IMPACT OF MONOLINGUAL AND BILINGUAL EN- EN-VIRONMENT ON THE RECEPTIVE SKILLS AND
3.3 Results and discussion
3.3.1 Tests on FL receptive skills
The results of both tests show that FL receptive skills of functional bilingual learn-ers are better developed than those of the monolingual ones. Table 1 shows the statistical data of the tests.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the tests on FL receptive skills (N=120) Reading (max. score:30) Listening (max. score: 16) Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual
Mean 16.5 (55%) 18.5 (62%) 8.25 (51.5%) 8.85 (55%)
Standard Deviation (SD) 6.4 6.8 1.98 2.36
Mode 8 20 7 12
Median 16 20 8 9
p>0.05 p>0.05
t=0.150891(n.s.) t=0.204514(n.s.)
MÁRTA FÁBIÁN
The data prove that the bilingual group performed better on both tests but the differences between the two groups are not signifi cant. As the maximum score of the two tests was different the means calculated as percentages show that from the two skills learners have better results in reading. The modes show that the most frequently occurring scores were 20 and 12 in the bilingual groups while in the monolingual one these scores were much lower: 8 and 7. The SD is lower in the monolingual group.
The result of the listening test of each participant is shown in Figure 1. We can see that the general tendency is that the scores in the bilingual group are some-what higher.
Figure 1
Results of the FL listening test (N=120)
By analyzing the results of each task we get more information. The fi gure (Figure 2) and the group statistics of the results of each task in the listening test provide us with an explanation as well as guidelines for further research. From the two tasks we can see that bilinguals performed signifi cantly better on the fi rst task (t=0.0138; mean: 5.05 – bilinguals; 4.25 - monolinguals). This has to do with the task type and the complexity of the task. The second task was based on monologues supported by pictures, so reading was not required at all.
It was relatively easy to fi nd the right answer by understanding some key words and matching them to the pictures. In learning and assessing knowledge in FL pictures play a great role as besides connecting new knowledge to the concept already existing in the mind (Poór, 2001) they also help to retrieve information quickly from the mind. The second task was more complex as it was based on a dialogue and learners had to identify the place where the dialogue took place or understand what the speakers agreed about. Learners had to understand the
58
whole situation and activate their schematic knowledge. It required more back-ground knowledge. No pictures were provided; the task was connected with reading on a phrase level.
Figure 2
Results of the tasks on the listening test (N=120)
Lis te ning tas k 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 num be r of par ticipants
score (max. 10)
bilinguals monolinguals
Lis te ning tas k 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 num be r of participants
score (max.6)
bilinguals monolinuals
On the reading test the difference between the two groups is bigger than on the listening test but it is not signifi cant in either test.
MÁRTA FÁBIÁN
Figure 3
Results of the FL reading test (N=120) Reading
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 number of participants
score
bilingial monolingual
Signifi cant difference was found in the results of the third and fourth tasks of the reading test: t= 0.045409.
Figure 4
Results of the tasks on the listening test (N=120)
The reason is that the fi rst two tasks could be done on a word and phrase level where words had to be matched with their defi nitions (task 1) and signs with the places where they can be found (task 2). The third and the fourth tasks were on a sentence (task 3) and text (task 4) level: matching questions with the right answers. Taking Wallace`s (1992) model of reading for the basis (we
60
see a signifi cant difference between the two groups on the third level: under-standing the meaning by connecting linguistic elements and lexical meaning.
On the fi rst two levels (decoding and understanding the meaning of words) the difference is not signifi cant. So, we see the same tendency as in the listening skills: bilingual learners perform signifi cantly better on more complex tasks requiring better developed linguistic and cognitive skills.
3.3.2. Cognitive language learning strategies
The questionnaires on language-learning strategies were fi lled in by 114 learn-ers: 62 monolingual and 52 bilingual. In case no sign (X or √ ) was put against a strategy the learner was given a score of 0, in other cases they received scores between 1 and 5 depending on the answer: 1 for ‘never or always never true of me’; 2 -‘usually not true of me’; 3 -‘somewhat true of me’; 4 – ‘usually true of me’; and 5 - ‘always or almost always true of me’. The results are shown in Figure 5 and in Table 2.
Figure 5
Means of cognitive strategies used by monolingual and bilingual learners (N=120)
Reading, task 4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 number of participants
Score (max 6)
Bilingual Monolingual
Figure 5 shows that in almost all strategies except for strategies nos. 2 &13 the mean is higher in the bilingual group or it is the same for both groups (strate-gies number 4 & 8).
MÁRTA FÁBIÁN
Table 2.
Quartiles and means of overall and individual strategy use (N=114)
Monolingual Bilingual
Lowest mean 0.73 1.6
Highest mean 4.46 4.86
Means between: N % N %
1-3 47 76 33 64
3.1-5 15 24 19 36
Q1 2.55 2.67
Q2 or median 2.83 3.01
Q3 3.04 3.24
From Table 2 we can see that bilinguals use more cognitive strategies than monolinguals. The means for individual strategy use showing the lowest and the highest means in the monolingual group are lower than in the bilingual group.
The number of strategies used by 76% of the monolinguals is between one and three while only 64% of the bilinguals use three or fewer strategies. 36% of the bilinguals and 24% of monolinguals use more than three cognitive strategies.
One quarter of the lowest scores of the cases can be found below 2.55 in the monolingual group and below 2.67 in the bilingual group while one quarter of the highest scores is above 3.04 in the fi rst and 3.24 in the second group. The median is also higher in the case of bilinguals. The difference is not signifi cant (t= 0.313, p>0.05).
The strategy that bilinguals use much more frequently than monolinguals is str. no 15: “I try to fi nd patterns in English, not only single words”. The difference is not signifi cant (t=0.152). Further differences in the strategy use were found in strategies no. 1 (‘I say new English words several times’), 3 (‘I try to talk like na-tive English speakers’), 5 (‘I use the English words I know in different ways’), 6 (‘I start conversations in English’), 7 (‘I watch English TV channels’), 9 (‘I write notes, messages or letters in English’), 10 (‘I fi rst skim the English passage then go back and read carefully’), 11 (‘I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English’), 12 (‘I fi nd the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand’), and 14 (‘I make summaries of informa-tion that I hear or read in English’). Bilinguals use these strategies more frequently than monolinguals. Two strategies are used more often by monolinguals: no. 2 (‘I write new English words several times’) and no. 13 (‘I try not to translate word for word’). Both groups have the same mean in two strategies: no. 4 (‘I practice the sounds of English’ – mean: 2.8) and no. 8 (‘I read for pleasure in English’ – mean: 2.3). Thus, 11 strategies are used more frequently by bilingual learners, two strategies by monolingual learners and in two strategies no difference was found.
62
3.3.3. Language aptitude test for young learners (INYÉT)
The descriptive statistics of the test show that on this test the monolingual group performed better. The mode and the median are the same for both groups: 31 and 29.
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics of the LAT
Monolingual Bilingual
Mean 29.4 27.4
SD 4.95 5.97
t= 0.407
Having analyzed the results task by task we see that on the fi rst task the bi-lingual group has higher scores (mean: 7.6, SD: 2.1, mode and median: 8) than the monolingual one (mean: 7.1, SD: 1.9, mode and median: 7). It measured the listening skills of the learners. Figure 6 shows the difference in scores, which is not signifi cant.
Figure 6 Listening task results INYÉT, Listening task
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 number of participants
score
bilingual monolingual
Based on the result we can state that the second hypothesis was partly refuted as the bilinguals did not learn a new language more easily than the monolinguals though their listening skills proved to be better developed.
3.3.4 Test of the reading skills in the mother tongue
Bilinguals performed better on this test with a mean 8.4 (max score: 14), against monolinguals’ 7.5 showing the same tendency as the reading test in FL.
MÁRTA FÁBIÁN
4 Summary and conclusions
The fi rst hypothesis was confi rmed as the receptive skills of the bilinguals proved to be better developed. Signifi cant differences were found in three cases: listening task 1 and reading tasks 2 and 3. The results of the listening task of the LAT also support this hypothesis. We can conclude that on more complex tasks requiring higher-level cognitive and linguistic skills bilinguals perform signifi cantly better.
They also use more cognitive language learning strategies. Hypothesis 2 was re-futed as bilinguals did not learn a new language more quickly.
REFERENCES
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. Berlin – Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diaz, R., & Klinger, C. (1991). Toward an explanatory model of the interaction between bilingualism and cognitive development. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp.167-192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Göncz, L. (2004). A vajdasági magyarság kétnyelvűsége [The bilingualism of the Voivodina Hungarians].
Szabadka: Magyarságkutató Tudományos Társaság és Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Etnikai-nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézete.
Grafe-Bentnzien, S. (2002). Bilingvis nyelvi képességek fejlődése a Berlini Állami Európa Iskolában [Development of bilingual linguistic skills int he Berlin State Europe School]. In G. Ruda (Ed.), Nemzetségi iskolák – kétnyelvű oktatás [Nationality schools – bilingual education] (pp. 279-290).
Pilisvörösvár – Graz: Muravidék Baráti Kör Kulturális Egyesület – Artikel-VII-Kulturveirein für Steiermark.
Kassai, I. (2001). Metanyelvi tudatosság és olvasási képesség [Meta-language awareness and reading ability]. In B. Csapó (Szerk.), I. Országos Neveléstudományi Konferencia. Tartalmi összefoglalók (p. 304). Budapest: MTA Pedagógiai Bizottság.
Kiss, Cs. (2005). Nyelvelsajátítási képesség mérő teszt az általános iskolák 6. osztálya számára [Test for measuring language acquisition skills for Form 6 of the upper-primary school]. Unpublished manuscript.
Lanstyák, I. (1998). Nyelvünkben – otthon [In our language – at home]. Dunaszerdahely: NAP Kiadó.
McKay, P. (2006). .Assessing young language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Molnár, J., & Molnár, D. I. (2005). Kárpátalja népessége és magyarsága a népszámlálási és népmozgalmi adatok tükrében [The population and the Hungarians of Transcarpathia in the mirror of census and demographic data]. Ungvár: PoliPrint.
Nikolov, M. (2005). Angol hallott szöveg értése, angol olvasott szöveg értése. [English listening comprehension, English reading comprehension.] Retrieved on 24 July, 2014 from http://www.
okm.gov.hu/main.php?folderID=279&articleID=1509&ctag=article list&iid=1
Ottó, I. (2002). Magyar Egységes Nyelvérzékmérő Teszt [Consistent Hungarian Language Aptitude Test].
Budapest: Mottó-Logic, Bt.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House Publisher.
Poór, Z. (2001). Nyelvpedagógiai technológia [Language pedagogy technology]. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.
Rabec, I. (2004). Részletek nyelvvesztőkkel készített interjúkból [Excerpts from interviews made with language losers]. In Tanulmányok a kétnyelvűségről II. (pp. 239-260). Pozsony: Kalligram Kiadó.
Wallace, C. (1992). Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.