Simple linear regression analysis was performed to control statistically the effect of the extraneous variables (vocabulary, letter sound knowledge, letter name knowledge and working memory) because the four assumptions of linear regression (linearity, normality, independence and equality of variance) were met. The results for Arabic showed that the R value is 0.556, indicating a strong positive correlation between Arabic PA and receptive vocabulary, letter and sound knowledge and working memory. It can be concluded that the regression model predicts Arabic PA significantly (p = 0.001) (see Table 4.13).
Table 4.12 Simple linear regression analysis of Arabic and English PA
R R2 Adjusted R2 F Sig.
Arabic PA 0.556 0.309 0.23 3.96 0.001
English PA 0.691 0.477 0.41 8.10 0.001
a. Independent variables: sound knowledge, listening recall processing, vocabulary, digit recall, spatial recall, listening recall, spatial recall processing, letter knowledge in both languages.
b. Dependent Variables: Arabic PA and English PA.
The results of the regression analysis for English showed that the R value is 0.691, indicating that the correlation between English PA and these variables is positive and strong. The regression model statistically significantly (p = 0.001) predicts the English PA variable (see Table 4.12).
73
Results for Research Question 1: Is there an association between phonological awareness skills in Arabic (L1) and English (L2)?
RQ1 concerned the association between PA in the L1 and L2 and it was hypothesised that Arabic and English PA skills would be strongly associated. Preliminary data screening was run to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Data screening also included checking plots for nonlinearity and heteroscedasticity. The results revealed that the data were not normally distributed. Therefore, Spearman’s correlation was run to determine the relationship between Arabic and English PA skills. The results showed that Arabic PA correlated significantly and positively with English PA across the three age groups (see Table 4.13).It can be concluded that the hypothesis that PA skills are strongly associated in Arabic and English is confirmed.
Table 4.13 Relationship between Arabic and English PA Age (N) Spearman’s correlation coefficient
(rs)
Sig.
7 (27) 0.618 0.001
8 (27) 0.640 0.00
9 (26) 0.770 0.00
Results for Research Question 2: What is the Arabic (L1) - English (L2) bilingual children’s level of performance in PA and reading tasks in both languages?
RQ2 concerned the children’s level of performance in PA and reading tasks in Arabic and English and it was hypothesised that children’s performance would be better in Arabic (L1) than in English (L2) due to lengthier exposure to Arabic. To address this research question, non-parametric two related samples tests were conducted because the data were shown not to be normally distributed. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was run to determine if there were differences between these sets of scores. One significant issue to take into account when interpreting the results of this question is the assessment measures (as mentioned in section 3.5). The English assessment measures were norm referenced, whereas all the Arabic assessment measures were experimental except the PA test, which is standardised test. The results are presented in Tables 4.14, 4.15 and 4.16.
74
Table 4.14 Descriptive statistics for children’s performance in PA and reading at age 7
Test N Mean Std. Deviation Sig.
APA 27 108.87 9.14
0.143
EPA 27 106.63 6.81
Arabic real word reading 27 63.59 22.15
0.000
English real word reading 27 90.21 10.71
Arabic non-word reading 27 68.13 24.63
0.000
English non-word reading 27 87.90 13.14
Arabic reading comprehension 27 60.62 16.64
0.000
English reading comprehension 27 89.62 5.56
The non-parametric two related samples analysis shows that children’s performance at 7 years old on the Arabic PA test (M = 108.87, SD = 9.14) was higher than on the English PA test (M = 106. 6, SD = 6. 81) as indicated in Table 4.14. Their performance on all English reading tasks – real word (M = 90.21, SD = 10.71), non-word (M = 87.90, SD = 13.14) and reading comprehension (M = 89.62, SD = 5.56) – was higher than in Arabic – real word (M = 63.59, SD = 22.15), non-word (M = 68.1, SD = 24.63) and reading comprehension (M = 60.6, SD = 16.64). Statistically significant results were found when the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was run for all reading tasks (real word reading: Z = -4.108, p < 0.01; non-word reading: Z = -3.836, p < 0.01; reading comprehension: Z = -4.518, p < 0.01). However, data for PA (Z = -1.466, p > .001) yielded non-significant differences.
Table 4.15 Descriptive statistics for children's performance in PA and reading at age 8
Test N Mean Std. Deviation Sig.
APA 27 109.24 9.72
0.021
EPA 27 105.45 9.32
Arabic real word reading 27 75.67 18.71
0.000
English real word reading 27 89.65 12.47
Arabic non-word reading 27 71.87 21.19
0.866
English non-word reading 27 74.37 12.88
Arabic reading comprehension 27 67.90 16.68
0.000
75
The results for the 8-year-old children show that the performance in Arabic PA (APA) skills (M = 105, SD = 9.32) was higher than in English (EPA) (M = 109.24, SD = 9.72), as indicated in Table 4.15. In terms of reading tasks, children’s performance in English tasks – real word (M = 89.6, SD = 12.47), non-word (M = 74.3, SD = 12.88) and reading comprehension (M = 86.5, SD = 7.28) – was higher than in Arabic – real word (M = 75.6, SD = 18.71), non-word (M = 71.8, SD = 21.19) and reading comprehension (M = 67.9, SD = 16.6). The results also indicate that the differences between these sets of scores were statistically significant for PA (Z = -2.306, p < 0.01), real words (Z = -3.5, p < 0.01), reading comprehension (Z = -4.026, p < 0.01). The exception was the non-word reading test (Z = -0.168, p > 0.01).
Table 4.16 Descriptive statistics for children’s performance in PA and reading at age 9
Test N Mean Std. Deviation Sig.
APA 26 109.79 10.30
0.006
EPA 26 105.78 5.58
Arabic real word reading 26 82.28 19.77
0.732
English real word reading 26 83.45 14.34
Arabic non-word reading 26 78.42 23.03
0.264
English non-word reading 26 76.35 11.77
Arabic reading comprehension 26 70.33 16.15
0.000
English reading comprehension 26 90.90 7.63
The results for the 9-year-old children indicated that their performance in the Arabic PA test (M = 109.79, SD = 5.58) was higher than in English (M = 105.78, SD = 10.30). However, their performance in English reading comprehension (M = 90.90, SD = 7.63) was higher than in Arabic (M = 70.33, SD = 16.15). Their performance in the Arabic (M = 82.28, SD = 19.77) and English (M = 83.45, SD = 14.34) real word tasks and the Arabic (M = 78.42, SD = 23.03) and English (M = 76.35, SD = 11.77) non-word tasks were very similar. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated that only the PA and reading comprehension scores were significantly different (Z = -2.756, p < 0.01 and Z = -4.252, p < 0.01 respectively) (Table 4.16). Therefore, the hypothesis that children’s performance in Arabic PA would be better than in English is confirmed, while the hypothesis that performance on reading tasks would be higher in Arabic
(L1) than English (L2) is rejected. To determine whether there are significant differences between the means of PA and reading
76
terms of Arabic tasks, the results showed that the groups did not differ significantly for PA (F(2, 77) = 0.06, p = 0.94), non-word (F(2, 77) = 1.35, p = 0.26) and reading comprehension (F(2, 77) = 2.50, p = 0.08). However, there was a statistically significant difference at the p < 0.05 level for the scores of the Arabic real word task across the three age groups (F(2, 77) = 5.81, p = 0.005). Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the 9- year-old group (M = 82.28, SD = 19.77) was significantly different (p = 0.03) from that for the 7-year-old group (M = 63.59, SD = 22.15). There was, however, no statistically significant difference (p = 0.46) in means between the 9- and 8-year-old groups’ performance or between the 7- and 8-year-old groups’ performance (p = 0.07) in the Arabic real word reading task (see Table 4.17).
With regard to the English tasks, the outcome of ANOVA showed that there was no significant difference between the means of the three age groups in English PA (F(2, 77) = 0.18, p = 0.83) and real word (F(2, 77) = 2.34, p = 0.102) tasks. There was, however, a statistically significant difference between groups’ performance (F(2, 77) = 9.02, p = 0.00) in the non-word reading task. Tuckey HSD test revealed that the 7-year-old group performed better than the other two groups. There was a significant difference (p = 0.01) between the 7-year-old (M = 87.90, SD = 13.14) and 8-year-old (M = 74.37, SD = 12.88) groups’ performance, as well as between the 7- year-old (M = 87.90, SD = 13.14) and 9-year-old groups (M = 76.35, SD = 11.77) at p = 0.04. No other differences were significant (p = 0.83) between the 8- and 9-year-old groups. The comparison between the three groups’ performance on the reading comprehension task showed there was no significant difference (F (2, 77) =2.81, p= 0.066) between the groups (Table 4.17).
77
Table 4.17 Comparison of means for performance in the PA and reading tasks across the two languages for the three age groups
A ra b ic Tasks F Sig. PA 0.06 0.94
Real word reading 5.81 0.005
Non-word reading 1.35 0.264 Reading comprehension 2.50 0.089 E n gl is h PA 0.18 0.83
Real word reading 2.34 0.102
Non-word reading 9.02 0.00
Reading comprehension 2.81 0.066
Results for Research Question 3: Does phonological awareness in either of the two languages of bilingual children predict word reading and reading comprehension in the other languages?
Following on from RQ3, it was hypothesised that PA in one language would correlate with reading in the other language. Multivariate regression was used to test this hypothesis and the results revealed that there was a significant effect of English PA on all Arabic reading tasks (real word: F(1, 78) = 9.42, p < 0.05; nonword: F(1, 78) = 10.70, p < 0.05; reading comprehension: F(1, 78) = 15.65, p < 0.05). The results also showed that there was a significant effect of Arabic PA on all English reading tasks (nonword: F(1, 78) = 12.00, p < 0.05; reading comprehension: F(1, 78) = 22.93, p < 0.05), except the real word reading task (F(1, 78) = 3.91, p > 0.05), the p value has a clear tendency towards significance (see Table 4.18).
78
Table 4.18 Multivariate regression analysis for PA predicting reading
Predictor variable Dependent variable F Sig.
English PA
Arabic real word reading
9.42 0.003 Arabic non-word reading
10.70 0.002
Arabic reading comprehension 15.65 0.000
Arabic PA English real word reading 3.91 0.052 English non-word reading 12.00 0.001 English reading comprehension
22.93 0.000
Therefore, English PA predicts Arabic reading and Arabic PA predicts all English reading tasks except real word reading. Thus, the hypothesis that English PA would predict Arabic reading is accepted, while the hypothesis that Arabic PA would predict English reading is accepted for all reading tasks except the real word task.
Results for Research Question 4: What is the Arabic (L1) - English (L2) bilingual children’s level of performance in PA and spelling tasks in both languages?
RQ4 concerned the children’s level of performance in PA and spelling tasks in Arabic and English and it was hypothesised that children’s performance in PA skills and spelling would be better in Arabic (L1) than in English (L2). Because the data were not normally distributed, a non-parametric two related samples test was conducted to address this question. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test also was run to determine if there were differences between these scores. It is worth considering when interpreting the results of this question, that English measures were norm referenced and the Arabic measures were experimental except the PA test, which is standardised (see section 3.5).
Table 4.19 shows that children’s performance at 7 years old on the Arabic PA test (M = 108.87, SD = 9.14) was higher than in English (M = 106.63, SD = 6.81). In terms of spelling tasks, the performance was higher in English – real word (M = 81.63, SD = 12.51), non-word (M = 67.15, SD = 11.25) than in Arabic – real word (M = 63.32, SD = 23.66), non-word (M = 61.07, SD =
79
23.52). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated that only the differences between the scores for spelling real words (Z = -3.665, p < 0.01) were statistically significant.
Table 4.19 Descriptive statistics for children's performance aged 7 in PA and spelling tasks
Test N Mean Std. Deviation Sig.
APA 27 108.87 9.14
0.143
EPA 27 106.63 6.81
Arabic real word spelling 27 63.32 23.66
0.000 English real word spelling 27 81.63 12.51
Arabic non-word spelling 27 61.07 23.52
0.234 English non-word spelling 27 67.15 11.25
The results for 8-year-old children showed that the performance for Arabic PA was higher than in English, as explained earlier, and their performance in spelling tasks was higher in English – real word (M = 79.99, SD = 11.1), non-word (M = 59.84, SD = 10.76) than in Arabic – real word (M = 64.10, SD = 20.53), non-word (M = 57.52, SD = 21.15). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed statistical differences between the two sets of scores for PA (Z = -2.3, p < 0.01) and spelling of real words (Z = -4.15, p < 0.01). Spelling of non-word scores (Z = -0.36, p > 0.01) were not statistically significant, as illustrated in Table 4.20.
Table 4.20 Descriptive statistics for children's performance aged 8 in PA and spelling tasks
Test N Mean Std. Deviation Sig.
APA 27 109.24 9.72
0.021
EPA 27 105.45 9.32
Arabic real word spelling 27 64.100 20.53
0.000 English real word spelling 27 79.99 11.16
Arabic non-word spelling 27 57.52 21.15
0.719 English non-word spelling 27 59.84 10.76
80
Performance in terms of Arabic PA of children aged 9 years old (M = 109.79, SD = 10.30) was higher than in English (M = 107.78, SD = 5.58). Children’s performance on both spelling tasks in Arabic – real word (M = 81.68, SD = 10.87) and non-word (M = 71.98, SD = 15.84) – was higher than in English – real word (M = 75.47, SD = 8.29) and non-word (M = 42.64, SD = 13.24). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test determined that there were statistically significant differences between these scores (PA: Z = -2.7, p < 0.01; spelling real words: Z = -2.4, p < 0.01; spelling non-words: Z = -4.4, p < 0.01), as illustrated in Table 4.21.
Table 4.21 Descriptive statistics for children's performance aged 9 in PA and spelling tasks
Test N Mean Std. Deviation Sig.
APA 26 109.79 10.30 0.006
EPA 26 105.78 5.58
Arabic real word spelling 26 81.68 10.87 0.014 English real word spelling 26 75.47 8.29
Arabic non-word spelling 26 71.98 15.84 0.000 English non-word spelling 26 42.64 13.24
Therefore, the hypothesis that children’s performance for PA skills and spelling would be better in Arabic (L1) than in English (L2) is confirmed only for 9-year-old children. In terms of children aged 7 and 8 years old, this hypothesis is confirmed only for PA skills and is rejected for spelling.
The comparison of means for the three age groups’ performance in Arabic PA and spelling tasks using one-way ANOVA analysis showed that the groups did not differ significantly on PA tasks (F(2,77) = 0.06, p = 0.94)(see Table 4.22). However, the groups differed (F(2, 77) = 7.67, p = 0.001) on the real word spelling task. Tukey post hoc test HSD showed that the 9- year-old children performed better than the other groups. There was a significant difference (p = 0.002) between the 9-year-old (M = 81.68, SD = 10.87) and 7-year-old (M = 63.32, SD = 23.66) groups. There was also a significant difference (p = 0.004) between the 9-year-old (M = 81.68, SD = 10.87) and 8-year-old (M = 64.10, SD = 20.53) groups. No other differences were significant (p = 0.98) between the 7- and 8-year-old groups.
The results of one-way ANOVA for non-word tasks showed a group difference (F(2, 77) = 3.56, p = 0.03). Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey HSD test indicated that there was a significant difference (p = 0.03) between the 9-year-old (M = 71.98, SD = 15.84) and 8-year-
81
old (M = 57.52, SD = 21.15) groups. There was, however, no significant difference (p = 0.135) between the 7-year-old (M = 61.07, SD = 23.52) and 9-year-old (M = 71.98, SD = 15.84) groups. No other differences were significant (p = 0.8) between the 7-year-old (M = 61.07, SD = 23.52) and 8-year-old (M = 57.52, SD = 21.15) groups.
In terms of English spelling tasks, ANOVA comparing the three groups’ performance on the real word task showed no significant difference (F(2,77) = 2.28, p = 0.108) between groups (see Table 4.22). However, the groups did differ significantly (F(2, 77) = 30.10, p = 0.00) on the non-word task. Tukey post hoc test HSD showed that there was a significant difference (p = 0.00) between the 7-year-old (M = 67.15, SD = 11.25) and 9-year-old (M = 42.64, SD = 13.24) groups, as well as between (p = 0.00) the 8-year-old (M = 59.84, SD = 10.76) and 9-year-old (M = 42.64, SD = 13.24) groups. There was, however, no significant difference (p = 0.06) between the 7-year-old and 8-year-old groups. From these results, it is clear that the performance of the 9-year-old group was lower than the other two groups in English spelling tasks.
Table 4.22 Comparison of means for performance on the PA and spelling tasks across the two languages in the three age groups
A ra b ic Tasks F Sig. PA 0.06 0.941
Real word spelling 7.67 0.001
Non-word spelling 3.56 0.033 E n gl is h PA 0.18 0.83
Real word spelling 2.28 0.108
Non-word spelling 30.10 0.000
Results for research Question 5: Does phonological awareness in one of the two languages of Arabic (L1) - English (L2) bilingual children predict word spelling in the other languages?
Following on from RQ5, it was hypothesised that PA in one language would correlate with spelling in the other language. To test this hypothesis, multivariate regression was performed and the results indicated that there was a significant effect of English PA on all Arabic spelling tasks – real word (F(1, 78) = 13.09, p < 0.05) and non-word (F(1, 78) = 10.51, p < 0.05). Moreover, the results also showed that there was a significant effect of Arabic PA, but only on English real word spelling (F(1, 78) = 11.97, p < 0.05) (see Table 4.23). Therefore, English PA
82
predicts both real and non-words in Arabic and Arabic PA predicts only real word spelling in English.
Table 4.23 Multivariate regression analysis for PA predicting spelling
Predictor variable Dependent variable F Sig.
English PA
Arabic real word spelling 13.09 0.001 Arabic non-word spelling 10.51 0.002
Arabic PA
English real word spelling 11.97 0.001 English non -word spelling 2.17 0.145
Summary
This chapter has examined the assessments and questionnaire results, presenting the data analysed to answer the research questions regarding the comparison between the three age groups of Arabic-English bilingual children in terms of the relationship between PA and literacy. The potential for cross-linguistic transfer between the L1 and L2 has also been examined. The results in this chapter indicate that there is, as expected, a significant correlation between PA in English and in Arabic across the three age groups. In addition, the children’s performance in Arabic PA is better than in English. The findings also show that Arabic PA predicts all English reading tasks, except the real word task; moreover, English PA predicts all Arabic reading tasks. A further important finding of this study is that Arabic PA predicts only English real word, not non-word, spelling, while English PA predicts Arabic real and non-word word spelling. The next chapter, therefore, moves on to discuss these findings, as well as highlighting the study implications and limitations and significant directions for further research.
83