s i d e r e d a  V  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i i  LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES  v i i ,  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  ix x  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of t h e problem I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  1 6 10  B i l i n g u a l i s m and C o g n i t i v e Development and A b i l i t y , E a r l y Studies  10  Bilingualism  17  Socioeconomic S t a t u s  20  S o c i a l Context  21  F a i r n e s s of t h e T e s t s Used  22  Number o f Books a t Home  24  The L a t e s t S t u d i e s  25  Conclusion  25  Research Q u e s t i o n s  31  I I I METHODOLOGY  32  The Design  33  The Sample  34  Questionnaire  35  vi  Sampling  36  D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e T e s t s Used  38  WISC-R  38  Test of Nonverbal Children's  Intelligence  Word F i n d i n g  Test  Testing Scoring  42 44 45  and Data P r e p a r a t i o n  46  Data A n a l y s i s  46  I V RESULTS  49  Descriptive Statistics  49  Analysis  of Variance  51  Analysis  of Covariance  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 o f t h e Two F o r m s  V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS  65  Limitations  of the Study  Conclusions  and I m p l i c a t i o n s  Implications  f o r Further  60  76 for Practice  Research  76 78  REFERENCES  80  APPENDIX A  88  Letter  to parents  89  C o n s e n t Form  91  Questionnaire  92  V a n c o u v e r S c h o o l B o a r d Map  94  vii  L I S T OF  TABLES  TABLE 3-1  Number o f L e t t e r s r e t u r n e d  3-2  E l i m i n a t i o n of Students  3-3  R e c a p i t u l a t i v e Table of the Formation  3- 4  Nested A n a l y s i s of Variance, Experimental  4- 1  I n d e x e s o f Home Book Numbers a n d SES b y Type o f S c h o o l . . . . 5 0  4-2  Analysis of Variance in French  i n Each School  37  by C r i t e r i o n  39 o f t h e Sample Design  40  Matrix...47  f o r Number o f Books a n d SES  I m m e r s i o n and N o n - F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n G r o u p s  50  4-3  WISC-R S c a l e Means b y Type o f S c h o o l  52  4-4  TONI R e s u l t s b y Type o f 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 b y Type o f S c h o o l  54  4-6  Range o f T e s t S c o r e s  f o r t h e WISC-R, t h e TONI,  and t h e CWFT b y Type o f S c h o o l  56  4-7  Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness o f F i t T e s t  54  4-8  Analysis of Variance  on t h e WISC-R  56  4-9  Analysis of Variance  on t h e TONI  56  4-10 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e 4-11 A n a l y s i s o f C o v a r i a n c e  on t h e C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g T e s t . . 5 8 o f t h e TONI and t h e CWFT  w i t h t h e WISC-R a s C o v a r i a t e 4-12 F r e n c h  Immersion Versus Non-French  Unadjusted  58 Immersion  a n d A d j u s t e d Means f o r C o g n i t i v e  Ability  on t h e TONI. A, TONI. B, a n d C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g T e s t 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 59  v i 11 4-14 P e a r s o n C o r r e l a t i o n  Coefficients  f o r t h e F r e n c h Immersion 4-15 P e a r s o n C o r r e l a t i o n f o r the Non-French 4-16 P e a r s o n C o r r e l a t i o n  Group  61  Coefficients Immersion  Group  62  Coefficients  f o r E a c h Type o f S c h o o l Between TONI A and TONI B, A c c o r d i n g t o t h e O r d e r o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e TONI  62  ix  L I S T OF  FIGURES  FIGURE 5-1  D i f f e r e n c e s Between Scores on the WISC-R by Age f o r the E n t i r e Sample  and the TONI A 72  X  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I  wish to thank Dr. P a t r i c i a A r l i n  colleagues and friends the proposal stage  for their  of my  graduate student  valuable comments,  thesis research.  Bergant, Suzanne Jacobsen, Cathy  and my  I  p a r t i c u l a r l y at  am indebted  Nolan, and Maria  to Lydia  Iaquinta for their  help in testing and scoring.  I  greatly appreciated  c l a r i f y i n g my  thoughts  the help of Dr. William  and expression  of  ideas  Bruneau i n  through  numerous  discussions. I am e s p e c i a l l y 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,  a v a i l a b i l i t y , and helped me with  for  to my  sharing  her  committee members:  expertise  and  Dr. Robert  for her Conry, who  the methodology and the use of the computer,  and Dr  Robert Roy for his support and his perspicacious input.  A f i n a l word of appreciation goes to those Vancouver School Board students, p r i n c i p a l s , 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  between b i l i n g u a l i s m and c o g n i t i v e argued t h a t b i l i n g u a l i s m that b i l i n g u a l i s m  i n s t a n c e , s t u d i e d Welsh  occurred and Smith  i t . Saer  in English.  d i s a d v a n t a g e . Nowadays,  performed  non-verbal test involving  better  problem.  better  than  English-French  unilinguals  the s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s difference  reorganize  bilingual  on v e r b a l  r e s u l t s and on  intelligence tests.  more and are  b i l i n g u a l i s m enhances  hand, t h a t  a b i l i t y to  t h e two groups  significant  becoming  than u n i l i n g u a l  However, a f t e r  found no  an i n t e l l e c t u a l  English-French on a type of  c o n c e p t - f o r m a t i o n 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 of a  i n the monoglots,  disagreement as to the answer. For example,  (1962) found, on the one  bilingual children  confusion"  and p r o f e s s i o n a l s  q u e s t i o n whether  for  not.  There i s c o n s i d e r a b l e  performed  Immersion i s  say  I r i s h , but  "mental  to be  parents, researchers  i n the  c o g n i t i v e development or  elements  mother tongue was  b i l i n g u a l i s m seemed  i n Canada,  Lambert and P e a l  and Smith (1923),  Saer s t a t e d t h a t  when French  have  w h i l e others  the b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n than  concluded t h a t  once a g a i n i n t e r e s t e d  (1922)  c h i l d r e n whose  more o f t e n i n  more popular  development. Some r e s e a r c h e r s  enhances c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y  hinders  who a t t e n d e d s c h o o l  c o n c e r n i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p  between the  children  intelligence  had been matched of the  m e n t a l l y the also tests.  on n o n v e r b a l t e s t p a r e n t s , the authors  two groups  on v e r b a l  2 B a r i k and Swain's (1976) l o n g i t u d i n a l over a  three  year p e r i o d  (Grade  program students and F r e n c h measure or s u b t e s t  1 to  study found no d i f f e r e n c e  3)  between  Immersion s t u d e n t s  scores for  c h i l d r e n from  regular English  with  respect to  grade 1  to 3  I.Q.  when the  s c o r e s 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 subjects  as  "high"  a c h i e v e r s , and looked  French  a t the  achievers  i n c r e a s e of  year p e r i o d . High a c h i e v e r s were those who four t e s t s of F r e n c h performance; low a t the bottom t h i r d on the same a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s the h i g h  and  t h e i r I.Q. over  French the three  s c o r e d a t the top t h i r d on  a c h i e v e r s were those who  scored  four t e s t s of F r e n c h performance. The  showed a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e  French a c h i e v e r s  "low"  group over  the  of the I.Q.  three year  period,  of  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 F r e n c h a c h i e v e r s . These f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t b i l i n g u a l i s m may those b i l i n g u a l s who have t h e i r second language.  i n c r e a s e the I.Q.  attained a certain level  However, the authors  of  of p r o f i c i e n c y i n  do not take  a stand  and  c o n c l u d e 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 t h a t the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  cognitive  complex one"  and  bilingualism  t h a t "the  (Barik and Swain, 1976, The opposing  p.  measure  warrants  functioning  is  a  further investigation."  261)  f i n d i n g s on the  and c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g methodological  issue  and  can i n  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 p a r t be  e x p l a i n e d by  sampling and  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  cognitive  ability,  the  matching  of  the  subjects  s o c i o e c o n o m i c 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.  on  3  The  i n f l u e n c e o f socioeconomic  demonstrated  status  i n s e v e r a l s t u d i e s . However,  on I.Q. has  i n most  been  earlier studies  i n v o l v i n g b i l i n g u a l s and i n some o f more r e c e n t 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 o f t h e i r  p a r e n t s . T h i s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l s t e p 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 t h e y  g e n e r a l l y come from  h i g h e r 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 k i n d  f a i r n e s s o f the t e s t s population  used r e g a r d i n g the language  concerned.  Because  l a n g u a g e - o r i e n t e d , t h e y might when g i v e n  arts.  whether the WISC-R  Nielsen  test,  students with  those  and c u l t u r e of the  intelligence  when  these  students  (1983)  tests  are  a r e f o r m a l l y taught  conducted  administered  Immersion grade 2 s t u d e n t s , puts them r e s u l t s on WISC-R t e s t s  be the  be u n f a i r t o F r e n c h Immersion s t u d e n t s  i n E n g l i s h before  E n g l i s h language  of r e s e a r c h may  research  i n English to  t o see French  a t a d i s a d v a n t a g e . She compared  g i v e n i n E n g l i s h t o grade 2 French Immersion  of grade  2 s t u d e n t s from  the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h  program. Although the F r e n c h Immersion group mean was h i g h e r , a n a l y s i s of the 12  subtests  and  three  IQ s c o r e s  r e v e a l e d no  significant  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 a d m i n i s t e r e d i n E n g l i s h t o F r e n c h  Immersion s t u d e n t s does  not put them a t a d i s a d v a n t a g e . One s o l u t i o n t o the problem of the f a i r n e s s  of t h e t e s t used,  has been t o a d m i n i s t e r a t r a n s l a t i o n of the t e s t . In her r e v i e w 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 u s i n g t r a n s l a t i o n s o f s t a n d a r d i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s . She s a i d language were language.  t h a t t h e r e s u l t s of s u b j e c t s t e s t e d lower than  However,  t h e i r r e s u l t s when  she suggested  that  i n their  second  tested i n their f i r s t "the t r a n s l a t i o n of a  s t 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 t o t h e 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 t o t h e problem o f f a i r n e s s  has been  t o use  nonverbal t e s t s as a measure t o compare the g e n e r a l 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, t h e r e i s o n l y 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 the WISC-R or the B i n e t . Lambert Progressive Matrices  test  and Tucker  as a nonverbal  purpose o f t h e t e s t i s t o measure only p e r c e n t i l e scores.  Items  a b i l i t y ; they were c o n s t r u c t e d a l o n e . Raven's  comparisons  (1972)  used the Raven's  I.Q. t e s t .  do not t e s t  verbal  t o d e a l with  or mathematical  v i s u a l s p a t i a l reasoning a reliable  estimate  and reason  by analogy  range from +.54 t o +.86 (Raven, 1976), standard  (Raven,  1976).  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 since  Although  and t h e WISC-R  the c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y of t h e  intelligence tests  s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h e WISC-R  of a  c l e a r l y when a l l o w e d t o work s t e a d i l y , t o  c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e 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 with  However, the  r e a s o n i n g c a p a c i t y and i t y i e l d s  i n t e n t i o n was t o p r o v i d e  person's c a p a c i t y t o t h i n k form  i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s such as  has not been  Matrices  the l a t t e r  cannot be  convincingly used  o f f e r s much  as a  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 t h e WISC-R  equivalent  (Holmes, 1981)  t e s t have  been  shown  n o t t o be  5  The use between the  of i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s to two groups  another d i f f i c u l t l y .  as  compare c o g n i t i v e  t r a d i t i o n a l studies  The v a r i e t y  have  of d e f i n i t i o n s  functioning  done, p r e s e n t 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  confusion.  by i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s seem  Furthermore, a b i l i t i e s measured  too v a r i e d , e a s i l y t o  permit the d i s c o v e r y  between b i l i n g u a l and u n i l i n g u a l visual  motor  integration,  of c o n s i s t e n t  differences  c h i l d r e n . Memory, v i s u a l  perception,  organization,  knowledge  information,  problem s o l v i n g i n s o c i a l c o n t e x t ,  and l o g i c a l  reasoning,  involved in  standard i n t e l l i g e n c e  are  only a  few  of  as w e l l as c o n c e p t u a l  examples  t e s t s . When  of the  comparing  abilities two groups  u s i n g t h i s k i n d 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 t e s t s , both  p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e ,  may  to do  with  not be s i g n i f i c a n t .  s t u d i e s comparing b i l i n g u a l s  i n v o l v e s t u d e n t s with  and u n i l i n g u a l s d i d not  l e a r n i n g problems unless  learning d i s a b i l i t i e s .  of the  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 Generally,  basic  The  r e s e a r c h had d i r e c t l y  c h o i c e of  subjects  f o r the  samples who  have average or above-average academic s u c c e s s reduces the  chances of  finding  differences  samples. For the p r e c e e d i n g to compare b i l i n g u a l s  on  intelligence  r e a s o n s , i t seems to  and u n i l i n g u a l s  i n d u c t i v e and d e d u c t i v e  t e s t s between be more  appropriate  on s p e c i f i c a b i l i t i e s  r e a s o n i n g , which  might be  the  such as  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  F r e n c h Immersion s c h o o l s have which t h e y d e f i n e  as "an  that b i l i n g u a l  c h i l d r e n from  developed " l i n g u i s t i c d e t e c t i v e  attentive, patient, inductive  skills"  concern with  6  words,  meanings  and  linguistic  a u t h o r s based t h i s i n f e r e n c e bilinguals  on  tests  comprehension, such s k i l l s  of  on the French  and d e c o d i n g . i n French  regularities"  (1972,  p.208).  The  b e t t e r - t h a n - e x p e c t e d r e s u l t s of word  I t seems  discrimination,  natural that  Immersion s i t u a t i o n  where  listening  c h i l d r e n develop a l l subjects are  taught i n French from K i n d e r g a r t e n t o the end of grade 3. Teachers use g e s t u r e , mimes and p i c t u r e s t o communicate t h e i r message; the c h i l d r e n have t o  pay  very  close a t t e n t i o n to  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  these  c l u e s , and use  a b i l i t y i n order  their  to understand the  meaning of what i s s a i d . The  g o a l of the s t u d y of r e a s o n i n g  demonstrate whether  those  who  acquire  s u p e r i o r r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y . I t was a l s o d i a l o g u e c o n c e r n i n g the  a b i l i t y between  a  second  on how  study should o f f e r  best to  bilinguals  and  s k i l l s as proposed here emphasizes  test  language  develop  t o c o n t r i b u t e t o the h i s t o r i c  p o s s i b l e c o r r e l a t i o n between  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 to i n v e s t i g a t o r s  a b i l i t y here proposed was t o  second  language  a new p e r s p e c t i v e  for differences in cognitive  unilinguals.  Testing for  reasoning  s p e c i f i c t h i n k i n g processes rather  than l e a r n e d f a c t s .  Statement of the Problem  The g o a l of t h i s s t u d y was t o compare l e v e l s of r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y a t the end  of grade 3  matched on socioeconomic  of b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n background.  and u n i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n  7 B i l i n g u a l s c h i l d r e n were French  Immersion  since  defined as students  Kindergarten  f a m i l i e s where t h e o n l y language used Unilingual children  and  were d e f i n e d a s  f a m i l i e s where t h e o n l y language used  the students Nonverbal  coming  students  a  nonverbal  Test),  both  in a  anglophone  i n t h e home w a s E n g l i s h .  reasoning  t o results obtained  ability  I n t e l l i g e n c e ) and on a v e r b a l r e a s o n i n g  Word F i n d i n g  anglophone  registered  and coming from  a b i l i t y was m e a s u r e d a c c o r d i n g on  from  i n t h e home was E n g l i s h .  regular E n g l i s h program since Kindergarten  Reasoning  registered In early  tests involving  test  (theTest  by of  test (the Children's  inductive  and deductive  reasoning. T h e r e was unilingual. reasoning The  one independent  There were  variable, the  two dependent  variables, the level  and t h e l e v e l of nonverbal  reasoning.  o b j e c t i v e o f t h e s t u d y was  t o serve  of answering  the question  whether  condition bilingual or  there  the t h e o r e t i c a l purpose  i s a  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 level of verbal and nonverbal Furthermore, led t o verifying to e s t a b l i s h  the use  the equivalence  i t s concurrent  Children's Word-Finding s t u d y had been done WISC-R  o f t h e TONI a s  f o r normal  was  on t h e concurrent populations.  ability.  reasoning  test  and Form B o f t h e t e s t and  validity with  Test. This  reasoning  a nonverbal  of Form A  of verbal  the  WISC-R a n d  important  to  v a l i d i t y of the  do  with the b e c a u s e no  TONI w i t h t h e  8  Although focus  It is  exclusively  M a t r i c e s . The  c a l l e d an  on p r o b l e m  authors  s o l v i n g as  pointed  i n t e l l i g e n c e measures a small (manual p.25). has  been  education  retarded) groups,  that  Reviewers of the "T.O.N.I.  v a l i d i t y than  group  (eg; deaf,  needs  much  learning  Lennon  nonverbal  Mental  Ability  more  empirical  evidence  Test).  Yearbook of  said  concurrent  (Mayo, 1985, p.1581).  o f t h e TONI w i t h  purpose of  mentally  o n t h e TONI a r e  Measurement  to date"  16) o f  p. 1 4 ) . F o r normal  Mental  Word F i n d i n g  the  of  disabled,  scores  Test  the  t h e WISC-R a n d t h e  shed  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 In summary,  Progressive  (N=10 t o  the last  has been presented  the Children's  groups,  (Otis  Comparing the c o r r e l a t i o n s TONI w i t h  items  construct of intelligence  t o +.95 9 ( m a n u a l ,  I.Q.  test in  test  small samples  as opposed t o s p e c i a l education to  TONI's  Raven's  their  of the  with very  groups  i n the  the  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  a n d r a n g e s f r o m +.46  compared o n l y  that  out piece  The c o n c u r r e n t  established only  special  intelligencetest,  some l i g h t  on t h e  groups.  s t u d y was  to  answer  three  questions: 1.  Is there between  a  difference  grade  3  on t h e  French  level  Immersion  Non-French Immersion students,  of  reasoning  students  and i f there  and  ability grade  3  i s one, i n which  direction? 2.  What i s t h e  concurrent  validity  WISC-R t e s t a n d w i t h t h e C h i l d r e n  of the  TONI t e s t  Word F i n d i n g T e s t ?  with the Are the  9  v a l i d i t y coefficients  different  in magnitude  Immersion and Non-French Immersion? 3. Are the two forms of the TONI test equivalent?  between French  10  CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  This  Chapter  b i l i n g u a l i s m and earlier  status,  I t then  implications  particular,  t h epertinent literature  cognitive ability.  research.  important  reviews  o n the v a r i a b l e s  context,  o f b o o k s owned b ythe  the  kinds  Chapter  central question  has  (1923) and  only  a  suggested  minimal  that  u s e d , and  problem  (1956).  causal  perception  considerable  language and  categorized that  in  time  number the  and  is  development  i n t e r e s t e d , among o t h e r s , Piaget argued that  in cognitive  t o studying  "schools":  language precedes  the  Ability,  language i n the  language as In b r i e f  and  first  having  Whorf's  necessary  .its  language Whorf mental  (1962) a l s o  t h er e l a t i o n s h i p  these  both  development,  o f t h eenvironment  of c o g n i t i o n . two  socioeconomic  requires prior investigation  Although  role  c o g n i t i o n . He saw  the development  study; i n  b yr e v i e w i n g  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n depend e s s e n t i a l l y o nlanguage. V i g o t s k y devoted  have  Studies  of t h i s study  broader Whorf  the  concludes  i s s u e : t h a t of the r o l e of  of c o g n i t i o n . This  t h a t may  in this  C o g n i t i v e Development and Early  Piaget  of t e s t s  reviewing  research.  B i l i n g u a l i s m and  of a broader  used  of bilingualism,  f a m i l y . The  most r e c e n t l y completed  The  by briefly  proceeds to o u t l i n e studies  t h ed e f i n i t i o n  the s o c i a l  I t begins  concerning  between  a leading role in researchers  school, which  to cognitive  may  be  claims  development,  11  and  Piaget's  school,  which defends  closely related to cognitive  have  are  subsequently  bilingual children  the  attempted to reconcile these  two  discovery  and  found that  at  the  b i l i n g u a l s and favour the  of the  preoperational  bilinguals;  b i l i n g u a l g r o u p had  advantage. There stage.  c o n c l u d e d by  "The  differences view  that  s e e n as  of o p e r a t i v e  a s l i g h t but  The another  studies  each.  the time  task  of  (1975) six  year  involved  the  situations.  difference was  with  Bain  his study  other  various  between  significant  concrete  He  operation  in  stage  in  transfer  time at  either  saying: in discovery s p e c i f i c kinds  structures  time of  were s e e n as  lack of view  (1975,  support  language experience difference  for give  in transfer  that developmental level  determine performance l i m i t s  i n t r o d u c t i o n of  of  previously  p.13). intelligence tests in  impetus for study,  b i l i n g u a l s and  not  non-statistically significant  differences  support for Piaget's  learnt material."  in  stage  in discovery  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 . The t i m e was  opposed,  subjects'  however, at the  w e r e no  He  Vigotsky's  schools  of  t h e i r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to  unilinguals  language Is  empirical  viability  u n i l i n g u a l s . The  of r u l e s and  that  i n some r e s p e c t s conducted  test  old bilinguals  to  view  development.  Because these theories researchers  the  unilinguals  e s p e c i a l l y of on  these  c o r r e l a t i o n between i n t e l l i g e n c e and  the  differences  tests,  and  bilingualism.  of  1920's  provided  in results any  of  possible  12 Before tests  1960,  most such s t u d i e s  for b i l i n g u a l s than  valuable  as  a  reported  for unilinguals.  catalogue  of  earlier  Darcy's  research  c a t e g o r i e s : studies which found a "favorable found an  "unfavorable  of b i l i n g u a l i s m  effect",  presents  In  of the  (1923)  t o n g u e was  he  test to  the  vocabulary both  t e s t e d 1400  who  were  found  the  attending  f o u n d no  an  who  subjects  of u n i l i n g u a l s  E n g l i s h and  "mental confusion"  occurs  an  English  between the  by s t a t i n g by with  explained  i n the  that  learning other  than  that  the  bilingual children  "children second  children,  gave a mean  t h a t of the  this finding  two.  the  second language at  found  higher  group  or  the  age,  the  rural  urban b i l i n g u a l group to  in contact  and  was  W e l s h . He  children  be  his study  learn  He  to  difference  early  year  test.  to  unilingual  on  each  Stanford-Binet  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 same  research  children  Welsh t r a n s l a t i o n  concluded  those  the  compared the  at  to publish  r u r a l b i l i n g u a l group to the  t h e i r p l a y and  an a d v a n t a g e over  first  o f 11 w i t h  g r o u p he  t h a t he  language during  1953,  the  W e l s h and  group,  bilingual  (Darcy,  was  compared the  urban u n i l i n g u a l  two  ones  non-standardized  unilingual  become  which  review.  s u p e r i o r . H o w e v e r , when he  who  effect", studies  are  of 7 t o t h e age  Darcy reported  three  Following  from the  urban  in  intelligence.  i n t e l l i g e n c e . He  s c h o o l . When he  ordered  upon measurement of  and  whose mother  (1953) i s  effect"  bilingualism  a  IQ  f o u n d "no  Wales, Saer  administered  review  on  studies which  i n her  age  results  and  characteristic studies she  lower  by  have  school" vocabulary range  bilinguals  of in  stating  that  more o f t e n  than  13  In 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 do n o t s u p p o r t thought, s i n c e Saer  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  regard to cognitive a b i l i t y .  In addition,  been  standardized  arriving at a clear  Pintner  (1932)  in  the  that  language  c o n c l u s i o n on t h e  problem.  compared the r e s u l t s of  Pintner Primary  c h i l d r e n as  -  430  judgements unilinguals  of  their  bilinguals  were used.  is likely  second  h i g h e r t h a n the b i l i n g u a l group and this  experiment,  one  This  three  Mental  of  classify  obtained  scored higher group  s c h o o l he  important  the  classifying  the u n i l i n g u a l  is  Test  found  no  that  t h a t the  level  A m o n g 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  which  not c o n t r o l l e d  bilingualism  intelligence.  In  to  those  be  socioeconomic status,  sex  adequately controlled.  Eleven  unilinguals  and  at a l l .  associated  studies, and  b i l i n g u a l s on  to  scored  note  b i l i n g u a l i s m was  found  from  inaccurate. Pintner  s u b j e c t s were n o t m a t c h e d on s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s and of  -  from  surnames or  way  i n the t h i r d i t  with  us  order to  school the b i l i n g u a l group  than the u n i l i n g u a l , i n the  In  Primary  unilingual, only  d i s p a r a t e r e s u l t s : i n one  difference.  children  In  their teachers  and  prevent  Non-Language T e s t .  b i l i n g u a l or  groups  of the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t t h a t  elementary schools using the Pintner-Cunningham and  two  methodological problems  such as the use of a t r a n s l a t i o n i n Welsh had n o t  Whorf's s c h o o l of  she degree  with  a  argues, of  s t u d i e s found intelligence.  higher variables  bilingualism no d i f f e r e n c e  level  of  such  as  were  not  between  14 Darcy argued that second  language  bilinguals, nonverbal  were  since  not  a)  two  adequate  measures  "language handicap"  when t e s t e d  defined  later,  as  intelligence  From there  earlier  because of  earlier  studies.  In t r y i n g  performed to e s t a b l i s h cognitive ability.  innumerable confounding  of  the  studies are  250).  differences than  bilingual not  for  from  a  tests.  As  children,  disadvantaged  by  language.  d i f f i c u l t to say  whether  problems  of t h i s k i n d ,  human  true experiment  As give  and  be  possible,  researchers  indication  language s k i l l s  not  bilingualism  MacNab (1979) p o i n t s no  are  subjects.  could  experiment were  would prevent  described  researchers  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  variables  a s s o c i a t i o n s found between ( 1 9 7 9 , p.  are  even i f such an  c o r r e l a t i o n a l and  on  suffer  have t o d e a l w i t h  view, a  a r r i v i n g at a clear conclusion.  higher  intelligence  methodological  a causal For  of  c o r r e l a t i o n between b i l i n g u a l i s m and  to answer questions  point  that  a  I.Q.  bilingual  in their first  with another problem: they  From a conceptual  and  students,  i s a p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e  in these  scored b)  that  studies, i t is  cognition level  faced  (1983) found  Immersion  the  bilinguals  with verbal  tests administered  these  that  measures i n  of  often  larger for  argues  Nielsen  French  measures  most  were  Darcy  report  I.Q.  on v e r b a l m e a s u r e s , and  u n i l i n g u a l groups.  we  cases verbal  bilinguals  measures than  between those  i n most  of the  cognitive  out,  from "most  cause  of  ability"  15  The  study of  empirical evidence with cognitive selected Board.  364  In  Lambert  development.  order to  Peabody  bilinguals"  and  p e r s o n who  eliminated. is  "the c r i t e r i o n c l e a r l y more •»  proficient  b a l a n c e d . Macnamara  in  and  u n i l i n g u a l groups.  bilinguals groups  on  used:  Progressive  Subjects i n one  and  and  did  Lambert study  still  use  be  Lambert's  l i n g u i s t i c comparison  Intelligence Matrices  Primary Mental A b i l i t i e s  l e a s t d i r e c t l y on v e r b a l a b i l i t y  the  translated (1962,  Three  the  in French, a and  a as  (1962), could  be as of  measures bilingual  s u b j e c t s as  (1962) t e s t e d  achievement.  Test  as  method  between  the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the  v e r b a l measure,  the  classified  of l i n g u i s t i c  Lambert  or  defined  89 not  E n g l i s h . However,  P e a l and  that the  P e a l and  a  who  of  category  was  Word  Subjective  been q u i t e l e n i e n t " . A c h i l d  i n t e l l i g e n c e , a t t i t u d e and  Group Test of General  Thurstone  After  or u n i l i n g u a l s ,  i n t e l l i g e n c e were  the Raven  i n French  (1966) c r i t i c i z e d  i n v a l i d a t e s any  they  Test,  Test,  bilingual"  English  selecting bilinguals, arguing f o r so d o i n g  be c l a s s i f i e d  has  School  authors obtained a group  r e f e r r i n g t o P e a l and  for balance  (1962)  the C a t h o l i c  Vocabulary  A "balanced  Cummins (1976) remarked,  Lambert  from b i l i n g u a l s ,  75 m o n o l i n g u a l s .  equally skilled  and  (Word A s s o c i a t i o n  Picture  obtain the necessary score to other were  Peal  distinguish unilinguals to the subjects  to give  positively correlated  schools of  Self-Ra'iing Score). From these, the "balanced  be  In Montreal  from French  4 tests  Test,  (1962) were the f i r s t  t h a t b i l i n g u a l i s m might  subjects  administered Detection  P e a l and  the  two  measures  of  Lavoie-Laurendeau nonverbal subtests  i n French  p. 9 ) . F o r  the  measure: from  the  which  drew  statistical  16 analysis,  the s u b j e c t s were  m a t c h e d on s e x , a g e ,  and  socioeconomic  status.  Results nonverbal  showed t h a t the  subtests  involving  reorganization, called t h e two  groups  perceptual  by  performed  speed.  learned  Peal  flexibility  both  and  The  b i l i n g u a l s appeared  age,  They s a i d  t o a n o t h e r , and  when t h e two sex,  groups and  difference  at  abilities  what a s p e c t s making  this  the  same  hypothesis  time)  them  on  for  (those  develop  more  to s w i t c h from  of two d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s .  status, verbal  verbal tests.  there  was  no  of " d i v e r s i t y "  The  is unclear, the  on  significant  intelligence.  the monolinguals. I t  However,  as w e l l as  t o have a more " d i v e r s i f i e d  brought  I t gave  new  life  insight  authors s e t " of  however  authors appealed  most r e c e n t s t u d i e s i n variables: f a i r n e s s of  t o r e s e a r c h on  into the  v a r i a b l e s not p r e v i o u s l y considered  home.  an  only  to in  judgment.  bilingualism.  context,  while  t h a t compound b i l i n g u a l s  t o p e r f o r m b e t t e r on  or c r i t e r i a  This study  following  offered  t o make use  socioeconomic  than  mental  flexibility,"  w e r e m a t c h e d on n o n v e r b a l a b i l i t y  between  b e t t e r on  and  they have c o n s t a n t l y  concluded t h a t b i l i n g u a l s appear mental  "mental  Lambert  i n t h i n k i n g because  code  performed  concept-formation  the authors  languages  one  group  s i m i l a r l y on n o n v e r b a l t e s t s r e q u i r i n g  explaining this result. who  bilingual  bilingualism, the t e s t s  importance and  in this  the f i e l d , are  intelligence  f i e l d of  preceded  role  research.  by f i n d i n g s  socioeconomic  used, and  the  status,  t h e number  on  and of The the  social  o f books  at  17  Bilingualism  B i l i n g u a l i s m was t h e l e a s t w e l l d e f i n e d studies.  In  some  studies,  classification as a with  two languages  the  only  b i l i n g u a l was  variable necessary  simply t o  t h e other end of the scale,  definitions  of bilingualism,  While  measures o f  be  as i nPeal  expected  linguistic  to  balance  comparison of the b i l i n g u a l and Lambert s t u d y 200 that  they  have been i n  subjects  could  English  of bilingualism  may  clear  had  (1962).  such as the  a  bias  precise into  the  unilingual groups. I n the Peal and  out of  364 were  not unambiguously  different  1937).  results,  introduce  be  rejected  cognitive  on t h e  classified  monolingual or b i l i n g u a l . I t i sthen possible bilinguals  or even  operational  and Lambert's study  produce  of  contact  (Pintner,  a r e somewhat more p r e c i s e  nonrigorous definitions  former cannot  condition  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 ) ,  to have a surname which sounded other than At  i ntheearlier  that  abilities  as  selected  than  basis either  balanced  the  rejected  bilinguals.  In o r d e r t o f i n d o u t i f t h e method o f s e l e c t i n g b i l i n g u a l s by  Peal  and  Lambert  between b i l i n g u a l s verbal  (1962)  invalidates  and unilinguals  and nonverbal a b i l i t y  , Cummins  a n d found no d i f f e r e n c e  on  On  abilities.  differences  t h e other hand,  on measures o f  comparisons  (1975) examined  of balanced and non-balanced  i n one o f h i s s t u d i e s these  linguistic  divergent  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  used  the  bilinguals  between t h e two groups there  thinking  were  between  by saying  that  significant balanced and thecriterion  18 o£  balance  ? t u d y had aptitude attain  in recent studies been l e n i e n t  c,  intelligence,  used  studies biased  the  samples." ability  (1976,  is unlike'y  to select  the  comparison  p.17).  the P e a l and  t h a t "a h i g h l e v e l  t h e c r i t e r i o n of b a l a n c e " and  the procedures  The  to  expertise  have been  t h a t " t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e  refers  to  as  and  languages.  must a t t a i n an adequate  in  their  second  still  balanced  unilinguals  level  language  bilinguals  who  in either  of t h e i r  administered  i n both  of t h e i r  proposed  hypotheses  two  intelligence competent  in  tests both  minimum t h r e s h o l d  that  monolingual on  cognitive  in their  to explain  languages: of  is a function  language  Then, t h e y must a t t a i n  lower  than  in  t h r e s h o l d of  of  were 1979)  bilinguals  language.  of competence  i n the  bilingual  i n order to avoid  tests  (1976 and  second  of competence  a second  results  in  were a p p r o x i m a t e l y as  that the l e v e l  of l i n g u i s t i c competence which second  have  interdependence,  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  their  Toukomaa, 1976)  results  developmental competence  as  cognitive  when a c h i e v e m e n t  lower  of  that  language  avoid  l a n g u a g e s . Cummins  second  language  and  level  suggested  first  to  i n s t u d i e s where b i l i n g u a l s  level  a low  (1976)  obtained  languages  theory suggests  in  to  subsequent  and  attain  in order  still  interdependence  level  in  results  Cummins  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  The  learning  necessary  b i l i n g u a l samples  biais  (1962)  language  between b i l i n g u a l  c a n be b a l a n c e d  i n both of t h e i r  bilinguals  used  of  Lambert  tests.  Bilinguals  well  and  including  be  first  and The in a  language.  a first threshold  children  cognitive  must  attain  disadvantage.  linguistic  competence  19 in their being  second  language  bilingual  from  functioning.  not attained  Studies finding  second  characteristics:  on  a) a r e  c) have  their  language  ability  The opposed  comparable chosen  bilinguals  for bilinguals bilinguals  not  of  bilingualism,  in  who  language.  attained  who  in their  attained  an  so that  have a t  tests.  first  on the  sample  possible  to the  their education, their  Immersion  children  spend  starting  to in  investigation  of  ability.  a  random (as sample  s c h o o l s which would  and French  50% of t h e i r  of their  by  bilinguals")  monolingual  approximately equivalent. In fact,  following  disadvantaged  so as t o involve  that  language i n grade  of  be a s  sample.The sample  3 on t h e a s s u m p t i o n  English  the  of competence  invites  of "balanced  the present  b e f o r e coming  are not being  and c o g n i t i v e  Cummins'  i n both  level  Such a p o p u l a t i o n  between b i l i n g u a l i s m  selected  least  language  adequate  they  and  a study such as  approximately as s k i l l e d  a t t h e end of grade  Immersion  made t h e  and u n i l i n g u a l s  who h a d  of  cognitive  i n t h e i r second  between b i l i n g u a l s  s u b j e c t s from French as  their  involved  level  p r e s e n t s t u d y was a r r a n g e d  to a  bilingual  threshold  definitions  b) a r e c o m p e t e n t  a correlation  of  h y p o t h e s i s , Cummins  ability,  of b i l i n g u a l s  school, and  cognitive  cognitive  suggest the importance,  second  view  advantage  level.  a sample  languages,  from the  obtained lower r e s u l t s  involved  threshold  hypotheses,  on  of  threshold  no d i f f e r e n c e  ability  of  point  which  the f i r s t  T h i s work  one,  the  studies  than f o r unilinguals  cognitive  order to benefit  Concerning the  inference that  had  in  was  at that  point i n  levels  would  4, e a r l y  time being taught  be  French  i n French  20  and  50%  their  time  being  s t r u c t u r e presumes  that  from  skilled  of  i n English  demonstrated  grade  i n French.  i n English. 3 on,  Cummins'  research  and  operationally defined,  theory has although  students  However, t h i s  study the bilingual  not  not  been  s u b j e c t s came f r o m u n i l i n g u a l  i nearly  o f grade  immersion  2. I n g r a d e  classes  at t h e end of  grade  second  t o encounter  language  children  In this  t o grade  i s spent  language  3. I n  of time spent i n  i s 100% from K i n d e r g a r t e n  3, 8 0 % o f t i m e  r e m a i n i n g 20% i s spent on E n g l i s h 3,  implications  E n g l i s h homes a n d  (V.S.B.), the percentage  School Board  by  are not  subjects i n the present study.  the Vancouver  to the-  i n French while the  arts.  I t i s assumed  that  enough i n  their  areproficient  no c o g n i t i v e d i s a d v a n t a g e o f  the kind  b y Cummins.  Socioeconomic  Status  A b o d y o f e v i d e n c e now shows how e s s e n t i a l the v a r i a b l e ability.  has  b e a r some  school from Kindergarten  described  are equally  levels  attended French Immersion  end  teaching  been y e t supported  the threshold  Cummins' hypotheses  for the choice of bilingual  French  This  by any study.  Although empirical  and  taught  of socioeconomic  The importance  student aspirations,  background  h a s b e e n well d o c u m e n t e d  i n any study  of the socioeconomic  c o g n i t i v e development,  i ti s t o control f o r  background as well  of cognitive on  as  achievement,  i n t h e U n i t e d - S t a t e s (Coleman,  1966; Blau  21 and  Duncan, 1967) as w e l l as  i n Canada  (Harvey,  1974; Laxer  et a l ,  1974).  Burns  (1982) conducted  to study French regard  Immersion parents'  t o income,  general  occupation,  population.  represent an e l i t e more  extensive  Furthermore,  formal  has  found  higher  their  Although  Board  that French  Considering  the results  background,  i t  appears  on t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c  statistical  adjustments  variable should income or  parents  have a  higher  income and a  the  general  population.  than  heavily  of  in  refer to  the  of  among  Burns'  Ontario, Burn  French  study  are  reported  that  t h e same k i n d o f from  children  study, and  families of  a  p u p i l s i n regular E n g l i s h programs. of  the studies to  match  status of their data analyses.  levels  of formal  on  socioeconomic  bilinguals parents, The  with  o r t o make  socioeconomic  education  as w e l l  as  occupation.  Social  Here, " s o c i a l language  represented  p u p i l s were  important  unilinguals  the  Immersion  Immersion  status than  as compared t o  French  conducted  socioeconomic  i n order  that  Region  has  Ontario  backgrounds - with  -  the conclusions  Northeastern  School  education  education are  i n Northern  socioeconomic  and  found  professionals  to the  the Toronto  He  cohort;  Immersion parents. limited  research  i s viewed  c o n t e x t " has  Context  t o do  by s o c i e t y . Lambert  with the  way t h e  second  ( 1 9 7 5 ) made t h e d i f f e r e n c e  22  between  "additive"  and  "subtractive"  bilingualism.  b i l i n g u a l i s m , the b i l i n g u a l i s adding a s o c i a l l y to h i s f i r s t language a t This  i s the  subtractive  case  i n Canadian  bilingualism,  language by h i s second associated  the  u n i l i n g u a l s on subtractive  no c o s t t o h i s f i r s t  the  French  relevant  language  language competence.  Immersion  bilingual  i n which  cognitive a b i l i t y  tests with  b i l i n g u a l i s m . He a s s o c i a t e d higher  schools.  i s replacing  bilinguals a  additive bilingualism  (1977)  lower  than  s o c i a l context  the majority  of  of  studies i n ability  bilingualism.  s o c i a l c o n t e x t of Canadian F r e n c h Immersion s c h o o l s  leads t o an  first  Lambert  scored  In  his  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  t e s t s with a s o c i a l context of a d d i t i v e The  additive  o n e , more s o c i a l l y a c c e p t e d .  studies  which b i l i n g u a l s scored  In  - should  n o t be  - which  the source  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 ability.  Fairness  Earlier studies  of the T e s t s  often reported  that  Used  b i l i n g u a l s were t e s t e d i n  t h e i r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e ( D a r c y , 1 9 5 3 ) . M o r e o v e r , t h e y were m o s t l y f r o m a culture pointed  other  than the  one  i n which  o u t t h a t some b i l i n g u a l s s u f f e r e d  they  English,  F r e n c h Immersion c h i l d r e n  Darcy  from a language handicap.  On t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e e x p e r i e n c e s , one fairer to test  were l i v i n g .  might ask whether i t i s in their  or i n t h e i r second language, F r e n c h .  first  language,  23 Nielsen  (1983)  WISC-R t e s t among  asked  grade  this question  2 French  Immersion  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 higher  SES  regarding the use  appear  t o be  for use  with  language  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  socioeconomic status of  French  students  immersion  the father;  from a higher socioeconomic c l a s s .  She i n d i c a t e d  differences other than the French  Immersion  her study  do  not  c h i l d r e n would program.  children  again  in  socioeconomic choose  perform  any  i f they had  from,  this  most  background  of the  prevents  D'Anglejan learners of  a  et a l  English  subjects  second  language  of children  were  on  how  The  between  results of  French  Immersion  score lower than t h e WISC-R  study,  the  conclusion  test  Non-French  in  limited  English. range  investigator on  the  of  had  to  effect  of  of groups  of  problems  of  functioning.  (1978)  as a  the limitations of  group.  subjects the  clear  deductive reasoning i n their that their  recent  were a l l  been c o n t i n u o u s l y i n a r e g u l a r  when a d m i n i s t e r e d  b i l i n g u a l i s m upon c o g n i t i v e  their  indication  on t h e  of the father  r e g u l a r program  I t o n l y shows t h a t t h e y do n o t  Immersion Once  give  main  were p o s s i b l e i n i t i a l  socioeconomic status  and the  whose  two groups  groups  By t h i s she meant t h a t t h e r e  She  disadvantageous  her subjects  her study's r e s u l t s by s t a t i n g t h a t her two "quasi-matched."  i n B.C.  children  however  of the  studied  second  the ability  language  to solve  n a t i v e and second  t o o k more  time t o  than i n their  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  language.  They  found  process the information i n  first  language  language.  It  whatever  their  i s possible that,  24  even though those s u b j e c t s were b i l i n g u a l s , t h e i r f i r s t still  dominant. On  not  language was  t h i s s u b j e c t , Cummins (1976) i n d i c a t e d  imply  complete  equilinguality  procedure used t o s e l e c t eliminate  those  who  t h a t " b a l a n c e " does  and t h a t  the  "balanced b i l i n g u a l s " was d e s i g n e d o n l y t o  were  more  dominant  i n one of t h e i r  languages. T h i s statement i m p l i e s t h a t c h i l d r e n remain dominant  quantitative  in their  first  two  i n F r e n c h Immersion  language. T h i s  has a l s o been  my  o b s e r v a t i o n i n French Immersion s c h o o l s .  T h i s r e s e a r c h s u g g e s t s t h a t i t might be more f a i r t o t e s t grade 3 French especially  Immersion  children  i n their  i f the t e s t s were o r a l  Number  of  first  language,  English,  tests.  Books  at  Home  F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e summary r e p o r t o f the B r i t i s h Columbia Reading Assessment ( J e r o s k i , i n the homes of t h e  1984, p.41) r e p o r t e d t h a t the number of books s t u d e n t s was an e f f e c t i v e  achievement i n r e a d i n g . A groups on t h i s v a r i a b l e the  tests  collected  used  and a n a l y s e d .  s i g n i f i c a n t difference  would  i n this  predictor  i n f l u e n c e the r e s u l t s  study. Therefore,  this  of s t u d e n t  between t h e two of s t u d e n t s on information  was  25  The  Latest  Studies  S i n c e the P e a l and Lambert experiment b i l i n g u a l i s m and  cognitive a b i l i t y  may  (1962),  be  r e s e a r c h on  summarized under  three  heads: general cognitive a b i l i t y , creative thinking.  No  l i n g u i s t i c f l e x i b i l i t y , and  researchers  have s t u d i e d  d i v e r g e n t or  the  relationship  between b i l i n g u a l i s m and v e r b a l and 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 . Because o f i t s  l o n g i t u d i n a l a s p e c t the s t u d y conducted by B a r i k  1  and Swain (1976) may bilingualism  and  e v e n t u a l l y show a c a u s a l  cognitive  confounding v a r i a b l e s a u t h o r s from  such  making such  ability. as  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  However,  social milieu  a link  some  have  (MacNab, 1979).  inevitable  prevented B a r i k and  c o l l e c t e d IQ d a t a ( u s i n g the O t i s - L e n o n Mental A b i l i t y 5 year p e r i o d French  w i t h p u p i l s from  Immersion  Immersion group group  over  the  school. scored  K i n d e r g a r t e n through  Considering  significantly  three-year  period  Grade  on  both  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 d i f f e r e n c e between the  a d j u s t e d the s c o r e s f o r i n i t i a l or  bilinguals already b i l i n g u a l l y toward b i l i n g u a l i s m .  For t h i s  T e s t ) over a  3  only,  the  a  the  comparison  classification  and  d i r e c t i o n s where t h e r e groups. Because t h e r e  two groups' IQ,  the a u t h o r s  IQ and found no s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e  decrease i n the IQ of the two groups  F i n a l l y , the a u t h o r s noted t h a t  Swain  grade 4 i n  to  h i g h e r than  a n a l o g i e s but not on the f o l l o w i n g of v e r b a l  was an i n i t i a l  1  the  over the t h r e e - y e a r p e r i o d .  the s t u d y d i d not  I n v o l v e balanced  competent, but r a t h e r reason,  they asked  p u p i l s moving the  question  26  whether those  pupils  (1976). A c c o r d i n g t o  had  a t t a i n e d the  Cummins'  threshold  Cummins' h y p o t h e s i s , i f t h e y had,  avoid c o g n i t i v e disadvantage,  or might p o t e n t i a l l y ,  cognitive functioning tests.  To answer  p u p i l s had a t t a i n e d t h e  Swain (1976) t e s t e d the French i n French  They  then  groups' i n d i v i d u a l s ' IQ over of the low  (1976),  compared t h e  Increase  a three-year period (K-3).  French a c h i e v e r s remained  3. T h i s  study gives  have  the t h r e s h o l d and  experienced  cognitive  of  t o Cummins'  threshold  French  t h e r e i s no evidence as  s c o r e of  from K i n d e r g a r t e n  proved t h a t low  disadvantage  both  The s c o r e s  unchanged w h i l e the  some support  h y p o t h e s i s . However, n o t h i n g here f a i l e d t o reach  B a r i k and  h i g h French a c h i e v e r s and  the h i g h French a c h i e v e r s i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o grade  those  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: achievers.  s c o r e h i g h e r on  Immersion p u p i l s on t h e i r p r o f i c i e n c y  u s i n g the Test de rendement en  low French  they would  t h e q u e s t i o n whether  Cummins' t h r e s h o l d l e v e l  level  their  achievers that  IQ  they  remained  unchanged from K i n d e r g a r t e n t o grade 3.  Other a u t h o r s tests  to  have used P i a g e t i a n t a s k s i n s t e a d of i n t e l l i g e n c e  investigate  c o g n i t i o n . L i e d k e and among  bilinguals  on  the  relation  N i e l s o n (1968) Piagetian  between observed  concept  bilingualism better  formation  performance tasks  c o n t r o l l i n g f o r age, s e x , socioeconomic  s t a t u s and  Bain  the p r e o p e r a t i o n a l  (1975)  reported that  showed an advantage on r u l e s a f t e r being grades .  bilinguals at  u n i l i n g u a l s at tasks r e q u i r i n g  matched on socioeconomic  However, a t  the  stage  after  intelligence. stage  d i s c o v e r y of  s t a t u s , IQ,  concrete operation  and  and s c h o o l  t h e r e was  no  27 significant  difference  between  the  bilingual  group  and  the  m o n o l i n g u a l group.  Some linguistic  of  the  abilities  recent of  s t u d i e s were  bilinguals  more  and  oriented  their  metalinguistic  awareness. Ianco-Worral (1972) s t u d i e d compound b i l i n g u a l s A f r i c a and found t h a t t h e y a t t e n d e d phonetic  relation  similarities  between  between words  words.  Monolinguals  more o f t e n  codes f o r each o b j e c t ,  e v e n t s i n terms linguistic  of  their  symbols.  according  interpreted to their  t h e y tend  to conceptualize  general p r o p e r t i e s  Ben-Zeev  (1977)  and  matched them f o r IQ w i t h m o n o l i n g u a l s .  had  l e s s vocabulary  more  acoustic  b i l i n g u a l s have  rather  things  and  than  studied  their  middle-class  Hebrew-English b i l i n g u a l s and l o w e r - c l a s s S p a n i s h - E n g l i s h  t a s k , but showed  i n South  more t o the s e m a n t i c than t o t h e  r a t h e r than t h e i r s e m a n t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Because two  towards  bilinguals  She found t h a t b i l i n g u a l s  and took longer t o respond on a word a s s o c i a t i o n  more advanced p r o c e s s i n g  b e t t e r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n making p e r c e p t u a l  of v e r b a l  m a t e r i a l , and  distinctions.  S e v e r a l s t u d i e s have shown t h a t b i l i n g u a l s a r e b e t t e r a t analysing l i n g u i s t i c  i n p u t than  are  monolinguals.  Cummins  (1978)  gave a t e s t t o b i l i n g u a l s and m o n o l i n g u a l s i n which p a r t i c i p a n t s had to  use  their  statements  deductive  were  true,  powers false  s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than and  Mulcahy (1978)  or  determine neither.  monolinguals.  anglophones  ambiguities  matched  i f contradictory Bilinguals  Another s t u d y  found t h a t U k r a i n i a n - E n g l i s h  were b e t t e r a b l e t o a n a l y s e group of  to  scored  from Cummins  bilingual children  i n sentence s t r u c t u r e than a  f o r IQ,  socioeconomic  status  and  28 s c h 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 t h e that b i l i n g u a l s  seem  to  attend  more  t o the  s e n t e n c e s , and semantic a s p e c t  of words, and  problems  forms  involving  u n i l i n g u a l s . In s u b j e c t s had words t o be r e s u l t s of  various  s o l v i n g the  to attend  Ianco-Worral  hypothesis that  (1972) and  C h i l d r e n Word-Finding  might  Test than  aspect  a l s o t o do  deductive  conceptual  use i n d u c t i v e  bilinguals  logical  w o r d - f i n d i n g problems  t o the  found, and t o  of  p r e s e n t s t u d y Is of  b e t t e r on  logic  than  in this  study,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the and d e d u c t i v e l o g i c .  Cummins obtain  The  (1978) s u p p o r t e d  a higher  score  the  on  the  unilinguals.  The Torrance Test of C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g has been used by v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h e r s t o compare  b i l i n g u a l s and  C a r r i n g e r , 1974; Cummins, 1970). Most monolinguals  of them on  1975; T o r r a n c e ,  found b i l i n g u a l s  the  monolinguals  flexibility,  (Landry,  Gowan, Wu, and  t o be  1974;  Aliotti,  s u p e r i o r compared  fluency,  elaboration  to and  o r i g i n a l i t y s c a l e s . Torrance e t a l (1970) found t h a t t h e i r sample of C h i n e s e - E n g l i s h , whose l e v e l of  b i l i n g u a l i s m was not  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  lower than  f l u e n c y and  u n i l i n g u a l s on  flexibility  given, scored s c a l e s , but scales.  This  r e s u l t might be e x p l a i n e d by i n t e r f e r e n c e between t h e two languages, were t h e s u b j e c t s not b a l a n c e d  In of  bilinguals.  summary, these v a r i o u s s t u d i e s suggest  learning  a second  language  i s associated  t h a t the e x p e r i e n c e with differences  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 e r c e p t i o n , a n a l y t i c power e x p r e s s ion.  in  and v e r b a l  29 However, did,  as  none of t h e s e  compared  to  s t u d i e s compared how  unilinguals  on  well  bilinguals  and  inductive  deductive  r e a s o n i n g . Only one group of r e s e a r c h e r s ( D ' A n g l e j a n , Gagnon, H a f e z , Tucker, Winsberg 1978) have done of  groups  a s t u d y t h a t examines  of. English-French b i l i n g u a l s  to  the a b i l i t y  solve  problems  of  d e d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g ( s y 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, F r e n c h .  Three  F o r c e s were formed  i n accordance t o  the  second  language.  groups of  The  results  bilinguals  t h e i r l e v e l of showed  that  succeeded i n r e a s o n i n g b e t t e r i n t h e i r f i r s t second  language,  and  b i l i n g u a l i s m . They took s o l v e problems mistakes. I t Immersion in  an  this  i n t h e i r second is difficult  time t o  of  the  bilinguals  than i n t h e i r  their  level  of  process information  and  language, a l l the w h i l e  to generalize  Canadian  proficiency in  language  independently  a longer  from the  these  making more  r e s u l t s to  French  s t u d e n t s s i n c e the l e a r n i n g of the second language was  immersion  b i l i n g u a l i s m may  situation, have  and  as  been d i f f e r e n t .  a  the  Furthermore,  D'Anglejan e t a l focused on d i f f e r e n c e s i n and second language and not  result,  not  level  of  the s t u d y  of  problem-solving i n f i r s t  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 t o m o n o l i n g u a l s .  ***  In c o n c l u s i o n , the r e s u l t s of the r e s e a r c h were  still  i n c o n c l u s i v e r e g a r d i n g the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t b i l i n g u a l s may  have  h i g h e r c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y than m o n o l i n g u a l s . From a l i n g u i s t i c of  point  view, i t has been demonstrated t h a t b i l i n g u a l s a t t e n d more t o 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 they score g e n e r a l l y  higher  on t h e f l u e n c y  the  Torrance Test of C r e a t i v e  and  originality scales.  bilinguals  have  better  The r e s e a r c h  Thinking  Some s t u d i e s deductive  variables, context,  a s w e l l a s on t h e  seem t o i n d i c a t e  imagination  from a methodological  t o demonstrate that  language of the t e s t a d m i n i s t e r e d , p l a y an i m p o r t a n t r o l e  been a b l e  t o show how  order t o obtain  social  a n d number o f b o o k s i n assessing  the  schools  such v a r i a b l e s could  be c o n t r o l l e d i n  confounding v a r i a b l e . S u b j e c t s taken from French Immersion r e p r e s e n t a s e l f - s e l e c t e d g r o u p . The d e c i s i o n Immersion s c h o o l  status,  of p a r e n t s t o  or r e g u l a r  p r o g r a m d e p e n d s on unknown v a r i a b l e s w h i c h m i g h t a l s o  In  have  a r e done p r e v e n t us f r o m c o n t r o l l i n g e v e r y  send t h e i r c h i l d r e n t o F r e n c h  results  They  l e s s a m b i g u o u s r e s u l t s . H o w e v e r , t h e human c o n t e x t  in which these studies possible  point  some  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 and c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . also  of  that  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 ,  owned b y t h e f a m i l y ,  scales  reasoning.  findings are valuable  o f v i e w . R e s e a r c h e r s have b e e n a b l e  and f l e x i b i l i t y  that  English  influence  the  of the s t u d i e s .  the present study, level  important v a r i a b l e s  such as  o f b i l i n g u a l i s m , number o f b o o k s a t home a n d s o on  have b e e n c o n t r o l l e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e p o s s i b l e  differences  b i l i n g u a l s a n d u n i l i n g u a l s on m e a s u r e s o f n o n v e r b a l a n d reasoning  socioeconomic  ability.  between  verbal  31 Our reason f o r s t u d y i n g r e a s o n i n g 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 g e n e r a l IQ t e s t s , i s t h a t r e a s o n i n g  ability  as d e f i n e d here i s a more s p e c i f i c a b i l i t y than the broad concept 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 cognitive a b i l i t y ,  i t i s a narrower  concept  of  i s p a r t of  than t h a t 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 t h a t a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t between r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y and the a c q u i s i t i o n of a  may  second  language.  Research  Questions  In the p r e s e n t s t u d y , the q u e s t i o n  was  posed whether t h e r e  was  a d i f f e r e n c e i n v e r b a l and 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 between Grade 3  French  Immersion  students  and  Grade  3  Non-French  Immersion  students. A n o n v e r b a l r e a s o n i n g t e s t i n v o l v i n g p e r c e p t u a l problem t a s k s : the Test Of Nonverbal nonverbal reasoning  Intelligence  (TONI) was  t e s t involving vocabulary  t a s k s (the C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g T e s t ) was  The  used t o measure  ability.  A verbal reasoning  reasoning  solving  used  problem  solving  t o measure v e r b a l  ability.  concurrent  I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale  validity  for Children  C h i l d r e n Word F i n d i n g Test e q u i v a l e n c e of the two  of  the TONI  - Revised  (CWFT), was  with  (WISC-R)  the  Wechsler  and w i t h  i n v e s t i g a t e d and f i n a l l y ,  forms of the TONI was  verified.  the the  32  CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY  The  purpose o f t h e p r e s e n t  and n o n - v e r b a l r e a s o n i n g  s t u d y was t o compare l e v e l s o f v e r b a l  a b i l i t y between  Grade 3  and u n i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n matched on s o c i o e c o n o m i c  The the T e s t  Wechsler  bilingual  background.  I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r C h i l d r e n - Revised  o f Nonverbal  I n t e l l i g e n c e (TONI)  children  Form  A  (WISC-R),  and B and t h e  C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test (CWFT) were a d m i n i s t e r e d t o two groups o f s t u d e n t s (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 o f v a r i a n c e t e s t e d f o r any d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two  groups  socioeconomic  (French  Immersion  and  Non-French  Immersion)  on  s t a t u s and on t h e number o f books owned by the p a r e n t s .  Another a n a l y s i s WISC-R, t h e TONI  of variance  compared t h e two groups  and t h e CWFT. I n a d d i t i o n , c o r r e l a t i o n s  on t h e  among t h e  t h r e e t e s t s were then c a l c u l a t e d t o a s s e s s t h e c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y o f the TONI w i t h the WISC-R and w i t h t h e  CWFT and t h e e q u i v a l e n c e o f the  two forms o f t h e TONI.  Finally,  an a n a l y s i s  of covariance  WISC-R t e s t a s a c o v a r i a t e , t o a n a l y s e  was conducted,  using the  t h e d i f f e r e n c e between the two  groups on t h e TONI and t h e C h i l d 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 c o n s t a n t .  33  A complete d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e methodology i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s Chapter.  The d e s i g n  and t h e  sampling  procedure  S i m i l a r l y the t e s t s , t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e used  are described.  and t h e d a t a a n a l y s e s a r e  presented.  The  Design  The study was designed t o compare l e v e l s o f v e r b a l and non-verbal r e a s o n i n g 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 a t t h e end o f Grade 3 matched f o r socioeconomic  level.  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 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 French  Immersion  since  Kindergarten  and coming  from  anglophone  f a m i l i e s where the o n l y 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 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 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 o n l y language used i n the home was E n g l i s h . V e r b a l and nonverbal r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y were measured 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 by t h e s t u d e n t s on a nonverbal r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y t e s t (the T e s t of Nonverbal  I n t e l l i g e n c e ) , and on a  verbal reasoning test  (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  r e a s o n i n g and the l e v e l of nonverbal r e a s o n i n g .  of v e r b a l  34 F u r t h e r m o r e , the  use of  concurrent v a l i d i t y with  the TONI e n a b l e d  the WISC-R  an a n a l y s i s  and the C h i l d r e n ' s  Test and, t o v e r i f i c a t i o n of the e q u i v a l e n c e  of i t s  Word F i n d i n g  between the two forms of  the TONI, a d m i n i s t r a t e d i n c o u n t e r - b a l a n c e d o r d e r .  The Sample  The sample f o r t h i s s t u d y was s e l e c t e d from Grade 3 c l a s s r o o m s a t s i x s c h o o l s from  the West  Board. Three s c h o o l s  and Centre  were French  a r e a s of the  Vancouver  Immersion s i n g l e t r a c k  School  s c h o o l s and  t h r e e were r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program s c h o o l s .  A l l the Vancouver  s c h o o l s were chosen  S c h o o l Board on  areas r e g a r d i n g  the  residents. This  was  that  French  the assumption t h a t  general  social  important,  s o c i o e c o n o m i c backgrounds Immersion  i n the West  and  as the  came  t h e s e were homogeneous  economic  s t a n d i n g of  l i t e r a t u r e on  between u n i l i n g u a l s students  and Centre a r e a s of the  from  and  comparisons  the of  b i l i n g u a l s showed  families  of  higher  s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s than Non-French Immersion s t u d e n t s (Burns, 1983). Each French Immersion s c h o o l was yoked s c h o o l drawing s t u d e n t s from Appendix  w i t h a r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program  a p p r o x i m a t e l y the same a r e a  (see map  in  A).  A t o t a l of 60 Grade 3 s t u d e n t s , 10 i n each of the s i x s c h o o l s was chosen randomly.  The French Immersion sample r e p r e s e n t e d 14.85% of the  t o t a l of the s t u d e n t s r e g i s t e r e d i n S c h o o l Board i n  F r e n c h Immersion a t the  1985-86. The Non-French  Vancouver  Immersion sample r e p r e s e n t e d  35  0.86%  of  the  total  number  of  students  registered  in  Non-French  Immersion s c h o o l s a t the Vancouver School Board i n 1985-86.  Questionnaire  L e t t e r s i n f o r m i n g p a r e n t s of were sent  home  to every  s e l e c t e d . The  letters  c o n s e n t , and  by  Copies of  the purpose and n a t u r e of the  Grade  3 student  were accompanied  a questionnaire  the l e t t e r ,  to  parental  enrolled  by forms obtain  consent  in  study  the s c h o o l s  requesting parental  background i n f o r m a t i o n .  form  and  q u e s t i o n n a i r e are  p r o v i d e d i n Appendix A.  The  questionnaire  o c c u p a t i o n . The socioeconomic  Blishen index  o c c u p a t i o n . The mean of 50  i n c l u d e d q u e s t i o n s on scale  of  each  (1976)  was  family,  where both p a r e n t s  d e v i a t i o n of 10.  were w o r k i n g , the  p a r e n t s ' e d u c a t i o n were,  a l s o used  used  from  index s c o r e s of the B l i s h e n  and a s t a n d a r d  parents' education to  the  information  the on  s c a l e are T s c o r e s w i t h a In the case  h i g h e r index was  as a  determine  and  means of  of a f a m i l y used. Data on  c r o s s - c h e c k i n g the  i n f o r m a t i o n on o c c u p a t i o n . 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 correspondence  of the  p a r e n t s was  required in  order t o  assure  the  phoned the p a r e n t s t o ask them  how  w i t h 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  many books t h e y owned. They c o u l d choose among 6 c a t e g o r i e s :  36  1. 0 t o 9 books;, 2. 10 t o 24 books; 3. 25 t o 99 books; 4. 100 t o 249 books; 5. 250 t o 499 books; 6. 500 or more.  Information obtained selecting  the  on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e p r o v i d e d  f i n a l sample  f o r t h i s study.  The  a basis for  selection  criteria  were: (1) P a r e n t a l  consent  participation  had  been  obtained  the  child's  i n the s t u d y .  (2) Enrolment i n t h e c u r r e n t language continuous  for  from  Kindergarten  of i n s t r u c t i o n  through  to  had been  the time  of  testing; (3) E n g l i s h was t h e o n l y language spoken a t home; (4) Students  were  not  attending  Learning  Assistance  C e n t e r s ; and (5) Students  had  not been  s t u d y d u r i n g the l a s t  a d m i n i s t e r e d the t e s t s  used  i n the  year.  Sampling  Of t h e 254 l e t t e r s s e n t  t o the p a r e n t s , 187 were r e t u r n e d .  Table  3-1 shows how many l e t t e r s were r e t u r n e d i n each s c h o o l . S l i g h t l y more French  Immersion p a r e n t s  Immersion p a r e n t s  (71%).  (76%) r e t u r n e d  the l e t t e r s  than Non-French  Table 3-1 Number of L e t t e r s Returned i n Each S c h o o l  School Immersion 1 2 3 Total Immersion Non Immersion 1 2 3 Total Non Immersion  Total  Number of L e t t e r s Sent  59 24 48  131  50 47 26 123  254  Number o f L e t t e r s Returned  Percent Returned  41 21 38  69 88 79  100  76  37 27 23  74 57 88  87  71  187  74  38  Among  the 187 s t u d e n t s  whose p a r e n t s r e t u r n e d  were e l i m i n a t e d on the b a s i s of one  the l e t t e r s , 84  or more of the c r i t e r i a d e s c r i b e d  i n the p r e c e d i n g paragraph.  Table 3-2 d e s c r i b e s how many s t u d e n t s were  e l i m i n a t e d on the b a s i s of  each c r i t e r i o n i n each  s t u d e n t s used  a language  other  than E n g l i s h  s c h o o l . 27% of the  a t home,  i n the Non-French Immersion  both  i n the  French  Immersion group and  group. Of the  French  Immersion p a r e n t s 6% d i d not g i v e t h e i r consent compared t o 18%  i n the Non-French Immersion group.  F i n a l l y , s t u d e n t s were group l e f t a f t e r  randomly chosen i n each  s u c c e s s i v e e l i m i n a t i o n . Table  d i f f e r e n t s t e p s of e l i m i n a t i o n  s c h o o l from t h e  3-3 r e c a p i t u l a t e s the  i n a r r i v i n g a t the  f i n a l sample o f 10  i n each s c h o o l . The boys and  o r i g i n a l i n t e n t of the s t u d y was girls,  keeping  i n t e r p r e t i n g the gender  i n mind  t o s e l e c t e q u a l numbers of  sampling  of two s u b j e c t s  requirements.  a r o s e from  Errors i n  a m b i g u i t y 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. T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e were 15 boys and 15 g i r l s  i n 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 t h e T e s t s Used  Wechsler  I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d (WISC-R)  The Wechsler  I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale  general i n t e l l i g e n c e test f i r s t a d m i n i s t e r e d i n 75 minutes.  forChildren  used i n 1949. The  I t c o v e r s an age range  - Revised  i sa  e n t i r e t e s t can be from 6-0 t o 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 Letters Returned  Number of Students E l i m i n a t e d (1) Consent not Given  (2) Lang, of Instrct.  (3) Lang, spoken a t home  Immersion 1 2 3  41 21 38  13 2 13  Non Immersion 1 2 3  37 27 23  7 6 11  Total  187  22  11  52  on t h e b a s i s o f : (4) Learning Assit.  15  (5) Prev. Tested  2  40 Table 3-3 R e c a p i t u l a t i v e Table of t h e F o r m a t i o n of t h e Sample  School  Number o f Letters Sent  Number o f Letters Returned  Number o f S t u d e n t s After Elimination Based on C r i t e r i o n (1) t o (5)  Final Sample Size  Immersion 1 2 3  59 24 48  41 21 38  23 17 19  10 10 10  Non Immersion 1 2 3  50 47 26  37 27 23  24 10 10  10 10 10  254  187  103  60  Total  41 y e a r s . I t c o n s i s t s o f 12 s u b t e s t s . S i x o f t h e s e m e a s u r e v e r b a l s k i l l s , while the  other  subtests provide  s i x measure a nonverbal  refer to visual-motor A  performance  skills.  measurement o f  The  cognitive  performance a b i l i t y , and  perception.  brief description  of  what e a c h  subtest  measures f o l l o w s  ( S a t t l e r , 1982, pp. 1 8 8 - 1 8 9 ) : INFORMATION - The w e a l t h o f a v a i l a b l e a  result  of  native  i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d as  ability  and  early  cultural  experience. SIMILARITIES - V e r b a l concept ARITHMETIC - N u m e r i c a l VOCABULARY  -  Variety  development,  formation.  reasoning of  ability.  functions,  learning  including  ability,  and  language fund  of  information. COMPREHENSION - S o c i a l j u d g e m e n t : t h e a b i l i t y t o a p e r t i n e n t , meaningful,  use f a c t s i n  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 nonessential  from  details.  PICTURE ARRANGEMENT - N o n v e r b a l ability.  to differentiateessential  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  42  BLOCK DESIGN  - Visual-motor  coordination  and  perceptual  organization. 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 o f mental o p e r a t i o n , and s h o r t - t e r m memory. MAZES - P l a n n i n g a b i l i t y and p e r c e p t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . Scaled  s c o r e s from  10 s u b t e s t s  a r e combined t o y i e l d t h r e e  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 V e r b 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, a r e supplementary ,tests used t o 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  regular subtests  and t o g a i n  f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . S c a l e d s c o r e s f o r 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 s t a n d a r d 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 a r e r e p o r t e d i n the manual  as h i g h  (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  v a l i d i t y with 1981;  IQ p o i n t s . other  The  measures of  WISC-R  shows adequate  intelligence (Salvia  concurrent & Ysseldyke,  S a t t l e r , 1982).  The T e s t of Nonverbal  I n t e l l i g e n c e i s "a l a n g u a g e - f r e e measure of  c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . " I t covers the age range c r e a t e d i n 1972 t o answer the need f o r a  from 5-0  t o 8 5 - 1 1 . I t was  measure t o e v a l u a t e 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 a p h a s i c , the r e t a r d e d , speakers All  the l e a r n i n g  and t h e c u l t u r a l l y items chosen  groups of i n d i v i d u a l s  such as t h e  d i s a b l e d , the d e a f ,  non-English  "different".  r e q u i r e problem s o l v i n g a b i l i t y , d e f i n e d as the  a b i l i t y t o 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 i n c l u d e s i m p l e m a t c h i n g , 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 f i g u r e among  progressions.  e i t h e r four  The  subject  selects  or s i x a l t e r n a t i v e s t o  the c o r r e c t  complete a  s e t of  f i g u r e s i n which one or more of the f i g u r e s a r e m i s s i n g .  The  test  e n t i r e l y without  isa  language-free  the  use  of  g e s t u r e s . The s u b j e c t has o n l y chosen among the f o u r form? of the administered  The internal  oral  or  language, by  items each.  using  he or she has  a r e two e q u i v a l e n t  The e n t i r e t e s t  can be  i n 15 t o 30 m i n u t e s .  t e s t has a mean consistency  and  of 100 and a s t a n d a r d its  stability  The c o r r e l a t i o n  and i s .86 and .81 f o r Forms  for special  t e s t and  f o r Normal groups has  Mental A b i l i t y t e s t f o r age  A and B r e s p e c t i v e l y .  of the two forms of the  of the  reliability  .46 t o .95 f o r t h e L e a r n i n g D i s a b l e d and  been e s t a b l i s h e d o n l y w i t h the Otis-Lennon  Equivalence  d e v i a t i o n of 15. I t s  h i g h e r . Observed c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e TONI  the WISC-R, ranges from  the a u t h o r s  written  be a d m i n i s t e r e d  t o p o i n t out the f i g u r e  t e s t c o n t a i n i n g 50  the Educable M e n t a l l y Retarded.  8-1,  I t may  or s i x p o s s i b i l i t i e s . There  p o p u l a t i o n s i s .80 or and  measure.  TONI has been c a l c u l a t e d by  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 except  f o r the age range 8-6  the two  t o 10-11  forms a l l exceed r  =  .80,  where i t i s .78.  C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test  This  t e s t was  F i n d i n g Test  formulated  (1972), designed  d i s c e r n the meaning v e r b a l c o n t e x t . The  of a  i n 1976,  on  the model of R e i t a n ' s Word  f o r a d u l t s . In t h i s t e s t s u b j e c t s must  nonsense word  through a p p r e c i a t i o n  t e s t s e r v e s as the v e r b a l c o u n t e r p a r t of  of i t s  nonverbal  problem s o l v i n g t a s k s most o f t e n used i n n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l b a t t e r i e s .  There are 13 items i n  t h i s t e s t . Each i t e m  i s composed of f i v e  sentences  i n which " g r o b n i c k " i s t o be r e p l a c e d by a word which i s the  same f o r  a l l five  tape-recorded  sentences  within  the  item.  The sentences  w i t h an i n t e r v a l of 5 seconds between each sentence.  e n t i r e t e s t takes a p p r o x i m a t e l y 15 minutes t o a d m i n i s t e r . The  are The  students  r e c e i v e one p o i n t f o r each c o r r e c t answer. For example, the f i r s t 1-  item i s as  follows:  Every c l a s s r o o m has a t l e a s t one  2- G r o b n i c k s 3- The  grobnick.  u s u a l l y hang on the w a l l .  t e a c h e r w r i t e s on the  grobnick.  4- G r o b n i c k s can be green or b l a c k . 5- You w r i t e on a g r o b n i c k w i t h c h a l k . 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 f o r c h i l d r e n from 6 to 10 y e a r s o l d . The  t e s t has  group (6-7-8-9-10).  been a d m i n i s t e r e d t o 20  Means  and  standard  c h i l d r e n i n each age  deviations  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.  Testing  A l l t e s t s were a d m i n i s t e r e d  t o 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 L e v e l supervised  C t e s t e r s (Cronbach,  i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  C h i l d r e n ' s Word  Finding Test.  1970) who had  been t r a i n e d and  and s c o r i n g of the WISC-R, TONI and T e s t i n g took  p l a c e i n the c h i l d r e n ' s  s c h o o l s d u r i n g 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  administration required  approximately  2  hours. The order of the WISC-R and the TONI was c o u n t e r - b a l a n c e d .  Half  of the  were  students  administered  administered  the  TONI  the WISC-R f i r s t . Furthermore, the  were a d m i n i s t e r e d was always  were  successively  administered  last.  and i n a  first  and h a l f  two forms of the TONI  randomized order.  Schools were  contacted  The CWFT  i n advance t o  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  instruction,  birthdate,  gender  and  s o c i o e c o n o m i c 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 . T h i s  procedure allowed  i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the a n a l y s i s while guaranteeing subject.  necessary  the anonymity of each  46 S c o r i n g and Data P r e p a r a t i o n  Completed p r o t o c o l s  were  scored by  the  respective testers,  f o l l o w i n g d i r e c t i o n s i n t h e t e s t manuals. A l l of the p r o t o c o l s were then checked f o r e r r o r s by a second p a r t y . and e n t e r e d  F i n a l l y , s c o r e s were coded  i n t o computer d i s k 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 v a r i a n c e  was performed t o t e s t f o r any d i f f e r e n c e  between the two groups (French Immersion and Non-French Immersion) on socioeconomic  s t a t u s and number  of books  owned by t h e  parents.  A  nested a n a l y s i s  of v a r i a n c e  p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s among the  was  then performed  to detect  types of s c h o o l  (French Immersion and  Non-French Immersion) and w i t h i n the s c h o o l s of  a type on t h e r e s u l t s  of each of the t e s t s a d m i n i s t e r e d . A mixed model was used: the type of s c h o o l p r o v i d e d the f i x e d e f f e c t s f a c t o r , the  random-effects  themselves.  factor.  The d e s i g n  The  and the s c h o o l s w i t h i n type  third  i s g i v e n i n Table  level  was  the  students  3-4.  In t h i s a n a l y s i s , t h e independent v a r i a b l e s were: a) the type of s c h o o l  ( f i or n f i )  b) the s c h o o l w i t h i n type and  the  dependent v a r i a b l e s  administered.  ( 1 - 2 - 3 )  were  the s c o r e s  on each  of  the t e s t s  47  Table 3-4 Nested A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e E x p e r i m e n t a l Design M a t r i x  School I M M E R S I 0  N  N I 0 M N M E R S I 0  N  Administered  Tests  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  Total  WVS,.£  WPS.,f  WFS. f  TA. f  TB. f  F. f  1  WVS,. n f l  WPS.. n f l  WFS.. n f l  TA.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  Total  WVS .nf  WPS .nf  WFS..nf  TA.nf  TB,.nf  F. nf  Note: WVS Wechsler S c a l e of I n t e l l i g e n c e f o r C h i l d r e n Verbal Scale WPS Wechsler S c a l e 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 S c a l e WFS Wechsler S c a l e 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 T e s t of Non V e r b a l I n t e l l i g e n c e , Form A ( c o u n t e r - b a l a n c e d order with TONI B) TB Test of Non V e r b a l I n t e l l i g e n c e , Form B ( c o u n t e r - b a l a n c e d 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 n e c e s s a r y program BMDP P8V,  computations were  G e n e r a l Mixed  performed u s i n g  t h e computer  Model A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e - Equal  C e l l S i z e s ( J e n r i c h and Sampson, 1985)  An  a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e was conducted f o r  t h e TONI Form A and  Form B, and f o r t h e C h i l d r e n Word F i n d i n g T e s t (CWFT), w i t h t h e WISC-R test F u l l Scale  as a c o v a r i a t e .  f o r any d i f f e r e n c e s between  T h i s a n a l y s i s was  performed t o t e s t  the two t y p e s of s c h o o l s , when t h e 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 n e c e s s a r y  computations were  performed u s i n g  t h e computer  program SPSS-X (Nie & a l l , 1975), A n a l y s i s of C o v a r i a n c e . Finally the  a m u l t i p l e Pearson r c o r r e l a t i o n  tests, successively  w i t h each type  was c a l c u l a t e d f o r a l l  and w i t h  t h e combined t y p e s .  S p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n was p a i d t o t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e TONI and t h e other t e s t s f o r  t h e purpose of c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y ,  and between t h e  two e q u i v a l e n t forms of the TONI. The n e c e s s a r y  computations were  performed u s i n g  t h e 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 . All  computations were  m a i n t a i n e d by t h e Computing  performed on  a AMDAHL  470/V8 computer  C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  49  CHAPTER IV RESULTS  T h i s Chapter p r e s e n t s t h e c o n t a i n s the  results  of  d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s of the s t u d y and  the s t a t i s t i c a l  analysis  outlined  i n the  previous Chapter.  Descriptive  Care was  Statistics  t a k e n t o ensure t h a t the  between t h e l e v e l s of language Non French Immersion. student's f a m i l i e s  l e a r n i n g : F r e n c h Immersion s t u d e n t s and  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  and  the  a n a l y s e s r e l e c t e d a comparison  t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s of 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 c o n f o u n d i n g v a r i a b l e s t h a t c o u l d i n f l u e n c e the r e s u l t s of the t e s t s a d m i n i s t e r e d . I n d i c e s of t h e owned by  the  responses  (Table  s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s and of  student's 4-1).  families  were  A n a l y s i s of  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 (Table 4-2).  The f a m i l i e s  Non-French Immersion had  of  the number of books  o b t a i n e d from  variance  on these  between the two  both French  on average between  questionnaire two indexes  t y p e s of s c h o o l s  Immersion 250 t o  s t u d e n t s and  499 books ( i n d e x  l e v e l 5 ) . The number of books owned by t h e f a m i l i e s of t h e s t u d e n t s i n the sample of  t h i s study  Grade 4 r e p o r t e d  i n the  None of the s t u d e n t s  i s higher  than t h e p r o v i n c i a l  B r i t i s h Columbia Reading  i n t h i s s t u d y were  than 24 books) compared  average f o r  Assessment (1984).  a t index l e v e l 2  or 1 ( l e s s  t o 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 o f S c h o o l  French Immersion  number of books index socioeconomic s t a t u s index  Non French Immersion  Total Sample  Mean  S.D.  Mean  S.D.  Mean  S.D.  5.03  0.93  5.10  0.89  5.07  0.90  64.50  11.81  65.17  10.06  64.83  10.88  Note: A l l i n f o r m a t i o n was o b t a i n e d 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 V a r i a n c e f o r Number of Books and SES i n French Immersion and Non-French Immersion Groups  df Books/Between Type of S c h o o l Books/Within Type of S c h o o l  58  SES/Between Type of S c h o o l SES/Within Type of S c h o o l  58  SS  MS  0.07  0.07  47.67  0.82  6.67  6.67  6973.67  120.24  0.08  0.78  0.06  0.82  51 the s t u d e n t s  i n the e n t i r e sample were a t t h e index 3 compared t o 20%  in the p r o v i n c i a l study  average. A  h i g h percentage  o f t h e sample  in this  (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  Immersion  and  socioeconomic  to a provincial  Non-French  average  Immersion  s t a t u s (index  65) t h a t  of 25.4%. Both  students'  families  was h i g h e r than  French had a  average  (index  50).  The  r e s u l t s of a n a l y s e s of t h e WISC-R, t h e TONI, Form A and B and  the CWFT a r e d i s p l a y e d i n Tables  4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6.  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e  One of t h e assumptions of t h e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e samples were taken from normal p o p u l a t i o n s . a p p l y i n g the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness  i s that the  T h i s was t e s t e d by  of F i t t o t h e s c o r e s of a l l  the WISC-R s u b t e s t s , s u b s c a l e s and f u l l s c a l e , t h e TONI  A and B, and  the CWFT (Table 4-7). Expected  distributed  p o p u l a t i o n were c a l c u l a t e d obtained. normal.  f r e q u e n c i e s from a n o r m a l l y  f o r each t e s t  A l l t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s , except  and compared  t o the scores  f o r t h e TONI.B, proved t o be  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 n o t appear t o  s e r i o u s l y t h r e a t e n the v a l i d i t y of a n a l y s i e s of v a r i a n c e .  French Students TONI A 102,  f  Immersion s t u d e n t s  i n a l l three TONI  s c o r e d h i g h e r than Non-French Immersion  s e t s of t e s t s a d m i n i s t e r e d .  B, and CWFT the French  106, and 40  I n the WISC-R,  Immersion s t u d e n t s  r e s p e c t i v e l y ; whereas  t h e Non-French  s c o r e d 114, Immersion  Table 4-3 WISC-R S c a l e Means by Type of S c h o o l  French Immersion  Non French Immersion  Total Sample  Mean  S. D.  Mean  S. D.  Mean  S. D.  Information  10. 80  3. 10  9.77  2.,37  10,.28  2. 79  Similarities  12. 87  3.,29  11.67  3.,28  12 .27  3.,31  Arithmetic  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  Picture Completion Picture Arrangement Block Des i g n Object Assembly Coding  12. 27  2..24  10.43  2,.81  11 .35  2..69  12. 10  2,.55  11.40  2..90  11 .75  2..73  13.,13  3,.08  12.00  2,.41  12 .57  2,.80  12.,30  2..84  11.07  2,.12  11 .68  2,.56  10.,37  2,.36  8.90  2,.51  9 .63  2,.52  V e r b a l IQ  111.,57  13,,90  108.77  10..31  110 .17  12,.22  P e r f o r m . IQ  114.,00  11 .18  105.97  11 .99  109 .48  12 .36  F u l l S c a l e IQ  114..20  12,.21  107.67  9,.87  110 .93  11,.49  53  Table 4-4 TONI R e s u l t s by Type o f S c h o o l  French Immersion  Non French Immersion  Total 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  106.33  14.37  99.83  1 1 . 8 1 103.08 1 3 . 4 5  Table 4-5 C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test R e s u l t s by Type of S c h o o l  French Immers i o n  Children's Word F i n d i n g Test  Non French Immersion  Total Sample  Mean  S.D.  Mean  S.D.  Mean  S.,D.  40.17  5.72  36.60  5.16  38.38  5..69  Note: The above r e s u l t s a r e g i v e n i n raw s c o r e s . The maximum raw s c o r e on t h i s t e s t i s 65. For the age group 9, t h e mean i s 36.80 and the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n i s 7.61  Table 4-6 Range of Test Scores f o r the WISC-R, t h e TONI, and t h e CWFT by Type of S c h o o l WISC-R Verbal I.Q.  WISC-R Perfor. I.Q.  WISC-R Full Scale  TONI.A  TONI.B  CWFT  92-147 55  82-139 57  71-141 50  82-140 58  69-145 76  26-53 27  Non Immersion 85-128 43  80-128 48  89-124 35 .  82-126 44  79-120 41  27-46 19  All  80-139 59  89-141 52  82-140 58  69-145 76  26-53 27  Immersion  85-147 62  Table 4-7 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness of F i t Test  Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Value  2 Tailed P Value  WISC-R Information Similarities Arithmetic Vocabulary Comprehension D i g i t Span P i c t u r e Completion P i c t u r e Arrangement B l o c k Design O b j e c t Assembly Coding V e r b a l IQ Performance IQ F u l l Scale  0.92 0.88 0.96 1.03 0.83 1.05 1.15 0.71 1.06 0.65 1.10 0.72 0.66 0.55  0.36 0.42 0.31 0.24 0.50 0.23 0.14 0.70 0.21 0.79 0.18 0.67 0.77 0.93  TONI A TONI B  1.02 1.56  0.25 0.02  C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test  0.72  0.68  55  s t u d e n t s s c o r e d 107,  96, 100, and  37 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  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 on the  F u l l Scale  (p =  .05).  The g r e a t e s t  Performance S c a l e of the WISC-R where the  Non-French Immersion s c o r e d 105.  s l i g h t l y lower than Non-French WISC-R s u b t e s t s , A r i t h m e t i c .  The d i f f e r e n c e s  S c a l e (p = .01) and  d i f f e r e n c e was  French Immersion s c o r e d 114 and F r e n c h Immersion s t u d e n t s s c o r e d  Immersion s t u d e n t s on o n l y The  i n the  s i g n i f i c a n c e of these  one of the results  was  determined by an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e .  The r e s u l t s of the Table 4-8.  a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e on the  They i n d i c a t e a  and Non-French Immersion  significant difference the  d i f f e r e n c e between  group on  l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e and  the F r e n c h Immersion  the Performance  on the F u l l  (p >  WISC-R a r e shown i n  Scale at p  S c a l e (p < .05).  .05) was found between  < .01  However, no  the two groups on  V e r b a l S c a l e of the WISC-R t e s t . The r e s u l t s of the TONI a r e  c o n t a i n e d i n T a b l e 4-9.  between F r e n c h Immersion and Non-French Immersion on the TONI  Form A, and  no s i g n i f i c a n t  A difference  (p = .07) was found  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 v a r i a n c e a difference  (p  =  .10)  of the C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g Test found between  French  Immersion  and  Non-French  Immersion groups and i s shown i n Table 4-10.  In  summary, the  d i f f e r e n c e between Immersion s c o r e s  analysis  the on  Performance S c a l e (p  the  of  variance  F r e n c h Immersion WISC-R F u l l  < .01).  showed a  scores  Scale  A difference  (p  and <  significant  the Non-French .05) and  was found on  WISC-R  the TONI.A  Table 4-8 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e on t h e WISC-R  Source of Var i a n c e  Degrees Freedom  WISC-R FULL SCALE Between Type of S c h o o l W i t h i n Type of S c h o o l Within School  Sum of Squares  Mean Square  1 4 54  640.27 156.27 6993.20  640.27 39.07 129.50  16.39 0.30  0.02 0.88  WISC-R PERFORMANCE SCALE Between Type of School 1 W i t h i n Type of S c h o o l 4 Within School 54  1224.02 173.07 7619.90  1224.02 43.27 141.11  28.29 0.31  0.01 0.87  WISC-R VERBAL SCALE Between Type of School W i t h i n Type o f S c h o o l W i t h i n Type of School  117.60 327.73 8359.00  117.60 81.93 154.70  1.44 0.53  0.30 0.72  1 5 54  Table 4-9 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e on the TONI  Source of Variance  Degrees Freedom  Sum of Squares  Mean Square  TONI A Between Type of S c h o o l W i t h i n Type of S c h o o l Within School  1 4 54  693.60 472.73 8168.60  693.60 118.18 151.27  5.87 0.78  0.07 0.54  TONI B Between Type of School W i t h i n Type of S c h o o l Within School  1 4 54  633.75 1150.73 8886.10  633.75 287.68 164.56  2.20 1.75  0.21 0.15  57  (p =  . 0 7 ) , and on t h e CWFT  (p = .10).  However,  t h e r e was no  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on t h e WISC-R V e r b a l S c a l e and on t h e TONI.B.  A n a l y s i s of C o v a r i a n c e  The c e n t r a l problem of t h i s s t u d y was t o t e s t t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n v e r b a l and n o n - v e r b a l  reasoning a b i l i t y  two t y p e s of s c h o o l s . non-verbal However,  T h i s was  reasoning t e s t  between t h e s t u d e n t s of t h e  accomplished  and t h e CWFT as  by u s i n g t h e  a verbal  reasoning  i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between French  s t u d e n t s and Non-French  Immersion  differences i ncognitive a b i l i t i e s .  students  due  U s i n g t h e WISC-R  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 t e s t whether t h e r e was  were  TONI as a test.  Immersion  i n part  as a c o v a r i a t e  of c o v a r i a n c e was done t o  a d i f f e r e n c e between  French  Immersion  Schools  and Non-French Immersion s c h o o l s on the TONI and t h e CWFT s c o r e s . r e s u l t s of t h e a n a l y s i s significant difference (p = . 0 9 ) .  abilities.  on t h e TONI.A  There was no  the p r e v i o u s a n a l y s i s  of c o v a r i a n c e  (Table (p ~=  higher  Non-French Immersion (Table 4-12) .  4-11) c o n f i r m e d  .09) and on  The no  t h e CWFT  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on t h e TONI.B as i n  after controlling for differences in cognitive  The a d j u s t e d means were c a l c u l a t e d  found t o be  to  f o r the French groups,  although  Immersion  f o r each t e s t and were group  than f o r t h e  not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  different  58  Table 4-10 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e on t h e C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g T e s t  Source of Variance  Degrees Freedom  CWFT Between Type of School W i t h i n Type of S c h o o l W i t h i n School  1 4 54  Sum of Squares  190.82 171.67 1547.70  Mean Square  190.82 42.92 28.66  4.45 1.50  0.10 0.22  Table 4-11 A n a l y s i s of C o v a r i a n c e of t h e TONI Form A and B, and of t h e CWFT w i t h t h e 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 Between Type of S c h o o l W i t h i n Type o f School Within School  1 1 4 53  191.22 449.56 400.10 7977.38  191.22 449.56 100.03 150.52  1.27 ' 2.99 0.66  ns. 0.09 ns.  TONI, B Covariate Between Type of S c h o o l W i t h i n Type of S c h o o l Within School  1 1 4 53  993.38 224.03 1204.88 7892.72  993.38 224.03 301.22 148.93  6.67 1.50 2.02  0.01 ns. ns.  CWFT Covariate Between Type of S c h o o l W i t h i n Type of School W i t h i n Type of S c h o o l  1 1 5 53  251.16 74.51 154.52 1296.54  251.16 74.51 38.63 24.46  10.27 3.05 1.58  0.01 0.09 ns.  Table 4-12 French Immersion Versus Non-French Immersion Unadjusted and A d j u s t e d Means f o r L e v e l of C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t y on 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  Test  F r e n c h Immersion Unadjusted Adjusted Means Means  TONI A  102.87  102.33  96.07  96.61  TONI B  106.33  105.10  99.83  101.06  40.17  39.55  36.60  37.22  CWFT  Non-French Immersion Unadjusted Adjusted Means Means  Table 4 - 1 3 Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n Coefficients f o r t h e E n t i r e Sample  WISC-R Verbal I.Q.  WISC-R Perfrm. I.Q.  WISC-R Full Scale  TONI.A  TONI.B  WISC-R V e r b a l IQ WISC-R P e r f r m . IQ  0.34  WISC-R F u l l Scale  0.84  0.79  TONI. A  0.16  0.25  0.24  TONI. B  0.28  0.31  0.35  0.52  CWFT  0.40  0.31  0.45  0.36  0.38  CWFT  60  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 t h e Two Forms  The  second purpose o f t h i s s t u d y  was t o v e r i f y  the concurrent  v a l i d i t y of t h e TONI w i t h t h e WISC-R and CWFT. T h i s was a c c o m p l i s h e d by c a l c u l a t i n g t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between e n t i r e sample and Attention  should  correlations  of t h e TONI  and B appear  Test than w i t h differences  (o = .05, 2 t a i l s ,  age group  months).  these  significantly different test  f o r t h e e n t i r e sample combined  of F r e n c h  (Table 4-12).  (8 y e a r s 6  two  months t o 10  correlation  according t o the  Fisher's  y e a r s 11  c o e f f i c i e n t s are Z-transformation  (Z = 0.57, d f = 57, p < . 0 1 ) .  The the  ( r = .52) was c a l c u l a t e d  t h a t r e p o r t e d i n t h e t e c h n i c a l manual  (r = .78) f o r t h e same fact,  correlation  t h e e q u i v a l e n c e of t h e two forms o f  Immersion s t u d e n t s  T h i s v a l u e i s much lower than  higher with the  57 d f ) .  between t h e TONI.A and t h e TONI.B Immersion and Non-French  t o be  (2) The  t h e WISC-R; a l t h o u g h , a t - t e s t  A Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t  In  (1) The  and w i t h t h e  between t h e c o r r e l a t e d  t h i r d question dealt with  the TONI.  i nparticular:  Form A and B, w i t h t h e WISC-R  of t h e TONI Form A  showed no s t a t i s t i c a l  The  t o two r e s u l t s  4-13, 4-14, and 4-15).  low f o r t h e Non-French Immersion group.  C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g  coefficients  subgroup (Tables  be drawn  CWFT a r e e x t r e m e l y correlations  f o r each  each t e s t f o r the  low c o r r e l a t i o n  TONI t e s t prompted  order.  c o e f f i c i e n t found between t h e two forms of  a further analysis  A procedure o u t l i n e d  difference  in  response  on  t h e e f f e c t of treatment  by Gart (1969) was used between  the  two  t o t e s t f o r the  sequentially  applied  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 f o r t h e French Immersion Group  WISC-R Verbal I.Q.  WISC-R Perfrm. I.Q.  WISC-R Full Scale  TONI.A  TONI.B  WISC-R V e r b a l IQ WISC-R P e r f r m . IQ  0.42  WISC-R  0.90  0.78  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  Full  Scale  0.53  CWFT  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 f o r t h e Non Immersion Group  WISC-R Verbal I.Q.  WISC-R Perfrm. I.Q.  WISC-R Full Scale  TONI.A  TONI.B  CWFT  WISC-R V e r b a l IQ WISC-R P e r f r m . 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 f o r Each Type of School Between TONI A and TONI B A c c o r d i n q t o t h e Order of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e TONI  TONI A First  TONI A Second  F l / NFI Combined  French Immersion  0.78  0.43  0.60  Non-French Immersion  0.02  0.53  0.29  F l / NFI Combined  0.58  0.46  0.52  63 t r e a t m e n t s , TONI.A administration the observed  had an and  lower on the test.  The  affected  and  TONI.B,  and t o  e f f e c t on the  expected  number o f  second a d m i n i s t e r e d  r e s u l t s showed t h a t  by t h e  test  scores.  whether A  tested  the s c o r e s on  order i n which t h e y  p < .025) and suggests a l e a r n i n g  of  contingency t a b l e of  students that  TONI was  the order  s c o r e d h i g h e r and by  the chi-square  t h e TONI.A  were a d m i n i s t e r e d  and B were (X  = 5.91,  effect.  When the two TONI t e s t s a r e g i v e n one a f t e r a n o t h e r , t h e s c o r e o f the second s h o u l d be b e t t e r  than the f i r s t because t h e f i r s t t e s t i s a  form of t r a i n i n g . T h i s was  indeed the case when  b e f o r e the  TONI.B. The  average i n c r e a s e  t h e TONI.A was g i v e n  In s c o r e  was 5.60  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from z e r o ( t = 2.46, p = .02). was an average (t = -0.69, The  learning  decrease  p = .50),  i n score  o f -1.63,  when the TONI.B  e f f e c t was  a l s o compared  There was an given f i r s t  i n c r e a s e i n the (t =  1.78, p =  .09 F I ;  WISC-R  noted, the c o r r e l a t i o n s and  Non-French Immersion Correlation  when the TONI.A p = .11  t e s t was  NFI) but no  found when the TONI.B was  ( t = - .61 p = .55 F I ; t = -0.31 p = .76 N F I ) .  As p r e v i o u s l y w i t h the  Immersion and  of the combined samples.  t = 1.73,  d e t e c t a b l e i n c r e a s e i n the TONI.A s c o r e was given f i r s t  b e f o r e the TONI.A.  between French  TONI.B s c o r e  However, t h e r e  a l t h o u g h not s i g n i f i c a n t  was g i v e n  Non-French Immersion and s u p p o r t the r e s u l t s  and was  with  were s e g r e g a t e d  were from  were r e c a l c u l a t e d  due t o the by  CWFT  group, r a n g i n g  coefficients  might have been  the  order e f f e c t .  t h e order the  of the TONI, Form A and B, extremely .02 t o t o see  .29  low  (Table 4-15).  i f these  TONI.A and  f o r the  results  TONI.B s c o r e s  t e s t s were a d m i n i s t e r e d  and by the  64  type of s c h o o l , French Immersion breakdown, t h e r e  were 15  Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n  and Non-French immersion.  subjects  i n each  of t h e  c o e f f i c i e n t between Form A and  After  subgroups.  TONI.A  was a d m i n i s t e r e d  first  c o n t r a s t t o the French Immersion  (r =  group  .018).  ( r = .78).  The  B was h i g h f o r a l l  c a t e g o r i e s (Table 4-16) except f o r the Non F r e n c h Immersion the  this  This  group when  i s i n sharp  65  CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The  results  of t h e WISC-R, t h e TONI, Form A  C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g French  Test  Immersion s t u d e n t s ,  (CWFT),  as a d m i n i s t e r e d  s t u d e n t s came  The  Grade 3  of t h e same  Immersion s t u d e n t s .  from homes - i n which  language commonly used, and a l l had been Kindergarten  t o 30  were compared t o t h e r e s u l t s  t e s t s a d m i n i s t e r e d t o 30 Grade 3, Non French  All  and Form B, and t h e  E n g l i s h was  the only  enrolled continuously since  i n t h e c u r r e n t language of i n s t r u c t i o n .  purpose of t h e s t u d y was t o answer t h r e e  1. I s t h e r e a  d i f f e r e n c e i n the l e v e l  r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y of Grade 3 Grade 3 Non French  Immersion  French  questions:  of v e r b a l and non-verbal  Immersion  s t u d e n t s and t h a t of  students?  2. What i s t h e c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y of t h e TONI w i t h t h e WISC-R and w i t h t h e CWFT? 3. Are t h e two forms of t h e TONI e q u i v a l e n t ? As  a  f i r s t step,  t h e socioeconomic  p e r s o n a l l i b r a r i e s of p a r e n t s from and Non-French Immersion),  status  t h e two groups  were compared.  and the  s i z e of  (French  Immersion  These v a r i a b l e s  have been  found t o be c o r r e l a t e d w i t h 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 t h e 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  between t h e two groups on t h e number of books and on  socioeconomic  status  (p  (F =  (p  .0554) =  d i f f e r e n c e was found (F = .0811) = . 7 8 ) , . 8 1 ) . T h e r e f o r e , we  66 assumed t h a t t h e 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 ,  t h e r e was no need t o 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 o f t h e d a t a .  The  two  socioeconomic  groups on t h e o t h e r  hand d i d come  s t a t u s was h i g h e r than average  On t h e average,  t h e i r home  from f a m i l i e s whose  (1.4 SD above t h e mean).  l i b r a r i e s contained  between 250  and 499  books.  In r e g a r d following  to the three  questions, various analyses  l e d t o the  results:  1. D i f f e r e n c e i n t h e l e v e l s of v e r b a l a b i l i t y between Grade 3 French  and n o n - v e r b a l  reasoning  Immersion  group and Grade 3 Non-French  Data a n a l y s i s shows t h a t t h e French  Immersion group s c o r e d h i g h e r  Immersion group:  on a l l t h e t e s t s than d i d t h e Non-French Immersion group. There was a significant  difference  between  Performance S c a l e (p = .01),  t h e two  groups  and on t h e WISC-R F u l l  There was a d i f f e r e n c e on t h e TONI A (p = .07), and .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  t h e WISC-R  S c a l e (p = . 0 2 ) . on t h e CWFT (p =  on t h e WISC-R V e r b a l S c a l e ,  nor on t h e TONI B. The (1983) who  results found  on t h e WISC-R t e s t d i f f e r no s i g n i f i c a n t  difference  from those on t h e F u l l  of N i e l s e n S c a l e and  s u b s c a l e s of t h e WISC-R f o r Grade 2 s t u d e n t s . The f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s a significant difference  between  t h e two  groups  on t h e  Performance  S c a l 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 t h e V e r b a l S c a l e may be due t o the f a c t t h a t French  Immersion s t u d e n t s had o n l y one hour e v e r y day of  67  f o r m a l E n g l i s h i n Grade 3 and none b e f o r e . A l t h o u g h t h e y speak E n g l i s h at  home,  t h e y may  be  at a  Immersion s t u d e n t s on A r i t h m e t i c . In f a c t , differences are  as  compared  t o Non-French  s u b t e s t s such as V o c a b u l a r y , Comprehension and i t i s i n these s u b t e s t s t h a t  found  Arithmetic subtest  disadvantage  between  t h e two groups.  the d i f f e r e n c e favours  t h e s m a l l e s t mean Moreover,  i n the  t h e Non-French Immersion  group.  On t h i s a n a l y s i s , ability,  seems  t h e l e v e l of v e r b a l  higher  f o r French  and n o n - v e r b a l  Immersion  students  reasoning than f o r  Non-French Immersion s t u d e n t s , a l t h o u g h i t i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r (p = .07 f o r TONI A t h i s was  and p = .10  due t o t h e h i g h e r  f o r CWFT). One  cognitive  ability,  s t u d e n t s as compared t o Non-French Immersion the WISC-R; A  of French  Immersion  s t u d e n t s , as measured by  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 o r t h e l e v e l of  c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y was t h e r e f o r e the two groups means were  might suppose t h a t  i n t h e TONI  still  higher  undertaken  t o compare  t h e r e s u l t s of  Form A and B and t h e CWFT. The a d j u s t e d f o r French  Immersion  than  f o r Non-French  Immersion s t u d e n t s on a l l t h r e e 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 t h e two groups on t h e TONI Form A B (p =  .21) and  on t h e CWFT  (p =  (p = .09), on t h e TONI Form  .10). Those d i f f e r e n c e s  were not  significant. One might  speculate that  l e a r n i n g process through which o r d e r t o l e a r n a second more  closely  understand  these r e s u l t s French  language.  t o the general  are explained  by t h e  Immersion s t u d e n t s must  go i n  In t h i s process,  properties  t h e y must  of t h i n g s  attend  i n order  to  new words t h a t a r e e x p l a i n e d t o them. They have t o a n a l y s e  68 what t h e t e a c h e r  says and reason c o n s t a n t l y  to verify  whether what  t h e y understand make sense t o them or not. F i n a l l y , t h e y tend t o t h i n k a t a more a b s t r a c t l e v e l s i n c e t h e y have two codes f o r each word. T h i s 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 i n t e n s e t r a i n i n g i n i n d u c t i v e and d e d u c t i v e and  reasoning,  the a b i l i t i e s required  f o r the TONI  f o r t h e CWFT.  Other v a r i a b l e s groups on parents  reasoning  chose  responsible  c o u l d e x p l a i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e between ability.  French  Any v a r i a b l e  Immersion  for  that  their  would  tests. Motivation  i s certainly  further investigation. c l a s s r o o m should  Also,  be compared  an  important  variable  learning a c t i v i t y with that  e x p l a i n why  children,  f o r the d i f f e r e n c e found i n t h e two groups  t h e two  could  be  on t h e t h r e e i n need  of  i n French Immersion  i n t h e Non-French Immersion  classroom. Research i s needed t o determine whether e i t h e r treatment - F r e n c h Immersion or Non-French Immersion the s u b j e c t s  (those  - makes t h e d i f f e r e n c e , or whether  who chose French  make t h e d i f f e r e n c e ,  Immersion and those who don't)  or whether t h e e x p l a n a t i o n  i s a c o m b i n a t i o n of  the t r e a t m e n t and of s u b j e c t s * c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The 1982  r e s u l t s of t h e CWFT  (Table  4-3).  were compared t o the norms c a l c u l a t e d i n  The mean was  higher  f o r t h e e n t i r e sample (38.80)  'than t h e mean of t h e norms (36.80) f o r t h e same age group. However, i t i s important  t o note  that  i n this  study,  the students  had no  l i m i t a t i o n of time i n which t o g i v e t h e i r answers. I t i s p o s s i b l e such a l i m i t a t i o n would have g i v e n r e s u l t s  that  lower or e q u a l t o the 1982  69  norms. The s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n was s m a l l e r i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y because of t h e 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 t h e t e s t , t h a t some c h i l d r e n d i d n o t use t h e i r i n d u c t i v e or d e d u c t i v e  reasoning a b i l i t i e s  clues given i n previous  sentences.  s t u d y on t h e c o r r e l a t i o n on t h e CWFT t o f i n d  because t h e y  d i d not remember t h e  I t would be  between r e s u l t s on a  v a l u a b l e t o conduct a v e r b a l memory t e s t and  out what p a r t memory p l a y s  i n the score obtained  on CWFT  Finally,  t h e CWFT appears  reasoning a b i l i t y . than g e n e r a l  The f a c t  intelligence  t o be a  t h a t CWFT was  useful tool  measures  demonstrated  to test verbal  something d i f f e r e n t  i n this  s t u d y by t h e  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 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 , as measured by the WISC-R. More r e s e a r c h i s needed on t h i s  promising  t e s t f o r purposes  v a l i d i t y and c o n c u r r e n t  2. Concurrent  of s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t  validity.  v a l i d i t y of the TONI w i t h t h e 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 t h e TONI and the WISC-R were not very high  ( r = .45 f o r both f o r m s ) .  c o r r e l a t i o n s of t h e TONI (r =  .39) f o r Form B.  This  was a l s o  w i t h t h e CWFT ( r = .36) f o r Form The TONI  manual  i n d i c a t e s moderate  c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e TONI and t h e WISC-R (.62 those  correlations  Educable  MentaDy  were  t h e case f o r  established  Retarded  groups;  with  t o high  t o .95). However,  Learning  therefore,  A, and  D i s a b l e d and  probably  with  a  r e s t r i c t e d range of s c o r e s m a i n l y a t t h e lower end of t h e s c a l e . I t i s  70  p o s s i b l e t h a t s u b j e c t s i n those c a t e g o r i e s would s c o r e 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 v a r i o u s 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 h i g h . I n  the p r e s e n t s t u d y , t h e  s u b j e c t s s c o r e d a t the h i g h e r end of the s c a l e and t h e range of s c o r e s was wide. The  low c o r r e l a t i o n s  warning a g a i n s t u s i n g  t h e TONI  obtained as a  i n t h i s study  constitute a  s u b s t i t u t e f o r the  WISC-R w i t h  normal p o p u l a t i o n s .  Although  i t might be  tempting  WISC-R i n F r e n c h Immersion would be dangerous t o  t o use  situations  the TONI  as a  I n s t e a d of t h e  language-fair  do so f o r t h e r e s u l t s of t h i s  test, i t  s t u d y show t h a t  the two t e s t s a r e 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 t h e TONI  c o u l d o f f e r an  explanation f o r the  t e s t s . In t h i s  s t u d y , the  low c o r r e l a t i o n s  age i n t e r v a l  was 8-5  t h r e e c h i l d r e n age 8-5. T h i s age i n t e r v a l  and the WISC-R between the two  t o 9-11,  with only  c o r r e s p o n d s t o o n l y one age  i n t e r v a l i n the norms of the TONI (8-6 t o 10-11), except f o r the t h r e e c h i l d r e n aged  8 years  5  months, w h i l e  i t corresponds  to  f i v e age  i n t e r v a l s i n the norms of t h e WISC-R (8-4 t o 8-7, 8-8 t o 8-11, 9-0 t o 9-3,  9-4  t o 9-7  and 9-8  t o 9-11).  c o g n i t i v e development i s important of a c h i l d a t 8-5 and the TONI  gives only  months between  8-6  I n t h e age  one s e t of norms  e q u i v a l e n t t e s t s , and  10-11.  t o 9-11,  and d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e r e s u l t s  a t age 9-11 a r e expected  and  range 8-5  t o be l a r g e . However,  f o r the  I f the WISC-R  assuming t h a t norms  huge i n t e r v a l and t h e  of t h e TONI  TONI  of 29 were  were based on  the middle of the age i n t e r v a l (8-5 t o 10-11), we s h o u l d expect l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s a t the  two ends of  the age  interval  (8-6 t o  10-11) and  71  small differences at  the middle  o f t h e 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 s c o r e s and t h e TONI s c o r e s s h o u l d be p o s i t i v e l y skewed, s i n c e we h a l f of  the TONI  age  i n t e r v a l . This  o n l y d e a l w i t h the lower  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 t h e TONI A s c o r e s a g a i n s t the age of each s u b j e c t , then The s c a t t e r p l o t  f i t t i n g a smooth  was  WEighted Smoothing  smoothed of  c u r v e t o the d a t a ( F i g u r e 5-1).  using  t h e LOWESS procedure  Scatterplots,  Cleveland  lends s u p p o r t t o the h y p o t h e s i s ; i t shows  (LOcally  ( 1 9 7 9 ) ) . The  figure  an i n c r e a s e between age 8-4  t o 8-8 f o l l o w e d by a d e c r e a s e t h r o u g h the age 9-9.  T h i s e x p l a i n s i n p a r t the low c o r r e l a t i o n s found i n t h e age group w i t h which t h i s s t u d y i s concerned (8-5 t o 9-11), between t h e TONI and the WISC-R  scores.  Because  of t h e d i f f e r e n c e  i n age range  norms  between t h e TONI and the WISC-R, i t i s recommended not t o use the TONI t e s t i n place of  the WISC-R t e s t  especially  when the age  of the  s t u d e n t s c o r r e s p o n d s t o a wide age i n t e r v a l of t h e TONI. Although the  way i n which the  TONI t e s t  i s normed  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 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 the  WISC-R,  this  c o e f f i c i e n t s are group  than  still  does  lower (.07  f o r the  French  not  and  explain  c o u l d be  between t h e TONI and  why  those  correlation  .02) f o r the Non-French  Immersion  group  (.24  and  Immersion . 5 0 ) . The  i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n between the Performance s c a l e and the V e r b a l S c a l e o f the WISC-R i s lower f o r the Non-French the  French  Immersion  s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n group  group (.64).  (.42), An  Immersion group (.20) than f o r both  unexplained  being  compared  to the  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 t h e 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 S c o r e s on t h e WISC-R and t h e TONI by Age f o r t h e E n t i r e Sample o  n  •c.  o o to  o m  o (U  a  c. o u  o  CO (J  cn o  o I  o CM  8.4  B.6  8.8  B.O  9.2  9.4  9.6  9.8  10.0  Declnel Age of Subject Figure  5-1 D i f f e r e n c e s between s c o r e s on the WISC-R and the TONI A by Age f o r the e n t i r e sample. The s c a t t e r p l o t was smoothed u s i n g 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 c o n f i r m s the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e s c o r e s a r e d i f f e r e n t because of t h e age i n t e r v a l ; i t shows an i n c r e a s e between age 8-4 t o 8-8 f o l l o w e d by a decrease through t h e age 9-9.  73  group, on  the a b i l i t i e s  r e q u i r e d t o complete v i s u a l  tasks. 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  c o e f f i c i e n t s between t h e TONI and t h e WISC-R  and p e r c e p t u a l low c o r r e l a t i o n  found i n t h e Non-French  Immersion group.  Before we can use t h e TONI r e l i a b l y , i t would be a p p r o p r i a t e to  establish  norms  f o r smaller  age  intervals  especially  where  c o g n i t i v e development i s i m p o r t a n t .  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 t h e  and  B and t h e WISC-R on  and  t h e CWFT  for  TONI A (.20 < p ( t > - .94) < .50), nor f o r TONI B (p ( t > -.20) >  .50). From  on t h e other  this  analysis  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the WISC-R c a l l e d an  one hand, and between t h e  TONI Forms A  hand, no s i g n i f i c a n t  i t appears  d i f f e r e n c e was found  t h e TONI  than i t i s w i t h t h e CWFT.  "Intelligence test",  i n t e l l i g e n c e as  that  TONI Forms A and B  t h e WISC-R does.  the TONI On  does  i s d i f f e r e n t from  Although  not measure  t h e other  hand,  c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e TONI and t h e CWFT c o u l d be f a c t t h a t the k i n d of a b i l i t y n e c e s s a r y  i s no  more i t is  general  t h e moderate  e x p l a i n e d by the  t o s o l v e problems i n t h e TONI  t h a t needed i n t h e CWFT. The TONI as  w e l l as the  CWFT measure r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y . However, t h e TONI r e q u i r e s v i s u a l and perceptual a b i l i t i e s c a p a c i t i e s . Those  w h i l e t h e CWFT r e q u i r e s  two r e a s o n i n g  tests  l e a r n i n g s t y l e s of s t u d e n t s , some b e i n g more v e r b a l .  might  verbal  and l i n g u i s t i c  discriminate  more v i s u a l  between  and other  being  74  3. E q u i v a l e n c e of t h e two forms o f the TONI: T h i s s t u d y found a moderate c o r r e l a t i o n between Form A and Form B of t h e TONI  test  (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 o b t a i n e d by the a u t h o r s 8-6 t o 10-11.  Among the e q u i v a l e n c e  ( r = .78) f o r age range  c o e f f i c i e n t s by  age r e p o r t e d i n  the t e c h n i c a l manual f o r the t e s t , the e q u i v a l e n c e c o e f f i c i e n t f o r age range 8-6 t o 10-11 was the lowest of age ranges.  This f i n d i n g  suggests  t h e wisdom of  not u s i n g one  form of the  TONI as e q u i v a l e n t t o the o t h e r i n age range o f 8.6 t o 10-11. Furthermore,  the a n a l y s i s  showed  t h a t t h e order i n which the two  forms were a d m i n i s t e r e d had an e f f e c t on When Form A  was a d m i n i s t e r e d f i r s t  e f f e c t on t h e  r e s u l t s , whereas  t h e r e was  when Form  t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t l e a r n i n g two  the r e s u l t s of the s t u d e n t s . a significant  B was  effect.  learning  administered  first,  These r e s u l t s show t h a t the  forms a r e 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  forms of  the  TONI,  s e p a r a t i n g the  r e s u l t s . When TONI A  c o e f f i c i e n t s between the two  order  effect  shows i n t e r e s t i n g  i s g i v e n 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 h i g h ( r = .78) f o r t h e French low ( r =  .02) f o r the Non-French  seems t o  favour t h e  French  Immersion group and  Immersion group. The  Immersion group  and not  Non-French Immersion group. I t appears t h a t the French g e n e r a l i z e s and c o n s i s t e n t l y l e a r n e d i n TONI A not. Bain's  a p p l i e s i n Toni B  whereas t h e  s t u d y (1975),  difference  to  effect  favour t h e  Immersion group  the r u l e s  Non-French Immersion  on t h e  order  they have  p o p u l a t i o n does  i n discovery  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  problem s o l v i n g , found  no d i f f e r e n c e  when p r e s e n t e d with  between the two groups  a t the  c o n c r e t e o p e r a t i o n s t a g e . T h i s s t u d y i s d i f f e r e n t i n the sense t h a t 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 t o t h e 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 t o g e n e r a l i z e and  French Immersion than f o r Non-French The  t r a n s f e r i s higher f o r  Immersion.  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. A c c o r d i n g  must " d i s c o n t i n u e t e s t i n g  t o the r u l e ,  the t e s t e r  when the s u b j e c t has missed t h r e e  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 k i n d i s , by way of c o n t r a s t , f i v e r e s u l t , the s t u d e n t s end been a b l e  up meeting the c e i l i n g  to get more items  missed out of f i v e ,  c o r r e c t under  T h i s would  d i f f i c u l t y of the items  items missed i n a row. As a when they might have  the r u l e of  be e s p e c i a l l y  so  f i v e items  i f the order of  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 g i v e 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 c o u l d a l s o o f f e r another e x p l a n a t i o n as t o why i n French Immersion between TONI Form strong, while  A, TONI  they were  Form B,  WISC-R, and CWFT  e x t r e m e l y low f o r Non-French  t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n , one assumes t h a t French motivated than a r e Non-French French Immersion s t u d e n t s would would expect  Non-French  Immersion  were moderately Immersion. In  Immersion s t u d e n t s a r e more s t u d e n t s . As  do t h e i r best on  Immersion  the c o r r e l a t i o n s  students  a consequence,  a l l t e s t s while one  to obtain inconsistant  76 r e s u l t s on  the t h r e e  t e s t e d here or  t e s t s . However,  this  assumption has  elsewhere and i s not a s t r o n g  not been  argument i n e x p l a i n i n g  the r e s u l t s .  Before  drawing  t h e r e f o r e be n e c e s s a r y and measuring  any  c o n c l u s i o n from  to replicate  this  result,  the s t u d y u s i n g  the l e v e l of m o t i v a t i o n i n each  i t would  another  sample,  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 s t u d y a r e e n c o u r a g i n g -- t h e y show t h a t French  Immersion  students  scored  higher  on c o g n i t i v e  abilty  t e s t s , such as the WISC-R , they a l s o  i n d i c a t e t h a t French Immersion  s t u d e n t s have  higher  a  tendency  s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r , on  to  obtain  reasoning a b i l i t y tests  r e s e r v a t i o n s . F i r s t , t h e s t u d y was l i m i t e d t o of French  Immersion  Second, the c h o i c e students  were  children  at only  of s c h o o l s was  from  families  one  a l l Grade  3  French  —  with  high  Immersion  not  t h e r e a r e some  a s m a l l sample (N = 30) grade  level  a r b i t r a r y and not  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 t o even t o  r e s u l t s , although  (Grade  3).  random; a l l t h e  socioeconomic  status.  d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s or  students  from any  or  a l l  s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , i s not y e t j u s t i f i e d .  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  The r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y 9-11 the TONI  i n d i c a t e t h a t f o r the age group 8-4 t o  c o r r e l a t e s o n l y moderately  w i t h the WISC-R  as w e l l as  77  w i t h t h e CWFT. T h e r e f o r e , t h e TONI I s an u n r e l i a b l e s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h e WISC-R e s p e c i a l l y f o r t h e age group mentioned above. The  two  forms or  t h e TONI have  e q u i v a l e n c e f o r t h e age range 8-6 enough t o be c o n s i d e r e d e f f e c t when Form A  French  Immersion group  low c o e f f i c i e n t of  t o 10-11. They  e q u i v a l e n t . Furthermore,  a r e not comparable there  i s a learning  i s a d m i n i s t e r e d 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 a d m i n i s t e r e d  The  a very  first.  Immersion group s c o r e d on t h e TONI  h i g h e r than  A, and on t h e CWFT  t h e Non-French  and s i g n i f i c a n t l y  h i g h e r on the Performance S c a l e and F u l l S c a l e of t h e WISC-R. A f t e r controlling forvariability Immersion  group  still  on c o g n i t i v e  scored  higher,  a b i l i t y levels, although  not  significantly  h i g h e r , than the Non-French Immersion group on the TONI A The  French  Immersion group  consistently to transfer  has been shown  t o be  r u l e s l e a r n e d i n t h e TONI  t h e French  and CWFT. better able  A t o the TONI B  than t h e Non-French Immersion group. Despite  the f a c t that  confounding  groups - such  as m o t i v a t i o n  or t h e reasons  French  differences  Immersion or not - we can conclude  Immersion s t u d e n t s demonstrated measured by non-verbal  The  t h e WISC-R,  t h a t make  between t h e two p a r e n t s chose  that i n t h i s study  higher general c o g n i t i v e  b u t no s i g n i f i c a n t l y  different  French  a b i l i t y , as v e r b a l and  r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y than Non-French Immersion s t u d e n t s .  r e s u l t s on t h e TONI t e s t suggest  t h a t more r e s e a r c h i s needed  with regard t o n o r m a l i z a t i o n , concurrent v a l i d i t y  and e q u i v a l e n c e of  78 the forms b e f o r e i t can be c o n s i d e r e d as 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  test.  Implications f o r Further  The  c o n c l u s i o n s drawn  s t u d e n t s from  Research  from t h i s s t u d y  h i g h socioeconomic  status.  are l i m i t e d to  I t would  be  Grade 3  wothwhile t o  conduct f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on c h i l d r e n from o t h e r grade l e v e l s , and from a wider range of socioeconomic r e s u l t s . More r e s e a r c h t h a t m o t i v a t i o n may  s t a t u s t o v e r i f y t h e c o n s i s t e n c y of the  i s also  needed t o i n v e s t i g a t e  have had on  the r e s u l t s of  the importance  the French  Immersion  group.  Moreover, a b i l i t y of French  t h e r e i s a need  to further  Immersion groups and  s t u d y and  compare the  Non-French Immersion groups t o  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 . T h i s would p r o v i d e f u r t h e r insights into  how l e a r n i n g  a second  language might  affect learning  development w i t h r e g a r d t o c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s . This study  q u e s t i o n e d the e q u i v a l e n c e  TONI and the d i f f e r e n c e  i n learning effect according  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the two forms. be conducted and  of the two  t o compare t h e  forms of the  t o the order of  Therefore, a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s should  e q u i v a l e n c e of t h e two  forms of the TONI  the o r d e r e f f e c t w i t h other groups, a t v a r i o u s age, grade and from  a wide range of s o c i e c o n o m i c s t a t u s .  79  This  s t u d y found  u s i n g s m a l l e r age  a l s o a need  f o r s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of  intervals, especially  between age  8 and  the TONI 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 ability  between  groups  Immersion s t u d e n t s , t e s t with regard t o concurrent  CWFT shows d i f f e r e n c e s other than c o g n i t i v e such  as  French  i t would be worthwhile  Immersion conducting  and  Non-French  r e s e a r c h on t h i s  i t s s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n and the e s t a b l i s h m e n t  and c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y .  of i t s  80  REFERENCES  Ahmed,  M.A.S.  (1954),  Mental  manipulation.  Egyptian  Yearbook  of  Psychology,1,23-88.  B a i n , B.  (1975)  Toward  an  integration  of P i a g e t  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.  B a l k a n , L. (1970), Les e f f e t s du  bilinguisme francais-anglais sur les  a p t 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 cognitive  development.  l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d y of b i l i n g u a l and  International  Journal  of  Psychology.  1 1 ( 4 ) , 251-263. Ben-Zeev, S.  (1977),  development  The  influence  and c o g n i t i v e  of b i l i n g u a l i s m  strategy.  Child  on  cognitive  Development.  48  f  1009-1018. B i 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 ) . B a l t i m o r e : W i l l i a m s & W i l k i n s . B l a u , P. &  Duncan,  O.D.  (1967),  with  Andrew  Truce. The  American  O c c u p a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e . New York: W i l e y . E l i s h e n , Bernard, socioeconomic de S o c i o l o g i e  R.  and Mc  Roberts,  index f o r o c c u p a t i o n s  Hugh,  (1976) A  revised  i n Canada. Revue Canadienne  et d'Anthropologie/Canadian  and A n t h r o p o l o g y . 13.(1), 71-79.  A.  Review  of S o c i o l o g y  81 Brown, L., Sherbenou,  R. & D o l l a r ,  I n t e l l i g e n c e Manual, pro-ed, Burns, G.E.  (1982), Charges  S. (1982), The Texas.  of E l i t i s m  Case f o r Improving Program  Test of Nonverbal  i n Immersion  Implementation.  E d u c a t i o n : The  Toronto: The O n t a r i o  I n s t i t u t e for Studies i n Education.  Buros, O.K.  (1985),  the  Ninth  Mental  Measurements  Yearbook.  New  J e r s e y : Gryphon P r e s s .  C a r r i n g e r , D.C.  (1974), C r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g  The r e l a t i o n s h i p Psychology,5, C l e v e l a n d , w.  s.  of  a b i l i t i e s of Mexican  binlingualism.  J o u r n a l of  youth:  Cross-Cultural  492-504. (1979),  "Robust  Locally  Weighted R e g r e s s i o n  and  Smoothing S c a t t e r p l o t s " , JASA, 74., 829-836. Coleman,  J.  (ed)  ( 1966 ),  Washington, D. C : Cronbach,  Equality  and  Educational  U.S. Governement P r i n t i n g  Opportunity.  Office.  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 T e s t i n g (3rd e d . ) .  N.Y.: Harper & Row. Cummins, J .  (1975),  Cognitive factors  l e v e l s of b i l i n g u a l s k i l l s .  associated  with intermediate  Unpublished manuscript, E d u c a t i o n a l  Research C e n t r e , St P a t r i c k ' s C o l l e g e , D u b l i n .  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 a synthesis  of  research findings  and  Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m , 9, 1-43.  growth:  e x p l a n a t o r y hypotheses.  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. J o u r n a l of C r o s s - C u l t u r a l P s y c h o l o g y , 9 , Cummins, J ,  (1979),  development Research,  L i n g u i s t i c interdependance  of  bilingual  children.  and  131-149.  the e d u c a t i o n a l  Review  of  Educational  4 9 ( 2 ) , 222-251.  Cummins, J . , &  G u l u t s a n , M.  cognitive  (1974), Some  functioning.  In  S.T.  e f f e c t of Carey  bilingualism  (ed),  on  Bilingualism,  B i c u l t u r a l i s m and E d u c a t i o n , 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),  Ukrainian-English bilingual  Orientation  children,  to  Child  language  Development,  in 49,  1239-1242. D'Anglejan, A. Gagnon, N. Hafez, M. S o l v i n g problems s t u d i e s of  in  a d u l t second  B i l i n g u a l i s m , 17., Darcy, N.  deductive  (1953),  A  Tucker,  G.R.  Winsberg, S.  reasoning:  language l e a r n e r s .  three  (1978),  experimental  Working  Papers on  1-23. r e v i e w of  b i l i n g u a l i s m upon Genetic Psychology,  the  literature  the measurement  on  the e f f e c t s  of i n t e l l i g e n c e .  of  J o u r n a l of  8_2, 21-57.  G a r t , J . J . (1969), An e x a c t t e s t f o r comparing matched p r o p o r t i o n s i n c r o s s o v e r d e s i g n s . B i o m e t r i k a , 56, 75 - 80. Harvey, F.B.  (1974),  E d u c a t i o n a l Systems  M i l l s , O n t a r i o : Longman Canada L t d .  and the Labour  Market,  Don  83 Heath, S.B.  (1982), What  no bedtime s t o r y means:  narrative s k i l l s  at  home and s c h o o l . 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 : a p p l i c a t i o n of anchor B r i t i s h Columbia. British  t e s t norming  Doctor  of  and e q u a t i n g  Education  An  procedures i n  thesis, University  of  Columbia.  I a n c o - W o r r a l l , 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.  variance - equal  (1985),  G e n e r a l mixed  c e l l s i z e . In  S t a t i s t i c a l Software,  1985,  D i x o n , W.  Printing.  J.  model  a n a l y s i s of  ( c h i e f e d . ) , BMDP  B e r k e l e y , 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 R e p o r t .  Lambert, W.E.  (1974), C u l t u r e and language  e d u c a t i o n . In F. Aboud  as f a c t o r s i n l e a r n i n g and  and F. D. Meade  (eds), Cultural Factors  i n L e a r n i n g . B e l l i n g h a m : Western Washington S t a t e C o l l e g e . Lambert, W.E. Hornby,  (1977), P.A.  Educational  E f f e c t s of (ed),  b i l i n g u a l i s m on the  Bilingualism:  Implications.  New  i n d i v i d u a l . In  Psychological,  york,  San  Social  Francisco,  and  London:  Academic P r e s s I n c . Lambert, W.E. The  & Tucker, G.R.  (1972),  St Lambert experiment.Rowley:  B i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n of c h i l d r e n . Newbury House.  84  Landry, R.G.(1974),  A  comparison  m o n o l i n g u a l s on  of  divergent  second  thinking  s c h o o l l e v e l . Modern Language J o u r n a l  L a x e r , G.  et  al  (1974), Student  language  tasks r  Social  a t  l e a r n e r s and  t h e elementary  58, 10-15.  and  Achievement P a t t e r n s .  Toronto: OISE, H.S. 1 S t u d i e s .  Liedke  W.W.  and  Nielson  bilingualism.  L.D.  Alberta  (1968),  Journal  of  Concept  formation  Educational  and  Research,, 14.  225-232.  MacNab, G.L.  (1979),  Cognition  and  bilingualism:  a reanalysis  of  s t u d i e s . L i n g u i s t i c s . 17, 231-255. Macnamara, J . ( 1 9 6 6 ) ,  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 P r e s s . M e h r o t r a , K.K.  (1968),  A  Comparative  study  of  WISC  and  Raven's  P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s , P s y c h o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s , 13, 47-50. N i e , N. H., C. H H u l l , J . G. J e n k i n s , K. S t e i n b r e n n e r , and D. H. Bent. (1975) SPSS. S t a t i s t i c a l  Package f o r t h e S o c i a l  S c i e n c e s . 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  immersion  students. Unpublished  B r i s t i s h Columbia, Ninio,  A.  (1980),  f o r grade  Master's t h e s i s ,  two French  U n i v e r s i t y of  Vancouver.  Picture-book  b e l o n g i n g t o two 587-590.  of the WISC-R  reading  in  mother-infant  sub-groups i n I s r a e l . C h i l d  dyads  Development, 51,  85  P e a l , E. &  Lambert,  W.E.,(1962),  The  relation  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, P i a g e t , J . ( 1 9 2 3 ) , Le  language e t l a pensee  of b i l i n g u a l i s m  to  1-23.  chez 1'enfant, N e u c h a t e l  et P a r i s : Delacheux e t N i e s t l e . Pintner,  R.  (1932),  The  influence  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 P s y c h o l o g y , 3, 235-240. Raven, J.C.  Court,  J.H.  Progressive Matrices Ltd.:  &  Raven,  J.  (1976),  and V o c a b u l a r y  Manual f o r  S c a l e s . H.  Raven's  K. Lewis  & Co  London.  R e i t a n , R. M.,  (1972) V e r b a l problem  s o l v i n g as  related to cerebral  damage. P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 34, 515-524. Rourke, Byron, P. Test  and F i s k John,  (Revised).  L. (1976),  University  of  C h i l d r e n ' s Word F i n d i n g  Windsor  and  Windsor  Western  Hospital Centre. Saer, D.J.  (1923),  Effect  of b i l i n g u a l i s m  on  intelligence.  British.  J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y , 14, 25-38. S a l v i a , Y.,  & Y s s e l d y k e , J.E.  (1978),  Assessment i n S p e c i a l  Remedial  E d u c a t i o n . Boston, N. Y.: Houghton M i f f l i n . B a t t l e r , ' J . M.  (1982 ) Assessment  Boston, N.Y.: Skutnabb-Kangas, T.  of C h i l d r e n I n t e l l i g e n c e  (2nd  ed.)  A l l y n & Bacon. & Toukomaa,  Mother Tongue and L e a r n i n g  P.(1976), Teaching the Language of the  Migrant Children Host Country i n  86  the Context  oi  the  soclo-cultural  Situation  of the  Migrant  F a m i l y . 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), U n d e r s t a n d i n g Winston, 2nd  Smith, F.  York:  H o l t , R i n e h a r t and  ed.  (1923),  B i l i n g u a l i s m and mental  of P s y c h o l o g y , 13, T e a l e , W.H.  Reading. New  (1982),  development.  B r i t . Journal  270-282.  Reading t o  Young C h i l d r e n : I t s  Significance for  L i t e r a c y Development. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith  (eds),  Awakening t o L i t e r a c y , London: Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l Books. T o r r a n c e , E.P.  Gowan, J.C.  Wu,  J.M.  f u n c t i o n i n g of m o n o l i n g u a l and  & Aliotti,  N.C.  (1970), C r e a t i v e  b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n i n Singapore.  J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 61, 72-75. T r i t e s , R. & P r i c e , French  M.A.  immersion:  (1980), Assessment of  Readiness f o r P r i m a r y  Grade  Assessment.  one  Follow-up  Toronto:  M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n , O n t a r i o . Tsushima,  W.T.  «  achievement  Hogan,  T.P.  in bilingual  (1975),  Verbal  ability  and m o n o l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n  and  school  of d i f f e r e n t  ages. J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n Research, 68, 349-353. V i g o t s k y , L.S.  (1962), Thought  and Language.  Cambridge,  the Wechsler  Intelligence  Mass.:  MIT  Press. Wechsler, D.  (1974),  Manual f o r  C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d . The P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n , New  Scale f o r York.  Whorf, B. (1956), Language, Thought and R e a l i t y . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT  88  APPENDIX  LETTER  TO  A  PARENTS  CONSENT FORM QUESTIONNAIRE VANCOUVER CHILDREN'S  SCHOOL BOARD MAP WORD F I N D I N G T E S T  89  Dear P a r e n t s :  's S c h o o l research project: involves  " B i l i n g u a l i s m and  t h e use  n o n v e r b a l ) and s c h o o l s and  of  verbal  regular  c o o p e r a t i o n of 60  individual reasoning  anglophone  has agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a Reasoning A b i l i t y " .  intelligence tests  tests  i n Early  schools.  The  The p r o j e c t (verbal  French  Immersion  project requires  c h i l d r e n i n t h e Vancouver S c h o o l  and  the  D i s t r i c t t o take  t e s t s which a r e w i d e l y used. In a d d i t i o n , t h e p a r e n t s of p a r t i c i p a t i n g s t u d e n t s w i l l be asked t o complete a s h o r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e which w i l l be used i n e s t a b l i s h i n g home background  The r e s e a r c h e r seeks b i l i n g u a l i s m and  the l e v e l  information.  t o d i s c o v e r a p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between of r e a s o n i n g  ability  of Grade  3 French  Immersion c h i l d r e n . A l s o , t h e p r o j e c t w i l l compare t h e s e c h i l d r e n w i t h t h e i r Grade 3 E n g l i s h c l a s s r o o m c o u n t e r p a r t s . A f u r t h e r purpose of t h e study i s to  s t a t i s t i c a l l y check t h e v a l i d i t y of a  n o n v e r b a l t e s t of  i n t e l l i g e n c e when used w i t h normal c h i l d r e n .  The r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t i s b e i n g undertaken as a master's t h e s i s i n the department of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y a t  t h e 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 S c h o o l Board's Student Assessment and Research o f f i c e and by t h e p r i n c i p a l of your s c h o o l .  's name was participant participate,  in this  research,  If  you and  chosen as a p o s s i b l e  your  child  agree  to  w i l l be asked t o take p a r t i n  91  BILINGUALISM AND REASONING ABILITY PARENT CONSENT FORM I consent t o t e s t i n g research  's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e  study a t  s c h o o l . I am aware t h a t t h i s w i l l  involve t e s t i n g sessions  totalling  a p p r o x i m a t e l y two hours d u r a t i o n . I understand t h a t 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 m a i n t a i n e d and t h a t no i n d i v i d u a l s c o r e s w i l l be released.  I a l s o understand t h a t 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  v o l u n t a r y and may be t e r m i n a t e d  a t any t i m e .  Signature I. would l i k e a copy of t h e group r e s u l t s t o be m a i l e d to:  I am u n w i l l i n g t e s t i n g research  t o have  involved i n the  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 i n f o r m a t i o n would be v e r y h e l p f u l i n making t h i s a m e a n i n g f u l s t u d y :  1 - What i s t h e main language spoken i n your home?  2 - Do you sometimes use another language i n the home? Yes  No  ;  I f Yes, which one? 3 - Has your c h i l d been e n r o l l e d i n t h e French Immersion  program  c o n t i n u o u s l y from K i n d e r g a r t e n through t o the p r e s e n t time? Yes  No  4 - Has your c h i l d been e n r o l l e d i n the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h  program  c o n t i n u o u s l y from K i n d e r g a r t e n through t o the p r e s e n t time? Yes  No  5 - Do you read t o your c h i l d ? Yes  No  I f Yes, How o f t e n ? Do you d i s c u s s w i t h him/her what you have read? Yes  No  Sometimes  How o l d was your c h i l d when you s t a r t e d r e a d i n g t o him/her?  Did  you read t o him/her, more o f t e n when he/she was younger? Yes  No  6 - How many hours a day on t h e average does your c h i l d watch T.V.  7 - A p p r o x i m a t e l y how many hours a week does your c h i l d read?  8 - QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO THE MOTHER 8a) Do you work o u t s i d e the home? Yes, p a r t - t i m e  No  .  Yes, f u l l - t i m e 8b) What i s your o c c u p a t i o n ? 8c) P l e a s e c i r c l e t h e number In f r o n t of t h e c a t e g o r y below, which b e s t d e s c r i b e s your completed l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n . I  Less than High S c h o o l c o m p l e t i o n  II  High S c h o o l c o m p l e t i o n  III  P o s t - S e c o n d a r y , no degree  IV  U n i v e r s i t y or C o l l e g e degree  9 - QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO THE FATHER 9a) Do you work o u t s i d e the home? Yes, p a r t - t i m e  No  Yes, f u l l - t i m e 9b) What i s your o c c u p a t i o n ? 9c) P l e a s e c i r c l e the number i n f r o n t of the c a t e g o r y below, which best d e s c r i b e s your completed l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n . I  Less than High S c h o o l c o m p l e t i o n  II  High S c h o o l c o m p l e t i o n  III  P o s t - S e c o n d a r y , no degree  IV  U n i v e r s i t y or C o l l e g e 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 t h e Vancouver S c h o o l 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:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078374/manifest

Comment

Related Items