Control measures

Based on what we know about the relationship between L2 learning and other verbal and non-verbal abilities (see section 3.1.2.3), a number of control measures were used in the project.

Their purpose was mainly to ensure that the two state-school FL groups (native-language based

18 The bias for subjects, especially children, for “yesˮ responses is, for example, discussed by Crain and Thornton (1998).

74

and bilingually based) were as closely matched as possible on such factors, so that differences in L2 acquisition could safely be attributed to their learning contexts. However, the background measures were also used to look for relationships between background factors and SLA. For example, the effect of group membership (native-language based or bilingually based) was compared to the effect of L1 vocabulary and verbal ability in Paper 3, while correlation analysis was performed between a number of background measures and English development in the immersion group in Paper 4. Furthermore, the relationship between background factors and English measures was further explored through correlation analysis in section 4.3.

5.3.4.1 The Norwegian vocabulary test

In the pre-test session, a Norwegian test of receptive vocabulary based on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test form A was administered in order to check that L1 vocabulary development was comparable across groups. Since then, the British Picture Vocabulary Scale, second edition (BVPS) (Dunn et al., 1997) has been translated and normed for Norwegian (cf.

Lyster, Horn, & Rygvold, 2010). However, this was not available when the testing took place in the present project. The test thus had to be developed specifically for this project.

The test used the vocabulary of the PPVT-IV form A as its starting point. However, direct translation of the English test was not always possible. English and Norwegian are are closely related languages, but their lexicons are relatively different, as discussed in section 3.2.1. This is a result of English being different from the other Germanic languages, in having been especially influenced by French and Latin. Norwegian, on the other hand, has mostly retained its original Germanic vocabulary. This creates a problem in particular for the translation of a test such as the PPVT-IV since it means that many words that are opaque and must be acquired independently in English are compounds in Norwegian, whose meaning can often be inferred from its components (see V. C. M. Gathercole, Thomas, & Hughes, 2008 for a similar problem with translation into Welsh).An example is the word orchard, which is frukthage (literally “fruit-gardenˮ) in Norwegian. This word appears in the starting set for the age range 14-16 in Form B, at a point where other words are clearly more advanced than the components fruit and garden. For this reason, words completely different from those of the English PPVT-IV sometimes had to be found to retain the appropriate level of the particular stage of the test.

Since this test was developed specifically for the present project, it was not normed or standardized. Thus, it can only be used for comparisons within the project, and vocabulary scores

75

in Norwegian and English cannot be directly compared. However, internal consistency was good, with an odd-even reliability of .872.

5.3.4.2 The verbal ability test

For verbal ability, the Riddles section of the Kaufmann Brief Intelligence Test, 2nd edition (K-Bit 2) was adapted to be used in Norwegian. The problems discussed for the adaption of the PPVT-IV are less relevant for this test, and more direct translation was possible. However, as with the Norwegian vocabulary test in this project, no norming is available for the verbal ability test, and scores can thus be compared within the project only. Odd-even reliability was checked, and was found to be relatively good, at .733.

The K-Bit 2 is normed for children from the age of four, and tests of verbal abilities similar to the Riddles section are standard parts of intelligence test batteries. However, tasks in this test entail accessing concepts on the basis of linguistic descriptions, which may be argued to be a complex cognitive process also involving metalinguistic aspects, which may be a

competence which develops during school years. Thus, exactly what it tests in very young children is not entirely clear. However, a Pearson correlation with the Norwegian vocabulary test of .487, p<.001 indicates that this test does measure verbal ability, but is different enough from a receptive vocabulary test to yield relevant results on its own.

5.3.4.3 The non-verbal intelligence test

For non-verbal intelligence, the participants completed the Matrices section of (K-Bit 2).

This section required no adaption except giving instructions in Norwegian rather than in English, given that the test itself is non-verbal. For this reason, there is no reason to assume that the reliability reported in the test manual (Kaufman, 2004) should not hold, and independent reliability analysis was not conducted within the project. The correlation between scores on the Riddles section and the Matrices section in the project was checked and found significant, r=.264, p=.016.

5.3.4.4 Test of working memory

As a measure of short-term memory, a memory game was used where picture cards were laid out in a pre-planned pattern, and the child was given a fixed amount of time to memorize the pattern before the cards were turned upside-down and the child was asked to find the pairs in as

76

few attempts as possible. The smallest set consisted of four cards, i.e., two pairs, and sets were incrementally expanded by one pair until the final set of 12 cards, or six pairs. The number of attempts the child used to find all pairs was recorded. The nature of this test does not allow for testing internal consistency since it does not consist of test items. However, the task was exactly the same at all levels and can therefore be assumed to have tested one underlying ability. This test can be assumed to have tested visio-spatial memory, e.g., the visio-spatial sketchpad in Baddeley

& Hitch’s (1974) model of working memory. It is a shortcoming of the present project that phonological working memory was not tested; this is discussed extensively in Paper 2.

5.3.4.5 Measures of social factors

As mentioned in section 3.2.2, there is ample access to English-language media in Norway, and even though most media for young children is in Norwegian, it was likely that some parents may have deliberately exposed their children to English in preparation for starting school.

In a questionnaire at the beginning of the year (see Appendix 5), parents were asked about this, and also about whether they had been practicing English with the child. They were asked to indicate the approximate number of hours per week of such exposure. There were also questions about each child’s international experience prior to starting school, on the assumption that for stays abroad, the child would have been exposed to at least some English as it is the normal lingua franca for tourism and travel.

This information was quantifiable, and it was first and foremost used to check that the two state school FL groups (native-language based and bilingually based) had not had significantly different levels of exposure. In section 4.3 the information was also used to look for relationships between outside exposure and English proficiency. However, it is important to note that these measures were crude and should not be used to draw firm conclusions.

5.3.5 Methods for analysis