Effects of bilingualism on literacy development

Dina Ocampo

Thesis submittedfor the degreeof Doctor of Philosophy

Departmentof Psychology
Schoolof Human Sciences
University of Surrey
2002
 Abstract

Thisthesiscomprisedaninvestigation of literacydevelopment
andliteracydifficulties
in the contextof bilingualism
involving479sixto thirteenyearold childrenbilingualin
two languages.
The childrenin this studywererequiredto learnliteracyin two writing
systems, Filipino
namely andEnglish. 'Me contextof concurrent learninganda
bilingualbackground for
provideda uniquecontext studying biliteracy
development
and [Link], in
variations the complexity
orthographic between
the
two scripts(Filipinois transparent,
whilst English is complex)allowedanassessment
of
currentcross-language in
perspectives literacy The
difficulties. mainaimof the
research wasto investigatecognitiveand linguisticfactorsthat to
arerelated literacy
difficultiesin a [Link] via two ie,
additionalaims: to
understand the development of, andthe skillsinvolvedin, literacyacquisition. This
requiredassessment
of the impact within and
of processes between
the languages
of
literacy.

'Me resultsindicatethatthe predominanttheorieson literacydevelopment generated

on the basisof monolingual English-speaking do
cohorts not explain literacy
processes
among the bilingual-biliterate
children in this study. Although based
predictions on
thesetheories found somesupport in the English baseddata,they were inconsistent

with the dataproduced by the samechildren in Filipino. The secondmainconclusion

that the centralprocessing
asserts hypothesis the
and script dependent
hypothesis
are
complementary of
explanations bilingual
[Link]
seemsto
progressat differentrates,underlyingskillsin literacyshowa high degree of cross-
language interdependence. Finally,in examiningliteracydifficultiesamongthe children
in this study,it wasfoundthat groupcomparisons did not providesufficientbasisto

characterisesingleword literacydifficulties.
However the analysisof singlecases
indicateddifferentmanifestations of literacydifficultiescrossthe two languages.
These
findings1)indicatethat biliteracypresentsa fundamentally differentcontextin which
to investigate
andassess literacydifficulties,
2) highlight
the importanceof assessments
in all languagesof literacyand 3) demonstratethe needto assess
morethansingleword
processing deficits,particularlywhendealing
with a highlytransparent
writing system.
Table of Contents

Abstract i

Table of contents ii

List of tables Sli

List of figures ix

Acknowledgments x

Chapter1 GeneralAims 1

1. GeneralAims 2
2. 'Me Philippine context 5
2.1. Bilingual education 7
2.2. Specialneedslegislation 9
2.3. Educationaland family support for childrenwith dyslexia 9
3. Structureof the thesis 11

Chapter2 GeneralMethods 13

1. Introduction 14

2. Instruments 18
[Link] Reading 18
2.2. Spelling 21
2.3. [Link] 23
2.4. PhonemeTapping 25
2.5. SyllableTapping 27
2.6. RapidVisualNaming 28
2.7. PictureStories 31
2.8. ListeningComprehension 33
Comprehension
2.9. Sentence 36
[Link] Span 39

ii
2.11. RhythmTapping 41
[Link] 42
2.13. BlockDesign 44
[Link] Interference 46
3. TestDevelopment 48
3.1. Pilot Study 48
3.2. Examiners'Training 52
3.3. Examiners'manualandkit construction 53
4. Main Study 53
4.1. Subjects 53
4.2. Generalprocedure 54
5. Propertiesof the test 55
5.1. Reliabilityestimates 55
5.2. Factoranalysis 56
6. DescriptiveStatistics 58

Chapter3 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in Englisb 62

1. Theorieson literacydevelopment 63
1.1. Word Reading 63
1.2. Spelling 66
1.3. Phonological
representations 70
1.4. Comprehension 70
.
2. Data on theorieson
analyses development
literacy 73
2.1. Procedure 73
2.2. Measures 73
2.3. ResultsandDiscussion 77
[Link] Reading 78
[Link] 80
[Link] 83
[Link] 88
3. Data on
analyses predictors
of literacyskillsin Filipino andin English 90
3.1. Sample 90

iii
 3.2. Measures 91
3.3. Resultsand Discussion 92
3.3.1. Filipino Word Reading 92
3.3.2. Filipino Spelling 94
3.3.3. Filipino SentenceComprehension 96
3.3.4. English Word Reading 98
3.3.5. English Spelling 100
3.3.6. English SentenceComprehension 104

Cbapter 4 Predictors of Biliteracy 107

1. Readingin two languages 109

2. Method 116
2.1. Sample 116
2.2. Measures 117
3. Resultsand Discussion 121
3.1. Developmentalimprovements 121
3.2. Intra/Inter-languagecorrelations 125
3.3. Predictorsof readingability 128

gAalter 5 Literacy difficulties 133

a

1. difficulties
Literacy anddyslexia
research 134
2. Method 140
2.1. Sample 140
2.2. Measures 140
2.3. Procedures 141
3. Comparisons agecontrolgroups
with chronological 142
3.1. Selecting
the controlgroup 142
3.2. Dataanalysesprocedure 143
3.3. Resultsanddiscussion 143
4. Comparisons average
with youngernondyslexic readers 150

iv
 4.1. Selectingthe control group 150
4.2. Data analysesprocedure 151
4.3. Results and discussion 151
5. Single caseprofiles of cognitive and linguistic performance 157
5.1. method 158
5.1.1. Instruments 158
5.1.2. Data analysisprocedure 159
5.1.3. Description of the graphs 159

5.2. Results and Discussion 161

5.2.1. literacy difficulties related to general ability problems 161

5.2.2. Literacy difficulties related to languagecomprehension difficulties in 164

both English and Filipino

5.2.3. literacy difficulties in English related to English listening 165

comprehension
5.2.4. Literacy difficulties related to Filipino listening comprehension 167

5.2.5. Reading comprehension difficulties 169

5.2.6. Dyslexic profiles 170

[Link]. Dyslexic in both languages 170

[Link]. Dyslexic in English only 171

[Link]. Dyslexic in Filipino only 172

[Link]. Bilingual-biliterate dyslexics 173

Cbapter 6 General Discussion 176

r.

Literacydevelopmentamongmonolingualsis different from literacy 179

developmentamongbilinguals

2. Ile centralprocessingand script dependenthypothesesare 182

complementaryexplanationsof concurrent literacy development

3. Methods of identifying literacydifficulties amongmonolingualsdo not 185

literacy
characterise difficulties among bilingual-biliterates

Implicationsfor practiceandfurtherresearch 188

V
References 193

Appendices

Appendix A Individually-administeredmeasures

Appendix B Group-administeredmeasures

Appendix C Meansand standarddeviationsof dyslexic,chronological

averagereadersandyoungeraveragereaders

Appendix D Comparisonsbetweendyslexics; who areon or below the

1othpercentileon word readingscoresand nondyslexic
averagereaders

Appendix E Singlecaseprofiles

vi
List of Tables

Table 2-1 Number of items for eachtest usedin the pilot study 51

Table 2-2 Changein the number of items of somemeasuresafter the 52

pilot study

Table 2-3 Gender and averageageof subjectsby gradelevel 54

Table 2-4 Reliabilityestimates 55

Table 2-5 Intercorrelationsbetweenrapidvisualnamingof pictures 56

and colours

Table 2-6 Rotatedcomponentmatrix of all measures 57

Table 2-7 Descriptive statisticsfor the Filipino languagemeasures 59

Table 2-8 Descriptive statisticsfor the Englishlanguagemeasures 60

Table 2-9 Descriptive statisticsfor the Nonlanguagelanguage 61

measures
Table 3-1 Correlationsbetweenvisualand phonologicalskills and 79
by
word reading grade level

Table 3-2 Predictorsof word readingability in Filipino and English 80

Table 3-3 Correlationsbetweenvisualand phonologicalskills and 82

by
spelling grade level

Table 3-4 Predictorsof spellingability in Filipino and English 83

Table 3-5 Cross-linguisticcorrelationsbetweenword reading, 87

phonemetapping and syllabletapping

Table 3-6 Correlationsbetweensentencecomprehension,word 88

reading,listening in
comprehension Filipino and English
acrossgrade levels

Table 3-7 Predictorsof sentencecomprehensionin Filipino and 89

English

Table 3-8 Correlation betweenliteracymeasuresin Filipino and 91

English

Table 3-9 Stepwiseregressionsfor Filipino word readingacross 93

grades

vii
Table 3-10 Stepwise for
regressions Filipino by
spelling grade 95

Table 3-11 Stepwise for

regressions Filipino for
spelling Grade3 and 96
5 withoutoutliers

Table 3-12 Stepwise for

regressions Filipino comprehension
sentence 98
by grade

Table 3-13 Stepwise for

regressions English by
word reading grade 99

Table 3-14 Stepwise for

regressions English by
spelling grade 103

Table 3-15 Stepwise for

regressions Englishsentence
comprehension 106
by grade

Table 3-16 Stepwise excluding5 sixthgradeoutlierson

regressions 106
blockdesignandsentence
comprehension
Table 4-1 Frequency, block
age, design by
scores grade 117

Table 4-2 Meansandstandarddeviationsby gradeof the cognitive 123

andlinguistic
measures
Table 4-3 Summarytablefor univariateanovas 124

Table 4-4 Correlations

of cognitiveandlinguisticskillsin Filipino 126
andEnglish
Table 4-5 Correlationsof word andnonwordreadingacrossgrades 128
in FilipinoandEnglish

Table 4-6 Intra-language

andinter-language for
stepwiseregressions 129
FilipinoandEnglishword reading

Table 4-7 Cross-linguistic

comparisons of the levelsof commonor 130
in
uniquevariability readingabilityexplained by
phonological-based or languagemeasures

Table 5-1 Frequency(xdpm-aý ofpuk ku-4in brackets) of 142

dyslexicsaccordinggradelevel,genderandlanguage

Table 5-2 Frequency and

of average dyslexic by level
readers grade 142
andlanguage
Table 5-3 between
t-scores Filipino language
dyslexics
and 144
agecontrols
chronological

viii
Table 5-4 t-scoresbetweenEnglish languagedyslexicsand 147
chronologicalagecontrols

Table 5-5 Frequencyof dyslexicand readingagematchedcontrol 151

groups

Table 5-6 t-scoresbetweenFilipino languagedyslexicsand reading 152

agecontrols

Table 5-7 t-scoresbetweenEnglish languagedyslexicsand reading 155

agecontrols

Table 5-8 Legendfor the graphsshowingsinglecaseprofiles 160

List of Figures

Figure 3-1 Developmentaltrajectoriesof phonemeand syllable 85

tapping in Filipino and English acrossthe gradelevels

Figure 4-1 Line graphindicatingthe developmentaltrend in nonword 124

readingaccordingto language

Figure 5-1 Child 324 163

Figure 5-2 Child 325 163

Figure 5-3 Child 343 165

Figure 5-4 Child 344 166

Figure 5-5 Child 330 167

Figure 5-6 Child 337 168

Figure 5-7 Child 349 169

Figure 5-8 Child 211 171

Figure 5-9 Child 253 172

Figure 5-10 Child 285 173

Figure 5-11 Child 255 174

Figure 5-12 Child 297 175

Figure 5-13 Child 334 175

Ix
 Acknowlcdgcments

It's beena wonderfullyexcitingthreeanda [Link] for makingit allworth it, I

would Eke to thankthe peopleand institutions
that havelent theirgenerous
support.
First,I wouldlike to expressmy heartfelt to
gratitude my Dr.
supervisor, JohnEveratt.
It is absolutely wouldhavebeenwritten up
impossibleto imaginehow thisdissertation
his direction,
without expert constantunderstanding, His
andencouragement. humour
his
madeall taskssurmountable, patienceensuredprogress.
andgentleness

I would alsolike to thanktheUniversityof the Philippineswhichthroughthe Ph.D.

Incentivegrant,its EducationResearch Program,andCollegeof Educationfundedmy
studiesandshowedfaith in this project. Othershavehelpedin thevariousaspectsof
I
the [Link] to Neng, Rex, Rhea,Randolf,
andMaricar for helpingcollect
andencodethe data;to Brenndon and Maia for their drawings;
to Ian for
Smythe
lettingmeusepartsof the InternationalDyslexiaTest;CaroleDorkings,Barbara
Rowland,AndrewBarnesandAdrianOatesfor alwaysbeingsohelpful,andto my
Dr.
secondsupervisor, Ian Daviesfor the research.
encouraging

Friends,old andnew,showedkindnessandgenerosity that neverranout. Thereare

thosefrom the Philippines Nemah,
Lina,Vic, Ningning,
Fely,Robin,Maris,Thea,
-
Wally,Allan,Malu,Johnny,Mailin,all of Wordlab;andtherearethosein England-
John,Anna,Dora,Charley,Adrian,Doug,Gerda,Dave,Lisa,Charles,Lupitaand
Rolando,AlexandraandCarlos,Maureen,Peter,Maria,Flavia,theDyslexiagroup,and
in
officernates Hut 10andRoom 33.

I would liketo thankthe Ocamposandthe Cristobals, andthoseI regardasfamily-

Nong andFred,JaneandIan,LiHa,Audi, LydiaandBing,BenjieandMichelle,- for
their understandingand love. Finally,I wouldlike to dedicatethiswork to Cheand
just
Adrik who worked as hard on this D.
Ph. and for beating
with thetimeswhenour
little familyhadto bethousandsof rr@es apart. There areno wordsto expresshow
I
much appreciate that
everything the two of you havedone.

MarxmigsalamatsawyagUmtMabubaykapf

x
CHAPTER 1

GENERAL AIMS

UmidtsiArawkerya.
-

----- -- ----
 GeneralAims

Thisthesiscomprises
an investigation
of literacydevelopment
andliteracy
difficulties
in the contextof [Link] the research
wasto understand
the natureof literacydifficulties
amongFilipino-Englishspeakingchildrenwith the
long-termviewof creatingappropriate teachingprogrammes for thoseexperiencing
[Link] the specificlinguisticcontextandthe lackof
understanding aboutthe readingprocessamong bilinguals,
this broadaimwas
dividedinto severalsmallerresearch Two
objectives. of thesequestionswere
fundamentalto the mainaimandneeded to be investigatedprior to understanding
It
the mainareaof study. wasonlyin the third and final questionthatthe original
goalof this research
wasaddressed.

Thesethreespecificaimsandthe contextof the researchare discussed in the

sectionsof
succeeding this in
chapter,aswell as the chapterspertainingto the general
methodsandresults. Each of theseforthcoming chapterscontainsa basis
theoretical
for the analyses
conducted,descriptionsof the methodsandmeasuresemployed,and
the resultsanddiscussions to
associated eachspecificairn. This methodof
was
presentation deemed mostappropriate for this because
research all of thethree
aimswereextensiveanddistinct
within themselves.

General Aims

Readingamongmonolinguals has been extensivelystudied(Frost, 1994). This was

belief that readingprocessesoperateon the basisof
partly the result of the general
skills and core [Link], more studies
recentlyý on
universal
in different languagesand variousorthographieshaveshown that the writing
reading
language impacts upon how literacylearningdevelops(e.
g. Cossu et al,
systemof a
1988;Katz Frost, Taylor,
1992; 1998). The continued debateabout the literacy
and
different alphabetic (Gough,
languages Ehri & Treiman, 1992)
processesunderlying
hasemphasisedthe view that differencesin the relationshipbetweenphonology and

orthographycanleadto in
differences developmental in
processes literacy.

The first aimconcernsthe development of literacyin Filipino andEnglish.

Predictionsderivedfrom theoriesof reading,spellingandreadingcomprehension

2
 GeneralAims

put forth on the basis

of research
[Link]
the to
subjecting predictions validationon a sampleof bilingual
children,this
research
aimedto determine
theabilityof thesetheoriesto explainliteracy
development
amongchildren bilingualin FilipinoandEnglishby treatingeach
languageasthougheachwere independent of the other. The incorporated
theories
in Chapter3. Theyfocuson someof the mostcitedand
areexplainedanddiscussed
influentialviewsin the areaof literacyacquisitionanddifficulties(eg,Marshet al,
1981;Frith, 1985,Goswami& Bryant,1990;HooverandGough,1990).This
that
chapteralsoclarifiespredictions can be drawn from thetheoriesandhow they
mightapplyto the [Link] uniquedevelopmental
patternsandpredictorsof literacyskillsin the two [Link]
literacywerechosenfrom amongcognitiveandlinguisticmeasures commonto
research in the field andappropriate the predictionsof the theoriesunder
to assess
consideration.

(One
is
often expressedviewpoint that literacy is
acquisition madeeasierwith a
regularor language)
transparent This view derivesfrom cross-linguisticstudies
usuallycomparing English childrenwith thosewho speak languages other than
English (Bruck, Genesee& Caravolas,1997). However, little work has beendone to
this
assess proposition in bilingualor multilingual groups Purgunoglu & Hancin,
1992). In one study, Karanth (1992)reports a discrepancyin the way literacyin two
languagesis learned. Indian studentslearningto readandwrite in English and
Kannadapresentedspecificdifficulties learningto readin English. This difficulty has
beenattributed to the complexorthographyof English in comparisonto the more

transparentscript Kannada. Karanth arguesthat the complexityof English leadsto

more frequent visual errors in Englishword reading. Theseperspectivessuggestthat
generalisationsput forward about literacydevelopment on the basisof monolingual
cohorts may not, therefore, be applicableto bilingual groups. The secondquestion
the
of this thesisassessed interaction betweenthe two languages
and the
developmentof biliteracythrough inter-languageand cross-language
predictorsof
the literacy skiffsin Filipino and English. The objectiveof this chapter (Chapter4)
to the
was assess predictionsof the script-dependent hypothesis (alternativelycalled

the orthographic depth hypothesis)

and the centralprocessinghypothesisof literacy

3
 GeneralAims

bilinguals.
acquisitionamong These theoretical in
positionsareexplained detail in
Chapter4. Theresultsdescribethe interrelationshipsbetweenmeasures of literacy,
language,
andcognitiveprocesses the
across languages/scripts.
Analyses
then
uniqueandcommonvariability
assessed in literacy by
explained the in
measures the
two [Link] formatof the follows
analyses investigations
previous of these
currenttheoretical
positions(eg Gevaand Siegel, Wade-Woolley,
2000; 1999).

As with theoriesof literacydevelopment,the relevantliteraturedescribesliteracy

difficulties from the per pýSdveof th.e monolingualpopulation. The main issues
by
covered this literature focus on the useof intelligenceto distinguishdyslexics
from garden-varietypoor readers(Stanovich,1991;Siegel,1988)and the importance
in
of phonologicalprocesses predictingand remediating difficulties (Stanovich,
1988;
Snowling,2000). Few studieshaveinvestigatedthe veracity of the methodsof
identification usedon the proposedcauseswhen appliedto bilingual populations
Purgunoglu & Hancin, 1992). Everatt et aIJ2000)-reportthat the traditional

measures-of-detecting dyslexiaamong-monolinguAýie, phongiggical,Lap visual

naming, shapememory measjjj work Justaswell amongY&gq s in Eng]Ls4
and
Syj4e!ý1. In contrast,Gupta & Garg (1996)found that
dyslexics in in
comparisonto nondyslexics a study involving bilingual
characterised
children despitethe view derived from the monolingual English literaturethat
listening comprehensionshould be relativelyunaffectedcomparedto decodingand
(Nation, 1999). Therefore,the of the thesisis
readingcomprehension
intendedto describethe qqgnitiveand 1ý1ýstic prQfAqo
_with
Lttý
er af pýýculgbLthc)semithdifficuldes.-at-the-levelofthiý-sineeworA.
-fiwltýcs,
At the outset,traditional methodsof distinguishingsuch difficulties derived from
then, appliedto the bilingual population. The
monolingual studiesare outlined,
identify those difficulties is in
assessed the
ability of suchmethodsto presenting
those with low levelsof literacy skills with average level
results,which compares
derived from the literatureon dyslexia and literacy difficulties
peerson measures
(Vandervelden& Seigel,1997). Thesegroup comparisonswere conductedwith the

aim of identifying specificareasof poorly developed skill from amongthe underlying

processes that have been found to be indicativeof dyslexia and literacy difficulties;

such as difficulties in nonword reading,rapid visualnaming,and phonological

4
 GeneralAims

segmentatio (Snowling, 2000;Wolf and Bowers,2000,Goswami,2000). An

alternativepractitioner-derivedmethod of identifying difficulties was alsoperformed.
This focusedon singlecaseprofiles of relativestrengthsandweaknessesacrossthe
rangeof measuresused. Suchprofilesled to the detectionof categoriesof difficulty
that presenteddistinct patternsof skills deficits from amongthe children in the
sample.

As statedin the beginningof this section,the originalgoalof this studywasdirected

towardsthe understanding of the natureof literacydifficulties
amopg Filipino
childrenbilingualin [Link]
originalobjectivedue to the linguistic
peculiarandspecific andeducational
context in
which bilingualism and biliteracy
developin [Link] section
of this introduction information
provides to better this contextandto
understand
clarifywhy the Philippines for
waschosen this studydueto its specificregionaland
features
educational in whichconcurrent literacydevelopment
and difficultiescan be
studied.A brief description
of the for
provisions childrenexperiencing difficultiesis
alsoincluded
in this section.

2. The Philippine Context

ThePhilippines,
which hasanestimated 80 is
populationof million, a multilingual
countrythat has 75
around major languagesandover 500 dialects.
The majorityof
thesedialectshave due influences
evolved, to varyingregional from a dominant
language
suchasBicol, Hligaynon,
Cebuano, Pangasinan,
Ilocano, Parnpango,
Although,Filipinochildrenwill leamoneof these
Tagalog,andWaraye-Samarnon.
first because
languages/dialects it is spokenwithin the geographic in
area whichthey
Eve,astheygrowolder,theylearnotherlanguages or dialectsthat aresimilarto the
onetheyalreadyspeak. It is highlyunlikely, for
therefore, a Filipinoto speakonly
[Link] Filipinos speakmore thanthreelanguages includingtheir
[Link]
will be Filipino andEnglish.

Filipino (formerlyPilipino)evolvedfrom Tagalog,whichin 1935waslegislated

asthe
national [Link] is a memberof the Malayan
(or Westeren)
branchof the

5
 GencralAims

linguisticfamily. Dueto tradeandcolonisation,

Malayo-Polynesian Tagaloghasbeen
influencedby numerousotherlanguages. Fourdecades laterin 1973,Pilipino
Tagalog,
replaced whichwasperceivedasa regionallanguage
that not all Filipino
peoplecouldunderstand
andlearn. Filipinois the language
now national that has
developedon the basisof existingPhilippineandotherlanguages (Constitutionof
the Republicof the Philippines,1987).Therefore,Filipino,asit is usednow,canbest
be describedasan amalgamation
of Tagalog,
English,
Spanish,
Sanskrit,
Arabic,
Chinese,andthewidelyspokenPhilippinelanguages. It is the first language
of about
55 percentof Filipinos. Sinceit is oneof thelanguagesof instructionandof popular
(i.
media e. films and television)mostpeopleeventually learn it.

In its presentform,Filipinois composedof 28letters,whicharenamedlikethe

lettersof the [Link] is atransparent orthography that sharesall 26
lettersof the Englishalphabetplusan additionaltwo letters(?!md ný. Originallyit
had20letters(a,b, k, d, e, g,h, i, 1,m, n, ng,o, p, r, s,t, u, w, y). Oneletterfrom
Spanish(nj andsevenlettersfrom the Englishalphabet(cj j, q,v, x, z) were
incorporatedbecause
numerouswords in Filipino are"adapted"words from these
two [Link] letters,
whichthe Spanish during
introduced the colonisation
the
period,replacedthe originalorthographycalled (or
Baybayin Alibata).The
is
orthography nearlycompletelytransparent, that
meaning lettersandsounds have
The
an almostconsistentcorrespondence. phonologyof Filipino hasfive vowel
23 all of whichare
soundsand consonants, foundin or similarto the phonologyof
English.

Filipino vowelsandconsonants distinctly

arearticulated sothat whenspeaking,
all
the lettersin a word canbe heard.
'Ihe vowelsareakinto the shortvowelsoundsin
[Link] example,the Filipinoword xwk (child)is spokenas[i-nik] using
approximately the samevowel soundthat is usedin the Englishword ap The
.
Filipino languagehasno voweldigraphswheretwo adjacentvowelsmakeonly one
sound. Instead is For in
eachvowelsound pronounced. example, the Filipinoword
tao(person)the two vowelsarepronouncedseparately as(t)a-owherethe lettera
sounds Ekethe a in apple
and the lettero Eke
sounds the in
o tce.

6
 GeneralAims

The Philippinesis also one of the largestgroupsof English-speakingpeoplein the

world. English is an official language in

usedwidely government,popular media, law,

commerce,and education where it is usedasone of the languages

of instruction.
Many parentsseeEnglish asa languageof socialand economicmobility. Like most
bilingual speakers,Filipinos [Link]'is frequentlyusedin

oral discoursewith words and phrasesfrom English and Filipino being interspersed
in sentencesespeciallyduring informal [Link] information can be found

on the websiteof the National Conu-nission for Culture and the Arts
(http: //www. [Link]. p
.

Thelinguisticcontextin the Philippines,particularlythat of MetroManilaandnearby

provinces,wasan ideal environment for investigatingthe aimsof this research
because FilipinoandEnglisharebothwidelyusedin dailylife. Theimmersionof
Filipinosin the two languagesbeginsfrom thehomein earlychildhoodandis
fife
extendedto community andschool. Childrenlearnboth from
languages the
earlieststagesof schoolingbecause of the BilingualEducationPolicy in
enacted the
Philippinesthat requiresschoolsto teachliteracyin FilipinoandEnglish
simultaneouslyasearlyas the first [Link]
upon the Filipino

studenttwo differentorthographies to belearned

simultaneously. Orthographies are
systems that transcribe
spoken in
language [Link]
represent
certainphonologicalunitsof in
languages written form Thelevelatwhichthe
orthographyrepresentsthe phonologyof a spokenlanguage is
variesand referredto
asorthographicdepth. Englishis to
considered be a deeporthography because
of
the complexand inconsistent between
relationship symbols and phonology. In
Filipino
contrast, is a transparent
orthographywith a highlyconsistentandregular
relationshipbetween lettersandsounds. Thatthe childrenin this studyhadto learn
with extreme
thesetwo writing systems in
differences orthographic depthprovidesa
for
uniquecontext studying development
biliteracy and difficulties.

1. Bilingual Education

Compulsoryandfreebasiceducationis mandated in theConstitutionof the

[Link] freeeducationis providedby the government,which is duty-

7
 GeneralAims

boundto provideall childrenaccess

to schoolsor to [Link] Filipino
childrenattendthe publicschoolsystemthat offerstenyearsof schoolingcomposed
in
of six grades elementary schoolandfour years in secondary
[Link] fee-
payingschoolsusuallyaddtwo levels(kindergarten/preparatoryandseventhgrade)
in the elementary ladder,
school providinga total of twelveyearsof basic
education.
TheDepartmentof BasicEducationsetsthe minimumlearningcompetencies
that
both
schoolsmustensurechildrenattainandsupervises publicandprivateschools.
However,this government does
agency not impose
specificmethodsof instruction
be in in for
nor prescribematerialsto used schools order teachers to attainthese
minimumlearning
competencies.

A featureof the Philippine educationalsystemis its Bilingual EducationPolicy. This

aims for all studentsin Philippine to

schools achieve competence in both Filipino

and English through the teachingof both languagesand their useasmediaof

instruction at all levels. Therefore,children aretaught to readand write in Filipino

and English at the same time when they enter the formal school systemat Grade I.
In many regionsof the Philippines,especiallythosenearurban centres,childrenwill
have beenimmersedin the Filipino/English bilingualcontext very earlyin life.

Of course,there are alsomanyareasin the country that remain geographically

isolatedand do not haveeaseof accessto media. There arealsoareaswherethe
language
dialectis basedon anotherdon-dnant quitedifferent from [Link]
in have
children thesepartsof the countrymighttherefore little experience
with
eitherFilipino or [Link] that
recommends such first
children's language be

usedasthe initial languageof literacyto useit as a bridgeto understanding Filipino

This
English. research, therefore, children
selected for testingfrom urbanareas
and
in andaroundthe capital,therebyensuringthe child'sbilingualbackground.

'Me Bilingual EducationPolicy is implementedby teachingspecificsubjectsin the

in
curriculum a specific language. Filipino is usedto teachFilipino literature and
language,socialstudies/socialsciences,music,arts,physicaleducation,home

economics,practical arts and character

education. English is usedto teachscience,
technology
mathematics, and English literature and language
subjects.

8
 General Aims

2.2. Special Needs Legislation

ThePhilippineshasno specificlegislationon [Link] hasbroaderlawsthat set

the frameworkwhichguidethe formulationof nationalstrategies andprograms. The
two mostrelevantlawsthat pertainto disabilityarethe ChadandYouthWelfare
Code(PresidentialDecreeNo. 603,1974)andtheMagnaCartafor DisabledPersons
Thelawwith the broaderscopeis the Child andYouth
(RepublicAct 7277,1992).
WelfareCode,whichstates
that:

6 avy Ald hasdx 7ighttoanedimitmamn=ff" vith hisabditiesandtothe

...
daApno,ztofhisskdlsfortheinpmwnarofhiscapxýyforrniceforhinselfx2d
to
hisfe&w7m*'

Publicandprivateschoolsareencouraged for
to organisespecialclasses disabled
fall
childrenwho underthe following mentallyretarded,physically
categories:
handicapped, disturbed
emotionally illness.
andchildrenwith severemental

More recently,the Magna Cartafor DisabledPersons(1992)presenteda slightly

broaderview of disabledpersons. The specialneedsnamedin the Child andYouth
Welfare Codewere revisedto includethe phraseotkr O)pes
ofexceptka dji(&w.

Furthermore,this new law requiresthe governmentto ensurethat qualityspecial

is it is for learninginstitution to deny a
education availableand that unlawful any
disabledpersonadmissionto any courseit offers by reasonof handicapor disability.

The changein terminologyin the two lawsshowsthattherehasbeena changein the

of specialneedsand The
disabilities. definitionsarebroader,
thus
understanding
for
allowing the inclusionof differentlearning needsand the developmentof new,
provisions.
educational
morespecialised

2.3. Educational and Family Supportfor Children with Dyslexia

Thoughthereis a lackof specificlegislationandexplicitgovernmentsupportfor

childrenwith dyslexia,
there arenon-govenunental organisations for
that advocate
the identification,
teaching,and inclusionof childrenandpersonswith dyslexia.

9
 GeneralAims

Overthe lastfifteenyears,anincreasing
numberof parentsandteachershave
becomeconcernedaboutchildrenwho demonstrate difficultiesin learningto read
andspell(Ocampo,
1997).

2.3.1. Identification and Assessment

Psychologists and developmental paediatricians for

assess specific difficultiesin
literacyvia traditionalintelligence
[Link] of theseassessments usethe
k scLep between-IQ-- and, - in distinguis
hing dyslexiafrom
__44c3Lcriteria -achievement
other learning issues.Reading_Týcý4s; for readingdifficultyusing
tý_as_sess__cUd_ren
9-t t.
readin essin-Englishdiagnostic teaching'apd dyjLe4ksc i-
reening,[Link]
- ----
in Filipino is rarelydonesincestandardised in
tests Filipinoarenot available.

Accessto assessment is not [Link] for

trainedto assess
[Link] areprivatepractitionersandthusfeestendto becostly.
Parentsof childrenwho cannotaffordto shoulderthecostsof assessment are
unlikelyto prioritisethe assessment overtheneedsof the restof the family. There
aresome foundations andinstitutionsthat significantly
reducethe costof assessment
servicesfor fan-Ees undergoing financial but
strain, again these be
will not accessible
to [Link],thereis a needfor simple,cost-efficientprocedures,
in
both EnglishandFilipino,whichcanbeusedto identifydifficultiesandto
recommendappropriatesupport (Paterno & Ocampo-Ciistobal, 1993).

2.3.2. Teaching

Childrenwith dyslexiawho arein regularor mainstream in

educationare, the main,
by
advocatedandsupported their parents. It is for
rare a schoolto provide
additionalor specialistteaching support for childrenexperiencingdifficulties. In the
main,childrenwith literacydifficulties
areexpected to performin the samemanner
asotherchildren in the Without
class. support from the schools,familiesare
in
constrained the amountof additionalteachingservices offeredby private
practitionerssuchasreadingspecialists or specialeducationtutorsthat canbe
for
provided a dyslexic
child. In the elementarygrades,the only otheralternativefor
the dyslexicchildis WordlabSchool,whichis the onlyschoolin the Philippinesfor

10
 GeneralAims

childrenwith dyslexia. Its curriculumis based

on theviewthat dyslexiais a condition
that resultsin a differentwayof learningwhichcauses difficultyin learningto read,
spellandwrite. WordlabSchoolaimsto providequalityelementary for
education
childrenwith dyslexia.
The has
school adaptedthe Orton-Gillingharnand
Slingerlandmethodsand developed methodof teachingliteracyin
a multi-sensory
Filipino [Link] challenging is
contentand enriched by
the directinstructionof studystrategies
andorganisational
skills. The teachersare
subjectareaspecialistswho address eachcontentareaasthough it werea reading
lessonto encourage
the applicationof literacyabilitiesin the differentareasof
learning(Ocampo,1995).Noneof the childrenassessed in the presentstudy
attendedthis specialistschoolenvironment.

3. Structure of the thesis

Ihe succeeding
chaptersof this thesisaddress the issuesdescribedpreviously.
Chapter2 enumeratesthe measures thatwereusedto generate the dataon whichthe
resultsandconclusions
were derived. The rationale,item development processand
structureof each instrument in described. Appendices
A B
and containexamples
from actualtestsadministered. Chapter3 focuseson the questionof the
development of Filipino and Englishliteracyamongthe bilingual in
children the
It
presentsample. contains the literature
reviewrelevantto this aspectof the
researchaswell asthe methodsandanalyses conductedto assess the efficiencyof
literacydevelopmentthemies based on dataobtainedfrom work with monolingual
[Link] with the analysis
of the predictors
of literacy in
abilities Filipino andin Englishin orderto desctibethe predictorsof
[Link] 4 focuseson the predictorsof
[Link] thisinvestigationarisefrom the
hypothesis
script-dependent hypothesis
andthe centralprocessing of simultaneous
from thesetwo viewpointsare
literacydevelopment.'Me predictionsemanating
presented in detail. Also in
included this chapterare descriptionsof the methods
used for datacollectionandanalyses. The resultsarediscussed by comparingthe
involvementof the two hypotheses in the development of literacyamongFilipino-
Englishbilinguals.Chapter5 concentrates on the characterisation
of literacy

11
 General A ims

difficultiesthat somechildrenin the sampleexhibiton the basisof singleword

[Link], that
the theories have guidedthe conductof the analyses
andare
discussed from the perspectiveof the [Link] chapterconcludeswith
the descriptionof categories
of literacy
difficultiesthatweregeneratedthrough
profilingthe cognitiveandlinguistic singleword
skillsof childrenexperiencing
[Link] last is
chapter the discussion
general of the findingsof the
for A
threestudiesconducted thisthesis. synthesis of the is
results presented,
derivedby proposingthreemainconclusions be from
that can generalised the three
for
mainaims this thesis. Finally,
recommendationsfor future areproposed
research
in the areasof bilingualismandbiliteracy,cognitiveanddevelopmental
psychology,
andreadingeducation.

12
CHAPTER 2

GENERAL METHODS

ti:::1IIEII1ITI

T
 General Methods

1. Introduction

Instrumentdevelopment wasan integral because

aspectof this research of the lackof
literacyassessment
testsin Englishor Filipinothathavebeenconstructed and
for in
standardized children [Link] practice,schoolsusetestsmadefor
North Americanchildrento assess literacyabilityin Englishwhilstschool-based
tests,developed by teachersthemselves, for
areused Filipino (Ocampo,1997).The
instrumentsconstructedfor the presentresearch werepatternedaftertraditional
measures literacy,literacydifficulties,anddyslexia.
usedto assess Karymg
pjgpýctiveýjmplicatedifferentunderlyingskillsand-abilitiesin explaining
the
pnocessof Enter
cy [Link]
emanated from
involving
studies English-speaking monolinguals and hence,
eachof thesemajor
areaswasincluded in thetestmaterialsdevelopedfor this research(Beech&
Singleton,1997;Fawcett,Singleton,
& Peer,1998).Thiswasdeemedapprqpate
olingualpopulationsare
for
applicable useamong bilingual_p9p4 (eg.
ýtioýns Everattet al,2000).On this
basis,measures in the two languages
wereconstructed of the in
children this study.

Ile followingdescribes
the basison whichtestmeasures were [Link]
descriptions
andrationalearepresentedlaterin this To
chapter. describe
thetypesof
that
measures arerequisite to literacyassessment,
a broad of the tests
categorization
includedthis presentstudyfollows. Thedifferenttasksthat havebeenformulated
for usein this research
areexplained
within eachcategory.

1.1. Measures of Literacy

Measures of literacy abilityusedin this research

werelimitedto singleword reading
andspelling in Filipino and English. The formatandadministrationprocedureswere
patternedafter the WideRange Test
Achievement -3 Gastak,
W&nson, & jastak,
1993).Word listswerecreatedto includewordsthat aremostlikelyto occurin the
Filipino childs languageexperience.

14
 General Methods

1.2. Measures of Phonological ability

Mg-am=LaLphw-QIQgical 1posttýstsof dyAýa (see

skill are conimOn-arngpg
DyslexiaScreeningTest: Fawcett& Nicolson, 1996;DyslexiaEarly ScreeningTest:
Nicolson & Fawcett,1996;PhonologicalAssessmentBattery:Frederickson,Frith &
Reason,1997). Thesemeasurestap into the knowledgeof the relationshipbetween

soundsand symbolsof a lLn'[Link] numerousdifferent measureshave

beendevelopedto assessphonologicalskills,the includedin the
specificmeasures
presentstudywere nonword reading,syllabletapping,and phonemetapping.
Nonword readingwas usedasa measureof decodingability. It provides
a measure
of the childs ability to dealwith new/novel letter strings. Dyslexicsaregenerally
regardedto be poor performersin this task (Racket al., 1992;Snowling,2000).

Theknowledgeof phonemesandsyllables relatesto theknowledgeof howwordsare

It
constructed. hasbeenreportedthat Syllable
awareness dgyýýtqp, than
ý_eKhýer
amoggsKildrenwk-sp-epktht-Englishlangu4ge
pAonemeawareness andthat
knowle4g,
ýneme-ýased ý deyýlqps
faster
amoýgjtchildren-experiencing
[Link]
jLnp4g.e (Goswarrý& Bryant,1990;Swan& Goswarni,1997;Goswami,2000).
However,therearefew studiesthatinvestigate
the veracityof theseclaimsagainst
that
orthographies differ from the [Link] is alsobeenarguedthat
in
childrenwho arenot skilled phonemeggmentationaremoreýkely19-gpqp2ence
difficultiesin literacytaskssuchasTqr4_Eeading spSjjLng. Goswarrý(2000)
ýý--
--- _4ý
presentsevidence that the to
ab4ity segment has beenfound to be predictiveof word
reading. They reported findingsthat phoneme tappingdifferentiates
between
childrenwho have in
poor word reading Englishbetterthansyflabletapping.

1.3. Measures of Rapid visual naming

Rapidvisualnamingtaskshavebeenimplicatedasmeasures of lexicalaccess and

speedof processing.'ýhesenicas=th! ý-speed-by-mNch-a-pgýrson is ablq-tocallinto
usewords that have been inxa=Qrymuiýual
_pygiously-learnea-Aad-stored
ploMpts. Because spokenwordsarethe requiredoutputin tasksusedin this
it be
research, may saidthat the lexical tasksherealsomeasure
access phonological
ability (rorgesen et al., Swan
1997; & Goswami, 1997).Suchtasksmaybean

15
 General Methods

indicator of the level of automaticity(Fawcett& Nicholson, 1994)aswell. In this

research,two tasksrequiredthe participantsto demonstratetheir visual naming

in
speed the two languages, namelyrapid namingof picturesand rapid naming of
colours.

1.4. Measures of Comprehension

Oakhill& Cain(1997)indicatethatreadingcomprehension
hasbeenfoundto be
relatedto listeningcomprehension,decodingabilityandsyntactic
knowledge, andthe
abilityto infer andintegrate
information. in a language
Similarly,competence is
viathe abilityto comprehend
usuallyassessed discourse;
verbal ie, listening
comprehension(Badian,1999).Research alsosuggests
a dissociation between
difficultiesin readingsinglewordsandproblemsin processing
connectedtext
(Stothard& Hulme,1995). It has,for example,beenarguedthat glyslexics
are-poor
at decoding but
singlewords canuseconnectionsbetweenwordsto sumort
4eco4g (seeNation & Snowling,2000).Co, hreeways
in this [Link]ýqttLre
cpmprýhqnsion,listening ipLehension,
and
sentence comprehension. Thelattertwo have in
versions [Link]
thesemeasures to
areused assess
potentialgeneralcomprehension deficits(poorin
all language
three), deficits
comprehension (poorin listeningandreading
(see
andpoorreadingcomprehension
comprehension), Section
2.7for further
discussion).

1.5. Measures of Memory span

taskshavebeenarguedto createdemands
Phonological uponworkingmemory
(Wagner& Torgesen,1987;Racket al., 1993).This perspective
hasled to the view
have in
that poor readers/dyslexics pLqblems verbalshortterm memorywhilst
othersargue that there deficits
aremoreglobal involved(VanDaal Van-der-Leij,
1999).Studiesthat parcelout the aspects
of workingmemorypresentfindingsthat
the verbalandvisuo-spatial
components of memoryactuallyrelyon similarprocesses
(Chuah& Mayberry,1999).Significantcorrelationsbetweenthe two havebeen
reportedfor a cohortof kindergarten
children(Meyler
& Breznitz,1998).

16
 General Methods

Furthermore,Gomez& Condon(1999)reportthatqhadrenmithl=ning fu
ic Ities
-dif
andattentiondeficitsseemmorelike to have deficits
centralauditoryprocessing
that mavbet useof the phqnolo 'cal deficitssý freqqý by
reported
o
researchers dyslexia.
- -p4

FPI
_e
xaii sofs ýýeýoxj tasB that havebeen in
u ed previousresearch include
forwardsandbackwardsdigit span,pseudoword span,
unitation,operational-word
word span,andsentence
span,rhythm tapping,visualshape memory, and Corsi
blocksýýtinen & Lehto,1998;Molloy, 1997;Stone& Brady,1995;Engleet al.,
1991;Wagner& Torgesen,1987,Singletonet al.,2000).Thetasksthatare
traditionallyregarded asmeasures in
of memoryspanemployed this research
are
word span Cin FilipinoandEnglish),
rhythmtappingandvisualshapememory.
Word spanwasselectedto allowFilipinoandEnglishversionsto bedeveloped.
Rhýthmtappingprovidesa measure of non-verbalshort-termmemory involvinga
motor [Link]-termmemoryof abstractshapes allowsanassessment of
andretention,againprovidinga
visualprocessing from
dissociation verbalprocesses.

1.6. Measure of General ability

Studieson dyslexiahavetraditionallyincludeda measure of generalabilityand/or

intelligence
to distinguishchildrenwho have literacy
specific problems from those
with moregeneral in
difficulties [Link] measure usedwasnot created
for Instead,
the block design [Link] Wechsler
specifically this study.
for Children- Revised(Wechsler,
IntelligenceScales 1974)wasadministered asa
wayof assessingproblemsolvingskills that do not relyon verbalprocessing,
which
maybe by
biased literacy deficits.
related

1.7. Measure of Word interference

A measureof word interferenceusingthe colour Stroop,was usedto investigatethe

differencein the namingspeedof colourswhen incongruentcolour words in Filipino
English were [Link] measure has beenused in previousstudiesthat
or
investigatedthe bilingualcompetenceat the singleword level and hasbeensaidto be
indicative of automaticword processing(seeEveratt et al., 1999).

17
 General Methods

2. Instruments

This sectiondiscusses
eachof the measures in
used this [Link],item
development, item analysis,
and testgivingaspectsaredescribed.
Theindividualtests
arearranged of the classification
accordingto the sequence thatwere
of measures
described
in the [Link], andstimuluscardsof the
measuresdevelopedcanbe foundin Appendices A andB.

2.1. Word reading

2.1.1. Rationale

Word readingin isolationdemonstrates

a child!s abilityto applyknowledgeabout
phonemesandgraphernes on meaningfulcombinations It is
of sounds. considered
asoneof the more basicliteracy Word
abilities. reading bridges
orallanguageand
Les
the to
,ýýttqpjanguagthecausclt-gnabl 1reaer unlock meanings the embedded in
thýýahiýcý sentatiop. of sounds. Ypo A
!p,ý a7T! a childcanproceed
se in to do
_ýre,
eitheroneof two things. First, the
s/he couldname word on sight Marsh et al.,
1981;Frith, 1985).Second,[Link] itqjitsphonological
-
components (Snowling,
2000).In the chapteron literacy
andliteracy development,

thesepredictionsareinvestigated
and further.
discussed

Numerousreadingassessment tools includea measure This

of word reading. will
include
usually letters to
or wordsthat arepresented the Est
childasa of words,
usuallyarranged from simpleto complex,on a cardor sheetof paper. The child is

to readthe words aloud one at a time. Test giving is doneindividually

so that
asked
the examinercannote down the responses of the child.

Most studiesabout&slexiaincludea measureof word reading1:

oo(n,4sq_poqrword
is
reading oneof the mostgppýKent ons
qmý4fýsLta d D yA Igic Oqdren
_Rf__y_ýIex4. _
[Link] processworJs-slower-and-wiffiless-accuracy-mmm sonto
thosewithout dyslexia(Wolf and01rien, 2001).The differences in theword
for
readingscoresof goodandpoor readersallow the creationof comparisongroups
in orderto investigate
the underlyingskillsthat arerelatedto or predictiveof word
readingabilityor [Link] in
vary settingthe demarcation score for

18
 General Methods

creatingthe [Link] for

usualcut-offpoint the selectionof poor
is
readers onestandard deviationbelowthe mean. Thisprocedurewasadopted in
the presentresearch the
whereword readingscoresareusedas selectioncriteriafor
the creationof comparisongroupsandanalysis
of singlecaseprofiles.

2.1.2. Item Development

This segmentdescribes
the processesthatwereundertaken to producea corpusof
in
wordsthat occur the Filipinochild'sreadingexperience
on the basis
of textbooks
of primaryschoolchildren (Grades 1 to 6). This the
corpusservedas word bank
from which singlewordscouldbe drawnfor thewordreadingandspellingtests,and
the basisfor the nonwordreading,phoneme,andsyllable [Link]
in the creationof the wordbank:
followingstepswereexecuted

1. A word Estfor eachgradelevelwasgenerated. Threetextbooksfor each

[Link] least
two of thetextbookswereon
reading/language the (i.
while otherwasa contentarea [Link],
science, and social textbook.
studies) Each word on everytenthpageof the
textbookswasselected andlisted. Repeated of eachwordwas
occurrence
taffiedto arriveat the frequency of thewords.
of occurrence

2. For eachgrade level, the words were arranged from most frequent to least

frequent and divided into three categories:high, rniddle and low frequency
lists, basedon rank order.

3. Ten wordsfrom eachcategoryof eachgradewererandornly drawn. The

into
thirt7wordswereconsolidated one fist. Repetitions
of the sameword
weredeleted
soall thewordsonly occurredonceon the list.

4. 'Me word lists for eachgradelevelwere combined,arrangedby gradelevel,

and pruned for repetitions. From this masterEst,everytenth word was
selectedand included in the pilot versionof the word readingtest. Further
in
selectioncreatedvariations phonemecomplexityand word length. This
84
processgenerated words for the pilot versionsof the Filipino and English

19
 General Methods

wordreading tests. Fifteenisolated

lettersof the two alphabets
wereeach
addedto the liststo createeasyitemsfor childrenin the lowestgradelevels
andto providethe childrenanopportunityto getusedto the task.

5. In total, 99 items were includedin the initial word readingtestsin Filipino

andEngUsh.

2.1.3. Item Analysis

Item analysis
conductedon the resultsof the pilot study(see
Section3.1.5for
the
procedure)reduced number of itemsfor the Englishword readingtestto 46
All
words. of these
were foundto be gooditems in termsof both discrimination
and
difficulty indices(See.
page51 for the indices).
exact Sincetherewereenoughgood
itemsto constitutea word readingtest,rejecteditemswerenot [Link]
for in
wordswerescreened variability phonemecomplexityandword length. This
that
showed very few of thesewordswere from first andsecondgradetextbooks.
Therefore,19wordsfrom the first andsecondgradeUststhathadregistered astoo
easyon the difficultyindex, togetherwith 7 letters, in
werereinstated the testfor the
sakeof theyoungertarget The
participants. final numberof items for the English

word readingtestwasseventy-two.(SeeAppendix A-12 and A-27 for )

the measures.

Like the Englishword readingtest,theFilipinoword readingtesthad99 itemsin its

pilot version. Eighty-four
of theseitems 15
weresinglewordswhile were letters.
(Seesection3.1for procedure),
After item analysis only eight items were found to be

satisfactoryon both the difficulty and indices.

discrimination A testwith veryfew
items(speciallya non-standardised one)wouldcreate little in
variation scores.
Therefore,wordswereaddedto makea longertest. Threefactorswereconsidered
in decidingwhichwordsto re-incorporateinto the Est. First,a discriminationindex

of at [Link],theword had to representa specific

configurationof Filipino letter For
strings. example, hyphenated wordssuchas
Oove)
pag-ibig wereadded. Finally,the of
number syllables
or lengthof thewordwas
Based
considered. on these 31
procedures, otherwords letters
andseven werere-

20
 General Methods

incorporatedinto the Estresultingin the finaltestwith 46itemsfor the Filipinoword

test.
reading (See
Appendix
A-4 andA-22 for )
themeasures.

2.1.4. Test Giving

Ihe word readingtestswereadministered

[Link]
separate
stimuluscards,whichpresentedthe wordsin TimesNew Romanfont size
16. The childheldthe cardandwasaskedto readthewordsaloudin the language
Readingerrorswererecordedby the test-giveron a markingsheet.
represented.
Whenpossible,the examiner
wrotethe responsethat the childmadeon the marking
[Link] percentageof correctlyreadwordsfor eachlanguage the for
was measure
theword readingtests. (SeeAppendixA-33 for the Examiners'Manual.
)

2.2. Spelling

2.2.1. Rationale

Spellingis generally
thoughtof asthe inverseof word reading.ýp of
transforrningsgw4s into writtenfomLs-ATýýýýe spellingability
of the auditoryandAsualnTýb2ls_ýýf
showsanunderstanding Spelling
ý_kýnguage.
hasbeenstudiedmuchlessthanword reading(Treiman,1997).

Spellingtests arepart of manyschooland literacyachievementtests. SpelEngability

is alsoincluded in most measuresthat aim to screenfor or diagnosedyslexiabecause

of evidencethat suggeststhat dysLex

ýic p ople have rýTHk ýb in spelling
-L _le-difficulties
(Wes, 1993). It is hypothesizedthat sppllingdifficultks May-bc-aresult of the
inability to masterthe sound"f-alanguage-and.. (Frith,
their printed-visual-equiv2lent
1980).

SpellingtestsareusuaHy
givento groupsof [Link] examinerdictatesa word,
whicha childwritesdown. In mosttests(WRAT-3: Jastak,
W&nson, & jastak,
f6flowsthetargetword in orderto providea contextto the word
1993),a sentence
andsupportclarity.

21
 GeneralMethods

2.2-2. Item Development

Themeasure
of spellingskill usedin this research
wasdeveloped
usingthe same
word bankdeveloped
for theword [Link] the masterEstof
for
words,everyseventhword wasselected the spellingtestavoidingthosewords
usedin the test.
wordreading This resultedin 75 in
words the paotversionof the
spellingtestsin EnglishandFilipino.

2.2.3. Item Analysis

'Me 75 items comprisingthe English pilot versionwere trimmed down to 49 items

including sevenletters. The 26 lettersandwords that were rejectedby the item

analysiswere not used because there was sufficient number of words to includein

the final versionof the instrument. The retained items were alsoadequatelyvariable
in phonemiccomplexityand word length.

Forty-four itemswere retainedfor the Filipino spellingtest from the original75

words. Fortunately, in
the problems encountered the Filipino word reading test did

not arisefor this By

measure. addingseven lettersto write upon dictation,the
for the main studytotalled 51 items. (See
Appendix B-3 for the spelling
spellingtest
tests.)

2.2.4. Test Giving

The spellingtestswereadministered 20 30
to groupsof or children. The examiner
dictatedeachword,followedby a sentence context.'Me targetwordwasthen
repeatedbefore the go signalto writewasgiven. The childrenwrotethewordson an
[Link] spellingteststook 20-30minutes to The
administer.
for
criterion thismeasurewasthe percentage of correctlYspelledwordswithin each
)
language.(SeeAppendixB-3 for the spellingtests.

22
 General Methods

2.3. Nonword reading

2.3.1. Rationale

Nonword readinghas beenconsideredto assess the ability! o ýppjy-phcgologi

ol cal
ýkills on combinationsof letters that adhereto the orthogýýphic rulesof a language

that do not re resentmeaningnor po-- uniqueentry in a word lexicon (Rack,

Snowling,& Olson, 1992). The nonword readingtask measuresdecodingability
divorced from semanticcuesand other factorsthat Promoteefficiencyin w rd
2000).
rqa4jng-ýSnowling,

It is well established dy
that slexi"hildren-havedefi (Rack,
icits-in-nonword-rcAdking
Snowling& Olson,1992;Snowling,2000).Tkeýpýonol2pcal deficit11iypýt!
bpsis

positsthat!ýLsle4a 4 due_TQ_a_4ffiwIty_in
applying-efficient-and
-accurate
skills. Giventhe relianceon theseskills,a measureof nonwordreading
_phopQlogical
betweelLa
shouldreliably-differentiate childwith or withoutdyslexia.

On the otherhand,nonwordreadinghasalsobeenshownasawayto characterise

the impactof the orthographyon decoding
ability. Winmer
Landerl, & Frith (1997)
in
presentevidenceshowingthat consistentorthographies like German, the
performance of childrenwith dyslexiaon nonwordreading tasks does not vary
from
greatly the performance of reading-level in
matchedcontrolchildren termsof
both speedandaccuracy of reading. 14-conqa ýt, En lishý
lish-sp dren with
dyslexiaaresignificantlydifferentfrom their [Link] sngSLtLthatthe
pressureexerted by English, the more_So!!Ipjexorthography, on the development of
hence, the manifestation of dyslexia varies from that found for German.
reading,and
ObndpoupIly,
ýsjuchsitqdicLs
contta tecLdiffýre-4t rj of En sh and German learners.
-ýOUEý
The presentstudyinvestigatesthis areaby focusingon a group of children learning
in
two orthographiesat the sametime that vary considerably their level of
transparency.

2.3.2. Item Development

The developmentof the pilot versionof the nonword readingtestsfollowedsimilar

that
procedures have been reported in the literature
that producepronounceable

23
 General Methods

[Link] the wordsusedin the two languages

weretakenfrom the
word corpus described in theword [Link]
by changingthe consonantor consonantblendat theonset,middle,or endof a real
In
word. words that hadtwo a consonant
syllables, in
waschanged either the first or
the [Link] wordswith threeor moresyllables, in
a consonant the middle
or last syllableof [Link] thechanges conformedto the
orthographicrulesof [Link] in
changes the consonantof the did
words not
the
affect pronunciationof the vowels. Vowels in
werenot modifiedexcept two
syllablewordsthat began in (i.
with a singlevowel anopensyllable e.a&4.

In Filipino, a phonemeor a syllablein [Link]

generated on two levels, the the
namely phonemeand syllable level. At the phoneme
level,beginningor final consonants
of the first, middle,or third syllableof words
[Link]
at the level
syllable included
replacingwholesyllables
The did
whenaword waspolysyllabic. modifications not affectthe way
especially
the vowelsarepronouncedor the cadence
of thewords.

2.3.3. Item Analysis

Twenty-fournonwords; for
werecreated each language.
After the pilot study,17
for
wordswereretained each [Link] deleted
wordswerepoor at
betweengoodandpoor readers.(SeeAppendixA-10 andA-23 for
distinguishing
the Filipino nonwordreadingtestand A-15
Appendix andA-28 for the English

nonwordreading )
test.

2.3.4. Test Giving

[Link] only 5-10

'Ihe nonwordreadingtestswereadministered
minutesto accomplish verysimilarto theword readingtests.
usingprocedures
Practiceitemsin both languageswereusedto explainthe taskto the child. Againthe
numberof nonwordsreadcorrectly was used asthe measure for each test. (See
AppendixA-33 for the Examiners'Manual)

24
 General Methods

2.4. Phoneme tapping

2.4.1. Rationale

'Me phonologicalperspectiveviewsdyslexiaasa result of a deficit in processingthe

soundsof [Link] most languages,

the phonemeis the basicsoundunit. It is
an abstractunit of the phonetic systemof a languagethat is perceivedto be a single
distinctive soundin a [Link] example,in the word ca there arethree
distinctive phonemes,which correspondto the lettersc-a-t standfor. There are
different typesof measuresthat measurephonologicalskill. Somemeasuresused
involve the manipulationof the phonemeswithin or betweenwords. TWQexamples

ale the phoneme deletion task and the tasks

spoonerisms (Wimmer, Mxyringer &
Landerl, 1998). Other tasksinvolve the segmentationof a word into its smallestunit

of linguistic-
sound-by. tapping qf opeme6n-a word. 'Me
-outAiz-kqpjber -PL
phoneme tapping task aimsto elicit skills in identifying componentphonemeswithin
a word. For in
example, the word rain,there areonly three phonemes (r-ai-n) though
four letterscomprisethe word.

2.4.2. Item Development

Two setsof wordswerecreatedfor eachlanguage

so that there be
would a
large
reasonably pool of items items
to select from in order to develop
the final

versionof the [Link] wordswerealsodrawnfrom for

theword corpusused the
andnonwordreadingtasks.
word reading,speHing,

The Englishversionhad15itemsin eachset. Both setshadwordswith 2 to 8

phonemes. Two or four wordswith the samenumberof phonemeswere includedin
In
eachset. total, therewere30 itemsfor the pilot versionof tapping
phoneme in
English. (SeeAppendixA-13 for themeasure.)

The Filipino phonemetappingtaskslikewisehadtwo setsof itemsbut eachsetonly

had 14itemsandmaking28itemsin total for piloting. Thewordsvariedin length
but againthe rangewasfrom 2 to 8 phonemes
in eachword. (SeeAppendixA-6 for
)
the measure.

25
 General Methods

2.4.3. Item Analysis

For the English version, 12 of the itemswere rejectedbecausethey did not

discriminatebetweenthe childrenwho scoredwell or poorlyin the test. It wasfound
the had
that overall, children no problemssegmenting shortwordswith shortvowels
in
suchas andof Suchwordswere [Link] longerwords,suchasvEdAs
that has8 phonemes,
alsofailedto discriminate the
among children. Eighteen
of the
30 itemsproducedadequateto excellentvariabilityin [Link]
for
retained the finalversionof the An
measure. additional two itemswerere-
incorporatedinto the testasteachingitems. Onewordwasa straightforward two-
phonemeword (such asin)whilethe otherwasalsoa two-phoneme word thatwas
by
represented threeletters
whereintwo lettersrepresented
a digraph(suchasshe).

In Filipino, 20 of the 28 words in the item pool were retainedfor the final version.
Most of the children could tap the phonemeswithin a word. This was expected
becauseof the simpleand shallowcorrespondencebetweenthe soundsand symbols
Filipino However, though all the items seemed to be aseasyas
of the orthography.
because did
these not discriminatebetween
eachother, eight weretakenout good
Two of theseeight words were usedasteachingitems.
and poor performers.

2.4.4. Test Giving

The EnglishandFilipinophonemetappingtestswereadministered individually

8
taking -10minutesperchild. Thesetasks involvedthe testadministratorsayinga
word,whichthe childwasaskedto repeatthentap out the in
numberof sounds the
Eachchild wasgivena pencilwith its blunt endto be used for tappingthe
word.
[Link] wereshown how to accomplish the task. The first example
demonstrated
the tappingtaskto the childusing the examiner'sname. The second
trial usedthe childs [Link] indicated
examiner the numberof tapson the
examiner'smarkingsheet.

The procedurewasgenerallythe samein the final versionexceptthat two teaching

itemswereincorporated it be the
so could ensured childunderstoodthe instructions
be for
to carriedout thetask. There were 18 English itemsand20 Filipinoitems.

26
 GeneralMethods

The percentageof correct responseswas usedasthe measurefor eachlanguage.(See

Appendix A-33 for the Exatriners'Manual.)

2.5. Syllable tapping

2.5.1. Rationale

Phonemeand syllabletapping arevariationsof a theme. Syllabletappingis the task

in A is
of tapping the number of vowel-definedsegments a word. Syllable a unit of
spokenlanguage
that is biggerthan a phonemeand consistsof a combinationof
A be (i. in 4
phonemes. syllablemay composedof a stand-alonevowel e. a alx, or a
the vowel precededor followed by a
combination of vowels and consonantswith
(i. in
consonant e. cur corred).

2.5.2. Itern Development

The syllabletapping testsare similarly structuredto the phonemetappingtests. The

had two setsof words, which had 15 words each. The words were 1-5
pilot version
long. The Filipino syllabletapping test, on the other hand,had two setsof
syllables
12 items. The from 1-6 long.
syllables All the words weretaken from
words were
like
theword corpus the phonemetappingtask.

2.5.3. Item Analysis

For the English language half

version, of thewordswere taken out of the item pool
because theywereeither too difficult or too easy. This left 15words ranging from 1-
long
5 syllables for the finalversion. Two of the discarded itemswerethenrecycled
be
to teaching items. (See Appendix A-17 for the measure. )

From a total of 24 items in Filipino, 18 wereretainedand includedin the final

Again, two discardeditemswere usedasteachingitems. (See
Appendix
version.
)
A-9 for the measure.

27
 General Methods

2.5.4. Test Giving

Thesetasksweresimilarto the phonemetappingtaskdescribed

[Link]
of tappingthe numberof phonemes, the childrenwereaskedto tap out the number
in
of syllables theword the [Link]
eighteen items with wordsfrom long. 'Me Englishversionhadfifteen
1-6syllables
wordsranging from 1-5 long.
syllables Thepercentage wasthe
of correctresponses
for
criterion each language. (SeeAppendix A-33 for the ExaminersManual.)

2.6. Rapid visual naming

2.6.1. Rationale

Rapidvisualnaminghasbeenfoundto differentiatebetweendyslexics and

(Wolf
nondyslexics & Bowers,
2000) althoughthe exact
reason for this difference has
be Its
yetto agreedupon. place in theoretical of
explanations literacy difficulties
was
first etchedbecause
of an finding
incidental byDenkla& Rýudel'(1976).
In this
study,groupsof dyslexicsandnondysleidcs on a colournamingtask.
werecompared
in namingthecolours,the groupsdid
This studyreportedthatin termsof accuracy
not vary. However,the dysle2dcssoulAbe-diffe-reiiýate4_from
therestof the sample
to the
accordingto the timetheytook name [Link] OyATýcs the
ýerforrned

-task-at-a-slower-rate.

Stanovich(1986)challenged the hypothesison two He

counts. argued that to be an
acceptableindicator of dyslexia task
the rapidnaming should differentiate
between
dyslexicsandtheir reading-agematchedcounterparts becausenaming speedcan be
influencedby the lengthof a child'sexposureto print. 'Me secondargumentwas
relatedto the distinctionbetween thedyslexicandthepondyslexic poor [Link]
differ
readers from dyslexicson measures on generalintelligenceby havinglower
If
scores. significant differencesin the namingspeeds of dyslexics;
andpoor readers
arefound, and if thesedifferencesshow that the dyslexicis indeedslowerat the task,
thenthe namingspeed hypothesis
will havegreatercredibilityandwill offer
additionalexplainingpoweraboutdyslexia.

28
 GeneralMelhods

Thevisualnamingspeedhypothesishassincebeenthe subjectof confirmation

Wolf
studies. found
(1997) highlysignificantgroupdifferences
in the namingspeed
of dyslexic
children andyounger children for
matched readinglevel. This supports
the conclusionthat greateror longer to
exposure print wasnot the explainingfactor
in the groups'scoreson thevisualnamingtask Thesefindings
for the differences
by
aresupported otherstudies (seeTorgesen et al., Dissociating
1997). childrenwith
dyslexiafrom childrenwho arenot discrepant in readingandgeneralintelligence

measures provedto be less Longitudinal

straightforward. that these
studiessuggest
do in
two groupsof poor readers not vary visualnamingspeedwhile they in
are the
levels
earliest of primaryschool. The differences
in theirnamingspeeds became

apparent in lateryears,particularlywhen theyreached third or fourth gradein

school.
elementary

This studyaimsto verifythe ideathatvisualnaming. is

ýpLed a sqpýýate factorto be

consideredin dyslexia in
research thecontC. =Lyariations-ia-orthc)gr.
aphiq-d-epth.
The depthof anorthographyis determined bythedegreeof unison(or discord)
betweenthe soundstructureandcorresponding visualsymbolsof a language.
For
Filipino hasa moretransparent
orthography than English because
only one
example,
letterrepresents its
eachof vowels. The differencesin the depthof the
orthographies;provide a rich and ready-builtcondition on which to testthe various
hypotheses relatedto reading, dyslexia,
andother literacydifficulties within the same
VAiUst is
there extensive researchliteratureon dyslexia in the English
child.
language, but
thereasyet are a few studiesof dysexiain 1ýn tý present
pýjagýs
_
differentorthogrgjýc [Link],someresearch findingshavereportedthat in

trýýnareýntorthogra lays
pg a moresignifican
have
These
readingabilitythanphonologicalprocessing. beenreported in German,
Dutch, Finnish,andSpanish(Wolf & UBrien, 2001).However,therehavenot
beenreportedfindingsinvolvingbilingualchildrenwho accomplished
the taskin two
Thepredictionthat evolvesfrom the combinationof theseideasis that
languages.
visualnarningspeedwill better been
distinguish bilingualdyslexics
andnondyslexics
in a transparentorthographythanthe phonologicaltasks.

29
 General Methods

2.6.2. Item Development

Two typesof rapid visual namingtaskswere developed,specifically,colour naming,

and picture naming. A priming cardthat was madeto teachthe namesof the
pictures accompanied
eachcard. This precededthe stimuluscards.

[Link]. Rapid Visual Naming of Colours

Only four colours; in

wereused thistask,namelyred (pula),blue(asul),yellow(dilaw),
andgreen(berde).Therewere six for
repetitions eachcolour. These
werepresented
astwenty-four
colourblocks in
arranged threecolumnswith eightrowson a card.
Thoughthe samecolourswereusedfor the EnglishandFilipinocards,theywere
in
sequenced different
ways. (See
Appendix A-25 andA-30 for the colourblocks
stimuluscardused)

[Link]. Rapid Visual Naming of Pictures

Four cardsweredevelopedfor thistask. Eachcardhadsixdifferentlinedrawingsof

that
commonobjects/animals wererepeated four times. The pictureswerearranged
in four columnswith sixrowseach.Eachcardhad24line [Link] choosing
be the in
the picturesto used, numberof syllables eachcardwascounted.

Two stimuluscardswerepresented for eachlanguagewith the first cardbeingthe

same for both languages be
to usedasa practicecard. TMs cardconsistsof the
followingpictures:cloud(ul4p),umbrella(payono,dragonfly(ttwh), star(biýý), dog
(aso),andcar (kotse).Theperformance from the practicetaskwasnot
datagenerated
includedin the analysisof the data.

'Me testingcardin Filipino consisted

of the following bda
pictures: (ball);
susi(key),
km (lion),oram (clock),piiou (pineapple),
and kxm (bed). This card had a total of
in Filipino. (SeeAppendixA-24 for the stimuluscardsused.
40 syllables ) The
Englishtestingcardhadthe followingpictureson it: horse,sun,rooster,banana,
in Englishon this card. (SeeAppendixA-
flower,anddoor. Therewere52syllables
)
29 for the stimuluscardsused.

30
 General Methods

2.6.3. Item Analysis

Theitemswerenot changed
for rapidvisualnamingtask.

2.6.4. Test Giving

The childrenwerefirst taughtthe namesof the objectsusinga differentpicturecard

with oneinstance
of [Link] showingmasteryof the names,theywere
askedto namethe picturesasquicklyaspossible.A stopwatchwasusedto measure
the speedof naming.(SeeAppendixA-33 for the Examiners'Manual)

2.7. Picture stories

2.7.1. Rationale

The picturestoriestaskin this studyis basedon the picturearrangementsubtestof

the WechslerIntelligenceScales for Children(Wechsler, 1974).It presentsa seriesof
picturesto the in
child a jumbled up order. The taskrequiresthe childto sequence
to
the picturesso as makea logical
story. Research WISC
on_the link thismeasure to
Verbal10 andVerbalComprehension factorsthat mavbenlatecLto-the lengthof
the left temporalbankof the planumtemporale that is associatedwith linguistic
pTiýýsing Pccio & Hynd, 2000). This areaof the brain is implicate with
difficultiesin reading,[Link](1996),usingWISC-III,found
that childrenwith learningdisabilitiesperformsignificantlylesswell on the picture
subtest.
arrangement

However,the samesubtesthasbeeninterpretedasanindicatorof socialintelligence.

Beebeet A (2000)beliethisunderstanding
by comparingtheperformance of
ADHD andcontrolchildrenon the PictureArrangement andComprehension
functioning
subtestswith scoreson social by
asreported [Link]
wasfound that thoughtheComprehension subtestwascorrelatedto the reportsof
mothersandteachers,the PictureArrangementscoreswerenot, particula4when
intelligence
general wascontrolled for. Campbell
& McCord (1999) alsopresent
these
supporting
evidence findingswheretheyconcludethat cautionshouldbeused

31
 GeneralMethods

in interpretingscoreson the PictureArrangementandComprehensionsubtestsas

indicatorsof socialcompetence.

Additionalevidence is providedby Stark(1998)who taskanalysed the cognitive

components of the Picture Arrangement subtestby asking45youthsand45 adultsto
verballyreporttheir strategies
whilstperformingthe task. Their responseswere
in
categorised to threecognitive components
namely, 1)knowledge components,2)
holdinggoalsandsub-goals in memoryand3) the identificationof stimuliandcues.
It wasfoundthatthe first two componentswerepositivelycorrelatedandthat those
who obtainedbetter scoresalsoexpressedtheiruseof thesecognitivestrategies
while
performingthe PictureArrangement task. Furthermore,amongtheyouths,general
on thistask. Suchstudiesargueagainst
intelligenceaffectedperformance theviews
that the PictureArrangementtaskis anindexof functioning.
social On theother
hand,theyarguethat knowledgeandthe useof memoryinfluencethe outcomein
this measure.

2.7.2. Item Development

'Me picturestoriestaskin this studyis basedon the picturearrangementsubtestof

the WechslerIntelligenceScales for Children-Revised (1974).The items for
used this
studywere developed with considerationfor theFilipino chilSsscopeof experience.
28
For the pilot versionof this task, picturestorieswere developed. Thesecovereda
from simpleeveryday to
tasks morescience-oriented items
widerangeof experience
suchasthewatercycle. The numberof eventsranged from two to in
eightpictures a
series.((See Appendix A-20 and )
A-32.

2.7.3. Item Analysis

After pilot testing,thirteenof the originalitemswerediscarded,

leaving15itemsfor

the finalversionof the task Those that werediscarded

wereeithertoo easyor too
difficult. Theeasyitemswerethe onesthat presented
the childrenwith onlytwo
be
eventsto sequenced. 'Me harderitemswerethosethat noneof the childrencould
answerwith assurance than
greater chance. Theseinvolvedthosewith morethan
seveneventsaswell asthosethat providedtoo minutedetails
within eachpicture

32
 General Methods

frame.A teachingitemwasincludedin the [Link] takenfrom

was
oneof the discardeditemsfrom the pilot [Link] demonstratethe
taskandensurethat the childrenunderstood whattheywereexpectedto do.

2.7.4. Test Giving

Thetaskwasadministered [Link] howyoungthe respondent

lastedfrom 10to 20minutes.A setof pictureswas
was,the pilot testadministration
presentedto the in
child a specifiedorderthat is indicatedby a numericalcodeat the
backof eachpicturecard. Thetaskrequiredthe childto sequence the picturesto
makea logical story. Anothercode,this timecomposedof letters,wasalsoat the
backof eachcardto [Link] examinercopiedthe lettersafterthe
child indicated
that s/he hadarrangedthe picturesto makea coherentstory. Scores
werecodedaseitherright or wrong. No partialscoresaregiven. (SeeAppendixA-
33 for the Examiners'Manual.)

2.8. Listening comprehension

2.8.1. Rationale

For personswho are ableto hear adequately,listeningcomprehensionis a vital

aspectof languagelearningand development. The ability to understandverbally

deliveredmessages in
enablesa person participate the variouscontextsof human
to
interaction. Listening comprehensionhasalsobeenhypothesisedasessentialto the
developmentof [Link] simpleview of reading(Hoover &
Gough, 1990)arguesthat all the readerneedsto do is to transferhis or her

cSjmpLehe4sioa. skiUs!mm the auditorycontext to the visualcontext. According to

their point of view, linguistic comprehensionshould translateto reading
comprehensionprovided the two is by
processes mediated an understandingof the
grapho-phonologicalrelationshipof soundsand letters.

It is-suggested
that childrenwith &yslexia
arediscrepant
in in
theirperformances
liss! ým
ýn coTpýrenension
ehensionandF j ýa ýoMprqh iion measuresreciselybecause
LdLmg. 0f)
the lackof mediation-by
graph.
q.-p onqjo6ý4ýq9--
wlýqge(Nation,1999).Children
_L _

33
 GeneralMelhods

sion
measures_than readingcomprehension measures. Badian(1999) conducteda
longitudinal studyto determinewhetherdefiningreadingdisability by a discrepancy
betweengroup-administeredtestsof listeningandreadingcomprehensionwould be

stableover time, gender ratio and prevalence. She reports that the discrepancy
betweenlisteningand readingcomprehensionpersistsover eight gradelevelsamong

children who showed this discrepancy from first grade.

Measuresof listening comprehensionarenot tra&i9nally [Link] the diagnostic

batterv for [Link] dyslexiahasfocusedmore and more-on
-its
phonological and visual [Link], a string of studieson secondlanguage
-
literacyhaveincludedlisteningcomprehension(seeGeva,2000). Thesestudieshave
found that oral languagecompetencein the secondlanguagedoesnot haveto

precedereading instruction in the secondlanguage.

G, )
fi(
4pta_k_Qarg_(L9ý9
-reported
n taskwas
Sig s. They explainthis more asa
-
function of attitude by-xguing-that-dyslexicswhose-readin oorly
developýdoftenJose: st in
in1Lere-----reading qsteniýg
Aq41 to text material.
, -.

A listening comprehensionmeasurewas usedin this researchto be ableto describe

literacy developmentamongchildren in both Filipino and English. Including this

measurewould enable the hypothesistestingof the perspectives

offered by Hoover
& Gough (1990). Furthermore,the useof this measurealsoenablesus to investigate
the validity of the theory on the between
discrepancy listening and reading
comprehensionamong children with dyslexia.

2.8.2. Item Development

'Me listeningcomprehension had

measure two [Link] first involvedthe
useof while
pictures the involved
second orallypresented All
passages. the
questionsaboutthe picturesor thepassages
wereyes/no questions.

34
 General Methods

Theitemsusedfor the listeningcomprehensiontext wereoriginalandwere

developedfor this research.Therewere15picture-based for
questionscreated the
youngerchildren, 49
and questions based Two for
on passages. passages eachgrade
[Link]
werethe samein both languages
in
varied [Link] the pilot version,Filipino and
thoughthe questions
Englishversionsof the testwereidenticalbecause the pictures,passages,
and
were
questions translations of each in
other,resulting 64comprehension questions
for eachlanguage.

Threereadingteachers to
wereasked evaluatethe appropriateness
of the itemsfor
the [Link] storywasfound for To
too easy sixthgrade. remedythis,the'
sentencesweremade longerandmorecomplex.

2.8.3. Item Analysis

Duringpilot testing,it wasobservedthat the childrenveryquicklyrealisedthat the

itemsweretranslations of eachotherevenwhenthe testswerenot administered
consecutively. 'Mus their for
attentiveness the testin the nextlanguage
seemed to
[Link] item analysis, the numberof itemsfor eachversionwasreducedto
30 or 31. This includedsixpicture-baseditemsand24or 25passage baseditems.
Only onepassage for eachgradelevelwasassignedto a specificlanguage sothat
noneof the picturesandpassages waspresentedin both languages,with the
items.
exceptionof the practice

2.8.4. Test Giving

Thelisteningcomprehension testswereadministered to groupsof childrenaspart of

a packageof othergrouptests(spelling
in both languagesandvisualshapememory).
The administration
of the EnglishandFilipinoversionswasalternated per groupto
for
control guessing andpredictionof [Link] testtook about25
minutes to administerbecause
the stories
werereadtwice. Answeringthe questions
wasfairly because
straightforward the
all children had to do wasto encircleayesor a
no aftereachquestion.

35
 General Methods

For the main study,the Filipino version comprised30 items and the Englishversion
had 31 items. All itemsrequiredthe child to listen to a questionand indicatea yesor

no answeron a standardanswersheet. 'Me first six questionsof eachtest included

picture prompts to help the child with the question. The child was askedto look at
the pictureandindicatewhetherthe testers'statement
aboutthe picturewascorrect
or [Link] did
remainingquestions not providepictures but involvedthe
testerverballypresenting followed
a shortpassage by aboutthatpassage.
a statement
Againthe childwasto indicatewhetherthe statement
wascorrector incorrect.
[Link] thepercentage of correct
for
responses each language.
(SeeAppendix B-3,B-4 andB-6 for thetests/picture
)
stimuluscards.

2.9. Sentence comprehension

2.9.1. Rationale

Theultimategoalof decodingis comprehension

or the from
creationof meaning
writtenlanguage The
symbols. perceptionof the visualsignalsof a language
activates
differentsystems to
that all contribute the reader'sconstructionof meaning. Reading
is
comprehension the goalof word readingandcanonly occurwith linguistic

competence (Hoover& Gough, 1990).OakhiH & Cain (1997)

indicatethat reading
comprehension hasbeenfound be
to relatedto listeningcomprehension,decoding
knowledge,
ability,syntactic andthe abilityto infer andintegrate
information.
Goodman(1994)arguesthatit is the activationof prior knowledgeor schema that
enablesthe abilityto connectandlimit the informationarisingfrom the squiggles
on
It
the page. can be inferred if
that anyoneof these systemsfailsit is possiblethat
accurateandefficientcomprehensionmay not take [Link], aspects
external
to the readercancausecomprehensionto fail. For long
instance, textsrequire
or sentences.
greaterattentionandmemorythanshortpassages

Nation& Snowling(2000)assessed
syntacticawareness skillsamongtwo groupsof
for
childrenwho werematched age, decoding skill, andnonverbal ability. 'Me two
were
groups comprised of goodand poor on
performers reading
comprehension. It
wasfoundthat the performance of both groupswasinfluencedby the syntactic

36
 General Methods

complexity and semanticambiguityof the [Link], poor comprehenders

performed lesswell than normal readerson a word order task. The findingssuggest
that poor comprehendershavelanguageprocessingdifficulties includinggrammatical
and semanticweaknesses. This study did not match the participantsin terms of
listening comprehensionperformanceand thus did not takeinto accountthis aspect
its
of comprehensionand possiblerelationshipwith the performanceof the poor
on the word ordertask.
comprehenders

Comprehension measuresvaryin format anddesign. The Gates MacGinitie

Achievement Testsin Reading(1989)is a multiple-choice
testthat presents
the cud
be the
to readsilentlyanda seriesof questionsabout paragraph.
with a passage The
is
child expected the
to choose correctanswer to the questionsfrom amongthe
options. The he is
remainvisibleto the childwhile or she answering
passages the
[Link] the
present childwith sentences with clauses.
several
The childis askedto identifywhichamongthe clausesin the sentence is misplaced

suchasthe Testof English asa ForeignLanguage (Enright et al.,2000). Speech

pathologistsandreadingspecialists comprehension
usea sentence taskin whicha
is
child askedto producea semantically intact
andsyntactically from
sentence visual
wordsor word
presented dusters([Link] al, 1987). It be
therefore,
can,
if he is
correctly, or she ableto applythe
arguedthat a childcanconstructa sentence
varioussystems to 'Me
that contribute comprehension. presentresearch employs
this typeof comprehension [Link]/phraseordering task, items
be
could varied in difficulty andlength Young
moreeasily. childrenat first or second
be the task
gradewill ableto accomplish better
thanusingpassages
andmultiple-
choicequestions.

2.9.2. Item Development

'Me sentences
weretakenfrom that
textbooks childrenusein [Link] sentences
level
per grade wererandomlypicked. The sentenceswerescreened/modified so
that only onesentence
couldbe made from thewords. For youngerchildren,
to
anotherway makesure that only one correctanswer
could be built wasto create
word chunksthat implied Sentences
a certainsyntacticsequence. for thelowerlevels

37
 General Methods

in
weresegmented two portions,namelythe subjectandthepredicatewhilethe
for
sentences the highergradelevelswerecomposed of wordswritten on individual
in Filipinoanda differentsetof 21 sentences
cards.A total of 21 sentences in
Englishwereemployedin the pilot versions.

2.9.3. Item Analysis

For the Englishversion,of the 21 sentencesthatwerecreatedfor the pilot test,only

10sentences for
wereretained use in the [Link] of the items removed
the
were extremelyeasyor theverylong [Link] the finalversion,two of the easy
wereusedas
sentences items.
teaching (See
Appendix A-16 andA-31 for )
thetests.

Nine of the 21 itemsin the Filipinopilot versionwereincorporated

in the final

version. Twelve sentences were takenout of the testbecausethe sentenceswerevery

long. It is interestingto notethat noneof the sentenceswith only two phrasechunks
hadto beremoved- the variabilityin scoresremainedgooddespitethe shortlength
of the Because
sentences. of noneof the shortandeasysentences
wereremoved,
two new items for
werecreated teachingpurposes. (SeeAppendixA-8 andA-26 for
)
thetests.

2.9.4. Test Giving

The childwaspresented
with word/phrasecardsandwastold that thesewordsmake
oneandonly onegoodsentence if the The
cardswererearranged. words/phrases
in
arepresented a specificorder. 'Men the childwasaskedto rearrange thewordsto
constructa [Link] the child had finished,the examinernotedthe sequence
of the cardson the markingsheet and proceeds to thenext [Link] testwas
administered individually
andtook about10-15 to The
minutes accomplish. measure
of this test is the of
percentage correct the
sentences childis ableto for
construct
[Link] for
areno partialscores this measure,
only right or wrong
answers.(See
Appendix A-33 for the Exarniners'Manual)

38
 General Methods

2.10. Word span

Rationale

Research has
on workingmemory established thatthe temporalpart of the brainis
responsiblefor this function. Positronemissiontomographyprocedures appliedto
researchon dyslexia provideevidence thatthesevery sameareasof the brainare less
activatedwhendyslexics to tasks
areasked performauditoryrepetition (McCroryet
al.,2000).

Severalstudiesthathaveincludedverbalshort-termmemorytaskssuchasword span
find that verbalworkingmemoryis a goodpredictorof readingability. McDougall
(1994)reportsa sampleof eightto tenyearold childrenwhosereadingabilitywas
sufficiently by
predicted verbal
short-termmemory once IQ scoreswerecontrolled
for. Findingsof this research that
explicitlystate these is
children'sreadingskill not
by
predicted visualmemory. Wagner (1997)discriminated between developmentally
delayedandnormallydevelopinggroupsusingshort-termverbalmemorytasks.
Anotherinterestingstudyinvolvingpoor andgoodcomprehenders who were
matchedon decoding ageinvestigated
therelationshipof workingmemoryand
It
comprehension. concludes is
that poorreadingcomprehension a resultof
impairmentanddifficultiesin [Link] alsoreportsthat poor
language
have but impaired (Nation
verbalspanabilities et
comprehenders normalspatialspan
al, 1999).In Singleton
study,
another et al (2000)
reportthat the computer-based
cognitiveassessmentsystem (CoPs)
tests to
administered children at 5 yearsold and
their readingabilityscoresat 8 yearsold werecorrelated
with auditoqa-verbal
memoryandphonologicalawareness.

Workingmemorymeasures havebeenincludedin differentdyslexiameasures(see

Screening
Slingerland Testfor SpecificLanguage
Difficulty CEldren:Shgerland
Ansara,1984;InternationalDyslexiaTest:Smythe& Everatt,in preparation;
CognitiveProfilingSystem:Singletonet al, 1996)because
theycorrelatehighlywith
testsof processing
speed.

39
 General Methods

2.10.2. Item Development

Theword spantasksusedsequences of colourwords. Seriesof items from

increased
two to eightwords,with two itemsequences beingusedasexamples andto provide
[Link] the
sequences, numberof words in the span by
increased one
producinga total of 14listswasused in the tests. In the Filipinolanguage version,
eighttwo-syllableand two four-syllablecolourwords were used in the lists. In
English,eightsingle-syllable
andtwo two-syllable
colourwordswereused. 'Mere

werealsotwo instances items

of teaching for each language
sothat the taskcouldbe
demonstrated
properlyto thechildren.(See
AppendixA-7 andA-14 for the )
tests.

Thereis a differencein thelengthof the syllables

of the wordsin the two languages.
Englishcolourwordshadeightsinglesyllablewordsandtwo two-syllable words. In
Filipino,therewereeighttwo-syllablewordsand two four-syllable
words. This

makesthe performance of the Filipinoword spantaskconsiderablylongerthan in

English.

2.10.3. Item Analysis

Theitemsfor theword spanmeasure for

remainedthe same the pilot andfinal

versionsof the tests.

2.10.4. Test Giving

Theworkingmemorymeasures wereadministered individuallyto the

all children in

the pilot [Link] had

examiner standard instructionsto conveyandsimply
wrote down of the child.
the responses The procedures mirrored those usedin

measures of digit span. The childwasverballypresented with a seriesof wordsand

to
asked repeat them in order. Scores corresponded to the numberof sequences
correctlyrepeated by the childin the right order. (SeeAppendix A-33 for the
Examiners'Manual.)

40
 General Methods

2.11. Rhythm tapping

2.11.1. Rationale

Auditoryprocessing hasbeenfoundto beoneof the significantpredictorsof basic

readingability. (2001)
Gettelfinger arguesthat thoughphonologicalawareness is the
dominantpredictorof readingability,the importanceof othercognitiveskillsarewell
supported by the findings.
research In a studywhichaimed to identifythe best
predictorsof reading. from
success a setof cognitivepredictors,rapidvisualnaming,
auditorymemory /processing and visual
memory /processing
werefound to be
Kurdek
significantpredictorsof reading. & Sinclair found
(2001) that readinessin
the specificareasof auditorymemoryandverbalachievement predictedreading
achievement. These studiesshowthe importance
of includingotheraspects
of
in
cognitiveprocessing the studyof readingdevelopment,
particularlyauditory
memoryandprocessing. Miller (2001) multipleregressions
performedstepwise for

word identification, comprehension,

passage fluency
andoralreading and found that
intelligence,
crystallised andshortterm
speed,auditoryprocessing,
processing
be in
memorywould significantpredictorsamongstudents middleschoolwith
[Link] auditorymemoryspanin reading
is
achievement supportedalso by De-Bocr (1997)in a studythat correlatedauditory
memoryspan,auditoryprocessing andreading
rate,phonemicawareness
It is
achievement. reportedthat only auditoryprocessing
memoryspansignificantly
IQ
evenafter wascontrolled
correlatedwith readingachievement for.

Themeasurement of the auditorymemoryspancancreatea distinction between the

perceptionof simplesoundsandphonologicalstimuli. TEs is of particularrelevance
in the assessment
of dyslexia
wheredifficultiesin phonologicalprocessing
and
auditoryprocessingshouldbe differentiated.
Rhythm tapping is awayof assessing
auditorymemoryspan (Smythe & Everatt,2000).Rhythm tapping doesnot involve
it is
phonologicalunitsof sound, on the otherhand,
a testthat aimsto measure the
abilityto retaina soundsequence it.
andreproduce

41
 General Methods

2.11.2. Item Development and Analysis

Therhythmtappingtaskin this studywasborrowedfrom the InternationalDyslexia

Test(seeSmythe& Everatt,in preparation).Thetaskpresents
the childwith a series
of tapsinterspersed
with shortor long The
pauses. soundpatterns become
progressivelylonger The
andmorecomplicated. taskrequiresthe childto reproduce
the patternof the taps. Thistestwasnot item analysed the
after pilot studybecause
it wasborrowedfrom an existingmeasurethat hasbeenusedin numerouscontexts
andcountries.(SeeAppendix A-19 for the )
tests.

2.11.3. Test Giving

Therhythmtappingtaskwasadministered individuallyandtook betweenfive to

[Link] childwasgiventhe instructions

andtaughtthetaskusingan
example. The examiner tappedthe the to
specificpatternandasked cud repeat it.
The criterionfor this measure
wasthe correct repetitionof the whole No
sequence.
partialscoresweregiven. (See
AppendixA-33 for the )
Exan-dners'Manual.

2.12. Visual shape memory

Rationale

Anotherimportantaspectof readinganddyslexiaresearch is theidentificationof

skills
asrelevantcognitive
visualprocesses that influence
reading development. It
hasbeenfoundthat theseskillsareaffectedby [Link] a studythat aimed
to predictthe readingandmathematics achievement of fourth gradechildren from
kindergarten readiness Kurdek
scores, & (2001)
Sinclair found that olderchildren
[Link]
for lettersandfigureshavetraditionallybeenincludedin assessment batteries
(Slingerland
Screening Difficulty children:Slingerland
Testfor SpecificLanguage
Ansara,1984;Aston Index:Newton& Thomson,1976).Thetaskrequireslookingat
a visualstimulus,whethera linguistic or
configuration a figure,
nonlinguistic and
reproducing it from memory. It hasbeen argued by the testdevelopers that d-iistask
to copyingfrom a blackboard.
is simi1ar

42
 General Methods

In a studyon the effectsof bilingualismon learningto readEnglish,Mumtaz&

Hurnphreys(2001)reportedthatthe difficultyin readingirregularEnglishwordswas
linkedto poor visualmemoryskillsof bilingualchildrenwho areliteratein English
and Urdu. This studyis important to the presentresearchbecauseUrdu is a language
with a shallowalphabetic
orthography much like Filipino. The authorsarguethat
dueto its nature,phonologicalprocessing be
skillswill primarily involvedin the
acquisitionof literacyskillsin Urdu,whilstin English,
a language with a deeper
it be
orthography, will more based on visualprocessingskills. The inclusionof a
the
visualshapememoryenables assessment
of this findingin the contextof
Filipino-Englishbilinguals.

In anotherstudy,Gupta& Garg(1996)assesseddyslexicandchronological
age-
matchedchildren (aged
6-9 andphonologicalprocessing
yrs)on visuo-perceptual
figures,
taskssuchascopyinggeometrical discrinination
visual of lettersandwords,
copyingname,auditorysequential
memory, andlistening
comprehension. Dyslexic

childrenwere foundto performsignificantlypoorerthanthe controlson all these

[Link] discrirnination
on visual
analysis tasksindicatedthat dyslexic
children
often madereversalerrorsanderrors of wrong order. On the namecopyingtask,
dyslexicchildrenwho showedpoor motor coordinationandfluencycouldnot write
in capitallettersandcouldnot writewordson a straightline. The
initial alphabets
findingssuggested that dyslexicsseemedto havedifficultyin integrating
visualand
information.
phonological

The inclusionof a visualshapememorytaskin the presentresearch is further

justifiedby the findingsfrom a studyconductedto determine if the usualmeasures of
detectingdyslexiaamongmonolinguals alsoidentifydyslezda
among bilinguals.
In a

study involving bilinguals,

English/Sylethi it wasfoundthat childrenwith poor
literacyskillscouldbedifferentiatedfrom theirpeersthroughmeasures of
phonological skill,rapidnaming,
and shape memory (Everattet al.,2000).

43
 General Methods

2.12.2. Item Development and Analysis

Thevisualshapememorytaskincludedin this batterywasborrowedfrom the

IntemationalDyslexiaTest(seeSmythe& Everatt,in preparation).Thetaskrequires
a child to look therefore,
at anabstract, non-linguistic for
shape ten [Link]
is
shape removed from the is
sightand child askedto reproducethe shapeon the
answersheetprovided. Five items comprisedthis taskandtook sevento ten minutes
As
to complete. the testwasborrowedfrom battery
another of the
tests, itemswere
or modifiedafterthepilot study.
not analysed

2.12.3. Test Giving

Thevisual-shapememorytask is composed of five items. Each item the

presents
line
childwith anunnameable drawingthat is shown to the for
child ten seconds.
Whenthe picturehasbeentakenawayfrom sight,the childis askedto drawthe
figurein a box on a [Link]
template. Three ratersmarked the [Link] affirmativeandconcurringmarks
for
werenecessary an answer to be considered [Link] numberof correctitems

out of five the

wasusedas measure of this task. (See
AppendixB-3 and B-5 for the
instnunents.)

2.13. Block design

2.13.1. Rationale

Scalesfor Children-R
Block designis oneof subtestsof the WechslerIntelligence
(WISC-R).This requiresthe childto producea two-dimentional patternusingthree-
[Link] for administering the testandscoring
weretakenfrom the test manual(Wechsler,
1974). In this study the blockdesign
is
task considered asa measureof general intelligence ability. Based
andvisual-spatial
on the findingsby (1999),
Pancholi it is assumed that it doesnot makedemands on
the languageor verbalabilitiesof an [Link] this perspective,
the
executionof the block design task requiresverylittle useof language. The
instructionsfor [Link]
hasusedit aspart of a pair of measures
to [Link]

44
 General Methods

example, it hasbeencoupledwith theVocabularysubtestof the Wechsler

for Children (Kaplanet al,2000).Interestingly,
IntelligenceScales has
this measure
alsobeen matchedwith the RapidAutomatizedNamingOM taskto approximate
intelligence
general andabilityMuller, 1999).Both combinationsattemptto
two
measure aspects intelligence
of general namelyvisual-spatial
andlanguage-based
ability,with BlockDesignasthemeasure of the former. Groth-Marnat& Teal
(2000)addedvalidityto this practiceby findingthat scoresof adultson the block
designtaskof the WechslerAdult IntelligenceScales(WAIS)werea goodpredictor
tasksthatinvolvevisual-spatial
of the abilitiesof adultsto performeveryday-type
ability.

In a studywith childrenwho arebilingualandwhosecompetence in eitherlanguage

cannot be assumed asequal,
usingthe blockdesign
taskgivessomemeasure of
freedomfrom the useof spokenlanguage in [Link] is alsoperceived
to be a moreculture-fairinstrumentthantasksthat requireverbalinstructionsto be
[Link] that to
studies aimed compare differentlinguistic
groupshaveusedthe [Link](1999)
usedtheWISC-III Block Design
(among
subtest other to
measures) determine
if thereare differences
cultural in
hemispheric
usageamongGujarati
Indian-Americanbilinguals,
Anglo-American
monolingualsin the [Link] Gujarati
Indian bilinguals
and monolingualsin India.
This studyaimedto testthe hypothesisthat differences
in culturepromotemoreuse
the
of either right or the left hemisphere
of the brain. No differences
significant
betweenthe groupswerefoundon the BlockDesigntask. This findingsupportsthe
claim that the blockdesign doesnot makedemands on the languageor verbal
abilitiesof an individual.

2.13.2. Item Development and Analysis

For both the pilot andthe fieldphasesof this study,the blockdesignsubtestof the
WISCwasutilisedin its pureform thusissueson item development andanalysis will
not be (See
discussed. Appendix
A-21 for the )
markingsheet.

45
 GeneralMethods

2.13.3. Test Giving

Blockdesignis oneof subtestsof the WechslerIntelligence for Children

Scales
(WISC).This requiresthe childto produceatwo-dimensional patternusingthree-
[Link]
for adininistering
the testandscoring
weretakenfrom the testmanual(Wechsler,
1974).Ite I I-iterntestproducesraw
scoresbasedon accuracy andspeed.

'fhe raw scoreswereconvertedto the scaledscoresbasedon Americannormsfor

this subtestbecause
thereareno normsfor [Link],
comparisonswith Americannormsindicatedthatthe average raw scorefor each
gradewould fall within the average (i.
range e.,7- 13)whenconvertedto thescaled
based
scores on American norms. (See
Appendix A-33 for the Examiners'Manual.
)

2.14. Word interference

2.14.1. Rationale

Numerous studieshaveinvestigatedthe Stroop interferenceeffect (Stroop,1935).

Thesestudiesattemptto explainsomeaspectof the Stroop effect becausewhile the

test usuallyresultsin largeand reliableeffects,its true meaningremainselusive. The

however,
prevailing explanation, relatesto the associationbetween skilled
performanceand automaticity. The Stroop Colour and Word Test (Stroop, 1935)
demonstratesnamingthe colour of the ink of incongruentwords (wordswhich are

printed in an incongruentcolour ink such as the word blue printed in red ink)is
by
affected skilledword reading. The rate of namingthe coloursof these
incongruentwords is slowerin comparisonto the rate of naming blocks of colours

or the rate of readingwords printed in black ink. The implication is that naming
colours andword readingare automatictasksthat are compromisedby the
introduction of an unnaturalcondition. It hasbeenproposedthe Stroop effect
demonstratesthat automaticand skilled performance(i.e. word reading)inhibits the

performanceof the less (i.

automatictask e. colour naming in incongruent
conditions).

46
 General Methods

Different varietiesof the Stroop test havebeenformulated(seeMacLeod, 1991,1992

for reviews). For example,there areanxietyStroop teststhat cover a wide rangeof
(i.
contexts e.,medical, trauma). Even in suchvarieties, the inhibiting effect of word
is
reading observable. Two areasof fairly recent application of the Stroop,are
bilingualismand dyslexia.

One of the first studieson the Stroop effect amongstbilingualsinvolved a small

cohort of twelve English speakingmonolingualsand sixteenSpanish and English

bilinguals. Colour words were presentedin English,Spanish,and four other control
[Link] monolingualgroupwas slowestwhen presentedwith the colours
incongruentwith English colour names. The bilingualgroup showedthe most effect
in
when askedto namecolours the samelanguage
asthe colour stimuluswords.
However,interference
wasalso observed when the languages differed(Dyer,1971).
Theseresultshavebeenreplicatedby otherstudiesin otherlanguages (Chinese-
English,Japanese-English
and Spanish-Englishby Fang et al, 1981;Chinese-English
by Chen& Ho, 1986;Gaelic-Englishby Gerhand,et al.,1995).All thesestudies

showa greaterintralanguage
effectthough interlanguageeffectsremainsignificant.
Chen& Ho (1986)addthat theStrooPeffectincreases in the secondlanguageas
in
skill andcompetence the second [Link] al. (1990)
hypothesizedthat the structureof the bilinguallexicon be
would employed
to controlthe
extensively interferenceof the second language
in thetaskof colour
They reportedthat the StrooPinterference
effectwasalwayspresent but
naming.
theirHebrew-Arabic speaking to
wereable control
participants it in their native
languagebetterthanin their [Link] presumed

structureof the lexicon

bilingual in
changes accordance in
with proficiency the
second language andthat different and
aspects functions
of the cognitivesystemare
by on
affected skilledperformance the Stroopmeasure.

Everatt,Warner,Miles & 'Momson (1997)reported an experimentin wl-ýichchildren

with dyslexiashowedmarkedStroop interferenceof a colour word on the naming of

a colour. Comparedto nondyslexicchronologicalageand reading-agematched
it
subjects, was observed that the dyslexicsshowedsimilar levelsof interferencewith
but
the reading-agematchedsubjects more interferencethan c4ronological-age

47
 General Methods

[Link] hypothesized that dyslexics

havelesscontrolof automatic
than
word reading their [Link] studyincludeda
Stroopmeasure to attemptto describethe bilingualism
levelof targetpopulationof
Filipino childrenbilingualin FilipinoandEnglish.

2.14.2. Item Development

The Strooptestin this studyconsisted

of threestimuluscardsnamelya cardwith
colour blocks,a cardwith Filipino in
colourwordsprinted nonmatched colours,and
a cardwith English colourwords printedin nonmatched [Link] the cards
consistedof four in
colourswith sixrepetitionsresulting twenty-four blocksof
colourarranged in threecolumnswith [Link] repetitionsandsequence
of the colours;
were done [Link] colourwordswere in font size16of New
)
I"imesRoman. (SeeAppendixA-25 andA-30for thestimuluscards.

2.14.3. Item Analysis

Theitemsfor tMsmeasure
werenot alteredafterpilot testing.

2.14.4. Test Giving

This measure individually

wasadininistered with the examinerrecordingthetime it

takesa childto namethe colourswith a stopwatch. The two language versionswere

in but
succession were chunked together with the testsin the same
not given
[Link] examinersimplywrotedownthespeedof namingon the child!s
(SeeAppendixA-33 for the )
Examiners'Manual.
answersheet.

3. Test Development

Pilot study

3.1.1. Aims

Thepilot studysoughtto achievetwo [Link],the instrumentsdevelopedwere

subjectedto pilot testingto ensurethatthe items for
wereappropriate the agelevels
involvedin the [Link] coulddiscriminate
betweengoodandpoor

48
 General Methods

performerson the taskswere The

selected. secondaimwas to develop
the most
efficientadministration
proceduresso that test 6ving for the mainstudycouldbe
in
accomplished the shortestpossibletime.

3.1.2. Sample

A groupof twenty-nineelementary in
schoolchildrenparticipated the pilot study.
All the childrenwerefrom the samestateschoolin QuezonCity,[Link]
schoolgroupedstudentswithin a grade levelaccordingto their generalweighted
averagefor the in
previousschoolyear,resulting classesthat areabilitygrouped.
from differentclasses
Representatives were invited to in
participate the pilot studyto
maintain in
heterogeneity sampling. Thirty-sixchildrenor sixrepresentatives for

eachgrade level to in but did

wereasked participate the pilot study seven not arrive
on the [Link] the 29 thereweresix children
childrenwho participated,
each from Grades 1 and3, five from Grades 2 5,
and three from Grade4 and four
from Grade6. Their agesrangedfrom sixto thirteenyearsold.

3.1.3. Procedures

Thepilot studywasconductedovera periodof oneweekin the secondquarterof

the Philippineschoolyear. Following from
permission the schoolprincipalandthe
for days. Testing held
concernedparents,the childrencame testingon two was
beforeor afterclasshours. It took atotalof 4 hoursto administerthe tests.
Individualtestswhichwereconducted in onedaylastinga total two hours. The
individualsessions
weresplit between two or [Link] grouptestswere
administered day
on another in two [Link] groupof examiners,composedof
undergraduate in
students psychology andeducation, had received
prior trainingin
They
test administration. wereall in
bilingual Filipino andEnglish.

3.1.4. Tests and Materials

A batteryof 16testswasusedin the pilot [Link]

Englishversionsof the sametaskor skillbut not simpledirecttranslationsof each
other. The bilingual
measures
wereword reading,nonwordreading,spelling,

49
 General Methods

listeningcomprehension,sentencecomprehension,phonemetapping,syllable

tapping,word span,rapid namingof colours,rapid namingof pictures (teachingand

actualtests)and Stroop [Link] testswere considerednonlanguageor
performance tests,namely, block design,
rhythm tapping,picture storiesandvisual-
shapememory.

Thoughall the 16measures weresubjectedto pilot testing,onlyeightof thesetests

wererevisedafterthe pilot [Link]
entailed deletingsome items or revising
in by
othersto creategreatervariability the scoresgenerated the tests. These
tests
were:word reading,spelling,nonwordreading,phonemetapping,syllabletapping,
listeningcomprehension, andpicturestories.
comprehension,
sentence

The othereightmeasures werekeptin form

their original because they hadbeen
in form because the plot work indicated
thattheydid
standardised their present or
The teststhatwerenot revisedwere:block designwhich was
not needrevision.
taken from theWISGIý- rhythm,tappingandvisual-shape memorywhichwastaken
from the InternationalDyslexiaTest (seeSrnytýe& Everatt,in preparation);
all the
namingtasks;the word interferencetask;and the word span [Link]
rapidvisual
namingtasksfor colour and picturesaswell asthe word interference
task
rapidvisual
were time testsandarethus not included in Table2-1,which presentsthe number of
itemsfor eachmeasure for
used the pilot study.

50
 General Aletho(A

Table 2-1. Number of iten-isfor eachtest usedin the pilot study

Tests No. of Items
BilingualMeasures Filipino English
1. Word reading 99 99
2. Nonvvord reading 24 24
3. Spelling 75 75
4. Listening 64 64
comprehension
5. Sentence comprehension 21 21
6. Phoneme tapping 28 30
_7. Syllable lapping 24 30
_ Nonlanguage Measures
J. Picture stories 28
9. Visual shapememory 5
10. Block design 11
11. Rhythm tapping 12

I. S. Method of Item Analysis

For the eight tests that were revised after the pilot study, item analysiswas conducted

to identify items of appropriate difficulty level and items that could discrin-unate

between good and poor performers. The process of identifying items that satisfied
difficulty and discrimination indices is as follows:
the recommended

For eachtest,the scoreswere arrangedfrom highestto lowest. The tipper third and
the lower third of the scoreswere selectedto constitutethe two groupsof children
(Lippergroup = RU and lower group = RL) that would be includedin the item

[Link] casescomprisedeachgroup.

The number of children within eachgroup who answeredan item correctlywas

The p-value,or difficulty index, andthe d-value,or discriminationindex,
counted.
were computed. Items with p-valuesbetween40% to 70% and d-valuesof 0.3 were
retained(Anastasi
& Urbina, 1997).

3.1.6. Results

Becausea largenumber of itemswere createdfor eachpilot test, a sufficientnumber

the
of iterris in eachmeasuresatisfied criteria for selection. However, in the Filipino

51
 General Alcillods

word readingmeasure,niany of the itemswere too easyandthereforedid not

discrumnate,vvellbetweengood and poor readersof Filipino words. Retainingonly

the it cmsthat met the criterion would have meantthat too few itemswould be

includedin the final version of the test. To augmentthis Situation,itemsthat

satisfiedat least one of the criteriawere includedin the final versionof the test.
After itern analysis,there was a changein the number of items for the tests. This is

presentedin Table 2-2.

Table 2-2. Chanacin the number of items of somemeasuresafter the vilot stu
No. of Items in No. of Items in
Test Filipino English
Bilingual Measures Pilot Final Pilot Final
I. Woi-di-cadiiigýý 99 46 99 72
2. Nonword reading" 24 17 24 17
3. Spelling-' 75 51 75 49
4. Listening comprehension- 64 30 64 31
5. Sentcnce conipreheiision" 21 9 21 10
6. Phonenie tappitig" 28 20 30 18
7. SN"flabIctapplig 24 18 30 15
Nonlanguage Measures Pi lot Final
8. l'icture storiCS"- 28 15
9. Visual shape memory 5 5
10. Block desigii 11 11
11. Wwthni tavvina 12 12
*lterns were deletedfrom the pilot version

3.2. Examiners' Training

The processof training aimedto ensurethat test administrationwas standard.

Undergraduatestudentsof psý,chologyand educationwererecrwitedto adn-nnister
the testsduring the main study. The examiners'trainingprocesswas completedin
four afternoons. The first day of the training provided an overviewof the project
the
and explicitly explained relationshipof each measure with the hypothesisbeing

tested. For eachtask, the method of administrationwasdemonstrated whilst the

purposeof the method was explained. They were eachgiventhe exanUners'niantial,
which included all the instnictions for test administrationand marking. Also taught
for
werethe marking criteria and standards each of the tests. The test giverswere
provided opportunitiesto practicehow to give instructionsand teachthe test

52
 General Methods

first
procedures with eachother. On the secondandthird afternoonthe examiners
workedwith somechildrenfrom a [Link] the fourth day,the test
giversweretrainedto markandscorethetests.

3.3. Examiners'Manual and Kit Construction

Eachexaminerwasprovidedwith anexaminer's (see

manual Appendices A andB),
whichprovidedgeneralinstructionson testgiving,adviceon establishing
rapport
with the instructions
children,andspecific on how task be
each wasto administered.
Togetherwith the manual,the examinerhada testkit, whichincludeda stopwatch,
pencils,the stimuluscards,
and [Link] had
also tokengoodiesto giveto the
childrenaftercompletingthetests.

4. Main Study

4.1. Subjects

This study involved 479 six to thirteenyear old childrenin Grades1 to 6. These

children attendedprivate or public schoolsin regionswhere the dominant language

was Filipino/Tagalog; ie, Metro Manila andthe adjacentprovincesof Bulacan,

Quezon and Rizal. In most cases,the childrenwould useFilipino more frequentlyin
their informal activitiessuch asat home andwhile at play. However, the areas
mentionedpreviouslyareurbanised,or closeto urban centres,meaningthat the
children would be exposedregularlyto Englishwhich is widely usedin popular
media,such astelevision. This means that in everyday
activities(home and later

school) both Filipino and English will be by

experiencedand used thesechildren.
More than half of the childrenwere contactedvia neighbourhoodcentresso that a
largenumber of different schoolswould be [Link] methodsof teaching
literacy in the two languages be
would most probably similar suchthat the children
would be taught the soundsof letters and how theseare blendedto composewords.
'Me learningcompetenciesissuedby the Departmentof BasicEducation enumerate

the various literacy skills that should be learnedat certainlevels. However, the
methods by which theseskills areimparted arenot specifiedtherefore,the books,
instructional materialsand strategiesusedcanvary widely across
schoolsand

53
 (h, 11cridllc/h()'",

individual [Link] thesevariableswere not of interestto the present

study, roughly equalnumbers of childrenin private and public education,taken from
backgrounds,
a wide rangeof socio-econornic were includedin the research. Table
2-3 providesbackgroundinformation on the distribution of children in terms of the

number of inale and femalechildren in eachgrade,togetherwith averageages.

Table 2-3. Gender and aac of subiecis bi, unidc level

Urade maies Feinales I otal Agc,
7.34
1 32 49 81
(.56)
8.34
2 48 41 89 (54)
9.38
3 47 44 91 (57)
10.39
4 47 41 88 (51)
1143
5 36 34 70 (55)
12-33
6 24 36 60 (48)
n 234 245 479

4.2. General Procedure

Data collectionwas conductedover a period of 4 months. The childrenwcre tested

individually at school,at home or at a neighbourhoodcentreafter acquiring

for from their parents.
pernussion their involvementin the study

Each testing sessiontook a total of two hours and was split into two sittings.
Filipino/English bilingual adultswho weretrained in test administrationprior to

assessingthe children carriedout testing. Test order was counterbalancedso that

Fifipino and English setsof measureswere administeredalternately.

The order of tasksadn-unistered

was [Link] to constraints
beyondthe control of the research,not all children completedall tasks. The random

order of task administrationmeantthat non-completionwas alsorandomwithin the

data set. Similarly,over 90% of childrenin eachgradecompletedall tasks. No more

54
 ( ', iiiI I'1I1H(! \

than six children in an),gradefailed to completea particulartask. Pair-wisedeletions

were usedin all analyses.

5. Properties of the Test

To creategreaterconfidencein the data generatedby the main study,the properties

of the whole test are presentedin this section. Four hundredseventy-nmechildren

were included in the [Link] sectionpresentsthe reliability estimatesof each
measureand the factor for
analysis the whole battery.

5.1. Reliability Estimates

The reliability estimates for each measure were computed using Cronbach alpha. It

can be seen on Table 2-4 that all the measureshave acceptablereliability estimates

indicating that the measureswere consistent in measuring the skill they were designed

to assess.

Table 2-4. Reliabilitv estimates

Tcst Filipino F liglish
No. of No. of
Bilingual Measures (x itellis U
items
1 40 9286 72 9619
. .
2. Nonword miding 17 8638 17 8748
. .
3. Speffing 51 9490 49 9651
. .
4. Listening 30 6837 30 7843
. .
comprehension
5. Sentence 9 8355 10 8572
. .
comprehension
6. Phoneme tapping 20 9510 18 8899
. .
7. Syllable tapping 18 ý ý 9328 15 1 9193
.
8. Word span 14 7937 14 - 651
.7
Nonlanguage Measures No. of iterns U
9. Stol-RIS 16 7846
.
10. Visual simpc memory 5 6162
.
11. Block design 11 8477
.
12. Rhythm tapping 12 7771
.

The correlationsbetweenthetimedmeasures, the rapidvisualnamingand

na-mely,
word interferencetests,
arepresented
in Table2-5. Thistable that
shows all but two

55
 General AIctliods

of the testsarc correlatedpositively after listwisedeletion of nussingdata. Theseare

Filipino word interferenceand Filipino rapid visual nanungof pictures.

Table 2-5. Intercorrelations bem-cen rapid v1sualnaming of pictures and colotirs

English Filipino
Tasks
RVNa RVN - RVN -
?7=474 Pictures Colotirs llicttires----J Colotirs____
- _
RVN -
Pictures
6L 61T"
RVN - .
CAours
RVN - 367"' 356----i
. .
Pictures
RVN - 120" 132"" 098:, -
. . .
Colours

p<0.0 1 :,-p< 0.05

RVN, =Kipid visLialnanung

5.2. FactorAnalysis

Factor analysiswas conducted to determine the relationships of the measureswith

The extraction method used was principal Component Analysis and the
each other.
Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Table 2-6 displays the
rotation method was

rotated componentmatrix generatedafter seveniterations.

56
43 t*ý
VI
(-i C-ý (-4 C-4 N N 00 N N N N C14 I- N eq N CN N (14 C3 r*ý Ol
0 0 -4 en 1-4 Ln -4
14-
C) (D CDrýl C) Cl Cý (D C) C3 CDO
C3 C) C> 9 ON C) 0

u '1' CP% tn Ln N C7, C)

ýO ýD 'D -4
N '-d- ;ý "" en e"I 10 r., ý C3 10 C> CDO en
Cý ID 14: " : n Cý Cý ýq r *%
.
ell Ln en. N co 'n Cý

r. en N N Ln fý) N 00 CA ýD 10 N No C-4 CYN (14

Cl% ID
0 C? 'n 9 C3 rA C> Q a 0 CN Ln 0 N 0 0 0 Lf) Cp (D ul C)

,
fý) en 10 ON
CS , ýO eq ý
u kn 4 %D Ln "0 c,
V) C) (N Lr)
q q I: q -i
1ý6 0, 00 r, -4

Ln Ln 4- CN N e4 eq Le) c7N Cý Ln to) 00 CD "t Ln 'D (, 4

Ulb Ln (D 10 4D 00 C4 C) 10 a 9 ON CD ;Q -4 ýD cr% ýv ý- en tr) CD (D 0) ýD (D 0
a -i -1 ý -ý ý N -1 - ý -! týý r,ý I -i -i a4 ý
4 4 4 44 - 44 44
00 Ln
Lr) C3
(14 CDP "W 00
r'l Ln Ln
", 1
-4 00 ýD
tn 1-4 (4
ION 00 tr; r-)
II I ý I I I I I ý I I . . ý .

I I1ý1
00 (N I I00C7%Iý
ON " " r" (4 Cl eq 1- 00 (14 (14 1-4 C) fl) N C) t" "T C3 en " "
8 C) -4 rlý Ln ýD a
ý4 0 'D 0 CD"
C) C3 Cý "* 0 C3 0 ýD 00 " CYN " CDO 0

-4 ON
ýD ON ýO C)
00 0 N C, ýO N tn "
"tl
C06K 6 06
.I C14
.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

(-4 en Cý fN ell CN eq N ýc 14 (D 00 fe) " " N 00 C% -4 fn 2; ýD " "

9 -4 tn U-) C) lq- C) C) -4 N rq C) C, eel 0 0 Ln C) C3 C3 00 C) C)
P4 4
00 r4 -4 Ln -4
;ý ýO Ln -4 t" Cý
IR 09 ri Cý 11% N
=Q
.
-4 ON fl) ON N

r4 11, " rl, (D N N " cN

a, 00 r4 00 (14 'D 0 ý- co ID CPI ýO Ln fn tn kn " "
Ln 10 %DC4 00 rýl C? "t. a -4- en t" t" 1" en '", Cý ýQ U-) fn c) CD

C) tn
-4 1-4
Ln
0 a, eq
V,4
06 Cý tti

C7,
-4
Ln tn tlý 00 C) 00 0 Ul Ln "I C14I C)I C3 114
, c? t-, a% 00 " ;ý "D 0 in th Ln 00 " Ln Ln 00 J- tn rn V- C) C-1 C) ell
el

a N 00 tn
rý a% Ol tri
.2 Lr! '4*'
0

=9
4ý
P-4 C
A4 f f

0 CL
-0 -
0
0 V; %4-4 ý4.4 ý4ý '. 4-4

0 . . .
0000 I

rl OL CL
ci cl 0 r.
.g .
ý ý "I 'I
C, OL 0 0 0 0
iý
1 ý
U4)
ri 4ý 4-A
u Q u
0
u
4ý 4ý
(u
CU

ý
0 j
0 8 -0
(U -V a j :ýj
-1: a ng
qj 4) 0 t, o o
0
ro - o
t -,
1 0 0 x 0 0
0 0 -1: 10 -Cll
10 -0

0. cl OL a
rl 44 ; 14 44
 General Methods

Thesevenfactorsthatweregenerated the
show way the [Link]
of the tasks be
can seen to havecontributed
similaramountsof loadingto severalfactors.
Thesetasksarespellingandsentencecomprehension in bothlanguages,picturestoriesand
Filipinorapidvisualnamingof picturesandcolours.Factor1maybecalledthe literacyand
phonological factorwith wordreading,spelling,nonwordreading,andsentence
comprehension in both languages loading together with Filipinorapidvisualnan-dng of
picturesandcolours. Factor2 may be called the age-relatedfactor because is
age the
variablethat loads greateston this factor,
together with tasks that arerelatedto development

suchas block design,listeningcomprehension in both languages,

picturestories,andvisual
shapememory. Interestingly, in
spelling both languages, Englishsentence comprehension
andFilipino rapidvisualnamingof picturesandcoloursalso loadon this factor. The third
factormaybe calledthe syllablesegmentation factorbecause
syllable tappingmost heavily
loadson it; sentence comprehension in both languages aswell aspicturestoriesalsoloadon
this factor. The fourth factoris in
rapidvisualnaming which both Englishand Filipino

rapidvisualnamingof picturesand Englishrapidvisualnamingof colourscontributes

Filipino rapidvisualnamingalsocontributesto this factorbut it doessomorein
greatest.
factor
the age-related (Factor2). Filipino rapidvisualnamingof colours loads almostequally
factornamely the literacy/phonological factor. The fifth factormay be calledthe
on another
factor the
wherein greatest loadings arefrom word span in both languages and
memoryspan
The sixth factoris the phoneme segmentation factorwith only Englishand
rhythmtapping.
Filipino phonemetappingloading onto this factor. Finally,
the seventhfactoris the word
factor,
interference which againseesthe taskin both loading
languages greatlywith the
by
contribution the two taskscomeout asnearlyequal.

6. Descriptive Statistics

Tables2-7 to 2-9 presentthe descriptive by

statisticsgenerated the sampleon eachof the
administered;Table 2-7 for Filipino, 2-8 for Englishand2-9 for nonlanguage
measures
Tables displaymeanscoreswith standard deviations(S.
D. ) for eachof the
measures.
(as
criterionmeasures specified in Section 2 of thischapter),aswell asmaximumand
Results for for
arepresented eachgradeand the wholesample.
minimumscoresproduced.
Themaximumscorepossiblefor a measure
is includedunderthe measurename.

58
 General Methods

Table 2-7. Descriptivestatisticsfor the Filipino lanzuazemeasures

Tasks Gr. 1 Gr. 2 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 N=
n=81 n=89 n=91 n=88 n=70 n=60 479
Word reading Mean 87.62 93.40 93.91 97.13 96.70 96.49 94.07
Percent correct; S.D. 19.65 8.85 9.78 4.20 5.18 10.86 11.37
46= 100% Minimum 8.70 43.50 30.43 76.09 69.57 23.91 8.70
Maximum 100.00, 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Spelling Mean 77.65 85.22 89.10 90.75 92.69 94.48 87.95
Percent correct; S.D. 20.61 17.27 14.74 11.70 14.07 11.62 16.33
51=100% Minimum 1.96 11.76 13.73 41.18 17.65 35.29 1.96
Maximum 100-00 100-00 100.00 100-00 100-00 100-00 100-00
Sentence Mean 72.02 1 84.89 87.06 90.10 92.70 96.67 86.85
comprehension S.D. 28.66 20.80 20.64 17.23 18.81 9.66 21.73
Percent correct; Mirlimum 00 11.11 11.11 22.22 00 44.44 00
. . .
9=100% Maximum 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100-00 100.00 100.00
Nonword Mean 13.93 14.78 14.71 15.32 15.73 15.70 14.97
reading S.D. 3.85 1 3.26 3.36 2.35 1.73 2.65 3.04
Number correct; Minimum 00 00 00 00 7.00 00 00
. . . . . .
max- 17 Maximum 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.001 17.00 17.00 17.00
Phoneme Mean 44.88 53.48 58.35 59.94 67.80 66.67 57.88
tapping S.D. 34.12 33.07 33.17 31.50 32.82 31.74 33.45
Percent correct; Minimum 001 00 00 00 00 00 00
. . . . . . .
20-100% Maximum 100.00 100.00 100-00 100-00 100-00 100-00 100-00
Syllable tapping Mean 83.70 84.58 89.10 95.83 92.30 96.02 89.91
Percent correct; S.D. 26.61 26.78 18.98 9.57 16.71 10.63 20.33
18-100% Minimum 00 00 16.67 33.33 5.56 33.33 00
. . .
Maximum 100-00 100-00 100-00 100-00 1 100-00 100-00 100-00
Listening Mean 77.92 83.90 86.12 86.17 87.62 87.50 84.73
S.D. 10.03 13.70 8.17 9.16 6.86 8.54 10.29
comprehension
Percent correct; Minimum 43.33 26.67 56.67 53.33 56.67 56.67 26.67
30= 100% Maximum 96.67 100.00 100-00 100-00 100-00 100-00 100-00
Rapid visual Mean 00:49 00:43 00:34 00:30 00:28 00:24 00:35
S.D. 00:26 00:25 00:17 00:18 00:10 00:09 00:21
naming of
Minimum 00:17 00:15 00:05 00:12 00:15 00:12 00:05
colours
Mins. & secs. Maximum 03:13 02:41 02:27 02:50 01:10 01:13 03:13
Rapid visual Mean 00:29 1 00:25 00:23 00:20 00:20 00:17 00:23
S.D. 00:13 00:09 00:09 00:09 00:08 00:04 00:10
naming of
pictures Minimum 00:14 00:12 00:13 00:13 00:11 00:11 00:11
Mins. & secs. Maximum 01:20 .00:59 01:00 01:20 01:01 00:32 01:20
Word Span Mean 5.35 6.06 6.51 7.10 , 7.73 8.18 6.72
Number correct; S.D. 2.20 2.18 2.49 2.30 1 2.27 2.40 2.50
max=14 Minimum 2.00 2.00 2.00 00 1 3.00 4.00 00
. 1 .
Maximum 13.00 12.00 14.00 14.00 12.00 14.00 14.00
Stroop Mean 00:24 1 00:22 00:16 00:17 00:19 00:11 00:19
interference S.D. 00:39 1 00:32 00:28 00:31 00:35 00:09 00:31
Mins. & secs. Minimum 1 -01: _ 39 33 57 14 1 13 57
-00: -00: -01: -00: -00: -01:
I Maximum 03:45 1 04:41 1 04:11 1 04:08 04:39 1 00.09 04:41

59
 GeneralMethods

Table 2-8. Descriptive statisticsfor the Enzlish lanzuazemeasures

Tasks Gr- 1 Gr. 2 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 N=
n=81 n=89 n=91 n=88 n=70 n=60 479
Word reading Mean 84.82 91.98 93.44 95.53 95.30 96.62 92.77
Percent correct; S.D. 20.50 10.58 10.97 6.93 9.57 11.82 12.96
72-100% Minimum 8.33 1 25.00 38.89 62.50 41.67 11.11 8.33 1
- Maximum 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1 100.00 100.00 100.00
Spelling Mean 65.33 75.90 82.22 85.56 88.05 93.41 80.68
Percent correct; S.D. 26.46 24.71 21.69 17.50 18.64 17.70 23.06
49-100% Mirdraurn 8.16 6.12 6.12 20.41 10.20 16.33 6.12
Maximum 100.00 1 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Sentence Mean 64.20 75.28 83.74 1 85.91 86.28 95.00 1 81.04
comprehension S.D. 25.04 25.89 21.15 21.53 23.48 11.12 23.93
Percent correct; Minýrnurn_ 10.00 ,20.00 20.00 10-00 10-00 50.00 10.00
10-100% Maximtun 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Nonword Mean 10.99 12.92 13.11 13.94 14.41 15.23 13.33
reading S.D. 5.18 1 3.93 3.78 2.85 1 2.88 3.18 3.95 1
Number correct; Minimum 00 00 00 2.00 6.00 00 00
. . . . .
max= 17 Maximum 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00
Phoneme Mean 33.88 37.10 42.61 45.58 46.90 52.59 42.53
tapping S.D. 24.64 27.39 27.20 24.40 29.27 29.20 27.42
Percent correct; Minýmum 001 00 00 001 00 00 00
. . . . . . .
18-100% Maximum - 83.33 88.89 94.44 100-00 100-00 100-00 100.00
Syllable tapping Mean 79.34 83.67 85.35 93.79 88.67 96.78 87.49
Percent correct; S.D. 27.48 26.91 23.46 12.66 21.81 6.78 22.36
15-100% Nfinimum 00 00 00 6.67 00 66.67 00
. . . . .
Maximiun _ 100.001 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Listening Mean 60.49 67.87 69.76 71.33 76.27 78.55 71.12
comprehension S.D. 13.46 17.52 15.54 14.95 1 14.78 14.57 16.12_
Percent correct; Minimtun 32.26 29.03 38.71 35.48 35.48 41.94 29.03
31=100% Maximum 96.77 96.77 96.77 93.55 96.77 100.00 100.00
Rapid visual Mean 00:23 1 00:19 00:17 00:16 00:18 00:14 00:18
naming of S.D. 00:11 00:06 00:05 00:05 18 00:04 00:09
Minimum 00:13 00:12 00:07 00: 10 _00:
00:09 00:10 00:07
colours
Mins. & secs. Maximurn 01:20 00:44 00:35 00:36 02:05 00:30 02:05
Rapid visual Mean 00:27 00:26 00:25 00:21 00:24 00:18 00:24
naming of S.D. 00:09 00:11 00:15 00:06 00:28 00:09 00:15
pictures Mnimum 00:11 00:15 00:13 00:12 00:10 00:12 00:10
Mins. & secs. Maximum 01:01 01:45 02:11 00:53 03:54 01:22 03:54
Word Span Mean 6.53 6.95 7.64 7.60 8.40 8.70 7.56
Number correct; S.D. 1.89 2.12 2.10 2.28 2.24 2.32 2.26
max=14 Nfinimum 2.00 2.00 4.00 00 3.00 4.00 00
. .
Maximum 12.00 13.00 14.00 12.00 11-3.00 13.00 14.001
Stroop Mean 00:24 00:21 00:20 00:16 00:20 00:11 00:19
interference S.D. 00:17 00:10 00:27 00:08 00:34 00:06 00:20
Mins. & secs. Mnimum -00: 27 -00: 05 -00: 08 00: 04 00: 01 03 27
-00: -00:
Maximum 01:26 00:46 04:20 1 00:48 04:47 00:29 04: 47

60
 General Methods

Table 2-9. Descriptivestatisticsfor the Nonlanzuazemeasures

Tasks Gr. 1 Gr. 2 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 N=
n=81 n= 89 n=91 n=88 n=70 n=60 479
Picture stories Mean 9.70 10.33 11.95 11.93 12.27 12.62 11.39
Number correct; S.D. 3.34 3.67 2.30 2.39 2.86 2.32 3.10
max- 15 Miýmum
.
00
.
00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
.
00
Maximiun 15.00 15.00 1 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15-00 1
Visual shape Mean 1.36 2.03 2.25 2.86 3.41 3.25 2.47
memory S.D. 1.12 1.23 1.28 1.34 1.24 1.23 1.421
Number correct; Minimum 00 00 001 00 00 1.00 00
. . . . . .
max-5 Maxim= 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Rhythm tapping Mean 4.54 5.68 5.99 6.60 7.36 7.67 6.21
Number correct; S.D. 2.43 2.42 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.08 1 2.56
max- 12 Minimum 00 1.00 1.00 00 2.00 3.00 001
. . .
Maximum 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Block design Mean 19.12 1 27.23 33.20 34.32 38.70 46.55 32.36
Scaledscores S.D. 12.86 13.32 11.62 11.88 12.98 12.42 14.90
Mirýmum 00 4.00 1 4.00 2.00 00 4.00 1 00
. . .
Maximum 45.00 53.00 1 60.00 1 53.00 1 60.00 61.00 1 61.00

61
CHAPTER 3

LITERAcy DEVELOPMENT
IN FILIPINO AND IN ENGLISH

J)4sy.
'ki
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

1. Theories on Literacy Development

An investigation
of literacydifficulties
needsto begroundedon anunderstanding
of
normalliteracydevelopment
andtypical
skill [Link] lackof specific
dataon the developmental
processesandnecessary skillsinvolvedin
Filipino/Englishbiliteracy,this initialsectionof the projectinvestigated
the adequacy
of currenttheoreticalmodels to describeliteracy in this context.

'Me chapterconcentratedon four theories

prevailing development
of reading that
havegreatlyinfluencedresearch
on reading. These dominanttheorieswere
developedmai* on the basisof monolingualEnglishlanguage [Link]
of thesetheoriesweretestedagainsta groupof Filipino children 7-11
aged yearsold
who are in
bilingual-biliterate Filipino andEnglish whetherthe predictions
to assess
that arisefrom the theories hold true among the bilingual
samplein this study. If

thesepredictionsareupheld, these theoreticalmodels canbe appropriate for use in

this specificcontext.

1.1. Word Reading

Marsh, Friedman, Welch & Desberg (1981)offer a description

of the pathto reading
is based on jean Piaget's development.
of cognitive
stages In this theory,four
that
1) linguistic 2)
substitution; discriminant
net 3)
guessing;
stagesareproposed:
decoding;
4) hierarchicaldecoding. These are
stages distinguished,
sequential
primarily, by the for
strategies word reading that a child useswithin eachof these
Three differentways, bywhich anunknownword maybe recognised in
stages.
isolationandin context,areconsidered by thistheory. Anotherfeatureof their
is that it acknowledges that children can identify some words evenat the
model
of readingacquisition; thereby giving importance to the useof
earlieststages
[Link] al arguethat childrenarenot totallyunawareof the
that areimbedded in print. The value they have givento semantics at the
meanings
literacyindicates
that thetransferof meaningfrom oralto written
very onsetof
languageis premisedon the ideathatliteracyis a language-based for
skillused the
messages
purposeof receivingandexpressing in
captured The
anorthography. path

63
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

to beingableto decipher
the is
orthography described
in the followingstages
of a
theoryof readingacquisitionthattheyproposed.
cognitive-developmental

is characterised
Stage1 (LinguisticGuessing) by the useof the linguisticsubstitution

strategywhen an unknown word is encounteredin context. This the

strategyenables
child to focuson aspects of aword andguesswhat it night [Link] anunknown
is
word met in however,
isolation, to
anattempt read notit is likely because
word
recognition is donethrough directvisual access. Furthermore,the childwill probably
not have anotherstrategyto employ. If it is a familiar
word thenthe childat this
stagewill have thevisualstimuluswith anoralresponse
associated andrecaUthe
by
word rote strategy.

Marshet al arguethatthe childs stageof cognitivedevelopment preventstheuseof

differentstrategies
to readwords. Applying for
avarietyof strategies word reading
would have be
to a resultof the accommodation of environmentalpressurein

cognitiveprocessing,which is not amongst

expected childrenwho are at the pre-
operationalstageof cognitivedevelopment. This that
suggests childrenat Stage1 are
betweenthe agesof fiveto sevenyearsold. It canbepredictedthat childrenat this
of
stage reading developmentwill havesomewordsin their sightvocabularyandwill
little of attemptingto
evidence decode
a word using individual
present
letters/graphemes skills
or phonological-based leading
to poor scoreson word and
nonwordreadingmeasures.

Readingat Stage2 Piscrimination Net Guessing) is still drivenby visualaspects.

is
Ile primarystrategythatchildrenuseat this stage called discrimination
net
For known words, they still usetheir rote [Link] novelwords
guessing.
in isolation,
the childrenusethevisualsimilarity of the novel to
word a known
met
the target word. The comparison is madeon the basis
word to makeguesses about
of visualcues. On the other hand, if encountering an unknown in
word context,the
childwill tend to usemore of the other words aroundthe targetword andguessat
theword using both graphemic and linguisticdues. Ms does not ensurecorrect
readingbut it indicatesthat they to
areable use morethan onekind of due to read
theword. It is to
predictedthat at this stage,childrenwillstill usevisualstrategies

64
 Literacy Dcvelopmentin Filipino and in English

It be
arriveat aword. can expected that childrenat this stagewouldbepoor at
readingand decoding.
The resultsof assessment be
would verysimilarto those
from
expecte4 childrenin the first stage.

Thethird stagein Marshet al'smodelof readingacquisitionis calledsequential

[Link] readingstrategyusedin stages
oneandtwo,'Whichrelieson
visualmemory,becomes overloaded asmoreprintedwordsarcencountered. The
beginnings decoding
of sequential involvelearning
the left in
to right process
scanning a word. Regularly
constructedwordsarelearntduringthis stageand
the ruleswhentheyreador spell. For instance,silent
childrentendto over-generalise
letterswill besounded-out decoding,
[Link] this processof sequential
phonemic knowledgebeginsto develop is in
andeventually used preference over
visualmemory. On the basisof the description of readingat this stage,the
predictionwouldbe that childrenat this be
stagewould more likelyto showevidence
individual
of processing letters/graphemes in orderto applyphonoloocalprinciples
on the They
orthography. be
will able to read words
regular but Willstill struggle
with irregular
wordsandunusuallettercombinations dueto their lackof exposureto
of the orthography.
print andrelativelypoorunderstanding

Whenthe novicereaderstartslearningandapplyingrulesthat governcertainletter

soundsandcombinations,a moremature decodingsystem is in motion. Calledthe
decodingstage,childrenat the fourth stageof readingacquisition
hierarchical
recognise for
words whichsequential decoding does not work. Rulesthat aidthe
decodingof morecomplexword constructions arelearned at this This
stage. means
that the childalsohasto learnthat thereis a hierarchyof rulesthat governthe
readingof words,whichnight includephonological, morphological, andeven
orthographicstructurerules. Howeverin the Englishlanguage,thereareexceptions
to the rules,whichmayor maynot havetheir own guidingprinciple. Using
analogies is
to arriveat anunknownword anotherstrategY to decipherunfamiliar
words. The predictionat this is
stage that childrenwill havegoodreadingscoresand
of good
showevidence decoding
skillsdueto their abilityto applythephonemic
ruleson nonwordsalso.

65
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

On thewhole,Marshet al arguethat readingskillswill showa developmental trend

the
as children getolder. However, the predictorsfor reading
skillwin differ asthe
childrenmove from lowerto higher
grade levels.
Olderchildrenwill usemore
for
phonologicalskills reading more thanthe youngerones. Conversely,beginning
readers will relymoreon visual
skillsto reada word. One of the aimsof this studyis
to verifythe theoryof Marshet al on a groupof Filipinochildrenin primaryschool
who are in
bilingual-biliterate Filipino andEnglish. The done
analysis in relationto
this aimseeksto determine whetherwordreading in English in
and Filipinowill.
developin the samemannerthatMarshet al [Link] so,the
betweenword readingandphonologicalskillsshouldreflectlessuse
intercorrelations
of these than
skillsamongyoungerchildren amongolder [Link],
to
youngerchildrenareexpected relymoreon visualskillsleadingto a reversed
larger
pattern: between
relationships in
visualskillsandreading youngerchildrenthan
olderchildren.

Spelling

A relatedand equally influential theory of readingdevelopmentis that proposedby

Frith (1985). As with Marsh et al, a seriesof stagesareproposedthat encompassthe
involved in the acquisition of readingand spelling. Frith's theory explicitly
processes
interrelatedskills,which develop
representsthe view that spellingand readingare
implying that thesetwo processesare co-dependent. The
separatelyand sequentially,
Frith model hasthree stagesnamelyý1)the logographicstage,which is the initial
for 2) is by
stage readingand spelling; the alphabeticstage,which entered spelling
3) is initially by
entered reading
prior to reading;and the orthographicstage,which
and later impacts on spelling.

'Me first stagein Frith's model of readingdevelopmentis the logographicstage. It is

by
enabled the visual system,which suggeststhat readersaccessvisual skillsto read
words. Readers at this stageprocesswords that are generally to
easy recognisedue to
the frequency with which suchwords [Link] example,a child may use
in
the cue of ay >d1bzv it
and read asyes,which might haveoccurredin previous
[Link] has been suggestedthat readersat this stageseemto processwords

66
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

that are better

imageable than wordsfor whichis it difficult to create
a pictureimage,

suchasverbs. Morton (1989) that

suggests perhapsthe cognitiveprocesses involved
in the logographicstagearethe sameasthosethatareusedfor picturerecognition.

Frith arguesthat the logographicstageworks well until the visual system,or visual
memory, becomes overwhelmedwith words that have similar configurations.
Children move to the next stagewhen they areunableto usetheir visual skillsto
discriminatebetweenwords that look very similar. It can be predictedthat children
initial by
stagewill readwords sight ratherthan by decodingthem. This
at this
implies that cognitiveskills relatedto visualprocessingwould be more predictiveof
The logographic stageis
early readingperformancethan phonologicalmeasures.
Marsh Stage1 and Stage2 in that visual skills propel word
similar to et al's
Therefore,the predictions that were from
generated the first two stages
recognition.
Marsh et al model are also predicted by the logographicstagein Frith's model.
of the
in
Visual skills should predict word reading the earlystagesof reading development.

in
The secondstage the Frith is
model the alphabetic stage,which is brokenup into

two sub-stages. The first refers

sub-stage to implying
spelling, that childrenmove
from visuallyperceiving wholewordsto perceiving themas individual graphernes
that makeup a word. This from
transfer the logographicto the alphabeticstage
throughthe learning of spellingalso implies thatphonologicalawareness and
knowledgeis learnedthroughthe [Link] this stagegraspthe
that what they cansaycanbe writtenusinga code. This viewpointsuggests
concept
initial in be by
variations spellingskillsmay predicted visual (logographic)
that
but be by decoding (phonological)based
processes, that thesewill quicklyreplaced
skills.

Childrenenterthe secondsub-stageof the alphabetic by

stage transferringthis
knowledge
alphabetic to wordsthat are printedon a page;childrenapplythe
principle
alphabetic andphonological on
awareness to [Link] this way,they
developa secondstrategyfor readingwords,whichis by soundingout lettersasthey
in It be that be
arise a sequence. can predicted readingabilityat this stageWill
by but latter be
predicted a combinationof spellingandvisualskills, that the will

67
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

by
replaced decoding the
skillsas child becomes proficientin usinggrapheme-
phonemecorrespondences. Suchskillsareindicativeof the child havingacquiredthe
principle
alphabetic that canbe to
applied meaningful letter
andnon-meaningful
strings.

Thethird stagein Frith's modelis calledthe orthographicstagewhereinthe decoding

of wordsusing alphabetic knowledge becomes the
moreautomatic,and reader begins
to identifyandmakeuseof morphological [Link]
to
patternsof lettersin words fluency.
create The is
orthographicphase aboutmaking
rulesor short-cutsaboutwrittenlanguage
so that recognisingletters or stringsof
lettersbecomes [Link] arguesthat at this stage,the reader
generatesrulesaboutgrapheme-phoneme correspondences andmorphemepatterns
aswell astheir Once
exceptions. thereis a fair degree
of fluencyin the applicationof
this
theserules, knowledgetransfers
to is
spellingwhich the secondsub-phase of the
[Link] predictionsof thethird stageof Frith's indicate
model that
word readingandspellingshouldbemutuallypredictiveat this stage.

TheFrith modelis investigated it haslinkedspellingasa

in thischapterbecause

support/supplemental process that developed This

with reading.
concurrently
impliesthat spellingis the skillthroughwhichthe phonologyof a languageis learnt.

The alphabeticstagein Frith'stheoryis verysimilarto the two levelsof decoding

describedbyMarshet al in their modelof [Link] such,both theories
havebeencriticisedbecause of the overlapbetween the stagesand the influencethat
initial instructionat the startof formalschoolhason literacydevelopment(seeStuart
& Coltheart,1988). Distinguishing betweena child'snaturaltendencytowardsprint
'
andthe effectsof teaching be The
can verychallenging. onlywayto studychildren's
naturalreading development would be to compare childrenwho startformalschool
different in development different
least,
at points - or, at chronologicalages.
Althoughcomparisons betweenU-K-based and Scandinavian childrenhave been

made (Snowling, interpretations

2000), aredifficult whenthe childrenareleaming
differentwriting systems, if
even thosesystems aresubjectto different

68
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

developmental
[Link],whichaimsto describethe
development within the samechild,will inform this debate.
of two writingsystems

Therecontinuesto bea lot of disputeamongresearchers

regardingthe processof
in
reading alphabeticlanguages (Gough,Ehri & Treiman,1992).One setof ideas
viewsreadingasa processthat is drivenbyvisual
processes. Underwood(1986),for
example,definedreadingasan information skillthat emphasises
processing the
availablesourcesof informationandthe relatedtransformational
processes
necessary
into
to converta visualsymbol a [Link] thevisual
processing that
viewof readingargue newreaders focus on aspects
of aword suchas
like a letter/strokethatmaycorrespond
its shape,or a singlecharacteristic to any
givenunit of meaning. This suggeststhat information aboutmeaning is first
be
with whatcan seenratherthanwhatcan
associated be heardor anticipated
(Landerl,Wimmer& Frith, 1997).

Aghababian & Nazir (2000)provideevidence that the basicvisualskillsrelatedto

word recognitionarelearned by just
veryearly childrenwho are startingto read.
Their research
alsoshows that theseskillsbecome morecfficientaschildrenget
due
older,possibly to The
greaterexperience. more adept a child or personbecomes
the
at word recognition, more fluent his or her is.
reading In otherwords,skilled
is
reading characterised by hefty sightwordvocabularies, which a reader in
stores
memory. Ehri's (1992;
1997)modelof sightword readingsuggeststhat the print
whichreadersareexposedto interact
with thephonologicalrepresentations
[Link],novicereaders will usetheir limitedletterand
sound knowledge to ren-dndthemselves linguistic
of related sounds. Expert readers
will have between
a widerrepertoireof associations lettersand sounds but most
importantlyareableto automatically manywordswithout
recognise havingto read
themletterby letter otherphonologicalcomponents,
or analyse suchastheir onset
andrime.

0
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in. English

1.3. Phonological Representations

Goswarni& Bryant (1990)view readingdevelopmentasan extensionof the

developmentof phonologicalrepresentationsin oral [Link],in their

view, the development is

of reading not necessarilysequentialand grapheme-
orientated. Rather,reading developmentis basedon the child's sensitivityto the
different levelsof soundsin words.

therearedifferentlevelsof phonologicalawareness
In this perspective, andthe child
is to
who able recognise syllablelevelandphoneme levelrepresentations
win display

moreadvanced to
sensitivity components of words. it
Furthermore, is alsoargued
that childrentendto recognise earlierthanphonemes
syllables because the
phonologicalsensitivityrequiredto recognisean isolated is
phoneme moreacutethan
is
thatwhich neededto recognise a groupof soundsthat comprisea Syllable.
Therefore,in thistheory,the greaterthe skillin phonemeawareness, the morelikely
it is that a childwill havegoodword readingability. This shouldbeevidentat all
ages.

A secondpredictionof this theoryis that childrendo betterin measures

of syllable
than
earlier
awareness theywill on measures of phoneme [Link] thepresent
study,this hypothesis
is testedthroughtheuseof syllableandphonemetapping
tasks. These measuresallowanotherpredictionof this theoryto be 71hat
tested. is
that childrenwho have skills
goodphonologicalawareness at the morecomplex level
Cie, level)
of soundanalysis the phoneme will be [Link] higher

scoreson phonemeawareness shouldproduce

measures higherscoreson measures
of word andnonwordreadingthanchildrenwith poor scoreson a phonemetapping
task. Inversely,
goodandpoor readersshouldbedissociated
in their performance
in the phonemetappingtask.

Comprehension

Hoover& Gough(1990)proposedthat readingis composedof onlytwo main

components namely decoding and linguistic In
comprehension. their modelof
readingability(calleda simpleview of they
reading), that
argue there be
can no such

70
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

thingasreadingabilitywhenoneof the two components For example,

is inadequate.
decoding
sufficient abilitythat is not backed
up by linguisticknowledge
would be
sometimes
readingwithout comprehension; [Link] inverse
would be
dyslexia, is be
which arguedto evidentwhenadequate linguistic
competence is
by
accompanied poor decoding
ability.

In the simpleview of reading,decodingis definedasthe rapidabilityto derive

from
representations print at theword level. it
Alternatively, be
may referredto as
efficientword [Link] abilityallowsaccess to the in
correctentry the
mental lexicon,
which in turn enables the of
retrieval information
semantic at the
word level. Decodingin this view could be argued to both
encapsulate the
of word reading. Beginning
readers leam to
phonologicalandsemanticaspects
knowledge with linguistic
andphonologicalequivalents. These
represent
the mental
access lexicon. In there
a novicereader, may be many
representations
that arenot phonologicallyrepresentedwhich exist
withinthe lexicon.
mental
words
However,Hoover& Goughdo not specifythetypeof phonological representation
in word Word
recognition. could
recognition be donethroughletter-
used efficient
sound or
analogy,
correspondences, some other though
process; other researchers
Cie,Goswami, Snowling,
2000; 2000) have to
attempted specifythe levelof
that
representation childrenusewhen to
starting read.

As the mappingof knowledge

linguistic on to phonological representationsincreases,
into orthographicrepresentationsthat become storedaswholeunits.
thesetransform
Skilledreadingaccesses knowledge
finguistic more directlythrougha grapheme-based
which is most hkelyto happenwhen the phonological, print and semantic
system,
the areexperiencedtogetherat leastonce. Skilledreading,therefore,
aspects of word
is evidentwhenorthographicrepresentations allow directaccess to the mental
lexicon.

component in the simpleview of reading is linguistic

comprehension.
I he second
This is definedasan aspectof comprehension lexical
or the abilityto understand
informationin its oralform This abilityalsobrokersthe connectionto semantic
informationat theword level. It is not sufficientfor oneto simplyidentifythe

71
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

soundsas having linguistic content. Ratherthe soundsmust trigger meaningin the

listener. Lexical or linguistic information maycomein the form of vocabulary,

sentencecomprehension,paragraphcomprehensionor text comprehension.

Readingcomprehension is anaspectof comprehensionthat is essentially

the sameas
linguisticcomprehension
exceptin termsof the by
modality which information
comes to the In
perceiver. readingcomprehension,
symbolsaregrapheme-basedand
[Link], reading is
comprehension alsocomposedof the
as
samesub-abilities linguisticcomprehension
namelyvocabulary,
sentence
comprehension, paragraphcomprehensionandtext Hoover
comprehension.
Goughconsiderthe typeof language thatis usuallyusedin speaking
andwritingasa
sourceof between
difference linguisticandreadingcomprehension. Theyarguethat
to beusedduringspeakingandmore
is morelikelyfor narrativeor naturallanguage
formalor expositorylanguage to beusedwhenwriting. It is possiblethatthe
differencein the typeof languageaddsa layer
of difficultyduringreading
To
comprehension. avoidthis layer,
theysuggest that equivalentdiscourse be
styles
usedin or
evaluation diagnostic
toolsusedto these
assess two typesof
ability.
comprehension

The simpleview of readingmaybeconsidered

anexampleof a bottom-uPtheoryof
in it
reading the sensethat givesprime importance
to decoding. Suchbottom-up

theoriespositthat decoding
precedes
comprehensionandis independentof anyof its
The from
diverges the strictbottom-up is
modelsof reading
processes. simpleview
interdependence
termsof the proposed of decoding andlinguisticcomprehension.

Hoover& Goughfurtherexplicatetheirtheoryby proposinga computational model

They is
arguethat a goodestimateof readingability the productof the
of reading.
performance indexes in decoding andlinguistic By
comprehension. usingsucha
it be is
relationship, can shownthatwhenonecomponent at zerovalue,reading
will also be zero. Therefore,to indicate
some in
success reading,
comprehension
by a positivewholenumber.
both componentsmustberepresented

72
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

On the basisof this theory,it canbepredictedthat skilledreadingis composedof

skilledword and
reading skilledlinguistic
[Link] the measuresof
this study,sentence
assembly or comprehensionis operationalised
asskilledreading,
word readingasdecoding
andlistening
comprehension
aslinguisticcomprehension.

2. Data analyses on Theories on Literacy Development

The procedures described

andmeasures in this sectionpertainonlyto the analyses
investigating derived
the predictions from the theories discussed in Section1 of this
[Link] secondseriesof analysesconcerns the identification of the unique
predictorsof Filipino andEnglishliteracyskillsamongst the bilingual-biliterate
in
children this study. The procedures in
usedandthe changes the constitutionof
the sample in these in
areexplained
analyses Section
3 Pata on the
analysis
predictionof literacyskillsin Filipinoandin which
English), follows
immediately this
section.-

2.1. Procedure

The dataderivedfrom the Grade1 to 6 Filipino/Englishbilingualchildrenformed

the basis performedto assess
of the analyses the theoreticalpredictionsoutlinedin
The
the previoussectionsof this chapter. in
childrenweretested school,at home or
a neighbourhood centre(seeChapter 2 for details).'Me orderof tasks was
but for language. However, dueto constraints beyond
randomised counterbalanced
not all of the
the controlof the research, 479 childrencompleted all [Link]

randomorderof taskadministration meantthat non-completion wasalsorandom

data All
set. the childrenwere included in the analyses they
unless did not
within the
completea particulartaskincluded
ia When
a specificanalysis. somesubjectswere
these
excluded, were in
specified the of
section
relevant the thesis.

2.2. Measures

All the testmaterialsandadministration

procedures weredevelopedfollowingpilot
work and development andaredescribedin detail
in Chapter
2 (General Methods) of
this thesis(see
Appendices A and B for sampletest itemsandstimuluscards).

73
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

Analysesfor this particularsetof aimswereconductedby gradeto providea

comparisonof early literacy in
skills the first, andpossibly,secondgradewith those
in
of moreablestudents highergrades. The is to coverthe
agerange appropriate
mainstageshypothesisedin eachof the theories.

Differentsetsof variableswereused to testthe predictionsof the discussed

theories
in SectionI of this [Link] specificsetsof variables
werechosenon the basis

of their to
relationship the being
predictions investigated. For the particularpurpose
of the validatingthe theorieson processing
at the levelof the singleword,word
readingandspellingwereassignedas the dependentvariables
whilemeasuresof
skillsandvisual-based
phonological-based (direct
access)
processeswereusedas
The
predictorvariables. first setwascomposedof phonologicalskill measures,
namelynonword reading,phoneme tapping, tapping
syllable and word span. Visual
or lexical
accessmeasures the
constituted secondsetand includedvisual-shape
block
memory, design,
rapidvisualnamingof picturesof objectsandpicture
arrangement.

For the investigation the

concerning development
of phonologicalrepresentations,
performance on phonological measures
segmentations languages
across andgrades
werecomparedandcorrelated with word readingperformance. Finally,
sentence
comprehensionscorescorrelatedwith word readingandlistening comprehension
the
scoresacross sixgrade levelsin orderto the
assess of
suitability Hoover&
Gough'ssimpleviewof readingin the contextof the bilingual-biliterate
childrenin

this study.

2.2.1. Filipino and English Word Reading

Theword readingmeasure was developed

usingwordsselected
on the basisof
frequencyof occurrence,
phonemecomplexity,andword length. This produced46
Filipinowordsand72 Englishwords. Thesewerepresented
on separate stimulus
cards,with the childrenbeing to
asked readthem in the language
represented.

74
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

2.2.2. Filipino and English Spelling

Thespellingmeasure in groups.TheFilipinoversionhas51 items

wasadministered
consistingof 7 letters 44
and words. The Englishlanguage
equivalenthad49 items
consistingof 7 letters 42
and words. The letters
weredictated
twicewhilstthe words
werespoken twice in isolation in
andonce a sentence [Link] had
children to
writethe letteror word on the answersheetprovided.

2.2.3. Filipino and English Sentence Comprehension

'Me sentence task the

comprehension required child to orderwordspresentedin
into Ile
stripsof cards a correctsentence. Filipinoversionhas9 itemswhilethe
Englishversionhas10items. Thechildrenorderedthe cardsandtheexaminer
notedthe orderon a markingsheet.

2.2.4. Visual-Shape Memory

Thevisual-shape memorytaskwascomposedof five items. Eachitem presented the

childwith a figurethat wasshownto the childfor 10 [Link] the picturehad
beentakenawayfrom sight,the childwasaskedto drawthe figurein a box on a
standardanswersheet.

2.2.5. Block Design

for Children-R
Scales
Blockdesignis oneof subtestsof the WechslerIntelligence
(WISC-R).Thisrequiredthe childto producea two-dimensional patternusingthree-
dimensional
patterned blocks. for
Procedures the testandscoring
administering
weretakenfrom the test manual(Wechsler,
1974).In the present the
analyses, block
designtaskwasconsidered ability.
of visual-spatial
asa measure

2.2.6. Picture Stories

Thepicturestoriestaskin this studyis basedon the picturearrangement

subtestof
the Intelligence
Wechsler Scales for Children-Revised(WISC-R). Thetaskrequired
to
the child sequence a setof pictures
presented in a jumbled in
up orderto makea
logicalstory. Therewerefifteenpicturestoriesthat comprisedthis measure.

75
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

2.2.7. Filipino and English Rapid Visual Naming ofPictures

Sixline drawingsof commonobjectswerepresented

on [Link]
showingmasteryof the names,the childrenwereaskedto namethe picturesas
Four
quicklyaspossible. repetitionsof eachobjectproduced24itemsarranged in
sixrowsand four columns. In Filipino,the sixwordsproduceda total of 13
givingthe carda total of 52 [Link] English,therewere10Syllables
syllables, for
of 40.
the sixwords,givingthe entirestimuluscarda syllable-length

2.2.8. Filipino and English Nonword Reading

Therewere17Englishnonwordsand17Filipinononwords,presented on different
[Link] blend
a consonantor consonant in the onset,middle,or end
of aword createdEnglish Filipino
nonwords. by
nonwordswereproduced the same
in
methodexcept cases in
werereplaced orderto reflectthe
wherewholesyllables
natureof
multi-syllabic the Filipino The for
used the word
orthography. procedures
readingtaskwere followed for thesetasks.
administering

2.2.9. Filipino and English Phoneme Tapping

Thesetasksinvolvedthe testadministratorsayinga wordandthe childtappingout

thenumberof phonemes in the word. Therewere 18Englishitemsand 20 Filipino
items.

2.2.10. Filipino and English Syllable Tapping

Thesetasksweresimilarto the phonemetappingtasksbut insteadof tappingthe

the
numberof phonemes, childrenwereasked to tapthe number in
of syllables the
wordthe examinersaid. The Filipino tapping
syllable testhad 18items with words
from 1-6syllableslong. The Englishversionhad15wordsrangingfrom 1-5syllables
long.

2.2.11. Filipino and English Word Span

Ihe word spantasksusedsequences of colourwordsthatwerespokenby the

examinerfor the childto in
repeat correctorder. Series
of items from
increased two

76
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

to eight words. Every two sequences, the number of words in the spanincreasedby
one producing a total of 14 lists. The proceduresmirrored thoseusedin measuresof
digit span. In the Filipino languageversion,therewere eight two-syllableand two
four-syllablecolour words The Englishversionhad eight single-syllableand two two-

syllablecolour words.

2.2.12. Filipino and English Listening Comprehension

Filipino andEnglishversionsof the testwereidenticalexceptthat the Filipino

version comprised30 itemsand the English version31 items. Picture
prompts/passages were shown/read to the child. All itemsrequiredthe childto
listento a questionandindicatewhetherthetesters'statementaboutthe
picture/passagewascorrector incorrecton a standardanswersheet.

2.2.13. Filipino and English Rapid Visual Naming of Colours

Two cards,onefor Filipino,andanotherfor Englishwereusedfor this task. Each

cardcontainedsixrepetitionsof four distributed
colourspseudo-randomly acrossan
arrayof eightrowsby threecolumns. Children
wereaskedto name the coloursin
oneof the two languages
asquicklyaspossible.

2.2.14. Rhythm tapping

The rhythmtappingtaskpresentsthe childwith a seriesof tapsinterspersed

with
short or long The
pauses. soundpatterns become progressively longerandmore
The
complicated. taskrequiresthe childto reproducethe patternof the taps.

2.3. Results and Discussion

Theanalyses to
conducted assess the theories be in
will reported thesamesequence
thatthetheorieswere described in theintroductionof [Link] the
fitnessof thetheories of literacy described in SectionI of thischapterin explaining
the development of literacy in Filipino andin Englishamongthebilingual-biliterate
in
children thisstudy. -

77
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

2.3.1. Word Reading

Marshet al arguethat visualskillsaremoreimportantin the first stageof learningto

readthanthey arein the [Link] impliesthat visualabilitiesshould
in
correlatemorewith word reading earlygrades than in the [Link],
be
visualskillsshould more likelyto predictwordreadingscoresin the earlyliteracy
stagesin comparison to the prediction providedby phonological-basedprocesses.

this,intercorrelations
To assess werecomputedbetweenthe word readingscoresand
for
the measures visualskills (visual-shape block
memory, design,
picturestoriesand
rapidnamingof pictures)andphonological skills(nonwordreading,phoneme
tapping,syllable tappingandwordspan). Table 3-1showsthatMarshet al's
hypothesis for word readingdevelopment in Englishdoesnot hold trueamongstthe
childrenin this study. From theveryfirst stages is
nonwordreading the primary
Though
correlateof word reading. in
visualskillsalsocorrelatewith word reading
English,thesebecomemoreinfluentialtowardsthe fifth [Link] the
oppositepatternto that predictedon the basis
of Marshet al. A similarconclusion
canbe derivedfrom the dataon word reading development in Filipino. The ability
to decode letter by (or
strings,asevidenced nonwordreadingskill segmentation skin),
is the primarycorrelateof theword identification in including
skills mostgrades,
the
thoserepresenting initial stageof literacyacquisition.

78
 Liieraci, Developincia it, I, 'ijjpij() cill(I ill jý,11gli,vIl

Table 3-1. CorrelationsI)ctweenvisual mid phonologicalsUls and word readinvbý

rade level
Eng lish Word Reading
Skills/Grades 1 4 5 6
Visual Tasks
Vistial-sliapememory 245ý"' 243 289"* 166 446** 268
. . . . . .
Block Design 235" 205 192 341" 463" 395"
. . . . . .
Picture Stones "- 391"
524"', 189 586"* 667"* 334""
. . . . . .
Rapid namingof -.532"ý -.464" -.439", 690"- 875" 926"
-. -. -.
pictures"
Phonological tasks
Nomvord readiiig' 802- 72Týý' 82T' 693" 654ý'* 795`ý
. . . . . .
Phonemetapping" 342'ý" 187 209 343" 440- 148
. . . . . .
Syllabletapping' 374' 316, 170 662" 513" 667"'
. . . . . .
Word span 308:ý` 427'' 369',- 293** 466" 383"
. . . . . .
Filipino Word Reading
Skills/Grades 1 2 3 4 5 6
Visual Tasks
Visual-sliapcmeniory 270 443" 32Y* 032 309-- 246
. . . . . .
Block Design 228 346** 120 143 405"" 328
. .
_343** . . . .
Picture Stories 461" 077 484",* 556" 316
. . . . . .
Rapid namingof 612" -.474" -. 168 -. 256' -.398"', 506"'
-. .
picturcs"
Phonological tasks
Noinvord readiiig-' 73P' 651 476" 42Uý 41Tý` 868;---
. . . . . .
Phonemetapping" 361", 232 262 427" 449"" 162
. . . . . .
SyUabletýpping' 383" 217 224 493" 408-` 767"
. . . . . .
Word span" 194 257 341" 264 340", 280
. .
ýp < 0.05 p<0.01
intralaiguage measure

However, it merits mention that visual sUls are significantlyand positively correlated

with word readingin both languages

indicatingthat both visual-basedand
phonological-based processes are relatedto word readingacrossall the gradelevels.
To further investigatetheserelationships,regressionanalyseswere conductedto

identify which of thesetwo predicted

setsof processes the largestamount of variance
in word reading. Hierarchicalregressionprocedures,which enteredsetsof predictors
(visualand phonologicalskills)either separatelyor in combination,detern-une
the
to
amount of prediction unique eachof thesesets. Table 3-2 presentsthe adjusted
R'values derivedthrough theseanalyses.

79
 Litcroci, Awelopim, lit i, l Filipino and in

Table 3-2. Predictorsof -wordreadingabili , in Fili ino and English

Gradcs FilipitioNN"ord Rca En--lish Word R-cadi,,L,----1
-fing
1 4.16 633 716 428 693 740
. . . . . .
2 352 530 629 299 570 626
. . . . . .
3 157 380 422 255 702 729
. . . . . .
4 226 353 411 576 619 682
. . . . . .
5 335 311 391 831 493 880
. . - . . . .
6 926 866 669 906
. . .
Note i: Visual Skills: rapid nanting of pictures, block design, visual-shape
memory,
picture stones; Phonological Skills: plionerne tapping, nonword reading, Sý,Hablc
tapping, word span
Note2: All adjusted R2 VaJIICSgreater than 157 are significant at the 05 level
. .

In eachof the initial grades,theseanalysesindicatedthat phonological-based

skills
[Link]
predictedmore uniquevariability in readingsUls than vistia-l-based
was the samefor both languages, though the pattern varied between English and
Fihpino. In English,the level of prediction provided by thesemeasuresis almost

entirely accountedfor by phonologicalskills in the first three but

grades, changesto
being predictedby visual-basedskills in the two higher [Link], on the other
hand, showssomelevel of uniquevariability explainedby both typesof processesfor

all but the sixth gradelevel,where readingis almostentirely predictedby

phonologicalskills.

Thesesuggestthe Marsh et al model doesnot provide the theoreticalframework by

which readingdevelopment be
can explainedamong the bilingual-biliterate
children
in this sampleregardlessof [Link] skills play a dominant role in the
acquisitionof readingskHl from the initial stagewhere literacy learningbegins. If
Marsh et al'sview is an adequateexplanationof monolingualliteracyacquisition,then
the requirementto learn a secondtransparentscript leadsto a radicalchangein the
developmentalsequencethat -,in English readerprogressesthrough.

2.3.2. Spelling

If spellingand readingare indeedcomplementaryabilities,then it can be predicted

that spellingability aniong these be
children will -also predictedby phonologicalskills

80
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

but at differentpointsin the developmental sequence. Frith arguesthat in the

logographicstage,visualskillswill [Link],phonological
skillswill predictspellingability than
earlier theywouldreadingskills. Table 3-3
displaysthe intercorrelational that the
statistics show relationship between spelling
andthe visual (visual-shapememory, block design,picturestories,rapidvisual
namingof pictures)andphonologicalskills(nonword
reading,phonemetapping,
tapping,
syllable in
word span)used this study.

Thesecorrelationsshowthat phonologicalskills,speciallynonwordreadingand
syllabletappingweregoodpredictorsof spellingabilityfrom the levels
earliestgrade
in both languagesandbecome excellentpredictorsat the highest in
grade,particularly
Filipino. However,whatis apparentis that visualskillscontributeconsistently
to
Englishspellingthroughoutthe gradelevelsandin the earlygradesfor in Filipino
[Link] fourth Filipino
grade, to
spellingseemsprimarily berelatedto nonword
readingandsyllabletapping.

81
 Lito-my Dc,velopilic,lit ill Filipino and ill Engh, h

Table 3-3. Correlations between visual and phonological skills and spelling by
grade
level

I Skills/Grades I11

Vist 1,11
-slupc mcilloly .
379;'* 355. " 427*" 299*ý' 42T* j 164
. . . . .
Block Design 32 326*'. 207 278`ý 343 284
. . . . . .
Picture Stories 604** 492** 201 562** 485"r"r 375**
. . . . . .
Rapid naming of -. 440"-"- 478-" 535- 6-56` 677"', 56Tý`
-. -. -. -.

Nonword ruadimg,
" 712*ý' 60T 707'-'--' 655*ý' 553ý'* 717'
. . . . . .
Phoneme tapping" 248"' 156 330-c' 338" 386" 293
. . . . . .
Syllable tapping" 40Y 308" 335" 516' 617" 530"
. . . . . .
Word span" 356", 381"' 306" 39 1 556, -`
. . . . .
Filipino Spelling
Skills/Grades 1 2 3 4 5 6
Visual Tasks
'Visual-shape memory 277 330'"' 305`* 209 158 245
. . . . . .
Block Design 200 309" 082 286" 153 247
. . . . . .
_Picture Stones 506"' 37 119 509`* 292 ` 391
. . . . . .
Rapid nanung of 630' 384`1 241 335'"' 560"" 437"
-. -. -. -. -.

Nonword reading' 89ý,* 462"' 316*" 485" 501`ý

ý11 806-11
.4- . . . . .
Plionenic tapping'_____ 388** 323** 246" 359"" 283** 121
. . . . . .
_Syllable tapping" 392** 154 225 " 562** 355** 824"
. . . . . .
_Word 200 239"" 329-` 254 116 361"ý
span" . . . . . .
p<0.05 ýp<0.01
intralmiguagemeasure

Regressionanalysiswasconductedto determinethe unique and combined

contributions of visuA and phonologicalskillsin the prediction I

of spel ing abilit),nI
the two languages in the sameway that it wasdone for word readingability in the
prior sections. Table 3-4 showsthe resultsof theseanalyses.

The data presentedon Table 3-4 indicatethat both processingsUls predictedunique

amountsof variance(reported R2
asadjusted values)in spellingability in both
languagesexceptsixth grade,where phonologicalskills predicted asmuch asthe

combined [Link] in both languages

seenisto involve a corribination

82
 Lilcreicy Dcicloptilcill in Filipino and in English

of plionologically mediated and direct accessprocessesfor most of these biscriptal

children.

Table 3-4. Predictorsof spcIIinvabilitv in Filimno and Enalish

Grades Filipino Spelling English Spclling
Visual Phon Combined Visual Phon Combined
1 475 372 539 464 578 639
. . . . . .
2 246 287 392 387 393 543
. . . . . .
3 146 245 302 430 607 689
. . . . . .
4 270 335 419 563 501 628
. . . . . .
5 315 289 414 514 453 614
. . . . . .
6 293 765 783 374 619 642
Note.
. . . . . .
Visual SkiHs:rapid naming of pictures, block design, visual-shape mcniory, picturc
stories; Phonological Skills: plioneme tapping, nonword reading, syllable tapping,
word span
Note2: AD adjusted R2 values greater than 146 are significant at the 05 level
. .

Additionally, spelling ability together with dccoding/phonological skifls combined

predict substantial amounts of variability in word reading (63% of Gr. 1 word reading

in Filipino is predicted by nonword reading, s;yllable tapping and spelling in the same
languagewhilst 70'YOof the variance in Gr. 1 word reading in English is explained by

nonword reading, spelling and phoneme tapping in the same language). It can
therefore be concluded on the basis of the above analyses that the Frith model does

not explainthe reading developmentprocessused by the children in this data set in

either language is
particularlywherespelling concerned.

2.3.3. Phonological Representations

Goswarni & Bryant argue that reading acquisition depends on the development of
language. The first prediction of their
phonological representations within oral
model is that children will develop syllable awarenessearlier than phoneme

awareness. Second, this model suggests that in a transparent language, phoneme

tapping will develop carticr than in a less transparent language becausesuch
languagesallow more specified phonological representations to develop earlier. The

third prediction is that phoneme tapping skill will predict word reading ability, thus

83
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

the betterthe scoreson phonemetapping,the betterperformance

wiHbe in word
reading.

of variancewasperformedwith sixlevelsof grade(between

A three-wayanalysis
two
subjects), levelsof language(FilipinoandEnglish)
andtwo levelsof tapping
tasks (phoneme andsyllable tapping). This producedmaineffectsof grade
(F(5,473) (F(1,473)
-10.11, p< 001), a main effect of language m 127, p<. 001),and a
.
(F(,,
maineffectof task 473)
-857, p<. 001). It alsoindicated a two-way interaction
(F(1,473)-
betweenlanguage andtask 65,p< 001). However,therewasno evidence
.
F(5,473)
of interactions involving grade (grade by language: m*918, .p- 469;grade by
FA
task: ý 1.16,
p- 325; grade by language by task- Fs,, 885,p- A91). The
473)
73)-.
two-way interaction between language and task was investigated by comparingtask
effectswithin the languages. These analyses indicated that syllable tappingwas better

thanphoneme tapping in both (Filipino:

languages F (,,,7,) - 394,
p <. 001);
F(1,473)
English: -927, p< 001).
.

The first predictionof the GoswamiandBryantmodelis thatchildrenwill develop

syllableawareness Ihe
earlierthanphonemeawareness. data presentedbears this
out. The childrenin this studyperformed betteron the syllabletappingtaskthan
did
they on the phonemetappingtask in both [Link] trend is presented
on
Figure3-1,whichshowsthe developmental
trajectories
of syllableandphoneme
tappingin Filipino andEnglish.

7he secondhypothesis of thismodelsuggeststhat phoneme tappingwin develop

in language in
than a [Link] significant
earlier a transparent
interactionbetweenlanguage andtask found in the is
aboveanalysis consistentwith
this view. Figure3-1indicates
thatthis interactionis dueto therebeinga greater
differencebetweenlanguages in the phonemetappingtaskthanin the syllable

tapping task. Syllable-level

processing to
seems havedevelopedto a high levelin
both languages by Grade1;however,phonemetappingis muchbetterfor Filipino

wordsthan it is for English

words. This is by
effect accompanied maineffectsof
languageand developmental
trend. The lackof an interactionwith gradesuggests
that is
development in
proceeding the two languages at the sameratethough English

84
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

may be lagging behind. Analyses of simple main effects of language differences in

phoneme and syllable tasks indicate that both tasks are, overall, better performed in

Filipino (phoneme tapping: F(,, )ý 124,p<. 001; syllable tapping:

V,
F(1,473)-
8.518,p< 005).
.

100
,0 aw 0
90 10 11 ,
., h,

10 wo& 91 1,e$ Tasks

80
Filipinosyllable
tapping
70
MUMMA BIDIt
Englishsyllable
60. tapping
0
L) Filipinophoneme
Z5 50 -
(D
Q
(D
r,
00400"
00001, '00
, 06000
mm
mom *0-
a wm
goal tapping
of
40 - -0
1 w English phoneme
M at% 06110
a) 30 1- tapping
:i 4
12345 6

Grade Levels

Figure 3-1. Developmental

trajectoriesof phonemeand syllabletapping in Filipino
and English the
across grade levels

'Me third predictionis that phonemetappingskillwill correlatesignificantly

with
higherthe scoreson phoneme tapping, the better
word readingability,thusthe
will be in Table
word reading. 3-5 the
presents correlationsbetween
performance
tappingin both languages.
These
word reading,phonemetapping,andsyllable
do not conform to the [Link] table presents
word readingand
correlations
its relationshipwith phonemetappingandsyllabletappingin both languages by
The the
columnsshow grade levelsandthe language in whichword reading
grade.
The rows show the segmentation tasksby [Link] placingthe
wasassessed.

85
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

for
r values each language by for
side side eachgradelevel,the differences
in the
degreeof correlationcanbe appreciated
moreclearly.

Thetableshowsthat Filipinosyllabletappingis correlatedsignificantly

with word
levels.
readingacrossall grade For first grade,the segmentation
tasksin both
languages
correlatedhighly the tasks
with word reading in both languages. This
in
changes Grade 2 where English tapping
phoneme does not correlatesignificantly
with English
word reading. for
Meanwhile, Filipinowordreading,onlythe
segmentation tasksin the samelanguagearefound to be [Link]
gradeword readingscoresin both languages with the
aresignificantlycorrelated
syllable task
segmentation in Filipino but not in [Link]
onlyintra-
language for
correlations wordreadingandphoneme tapping Cie,
aresignificant
Englishword readingis significantlycorrelated
with Englishphonemetapping
whereasFilipinoword is
reading significantlycorrelated
with Filipinophoneme
tappino. The inter-language for
correlations the samemeasures arenot significant.
For Grades4 and5, all the measures with eachother. By sixth
correlatesignificantly
grade,phoneme tapping is not significantlyrelatedto readingwhereassyllable
tappingabilityin both languages is highlyrelatedto wordreadingin both languages.
Thesedatashowthat amongstthe childrenin this study,syllabletappingwasmore
often significantly to
related word than
reading phoneme tapping. More precisely,
tapping
syllable in Filipino is the of
oneconsistentcorrelate word reading in both
languages the
across grades. This findingindicates
thatword readingperformance in
both EnglishandFilipino amongthe bilingual-biliterate in
children this studycanbe
predictedfrom their skills
syllablesegmentation in Filipino. The factthat this is
the the
particularly caseamongst mostexperienced readers (ie,sixthgraders)and
in that
occurs scripts vary from highly to
regular highlyopaque is not consistentwith
andtheir relationshipwith
the currentmodelsof phonologicalrepresentations
reading (Goswarni,
acquisition 2000).

86
-Z--

Llý

"a rll
cl

r--
.
z

Lr)

fl) 00
Cll 00 -t C3

61)ýý F-A 60 00 cl

73 71
M
ý-a
10 CTN CIA cr\

tý, a

71

P-1 Q)

-a
0
711
0 00 --q in (D
Q)
Q) CIA

F'4
(7, C-4
0

6L

0
U cis
; ýý,
11
oo in

"Cý I .
w-
rii in
C14
Cl
--

j - "o ý- ýn tzx_
.: 00
.5

:71
V r.
V) 0
r-ýWv
cl a, (A P-4

-.: =1 *
ýi týl 0 C14 ;Fl
.
-
 Literacl, Developnicni in Filipino and hi English

2.3.4. Comprehension

Hoover & Gough arguethat skilledreadingis composedof skilledword decoding

and skilled linguistic corriprcliension. In this study, sentenceasseniblý,

or
comprehensionis usedas the for
measureof reading understanding beyond tile level

of decodingthe singleword, and listeningcomprehensionis the measureof linguistic

To this
comprehension. assess relationship,intercorrelations between sentence
comprehension,word readingand listeningcomprehensionscoreswere performed.
Table 3-6 presentsthe findings by gradelevel.

Table 3-6. Correlationsbct-weenSentencecomprehension,Word reading,Listening

comprehensionin Filipino and English acrossgrades

Grades 1 21 3 1 4_ 1 1 6
-5
Filipino Sentence Comprehension
Filipino Word 29T 37T 598** 45T", 44 1 839"
. . . . . .
reading
Filipino Listening 330" 31W"' 182 087 142 377"
. . . . . .
cornprehension
English Senteric Comprehension
English Word 65W'' 499** 667" 652ý` 71V* 625"
. . . . . .
reading r
English Listening 435"' 52Y"' 570" 551, 707" 730"
. . . . . .
comprehension
P< 001
.

Although the English correlations are consistent with decoding and linguistic

being important predictors of sentence comprehension, the same

comprehension
found in the Filipino languagedata. These findings suggestthat
pattern is not
listening comprehension is less important for Filipino skilled reading than it is for

English skilled reading. The resultsalso imply that in the first two as well as the last

levels, Filipino listening comprehension is significantly related to Filipino

grade
However, nonsignificant correlations were found for these two tasks
skilled reading.
(Grade 2 to 5). This
among children in the middle grades signifies that the variability
listening comprehension predicts very little variability in sentence comprehension.
in

88
 Lilcracv Pci, clopIncia in Filipi, l(), 111,1
I/,

Table 3-7 presentsthe individualand combinedpredictionsof word readingand

listening comprehensionof the variability in scoresin sentencecomprehensionin the

two languages.

Table 3-7. Predictors of sentenceconint-clicnsion in Filinino and Fmilish

Grades Filipino Sentence Comps English Senteiicc Conips
FWR FLC Combined EWR ELC Combined
1 232 097 425 179 465
. . . . .
2 134 091 148 240 265 336
. . . . . .
351 022 371 460 407 634
-3 . . . . . .
4 199 -.004 192 417 294 504
. . . . .
5 183 006 196 480 472 639
. . . . . .
6 698 127 726 323 421 486
. . . . . .
Note. FWR= FilipMo word reading-FLC=Fihpirio hsteningcomprehension;EWR=
English ELC
3 listening
word reading; =English comprehension
NotC2: All adjusted R2 values greater than 022 are significant at the 05 level
. .

When word decodingand linguisticcomprehensionarecombinedaspredictorsof

Filipino sentencecomprehension,Filipino listeningcomprehensionaddslittle to the

prediction of Filipino sentencecomprehension compared to decoding alone. Across

all the grades,word readingexplainsa larger aniount of variancein sentence

comprehensionscores than listeningcomprehensionin Filipino. This confirms the
findings of the intercorrelationalanalysesregardingthe strengthof the relationship
betweenword decodingandtext-levelprocessingin Filipino.

On the other hand, sentencecomprehensionin English is bestexplainedby the

combined prediction of listeningcomprehensionand word reading,which implies

that eachvariable contributesa unique degreeof explanationabout the variability in

It first and third gradesthat word
sentencecomprehensionscores. is only in the
for
readingaccounts a greateramount of variability in English sentence
comprehension. These findings signify that skilled text-level processingin English is
hinged upon both skilled word decodingand linguistic comprehension.

The predictionsthat arisefrom the theory proposedby Hoover & Gough are

supported by the resultsconcerning sUlcd English sentence but

comprehension not

89
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

by thosefoundfor Filipinosentence The

comprehension. formerhingeson skilled
on
performance both decoding
andlinguistic taskswhilstskilled
comprehension
decodingabilityappears to providea directrouteto Filipino sentence
comprehension
abilityby itself. This that
suggests the acquisition
of wordreadingand linguistic
in
competence Englishoccursimultaneously,andtherefore,arealmostequally
in
relevant theperformance
on text-levelprocessing.

3. Data analyses on Predictors of Literacy Skiffs in Filipino and in

Engfish

Followingfrom the conclusions derivedfrom the previousanalysesthatnoneof the

fully accountsfor the literacydevelopment
four theoriesinvestigated of theFilipino-
Englishbilingual-biliterate
childrenin this this
study, section
presents
a description
of
the natureof literacy
amongthesechildren.

3.1. Sample

Generally,mostof the childrenin the entiresamplewereinvolvedin the succeeding

However,
analyses. ninechildrenwereexcluded from the because
sample thesewere
in
outliers someof the measures.

Two childrenin Grade5 hadto beremovedfrom the datasetbecause

theyhadzero
on
scores the blockdesign
subtest,
which influenced
greatly the amountof variance
for
that wasaccounted whenthisvariable,togetherwith ageandsex,waspartialled
out. By these
removing two outliersfrom the the
group, in
variance the scoreson
blockdesignwasreducedfrom 23to 09.
. .

Anotherfifth gradeoutlierwasexcludedfrom the analysis becausethis cud's

Filipino spellingscorewasnoticeablydifferentfrom the restof the cohort. The same
rationalewas used to removea child from Grade 3 with extremelylow scores,alsoin
the samemeasure. Two setsof results
arepresented for Filipino spelling- one
the
comprisingall children in the sample,
and the other omitting these outliers(see
Tables3-10and3-11).

90
 ill English

Five children from Grade 6 were removeddue to poor English sentence

comprehensionscoresand low block [Link],theseoutlierswere taken

out only for the English sentencecomprehensionanalysisand the resultsof analyses
without them are presentedin the alternativeanalysesin Tables3-15 and 3-16.

3.2. Measures

Data analysesinvolved predictingthe literacyskills in both [Link] of the

measureswere consideredindicatorsof literacy skill and thus assignedasdependent

word
variables: reading, spelling,and sentence
comprehension. These three sub-skills
were found to be highly correlatedwith eachother in both English and Filipino as

shown in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8. Correlation between literacV measuresin Filirmno and Enalish

FilipIII() Filglish
LiteracN,
Sl-.
)elling Senteme Spelling Sentence
Measures
Comprehension
Word Reading 615ý: 54Y _Comprehension
740ý: F..
. . . 63
.
Spelling 548" 696"
. .
ýP<.Ol

On the basisof thesesignificantrelationships,it wasdeemedbestto avoid predicting

a literacy skill from another literacy by the

skill excludMig other two dependent

variablesfrom the set of predictorsenteredinto the regressionanalysisconductedon

one of the dependent variables. The independent variablesincorporatedin the
presentanalysesare nonword reading,phonemetapping,syllabletapping,word span,
rapid visual namingof colours and pictures,visual-shapememory,rhythm tapping,
listeningcomprehension,and picture stories. Thesearedescribedin Section2.2 of

this chapter. The by

combinedvariaricesexplained age,sexand scoreson the Block
Design taskwere partialledout beforethe independentvariableswere enteredinto

the stepwiseregressionprocedure.

The tablesin this sectionpresentthe resultsof stepwiseregressionanalysesfor each

grade level. The first colurim indicatesthe gradelevel. The secondcolumn displays
by
the combinedvariancepredicted age,sex,and scoreson block design,which was

91
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

isolatedprior to the entryof the independent

[Link] succeeding colunins
indicatesignificantpredictorsof varianceandthe orderof entryinto the stepwise
regressionequation of these individual Adjusted
predictors. W valuesarealso
presentedto indicate
the totalvarianceexplainedat eachstepin the regression
The in
analysis. resultsgenerated this setof analyses arepresented by language.

3.3. Results and Discussion

Stepwiseregressionsby gradelevelwereconducted to determinewhichamongthe

underlyingskillsaccountedfor the most in
variance scoreson the literacyskills,
namelyword reading,spellingandsentence The
comprehension. resultsare
by language,
discussed startingwith theFilipinoliteracyskills. The findingsof similar
analysesprocedures to
conducted understand the literacy
processes involved in
Englishliteracyskillsarediscussed
in the nextthreesectionsof the results(see
Sections3.3.4to 3.3.6).

3.3.1. Filipino Word Reading

Table3-9presentsthe resultsof the stepwise conductedto

analyses
regression
identifythe underlyingprocessesthat predictperformancein wordreadingin
Filipino.

GradeI performance in Filipinoword readingis bestpredictedby rapidnamingof

pictures(explaining
49% of the variability),nonwordreading (170/6),
andsyllable
tapping(20/6)
which together accountsfor 70% of the Similar
variance. predictors
account for 59% of the in
variance second grade word [Link] reading
explains35% of the in
variability in
scores addition to the constant
[Link]

additional8% is explained by rapid naming (60/6),

and visual-shape
memory (2%).
"Mrd gradeperformanceis primarilypredictedby rapidvisualcolournamingthat
26%
predictsanadditional of the followed
variance, by nonwordreadingandword
span,which addanother12%. The 43% of the varianceexplainedin Grade4
Filipinoword readingis primarilydueto nonwordreadingwhich explains30%,
phonemetappingandpicturestoriesexplainadditionalvariancewith 7% and4%
respectively.

92
 Literat. -),Dcvelopincia in Filipino and in English

TabIc 3-9. Stepwise regressionsfor Filipino word readimaacross

L-rades
Filipino Word Reading
Predictors Age, Sex, 1 2 3
Blocks
I-.11)idv1sli'll ii0ii-,vord reading syflablctaj)pilig
picture iiarnirig
026 515 687 700
. . . .
Grade 2 norrwordreading rapid visual visiial-shapc
picture naming memory
153 508 568 594
. . . .
Grade 3 rapid visual nonword reading word span
colour naming
061 322 415 440
. . . .
Grade 4 nonword reading phonemetapping picture stones
-.023 323 391 434
. . .
Grade 5 phonemetapping
092 220
. .
Grade 6 nonword reading syllabletapping word span
083 758 782 805
. . . .

The pattern of predictorsthat emergedin the first four gradelevelsis lessclear at

Grade 5, where only phonemetapping emergedasa significantpredictor of Filipino

word reading. Explaining lessthan 20% of the variancein word readingscores,this

level of prediction doesnot provide sufficient explanationabout the processesthat

are relatedto the word readingskills of the children at this gradelevel. However, the
by
absenceof explanation anyother phonologicalmeasureis curiously specificto this
grade level and is reversedin sixth gradewherethe influenceof more phonological
skills is again observed. Eighty-one percentof Grade 6 Filipino word reading
by
variabifity is predicted variables that had alreadyemergedin the regression
analyses for the lower gradelevels. Nonword readingaccountsfor some 70% with
syllabletapping and word spanaddingan additional 20%each.

Thesefindings indicatethat acrossthe gradelevels(with the exceptionof Grade 5),

Filipino word readingis basicallya [Link] evidencecomes
from the earliestgradelevelswhereinthe strongestprec: fiction comesfrom nonword

readingin particular. Furthermore,direct skills,

access as IIII by the significant
contributions of rapid visualnamingof picturesand colours,are 'alsosignificant
predictors. Similarly,performance at Grade 6 reflectsthat word readingin Filipino is

93
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

primarilya decoding
skillwith thevastmajorityof variancebeingpredictedby
nonwordreadingskill.

3.3.2. Filipino Spelling

the dependent
In this setof analyses, is
variable Filipinospellingability. Again,
separate stepwiseregression
analyses by
wereconduced grade levelto identifythe
predictorsof spellingskillamongthe bilingual-biliterate
childrenwhoseperformance
on Filipinoword reading wasanalysedin the In
previoussection. the main,the most
frequentlyoccurringpredictorof spellingabilityin Filipinois the rapidnamingof
Table
colours;or pictures. 3-10 presents the findings.

For Grades1,3,4and5, it is the strongestpredictorof spellingability(withvalues

rangingfrom 14% to 30%) indicating that a
accessing word from memory is relevant
in spellingperformancein Filipino. This alsoimpliesthatthe spellersin this sample
basetheir productionof wordsuponfamiliarwords. In first grade,rapidvisual
picturenamingaccountsfor 33% in followed
of thevariance spellingperformance,
by nonwordreading,whichadds10%to the [Link]
addsanother10% whilstpicturestoriescontributesanother2%. The totalprediction
of performanceon the Filipino task 61%
spelling reaches whenall thesevariablesare
combined. For the secondgrade, listening is
comprehensionthe strongestpredictor
for
accounting anadditional 34% in
of the variance Filipino spellingscoresafterthe
12%predictedby the [Link](70/6), phonemetapping
(30/6),
andrapidvisualcolournaming (20/6)
add another 12% to the prediction.

Only 24%of Grade3 spellingabilitywaspredictedby rapidvisualcolournaming

To
togetherwith the controlvariables. investigate
this further,oneoutlieron
spelling was
scores removed,improving the levelof predictionto 43% (see
Table3-
11). Rapidvisualcolournamingis still the primarypredictor,accountingfor nearly
25%of [Link] followedby phonemetapping,syllabletapping,and
The
nonwordreading. exclusionof the outlierenabledthe phonologicalmeasures to
enterinto the regression its
making resultsmoreconsistentwith the other
analysis,
gradelevels.

94
 Literaty Developmew in Filipino and in

Forty-seven percent of Grade 4 spelling ability is accounted for by rapid visual

picture naining (24'YO),listening comprehension (14%), and nonword reading (9(Y, )).
In the analysis for fifth grade, less than 10% of the variance could be predicted from

rapid visual picture naming (seeTable 3-10). By removing one outlier on the spelling
task, nonword reading emerged as an additional predictor increasing the aniount of

variance predicted but only tip to 19%)from the 13% that is accounted for by rapid
visual picture naniing. However, as in the case of word reading, the level of

prediction at Grade5 is still poor (seeTable 3-11).

For sixth grade(seeTable 3-10),syllabletappingpredicted58% of the variancein

spellingperformance,followed by nonword readingwhich addedanother 10%, and

finally listeningcomprehensionwhich addedabout 2%. In total, thesepredictors

accounted for 78% of the variancein Filipino spellingability.

Table 3-10. Stepwiserejuessionsfor Filipino spellingby grade

Age,
Predictors SCx' 2 3 4
Blocks
rapid %.Isti,ll PILIIIIV1,1()I
It's
Grade I picture nam-ing reading cornprehension
045 378 481 593 610
._ . . . .
listening nonword plioneme rapid visual
Grade 2 comprehension reading tapping colour munmg
117 460 537 569 589
. . . . .
rapid visual
Grade 3 colour nan-iing
053 239
. .
rapid visual listening nonword
Grade 4 picture naming comprehension reading
004 241 385 476
. . . .
rapid visual
Grade 5 picture nanung
014
. 106
.
syllable tapping nonword listening
Grade 6 reading comprehension
107 679 761 778
. . . .

95
 Litcrat ýi- Developint, 111ill Filipino and ill English

Table 3-11. Stepwiseregressionsfor Filipino spellingfor Grades3 and 5 without

outliers
Filipino Spelling
Age,
Predictors Sex, 1234
Blocks
rapid visual tapping
pholicilic. ýN-Ilablc 11011WOrd
Grade 3 colour naming tappuig reaclýrig
053 298 355 400 432
. . . . .
rapid visui-d nonWord
Grade 5 picture namirig reading
-.006 137 192
. .

3.3.3. Filipino Sentence Comprehension

The dependentvariablein this setof analysesis sentencecomprehensionin Filipino

whilst the predictor variablesarethe sameasthosein the word readingand spelhng

analyses.

The total varianceof 389/0in Grade 1 performancein Filipino sentence

comprehensionis mainly predictedby rapid visual picture namingwhich accountsfor

25% including the variability explainedby the [Link] additional 13%

is accountedfor by picture stories (9%) and nonword reading (4%). Thirty-four

by
percentof the variability in secondgradeperformancewaspredicted rapid visual
colotir naming accounting for 22% of the which
variance, includesthe 3% predicted
by the controlled variables. Syflabletapping (8%) and nonword reading(3%) add to

the total explanation. Third by

gradeperformanceis primarily explained visual-shape
memory,wh-ich explains 23% of the variability in addition to the constantvariables.
This is followed by syllabletapping (10%),rapid visual colour naming (9%) and word
(2%). The total amount of varianceexplainedby thesefactors is 47% of
span
Filipino [Link] 4 sentencecomprehensionis similar to
Grades 1 and 2 where rapid visualpicture namingis alsothe first predictor,

accounting for 19%. This is followed by phonemetapping,which explainsanother

8%, and picture stories,wfiich adds30/0,makingthe total prediction 36% of Filipino
comprehension.
sentence Fifth gradesentencecomprehensionis againfirst

predictedby rapid visual picture naming with 21% variability followed

explained, by

phoneme tapping )
(9(X, and listeningcomprehension (5%) makingthe total

96
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

prediction 42% including the 7% for

accounted by the constantvariables. In Grade
6, the level of explanationreachesnearly73% of the variancein Filipino sentence
comprehension. Nonword readingaccountsfor most of the variability at 57%,with
picture stories (50/o),
phoneme tapping (20/6)
and listeningcomprehension(20/6)

adding another 9% of explanation. Table 3-12 presentstheseresults.

It canbeinferredfromthesefindingsthatFilipinosentencecomprehension
can
be
essentially from
predicted variables that to
relate direct
access
andphonological
[Link] measures suchaspicturestoriesand listeningcomprehension
add less to theexplanationof the variance thanthesetwo It is
setsof skills. only in
the first andsixthgrade levels thatpicturestoriesariseasthesecond strongest
predictor. Listeningcomprehension, in the two instancesthat it in
emerged the
regression added
analyses, only about 3% to thevariancealready explained bylexical
skillmeasures.
andphonological
access

Theresultsof the separate stepwiseregression performedon thesethree

analyses
literacyskillsindicatethat Filipinoliteracyis bestpredictedby a combinationof
phonologicaland lexical
accessskills. Rapidnamingof picturesandcolours,
nonwordreading,phonemeandsyllabletappingcontributestronglyto the prediction
of word reading,andspellingperformance in Filipinoacrossall the levels
grade
in fifth [Link]
includingthe smallamountof variabilityexplained
comprehension is likewise
bestpredictedby these
variables despite
the expectation
that pictureandlistening measures
comprehension be
would morepredictiveof
performance.

7hesefindingsareconsistent with the in

conclusion thepreviouschapterthat none
theories
of the prevailing of reading developmentthat havebeenproposed for

monolingual English language speakers apply to the Filipino-English speaking

childrenin this study. The children in this study usephonological abilitiesto decode

andencodewords in Filipino from the earliestgrade level to the highest grade level.

97
 Literacy Developinctit in Filipino and in Etiglish

Table 3-12. Stcpwiscrcgressionsfor Filipino sentencecomprehensionby Frade

FiIil)iiIO Sell Crice ("01111-we
ICIIS1011
Age,
Predictors Sex, 1 2 3 4
Blocks
rapid N.
1"11.11 pictilre Ih)IINVOI
(I
picture stories reading
Grade I naining
041 250 379
. . .
337
.
rapid visuA syllable nonword
Grade 2 colour tapping reading
narning
026 222 306 340
. . . .
v1sual-sliapc syllable rapid visual word span
Grade 3 meniory tapping colour narning
023 252 361_ 450 471
. . . . .
rapid visual plioneme picture stones
Grade 4 colour tapping
nanung
041 232 307 335
. . . .
rapidvisual plionerne listening
Grade 5 piCLure tapping compreliension
narning
074 290 371_ 421
. . . .
rionword picture phonerne listening
Grade 6 reading stones tapping comprehension
067 635 690 708 725
. . . . .

3.3.4. English Word Reading

Table 3-13 presentsthe resultsof stepwiseregressionanalysesconductedto identify

the predictorsof word readingskill in English.

Word readingin Grade I is primarily predictedby nonword reading,which accounts

for 59% of the variability in [Link] picture nai-iuingaddsanother 5% to

the prediction whilst phonemetapping adds a little over 2%, making the total
for approximately 70%. For Grade 2 performanceon
amount of varianceaccounted
the English word readingmeasure, about 62'YOof the vaniabilityin scoreswas
for by nonword reading (50%), picture stones(6%), listening
accounted
(3%) and rapid visualpicture naming (2%). For third grade,nearly
comprehension
70% of the variability in scoreswere accountedfor by nonword reading(66%)and
listening comprehension(2(%)in addition to the degreeof explanationby the

9s
 Lilermy Dei, clopment in Filipino and in English

constantvariables (10%).Grade 4 is similar to the first three gradesin that the

primary predictor of Englishword readingis nonword readingwhich predicts39%,
followed by rapid visualcolour naming (130%)
and rapid narruingof pictures (50/(,
),

making the total prediction approximate70%. A shift in the primary predictor is

seenin the latter two gradelevels where rapid visual narmingof picturesaccountsfor

a largeportion of the variancein the scores. Grade 5 English word readingis

by
predicted rapid visual naming of pictures,which explains 60% of the variability.
The other predictorsthat contributeto the total prediction of 85"/oarerapid visual

colour naming (13%), nonword reading,(20%)and listening comprehension (1%).

Grade 6 performanceis accountedfor by rapid nari-Lingof pictureswhich explains
69% in addition to the 15%accountedfor by the [Link]

reading(3%), and vistial-shapememory (1%) contributed another

Table 3-13. Stepwiseregressionsfor Englishword rcadmgby grade

Word Readi ig
1`11,11ish
Age,
Predictors Sex, 1 2 3 4
Blocks

Grade I readUig picture iiiuiiuig tappuig

044 631 685 702
. . . .
nonword picture stones listening rapid visual
Grade 2 reading comprehension picture nairtirig
004 508 563 593 615
-. . . . .
nonword listenu-ig
Grade 3 reading comprehension
005 678 694
-. . .
noirword rapid visual rapid visual
Grade 4 reading colour naming picturesnal-rung
121 515 650 696
. . . .
rapid visual rapid visual nonword listening
picture colour naming reading comprehension
Grade 5 072 829 845 853
. uaming . . .
695
.
rapid visual nonword visual-shape
picture reading memory
Grade 6 901 906
146 iianung .
. .
868
.

These findings suggcst that in the First four grades of school, English word reading is
by nonword reading, a decoding process that also predicts FIlIpIno word
predicted

99
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

This
reading. indicatesthat decoding abilityis just asan important a process in
deciphering aword in English,asit is in Filipinoespecially in the first fouryears.
Theshift to rapidvisualpicturenarning asthe primarypredictorin thelasttwo grade
that by Grade5 and6, the childrenin this sampleprobablyhavemany
levelssuggests
sightwordsand that lexical
access
skillsmore than decoding in
areuseful thetaskof
readingwordsin [Link] is
shift not asdear in Filipinowherethelexical

accessandphonological skillsalternatelyemergeasthe strongest in

predictors
[Link] languages is the absence

of segmentation in in
skills the predictionof word reading English it
whilst wasa
in
significantpredictorof word reading Filipino. The only instanceof phoneme
tappingemergingasa predictorof English word reading is in Grade1 whereit
2%
contributedonly of explanation. More frequently in
arising the predictionof
Englishword readingperformance arecomprehension measures (pictures
and
listeninothoughthesecontributesmallamountsto the explanation.

Oneinterpretationof thesedatais that Englishword readingis built uponthe

phonologicalskillslearntin Filipino whichappearto have beenlearned earlieror
for English (see
Section2.3of tfýs chapterfor discussion).
with greatereasethan
This suggests
thatwhat differentiates
Englishword readingfrom Filipinoword
is for skillsin Englishand lexical
access
reading the additionalneed comprehension
of English in
words,particularly latergrades.

3.3.5. English Spelling

Thedependent in
variable this setof analysesis [Link]
by
wereperformed grade levelto understand the developmentof this
regressions
levels. Table3-14 the
presents findings.
sUl oversixgrade

I in
Grade scores English is by
spelling primarilypredicted nonwordreadingwhich
for
accounts over 42% of the in
variance additionto the 13%that is for
accounted
by the [Link] othersignificantpredictorsof spellingabilityin
Englisharelisteningcomprehension (60/6),
picturestories(50/6),
andrapidvisual
colournaming(30/6),
which in total for
account 70%of the in
variance the

loo
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

performance of Grade 1 childrenon the spellingtaskin English.Grade2 variability

is primarilyaccounted for by rapidvisualcolournaming,whichexplains35%of the

variance,followed by listeningcomprehension (120/6),

nonwordreading (50/6)
and
picturestories(30/o),
makingthetotal prediction68%. For Grade3 spelling
is
performance, strongestpredictor againnonwordreading,which accountsfor
the
49%of the [Link] is followedby listeningcomprehension
(130/6),
rapid
visualpicturenaming,picturestoriesandvisual-shapememory,whichcontribute
2%
about each to the prediction. Together
with the for
varianceaccounted by the
a
constants, total of 70% of Grade 3 performance be
can predicted from this
regression
equation. Eighty-four
percent of Grade4 spelling is by
ability predicted
rapidvisualcolournaming (380/6),
nonwordreading (130/6),
rapidvisualnamingof
pictures(40/6),
and listeningcomprehension (4%) in additionto the 9% accountedfor
by the [Link] gradevariabilityis spellingscoresis predictedby
rapidvisualpicturenaming (290/6),
listening (130/o),
comprehension andsyllable
tapping (40/6)
in additionto the 6% by
explained thecontrolvariables,
predictinga
total of 52%of the by
varianceexplained thesefactors. Sixthgradespellingabilityis
by
predictedonly phonologicalmeasures, namely,nonwordreading (370/6),
word
span(60/6)
andphoneme tapping(3%). Together,
these variables for
account nearly
60%of the variance,whichincludesthe 13% predictedby the constantvariables.

English spellingis primarily predictedby eithernonword readingor rapid visual

[Link],from GradesI to 4, both
naming acrossall the grade variables
in for However, for the fifth
emerge the regressionequations spellingability. and
sixth grades,syllableor phonemetapping performancecomeout aspredictors of
Another interestingaspectof theseresultsis that comprehension
spellingability.
in
ability variablesarise nearlyall of the From
analyses. Grades1 to 3, both listening

comprehensionand picture storiesemergesassignificantpredictorsof spelling.

However, by fourth grade,only listeningcomprehensionis significant. Finally,

neither contributesto the prediction of speffingability at Grade 6. This indicatesthat

in the higher gradelevels,spellingability is "transformin97into a more pure
ly-basedprocess from one that "uses" other skills suchas
phonological.
comprehension.

101
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

Both Filipino andEnglishspellingskillsseemto be greatlyinfluencedby lexical

accessskills. This is far in
moreapparent Filipinowherefour levels
out of six grade
haveit asthe [Link],skilledspellingin Filipino seemsto be
dziven
essentially by phonological involved
processes in syllabletappingand
nonwordreading. In English,lexicalaccessandphonologicalskills,togetherwith
comprehension, seem important
equally until the fourth [Link] the caseof
Filipino spelling,this changesin the latergrades with Englishspellingperformance
beingpredictedfrom phonological
measures
only.

102
-Z
t1o
kt)

Cýýf-A r-ý bjO

F! 00 Q) oo 0 00
V) H i-,ý iý "D ý! 'D E. Zsý
I'l;ý
0
4ý Q)
Q)

0 u u
31 u u

'ýo "0 'ý4 'D

Q.)

C14

rf'l u m (U
4ý

bjO tz bp rý CD b-C ýC) on r, 00

ý
m o" C'. 0 (D V. 0 '1- r. C)
1I .2
,ý tr)
1.
(1) .- ;;
--
* ý! * i-,, -Cý
,ý -
(A
'r! ý45 I-q
. Vý
11 cl,
.

a ý (1) 4-' U 4., Q) u 4ý U 73

u) LI)

(U C14
71

0 0 0
u u u 0 u

Jo,
Qj

NO \,D bZ "D bp 00 bp C) bo C-)

ý Ln 4"
::j ý.
tq
o :ý 00 r, Q
Lq :::; ý'. r-, ;ý
-71
V)
- It: 1-1-0 CIS
Q)
71 1-.
Cl. 1.. 04 , E!, p -T3
-2
0 fq :n
" 0
cl :n 0
r; rý
u r. u Cl.
0 0 0
C., C., M"

-4
C)
-
0. )

(i '7: ý 73 -0 -0 -0 -a
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

3.3.6. English Sentence Comprehension

Ile predictionof sentencecomprehension performance in Englishis discussed

in
this [Link] general,
the mostsignificantpredictorsarephonologicalskillsand
althoughthe predictionsvarywith grade.
measures,
comprehension

Grade1 performance on sentencecomprehension be for

can accounted up to 58%
but
with a combinationof variables contributesmall significantamountsto the
that
[Link] is
strongestpredictor nonwordreading followed
(349/o), by three
tappingtasks,namely,syllabletapping(70/o),
rhythmtapping (40/6),
andphoneme
tapping(4%). Listeningcomprehension and picture each
stories added 3%
another
to the explanationof [Link] in
amountsof variancewereexplained the
succeeding gradelevels though fewer for
predictorsaccounted the predictions.
Grade2 performance is primarilypredictedby nonwordreading(250/o), followedby

picturestories(149/6),
and listeningcomprehension(20/6),
in additionto the variance
explainedby the controlvariables (14%)to makethe total predictionapproximately
56%. Seventy is
percentof third gradeperformance predicted by listening
(390/o),
nonwordreading (180/6),
syllabletapping(50/o),rapidvisual
comprehension
(30/6),
andvisual-shape memory (2%). Performance by fourth graders
colournaming
on sentence is
comprehension predictedup to 52% widi nonwordreadingexplaining
followed
(29%)
the mostvariance by rapidvisualcolournaming(100/6),
listening
(6%) tapping (20/6).Nearlyhalf of the 72% explained
comprehension andsyllable
Grade 5 in
performance sentence is
comprehensionpredicted by listening
varianceof
comprehension (33%). Nonword reading adds 18%, the two rapidvisualnaming
7%
taskscontributea combined and finally, tapping
syllable adds 2% to the

explanation. Grade 6 performance in the English comprehension

sentence taskwas
in two ways. The first which
analysis, for
accounted 77%of the variance,
analysed
includedall the childrenin the sixthgradecohort. However,the controlledvariables
found to account for 52%or mostof the variancein Englishsentence
were
comprehension performance,whilst the restof the predictors,
namely,nonword
listening
(179/b), comprehension (60/6),
and picturesstories(2%)only added
reading
To
25%of combinedexplanation. reducethe amountof variabilitythat the control
for, sixoutlierswith unusuallylow scoreson the block
factorswereaccounting

104
 Literacy Developmentin Filipino and in English

designandsentence tasks
comprehension wereremoved from the Grade6 sample.
This hadthe effectof reducingthe overalllevelof predictionto 57%,thoughsimilar
predictorswereevidenced
among the independent for
variablesas the analysis
incorporating
thewholeGrade6 cohort. In this secondanalysis,
listening
comprehension for
accounted 38%of thevariance,nonwordreadingadded13%,
with rapidvisualnarningof coloursaddingabout3% to the variabilityexplained.
Themaindifferencein the analyses
wasthat rapidvisualcolournamingreplaced
picturestories,
which emerged in the first regression thoughtheycontribute
analysis,
similardegreesof [Link] 3-15and3-16showtheseregression analyses.

In the main,it canbe concludedthat Englishsentence

comprehension is primarily
by
predicted nonwordreadingand listening In all grades,
comprehension. except
GradesI and4, thesetwo skillscontributethe mostexplanation
to thevariance
However,
predicted. even in thesetwo is
nonwordreading the primary
exceptions,
predictorandlisteningcomprehension in
alsoemerges theregressionequation.
'Merefore,the conclusionthat both processes
areof utmostimportance
to the
performance of sentence comprehension in Englishis throughoutthe six
consistent
gradelevels. This confirmsthe view (presented
in Section2.3.4of thischapter)that
Hoover& Gough'ssimpleviewof readingis anadequate of English
explanation
in
comprehension
sentence this bilingual-biliterate
population.

All of Filipinosentence comprehension by

wasprimarilypredicted a rapidnamingor
lexicalaccess task. This cannotbe saidfor Englishsentencecomprehensionthough
rapid namingwas a significant in
predictor thelattergrade levels, Grades
namely 3
to 6. This mayindicate
that sentencecomprehension in Filipino demandsless
decodingandcomprehension
skillsthanits task
counterpart in English.

105
 Qj

in C14
-C

CID 00 rý tx ýD op \0
C',
Lrý 11

L4
:: ý
cl It
i., " C
Ij I.t
0 0
0

in on it) CID 97, Q) Lf)

r. C7"
1. 00 r,
u
Fý
Cýl
00
't ý"I iný F-I '1)
Lr 0 Zo .Qr. rý
.2
. . C

CL --c.,
ol t.
C) cz u
u
0 0 rl
73
C14

X Cýl
CIS
Iýq Q) ývl tl-ý
Qj
71
71

.u
0
u

rA
W) ýo
ON
in

V)
r,
(U
;-ý
-4
-1 -IZ)
ý-4
0
ý-ý-S., -lcý
0
, -IR
0

rl 0 C.,
u

C'4
CD CD
Lf)

$. (11 fl) 1r)

0 - \0
Q) Q) 1.)
-10 -71 -10
"a CIS rq CIS cl rz cz

i-
CHAPTER 4

PREDICTORS OF BILITERACY

rl

A
N

[Link] rMlakassiHangink

(A MR IA (V
j
 Predictors of Biliteracy

In the previouschapter(Literacydevelopmentin Filipinoandin English),we

considered literacy
in eachlanguageseparately
andpresented evidence that the best
predictorsof literacyin Filipinoandin Englishdifferedwithin the same
Filipino/Englishbilingual-biliteratechild. The conclusionswerethat noneof the
main theoreticalpositions derivedfrom the Englishmonolingual literature,andoften
used to understand the developmental processes for
andskillsrequired literacy,
adequately literacy
explained in thebilingualpopulationinvestigated
in the current
[Link] themodels'predictionswereconsistent with the data,
thesemainly focused on the English languagedata;andeventhen,therewere
divergencesfrom the [Link] suggests that the specificfeatureof literacy
learningthat leadto the selectionof the currentpopulation ie, theconcurrent
-
acquisitionof two scriptsamongst bilingual childrenwith equalemphasisgivento
both languages/scripts- may also lead to differentdevelopmentalprocessesandthe
useof differentunderlyingskillsto those found in monolingualgroups.

This chapterwill outlinethe two dominantpositionstakenwhendescribingliteracy

(particularlyreadingprocesses)amongsecond language learners.
Thesepositions
wereselected, asthey seem particularly to
relevant the issuesdiscussedand
investigatedin this [Link] theseviewpointsfocuson underlyingprocesses
involvedin literacy,a descriptionof the proposedskillsthatleadto ablereadingwill
beincorporatedinto the [Link]
interactionbetweencognitive/linguistic:
skillsandbilingualism/biliteracy
couldbe
[Link] first sectionof this chapter,in contrastto previousintroductory
sectionsof the thesis(seeGeneral Methods and Introduction to Chapter 3) andthe
forthcomingchapteron literacydifficulties,will focuson language-based skills. This
emphasis is based on previouswork that has argued for this (this
perspective chapter
particularlyfollowsthe framework used by Geva andcolleagues seeGeva & Siegel,
-
2000).Additionally,it providesa basison whichto reducethe numberof
languages
across
comparisons made (thereby Finally,
reducingchanceassociations).
language-based
processes the
seem naturalpoint of focuswhenstudyingcross-
[Link] providea contextfor understanding
language theseprocesses,
in monolingualandbilingualpopulationswill be
however,previousresearch
described.

108
 Predictors of Biliteracy

1. Reading in two languages

(Geva& Siegel,2000;Geva& Wade-Wooley,

Gevaandcolleagues 1998;Geva,
Wade-Wooley& Shany,1997)haveproposedthattwo viewpointsdominate
descriptions
of the readingprocessamongsecondlanguage [Link]
to
referred by Geva andcolleaguesasthe centralprocessinghypothesis
andthe script
dependent [Link] formerperspective comprisesresearchandtheoriesthat
for
argue a focused numberof factorsthatwill predictreadingabilityno matter
which languageor scriptis the basisof [Link] secondperspective derivesfrom
viewsthat different
languagesandscriptswill make differentdemands on the
cognitivesystemof the learner
andtherefore differentprocesses
will detennine
learning:a predictorof readingabilityin onelanguagemayWellnot predictreadingin
a second. These viewpoints are especially bilingual
pertinentwhenconsidering
childrenwho may berequiredto learn two different scriptsat the same time. Their
will
resolution aidthe development of effectiveteaching methods, tools for
predictingdifficulties/disabilities
and techniques for remediating problems for
bilingualpopulations.

Extensiveresearch hasbeenperformedon readingin the [Link]

led to the viewthat a largeamountof variabilityin literacyskiUscanbepredictedby
or
sound-based phonological
processes (seeSnowling,2000;Stanovich,1988).Such
processes
sound-based canbe divided into three those
categories: involvedin the
of sounds
segmentation (measured by phonological segmentation
or decoding tasks),
the retentionof sounds(measured by verbalmemorytasks)andthe accessing
of
names (measured by rapidvisual
naming (see
tasks) Wagner & Torgesen,1987).
One,or a combination, of theseunderlyingprocesses for
account considerable
variationin performance on word tasks
reading among monolingual For
groups.
example,an knowledge
individual's of, the phonological
about,or understanding
of
aspects a word arehighlypredictive
of literacyskillsandexplicitinstructionin
phonologicalawarenesshas beenshown to improve
greatly reading ability(see
Snowling,2000).Knowledgeor awareness of soundswithin the language
is usually
by
measured requiringthe individual
to identifyor manipulatesoundswithin or
tasks,in whichthe subjectis requiredto dividea word
betweenwords. Segmentation

109
 Predictors ofBiliteracy

form the mostcommon.

into constituentsounds/phonemes, testsin this areaand
havebeenshownto behighlyrelatedto literacy(Goswami,2000;Snowling,
& Rack,1986).Suchawareness
Stackhouse be
canalso assessed in literacy-based
by to
tasks requiringsubjects decode
novelletterstringsinto their constituent
sounds. Non-word tasks
reading the
are mostwidelyused form of decoding taskin
the field tasks,
and,aswith phonemesegmentation arehighlypredictiveof reading
ability(Rack, &
Snowling, Olson,1992).

Similarly,verbalshort-termmemory(orverbalworkingmemory)hasbeenimplicated
in readingacquisitionaswell asvocabulary(Gathercole
& Baddeley,1989;
Gathercole, Willis & Baddeley,1991;Mann& 11berman, 1984).Indeed,differences
havebeenfoundbetweengoodandpoor reader'sshort-termmemoryfor digits,
but not for abstractshapes(Katz& Shankweiler,
letters,wordsandsentences 1985;
McDougall,Hulme,Ellis,& Monk, 1994).Nation (1999)reportssimilarevidence
whenconsideringchildrenwith readingcomprehensiondeficits:
suchchildren's
to findings
within the
verbalspanswereworsethantheir visualspan,contrary
McDougall et al (1994) data
present from a sampleof 8-10year
normalpopulation.
old childrenindicating be by
predicted
that readingabilitycould reliably verbalshort-
term memoryonce IQ levelwascontrolled.

Assessmentsof visualnamingskillshave imposed

usually a time factorin

measurementssince Denckla& Rudel (1976)reported that speed,rather than

differentiated
accuracy, goodand poor [Link] this study,mostpoor readersof
normal intelligence
were considerablyslower than normal readerswhenrequired to
rapidlynamesetsof digits,
letters, or pictures
colours; of well-known In
objects. a
longitudinalstudy,Wolf & Goodglass (1986)foundthat rapidnamingspeedamong
kindergarten in 2
childrenpredictedtheirword readingability grade aswell asit did
[Link]& Davis(1998)foundthat digit namingspeedwas
to
significantlyrelated irregular
word andnonwordreading in
accuracy a cohort of 30
from I
grades to 3. However, has
accuracy alsobeenfoundto differentiate
children
betweengoodandpoor [Link],vanWagtendonk&Stafford (1988),for
found
example, that dyslexics
developmental mademoreerrorson a picturenaming
matchedcontrols,thoughno morethanreading-age
taskthanchronological-age

110
 Predictors ofBiliteracy

matchedcontrols. Katz found

(1986) that poor readershave difficulty
particular
whennaming pictureswith po4VUabic and/or low frequencynames. Similar
led
evidence Swan & Goswami (1997)to that
conclude a word lengtheffect
the picturenamingperformance
characterises of dyslexic
individuals.

Verificationof this research

perspectivehasbeen carriedout amongbilingual
or
second language learners,
aswell asin non-English
monolingual [Link]
namingtaskshave beenfound be
to predictiveof literacy
in a numberof different
includingDutch,GermanandHebrew(VandenBos,1998;Wimmer,
languages
1993;Wolf & 01rien, 2001).Verbalworkingmemoryhasbeenfoundto be
importantin secondlanguage (Baddeley,
acquisition Gathercole
& Papagno,1998).
Goswami(2000)hasarguedthat segmentation
skillsarerelatedto readingability
a
across numberof languages,
includingGerman and Greek. Consistent with this
viewpoint, Cossu,Shankweiler,Liberman, Katz & Tola(1988) found, in a
comparativestudyof American and Italian children,thatphonologicalsegmentation
distinguished
childrenof different levelsof readingskill in both language
ability
In traininghasbeenfoundto be effective
groups. addition,phonological awareness
in remediatingreadingacquisitionproblemsin Swedishand Danish(Lundberg, 1994;
Elbro, Rassmusen,& Spelling,
1996).Studies,
suchasthoseby Ho & Bryant (1997)

and Perfetti& Zhang(1991),have the

reversed common conception that
is logographicscripts,asusedin
phonologicalrecoding unimportantwhenreading
Chineseand Japanese. Phonological has
processing also been be
shownto predictive
literacy in
difficulties bilinguals
English/Sy1hetti in the UK
of readingacquisitionand
(Everattet al.,2000;Fredrickson& Frith, 1998).Research, suchasthat of Obler
individualswith readingdisabilities
(1989),hasindicatedthat bilingual/biliterate
those difficultiesin both languages
of [Link],
the remarkably
experience
literacyproblemsexperiencedby childrenand adults that canbe
similarreportsof
found acrossmanylanguages (seeAaron& Joshi,1989;Salter& Smythe,1997)
for suchliteracydeficits.
suggestthe possibilityof a commonaetioloEy

hypothesisarguesthat the
In the light of the studiesoutlined,the centralprocessing
mechanisms involved in learningto readareuniversalandtherefore
underlying
in
operate anytypeof orthography or [Link] natureof the language
and its

III
 Predictors ofBiliteracy

orthographyarenot considered to be influential

to readingdevelopment, even
among bilinguals.
It alsopremises concurrentreadingdevelopment in bilinguals,or
secondlanguagereading abilitythat is basedon underlyingskillsassociated with the
developmentof [Link], this perspectivearguesthat
difficultiesin readingin anylanguage
arerootedin deficient in
skills the cognitive
andlanguage-related thatunderliereading(Brown& Hulme,1992;
processes
McLaughlin,1992).

is the scriptdependent
The alternativeperspective hypothesis
or orthographicdepth
hypothesis(Katz& Frost,1992;Frost,1994;Geva& Siegel,2000).This considers
between
the relationship readingandthe orthographyasa primaryinfluencein the
of
acquisition [Link] alternativeviewpositsthat the processesthat comprise
be
readingcannot explained the
withoutconsidering reader's linguisticenvironment
the
and orthography that it.
symbolises

Orthographiesaresystemsthat transcribe
spoken language in The
visualsymbols.
functionof anorthographyis to represent
certainunitsof that language.
Orthographiesvaryin the levelatwhichtheymaponto spoken Mann,
utterances
1986).Orthographicdepthrefersto thedegreebywhich symbolsrepresent the
phonologyof a language. Some languages
havetransparent
orthographies,
with a
into
mappingof symbols sounds.
relativelystraightforward Other languages
(English
is the mostobviousexample)aremorecomplexin that thereis aninconsistent
between
relationship symbols andphonology(Geva & Siegel,
2000). Such variations
in orthographicdepthor transparency
may leadto a differentrelianceon, or useof,
underlyingreadingprocesses; skillsusedto translatethe
particularlyphonological
symbolinto For
sounds. example, Goswami, Gombert & de Berrera(1998)have

argued that the useof readingby in

analogy a given languagemay depend on its
orthographic [Link] proposalwasbased on evidencethat Spanish children
reliedon orthographic andphonologicalsimilaritiesbetweenletter strings
much less
than EnglishandFrench children. Similarly,
Sprenger-Charolles,
Siegel& Bonnet
(1998)foundthat differencesin the importanceof phonologicalprocessingin
beginningreadingandspellingacquisition
maydepend on the degreeto whichan
the
alphabeticsystemrepresents [Link] moretransparentthe writingsystem,

112
 Predictors of Biliteracy

the morestronglychildrenwill relyon phonologicalprocessing

or sub-lexical
access
to words.

Research for
evidence scriptdependency from
alsocomes studiesusingnonword
[Link] a comparativestudyof GermanandEnglishspeakingchildren,Wimmer
& Hummer(1990)reportedthatGermanchildrenappeared to beoperating
phonologicalmediation between symbolandmeaning from the verybeginning
of
learningto read,in contrastto [Link]
fewererrorson nonwordreadingtasksthantheir [Link] the
in
youngestsetof children thisstudy,therewasa high between
correlation nonword
readingandword reading,a relationshipthatwasnot foundamongthe
setof
corresponding English A by
children. similarconclusionwasproposed
Sprenger-CharolIcs
et al (1998)following of [Link]
assessments
wasexplainedasdueto the French language
usinga moretransparentorthography
thanEnglish.

Additionalevidencecanbefoundin studiesof readingdisabilityin [Link]

contrastto the evidence from
reported Obler (1989),
Wydell & Butterworth (1999)

studieda boy [Link] Englishparentsbut broughtup in Japan,who showed

of dyslexiain Englishbut not in Karanth
Japanese. (1992), on the other
evidence
hand,describes two casestudiesof dyslexic boyswho presented different typesof
difficultiesin learningto readandspellin EnglishandHindi or Kannada.

Gholamain & Geva (1999)have andscript

contrastedcentralprocessing dependent
in
viewpoints bilingual learning
children Englishwith Children
Persian. weretaken
from GradesI to 5 andattendedschoolconductedin EnglishandSaturdayclasses
tp
[Link] in both languages.
The
findingsof this studywerepresentedasevidencefor both hypotheses. Word reading
abilityin both languageswaspredicted by basic
underlyingcognitiveskills,suchas
however,
narning-, the specific
verbalworkingmemoryandrapidautomatised
influenceof theseskillson literacywasdeterminedby the languageunderassessment.

113
 Predictors ofBiliteracy

Thepresentstudyfollowsthe frameworkof Gholamain& Geva(1999)in its

assessment of thesecompetinghypotheses. However, it by
extendstheir research
testingchildrenwho arefollowinga bilingual
curriculurnaspartof normalschooling
by
and specifically deternining language competence in the two languages.
The
childreninvolvedin this learn
research literacyin both Filipino and English
simultaneously asearlyasfirst [Link] of time areallocatedfor
the instructionanduseof the two in
languages the dailyschoolprogram. Filipinois
usedasthe mediumof instructionfor socialscience/studies,
music,arts,physical
home
education, economics, practicalarts,charactereducation,andFilipinolanguage

and [Link],
on the other is
hand, used asthe medium of instructionfor

all science,mathematics, technology andEnglishlanguage andliterature subjects.

Sucha bilinguallearningenvironmentmayleadto differentfindingsfrom thatfound
in learningcontextswherethe secondlanguage is an additionallanguageto formal
[Link] example,in the bilingualcontextassessedin the presentstudy,literacy
learningis concurrentandthe literacyinstructionin thetwo languages
is givenequal

time in the [Link] is in contrastwith (see

contexts Gholamain & Geva,
1999)whereliteracyin the secondlanguagewill probablybelearnt
laterandovera
longerperiodthanin the first language,
potentiallymakingsecondlanguagelearning
developed
dependenton the readingprocesses with the first orthography.

To assesswhetherconcurrent literacylearning
wasoccurring,the presentstudy
includeda reading-basedinterferencemeasure (Stroop, 1935;
seereview by
MacLeod,1991).In this task,word interference is producedby requiringsubjectsto

namethe colourof the ink in whichan incongruous is

colour-word presented (eg,

theword 'red'writtenin blueink, wherethe response

correct would be 'blue). In

comparisonto a base-ratecolournamingcondition (suchasnamingcolours

presentedasblocks the
of colour), automatic reading of the colour-word slowsdown
increases
namingerrors. Naturally,
this interference is
effect relatedto
namingor
readingability(Schiller, The
1966). present studyincludedStroop,
conditions in both
languagesallowinga comparison of interferencelevelsproducedby both scripts.

Additionally,the useof a language language

asa second mayleadto difficultiesin
termsof competence in that (see
language Cummins,1984).This is importantsince

114
 Predictors ofBiliteracy

orallanguageproficiencyhas been implicated

in learning
to read indeedthereis
-
evidencefor a (Morais,
relationship
reciprocal Bertelson,
Cary& Alegria,1986). For
example,poor speech-based language skillsoftenleadto literacy
deficits(Catts,
1996;
1997)andthereis evidencefor significantrelationships
betweenreadingandlistening
comprehension acrossa varietyof languages andorthographies Mann, 1986).Low
of
scoreson measures literacymaybe dueto poor language
skill,maskingany
between
relationship in
readingability the two scriptsandcommoncognitive
processes. Alternatively, poor language in
competence a second language may leadto
a relianceon the first language in literacy involving
tasks eitherfirst or second
language
scripts. This would leadto an inflation in the between
relationship
of
measures first andsecond language scripts. The presentstudy thereforeincludes

of
measures listeningcomprehension in both Filipino and Englishto allow
of proficiencyto
assessments be in
included the analyses.

Finally,the populationchosenfor thepresentstudyprovidesthe additionalfeatureof

be
to assessed
allowingthe effectsof orthographictransparency within the same
child. As indicated
above,Englishis asa
considered deeporthography with a
complexrelationship letters
between In
andphonemes. contrast, Filipino is a
orthographywith a
transparent highly consistent between
relationship soundsand
A interpretationof the scriptdependent hypothesis
outlinedabove
symbols. strict
predictsthat the childrentested will learnto readFilipino earlierthan English,and
that phonologicalprocesses will be betterpredictors of Filipino readingskillsthan
Englishreadingskills,particularlyin the initialyearsof [Link] assess
thesepredictions,children from GradesI through to 6 [Link] central
processinghypothesis, however, wouldpredictthatthe sameunderlyingskillswould
levelsof literacyin both languagesand that,even equivalenteducational
predict
opportunity, of
acquisition one orthography should that
parallel of the other.
Phonologicalabilityhasbeenthe coreof mosttheoreticalmodelsof reading
hence for in
wasthe processchosen scrutiny the presentstudy.
acquisitionand
Phonologicalsegmentation, verbalshort-termmemoryandrapidnaminghaveall
beenimplicatedascorevariablesin predictingreadingabilityandso measures of
eachwere [Link] readinghas been by
used the majorityof studies

115
 Predictors of Biliteracy

for
arguing script dependency
and hencewasincludedin the set of predictor

measures.

2. Method

2.1. Sample

This studyinvolvedthe wholecohortof childrenin [Link]

in
attendedprivateor publicschools regionswhere the dominantlanguage
was
Filipino/Tagalog;ie,MetroManilaandthe adjacent
provincesof Bulacan,Quezon
and Rizal. However,thesearm arehighly or closeto urbancentres,
urbanised,
meaning that the be
childrenwould exposed regularlyto Englishwhichis widelyused
in popularmedia,[Link] mostcases, the childrenwoulduse
Filipino morefrequentlyin their informalactivitiessuchasat homeandwhileat play,
Englishwill beexperienced in
andused mostaspects of home andschool fife.
Often,the two languages be
will usedinterchangeably. Morethanhalf of the children
werecontactedvia neighbourhood
centressothat a large
numberof different
be
schoolswould sampled.

To ensurethatthe groupsof childrenselected

werenot presentingevidence of
levels
atypical of ability,the BlockDesign of
subtest theWechslerIntelligenceScale
(WISC-R)wasadministered
for Children-Revised to [Link]
child to producea two-dimensional patternusingthree-dimensional
patterned
blocks. Procedures for administering
the testandscoringweretakenfrom the test
manual (Wechsler,1974). Averageraw scores(together
with deviations)
standard are
presentedin Table 4-1 for eachgrade. indicate
These the expecteddevelopmental
improvementwith [Link] sincethereareno Filipino
normsfor this test. However, comparisons
with Americannorms indicate
that the
for
averagerawscore each gradewould fall within the averagerange (ie, from 7 to
13)whenconvertedto [Link] thatthereis no reasonto assume
that thesechildrenarenot in
typical termsof non-verbalreasoning skills.

116
 Predictors of'Bilitcraty

Table 4-1. Frecluericv, Ap, mid Block, Dcsipi scores (standard deviations) by grade
Block
Grade N Age
Desi,,,n
81 7.34 ],).1-
(.56) (12.87)
89 8.34 27.23
2 (.54) (13.32)
91 9.38 33.20
3 (.57) (11.62)
88 10.39 34.32
4 (.51) (11.88)
70 11.43 38.70
5 (.55) (12.98)
60 12.33 46.55
6 (.48) (12.41)
479

2.2. MeasureslInstruments

Comprehensivedescriptionsof the test materialsand procedurescan be found in

Chapter2 (GeneralMethods) and AppendicesA and B. The specific measuresused

in this chapter are describedbelow and highlight specificaspectsof the measuresthat

are pertinent to the conducted.
analyses As the ain-1wasto extendthe study
conducted by Gholamain & Geva,those that
measures weresimi-lar to thoseused by
Gholamain and Gevawere incorporatedinto the analysis(word reading,nonword

reading,rapid visual naming of pictLiresandword span). Additional measures(word

phoneme tapping and listeningcomprehension)based upon the

interference,
the sectionsbelow were included. For most
argumentspresentedin introduction and
of the word
analyses, readuig was the dependent variable. Rapid visual nanuingof
tappingand Estening
pictures,nonword reading,word span,phoneme
comprehensionwere [Link], nonword readingwas
also assignedas a dependent that investigatedthe
variablein one of the analyses
developmentaltrend of decodingskills. Block Designwasincluded asa control

variable throughout the (see

analyses Section2.1 of this chapter)wust word
biliteracydevelopment.
interferencewas usedasa measureof concurrent

117
 Predictors of Biliteracy

2.2.1. Filipino and English Word Reading

Word readingis mostfrequentlyusedin studiesrelatingto literacyandliteracy

it is presented
difficultiesbecause to the childbereftof contextualcuesfrom
surroundingwords. However, thewaythat a word is accessed,which may be
throughthe directrouteor thephonologicallyýmediatedroute,is not explicitly
by
assessed suchword tests.
reading 'Me word reading
measurehad 46 Filipino
wordsand 72 Englishwords. Thesewerepresented on separate
stimuluscards,with
the childrenbeing to
asked readthemin [Link]
by
wererecorded the testadministrator,
with the numberof wordsreadcorrectly
for
comprising measure thesetests.
the

2.2.2. Filipino and English Nonword Reading

Nonwordreadingwasusedasanassessment of the abilityto decode

novel letter
All
strings. the itemsincluded
in list
the arenot semantically in
meaningful eitherof
the languages in considerationin this [Link] hasbeen arguedthat nonword
reading is a measure of phonologically mediated processingof words (seeSection I
'
of this chapter). There were17 English nonwords and 17Filipino nonwords,
differentstimuluscards. English by
nonwordswerecreated changing
presentedon
the consonantor consonant blend in the onset,middleor endof a word. Filipino
by in
nonwordswereproduced the samemethodexcept cases wherewholesAables
in to the nature
werereplaced order reflect multisyllabic of the Filipino orthography
in both qrpesof alteration,it wasensured
that the cadence
of the word wasnot
-
affected.

2.2.3. Filipino and English Rapid Visual Naming

Thesetestsareusedasa measure
of therapidaccess
of a lexical
item, based
on the
presentationof a visualstimulithatrequiresthe outputof a phonological
As the be
can treatedasa measure of visualaccess
representation. such, measure
of efficiencyof accessing
andasa measure
processes a phonologicalrepresentation.
GholamainandGevaemphasised the phonological representation
aspects of this
measure the
and presentanalysiswill follow this interpretation.
The previoussection

118
 Predictors of Biliferacy

its importancein [Link] the succeedinganalyses,

(Section1) discusses
in
pictureswere used the stimuluscardsto avoid confoundswith the word
interferencetaskwhich usesrapid visual namingof colours asthe baserateof the

word interference
measure. Four repetitionsof six fine drawings
of commonobjects
werepresented on stimulus
cards. In Filipino,the sixwordsproduceda totalof
thirteensyllables, the
giving carda total 52 In
of syllables. English,
therewereten
for
syllables the the
sixwords,giving entirestimuluscarda syllable-length
of forty.
The childrenwerefirst taughtthe namesof the objectsusinga differentpicturecard.
After showingmasteryof thenames,theywereaskedto namethe picturesasquickly
aspossible.

2.2.4. Mlipino and English Word Span

Thisvariablemeasures forms.
the abilityto storeandrepeatphonological Words
for
wereused thismeasure because verbalmemoryspan has been in
implicated
literacydevelopment
anddifficulties (see
research Section I of this The
chapter).
word spantasksusedsequences of colourwords. In the Filipino languageversion,
two four-syllable colourwordswere usedin the lists. In
eighttwo-syllable
and
English,eightsingle-syllable
andtwo two-syllable colourwordswereused. The cud
wasverballypresented with a seriesof wordsandasked to them
repeat in order.
Seriesof itemsincreasedfrom two to eightwords,with two item sequencesbeing

usedasexamples to
and providepractice. Everytwo sequences, the numberof
in
words the span increasedby oneproducinga total of 14lists.

2.2.5. FYlipino and English Listening Comprehension

Gholamainand Gevauseda measure of listening to

comprehension assessskillsin
language.
the second Giventhatthe children tested
werebilingual
andboth
languages
couldhave been from
experienced an earlyage,assessmentsof both
languages
seemed [Link] was,
measure therefore,included to allow
of language in
ability each language.
Poor language in
ability one
an assessment
language may bethe main reason for failurein literacy
acquiring in that language.
Listeningcomprehension is frequentlyusedasa measure of languageabilitybecause
it is removesthe involvementof reading-based from
processes the assessment (see

119
 Predictors ofBiliteracy

SectionI of this chapter).The Filipino andEnglishversionshad30and31items,

[Link] items required the child to listen to a questionand indicateayesor
no answeron a standardanswersheet. The first six questionsof eachtestincluded
pictureprompts to helpthe childwith the question. The remainingquestions did not
provide but
pictures involved the tester
verballypresentinga short followed
passage
by a statementabout that passage. Againthe childwasto indicate
whetherthe
wascorrector
statement incorrect.

2.2.6. Filipino and English Phoneme Tapping

Phonemetappingmeasures to
the ability segmenta wordat the levelof the
[Link] levelof segmentation hasbeen to the
argued show mostvariability in
and
performance hence waschosenasthe measure of phonological
segmentation
ability (see
Chapter2 andSectionI These
of this chapter). involved
tasks the test
to
administratorsayingaword,whichthe childwasasked segment by tappinginto
in
the numberof sounds the word. Exampleswereused to describe
the task,
'Merewere18Englishitemsand
followedby practicetrialsto ensureunderstanding.
20 [Link] numberof correctresponses
wasusedasthe [Link]
measure of whethercomplexsegmentation
will allowanassessment in
skills one
language literacy
support in
development that language.
or another

2.2.7. Filipino and English Word Interference

In orderto assessthe level of automaticword processing in the two languages, all

childrenperformeda Stroop taskin Filipino and [Link] measure allowsan
of the effectof aword on the processing ie,
of anotherstimulus; colour.
assessment
1he bilingualStroop,or word interference tasks,consistedof threestimuluscards,
onewith colour blocks,a secondwith Filipino colourswords writtenin incongruent
ink anda final cardwith Englishcolourwordsprintedin incongruentink. Children
in
wereaskedto namethe colours oneof the two languages asquicklya possible,
tryingto [Link] colourblocks stimulus cardwasadministeredfirst in one
language (randomlydeterminedfor eachchild),followedby the incongruous card for

that [Link] samewas done for the otherlanguage.

Interference
from colour

120
 Predictors of Biliteracy

wordswascalculated by the
subtracting base-rate
colour from
namingspeed the time
takenin the incongruouscondition.

3. Results and Discussion

Threeseriesof analyses wereperformedon the datain orderto assess

the different
predictionsof the scriptdependent
andcentralprocessing [Link] first
consideredevidence for developmentalimprovementsin the cognitiveandlinguistic
particularly
skillsassessed, focusing
on interactions
between gradeand language in
measures The
of readingproficiency. secondsetof analysesinvestigated
betweenthe cognitive/linguistic
interrelationships both
skillsassessed, within (intra)

and (inter)
between languages. The final analyseswereperformed to identify

commonandunique levelsof prediction of ability

reading betweenintra-and inter-
languagemeasures.

3.1. Developmental improvements

Table4-2presentssummarydata(meansandstandarddeviations)
for thevariables
These
underassessment. dataindicateimprovements
with gradelevel acrossall
The
measures. reliabilityof thesetrendswereconfirmedusinga multivariateanalysis
of varianceOJANOVA) with gradelevelasthe independent
variable
(F(70,2165)-
3.001,p <. 001). The resultsof the subsequentunivariateanalyses
are
in
presented Table 4-3 and,with the exceptionof theinterference
measures, confirm
the significanteffectof gradeon eachof themeasures.

Givenevidence
of effectsof grade,the specificpredictionsof the competing
hypotheses
wereassessed by detern-ýaLg the between
interaction gradeand language

on eachof the measures of readingcompetence. Specific4, the script-dependent

hypothesispositsthat word readingabilityin the moretransparent languagewould
developfasterandwith [Link],this wasnot confirmedby the
measures of word reading(interference F(,,,,
effect: )- 1.001, P- 42,eta'. 01)nor
.
the levelsof interference by
produced wordreadingon colournaming(interference
F(s,
effect: 468)-.. 318, p=. 902,eta*-. 003).However, the script-dependent hypothesis

alsopredicts that nonword reading shoulddevelop more rapidly in thetransparent

121
 Predictors of Biliteracy

scriptandthis wasconfirmedby the interaction

betweengradeandlanguage
(F(5,473)-4.661, p< 00 1, M2=. 047). Figure 4-1 presents this interaction
. graphically
and indicates that the children's nonword reading skills develop faster and to a higher
level in Filipino (the more transparent script) than in English, consistent
with the
findings of studies involving transparent scripts such as German (Wirnmer
and
Hummer, 1990) and Hebrew (Geva and Siegel,2000). Although improvements in

nonword reading in English in

are evident the graph and may also give the
impression of English catching up with Filipino nonword reading, this latter

observation may simply be due to some level of ceiling effect in the higher grades.
The general conclusion that decoding novel word strings is a more advanced skill in
Filipino than in English particularly in the early gradesseemswarranted. One factor

which indicates that further be is

work may needed the difference found between the
two listening comprehension measures(seeTab.e 4-2). Comparisons of these

measures across the two languages indicated that the children produced higher scores
in Filipino than in English (F(,,,,, - 467, p <001). This could be due to test item
)
differences or language skills differences. Due to the latter possibility, listening

comprehension was controlled where necessaryin subsequent analyses (seeChapter

5 on literacy difficulties).

122
 Prcdi(fol. ý w

Tablc 4-2. Meansand standarddeviations(in italics) by gradeof the cognitiveand

1111"'Illstic
Gradc/ I
Grade I Grade 2 Grade 3 Gracle 4 Grade 5 Grad c6
Tasks
oo )9.00
E %X
"R
14.76 7.62 7.90 5.00 6.90 8.51
10-98 12.92 13.11 13.94 14.41 15.23
ENR
5.18 3.93 3.78 2.90 2.88 3.20
27.70 26.01 25.87 21.06 24.59 18 78
ERVN' .
9.16 11.48 15.56 6.31 28.33 9.06
6.53 6.96 7.65 7.60 8.40 8.70
FWS
1.89 2.12 2.10 2.28 2.24 2.32
6.10 6.67 7.67 8.20 8.44 ' 9.47
EPT
4.43 4.93 4.90 4.39 5.27 5.25
18.75 21.04 21.63 22.11 23.64 24 35
ELC .
4.17 5.43 4.82 4.63 4.58 4.52
0.24 0.22 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.11
EWIntb
0.39 0.32 0.28 0.31 0.35 0.09
40.31 42.94 43.20 44.68 44.47 44.38
FVAý
9.04 4.06 4.50 1.93 2.40 5.00
13.92 14.76 14.71 15.32 15.73 15.70
FNR
3.85 3.26 3.36 2.35 1.73 2.62
29.99 25.57 23.62 20.97 20.16 17.00
FRVNj
13.42 9.53 9.21 9.87 8.33 4.52
5.35 6.06 6.51 7.07 7.73 8.18
FWS
2.18 2.18 2.49 2.30 2.27 2.40
8.98 10 70 11 67 11.99 13.56 13 33
FPT . . .
6.82 6.61 6.63 6.30 6.56 6.35
23.38 25.17 25.84 25.85 26.29 26.25
FLC
3.01 4.11 2.45 2.75 2.06 2.56
0.24 0.21 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.11
FWlnt"
0.17 0.10 0.27 0.08 - 341 0.06
.
Note. EWR= Word readingin English;ENR=NonwordReadingin, English; ERVN=Raýd
visual narning in English; EWS=Word span in English; EPT=Plioneme tapping in English;
ELC=I-isteniiig comprehensionin English;Ewint = Word interferencein Enghsh;FWR=
Word readingin Filipino; FNR=NonvvorLlReadingin Filipino; FRVN=Rapid visualnarning
in Fjipuio; r`WS=Word span in Filipino; FPT=Plioneme tapping in Filipino; FLC=Lstenuig
comprehensionui Filipino; I-Wint = Word interference in Fihpn'io.
ýTiiiie
, in seconds to iianie 24 picturesof objects
1,Difference betweenmcongniouscolour words and colour blocks condition Cui
i mutes. seconds)

123
 Predictors of Bilitcracy

Table 4-3. Sumniaiý-iable for uni'variate anovas

F,
WR
_
8.59 084
.
_104
NR 10.86"'
.
RVN 3.91 400
.
ws 9.23**` 096
.
PT 4.42` 045
.
LC 12.46"'
WInt 2.81 029
.
WR 7.62 075
.
NR 3.66 038
RVN 16.23 148
.
ws 15.41 142
.
PT 5.02 051
i i .
LC 10.60 "" 102
1 .
WInt 1.57 1 017
.
Note. WR=Word reading, - NR=Nonword reading;RVN=Rapid visualnaming;WS=Word
span;PT=Pllonenic LC=Iýsteillng
tappu-1g; Whit=Word
comprehension; interference.
-P<0.05 ý -P<0.01.-'-"-*P<0.001

16 -

15.

14

13-

12

U) 4.
0

U) English nonwords
C:

10 Filipino nonwords
graje 1 arad-e22
grade araý e33
graýe arad e44
grade Qrade55
grade qrad 6
grade

grades

Figure. 4-1. Line graphindicatingthe developmentaltrend in the nonword reading

accordingto language

124
 Predictors of Biliteracy

3.2. IntralInter-language correlations

Thecentralprocessinghypothesispredictsinterrelationships
betweenmeasures of
the samecoreprocessand between developing skills. Table4-4presentsthe first
(below
ordercorrelations the diagonal
- bottom left-hand comerof thematrix)and
controllingfor gradeandBlockdesign
(above the diagonal
partialcorrelations - top
right-hand halo betweeneachof the language/phonological-related
skillsand
word/nonwordreadingabilityacross the two languagesunderassessment. All of
thesemeasures presentsomeevidenceof interrelationships
consistent with the
universalityof theseprocesses
regardlessof [Link] the caseevenwhen
gradelevelandnon-verbalabilityareparrialledout of the 'Ibcse
analysis. findingsare
to
similar thosereportedby Gholamain & Geva (1999) among childrendeveloping
in
readingconcurrently Persian
andEnglish.

However, of specificinterest arethe cross-language correlationsof the same

skills/abýitieshighlightedin Table 4-4. In the main, thesecross-languagemeasures
are largerthan other correlationsinvolving those skills/abilities. Findingsindicating

equivalentor strongerrelationshipsacross languages than within languages,

(eg, Cie,
particularlywith script-based word reading)or readingsensitive
phonological-based- Morais et al, 1986)measures,aremore consistentwith the
predictionsof the centralprocessingviewpoint.

125
 ,Z
LTýj
R, n
ON .
Cý

ý31 CD CD cD (D C-D, CD, C) (D C)

wD

114
(--ýl C) (D (D CD, (7) C) CJ C)
0

0
u
17 tn
ON ON Q 80
I'D rl-l It- ýn
(-3 C3 CD, (3 c) c) C-) b
V,
-4,
P,

C) C? CD c (D C-)

rF,' 60 C) 00 CTI
--t- r) Lr)
r) 'r) l 4
C14
(D) CD C)
C: c) (D a c) C) tn

00 rý, ýD "D ON 00 C) C)
6 6
ci cj C) C) (D C) C)

CDI G', Cý r4') 1" C7,

cl) -1 r'! r4ý tlý 'I-
6 6
C3 C) CD (D c) C)

cr, K
r1l "-t K C14
ýh
('4 4
-. 4 in -4
6
;ý 6
w 6 * "
C,
(i (-::; c; c; c5 (D
C? Cl,
C, _TJ
0
c
u
C-4 -) ý-) ý -17,
(31\ fý) (31\ c-, -ý C.'] "D "D 6D "

C'i flý -i -) C-ArA xý rq C-4 r,

-1 -1- C)
c

C:) C:) C-) (D CDOC-) C) cj C; C

oo F-4 C-AV, a,
C) Q Q Q Q (D (D C) (D -f.,
4-
CD
C. )
b
C
L
r-, 'I- C) 't r, Oo
C
(-3 C3 C) C) C) C) (D CD

C14

00 (-,4 C)\ C3 Lf ) Lf) a\ CD C-4 'D I-

C
r-- Lr) f, ) I'll 'I- r- `-r) 11r) r-ý r) in
C) C-) C-) C)I C) C) C-3 C)
-,,
ci
Ir, u P"

P. 4 0-4 C)

V
 Predictors of Biliteracy

Theobviousexceptionto the conclusionin the previousparagraphis nonword

These
reading. showlarger with
correlations intra-language
word reading(0.63for
Filipino and0.78for English)thanwith inter-languageassessment of the same
decodingskills(0-60).This is moreconsistentwith the script-dependenthypothesis.
However,this viewpointalsoarguesthattherelationshipbetweenword and
nonwordreadingabilitiesshouldbelargerin a more language
transparent (in this
case Filipino), in
particularly theearlystages of reading. Table 4-5 by
shows grade
intercorrelations betweenword andnonwordreadingin Filipino andEnglish,with
on the Block Design taskpartialled
out. In all but the lastgrade(Grade6), the
scores
relationshipbetween word andnonwordreadingwas larger in the lesstransparent
script Additionally,
(English). in all exceptGrade 2, the inter-language word reading
measures showed larger
relationships thantheFilipino intra-language reading
measures.

127
 Pi-c(liclors ol'Bilitcrac),

Table 4-5. Correlations of word mid noriNvord reading across grades in Flhpino and

Tasks ENNV FWR FNW

ý,Grade'ý
EWR
ENW 7T:
.
FWP\ 8Y: " 60""'
. .
FNW 76""' 57' 73ý"
. . .
EWR
ENW
FWR 50"
.
FNW 0 59" 64""
. .
EWR
ENW
FWR 59"
.51 .
FNW 32** 50"' 48""
. . .
EWR
ENW
FWR 55"' 57*'
. .
FNW 20 44ý" Al"
. .
ENVR
ENW
5 -\XR 47- 59":
. .
FNW 38" 28""
. .
EWR
ENW 76'
6 .
FWR 95""
FFNW .85"'
86"-, 86"',
. . Nonword. English;
Note. EVvR = Word readingin English; ENW= reading ul
FWR = Word Filipino;
readingnii. 17NW = Nonword readingin Filipino
,rp<. 05 P<. Ol 1)<.0001

3.3. Predictors of reading ability

To assesswhether ititer-language or intra-language ZI measures of underlying

cognitive/linguistic skills predict reading ability in the two scripts, a series of

(controlling for grade level and Block Design) were performed.
regression analyses
The first set of stepwise regressionsaimed to identify the best predictors of word

128
 PrMiciorN ,,

readingfroni aniong all the ý,ariables. In these Filipino

analyses, word readingwas
bestpredictedby non,ývordreadingin English, followed by nonword readingin
Filipino, rapid nanungin Filipino and word spa_nin Filipino. In total, some55% of
the variancein Filipino word readingwas predicted by this equation. English word
readingwas also best by
predicted nonword readingin English,which togetherwith
rapid naming in English, ord
nonvý, readingin Filipino, rapid namingin Filipino and
listeningcomprehensionin Englishpredicteda total of 70% of the variability. These

inter-languageregressionsarepresentedon the left-hand sideof Table 4-6 and can be

contrastedwith the comparabletntra-lariguageanalyses,which arepresentedon the

nght-handside.

Table 4-6. Results of the step-wisemultiple regression anAysis

Inter'lan i gePre(lictions', Intra-lan tia cIlredictions 7

R2 k F (Av'",
(Azýiv
Grade/ 0.10 1 0.101 26.06 (; t-ade/ 0.101 0.101 26.06-"-'-
Blocks Blocks
E N-W 0.407 0.306 239. ý-F** - FNW 0.406 0.306 239.46"'
FNW 0.497 0.090 82.85-,"r* FRN 0.482 0.076 67.85-ý
FRN 0.542 0.046 46.2 1"'- FWS 0.490 0.013 12.01",","
FWS 0.546 0.004 3.89 FLC 0.494 0.005 4.50

English Word
Inter-langti ge Predi6tions Jntra-lan iagellredictions
7ýsks R2 -7-Cjxlrýýv - 7ýsks F 0
R2(jxaiq, I., xvýý,,
CIA
3.1 7
1 0.1 ý0,3s
C'.137 37.23"
Blocks Blocks
ENW 0.617 0.482 585.50"'r ENW 0.616 0.479 583.79"',
f R-N 0.052 72.55" " - ERN I 0.668 0.052 72.79*""1
0.668
PKý 0.015 T
22.17r,"' E LC - 0.672 O. -
OO4 T - 5.48
0.678
-'f-RN 0.692 0.006 9.05
ý-L-C 0.697 0.005 -
7.25
-
Note. ENW=Nonword readingin English; ERN=Rapid muningin English;FNW=Noiiword
Filipino; ELC=I-Istenuigcomprehension ui English; FRN=Rapid naming in Filipino;
readingin
FWS=Word spanin Filipino; FLC=l-istciiing comprehensionni Filipino
-,cp<0.05 tP<0.01 rp<0.001

129
 ("Ih 1,0 ý
('t Bililcrm I

Nonword readingin English is arguablythe harderof the two nonword reading

tasks,due to the complexity of the spelling-soundniles neededto decodenovel letter
strings. That this task is the best predictor of word readingin either script is again
consistentwith the position of the hypothesis.
central processing That this
relationshipis found despite controffing for gradeand non-verbalability suggests
that
it is specificto processesrelatedto language
skiHs,ratherthan generalability or
developmentalfactors.

The next seriesof regressionsinvestigatedthe individual contributionsof the

phonologicalmeasuresin either languagetowards word reading. These analyses

focusedon the levelof prediction provided by the two measuresof the

correspondingskill/process both separatelyand in combination,after controlling for

gradelevel and scoreson Block Design. The resultsof theseanalysescan be seenin

Table 4-7.

Table 4-7. Cross-languagecomparisons of the levels of conunon or unique

by phonological-bised/language inemures
variabilitiT in readinp,abilitv exphned
Filipino NVOII Kcadill" 1"ll"lisli Word
Predictors Sep ratc_ Scparatc
COmbined C
1,117wIInto- Intra Inler 'onibined
Nonword reading 4)7 A1 610 405 J)-10
. . .
Rapid nan-ung 254 163 259 322 289 369
. . . . . .
Phoneme tapping 168 133 169 182 216 222
. . . . . .
Word span 142 154 161 213 175 216
. . . . . .
Listening
146 133 157 238 184 250
. . . . . .
comprehension

For Englishword reading,measuresof nonword reading,word spanand listening

comprehension in Filipino provide little additionalpredictedvariability than the intra-

languagemeasuresof theseskills. However, in the caseof rapid nanung,the Filipino
5% of variability over that of t II
ie Eng an
ish version,,d
version explainsan additional
for phonernetapping,it is the intra-languagemeasurethat predictslittle additional

over that which is predictedby the test in Filipino. In Filipino word

variability

130
 Predictors of Biliteracy

reading,the English versionsof rapid naming,phonemetappingand listening

comprehensionexplain little additionalvariability over that of the Filipino measures.
In addition, the inter-languagemeasureof word spanpredictsall of the variability

explained by the intra-languageversion,and the different measuresof nonword

reading each explain unique elements of the variability (about 10%in eachcase).
Thesefindings indicatea largerdegreeof overlapbetweenthe different language-
basedmeasuresin their ability to predict readingconsistentwith the central

processingviewpoint. However, evidence for independencein prediction (againthe

nonword tasksare the obvious candidate)suggestsmarginalsupport for the script
dependent
perspective.

Thescriptdependentviewpointalsoarguesthatmeasures
of phonologicalprocessing
in
aremorepredictiveof reading languages
transparent in the earlyyearsof learning.
for word readingin FilipinoandEnglishwere
To testthis, stepwiseregressions
conducted between andwithin languagesfor Grade I readersonly (again
controlling
for BlockDesign).Inter-language for
regressions Filipinowordreadingfor Grade1

explained74% of the variancewith rapidnaming in Filipinoasthe mostsignificant

predictor,followed by nonwordreading in Filipino and in English,
andword span in
[Link]-language regressionsof Englishword readingexplained83% of the
[Link] this case,nonwordreading in English wasthe mostsignificant
followed
predictor, by nonwordreading in Filipino,rapidnamingin Filipino,and
in English. Intra-languagepredictorsweremainlythe same for
phonemetapping
Filipinoword readingwith rapidnamingandnonwordreadingaccountingfor 70%
72%of the variationin English
word readingwasbest
of thevariancewhilst
by tapping. 7hesefindings
predicted nonwordreading,rapidnamingandphoneme
indicatethat evenin the initialyearsof learningto read,phonological
measures
predictsimilaramountsof variance in the two [Link],theseresultsare
inconsistent
with the predictionsof the script hypothesis.
dependent

Overall,the findingsweremoreconsistent
with the centralprocessingviewpoint.
Hence,the evidencesuggests(i) commondevelopmental trendsin reading
acquisition,andcorresponding development in language/phonological
underlying
skills,@ between
interrelationships Filipinoand Englishmeasures
of

131
 Predictors ofBiliteracy

linguistic/cognitive processesthat areaslargeas,if not largerthan, within-language

measures,and (iii) inter-language

predictionsof readingskills that areaslargeas,if
not larger than, intra-language predictions. Thesefindings,which areapplicableto
the early stagesof learningto read,suggesta markedrole for core linguistic/cognitive
processes in the learning of both the Filipino and English orthographies. Each of
the analysesperformed indicated that underlyingprocessesgreatlycontributeto the
in
prediction of skill word readingaswell ascorrelatingbetweenthe two languages
the children in this study arelearningto readconcurrentlyý

1he exceptions
to this conclusion werethe findingsof a script-related in
element
nonword reading. In particular,
nonword readingseems to develop morerapidlyin
Filipino thanEnglish.'Mis maybeconsistent
with Gholamain
& Geva(1999),
who
suggestthat script influence
characteristics the developmental
trajectoriesassociated
with readingskillsandthat a transparentorthographywouldmore likelybe readwith
greaterrelianceon grapho-Phonological The
conversion. conclusions derivedfrom
the presentstudysuggestthat indeed the influenceof the orthographyon reading
processes cannotbe dismissed, althoughits importance may be diminishedin

contextswherethe two languages/scripts by,

areexperienced andtaughtto, children
concurrently.

Althoughin generalagreement with Gholarnain& Geva (1999), theseconclusions

in termsof the levelof relativeimportance
differ from thoseof the previousresearch
givento the centralprocessing [Link] for
areseveralreasons the potential
differencesin [Link],differentmeasures in
wereused the two studies
(contrastthe verbalworkingmemorymeasure usedby Gholarnain
& Gevawith the
word spanmeasure usedin the presentstudy).Second,
the influence
abated of script
on the development of reading
skill by
evidenced thepresentstudy may be explained
by the degreeof overlapbetweenthephonologies andscriptsof Filipinoand
English.

132
CHAPTER

LITERACY DIFFICULTIES
 Literacy Difficulties

'Me previouschaptershavefocusedon FiEpino/Englishliteracydevelopment among

the bilingual-biliterate
childrenby investigating
the a6quisition
of literacy
skills. It has
beenconcludedthatliteracyacquisitionamongthesecl-Odren
is not adequately
by
explained the theories
prevailing of literacy
developmentbasedon monolingual
However,
studies. it hasalsobeenshownthatthe data on the Englishlanguage
hasupheldsomeof the predictionsarisingfrom thesetheories(see
basedprocesses
Chapter3). It hasalsobeenshownthat the biliteracyis bestpredictedby central
processing
universal skillsthoughthe literacydevelopmentin Filipino,themore
shalloworthography, hasbeenfound to develop
at a faster
ratethanin English,
the
morecomplex script(seeChapter4).

In view of thesefindings,whichpresenta moreinformedunderstanding of biliteracy

development, the issueof literacydifficultiesamongthe
thischapteraddresses
Filipino/Engli4hbilingual-biliterate
childreninvolvedin this Its
study. aim tois
the
characterise literacy
difficulties, by
shown somechildren in the samplewho have
beenselected on the basisof poor literacy at
abilities the levelof the single
word, by
highlightingperformance in underlyingskills. Thescoresof the poor readers were
contrastedwith those that averagereadersexhibit. Section 3 (Comparisons with
chronologicalagecontrolgroups)and Section 4 (Comparisons with younger
nondyslexicaverage presentthe
readers) findings derived from these These
analyses.
groupcomparisons are succeededby a presentationof singlecaseprofiles.

1. Literacy difficulties and dysle2da research

Literacydifficultiesanddyslexiaamongbilinguallearnershasbeenthe subjectof
in
research recentyears because of the increasing
culturalandlinguisticdiversity
in
Among
varioussocieties. by
thequestionsasked theseresearches seekto redefine
dyslexiaandbilingualism, andconcernthe identification, andteachingof
assessment,
childrenwho are both bilingual
anddyslexic (Cline,2000). More specifically,
the
the hypothesesput forwardby the dominant
theories dyslexia
questionschallenge of
andliteracy by
difficulties testing
thesein non-monolingualcontexts.I'lis section
addresses oneof the issues
that Cline (2000)
identifies.
How candyslexia
be
identifiedamongchildrenwho arebilingualandbiliterate?

134
 Literacy Dijjlculties

Oneof themostcompellingideasin bilingualstudieswasput forwardby Cummins

(1984)who arguesthat non-nativespeakers
mayrequireasmuchas7 yearsto acquire
language
sufficient and Uteracy in
skiRs a [Link]
assessmentin this languagewiU haveto wait until.
aftermastery
of language skillsis
This
attained. has been by
challenged Geva (2000) who that
argues literacy
abilities
be not
can assessed only in the languages
that the child speaks but alsoby lookingat
thewaytheunderlyingskiUsin bothlanguages predictskillsin the [Link]
development
a studyreportingconcurrentreading in Hebrew andEngUsh, Geva&
Siegel(2000)arguethatwhenthe scriptbeinglearnedis lesscomplex,youngchildren
appear to developtheir word recognitionskiUswith relative in
ease,even the absence
linguistic
of sufficient proficiency.

Otherstudiesvalidatedthe useof traditionaldyslexiaassessment in

procedures
[Link] suchstudyis by Everattet al (2000)in whichEnglish
bilingualchildrenwhosefirst language(spokenin the home)wasSylethiweretested

using traditional
measuresof dyslexia.
Theyarguedthatthemeasures,particularly
usedto
thoserequiringphonologicalprocessing, distinguish dyslexics
from
in be
nondyslexics monolingualpopulationscould used for the in
samepurpose
[Link] a anotherstudy,Frederickson & Frith (1998)investigatedthe
phonologicalandwriting skills(in English)
of a similargroupof bilingualchildren
(English/Sylethi
also)and found that compared to monolingual Englishspeakers, the
phonologicalskillsof the bilinguals developed
weresimilarly but theirreading
comprehension andaccuracy werelessdeveloped. findings
These that
suggest
phonologicalmeasures be
can usedto from
dyslexics
distinguish nondyslexics
evenif
language
general skillsarenot totallydeveloped.

Ile mostsalientcorrelates in
of readingabilityreported the literature
monolingual
arethosecomprisingmeasures that
of phonologicalprocesses stem from a setof
cognitiveand linguistic
skillsenablingaccess, storage,andmanipulation
of
phonologicalinformation (eg, Badian et al, 1;
199 Badian, 1994;
Bradley& Bryant,
1983;Stanovich, 1988; Snowling,2000). Previous studieshavealsoshownthat
problemswith phonological skillsdevelopmentresultin difficulties
in reading,
at
particularly the levelof the single
word (seeGoswami & Bryant, 1990).In studies

135
 Literacy Dijjlcullies

that havesoughtto createa morecompleteunderstandingof literacydifficulties,

such
othercorrelates asvisual
naming (eg,
speed Wolf & Bowers,2000),
comprehension ability(Stothard
& Huhne,1992), andlanguage skills(Badian, 1999)
[Link] theseothercognitiveandlanguage
skillsto the development intuitively
of readingseems plausiblegiventhat children
literacy
acquire skillson the basis
of spoken language (Nation& Snowling,2000).
Thelessstudiedcategoryof literacydifficultiesis thatwhichis specificto
comprehension. Childrenwho havepoor comprehension but
ability not poor word
readingability,havebeenshown to havedifficulties to
related deficient
listening
comprehension,poorvocabularyandword knowledge, in
problems syntax,grarnmar
andlow in
scores tasks that involveinferencesabouttextsto be formed(see
Cornoldi& Oakhill, 1996).Thesedifficultiesarenot specifically in
addressed this
thesis,giventhe focusof the presentresearch difficulties
on singleword processing
or dyslexia.

Dyslexicsarecharacterised ashaving difficulties

in readingabilitythat are
different
significantly from their otherabilitiessuchas language ability,reading
comprehension or generalability. The traditional
mannerof is
identification via
methodsthat comparereadingabilitywith generalability(see Thomson, 2001). This

method is basedon the beliefthat poor readers

with highgeneralaptitudeare
cognitivelyand neurologicallydifferentfrom poorreaders who havelow [Link]

studiesthat focuson dyslexia,

poor readerswith low aptitudeareexcluded from the
analyses,thus impVng difficulties
that their reading different
arequalitatively from

the difficulties by
experienced thosewho haveno discrepancy between aptitudeand
achievement. Stanovich(1991) the
questioned wisdom in the assumptions that have
foundedthe readingachievement andIQ discrepancydefinition.
of literacydifficulties

and dyslexiaby pointingout that intelligence

itselfis a little understoodconstructand
its is
on measurementnot conclusive. He further criticisedthe notionthat a
research
low IQ scoreleadsto poor readingability. This opposingviewpointarguesthat poor
readingability is to
related poor phonological ability thatis related
to poor language
(see
Liberman, 1997),therebyexcluding IQ from theseriesof explanations
skills
which buttressthe understandingof literacydifficulties.
Another discrepancy

methodcomparesreadingcomprehension to
scores listening
comprehension
scores.

136
 Literacy Difficulties

Badian (1999)suggeststhat the discrepancybetweenthesetwo comprehension

abilities is informative of the literacydifficulties that arenot basedon language

ability
problems. 'Mis proposalmoves the definition of dyslexiaand literacydifficulties
further awayfrom the realm of intelligenceand towardsthe domain of languageand
literacy [Link],there hasbeenlittle formal assessment
of this
alternativediscrepancy procedure and it is little in
used practice. Its relevanceto the
present discussionis dear giventhe to
need assess literacy in
problems the absence
of poor linguistic competency-a themerunningthroughout this thesisand previous
work on dyslexia and multilingualisrn.

With the tremendous that

wealthof studies point to thephonologicaldeficit asthe
corecauseof literacydifficulties,
mostmonolingual
studiesusesingleword abilities
asthe criteriafor identifyingliteracy
problems(Stanovich
& Siegel, 1994).A
universallyappliedcut-offpoint atis least deviation
onestandard from the mean
Two
scoreon singleword measures. methodsareusedto identifydyslexicsfrom

amonga broaderpopulationof individuals.

The first is
method to comparegood
andpoor readerswho areof the samechronological ageon the basisof languageand
cognitiveskills. Studies
of this naturehaveshownthatthesetwo groupsof readers
differ in [Link] confusingcognitive
profilesthat revealmultipledifferencesbetweenthe groups(Goswami & Bryant,
1990).Theseissueswereaddressed the [Link]
by changing
to
group which dyslexics
werecompared with wereyoungernondyslexic readers
is
whoseword readingperformance similarto thatof the dyslexic
group(Bradley
Bryant,1978;Snowling,1980).Thesetwo processesof creatingcomparisongroups
havebeenusedin numerousstudiesinvolvingphonological (see
processes Snowling,
2000)andrapidvisualnaming(seeWolf, Bowers& Biddle,2000),amongothers.

Currentdefinitionsof dyslexiahavefocusedon literacyaspectsmorethan

environmentalor factors.
intelligence Among these definitions
is that by
produced
the Working Partyof the Divisionof Educational
and Child Psychologyof the
Society(1999).Theydefinedyslexiaasezikntvi=jh&n:t and
British Psychological
acwateuuni ikntocatibn(iradiigxWor spý dba notdew4 or dccs
sowrywmVm, 4
dfuuky.
Oruithgreat Tfýs is
viewpoint to
related thoseofferedby the BritishDyslexia

137
 Literacy Dijficulties

Association(seeSmythe,2000)althoughthetwo viewpointsdivergein their stresson

relateddifficulties/skills.
However,
suchdefinitionsavoidspecifyinga specificcause
of theseword identification
or spellingproblems,research having implicated

numerouscognitiveand languageskills,includingdifficultiesin phonological

processing verbalworkingmemoryandspan,andrapidnaming
andrepresentation,
leadingto directaccess
of thelexicon.

The phonologicalperspective is perhapsthe moststableandacceptedamongthe

constellationof difficulties/causes with
associated (see
dyslexia Rack,Snowling&
Olson, 1992; Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Frith, Snowling,
1995; 2000).Though there
continuesto be debate regarding the level that
representation
of phonological is
involvedin the deficitsrelatedto dyslexia(seeGoswami& Bryant,1990,Goswarni,
2000; Muter et al., 1998),the importance of phonologicalprocessingdifficulties
on
literacyis a commonfeatureof [Link],Goulandris& Defty (1996)studied
the literacyskillsof 20 dyslexicchildrenovertwo [Link] 20 dyslexics;
performed
worsethannondyslexic: chronological ageandreadingagematchedgroupson
of reading,spellingandphonologicalprocesses during the first assessment
measures
period. At Time 2, the childrenwereonceagaincompared with a readingage
in two-year The dyslexics
matchedgroupandtheyshowedpoor progress the gap.
showed difficulties
specific in nonword reading and nonword repetition, aswell as
spelling of irregular words consistentwith the view that phonological processing
difficultiesaffectthe development of literacy In
skills. a study investigating nonword
deficitsamongmonolingual German-speaking dyslexic children,Wimmer
reading
(1996)foundthat unlikeEnglishmonolingualchildren,the Germanspeakers show
higherlevelsof accuracyin [Link] wasattributedto the relatively
German in comparisonto English. However, when
transparentorthographyof
it
group, was found that the older dyslexicswere
comparedto ayoungernondyslexic
the taskof nonword [Link] arguesthat this findingsuggeststhat
slowerat
dyslexicswho areleamingto readin a transparentorthographyalsoexhibitnonword
deficitsbut thesearein relationto of
speed rather
reading thanaccuracy
of
reading
reading.

138
 Literacy Dijjt'culties

Rapidvisualnamingspeedhasalsobeenfoundto distinguishbetweendyslexic
and
nondyslexic for
groupswho arematched chronological (eg,
age Spring& Davis,
1998),poorreaders
with low (eg,
aptitude Gough& Tunmer,1986)andreaders with
otherlearning
disabilities
(eg,Ackerman& Dyknian,1993).This givescredibilityto
the argumentthatrapidnan-dng tasksandthe processes underlyingnamingspeed,are
alsosignificantcorrelates
of [Link],whenusedto differentiate
dyslexicsfrom reading-agematchedcontrols,the evidence is [Link]
somestudies, dyslexics
performedsloweron namingtasksthantheyoungercontrols,
did
whilstotherstudies not reportany differences(Wolf, Bowers& Biddle,2000).
Wolf et al (2000)discuss studiesthat confirmthesefindingsand
cross-linguistic
arguesthat in languages
that havehighlytransparent orthographies,rapidvisual
is
naming a morerobustpredictorof readingperformance thanphonological
processing This be
measures. may consistent to the positiontakenby Wii-runer
(1996)that speedof processing from thenondyslaic
differentiatedthe dyslexics;
youngerreadersin the German language though the measure discussedby Wimmer
wasnonword reading speed (ie,sublexical
word processing)ratherthan directaccess
mechanisms that rapid visualnamingmayrepresent. However, the general
might
conclusion be that speedof processingis likelyto distinguishfrom
learning
nondyslexics a transparent
writing system.

Anothervariableassociated
with dyslexia
is verbal [Link]
memory
spanmeasureshave beenincludedin many dyslexia
different batteries
assessment
(seeSlingerland Testfor SpecificLanguage
Screening Difficulty Children:Slingerland
&Ansara, 1984;BangorDyslexiaTest:Miles 1993;CognitiveProfilingSystem:
Singletonet al, 1996).A commonfindingis that dyslexics
performworseon
measures of [Link], Goulandris & Defty (1996)
reportthat thoughverbalworkingmemory for digitsdo not distinguish
significantly
betweendyslexicandreadingagecontrol groups,the dyslexics
wereworsein
performingthetask. In another
studywhich aimed to predictdelayin reading
achievementin a highlytransparentlanguage,Holopainen et al (2001)predicted
performance on the decoding
accurate of pseudowordsof Grade 2 childrenfrom
scoreson verbaland nonverbalskills two
assessed before.
years They dividedthe
into
sample four in
abilitygroups termsof pseudoword
reading,namelyprecocious

139
 Literacy Difficulties

decoders(whoreachedthe criterionlevelon thepseudoword readingtaskbefore

formalinstruction),earlydecoders(whoreachedthe criterionlevelafterfour months
of instruction);
ordinatydecoders
(who reachedcriterionafter9 months)andthe late
decoders(whoreachedcriterionafter 18monthsor later).In oneof the analyses,
phonologicalshort-termmemorymeasures of digit spanandnonwordrepetition
weresignificantpredictorsof the difference in performance between the precocious
decoders
and latedecoders. Though this study does not explicitlyidentifythe late
decoders
as dyslexic,
the delay in the acquisitionof decoding by
skills thelate
is characteristic
decoders of dyslexia.

Ihe studiesdescribed aboveshowthat thereis strongagreement in themonolingual

literatureaboutliteracydifficultiesanddyslexia;but the sameisyet beestablished
in
bilingualliteracydevelopment and [Link]-is contribute
to the understandingof literacydifficultiesand dyslexia
by the
analysing literacy
by someof the Filipino/Englishbilingual-bilitcratc
difficultiesexperienced children
in this study.

2. Method

1. Sample

literacyinstructionhas
To attainthe goalsof this chapterandto ensurethat adequate
beenprovidedthe children,onlychildrenfrom Grades3 to 6 wereincludedin the
selectionof poor singleword readersand average same [Link] the creation
of youngercontrolgroups,
average
readers from Grades I to 4 thus
wereselected,
creatinga two-year
gapbetweenthe poor readergroupsandthe average reader
[Link] selectioncriteriawill be in
described the relevantsections.

2.2. MeasureslInstruments

Therewerethreegroupsof measures for

used the succeeding analyses. The first
category comprisesthe dependent namely
variables, word reading and [Link]
childrenincludedin the analyses
wereselectedon the basis
of their performance on
both of [Link] controlfactors- BlockDesign,

140
 Literacy Difficulties

listeningcomprehensionandpicturestories. These wereusedto ascertain

variables
the groupsbeingcomparedwereaverage performerson [Link]
include
groupof variables all the in
othervariables the studywith the exceptionof
theword interference The
measure. testmeasures aredescribedin
andprocedures
detail
greater in Chapter
2 (General
Methods).

2.3. Procedures

the dyslmdc
Two waysof characterising readerareimplemented
in this section.A
skinswerecomparedto tvvo
groupof childrenwith poor singleword processing
groupsof averagereaders- same age peers,and two
children grade levels
younger.
Theselectioncriteriafor eachof the controlgroupsarediscussed
within eachlevelof
analysis.

'Ibis sectionusesstandardprocedures to identifyeightgroupsof childrenwho

literacy
presentwith evidenceof specific difficulties
at thelevelof the singleword.
For easeof notation,thesechildrenwill bereferredto asdyslexic(basedon current
UK andEurope-based is identifiedfor eachof the
definitions).A groupof dyslexics

upper four grades(Grade 3 to 6) for

and each language. Different setsof dysleidcs
for Filipino andEnglishfor eachgradelevelwerecreated.

Ihe selectionprocedurebeganwith theidentificationof childrenwith scoresthat fen

on or below the 15'hpercentile
on both theword reading and spellingmeasures. Ile

secondstep involved screeningout childrenwhomay have difficultiesin termsof

or
comprehension,
generalability,visual language
general skills. A cut-off point of
onestandard deviationbelowthe meanfor each level
grade on block design, listening

comprehension to
andpicturestorieswasused eliminate from the analysesthese
literacy for
problems reasons not traditionallyassociated
with
childrenmayshow
and/or poorverballanguage).
dyslexiaCie,poor generalability,poor comprehension
'Ihe remainingchildrenscoredbetterthanthecut-offon all thesethreemeasures and
thuscomprisedthe dyslexic for
group each grade level. Table5-1 displaysthe
of dyslexic by
readers gradeand genderidentifiedusingthis
numberandpercentage
process.

141
 Liierac'' [)ifiIculties

Table 5-1. Frequenci, (fx?uqma N, qfgmdeIf-WI,in brack-ets)of dyslemcs iiccordm. (, to

I'llik'11,10C
FýIdc' level,"clldcr mId

Tot Äldu Füllde Tmý Mýde-- FeniAe

ýII
14 10 4 7 -2
(15.4) (7.6)
4 13 11 2 5 4 1
(14.7) (5.7)
5 15 9 6 6 3 3
(2 1.ý) (8.6)
6 9 - 4 5 6 4 2
(15.0) (10 ý
- -0

3. Comparisons with Chronological Age Control Groups

3.1. Selecting the control group

Average readers for Filipino ýind English were selectedfor Grade 3 to 6. Average in

this context means scores ý,vrithinthe 25"' and 75'hpercenti-leon both the word

reading and spelling measures. After these children were identified, those who

scored below the cut-off point on the block design, listening comprehension and

picture stories measureswere screenedout to ensure that they were comparable with
the dyslexics on these aspects. Selection procedures specific-allyensured that these
three control measuresdid not differ significantly between the dyslexics and their
chronological age peers. Table 5-2 presents the number of average and dyslexic

readers by language and grade level involved in this level of comparisons.

Table 5-2. anddyslexi f)v

ICreaders gnide leveliind Lingim
Gr,t(lc____ Filf 1110 1ý ish
'11
Average Dyslexic Avera,,,,,
e YýYslcxic--
7
4 42 13 25 5
26 15 26 6
6 32 9 25 6

142
 Literacy Difficulties

3.2. Data analyses procedure

Independentsamplest-testscomparingthe performance of the dyslexicandsameage

control were
groups conducted. Theseaimed to identifythe linguisticandcognitive
skillsthat differentiated between the dyslexicandchronological agematchedcontrol
groups in an effort to identifythe attributes
of childrenwith difficulties
in single.
word literacy.

3.3. Results and Discussion

This sectionwill reporton the resultsof the independent

samplest-testsconducted
the
to compare performance of dyslexic andsameagecontrolgroupson measures of
literacy,comprehension,
phonological
processing,rapidvisualnamingandverbal
memoryspantasks in bothlanguages,
aswell asblockdesign,visualshapememory
andrhythm [Link] means
andstandarddeviationsfor eachcomparison canbe
in Tables5-3 and5-4,for Filipinoand
found in AppendixC. Thedataarepresented
[Link]
arediscussed
by language
to highlight
any
differencesin the results.

Analysesarepresentedfor eachgradelevel,with t-values,andtheir levelof

by for
reproduced comparison.
represented asterisks
significance Significant

comparisons in for
areshaded thetables easeof [Link] a mest is non-
significantat the 0.05level,
the is
exactp-value presentedin brackets.A negative
t-valueindicates by
a smaIlerscorewasproduced the [Link] that for time-
basedscores,a negativet-valuesuggests
thatthe dyslexicgroupproduced faster

on average,
responses, than the (eg,
controls see English rapidvisualcolournaming
for Grade5 and6). Thenumberof subjectsin the dyslexicandcontrolgroupsare
in
alsopresented the tables
to allowcalculationof the degrees
of freedom(dAvalues
whichwere treated (n,
as -1) + (n, throughout. Although that
analyses did not
-I)
homogeneity of varianceandused [Link],these
assume
did not produceresultsthat differedsubstantiallyfrom thosepresentedandhence
the conclusionsderived from both types of analyseswouldhave [Link]

analysespresented wereselected to provideeaseof reportingandallowcomparisons

literature
with the previous in this area.

143
 Lzici-wi i)ifiIi/ii

Tablc5-3. t-scorest-)etweeiiFihi)iiiol,iiit!ii,ii!cDv,%IexicsitndChronolof, I,
it-,il-Acp(-ýcNni,,,
Tasks Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
Dyslexics n= 14 13 15 9
Control n= 40 42 26 3 -)
Filipino Word reading 5.95*** 5.7
ý"*'
-4.93***
Filipino Spelling --
-4.69*ý'* -2.30***r_
Filipino Sentence -4.48"" 18
-. -L-19
comprehension (.855) (.205)
Filipino nonword reading . Q7,
2.,
-4.86**" -1.82
(.076)
Filipino Phonemetapping -2.25*** 41
(.432) .
(.682)
Filipino - 95
syllable tapping -1.21 -1.15
(. 347) (.233) (.259)
Filipino 2.67*** '2.,58***, 1.15 21
rapid visual picture -.
naming (.259) (833)
Filipino rapid visual colour 3.65**". 2.72** 1.09 95
-.
nan-ting (.281) (.347)
Filipino word span 21 64
-2.89-** -1.35 . .
(. 183) (.833) (.525)
Filipino listening 79
-1.56 -. -1.55
cornpreliension (. 504) (. 121) (433) (. I ; C,)
English Word reading -6.323*** -1.703 881
-. -3,401-l,
(.094) (.382)
English Spelling 155 057
-4.276"1* -1.558 -. -.
(. 125) (.878) (.955)
English Sentence -5.176*** -1.623 062
. -1.775
comprehension (. I 11) (.951) (.083)
English nonword reading -2.09-";:- -1.412
-5.764'-`1* -1.266
(. 166) (213)
English Phoneme tapping -. 660 594 298
-2.035"- -. -.
(. 512) (. 556) (.767)
English syllable tapping -1.503 379 048
-1.985* . .
(. I ý,).) (. 707) (962)
E righsh rapid visual pict mv 4.930:! -%* ---- 3,2871** 491 752
1, . .
(.626) (.456)
narning
English rapid visual colour 2.732** 2.45211,
-1.218 -1.791
(. 231) (.081)
naming
English word span 893 428
-2,559" -. -.
(. 509) (. 378) (.071)
English hstentrig Li, 87 -1.877 -.
298 045*:
-2!
(.066) (.767)
comprehension
Rhythm tapping -3.34"' -1.32 73 89
-. -.
193) (.469) (.377
.
Visual shape nierrion, -2.56***_ -1.47 23 62
. -.
(. 148) (. 820) (.537)
Block design -.
36
-. 75
-1.75
(. 136) (721) (.457) (.088)
Picture stories 94 31 13
-1.62 -. -. .
IL (. 350 (. 920) (.900)
--U-1
05
ý'-p<. ý`.-P<.Ul ,`-P<. UUI

144
 Literacy Dijficulties

Table5-3presents between
the resultsof analyses samegradedyslexicandaverage
in
readers Filipino. The two groups do not in
vary termsof block
significantly
design,picturestories,andlisteningcomprehension in thelanguage of literacy
[Link] in all gradelevels,word readingandspelling
in Filipinodifferentiatebetweenthe two groupsaswouldbeexpected
giventhe
criteria.
selection Nonword readingin Filipino differentiates
significantly between
to
thetwo groupsup and includingfifth but
grade, it isworth highlightingthatthe t-
score derivedfor the sixth grade
approaches (t
significance p
- -1.82, -. 076). Given
thatthe chronological agematchedcontrolsperformed betterthanthedyslexics,the
abilityto decodeletter therefore
strings, seems to be the one areawhere the dyslexic
readers have difficulties
specific andcan be distinguished from their averageability
peers.

Grade3 showsthe largestnumberof significantdifferences

betweenthe [Link]

additionto the Grade

above,
measures 3 chronological agematchedcontrolsalso
performedbetterin comprehension,
sentence syllabletappin&rapidpictureand
colournaming,word span,rhythm, tapping,
andvisual shapememory in both
Word reading,spelling,andnonwordreadingin Englishalso
languages.
distinguishedbetweenthe two [Link]
dyslexics be
to worsethanthe controls, though this doesnot reachthe 0.05
level.
significance

In additionto word reading,spellingandnonwordreadingin Filipino,the Grade4

groupsvaried in termsof Filipino phonemetapping,rapidnamingof picturesand
colours in both languages aswell asEnglishnonword reading. Listening
in English is but
significance
approaching failsto reachthe 0.05level
comprehension
fewer
Overall, measures between
distinguished the Grade 4 groups
of significance.
to the Grade3 groups,andthistrendcontinuesto Grade5 where
in comparison
reading in Filipinodistinguish
between
onlyword reading,spellingandnonword the
A to the reductionin significantdifferences
is foundin
groupssignificantly. reverse
the Grade 6 where
analyses, the dyslexicsarepoorer also in Englishword reading
[Link], the patternfor fewer measuresto
and
distinguishbetweenthe groupsin highergradesstill seems
plausibleandseems
to

145
 Literacy Dijji'culties

the
characterise findingsaboutdyslexics
in [Link] is only in third
gradewherea largenumberof cognitiveskillsdifferentiated
betweenthe dyslexicand
[Link] manyas19variablesdiscriminated
betweenthe two groupsin Grade3. This is consistent
with a combinationof results
reported by studiesinvolving monolingualchildren (seeSectionI of this chapter).
However, t1iisnumber dramaticallydecreasesto nine in Grade4, and to three or four
in Grades5 and 6. Theseresultsmay indicatethat the majority of skill deficits that

might be found in Filipino dyslexicreadersarepotentiallydueto a lag in

developmentrather than a pervasiveabnormality. The underlyingskill that most

consistentlydifferentiatesbetweenthe two is
groups nonword readingor decodingin
the languagewhereliteracy difficuldes are experienced.

Table5-4presentsthe differences
betweenthedyslexics andaveragereadersin
[Link],the two groupsdo not differ significantly
on measures
of block
design,[Link] thegradesshowsignificant
differencesbetweenthe two groupsin Englishword reading,spellingandrapid
namingof [Link] to andincludingfifth grade,the dyslexic
andthe
age
chronological matched groupsalsovaried in Englishsentence comprehension
andnonword as
reading well asFilipinocolournaming.

Grade3 comparisons
showthat the dyslexics
hadlowerscoresin word reading,
comprehension,
spelling,sentence nonwordreading,rapidnamingof picturesand
colours,word span in both languages.
Filipinophoneme tappingalsodistinguishes
betweenthe groupsasdo rhythmtappingandvisual-shapememory. These findings

aresimilarto thosefound the

among Filipinolanguage
dyslexics
in Grade3 where
the two groupsdifferedon manyskills.

146
 Lilown, DýfticullWN

Table 5-4. t-scores between Eni-dishhnmi; wo Dx,zhwicr l

-in,
Tasks Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
Dyslexics n= 7 5 6 6
Control it = 30 25 26 25
English Word reading 8.73 r*: ý 52"'
-4.7 - -6 -2.8P,**
English Spelling - 4.51-1**
-8.1TI*:r
English Sentence 1.45
-2.7V" -3.59***
comprehension (.161)
E'nglishnonword reading 15
-3.75*1`1 -.
(.882)
English Plionernetapping
-2.27;:"--* -1.09
428) (.284)
Enghsli syllabletapping W) 1.18
- -2.24", -2.65***
(530) (.273
English rapid visual picture 6.01 2.69" 3.22-4*
-2.08-1ýý
English rapid visual colour [Link]'-I* LOS 2.55*
narning (.288)
_Enghshword span 14
-2.40"1"', -. -1.02 -1.04
891) (.318) (.305)
Enghshfisteningcomprehension 1.11 ----(.
-1.93 -1.93 -1.11
C! (.278)
Fihpu-ioWord reading -**
-5.262", -1870 -2.899ýý* -1.515
Filipino SpAng -4.970*** -2.095"- -1.984
(.056)
Filipino Sentence 11:;:
-5.349: 019" 604
-.
comprehension (.551) (.103)
Filipino nonword reading -*
-6.375*:, 333
-. -1.143 -596
(.742) (.262) (.556)
Fifipino Phonemetapping -2.212*: 606
-. -1.397 -1.019
549) (.173) (.317)
Filipino syllabletapping -2.415ý; A,
-2.498ý, 518
.
(.608)
Fihpino rapid visual picture 2.599* P, -1.426
narning (.0(, 1) (.165)
Filipino rapid visual colour 3.526"" 2.073*
-1.005
naming (.323)
Filipino word span ---- :-27964'* 842 324 564
-. -. .
(.407) (.748) (.577)
Filipino 1-istening
comprehension 460 _
-1.892 -. -1.266
ýo7) LO69L (.648) (.215)
Rhythin tapping 13 53-. - 30
-3.17'-** -. -. -.
(.896) (.599) (.764)
Visual shapememory ' 84
-3.16**-, -1.48 -1.85 .
(.151) (.075) (.406)
Block design 1.83 -.96 21-
-. -63
(076) (.347) (.836) (.534)
picture storles q
1.02 I1 T5
-1.61 I.ý25 1.34
(.318)I 26 9) (191)
-p<. 05 P<. Ol P<. 00 I _(

147
 LiIc'raci L)///iciilties

Grade 4 comparisonsindicatebetter performanceby the chronologicalagematched

control group on measuresof sentencecomprehensionIn both languages,English

nonword reading,syllabletapping and rapid nanungof picturesin addition to word
readingand spelling. They alsodiffered in Filipino spelling,syllabletapping and
colour [Link] is alsoworthy to note that three additionalmeasuresapproached
significant in terms of the differencebetween the two groups:ie, Filipino word
reading,and listeningcomprehension
in both languages.

Grade 5 English languagedyslexicswere outperformedby the chronologicalage

matchedcontrols on measuresof word reading,syllabletapping and rapid colovir

nanungin both languages.
English sentencecomprehension,nonword reading,
phonemeand,rapid namingof picturesalso differentiatedbetween the groups.
English listeningcomprehension,and Filipino spellingand rapid picture narningall

approachedsignificancewith p-valuesaround 0.06

Sixth gradecomparisonsshow that that the averagereadersin English perforn-led

better than the dyslexicson the Englishword readingtest and the spellingmeasures
in both [Link],the dyslexicswere fasteron the rapid

nan-ungmeasures,particularlyin Englishwhere they weresignificantlyfasterthan the

controls. This finding deviatesfrom those found from Grade 3 to 5 wherethe
dyslexicshad slowervisualnamingspeedsand seemscontraryto much of the

researchreported (eg,
Wolf et al, 2000)in the introduction to the different sections
of this thesis.

The seriesof analysesreportedin this sectionaimedto identify the distinguishing

of
characteristics children with dyslexiain Filipino or English m companisonto same
ageaveragereaders. Overall, more cognitive tasksdifferentiateEnglish language
dyslexicsfrom their averageability peersthan found for the Fihpino-based

groupings. This is particularly for

apparent higher grades. Indeed,Filipino clyslexics
becamemore like their sameagepeersasthe gradeswent higher.

Another interestingfinding worthy of note is the lack of consistencyIn the measures

that differentiatethe groups,apart fron-ithe classificationof measuresof word
readingand spelling. For instance,
only Filipino nonword readingdistinguishesthe

148
 Liieruri 1)itIIiehi.

two groups throughout the first three grade levels in Filipino. In English, also until
fifth grade, English sentencecomprehension and nonword reading aswell as Filipino

colour narrUngseparatethe dyslexics from the controls. Although rapid visual

namingin English be
could arguedto distinguishthe English-based
groups,the
findings for Grade6 arecontrary to the predictedand found in previousgrades(le,
Grade 6 dyslexicsproducefasternaming times).

Another interestingfinding is that neither of the two phonologicalsegmentation

tasksconsistentlydifferentiated between the dyslexic and control groupsacrossthe
gradelevels. However, tapping significantly
sýyllable differentiatedbetweenthe two
groupsin both languagesin the comparisons betweenthe English huiguagedyslexics

and controls at Grade 4 and 5. In the equivalentcomparisonsamong dyslexicsand

the Filipino language, it was only in Grade 3 that syl-lable tapping
controls in
differentiated between the two groups in both languages. Phoneme tapping in

English was also a significant identifier for this grade level and it's Filipino language

ficancc with a p-value of 06 1.

counterpart only approached signi .

It can be alsoconcludedthat there is a greaternumber of cognitive skillsthat

differentiatebetweenthe dyslexicand sameagecontrolsin the Englishlanguagethan

there arein the Filipino [Link] findings show different patternsdepending

the languagein which a child is dyslexic. They deviatefrom the predictions

on
articulatedon the basisof studies done with monolingual populations. However, this
data that pertainto Filipino. The English language dyslexics
is more evidenton the
the literature. It be
in this studyadheremore to the predictionsarticulatedin can
therefore,that characterising clyslexiam these two languages implicates
inferred
different processesdependingon which languagea cUd is dyslexicin. This has
be
and screeningproceduresand may particularly
implicationson assessment
when one of the languages has a more transparent orthographythan the
important
other.

149
 Litcracl, INflicullics

4. Comparisons with Younger Nondyslexic Average Readers

4.1. Selecting the control group

An issue for any research into the underlying factors that are associated-with dyslexia
i

is whether they can be claimed to be causesof the literacy difficulties or not.

Showinga relationshipbetweenpoor literacyskills and a cognitive/linguisticdeficit
doesnot distinguishbetweenthe deficits producingthe literacyproblemsor poor
literacyleadingto the deficits. One way of arguingagainstthe latter possibility is to

comparethe performanceof normal and disabledreaders/speflers who are

equivalentin terms of their literacyskills - le, comparea group of dyslexicswith a
youngergroup of averagereaders (Bryant & Bradley,1985).TI"nsprocedurewas
followed in this section. Given that the majority of clyslexic/controldifferencesin

the previoussectionwere found amongGrade3 cHdren, younger readingage

matchedcomparison groupswere sought for these first.
clyslexics Grade 1 average

readerswereidentified asperforming at the samereading level as Grade 3 dyslexics.

The separationof two gradelevelswas duplicatedfor subsequentgradesto avoid the

samecontrols being usedin different [Link] led to readingagematched

controls, two gradesbelow the for
dyslexics, most comparisons. The exceptionwas
for Grade6 Filipino [Link] thesedyslexicsdid not differ greatlyfrom
here
chronologicalagematchedcontrols, comparisonsarepresented for discussion

purposesrather than to assess

possiblecauses.

The procedureof selectingaveragereadersto form the youngerset of controls

involved selectingchildren two gradelevelsyoungerthan the dyslexics

who do not
differ on singleword reading. This was done by selectingyounger readerswhose

word readingand spellingscoreswere within the samerange of scoresasthe dyslexic

group that they were being matchedwith. For example,the rangeof scoresin the
Filipino word readingtask of the Grade 3 Filipino languagedyslexicswas 14to 45.
Therefore,Grade 1 children whosescoresalsofell within this rangewere selected.
From amongthesechildren, average(or better)perfornierson block design,listening
The
comprehensionand picturesstorieswere screenedout. remainingchildren
The dyslexic
comprisedthe younger nondyslexiccontrol group. groupsremainedthe
same. Table 5-5 displaysthe number of individualsin eachgroup acrossthe grade
levels.

150
 Literac. ), Difficullies

Table 5-5. Frcqucn(ý- oi d

"I. 1-cad"'L ýc matched control gl-01
Grade Filipiiio_____ n, lisb
Reading Age _ Reading Age
Dyslexic 11)),
slcxic
Match-
3 14
4 13 63 5 31
5 15 59 6 23
6 9 70 6 57
levels vouneer

4.2. Data analyses procedure

The aini of the comparisonsconductedin this sectionwasto identify the cognitive

skills that differentiatedbetweenthe dyslexicandthe readingagematchedcontrol

groups. Independent samplest-testswere usedto identify the measuresin which the
two groups differed.

4.3. Results and Discussion

This sectionvqfl report on the findings basedon the t-testsconductedto compare

the dyslexicsand youngeraveragereadersin this sample. The meansand standard

deviationsfor eachcomparisoncan be found in AppendixC. Predictionsbasedon

monolingual studiesposit that comparisonsbetweenolder dyslexicsandyounger

readingagematchedcontrols would enablethe isolationof a small number of
variablesthat would distingu-ish
betweenthe dyslexicandyoungernondyslexic
reader.

The analysesconductedshowsthat fewer skillsdistingulish betweendyslexicsand the

than the sameage control groups particularly for Grades
youngernondyslexicgroup
3 and 4. An important note is that asa generalpattern,the groupsof older dyslexics
were better at the block designmeasurethan the youngercontrols though someof
the differencesin meanscoreswere not significanton the independentsamplest-
testsconducted. Another featureof Table 5-6 and 5-7 is that skills in which the
dyslexicsoutperform the youngercontrols arenot highlighted;only those wherethe
dyslexicsare worsethan the controls are relevantto the current [Link] 5-6
for the involving
analysis Filipino language dyslexics.
showsthe results

151
 Liwi-aci,

Tablc 5-6. I-scores Filipuio dyslexics vs. readint! avc mitclied controls
Tasks Dyslexics n= GO = 14 Gr4 = 13 Gr5 = 15 Gr6 =9
Control 11= Gr1=44 Gr2=63 Gr3=59 GH = 70
FilipMo Word reading -1.096 -1.324 -1.842
) 7,ý') (. 190) (.070)
Filipillo Spellmg -(. 2.472 701 - --1-.0-53
-. -1.280
(.485) (.205) (.296)
FilipMo Sentence 845 177 262 1.176
-. -. .
(.402) (.708) (.764) (.243)
_comprehension
Filipino nonword reading 014
-1.607 -w2.342`1- -. 515
(. 114) .
(.608)
Filipino Phoneme tapping 293 266 1.348
. -L-190 .
(.771) (. 140) (.791) (. 182)
Filipmo syl-labletapping -. 905 1.499 366- 255
. -.
(.369) (. 138) (.715) (.799)
Fihpmo rapid visual picture -. 517 1.075 519-
-. -1.197
naming (609) (. 286) L606j (.235)
Fihpuio rapid visual colour 270 579 240 _
. -. -. -2.437"
mining (.788) (. 564) (. 811)
Filipino word span -1.439 -. 284 1.239 2.610*
(. 156) 777) (.219)
.
Filipino listening 2.975" 063 295 528
-. -. .
comprehension (.950) (.769) (.599)
English Word reacting -1.233 053 476 239
. . .
(.223) (.958) (.635) (.812)
English Spelling 013 1.095 941
-1.516 . .
(. 135) 990) (.277) (.350)
.
English Sentence 109 -. 503 465 1.546
. .
comprehension (. 913) (. 612) (. 643) (. 126)
English nonword reading -1,888 -. 739 276 798
. .
(.064) 462) (.783) (.428)
English Phoneme tapping -. 005 504 616 363
. . .
(.996) (.616) (.540) (.717)
English syllable tapping -. 240 1.060 194 782
. .
(.8 11) (.293) (.846) (.437)
English rapid visual picture 2.127' 415 -1.098
. -1.656
narning (679) (. 276) (. 102)
English rapid visual colour 797 036
-. . -2.336" -2.399'
narning (.429) (. 971)
English word span -. 355 -. 141 308 1.706
.
(.724) (.888) (.759) (.092)
English listening comprehension 1.118 -. 424 1.490 976
(.268) (.673) .
141) (.332)
.
RI-lydim tapping 448 -. 279 1.524 963
-. .
(.656) (.781) (. 132) (.338)
Picture stories 1.792 763 1.077 1.925
.
(.079) (.448) (.285) (.058)
Visual shape memory 576 388 3.459,ý",,, 669
. . .
W) (.699)
Block design 2.58P 1.718 1.586 2.838'""'
090 (. 11o)
.
<. 05 P<.Ol :,,
"`-P<. 001

152
 Literacy Difficulties

Dyslexicsandthe youngernondyslexicaveragereadersin the Filipino languagedo

not vary consistentlyon [Link] Grade 3, the two groupsdiffered

Filipino spellingwith the controls performing better than the
significantlyon
dyslexics;this wasdespitethe selectionprocessthat identified controlswith scores
by the dyslexics.
on word readingand spellingwithin the rangeof scoresproduced
This procedurestill led to a higher meanscoreamongstthe controls in spelling,

though reading level wasnot significantly different. Interestingly, despite their lower
dyslexics; better on the measureof Filipino listening
spelling ability, the performed
'I'his suggeststhat their general language skills in Filipino was
comprehension.
developingaheadof their ability to spell in the samelanguage.'Me only underlýng
to differentiatedyslexics and readingagecontrols such
cognitive-linguisticmeasure
it be
that might arguedasa potential causeof the poor readingskills ratherthan a
was rapid visualnaming. T'his was the ability to namepictures in the
consequence
language,however. Poor speeded processing in one language leadingto poor
other
in pathway. Another possiblecausal
readingskills anotherseemsan unlikely causal
factor was nonword reading,which approachedsignificanceat the 0.05level,though
readingin the other This
language. point will be returnedto
again,this was nonword
later.

In Grade 4, the onlyskillthat differentiatedbetweenthe two groups is Filipino

nonword reading. As in the same agecomparisons,the average readers

the [Link],this measurefailsto distinguish between
outperformed
levels. Indeed, noneof the Filipino language measures
the groupsat othergrade
differentiatedbetweenthe Grade5 dyslexics; andtheyoungernondyslexic controls
naming in Englishwhere the dyslexics the
outperformed
exceptrapidcolour
The olderdyslexics
werealso betteron the visualshapememory measure.
controls.
Grade 6 Filipinolanguage dyslexicsscored less than the younger controls in Filipino
indicatingthat the selectioncriteriafailed to produce reading-age
word reading,
though as argued in section4.1 of this chapter (Selectingthe
matched controls;
treated asa problem for interpretation. On the Filipino
control group)thiswasnot
in both languages, the dyslexics
word spanandthe rapidvisualnamingof colours
betterthan the controls. The difference between the two groups on the
performed
Englishword spanapproached
significance.

153
 Literacy Difficulties

Table 5-7 presentsthe findings of analysesinvolving English [Link]

shows that again(with the exception of Grade 6), fewer skills arehighlightedby the
analysiswhen comparedto the chronologicalagematchedcomparisons.

Grade3 Englishlanguagedyslexicswere significantlypoorer in Filipino nonword

readingthan the youngercontrols. Like the resultsfound in the analysisinvolving

Filipino languagedyslexics,nonword readingin the other languagedistinguishes
betweenthe two groups(this time, the differenceis statisticallysignificant). English

sentencecomprehension, listening comprehension in both languages

and picture
storiesshow better performance by the dyslexics.

in Filipino,the Grade4 Englishlanguage

Like theircounterparts dyslexics;
wereset
apartfrom the by
youngercontrols nonwordreading. Again,this is similarto the
analysisinvolvingFilipinolanguagedyslexics;
andcontrolswherea decoding measure
in the samelanguage differentiatedbetweenthetwo [Link] reading

andspellingand Filipino listening both

comprehension approached significance.

For Grades5 and6, Englishspellingdifferentiatedbetweenthetwo [Link]

of the otherskills between
distinguished the two groupssuch that theycouldbe

considered factors the

underlying poor readingskills. Indeed,the only other
significantmeasuresindicated
that the dyslexics
significantlyoutperformed their
youngerpeers.

154
 Lifermy Difflculiics

Tabic 5-7. t-scoresEnrlisli dvsleacsvs. readirivapematchedcontrols

Tasks Dyslexics n GO =7 Gr4= 5 Gr5 =6 Gr6= 6
Control n Gr1=14 Gr2=31 GH = 23 Gr4=57
English Word reading 360
. -1.958 -1.819 -1.660
(.723) 059 (.080) (. 102)
.
English Spelling 1.689 -1.744 3.3 13
-2.295" -
(. 108) (.090)
English Sentence 2.049" 950
-.
comprehension (401ý 195) (.359)
English nonword reading 479 738 1.591
-2.499". .
37ý_ 467) (. 117)
English Phoneme tapping _LO
000 537 _(. 031
. . -1.479 .
(1.000) (.595) (. 151)
English syflablc tapping 1.175 037 515 1.318
-. -.
(.254) (.971) (.611) (. 192)
English rapid visual picture 1.101 121 709
. . -2.071"
narning (.285) 904 (.484)
- English .
rapid v1sua-Icolour -1.296 -. 520 1.187
-3.019""
narning (.210) (.606) (.246)
_English 988 817 025 580
word span . . -. .
(.336) (.420) (.980) (.564)
English listening comprehension 2.853"" -. 435 1.051 129
-.
(.667) (.303) (.898)
1-ihpiiio Word reading -. 266 188
-1.303 -. -1.024
(.208) (.792) (.853) 310
.
Pilipino Spelling 090 418
. -1.405 -1.129 -.
(.929) (. 169) 269 (.677)
.
Filipino Sentence 922 -1.304 -. 167 200
. .
comprehension (.201) (.869)
_Filipino 189 483 1.333
nonword reading -3.679*"-' .
(.851) (.633) (. 187)
Filipino Phonerne tapping 515 047 -. 590 324
-. . .
(.612) (.963) (.560) (.747)
Filipino syl-labletapping 1.148 385 -. 014 829
. .
(.265) (.703) (.989 (.410)
Filipino rapid visual picture 711 487 1.245
-. -. -1.683
(.486) (.630) (.098)
muning
Filipino rapid visual colour 173 542 166
-. . . -2.291"
(.865) (.591)
nan-iing
Filipino word span -. 437 120 968 2.10 Pl
. .
(.667) (.905) (.342)
Filipino listening comprehension 3.193" -1.937 443
-1.406
.
(.061) (.662) (. 165)
Wiythrn tapping 173 800 1.835 1.003
-. .
(.864) (429) (.078) 320
.
Picture stones 3.272*` 724 1.226 1.923
.
(.474) (.231) (.059)
Visual shape memory 967 -. 207 877 1.526
. .
1-16) (.838) 388)
.
Block design 4.128" --- 742 1.5 3.511
.
(.463) (. I 15)
i)<O5 p<. Ol

155
 Literacy Dijficulties

Comparisonsbetweendyslexicsandyoungeraveragereadersdo not isolatea specific

pattern of difficulty that the dyslexicsexperiencewhich their younger peersdo not.

The Filipino languageand English languagedyslexicsvaried from their controls on
different [Link] there is a hint that phonologicalprocessingmakesa
distinction betweenthe groupsin Grades3 and 4 but this is limited to decodingonly.
It is interestingto note that though there is no indicationof a specific measurethat

separates the dyslexicsfrom the youngernondyslexiccontrols,the analyseswitl-ýn

eachgrade level (with the exception of Grade5) aresimilar between the two language

groups. This may indicate that the childrenwho comprise the dyslexicgroups in

eachgrade level probably got selectedas dyslexicin both languages, though the larger

number of dyslexics selectedfrom the Filipino data suggeststhat this be

cannot the
for
only reason any similarities.

The aimof this sectionwasto identifythepotentialunderlyingcognitiveand

linguisticskillsthat distinguishbetweenchldrenwith singleword difficultiesand
do such
childrenwho not experience difficulties.
Two typesof controlgroupsthat
havebeenextensively in
used previousstudieson dyslexia
conductedamong
with
monolingualpopulationswerecompared the dyslexic
[Link] first control
groupwasmadeup of sameageor samegradechildrenwho werenot significantly
in termsof scoreson listeningcomprehension,
differentfrom the dyslexics picture
storiesand block design. Previous has
research shownthatnumerouscognitiveand
linguisticskillswill differentiatebetweenthesetwo [Link]
the findings of the presentanalysis. However, a decreasing
numberof measures
acrossthe grades between
distinguished thetwo groups.

Thesecondtypeof controlgroupinvolvedchildrenwhoweremembersof grade

levelsat leasttwo [Link] childrenarereferredto as
theyoungernondyslexiccontrolgroup. Ibis procedureentailedthe selectionof
to
childrencomparable the dyslexic in
children termsof singleword processing
but
ability who were two grade levels [Link] of the resultsof these
comparisonsagainfailedto identifya or
cognitive linguisticfactorthat mightbe
for dyslexics' difficulfies.
responsible thý reading

156
 Literacy Dijji'culties

producedresultsthatvariedfrom onegradelevelto another

Overall,the analyses
within a language
indicating
that thereis no discernible
patternof difficulties
that can
be arguedasthe distinguishing of the dyslexicFilipino-English
characteristic
in thisstudy.
bilingual-biliterate

Onepossiblereasonfor thelackof a consistent

patternin the causesof dyslexia
among the childrenin this sample is their beingbilingual-biliterate.
This is evidenced
in Grade3 wherethenonwordreadingtaskin onelanguage discriminated children
with readingproblems in the otherlanguage. This could imply that at this gradelevel
the childrenin this ratherthan cueinginto the
studyrelymoreon centralprocessing
unique of
characteristics a language
for reading
and it.
spelling

Finally,anarbitrary15%andbelowcut-offon both theword readingandspelling

scoreswas used to the
select childrenin each level.
grade This mayhaveincluded
childrenwho were not havingprofound difficulties
in singleword processing.
Indeed,the relativelylargenumberof Filipinolanguage dyslexics:
found by this
is
procedure consistent
with tl-ý[Link] that
suggest thereshouldbe
between5- 10percentof dyslexicswithin a population(Smythe
& Everatt,2000)
whereasthe percentagefor Filipinolanguage in
dyslejdcs muchlarger
in thisstudy
(seeTable5-1). To addressthis,a 10%andbelowcut-offscorewasimplemented
[Link] this seriesof analyses
werenot dissimilar
to the resultsalready
despite
presented, theuse of a stricter
cut-offpoint leading
to fewerdyslexics
being
for
selected eachgradelevel (seeAppendix D).

5. Single Case Profiles of Cognitive and Linguistic Performance

Theprevioustwo sectionsof this chapterpresented

comparisons betweendyslexic
groups.
andnondyslexic Neither adequately a
portrayed specific
patternof deficitsin
the underlying factors included in the that
analyses might have indicatedthe probable
causesof the literacydifficultiesexperienced by the dyslexics. One possible
explanationis that differentdeficits leadto reading difficultiesand thesevary from

childto child. Previous studiesprovide strong that

arguments dyslexia
canmanifest
differentlyin differentchildren(seeMiles,1993;Miles& Miles,1999).Brooks&

157
 Literacy Difficulties

Everatt (submitted)havesuggestedthat analysinggroup performanceof children

experiencingliteracyproblemsat the level of the singleword on cognitiveand

linguistictaskscan be [Link] scoreson underlyingskill measures
are
combined for a group of children,one childs strengthcould equaliseanotherchild's
weakness in the for
computationof a group statistic a specificmeasure.'Ihe lack of
an obvious pattern for distinguishingdyslexicsfrom in
nondyslexics the group
comparisons in the presentstudymaymean that indeed spuriousaveragesmay have
beencomputedfor the cognitiveand linguistic measuresbecausethe literacy
difficulties of the children in the dyslexicgroupsmay be causedby different

underlyingdifficulties. This point of view justifies the adoption of singlecase

analysesso that literacydifficulties in the current sampleof bilingual-biliterate

children can be better understood. Other studies,which haveemployedsinglecase

analysis,have used it to identify different causalfactorsbased on theoriesof literacy
difficulties (Snowling,2000). Predominantlyusedin neuropsychologicalresearch,

singlecases have beenused to demonstratethe effectsof instruction on phonological

skills development for
aswell as monitoring progress (Reason and Morfidi, 2001).

the ideathat assessment

Thestudyof singlecasesalsostresses shouldincludea wide
spectrumof measuresthat havebeenimplicated in literacydevelopmentin orderto
improvethe chances of identifying
the areaof deficit, to for
and providesupport this
factor
potentialcausal from multiplesources. The measures in
used the current
research providesucha spectrumof cognitiveand [Link] categories
of literacydifficulties in for
presented this sectionprovideevidence the viewthat
literacydifficultiesarerelatedto (andhencemightbecausedby)differingunderlying
factors.

5.1. Method

1. Instruments

Thedependent variables in
areword readingandspelling EnglishandFilipino,whilst
all the other are
variables regardedas that
variables influence
literacy.A criterionof
onestandard deviationbelow the meanwasusedto indicatethat the childhaspoor
literacyabilityin oneor bothlanguages.

158
 Literacy Dijficulties

Severalfactorswereconsideredaspotentialcauses
of literacyacquisition
problems:
by blockdesignandpicturestories;2) comprehension
1)generalability,asmeasured
by
skillsmeasured picturestories,sentence
comprehension andlistening
3)
comprehension; lexical
accessandrapidvisualnamingbasedon rapidcolour
namingandrapidpicturenaming;4) memoryincorporatingvisualshapememory,
rhythmtapping,andword span; 5) phonologicalawareness, by phoneme
assessed
tappingandsyllabletappingscores;6) decodingability,asassessed
by nonword
These
reading. have
variables been describedin detail
in Chapter2 (General
Methods).Therelationshipof thesevariables
to poorliteracyis described
in the next
sectionsof this chapter.

5.1.2. Data analysis procedure

The childrenincludedin thesecategories aremembersof Grade 3 or 4 soasto avoid

possibleceilingeffectson Filipinoword readingat Grades5 and6. Individualcases
wereanalysed usinginspection of literacy,
cognitiveandlinguistic
profiles(described
below).Sixcategories of literacydifficulties
wereidentifiedbased
on poor
performancein different [Link]
are
discussedin thesucceeding sectionstogetherwith representativesinglecaseprofiles,
whichillustratethe relationships
of cognitiveand linguistic
skillswithin each
is anappendixof othersinglecase
[Link] mostof the categories
profiles. The have
categories been to
arranged emphasise similaritiesanddifferences
in the characteristics by
presented these The for
categories. procedures
these
accomplishing categorisations to
aresimilar thoseof Rack(1997)andare
(seealsoWes, 1993;Thomson,
typicalof currentpracticein dyslexiaassessment
2001).

5.1.3. Description of the graphs

Eachgraphpresents the fiteracy,cognitiveandlinguisticskillsprofileof a single

child. The scoreson theteststhat measured thesesIdllsweretransformed to
standardscores (z-scores)based on the performance of childrenin the samegradeas
the [Link] the x-axisof eachof the following graphsis the rangeof
measures the
used,whilston y-wdsare the levelof skillsacquiredin eachmeasure

159
 Liferac Dýfficllllics

basedon the z-scorcs. A markerindicatesthe specificz-scoreproducedby the

individual caseon [Link] make the graph more readable,

a heavyblack
line empliasisesthe mean(z = 0) for eachof the [Link] the range
for
of +1 or -I arewithin the averagerange the gradethat the singlecaseis taken
from. If a child scoresbelow the -1 line, their ability in this measureis treatedas
the range of abilities for their grade. A specificdeficit in that skill
worsethan average
be Interpretations of such potential deficits are based
may, therefore, apparent. on
the literature outhned in the thesis and evidence for
an,understanding of
corresponding deficits in related ineasures.

The tasksare labelledin the sameabbreviatedform on all graphs. For reference,the

legendis presentedin the tablethat follows.

Table 5.8. Leý,,

eiid for the graphs showing single caseprofiles
bbiRv
-A
EWR Ený,,IishIN
word reading
ESPL English spelling
ESentence Ený,Iish sentencecomprehension
ENW nword reading
EPT En lish lionernetapping
EST Ilabletapping
EPictures English rapid visualnarningof pictures
EColours English rapid visualnarningof colours
EWS English word span
ELC English listeningcomprehension
FWR Filipino word reading
FSPL elling
FSentence Filipino sentencecomprehension
FNW Fill ino n nword reading
FPT Fili ino honemetapping
FST Filipino syl-labletapping
Hictures Filipino rapid visualnan-ungof pictures
FColours pid visuJ narningof colours
FWS ord span
FLC Jýiilipino listeningcomprehension
RT Rh hm tapping
vsm Visual sha c memory
PS Picture stories
Blocks Block Design

160
 Literacy Difficulties

5.2. Resu Its and Discussion

This sectionpresentssixcategoriesof literacydifficulties.

Singlecaseproffles:are
presentedand discussed for eachcategory.

5.2.1. Literacy difficulties related to general ability problems

It hasbeenarguedthatwithin a bilingualpopulation,generalabilitydifficulties
influenceliteracyability(Momson,2001)whUstotherssuchasStanovich(1991)
that
argue generalabilityshould not be considered asanindicationof literacy
developmentor skills. The singlecasesincludedin thiscategoryhavepoor
on
performance block design. However, different
patternsof behavioural outcomes
areshown in the profiles In
selected. some children,literacydifficulties
simultaneouslyoccurwith poor generalability. Two of the in
singlecases this
category,namely Child 319(see
Appendix E) andChild 324(see Figure5-1),perform
poorlyin both Filipino andEnglish
word readingtasksaswell asnumerousother
cognitive andlinguisticskills,althoughgeneralabilitydifficultiesmay alsoleadto
literacyproblemsin the secondlanguage only (see profilesof Child 250andChild
317in AppendixE). In othercases, generalabilitylimitations affectcompetence in
oneor both languages without severelyimpacting
uponliteracy
in eitheras
demonstrated by the profilesof Child326(seeAppendixE) whoseEnglishlistening
is
score poor.
comprehension

Two of the singlecasesin this categoryarediscussedin [Link] first is Child 324

is II
who an -yearold female
childin Grade 4 who demonstrates numerous
difficultiesthat simultaneously
occurwith poor generalability. The secondsingle
case is Child 325 (see
Figure5-2)who is an 11-year
old male alsoin Grade 4 whose
low generalabilitydoesnot impactuponliteracyandotherskillsasgreatlyasChild
324.

Child324(Figure5-1)displayspoor performancein picturesstories,blockdesign

andnumerousskillsin both [Link] hasrelativestrengthsin

memory tasks
related namely visualshapememory andword spanin both languages.
rangeon theEnglishlisteningcomprehension
Shealsoperformedwithin the average

161
 Literacy Dijji'culties

taskandthe [Link]
and
rhythmtapping werealsobetter
than be
might expectedgiventhe generalprofile of
difficulties.

Child 324 scoredpoorly on word readingand spellingin both languageswith

relatively better performance in Filipino than in English. Sheshowsevidenceof

more difficulty in syllablesegmentationthan phonemesegmentationin both

languages,a finding contraryto the usualdevelopmentalprofile (seeChapter3 of

thesis). These segmentation deficits coincidewith poor lexical accessspeeds(ic,

rapid visual naming in both languages).

All thesefactors be
could saidto impose on
literacy acquisitionin both orthographies.

Child 324spoor literacyabilitiesin bothlanguages be

could attributedto poor
developmentof phonologicalawareness However,
abilities. the low performance on
of general
measures ability to
seems best
explain the patternof generaldeficitsin
of
numerousareas cognitive
andlinguistic
skills.

Figure5-2,on the otherhand,displaystheprofileof Child325who alsopresents

poor performance on blockdesign
and picture However,
stories. this generalability
difficulty onlyoccurssimultaneously
with poor scoreson Filipino listening

comprehension,word spanin both languages andEnglish [Link] profile is

for
evidence the that
argument generalabilitydoesnot alwaysaffect otherabilities in
the samewayasChild 324. Poor English is
spelling the only aspectof singleword
that
reading accompanies poor scoreson general The
abilitymeasures. two single
in
caseprofilespresented this section depict
different behavioural that
manifestations
accompany ability.
poor general The levelof literacyabilitiespresented
when
accompanied by low generalabilityindicates
thatotherfactorsaffectthe
developmentof literacyandthat generalabilitydoesnot alwayspredictthe manner
by which literacyskillwill developamongchildren.

162
 Literacy Dij riculties

2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
U
4
-7
0
U -8
C,)
-9
fJ4
4-0 44
P4 0

LI4 44
44 W

Fig. 5-1. ChUd324

1 1.4

1-4 ý. 4 -2pu0'. 4 ý F- F
t- ý,
4
..
uu
0 uu
a4 v &ý-p0ý ýý En
ý4
-,
'OU
:30 V)
W4
44 -4
u0
.. 4 (j r-4
"4

ig. 5-2. ChUd325

163
 Literacy Dijriculties

5.2.2. Literacy difficulties related to language comprehension difficulties in

both English and FYlipino

Thesesinglecasesshowchildrenwho havedifficultiesin literacyin oneor both

languages,
whichareaccompanied by difficultiesin pictureandlanguage

comprehension but have to

average goodscoreson block design. This setof profiles
with
areconsistent the predictionsarisingfrom Cummins' (1984)argumentthat
language
adequate whichmaytake
capabilities, from five to sevenyearsto develop,
be
may necessary beforeliteracy be
abilitiescan [Link]
of this setis
Child 343(seeFigure5-3),a femalefourth gradepupilwhoseperformance
on word
readingandspelling,sentence comprehension, nonwordreading,phoneme
segmentation, andword spanaremore than 1 deviation
standard below themeanin
both languages. In addition,shealsoperformedpoorlyin colournamingin English,

syllabletappingin Filipino,andrhythm [Link] scoresin listening

in
comprehension both languages,
aswell aspoor picturecomprehension,
these
accompany difficulties.

It is interesting skillsof
to notethatthe phonologicalawareness Child 343 in Filipino
in [Link] Filipino (the
arerelativelyworsethanthosepresented
first language)
mayimpacton literacyin both languages.
Another factor
contributing
be in both languages, together
with rhythm tapping is
appearsto word span which
Auditory spandeficitsarealsoknownto be to
related dyslnia (see
alsopoor.
Section5.1of this chapter).

Two othersinglecasespresenta similarprofileto Child 343 (see AppendixE).

do
However,they not revealthe same degree of difficultyin literacy
variesacrossthe
Child 320exhibitspoor performance only on spelling in English
whilstChild
group.
331hasdifficAes in English literacy
language but not in Filipino.

164
 Literacy Difjlculties

-2

-4
0 -5
u
lp
N -6 gn fA I-, I
-I ý, (U
,40F.U

>
Wu0
P4 -4 U

Fig. 5-3. Clild 343

5.2.3. Literacy difficulties in English related to English listening

comprehension

It hasbeenarguedthat poor literacyin a secondlanguage is dueto poormasteryof

the oral (Cumniins,
language 1984). This setof profilesmanifest for
support the
predictionarising from Cummins' that
argument adequate language that
capabilities
takesfrom 5 to 7 yearsto develop before
arenecessary literacyabilitiescanbe
in the
assessed second language.

in this categoryhaveaverage
All the singlecases to goodscoreson picturestories,
blockdesignandFilipino listeningcomprehension, wordreading,spellingand
sentence comprehension. 'Me literacy in
difficulties Englishthesechildren
occur
experience simultaneously výithpoor listening
comprehension in English.
Someof the childrenin this categoryhaveaccompanying difficultiesin phonological

segmentation whilst othershavememory span difficulties.A representative

profile
for bothwill [Link] descriptionconcursvýth the argumentof Cummins
(1984).However,it alsosupportsthe findingsof Everattet al (2000)that

165
 Literacy Dijficulties

can
phonologicalmeasures identifychildrenwith literacy
difficultiesamongsecond
language
readers.

Child344(Figure5-4)is a fourthgrademalewho displaysdifficultiesin word

reading, and
spelling sentencecomprehensionin English with accompanyingdeficits
in [Link] alsoevidence
in listeningcomprehension of somedegreeof
phoneme tappingdifficulty in Filipino. This profile is alsofoundin Child 288(See
AppendixE) who hasdifficultiesin thesameareaswith the additionof phoneme
in
tappingandcolournaming English.

, 4
i N W f lul ý , I I ý , 'o
1
- - a
i -w

P-4 u
0ý P. 4 V)
L) "
V) U
P-4
I- ýý En -
00
4d
V-4 0
u P4

114 V)

is
A similarprofile that of Child318(see
AppendixE). However,
this child also
like Child 330 presented in Figure 5-5 below.
presentsmemoryspanweaknesses
Child 330 (see
Figure5-5)presents difficulties
distinct in Englishlistening

and in
weaknesses all areasof memory:word span in both languages,
comprehension
7hough singleword readingabilitiesare
rhythmtappingandvisualshapememory.
English
range, sentence comprehension is [Link] plausible
within the average

166
 Literacy Difficulties

explanation for this is

relationship that the sentence
comprehensiontask involved
both linguisticunderstanding and the use of memory the
since word cards hadto be
to
sequenced createa coherentsentence. This however,
explanation, is consistent
with the viewthat oral difficulties
language in the language
second affectliteracy
in
abilities the same language.

u F- H-EUr,., j
V P-4
%I P-4 :3
0:36.4 c/) w
V,
W.. P64
ýL4

Fig. 5-5. Child330

5.2.4. Literacy difficulties related to Filipino listening comprehension

This categoryof singlecases presentsprofilesthat have average to goodperfornunce

and block design. The difficulties
literacy in both languages seem
on picture stories
Filipino listening An literacy
to be relatedto comprehension. explanation of poor -
by first language comprehension problems is not well discussed
acquisition provided
in the [Link], finding morethanonecase that has this profile is
in it
interesting that suggests that first language abilityaffectsliteracy in
not only the
first language but in
also the second language. Child 337 (see Figure 5-6)is

of this category.
representative

167
 Literacy Dijfzculties

Child 337 hasdifficulties in Filipino fisteningcomprehensionbut not English

listening [Link] generalability and memory qrpetasksarealsowithin

the averagerange. However, Filipino word readingis deficient aswell asspellingin

both [Link],English nonword readingand phonemetapping are

also poor. The literacy and phonologicalprocessing difficulties of this child may be
by his difficulties in listening in
comprehension the first language, especially
caused
linguistic be
skill can the foundation for the difficulties.
sinceno other

-1
C6

-3 lu f- ý_,
C/)U4
tj p-,
U)
cnuý -x
Fig. 5-6. Q@d337

Child 333(seeAppendixE) presentsaverysimilarprofileto Child337,although

in in
literacydifficultiesaregreater word readingthan spellingin Filipino. It is

possible thatthe children in this categoryarechildrenwho are pouringmore of their

learningthe English language or arealreadybetterat it thanthey are in
energy
[Link], it is possiblethatthesechildren haveEnglish as their first
language. They indicate the needto assess skillsin both languages (contraryto
also
of Gholarnain & Geva, 1999) sincedetermining the primary language
the procedures
depend than a consideration of home or family background. Given
may on more
that Child 337is lessskilled in Filipinolisteningcomprehension, it is interesting
that
is in
this relatedto problems single-word readingprocessing ratherthan tasksbeyond

168
 Literacy Difficulties

the level of the singleword. Sucha profile is consistentwith predictionsof dyslexia

and second languagelearning(seePeer & Reid, 2001). That is, dyslexiais relatedto
difficulties in masteringa secondlanguage,deficits in phonologicalskills and literacy

at the level of the singleword, but fewer literacy problemsoccur when context
supports reading. This categorymay provide support for this hypothesizedprofile;
though, the to
need assess languageskills directly, in orderto determinethe less
dominant language,is emphasized.

5.2.5. Reading comprehension difficulties

This categoryof singlecaseprofilesdemonstrates

that sentence comprehension
difficultiesin listeningcomprehension
difficultiescanoccurwithoutcorresponding
and/or generalability. Child349(see
Figure5-7)is anexampleof a singlecasewho
hasdifficulty in the sentence tasks
comprehension in bothlanguagesdespitehaving
scoreson listening that the
comprehension arewellwithin average rangeor better.
Flisperformancein all the othertasksis consistently with the
aboveaverage,
exceptionof English andFilipinoword span,
picturestories
andFilipino phoneme
tappingthat registeraslow average.

-1

:; Ww
rv-

V)
L ge
1-4
:3
:30:
-10:
ý4
p-L,
luj

4, ýL4
P-4
W4
C/5
44
"2
:jP
0
-. 4

u
P-4
0
uf-ýýV)
o-4 in4
-
P-4-%4

Fig. 5-7. ChHP349

169
 Literacy Dijficulties

Child 342, alsoa Grade4 male,(seeAppendix E) presentsa similar profile indicating

sentence comprehension difficulties that can be relatedto difficulties in picture

stories,phonologicalprocessing and lexicalaccess. Word spanperformancealso
approaches the cut-off mark of I standarddeviation below the mean. It may be the
in be
casethat poor performance sentencecomprehension,which cannot explained
by poor listeningcomprehension,can be explainedby the relativelylow scoreson

picture storiesandword span,asthese occur in both However,

cases. this requires
further evidencesinceChild 349 doesnot reachthe current study'scut-off criteria.
This possibilityis intuitivelyplausiblesincesentence
comprehension andthe picture
storiestasks,whichentailsequencing to idea,
of words/pictures createa coherent
andboth be to incorporated
may related processes in short-termmemoryspan.

5.2.6. Dyslexic Profiles

Four sub-categories
of dyslexics in
arepresented this [Link] be
However,therearecornmoncharacteristics
describedseparately. for eachgroup.
First,all of the singlecasesto bepresented haveaverage or betterscoreson the
measures of block design,picturestories,andlistening
comprehension in both
Second,dyslexiais defmedin thissectionaspoor performance
languages. in word
in
readingand/or spelling [Link] meansthatthe score
of a child mustfall below 1 standard from
deviation the mean.

[Link]. Dyslexic in both languages

Child 211(Figure5-8)is the only childin Grades3 and4 who presentstheprofileof

in
dyslexic both English andFilipino that adheres to the predictionlaidout in the
a
literature.
He haspoor literacy skillsin both languages though he has
monolingual
difficultiesin Filipino.
reading Child 211has difficulties
in word
morepronounced
and
spelling
reading, sentence comprehension that occursimultaneously with poor
nonwordreadingandsyllable [Link],rapidpicturenamingandword
belowthe cut-off score. Thisprofileindicatesthat the difficultiesof
spanarealso
Child 211aremostrelatedto phonological processesthat aremostrelatedto the
Filipino orthography,
[Link] English,Cud 211

presented in
difficulties word reading,spelling,andsentence that are
comprehension

170
 Literacy Difficulties

relatedto nonwordreading,phonemetapping,rapidcolournamingandword span.

Here,literacydifficultiesseemto berelatedto phonemesegmentation. It maybethe
casethat Child 2 11has difficulties
in segmentation
skillsthatvary betweenthe two
languages syllable for
level Filipino,phoneme levelfor English. This is
possibility
-
inconsistent
with currentviews expressedin the relevantliterature(ie, Goswarrý,
2000).

LP A

81 0 F-4 F- C'n U
ý E, F, ., V) L) u ,,
ý--4 0-4
P-4 0 P-4 P-4
P-1 cn 00ý: ý-4
ý-41 (n 14 1-14 0
V) 41 4-4
U0 P4 W ý4 ;4 -
0

P4

Fig. 5-8. CNId 211

[Link]. Dysleýdc in English only

Clild 253(Figure5-9)is the solechildin Grade3 and4 who presentsa clear-cut

dyslexia
only in [Link] hasaverage in
skills generalabilityand
profileof
listeningcomprehension in bothlanguagesbut hasdifficultiesat the singleword level
in [Link] difficultiesin [Link] English
literacyareaccompaniedby deficitsin lexicalaccess/visual
naming in both languages

aswell as Englishnonword reading. Rhythmtapping,

a measure
that requiresthe
is
childto repeatauditotysequences,alsopoor. Englishphonemetappingand
Filipinononwordreadingapproach
the cut-off score.

171
 Literacy Dijficulties

Child 253s cognitiveand linguistic profiles in Englishand Filipino seemto parallel

eachother. Though the skills in English are poorer than those in Filipino, the two
in both
lines show that the sameskills registerasrelativestrengthsor weaknesses
[Link] example,word readingis poorer than spellingin both languages.
This profile suggeststhat the difficulties of this child in underlyingcognitiveand
linguistic skills affect both languagesbut aremore pronouncedin English.
Investigatingthe bilingualprofile of this child alsohighlightsthat her listening
better in English than they arein Filipino giving basisfor
comprehensionabilitiesare
her difficulties language but
based, indicativeof
the conclusionthat are not general
dyslexiathat manifests in
profoundly the morecomplexorthography.

4-4 P-4
(U
W-4
u0
u
cu
C/)
44

[Link]. Dyslexic in Filipino only

Child 285 (Figure 5-10) has greater difficultiesin Filipino language literacythat
be difficultiesin generalor language ability. This
cannot attributedto childs
difficultiesin Filipinoliteracy arerelatedto difficultiesin phonologicalprocessing at
level by
asevidenced the low in
scores nonwordreadingandphoneme
the phoneme
in Filipino in
andnonwordreading English,
thoughnot aspoor..There
segmentation

172
 Literacy Dijficulties

is alsoevidenceof poor performancein Filipino rapid naming of colours. Filipino

word spanapproaches the cut-off mark However, the profile seemsconsistentwith

the view that phonologicalprocessing (particularlyat the level of the phoneme)leads
to decoding deficits and then to literacy problemsat the level of the individual word
(eg,Snowling,2000). The interestingaspectof the profile is that this causal
is
explanation evident in one language and not the other. However, the finding that
it is the "first" languagewhere deficits occur,and the orthographyis more regular,

are not consistentwith current viewpointson literacy deficits and multilingualism

(seePeer& Reid, 2001).

I-0

U P,
Zw
-2 -
0 -3
u

i4 --- f^

0
ý, 0W 1-4
P-4
=1 0 V)
:j0W. V4 4 >
t; -4 ýLq
0
Uu0 pq
(U A4

44 w C/)

Fig. 5-10. CEld 285

[Link]. Bilingual-bihterate Dyslexics

The final categoryof dyslexics

reported in this paper does fit
not anyof the
suggested profilesof dyslexics
in the literature. The threesingle in
cases this category
haveadequate general and language 'Mey
abilities. havedifficultiesin English
literacyat the levelof theword,whichcoincidewith difficultiesin
language
phonological processing suchasdecoding
and segmentation. Jus of
relationship
difficultiesis predictedin themonolingualEnglishliteratureandhasalsobeenfound

173
 Literacy Difficulties

in Child 253. The interestingfeatureof this categoryhoweveris that thesesingle

casesalso have specificdifficulties in sentence

comprehensionin Filipino. This may
be due to the differencein orthographicdepth betweenthe two [Link]
Filipino orthographyis much easierto decodethan the Englishorthography,perhaps

eventhose childrenwith dyslexiacould perform well in singleword readingtasks.

However, they arenot ableto sustainthe skill in connectedtexts, especiallywhen the
long. Furthermore, Filipino words are longerthan English words,
sentencesare
which may put a greaterload on processingresources.

Figures 5-11 to 5-13 displaythe three profiles that fit this description, is
which the
highest incidence the bilingual-biliterate
profile that seemsto presentthe amongst
dyslexicin Filipino and English.

2
1

-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6 IL4 'ur,
-r- lr--. -n ;4P1.41 "I" L",
"61
P4 .4 uj
ý: P. 0 P. V) :30 ,, 00V., W4
U) -
4ý
, ýw
Wv.,
.1ýWA
4)
4ý
41 -ý
u0
u0
V4 u
rj P-4
oj PL4
W4 W-4

Fig. [Link] 255

174
 Literacy Dijjz'culties

2
1
0

-1
.2
-3
Q
-4
-5 cn 2 V)
1-1 1.-,
j
,.. Q)
24 CA

Fig. 5-12. Child 297

coo
.I. . . ....
-3 J It
"Vu
W)fA
:j,
4.4
u

%..
(j) A

P.
U P-4
u.ý
ý4 44 0
s-4
V) 4 ýL4 f) u >
CU ý4
w
V4 4-
C: -4 U
(U
o PQ

V) r4.1
-4 4-4

Fig. 5-13. CEld 334

175
CHAPTER 6

GENERAL DisCUSSION

__

çar ccr(
rMi it
4i

. tI
gif
4
 CaneralDiscussion

This thesisinvestigated
the underlyingcomponentcognitive/linguistic skillsinvolved
in literacydevelopmentin the contextof a bilingual-biliterate
[Link] primý
aimwasto betterunderstand the factorsthat mightleadto literacydifficultiesor
clysiexiawithin this subjectgroup. The subjectsinvolvedwere 479 children from six
to thirteenyearsold who attend Philippine schools,which implement a Bilingual
EducationPolicythataimsto developlanguage and literacyin both Filipino and
English. Filipinois a transparent that
orthography sharesall 26 lettersof theEnglish
alphabetplusanadditionaltwo letters(i andný. The phonologyof Filipinohas five

vowel soundsand 23 consonants, all of whicharefound in or similar to the

phonologyof English. In both its spokenandwritten fon-ns, the sound-symbol
is
correspondenceconsistentandstraightforýrard. This language is alsousedto teach
health,
the coresubjectsof socialstudies,practicalarts, andphysicaleducation.
is
English the other language that childrenlearnfrom the first [Link] hasa deep
due to the inconsistentand complex mapping of its phonology to
orthography
writtensymbols. The English has
phonology more than 40 vowelsandvowel
21
combinationsand consonants. This languageis usedto teachmathematics and
Equaltime is for
allocated the teaching
of literacy,grammar, and literature
science.
in thesetwo languages basic
throughout education.

Ihe characteristics
of the childrenwho studyin Philippineschoolsareunique
because literacydevelopment in two languages This
occurssimultaneously. makes
different from moststudieson concurrentliteracy
development
the presentresearch
have involvedchildren who arenot immersed in the two writingsystemsfor
which
for instruction(see SectionI of Chapter 4). Furthermore,
the equalperiodsof time
differencein theorthographic depth of thetwo languages allows for
the
investigationson the effectsof the orthographicdepth in literacy development within

the samechild.

7he data in did fit the hypothesis

generated the presentstudy not always or
predictionsthat [Link] a presentationof summarised results
of this
this chapterbrings the
together conclusions derived acrossthe to
chapters
thesis,
in
insights thedevelopment of literacyamong bilingual
[Link]
offer new

177
 GeneralDiscussion

conclusionwill be statedand the that

cvidcncc them
support will betakenfrom the
findings
relevant in the variouschapters.

Threemainconclusions
arepresentedon the basisof [Link] first is that
theories
predominant on literacy
development generated on the basis
of monolingual
English-speaking do
cohorts not explaintheword reading,spelling,andsentence
comprehension among
processes the bilingual-biliterate
childrenin this study. This
is basedon the analyses in
reported Chapter3. Furthermore, it wasfoundthat
literacyskillsin Filipino andin Englisharepredictedby differentunderlyingskills-
Filipinoliteracyskillsarealmostentirelybasedon decodingprocesses
whilst English
literacyskillsseemto bebasedon phonological pluscomprehension
processes
[Link] Englishlanguage data the
alsosuggest possibilityof a cross language
between
relationship the underlyingsUls;thatpropel development
literacy in
This relationship,
bilingual-biliterates. was investigatedby comparisons
of inter and
intra,language
predictors,whichsuggested commonunderlyingfactors
in the
development of literacyin both languages.
However, literacy
although abilitiesin
both languages the transparent
arerelatedto the samecognitiveprocesses,
orthographyof Filipino enables development
theearlier of phonological in
skills this
language, in
which turn mayprovidethe basisfor the development of those
processesin [Link],
the secondmain of
conclusion this thesisasserts
hypothesis
thatthe centralprocessing andthe scriptdependent hypothesis are
explanationsof bilingual reading. in
Finally, literacy
examining
complementary
difficultiesamongthe childrenin this study,it wasfoundthat groupanalyses
dyslexics with same age or younger average readers did not provide
comparing
basis to characterisesingleword literacydifficulties in the presentsample.
sufficient
'Me lack from
of generalisation thegroupcomparisons justified the analysis of single
showed that literacydifficulties amongst bilinguals have several tiers of
cases, which
causes andmanifestations. The unique process of literacy development
possible
bilingual-biliterate
sampleimpactson the identification of difficultiesin
amongthis
both
literacy, at the levelof the singleword aswell asthe levelof text-based
The derived from theseassessments of literacy
difficultiesin
processing. conclusions
the two languages gives further for
evidence the conclusions thatthereare

178
 GeneralDiscussion

fundamental betweenthesebilingualchildrenandthoseassessed
differences in
cohorts.
monolingual This general is
perspective discussed
in subsequent
pages.

1. Literacy development among bilinguals is different from literacy

development among monolinguals.

7he theoriesthat explainwordreadingandspellingdevelopment among

monolinguals do not the
explain development
of the sameskillsin Filipino-English
[Link]
by this thesisindicatethatthedevelopmental
process
of literacyacquisitionfound in the Present bilingualsample is differentfrom that
proposed by the findingsof Marsh et al.(1981) andFrith (1985). Additionallysome
aspectsof the theories by
proposed Goswami& (1990)
Bryant and by Hooverand
herewhilstother aspects
Gough(1990)aredisputedby the datapresented aregiven
support.

Marshet al (1981)andFrith (1985)havearguedthatvisualprocesses propelthe early

developmentof literacyskills,citingresultsof studiesof monolingualEnglish
speakingcohorts. The present findingsdo not conform to theseviews. Ile results
suggestthat phonological skillsprovide
processing the foundationfor earlyword
readingandspellingdevelopment
in both [Link] is so
especially in Filipino,

whereinthe findingsindicate
that and
word reading spelling
abilitiescontinueto be
basedon phonologicalprocesses the
all throughout sixgrade levelsinvestigated.
Additionally,the Englishlanguage
dataseemto showtheoppositepatternto that

predictedbased on the derived

conclusions from monolingual
[Link]
(as
processes in the caseof
literacyskillswereprimarilyrelatedto phonological
Filipino),with contributionsfrom comprehension.'Me heightened
relationshipwith
visualskillsemergedonly in latergrades.

Theuniqueness of the developmental processof the Filipino-English bilinguals may

be explainedin view of the differencein the orthographies of the two languages, as
by the script dependent hypothesis. Ilteracy in Filipino, being themore
proposed
transparentof the two languages,was found to develop earlier
and fasterthanliteracy
in [Link] natureof the Filipino orthographycouldenablethe easy

179
 Ceneral Discussion

andfast its
acquisitionof sound-symbol correspondence,thusallowingwordsto be
accessedthroughthe sub-lexical or phonologicalroute. Thispossibilitywas
supported by the findings of the cross-language
analysesreportedin Chapter4. By
showing the developmental trendof nonword it
reading, was found that nonword
readingperformancein Filipino seemsto develop
earlierthanit doesin English;
nonwordreadingperformance in Englishdoesnot reachceilinglevelsin anyof the
six whilst
grades, Filipino nonwordreadingcomes to maximumasearlyas fourth
[Link] can, hazard
therefore, that sinceFilipinosharesa
the conclusion
proportionof the phonologyandorthographyof English,the childrenin thisstudy
may havebeen usingthe phonological they
processes were learningfirst in Filipino
in
to supportword readingandspelling [Link] findingsareconsistent with the
scriptdependent in
hypothesis that decoding ability faster
develops in thetransparent
orthographythanin a morecomplexsystemof grapho-phonological [Link]
the other language
hand, sldlIsin Filipino be
couldalso supporting the hastened

acquisitionof decodingskillsasscoreson the Filipino listeningcomprehension

measures were higher
than those in [Link] possibilitymeritsfurther
investigationandwill inform the understandingof the between
relationship language
the
abilitiesand underlyingskills that literacy
propel development in two languages.

for this conclusionaboutliteracydevelopment

Additionalevidence amongthe
in
children this samplecomes from thetestingof the predictionsof thephonological
representationshypothesis
(Goswarni & Bryant, 1990). It is predicted on the basisof
this theorythatphonologicalsegmentation skillsat the level of the syllableand
phonemewill developfasterin the transparentorthography than in thecomplexone.
the datafit [Link]
In this particularanalysis,
segmentation skillsadvancedmore rapidlyin Filipinothanthey did in English.
Anotherpredictionof thisviewpointthatis supportedby the presentdatais that
tapping
syllable performance will be better
thanphoneme tapping. Thiswas found
the
throughout grade levels.

hypothesis
However,the aspectof the phonologicalrepresentations thatwasnot
borneout by the bilingualdataconcernsthepredictedgreaterrelationshipbetween
and
phonemesegmentation word In
reading. the correlationalanalyses
conducted

180
 GencralDiscussion

(seeTable3.1in Chapter3) therewasevidencefor a greaterrelationshipbetween

wordreadingandsyllablesegmentation than between word readingandphoneme
[Link] wasparticularly
trueof Filipino. In English,the relationships
between
established the two segmentation tasksandwordreadingareat almost
levels
equivalent from first to fifth grade. At sixthgradethis changedsothat the
Englishlanguage dataresembled the findings in Filipino. Anotherseriesof
correlational to
conducted
analyses determinethe between
relationships word
reading,phoneme tapping,
and tapping
syllable in both languages
by (see
grade Table
3-5in Chapter3) showedthatin mostcases,syllabletappingwasmoreoften
to than
significantlyrelated word reading phoneme tapping. Thoughboth measures
in both languages in
related word reading mostgrades,it was
weresignificantly to
foundthat in secondgrade,Englishphonemetappingwasnot significantlyrelatedto
Englishword readingat all. Thesamewastrue for the [Link] both
instances, tapping
syllable in bothlanguages
[Link] Filipino,
word reading significantly
correlated with both syllable
and phoneme tappingin the
samelanguage. However, by sixthgrade tapping
syllable is morehighlycorrelatedto
word reading thanphoneme [Link] datashow that the
amongst children in
tapping
this study,syllable is morepredictiveof word readingperformancethan
phoneme tapping. The predictionsderivedfrom thephonologicalrepresentations
hypothesisareinconsistent with thesefindings, thatthis viewpointalso
suggesting
doesnot fully accountfor thenatureof literacydevelopmentin the bilingualchildren
in this study.

7he findingsregardingsinglewordprocessing led to the conclusionsthat the most

influentialtheoriesexplainingmonolingualliteracydevelopment do not accountfor
bilingualliteracydevelopment andthat the processes involvedin the development of
literacyin the two languages the
arenot necessarily [Link] explanationof text-
basedprocessing is alsomarkedby differencesbetweenthelanguages.
Basedon the
HooverandGough(1990)perspective,it waspredictedthatdecoding(eg,word

readinganddecoding)
andlinguistic
comprehension (eg,listening
comprehension)
skillswould both be significant
predictorsof comprehension
reading (eg,sentence
comprehension). 'Ms predictionis upheldby the Englishlanguage
data,
where
listening
comprehension large
contribute
nonwordreadingand andunique

181
 GeneralDiscussion

explanationsto the in
variance English sentencecomprehensionscores(seeTables
3.15 and 3.16in Chapter3). However, the Filipino languagedatadid not showthe
samelevel by
of explanationcontributed the two variables. Instead,direct leyjcal
accessand phonologicalskills predictedsentencecomprehensionin Filipino with
minimal contribution from comprehensionmeasures(seeTable 3-12 in Chapter3).

The fifth chapterof this thesisassessed

the identificationprocedures
usedto typify
dyslexiaamongmonolingualEnglishspeaking [Link]
to
created contrastthe cognitiveandlinguisticcharacteristicsof sameageor younger
with
nondyslexics those experiencingliteracy
difficultiesat the level
of the single
word. Althoughthe resultswere inconclusive, with differences
theywereconsistent
in the development
of literacy in
skills thetwo languages.
Whereasfactorsrelatedto
Filipino literacydifficultiesin Grades3 and4 werenonsignificantby Grades5 and6,
factorsrelatedto Englishliteracydifficultieswerestill significantby Grade5 andonly
becamenonsignificant by Grade6. Again,this suggests a differentdevelopmental
profile betweenthe two languages. 'Fhis is by
conclusion supported the singlecase
datathat indicatedthat difficultiesin the onescriptmaymanifestin a verydifferent
wayfrom thosefoundin the otherlanguage.
This point is discussed
furtherin
Section3 below.

2. The central processing and script dependent hypotheses are

complementary explanations of concurrent literacy development.

The centralor universalprocessing the

and script dependent hypotheseswere
to
subjected assessment in orderto the
explain interaction
of cognitive
and linguistic
skillsin the developmentof literacy among bilingual
children. 'Me seriesof tests
conductedprovided the basis for the conclusionthat the two hypotheses are
to the
complementary eachotheralthough majorityof the findingsweremore
consistentwith the central processinghypothesis
thanthe scriptdependent
[Link] particular,theresultsobtainedfrom the regression
analyses showthat
cIommon underlying skillspredictperformancein word readingskillsin both
languages. lbese,therefore,imply thatwhilstthe orthographies
of the two languages
differ, the under1yingskillsmeasured in the two languages
aresignificantlyrelatedto

182
 GencralDiscussion

For example, nonword reading in Filipino has almost equal correlational

each other.
statistics with English word reading and nonword reading, as well as Filipino word
Furthermore, the correlations between cognitive skills assessed in two
reading.
languages(eg, Filipino and English word span) are also significant (seeTable 4-4 in
Chapter 4). More evidence was derived from the stepwise regression analyses,which

the predictors of word reading in both languages. Both Filipino

assessed strongest
English word reading are best predicted by English nonword in
reading the
and
interlanguage analysesafter grade level and scores on block design were partialled
In the prediction of Filipino word reading, 30% of the predicted variance was
out.
by English nonword reading in the between-language analysesand by the
explained
Filipino measure in the within-language analyses(seeTable 4-6 in Chapter 4).

for
Anotherpivotalrationale the cross-linguistic relationship between the underVng
skillswas found in the on
chapter literacy difficulties
where the groupcomparisons
that difficulties in onelanguage may be caused by difficultiesin a cognitive skill
show
in language. For example, Grade 3 dyslexicsin Filipino could be
assessed the other
differentiatedfrom youngernondyslexic average by
readers rapidvisualnamingof
in English (seeTable5-6in Chapter5) whilstthe dyslexics in English
pictures
differed from theyoungercontrolson Filipino nonwordreading (see Table 5-7 in
Chapter5).

Ihe conclusionthat thetwo hypotheses

arecomplementary concurswith the
findingsreportedby Gevaandcolleagues(Geva& Siegel,2000,Gholamin& Geva,
in
1999) studiesof children learning
English language
with another such asPersian
or
Hebrew. This conclusionprovidessufficient basis the argumentposed
to challenge
by Cummins (1984)that literacyin the second language be
must allowed to develop
before any form of assessment is administeredusing this
to the point of mastery
This
language. perspective does
on assessment not find supportin the data this
has The insights
thatcan beinferred from analyses about literacy
thesis presented.
development and literacy difficulties among bilingual-biliterate
childrenindicate that
in both languages is of utmostimportancebecause the processesinvolved
assessment
development
in literacy in one language arealso involvedin the development of
in
literacy the other. This is in
mostrelevant the findingsaboutliteracy
difficulties

183
 GencralDiscussion

where it could be that

seen not all literacydifficulties be
could relatedto specific
problems in the language
of literacy. The profileof difficulties
indicatesthat dyslexia
canmanifest differently
in the two languages
(see
Figures5-11to 5-13in Chapter5).
Giventhat the Englishlanguage is a morecomplexorthography,
dyslexiain English
manifests in difficultiesat the levelof the In
singleword. contrast, despite the longer
the
word strings, easeof decoding Filipino leadsto fewer problemsat this levelbut
potentialdifficulties the
at sentence level.

This sectionof the discussion

hasunderscoredthe complementaryrelationshipof
underlyingcoreprocesses of
with aspects depth
orthographic in the understandingof
literacydevelopment its
and corollary [Link] waysto viewthis
[Link] the onehand,the findings in
presented this thesisprovidea stronger
basison whichto foundthis conclusionbecause the childrenin this studywere
developingliteracyskillsin the two languages with the benefitof equalteachingtime
for
andopportunities using their literacyskillsin school [Link] curriculurn
hasbeenin effectfor at [Link],childrenin the uppergradelevels
would have the
undergone samecurriculumwhen theywere in the lower gradesas
thoseassessed in Grades I to 3. Cohort that
effects, sometimes in
occur cross-
to
sectionalstudies,areunlikely explaingrade differenceswithin the currentdata.
However,it wouldbeinterestingto investigatedifferentteachingstrategiesandtheir
literacydevelopment amongstbilingualswho are learningtwo
effecton
orthographies depth.
-withvaryingorthographic In the caseof the in
children this
it
sample, moreis likelythat instructional
phonological strategies areusedto teach
literacyin bothlanguages, thoughthesestrategieswould differ greatlyacrossschools
and individualteachers.

derivedshouldbeunderstood
On theotherhand,theconclusions in thecontextthat
.thetwo languages
overlap in
considerably and
phonology [Link],
it
be
would prudentto Emitimplications the
of conclusionsderived
from thepresent
datasetto bilingualcontextsthatinvolveorthographies, thatoverlapin termsof
languagesounds andwritten symbols. language
Additionally, skillsin bothlanguages
be considered. The childrenin this samplehad higherscores on thelistening
should
comprehension measure in Filipinothan in English.
Furtherstudy to how
investigate

184
 GencraIDiscussion

languageability in a transparentorthographyaffectsliteracylearningin a language

with a more complex orthography would better inform the presentunderstandingof

biliteracydevelopment.

3. Methods of identifying literacy difficulties among monolinguals do

not characterise literacy difficulties among bilingual-biliterates.

Literacydifficultiesaretypifiedby comparinggroupsof childrenwho exhibitpoor

literacyabilitywith averagereaderson a rangeof measures,
which includecognitive
and linguisticskills. Monolingual studies
on literacydifficultiesat the levelof the
singleword have followed
traditionally two typesof contrastprocedures that
compare the dyslexic groupwith sameageor youngerreading level matchedreaders.
Thýisstudy,however,did not adhereto thetraditionaldiscrepancymethodof
identifyingdyslexics,
which incorporates IQ into
general measures the assessment
because of the strengthof the evidence identifying
phonologicaland languagebased
skillsbeingthe basisof Eteracy difficulties
regardlessof general
ability (Stanovich,
1988).Insteadof usingIQ or generalintelligence asthe standardagainstwhich
literacyabilitieswould be measured, the childrenwith literacydifficultiesin this study
werechosenon the basisof their comparative performance to their peergroup by
Groups
settingcut-offpointson wordreadingscores. werethen for
screened poor
performance in BlockDesign,listening andpicturestoriessothat
comprehension
thosewith scoresbelow onestandard deviation on thesemeasures wereremoved
T'hiswasin orderto controlfor generalability,language
from the analyses. and
comprehension for
reasons the literacydifficulties
of the in
children singleword
[Link] sameagegroupswere formed, groupsof youngeraverage readers
wereselected whose rangeof scores
on word readingmeasures was the sameas
thoseof the dyslexic
group. As shown in Chapter5, neitherof thesetwo methods
in difficultiesthat differentiatedthe dyslexic
from the
resulted consistentpatternsof
average
nondyslexic: readers across the grades assessed. Although thesemethods
havebeenusedto inform viewsof theunderlyingfactorsrelatedto literacyproblems
these do not increase
amongstmonolingualcohorts, sameprocedures our
of the literacydifficultiesof bilingual children.
understanding

18.5
 CencralDiscussion

for this resultagainliesin thedifferences

one possibleexplanation betweenthe two
in this [Link] the Filipino
beingconsidered
languages
promotes
orthography the mastery of decoding
[Link], near-perfect
on thistaskwereachievedby mostof the childrenin the study.
levelsof performance
However,thosewho did not performat this levelwereprobablyselectedasthe
dyslexicsin the groupwhetheror not theyhadunderlyingdifficultiesin cognitiveand
linguisticskills. This couldexplainthe relativelylargernumbersof dyslexics
in
Filipinowhencompared to thenumberof dyslexicsselectedin [Link],
the complexityof English producedscoreson thewordreadingtaskthat covera
widerrangeof variabilityandthusfewerchildrenwereidentifiedasdyslexic
on the
basisof the criterionspecified(ie,scoreson or belowthe 15thpercentilein word
reading and spelling,onestandard deviationbelow the mean or betteron Block
Design,listeningcomprehension Again,however,this
andpicturecomprehension).
be
could madeon the basisof the
did not produceresultson whichgeneralisations
groupcomparisons. The alternative is
perspective that thecontextof bilingual
learningleadsto a numberof differentfactorsproducingliteracydifficulties,with
groupcomparisons failingto adequately
representthese factors.

Whensinglecases were investigated,

it was found that thereweredifferentprofiles
that couldexplainthe literacydifficultiesin one or both languages.
These included

profilesof childrenwith word literacydifficulties

that be
could relatedto general
ability,languageability,andsecond language ability,
among others. However,
the
amongst bilingual-biliterate
dyslexic
profiles(see
Section
5 of Chapter
5) are
that show
categories how the differences
in the two languages can impact uponthe
cognitiveand behavioural
manifestationsof poor word reading. Such profiles
in
dyslexic English does have difficulties
literacy in Filipino but
presentthe who not
[Link] the
latterprofileis the complexityof the [Link],aninverseof
this profilewas foundwhichshowed in
dyslexia Filipinobut not in English.
Complexityof orthographyisnot the only reasonwhy dyslexia(ie,poorliteracy
rather
skills)will manifest, a cross-language could
relationship be
also established
betweenpoorword readingin Filipinoandpoor nonwordreadingin English,which
was slightlyworsethanin Filipino. It maywell bethat thedorninant
language
for

186
 GeneraIDiscussion

this particularchildis Englishand,therefore,Filipinoliteracyskillsarenot aswell

developedat thetimeof assessment.

ne varietyof possiblecausesfor the literacydifficultiesof the childrenselected

for
(with
the groupcomparisons the exceptionof the poor generalabilityprofiles)shows
that indeed,there be
could a heterogeneousgroupof poor readersin this study.
Furthermore,the singlecaseshavebroughtaboutanopportunityto explorean
explanation
alternative derivedfrom the influences
complementary of the underlying
skillsand the orthographies in which theseskillsarebeing [Link] 4 findings
suggest that thereis a high interrelationship
between the underlying in
skills the two
languages and that in
skills one language predictword literacyskillsin the other. It is
plausiblethat the dyslexics
in this studyareactuallyemployingthesecross-language
skillsto supporttask performance involvingliteracy
skillsin the otherlanguage
thus
offsettingwhat would have beena relative
weakness in an underlying skill being
assessed in a language.
particular The data on group comparisons for Grade 3
presents the possibilityof a cross-languagecauseof the literacydifficulties (see
Tables5-6and5-7of Chapter5). C,

Anotherpossiblereasonfor the lackof consistent

groupdifferences
is the focus on
the for
whichwasusedas solecriterion word reading.
accuracy, Perhaps, literacy
difficultiesin atransparent languagecan be better in
understood viewof reading
speed. Future investigations be
should conducted to verifythis possibilityandto
the
compare effectiveness usingspeed of readingand accuracy of reading in
differentiatingbetweendyslexicsandnondyslexics. Thismayespecially proveto be
informativein Filipinowhereword readingaccuracy is attainedearlierthanin
English. One noteof cautionhere is the lackof support from measures of rapid
If
naming. speedof processingwere viewed asthe potentialexplanation of dyslexia
in a regularlanguages(eg,Wimmer,Mxyringer& Landerl,2000),onemightexpect

measures of rapidnaming to be moreinformativeof literacyskill in Filipino thanis

from the data in
reported thisthesis. Data from the singlecaseanalysesof
apparent
difficultiesin word reading/spelling and sentence in
childrenexperiencing processing
Filipino do not showaccompanying difficultiesin rapidnamingmeasures. On the
other hand, the developmental data (see Chapter 3) indicatethat rapidnamingis one

187
 General Discussion

of the main predictors of literacyskillsin Filipino amongstchildrenin the first three

grade [Link] two seemingly conflicting aspectsof the data thatthis
suggest
is worthy of furtherwork.
line of investigation

4. Implications for practice and further research

Ile conclusions in
presented the previoussectionsof this thesiscaninform good
practicein literacy
teaching to childrenwho fit the descriptionof the cohorttestedin
this research.A betterappreciationof the difference in the cognitiveandlinguistic
processesinvolvedin learning
two orthographies
of differentdepths
maybetaken
into [Link] an
arrayof cognitive factors involved in the developmentof literacyin each language
can help setthe priority skillsthat need to be developed
when a child is learning
literacyin eitherof theselanguages.
Furthermore,followingincreased
understanding
of such factors,the that
opportunities beingskilledin two or morelanguages
provide
can be used in a more systematicandpositiveway (see Peer& Reid,
2000).This
shouldnaturally lead to improvements in the educationalexperienceof all children,
aswell asa greaterawareness of the difficultiesthat somechildrenmight face in

acquiringliteracyskills. Proceduresto identifyandsupport thosewith difficulties,

as
earlyaspossible in their education,
will follow (see
Fawcettet al, 1998).This section
of the therefore,
thesis, provides a brief discussion
of someof theseareas,
upon
concentrates thosewhereour currentunderstanding
canimpacton education
andwhere further be
work would useful.

A dominantview,particularlyin the readinganddyslexialiterature,is thatliteracy

skillscanbeimprovedby enhancing phonologicalawareness. Ile benefits of
that
teachingprocedures incorporate training
phonological have been shown in
a
across number of for
languages/contexts: example, Bryant & Bradley
research
(1985)andHatcheret al (1994)in theUK.; Torgesenet al (1992)in the U.S.A.;
(1993)in Australia;Cunningham(1990)in Canada;
ByrneU Fielding-Barnsley
OlofssonandLundberg(1985)in Sweden; Elbro et al (1996)in [Link]
confirms their potentialimportance for predicting
the differences in
presentstudy
bilingual children (seealsoEverattet al, 2000).However, the relationship
abilitiesof

188
 GencralDiscussion

betweenliteracyability in the different languagesandthe precisephonologicalskills

assessedindictatethat further work in this areawould be useful. Specifically,

the
data the
suggest possibility that improvements in English literacy mayrequire
present
an understandingat the level of the phoneme,whilst Filipino literacy may instead

require an appreciationof sound

syllable-level units. This possibility may have
important implicationsfor our understandingof literacy(andlanguage)development
for proceduresfor intervention. It would be interestingto further investigate
the
and
between these factors in a longitudinalstudy,which would againassess
relationship
the impact of syllableandphoneme level understandingon the acquisitionof literacy

in the two languages,but would enablean evaluationof the potential causalpathways

betweentheseskills.

The phonologicalrepresentations hypothesis (Goswarni, 2000)would predictthat

level understanding precedes phoneme levelability-a prediction that finds
syllable
support in the data reported in Chapter 3. Another prediction would be that
some
level understanding would occurmuchearlier childrenin learning a highly
phoneme
suchas Filipino, in comparison to those learning anopaque
regularorthography,
such as English. However, it is possible that the child learning two
orthography,
at the same time will not conform to these predictions. Ile findings
such scripts
in Chapter 3 seem to indicate that there may be a limitation in the
reported
of the phonological representations hypothesis. Of particular interest
predictions
be the period around Grade 3, when only English phoneme tapping
would
correlated with English word reading and only Filipino syllable tapping
significantly
correlated with Filipino word reading. Ibis may be contrasted with
significantly
Grade6 whereFilipinoandEnglishsyllabletappingcorrelatedsignificantlywith
in both languages and phoneme tapping did not. The results of the
word reading
longitudinal study would further clarify aspects of the phonological
proposed
hypothesis in termsof bilingualgroupsthat areimmersedin two
representations
languages in
thatvarygreatly their phonological andorthographiccomplexity.

Anotherimplication
thatcanbe derivedfrom the present
work is that literacy
in
development the two languages be
can gearedto progressat differentlevelssothat

189
 GeneralDiscussion

foundationskills(eg,decodingandsegmentation) canbetaughtfirst in Filipino,

whichwill then supportthe acquisition
of the in
sameskills English.A vital
component of sucha revised programmewould be to makeexplicittheconnection
betweenthe basicskillsin thetwo languages.
Evidencefor the valueof phonological
for for
training, example,argues making the link between soundsandwritten
symbolsexplicit(Cunningham, Torgesen
1990; et al, 1992).In the presentbilingual
this
context, would imply thatthereshouldbe a shortperiodof time between
teachinga literacy in
skill onelanguageandusingthat skillto supportthelearningof
literacyin the [Link] literacylearningin onelanguage
to reach
level
mastery mayresultin missing the to
opportunity useliteracyskillsin one
language those
to support in the other.

Additionally,the specificstructuresof thelanguages need to be considered.A

predictionthat derives from the presentwork is that phoneme level understanding
be
may necessary for Englishliteracybut may not be asvital for Filipinoliteracy.
Hence,skillslearningin Filipinomayonlysupportliteracyleamingin Englishup to
somepoint. For example,although thereis thatspecifically
no researchevidence
shows sucha in
relationship, the
practice, learningof shortvowelsoundsin Filipino
literacycansupportthe samelearningprocesses in [Link],thereareno
longvowelsoundsin Filipinoandthesemustbelearntpurelywithin the contextof
English.

in predictorsof literacyin FilipinoandEnglish

The currentdataindicatedifferences
[Link] earlygrades,phonological
sldllssupport literacylearningin Filipino
and English,with theseunderýingskiffs showing a largelevelof interrelationships.
In latergrades,visualskillsbecomeimportant for learning English An
specifical1y.
interestingpredictionwould bethat FilipinoandEnglishcansupporteachotherin
of
the earlystages learningto read/speU,
particularlywhenregularwordsaretaught
in both [Link],asmoreexceptionwordsareencountered in English,
Again
additionalskillsarenecessary. researchfocussingon the interrelationships
betweentheseskillsandassessing the impactof cross-languageteachingstrategies
wouldprovide the basis
on wbichto evaluate
thesepredictions.

190
 General Discussion

'Me implications for assessment are alsonoteworthy. The current practiceof most
professionalsin the Philippineswho work with childrenwith specialneeds,in
and
general, literacy difficulties,in particular,is to use measuresadministered in and
assessingskills in English. This is due to the lack of in
measures the Filipino
languagethat can be usedfor the assessment of Filipino literacyabilities. Obviously,
the development of thesetools is a long-term process; however, the importanceof
this endeavour is accentuatedby the finding that assessmentin both languages
of
literacydifficulty is necessary
to gain a completeprofile of strengthsandweaknesses

of a dyslexicchild. This, of course,

will alsobenefit thosewho are not dyslexicin a
traditional sense,suchasthe singlecasesthat exhibit sentencecomprehension
difficulties or generallanguagedeficits. The processof test developmentwill involve

more than a simpletranslationof English or test

monolingual materialsinto Filipino
(seeSmythe& Everatt, 2000for discussion).The dataobtainedfrom the present
the developed
measures and areascovered,
win provide a basis
research,aswell as on
future tools be derived.
which these assessment can

Sincethis studyspecificallyfocusedon literacydifficultiesin singleword processing,

includefurther deficits
an extensionof this thesisshould research on comprehension
bilingualcohorts. The identification
of individuals displayingsentence
amongst
deficitsdespitethe presenceof adequate singleword readingskillsin
comprehension
justifies
the singlecaseanalyses in
research this area(seeNation, 1999). Suchstudies
should involvethe assessment of vocabularyskillsandreadingcomprehension
beyondthe sentence level. An additionalbenefitof a highlyregularorthographyis

that word-levelliteracycanbeleamt relativelyquicIdy,allowingmoretime to be

devotedto the enhancement of text based processing [Link]
thatalso
investigates
this specificaspectof literacy learningin a bilingual
contextmight,for

contrast the of
useful remediationpackages that focus on the sinoeword
example,
(eg,Orton-Giflinghamapproaches: Orton, 1937;Gillingham,& Stillman,1956),with
language-literacy
skills(Undamood literacyprogram:
thosethat specifygeneral
Lindamood& Lindamood,1984),with thosethat considera widerangeof word and
text levelliteracyskills(eg, of
aspects RAVE-0: Wolf andO'Brien,2001).

191
 GencralDiscussion

In termsof methodological this has

aspects, study shownthat alternativemethodsof
with
typifyingchildren literacydifficultiesmustbe further in
cxPlored future

research. Further
validationof the categories
of single cases identifiedin thissample
in
wouldresult more informed assessment that
practices will bemostuseful in

[Link] on the basisof informed bilingualassessment,

in
whether groupsor assinglecases,shouldthen be studiedto seewhetherthe
literacy/reading
possible influenced
programs by the conclusionsof this do
research
makea in
difference the development
of literacy
in comparisonto presentpractices
in schools. In particular,thewiderangeof singlecasessuggests that remediation
be if tailoredto the individual
needsandskillsof a particular
would mosteffective
child. for
Evidence suchinclividualised is
procedures mixedin the literature
(see
Turner& Dawson,1978;Lyon, 1985;Brooks& Weeks,1999)however,the
foundin for
argues their
the presentresearch inclusionin furtherresearch
categories
work.

Finally,a relevantextensionof this studyshould focuson text writing skillsamong

bilingual-biliterate
[Link] q-pe of investigation
would study errorpatternsin

work in both languages that can then be related to their verbalandcognitive

written
Furthermore, it would also be interestingto find out if thereexistscross-
skills.
language interactions in grammarandsyntaxwithinthe samechild. Suchresearch
involve procedures developed in the work of Hedberg & Fink (1996)which
might
and that of Riddick et al (1997) with dyslexic adults.
younger

Tlis thesisaimedto understand dyslexia

among Filipino/English bilingual-biliterate
Instead,
this paperhas reported on literacy development among this same
children.
andnow provides a framework by which the original
aim canbe better
population
investigated.

192
 References

Aaron, P.G. &Joshi, RM. (Eds),(1989). Readiýgandm*igdjvn4?n in dgmnt

onbVap&sysh=- Holland: Kluwer AcadernicPublishers.

Ackerman,P.T. & Dykman, RA. (1993). Phonologicalprocesses,

confrontational
naming,and immediatememozy in [Link]
oftea"ibg Disabdzýý,26,597-
609.

Aghababian, V. & Nazir,TA. (2000).Developingnormalreadingskiffs:Aspectsof

thevisualprocesses JoumdqfExperinxntal
underlyingword recognition. CWd
P*d)okg,76,123-150.

AnastasiA., & Urbina, S. (1997).P*d"Ic&zI Tak. New jerser. PrenticeHall.

Baddeley,A., Gathercole,S. & Papagno,C (1998).The phonologicalloop asa

languagelearningdevice. PP)d"k&2IRaiew, 105,158-173.

Badian,N. (1999). Readingdisabilitydefined asa discrepancybetweenlistening and

A
readingcomprehension: longitudinalstudy of stability, differences,
gender and
JatnndOfte=dTAýLýý,
prevalence. 32,138-148.

Badian,N. A., Duffy, F. R, Als, H., & McAnulty, G. B. (1991). Linguistic Proffles of
Dyslexic and Good [Link],41,221-245.

Badian,NA. (1994).Preschool
Prediction:OrthographicandPhonological
SHIs,
and Annah
Reading. ofDokxia, 44,3-25.

Beebe,D., Pfiffner, L., & McBumett, K. (2000). Evaluationof the validity of the
WechslerIntelligenceScalefor Children - Third edition comprehensionand picture

arrangementsubtestsasmeasuresof socialintelligence. PsyýAsses=azt, 12,

97-101.

Beech,J.R.,& Singleton,C (1997).Ile psychologicalassessmentof reading-

7heoreticalissuesandprofessional
[Link] J.R. Beech& C. Singleton(Eds.), 7he
(pp.1-26).London: Routledge.
ý*dVq&dassesw7aztqfwadiT-

BradleyL& Bryant, P.E. (1978). Difficulties in auditory organisationasa possible

backwardness.
Nauarý 271,746-747.
causeof reading

193
Bradley,L. & Bryant,P.D. (1983)Categorisingsoundsand learningto read,a causal

connection. Naum, 301,419-421.

Brooks,P. & Everatt,J. (subrnitted).Phonology,discrepancy,

instruction,and
dyslexia:Adversaries
or allies?Educa6md
P*dxkw in Jýwix.

Brooks, P. &Weeks, S. (1999) Indiýýs*inklmbVtospd. inpmuig4uUýgin

'ý'lý"'ý"I'ýýdfladt"Osand4d)iýbmlnnzýdnOmmm%&- London:DfEE.

Brown, G. & Huhne, C. (1992). Cognitive psychologyand second-language

The
processing: role of short-term memory. In K Harris (Ed), Ccgnikepma--ssing
in
bdiguh. Amsterdam:North-Holland.

Bruck, M., Genesee,F., & Caravolas,M. (1997). A Cross-linguisticstudyof early

literacy [Link] B.A. Blachman(Ed), Foundkicmofmzh* aqdsitionand
dyskxiz (pp. 145-162).New Jersey-LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Bryant, P.D. & Bradley,L. (1985)CWdrmýmadhTprdimu-Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

P, (1993).Evaluation
Byrne,B. & Fielding-Barnsley, of aProgramto teachphoneryk
sto
awarenes youn g childre
n: a1 yearfollowup. Jm?
7'dOf &'M6md
F, Phtý, 85,104-
ill.

Campbell,J., &McCord, D. (1999). Measuringsocialcompetencewith the Wechsler

Picture Arrangementand [Link]", 6,215-223.

Catts,R (1996).Defining dyslexiaasa developmentallanguagedisorder An

expandedview. Topi-s
in L4ngmage
Lýsý, 16,14-29.

[Link],H. (1997).Ihe earlyidentificationof language-based

readingdisabilities.
Language, Speah
and Hivring &ý in Sd)o&, 28,86-89.

Chen,H., & Ho, C (1986).Developmental

studyof the reversedStroopeffectin
bilinguals.JoumdofG6wralPryd)akg,113,121-125.
Chinese-English

Chuah,Y., & Mayberry,M. (1999).Verbalandspatialshortterm [Link]

of
sources [Link]
ofExpaimentd OW Psýý, 73,7-44.

194
Cline,T. (2000).Multilingualismanddyslexia: for research
challenges andpractice.
Dyskxia:An InkmaiawlJoumal
ofRm4nbvd A-acticr,
6,1-12.

Comoldi,C. & OakhiU,J. (Eds),(1996).ReadiiCcanpnftwsjon

dfodtia: Processes
and
[Link],NJ: LEA.

D., Liberman,I., Katz,L& Tola,G. (1988).Awareness

Cossu,G., Shankweiler, of
segments
phonological and readingabilityin [Link]?
guýý,
9,1-16.

Cummins,J. (1984). BibVdisn andspaizlalurý- Iswesin asseswx7v

odpa&M.
Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Cunningham,A. E. (1990). Explicit versusimplicit instruction in phonemic

loumal
awareness. of ExperimmdandQWPryaWcU, 50,429-444.

De Boer,D.L. (1997).Auditmypmxssiýgrzwtndmz5hngadiaona,
2t(unpublished
dissertation).

Dendda, M. B. & Rudel,R. (1976). Rapidautomatizednaming (RAN): Dyslexia

differentiatedfrom other [Link],
14,471-479.

Durgunoglu,A., & Hancin, B. (1992). An overview of cross-language

transfer in
bilingual [Link] R. Harris (Ed.), Qgni&epma-ssing
in bilknds. (pp. 391-412).
Arnsterdarn:North Holland.

Dyer,F. (1971).Color-naminginterference
in monolinguals
andbilinguals.
Jamdof
VerWLeam* xzd VerU Bduvior,10,297-3
02.

thedevelopment
Ehri, LC (1992).Reconceptualising of sightword readingandits
to
relationship In
recoding. P. Gough,
L Ehri, & R.. Trein= (Eds.
), Radirg
A,cquisý (pp.107-143).New jerser. LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Ehri, LC (1997).Sightwordlearningin nonnalreadersanddyslexics.

In BA
Blachman(Ed.), Foundatiom and
qfReadi-lgAaTds&ion LýdexLz(pp. 163-189).New
[Link].

195
Elbro C, RasmussenI& SpellingB. (1996). Teachingreadingto disabledreaders

-%ith disorders:
language A controlled evaluationof syntheticspeechfeedback.
Sc,vzdi=i=jwm7dqfP*6dv, 37,140-155.

Engle, R., Carullo,J., & Collins,K. (1991). Individual differencesin working

memory for comprehension

and following directions. la=W ofEdmatka Rwxtb,
84,253-262.

Enright,M., Grabe,W., Koda,K., Mosenthal,P.,MuIcahy-Emt,P.,& Schedl,M.

Anonymous.(2000).TOEFL 2000ReadingFramewo&-A WorkingPaper.
[Link] MonographSeries.

Everatt,J., Smythe,I., Adams,E. & Ocampo,D. (2000).Dyslexiascreening

measures and bilingualism.Lýý: An InknzationdjoumdofRewnb andPraaiw,6,
42-56.

Everatt, J., Warner,J.,Wes, T., & Thompson,M. (1997).The incidenceof Stroop

interferencein [Link] In&ww6wdjm7nI ofRwanh andImaice,3,222-
228.

Fang,S.,Tzeng,0., &Alva, L (1981). Intralanguage

vs. interlanguage
Stroopeffects
Mw2ory
in two qWs of writing systems. andCognitien,
9,609-617.

Fawcett,A. J., Singleton,CH., & Peer,L (1998).Advancesin Early YearsScreening

for Dyslexiain the United Kingdom. Annalsqftýýia, 48,57-88.

Fawcett,A., & Nicolson,K (1994).Namingspeedin childrenwith dyslexia.

Jotmdof
27,641-646.
L camiteDiwbdkies,

Fawcett,Aý,& Nicolson, R. (1996). Lýýii &wmig TestManuaL London: The

psychologicalCorporation.

N. & Frith,U (1998).Identi*g dyslexiain bilingualchildren:A

Frederickson,
approach
phonological with innerLondon Sytheti
[Link] An Inw=dmd
jawnd ofRwarcbandAwctiw,4,119-131.

R. (1997).PhaxbgiidassesgnOvhgbynwwd
N., Frith,U, & Reason,
Frederickson,
Windson:
xd testnza&77ýh NFER-Nelson.

196
Frith, U (1980). Ctuithe pwa-sxsin sp&k. London: Acaden-ý
c Press.

Frith, U. (1985). Beneaththe surfaceof [Link] K. Patterson,M.

Coltheartý& J. Marshall (Eds.), SurfaxDyskxiv Neurqps)ý andQgzithr Studies
of
(pp.
PbondcgibdRe&Ib,
zg. 301-330). Hove: LawrenceErlbaum.

Frith, U. (1995). Dyslexia:Can we havea sharedtheoretical framework?Edvcatib"

andOW Pyydxkg, 12,6-17.

Frost, R. (1994).Prelexicaland postlexicalstrategiesin [Link] a

deepand a shafloworthography.J=nd ofExpelina" Prydx)b&.Leaning,Manay and
Cogrdibr420,116-129.

Gathercole,S.E. & Baddeley,A. D. (1989). Evaluationof the role of phonological

STM in the developmentof vocabularyin children:A longitudinal [Link]
Meniayxd Language,
28,200-213.

Gathercole,S.E., WfflisC. &Baddeley, AD. (1991). Differentiating phonological

of rhyme: Readingand vocabulary development in children.
memory and awareness
BritishJoumalqfts)ý, 82,387-401

Gerhand, S. (1995).
Stroop phenomenon of cognitive
asa measure functioning
of
bilingual(Gaelic/English)
subjects.B7i"JotmdqfP*dxkg, 86,89-92.

Gettelfmger,M. (2001). Czgnifiwproxssesaspraiitonofmidi-zgm=ss(unpubUshed

dissertation).

Geva, E. & Wade-Wooley, L (199

8).Component processes in becomingEnglish-
Hebrew biEterate.
In A.Y. Durgunoglu
& L. Verhoeven(Eds. ), Lioý ina
Cross-aýdPaVecti=- Mahwah, N.J.: Er1baurn.
nultilbC" ca*xt -

Geva,E. (2000).Issuesin the Assessment

of Reading in
Disabilities L2 Children-
BeliefsandResearchEvidence.Lýýia: An In&nwdawljoumal ofResunband1+actice,
6,13-28.

Geva, E., & L.

Siegel, S. (2000). Orthograpwc and cognitive factors in the concurrent
developmentof basicreadingskills in two [Link] W7ii*- An
JnwaL*1kVjm7naI, 12,1-30.

197
Geva,E., Wade-Wooley,L. & Shany,M. (1997). Developmentof reading
efficiency
in first and [Link]-kn* Swdiesin Reading,
1,119-144.

Gholamain,M. & Geva,E. (1999).Orthographic and cognitivefactors in the

concurrent developmentof basic in

readingskills English and [Link]
Leamig 42,183-217.

GiflingharnA. & StiUmanB. (1956).Ranalid trabdngf5rd)jU=uj& 31in

.
m&g, *cUbvx7dparnam4(5' New
edition). York SackeltandWilhelms.

Gomez,R., & Condon,M. (1999).Centralauditoryprocessing in

ability children
with ADHD with andwithoutleamingdisabilities.
JmwnIqfLeanzizgDiSaMzWa,
32,
150-158.

Goodman,K.S. (1994).Deconstructing
the rhetoricof Moorman,Bloantonand
McLaughlin:A [Link]=bQua?
tedy,29,340-346.

Goswarni,U. (2000). Phonologicalrepresentations,readingdevelopmentand

dyslexia:Towards a cross-linguistictheoreticalframework-BAxii: An In&=davI
jommalofRmv& andIlraaicv,6,133-151.

Goswami,U., &Bryant, P. (1990). PhmvA*.alskZxakaniTtom%d. HiUsdale,Nj:

Erlbaum.

Goswarni,U., Gombert,J.E. & deBerrera,L (1998).Children'sorthographic

and
representations linguistic
[Link]
word reading in English,
[Link]*uWiUdstiý,19,19-52.

Gough,P.,Ehri, L., & Treinian,R. (1992).Readingaqiýý Newjersey-Erlbaum.

Gough,P.B. & Tumner,W.E. (1986).Decoding,reading,andreadingdisabiEty.

Randid andSpo" Eduwim,7,6-10.

Groth-Mamat,G., & Teal,M. (2000).Blockdesignasa measureof everydayspatial

A
ability- sutdyof ecological
validity. PbwpwdandMotorSkifls,
90,552-556.

Gupta, A. & Garg, A. (1996). Visuo-perceptualand phonologicalprocessingin

dyslexicchildren. JowndqfPbwatýy andClinU Stwhes,12,67-73.

198
Hatcher, Pj., HtIme, C. & Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating earlyreadingfailureby
integratingthe teachingof readingand phonologicalskills:the PhonologicalLinkage
Hypothesis. CbddDevelopment,65,41-57.

Hedberg,NL & Fink,Rj (1996).Cohesive

harmonyin thewritten storiesof
Razkngad
children.
elementary Wiiing,8,73-86.

Ho, C.S.H. & Btyant P. (1997).Phonologicalsldllsareimportant in learningto read

Chinese.Dmu4mordPS)chakg,33,946-51.

Holopainen,L, Ahonen,T. & Lyytinen,H. (2001).Predictingreadingdelayin

in
readingachievement a highly language.
transparent Jotmd ofLxa?nh2gDiwffities,
34,401-413.

Hoover,WA., & Gough,P.B. (1990).'Ihe sinýpleviewof [Link]&zgand

An lnky&mýlýýJmmal, 2,127-160.
WrLting.

jastak, S.,Wilkinson, G., &Jastakj. (1993). VzdeRa7ývA&[Link].

Wde Range,Inc.

Kaplan,B., Crawford,S.,Dewey,D., U Fisher,G. (2000).The IQs of childrenwith

ADHD [Link] ofteamig Disabdiýia,
33,425-432.

Karanth,P. (1992). dyslexia

Developmental in bilingual-biliterates,
Raidi;,
gazd
[Link]ýlýýJuond, 4,297-306.

Katz, L. & Frost,R. (1992).

The is
readingprocess differentfor different
The depthhypothesis.
In K Frost &L Katz (Eds.
),
orthographies: orthographic
OrdW,ý*, phwakv,n"pl"4yandmavzig- AmsterdamNorth-HoRand.

Katz, R. & Shankweiler, D. (1985).Repetitive

namingandthe detection
of word
deficitsin the [Link],
2,617-625
retrieval

Katz, R. (1986). in
deficiencies
Phonological childrenwith readingdisability:

Evidence from an object-namingtask. CIVi6a; 22,225-257.

Kogan,S. (1996).CanPa? im OftbePeOmxvOAD cbiU7m

on W7SC-R
midtk W7SC
dissertation).
III (unpublished

199
Kurdek,L., & Sinclair,R. (2001).Predictingreadingandmathematics
achievement
in fourth gradechildrenfrom kindergarten scores.JamzdqfMwa6b,,
readiness d
Pyyd)olo&,93,451-455.

Landerl,K, Wimmer,H., & Frith,U (1997).The impactof orthographic

on
consistency dyslexia:
A German-English
comparison.Cg2iim, 63,315-354.

Liberman,AM.. (1997). How theoriesof speechaffect researchin reading.. In B.A.

ftndiT A cquisitimandL5.,skia. (Pp-3-20). Newjerse),.
Blachman(Ed), Fotmdadonso
LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Lindamood,CH. & Lindamood,P.C. (1984). Auchimydisýý in &pth. Austin:

PRO-ED, Inc.

Lundberg,1.(1994).Readingdifficultiescanbepredictedandprevented:
A
Scandinavian on phonological
perspective andreading. In C. Huhne&
awareness
M. Snowrmg(Eds.), ReadiTdeuYqpw9andc4s&xia.
London:Whurr.

Lyon,G.R. (1985).Identificationandremediationof learningdisabilitysubtypes:

[Link] DiwMý Fbais,1,21-35.

Lyytinen, S. & Lehto, J. (1998). Ilierarchy rating asa measureof text

Relationship
macroprocessing: with working memory and school achievement.
EducatiadPrydUg, 18,157-169.

MacGinitie, W., &MacGinitie, P, (1989). Gates-MacGizi6eRazib2g

TestMxvwL USA.-
RiversidePublishing.

MacLeod,C. (1991). Half a centuryof research

on the Stroop An
effect: integrative
Ppt
view. ýý Bu&-* 109,163-203.

MacLeod,C. (1992).TheStrooptask. The "goldstandard"for attentionalmeasures.

jownd qfexpcrjna, Ps Gbxrd,
-td )t&kgy., IZ 12-14.
.
MacLeod,C.M. (1991). Half a centuryof research
on theStroopeffect:An
integrativereview.P*uV%iadBdle6z,109,163-203.

Mann, V.A. & 11berman,I.Y. (1984). Phonoloýcal awarenessand verbal short-term

memory. jmmdofteamingDisaifies, 17,592-599.

200
Mann,V.A. (1986).Whysomechildrenencounterreadingproblems:The
contributionof difficulties
with language
processing
andphonologicalsophistication
disability.
to earlyreading In J. Torgesen
& B. Wong(Eds.), P*dxkgUand
aixw'iaaPaVa-tiiz onkamýg disaWkies.
New York-Academic Press.

Marsh, G., Morton, F., Welch,V., & Desberg,P. (1981). A Cognitive-developmental

theory of reading In
acquisition. G. [Link] & T. [Link] (Eds.), Rav&g

nwx&. A duwm in 71,

my and A-actim (pp. 199-22
1). New York: Acadeniic Press.

N., & Price,C. (2000).Abnormalfunctional

McCrory,E., Frith,U, Brunswick,
activationduringa simple
word repetition A
task: PET studyof adultdyslexics.
joumalofQ&iwNeuroxiew, 21,753-762.

McDougall,S.(1994).Short-termmemory,speechrateandphonologicalawareness
aspredictorsof learning
to In
read. C. Hulme& M. (Eds.
Snowling ), Raz6g
(pp.31-44).London: WhurrPublishers.
deaYqpnaPztanddysIexia.

McDougall,S.,Huhne,C, Ellis,A. & Monk,A. (1994).Learningto read:The roleof

short-termmemoryand phonological Joumal
skills. qfExpai7xntdC b9dPsyý&, 58,
112-133.

McLaughlin, B. (1992).Working memory capacityasa constraint on L2

[Link] R. Harris (Ed) G&iwprocessbT in bilipds. AmsterdarrLNorth
Holland.

Meyler,A., 8CBreznitz,Z. (1998).Developmental associationsbetweenverbaland

andthe of decoding
skill. Radig Writhy.
visualshort-termmemory acquisition and
An InOd&ýPli=Ybumal,10,519-540.

Wes T.F, & Wes, E. (1999). Dyskxiv A bwxb&yan on(2"datim) Buddnghanr

Open University Press.

Wes, T.R. (1993).Lýýiw 7kepaamofdjýý (2ndahion) London:Whurr.

,
Mifler, B.D. (2001). Ut&zigCitted-Horn-C47mdcn)zbabc-qa5sesw=topre&amadi7g
kamb7gdisaHedmzcOesdxdzdmts (unpublished dissertation).
ad)kunx7gw

201
Miller, N. (1984). Languageproblemsand bilingual children. In N. Miller (Ed.),
BilbVdim md LxWwgeDiwbd4. (pp. 81-103). SurreyUniversity- College-HillPress
Inc.

MoHoy,P. (1997). 7hemkofýýýdiffinnxsinworkingmm? oyinmzljý7gMlism7i,,g

ar?pdxnsibn in izomiiiw pz& swdm&(unpublisheddissertation).

Morais,J., Bertelson,P., Cary,L. & Alegria,J. (1986). Literacytraining and speech

Cognition,
segmentation. 24,45-64.

Morton, J. (1989).An information processingaccountof [Link]

AM. Galaburda(ed.) Frommzc&gtonwrom Cambridge:The MIT Press.

4ymx&gpeqýý
Muller, K. (1999). Condataofea, in a troupmv or6ogapby
(unpublisheddissertation).
,

Mwntaz,S.,& Humphreys,G.W. (2001).Theeffectsof bilingualismon learningto

readEnglish: from
Evidence the between
contrast Urdu-English bilingual and
[Link] Raidiie, 24,113-134.

Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling,Mj., & Taylor, S. (1998). Segmentation,not

predictsearly progressin learningto read. JounzdqfExperinaa CWd
rhyming
Pryd)obV,71,3-27.

Nation, K. & Snowling,M. (2000). Factorsinfluencing syntacticawareness

skills in
normal readersand poor AppW
comprehenders. PryaWigioýs, 21,229-241.

Nation, K. (1999).Readingskillsin hyperlexia:A developmentalperspective.

psyý Bu&-* 125,3 38-355.

Nation, K., Adams,J., Bowyer-Crane,C., & Snowling,M. (1999). Working memory

deficits in poor comprehendersreflect [Link] of
Experin"d CMP*dxhV, 73,139-158.

NationalConunissionfor CiAtureandtheArts. PhIppine CWtures.

RepubEc
of the
PhIppines . 2000.

Newton,M., & Thomson,M. (1976).7heAstonI?ukx. Wisbeach:Learning

Developmentaids.

202
Nicolson, R., & Fawcett, A. (1996). 7heL5ýskxiaEarý Saw7k Test London: The
Psychological Corporation.

OakhiU,J., & Cain, K. (1997). Assessmentof comprehensionin [Link] J. Beech

& C. Singleton(Eds.), 7heP*dxWqgkd Assesw2"qfReadig. (pp. 176-203).London:
Routledge.

Obler,L (1989).The boustrophedal

brain:Lateralityanddyslexiain bidirectional
In
readers. K. Hyltenstarn
& LK. Obler (Eds),Bdigdisw acmss
dx 1ýý Aspa-uof
acqtý and
nzavaity, loss.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University
Press.

Ocampo,D. (1995). Individualizedreadinginstruction for cHdren with ID: The

Wordlab [Link], Sdayluhdwiwý 62-68.

D. (1997).Dyslexiain [Link] R. Salter,& I. SnVthe(eds).7he

Occampo,
j&nvtzbrd bookqfdys&[Link]:World DyslexiaNetworkFoundatiop.

Olofsson,A. & Lundberg,1. (1985). Evaluationof long-termeffectsof phonemic

awarenesstraining in kindergarten:
Illustrations of somemethodological
problems in

evaluationresearch.S=di=ianjmr"qfPsyý, 16,21-34.

Orton,S.T. (1937).Raz&ng, *ig prdbm

u? andspeah in dild= London:Chapman
Hal

(unpublished
Pancholi,S.(1999).Qdturd*ennm in baniplxricusage dissertation).

Patemo,M.E., &Oc=po-Caistobal,D. (1993).NowvAitdbIdb?Aguidef5rpanw

Um
uithypedaldi, Manila: Cacho
PublishingHouse.

Peer,L. & Reid,G. (Eds),(2000).MuhdiVuhm lke?

ý anddys6cia.
London:David
FultonPublishers.

Perfetti,CA & Zhang,S. (1991).Phonological in

processes readingChinese
Jaumal
characters. of Expa*va P*dzkV., Le, mamy,,,
77jjig, d Cognitkn,
17,633-643.

Rack,J. P. (1997).Issuesin the assessment

of developmentaldyslexiain adults:

[Link]
ofPawcb in ReadhV,
20,66-76.

Rack,J.P.,Hulme,C.,& Snowling,Mj. (1993).Learningto read.A theoretical

203
 In
synthesis. H.W. Reese ),
(ed. Advances
indjdddhzYopnojtandbd=jor
Califomia:
AcaderrýcPress.

Rack,J.P., Snowling,Mj. & Olson, R.K. (1992). 'Me nonword readingdeficit in

developmentaldyslexia:A review. ReadVgRmv& Quart*, 27,29-53.

Reason,R. & Morfidi, E. (2001). Literacydifficulties and sinee-caseexperimental

[Link] Psydý ý, Racti4 17,227-244.

Repubficof the PhUippines.(1974). CWand YotahWd)areCbde.P.D. 603

Republicof the Philippines.(1987).7kCazdbitionoftheRepuUkofthcpbiWina.

RepubUc
of the PhIppines.(1992).
Magna
Cxtajb'rDisablaiPers=.
RTOicAa
7277,

[Link]., & Hynd, G. (2000). Measurablebiologicalsubstratesto verbal

differencesin [Link]
Prydxkg Quawdy, 15,386-399.
performance

Riddick, B., Farmer,M., & Sterbg, C. (1997). [Link]: Whurr.

Salter,R., & Smythe,I. (eds),(1997). 7heInkmatica Bookqf4slexia. London:

World DyslexiaNetwork Foundation.

Schiller,P.H. (1966). Developmentalstudyof color-word interference. Jamd of

Experina" Pyydxkg,72,105-108.

Semel, E., V,7iig, E., & Secord, W. (1987). M" Evahwien of LanguageFwxlaý
--
Raia Exxni7m'and Tedn" Mawd USA. The PVdiological Corporation.

L.
Siegel, S. (1988).
Evidence IQ
that scoresareirrelevant
to the definitionand
[Link]: 42,201-215.
mjoumaIqfPsycbcIqy,
analysisof reading

Simmons,F. & C
Singleton, (2000). 7he readingcomprehensionabilitiesof dyslexic
in higher education. LýýivAnInOnlicýJoumalofResaircbaniI+aaice, 6,
students
178-192.

C.,
Singleton, Thomas,K., & Home, J. (2000).
Computer-basedcognitive
andthe development
of reading.10urnd
OfRe=nh in Reading,23,158-
assessment
180.

204
Sinjeton, C., Thomas,K., & Leedale,R.C. GOPS
1 CO9niiLelývfdiTSysum.
1996.

Slingerland,B. &Anasara, A. (1984). Teadvr'sn7=ultoacarlpvySlingaLvdxnmilg

ibw)5iV
wstsfor Uith
CbildAn *ff ZZ94te
ýW' disaWily Cambridge:EducatorsPublishmg
Service.

Smythe,I. (Ed), (2000). The DyslexiaHandbook 2000. Reading:British Dyslexia

Association.

Smythe,I., & Everatt,J. (2000). DyslexiaDiagnosisin Different [Link] L.

Peer&G. Reid (Eds.), MultilbUdiv; L izý andDyslexia:A Chaffb7for EduwtM.
(pp. 12-21). London: David Fulton Pubhshers.

Smythe,I., & Everatt,J. (in preparation). 7beln&maibvd L5N6ia Test.

Snowling,M.J. (1980). The developmentof grapheme-phonemecorrespondencein

normal and dyslexic JowndqfExperin"d
readers. CMdP*dxhU, 29,294-305.

SnowUng,Mj. (2000). Lýýxia (2' edition). Oxford: Blackwefl.

Mj.,
Snowling, Goulandris,N., & Defty, N. (1996). A longitudinalstudy of reading
developmentin dyslexiccHdren. JdumaIqfEd=ýP*d"kg, 88,653-669.

MJ.,
Snowling, Rj.
Stackhouse, &Rack, J.
P. (1986). dyslexia
Phonological and
A developmental
dysgraphia: [Link]&iwNewqpOd)ukg,3,309-339.

Snowling,MJ., van Wagtendonk,B. & Stafford, C. (1988). Object-namingdeficits in

[Link] ofRmv& in Reading,11,67-85.

L.,
Sprenger-Charolles, Siegel,
L., & Bonnet,P. (1998).Readingand spelling
in Frendch:The rold of phonologicalmediationand orthographicfactors.
acquisition
jaumd ofExpain"d CW P*dAU, 68,134-165.

Spring,C. & Davis,J. (1998). Relationsof diet namingspeedwith three

AppliedPryaWiUiýý, 9,315-334.
componentsof reading.

Stanovich,K. E. & Siegel, L.S. (1994). Phenotypicperformanceprofile of children

readingdisabilities:
A regression-basedtest of the phonological-corevariable-
with
dif f [Link] of EducatiadPs)ý, 86,24-53.

205
Stanovich,K. E. (1986). "Matthew effects'in reading:someconsequences of
individual differencesin acquisitionof literacy. Raz5kngRmzrhQwr&*, 4,360-407.

Stanovich,K. E. (1988). Explainingthe differencesbetweenthe dyslexicandthe

gardenvariety poor reader:'Me phonological-corevariabledifference model. jownal

21,590-604.
qfLwnzLqgDisaWitia,

Stanovich,K. E. (1991). The theoreticaland practicalconsequences

of discrepancy
definitions of [Link] Mj. Snowling& M. Thomson (Eds)LWexiv imratiig
London: Whurr
dvo7yandpmaice.

Stark,E. (1998).Taskanah5isoftbe
WAIS-RPktmmArrvWnautwkatinhwdfenwt
davbpmaapqpulatzbm (unpublished
dissertation).

Stone B. & Brady,S. (1995). Evidencefor phonologicalprocessingdeficitsin less.

skilled [Link] 45,51-78.

qfDyslexia,

Stothard, S.
E., & Hulme, C (1992). Reading difficulties
comprehension in children:

the role of language

comprehensionand working memoryslkills. Ra%dizgmzd
Mitig,
4,245-256.

Stothard, S.E., & Hulme, C (1995). A comparisonof phonologicalskills in children

difficulties and childrenwith decodingdifficulties.
with readingcomprehension
jawwdqfCbiIdPrydiatryandPsý-, 36,399-408.

Stothard, E.,
S. Mj.,
Snowling, & Hulme, C. (1996). Deficits in phonology but not
dyslexic? CIgnititeNanvpryd)nkg,13: (5). 641-672.

Stroop, JK (1935). Studiesof interferencein [Link]-mdof

ExpcriwMd P*dWV, 18,643-662.

Stuart,M. & Coltheart,M. (1988).Does readingdevelopin a sequenceof stages?

20,139-18 1.
Cognüzbi4

Swan,D. & Goswami, U. (1997).Picture naming deficitsin developmental

dyslexia:
hypothesis.
'Me phonologicalrepresentations BrainandLangwgq,56,334-353.

206
Taylor, 1. (1998). Learningto readin Cbinese,Korean [Link] A.Y.
Durgunoglu & L. Verhoeven(eds.), Liw7acy dk&pnent in a nwWb7&dcmtext
London: Erlbaurn.

'Ihomson,M. (2001).77)epsyý qfc6ýkxa London:Whurr.

Torgesen,J.K., Morgan, S. & Davis, C. (1992). The effectsof two typesof

phonological training
awareness on word learningin [Link] of
cg, 84,364-370.
Educa6htdPYyd)oI,

Torgesen,J.K., Wagner,R.K, Rashotte,CA, Burgess,S.& Hecht, S. (1997).

Contributions of phonologicalawareness
and rapid automaticnamingability to the
in
growth of word-readingskills second-tofifth-grade children. Scin# Swdiesin
Readzýg1,116-185.

Treiman,R. (1997). Spellingin normal cfýildrenand [Link] B.A. Blachman

(Ed.), Faundatibm
qf&zSrgAcquisý and (pp.
L5Nkxia. 191-218).Newjersey-
[Link].

Turner,S.& Dawson,M. (1978).Theteachingof reading:A [Link] of

11,17-27
Leanzb'zgDiWWiies,

Tzelgov,J.,Henik, A., & Leiser,D. (1990). Controffing Stroop interference:

Evidence from a bilingual task. Joumalof Expaina" Ps)[Link], Manoryand
Clgnizia; 16,760-771.

Underwood, G., & Thwaites,S. (1982). Automatic phonologicalcoding of

unattendedprinted words. Manay andagnition, 10,434-442.

Underwood, Geoffrey (1986)Cognitive Processes

in readingand [Link] A.
Cashdan(ed).Lioý. - mzhbigandkambCLqguaW
skills. Oxford: BlackweHLtd.

VandenBos,K (1998).IQ, phonological awareness

andcontinuousnamingspeed
relatedto Dutch poor
children's decoding
performance
on two word identification
tests. An
L5NkxLv InwmatiordlowrdofRemanh
andNactim,
4,73-89.

Van-Daal,V., & Van-der-Leij,A. (1999). Developmentaldyslexia:Relatedto specific

deficits.
or general AnnalsqfLýýia, 49,104

207
Vandervelden,M.C., & Siegel,L.S. (1997). The Assessmentof Phonological
Processingin Early Literac), A [Link] DoMger & Dilalla
(eds.), A ssesw7azt
and Inwnudiw Iswes
A the
cwss LýIeSp= (pp. 77-101). LGA.

Wade-Woolley,L (1999). First languageinfluenceson secondlanguageword

reading:
All roadslead to Rome. Language
LeandT, 49,447-471.

Wagnerj (1997). 71xneumpsyýarnYatL-dojýýmz4anpisýh*kai=for

idawfication
of mz&zgd&zbihýy
wiýý diUmplaced in trmukibaftst gradecLumam
eady
(unpublisheddissertation).

Wagner,R.K. & Torgesen,J.K. (1987). The natureof phonologicalprocessingand

its causalrole in the acquisitionof [Link])cIxbgirdBuffetin,101,192-212.

Wechsler,D. (1974).Wechskr
IntdligewScakforCWdnn- [Link] York:
Corporation.
Psychological

Vrimmer, H. & Hummer, P. (1990). How first

German-speaking gradersreadand
Doubts on the importanceof the [Link]*uWýýs, 11,
spel
349-368.

Wunmer,H. (1993). Characteristicsof developmentaldyslexiain a regularwriting

[Link]ýistia, 14,1-34.

Wimmer, H. (1996).
The nonwordreading deficitin developmental
dysleida:
Evidencefrom cHdren learningto [Link] qfExpainaa CM
pryd)&&, 61,80-90.

Vimmer, H., Mayringer,H. & Landerl,K. (1998).Poorreading:A deficitin skiU-

deficit?
or a phonoloýical Scim* in
Shidies Raidirg, 2,321-340.
automatization

V,rlrmner, H., Mayringer, R& Landerl,K. (2000).

The double-deficit
hypothesis
and
Jamalof E&waticrdPodvlqy,
difficultiesin learningto reada regularorthography.
92,668-680.

Wolf, M. & Bowers,P. (2000). Naming-speedprocessesand developmentalreading

33,322-324.
[Link]ýgLVsaWkics,

208
Wolf, M. & Goodglass,H. (1986).Dyslexia,dysnornia,and lexical retrieval:A
longitudinal [Link],
28,154-168.

Wolf, M. & 01rien, B. (2001). On issuesof time, fluency and intervention. In A.

Fawcett (Ed.), Dyslexic7bcwyandgpodpmctimLondon: Whurr.

Wolf, M. (1997).A Provisional,IntegrativeAccount of PhonologicalandNaming-

SpeedDeficitis in Dyslexia:Implications for Diagnosisand Intervention. In B.A.

Blachman (Ed. ), OeadiT

Fowrlafibns Acqid&kn andLWexa (pp. 66-92). New

jerser. LawrenceErlbaurnAssociates.

Wolf, M., Bowers,P.G. & Biddle,K. (2000).Naming-speed timingand

processes,
[Link]?gDiwWziia, 33,387-407.'

WorkingPartyof the Divisionof Educational

andChild Psychology
of theBritish
PsychologicalSociety(1999).LýdýiaLitaý andPryd; Asse=". Leicester.
abgical
Society.
British Psychological

Wydell, T.N. & Butterworth, B. (1999).

A casestudyof an bilingual
English-japanese
dyslexia.
CTiiikm 70,273-305.
with monolingual

209
Appendix A: Individually-administeredMeasures

AppendixA-I
 INDIVIDUAL TESTS
CASE NUMBER:

NAME OF CHILD:

GRADE: SECTION:

BIRTHDAY: AGE:

HANDEDNESS: LEFT-HANDED: RIGHT-HANDED:

EXAMINER:

Filipino
Word Phoneme Word NonWord Sentence Syllable
Reading Tapping Span Reading Compre Tapping

Total
Errors
Total
Correct
- Items
;Fotal 72.00 18-00 14.00 17.00 10.00 15.00
-/. Correct

Rapid Naming Stroop

PracticeCard
Test Card

English
Word Phoneme Word Sentence Syllable NonWord
Reading Tapping Span Compre Tapping Reading
-'T-o-tal
Errors
Total
Correct
Total Items 46.00 20.00 1 14.001 9.001 18.001 1-7-.
0-0-1
%Correct I II I

Rapid Naming Stroop

-Fra--cticeCard
Test Card

Rhythm Tapping Picture Stories Block Design

-Errors
'Total
Total Correct
Total Items 12.00 15.00 11.06-
% Correct

Appendix A-2
Filipino Language Tests

Appendix A-3
1. FILIPINO WORD READING TEST
Name letter Name Name
X OR,, ' X OR XORV
sounds letter letter
sounds sounds
1. w 4. U 6.1
2. NG 17. B
3. F
STUr Al IU UUINbhU UIIVh hKKUKS

X OR X OR WORD
V. WORD

8. ANO 28. GAWAIN

9. ISDA 29. IBABA

10. BASURA 30. SUMUSUNOD

11. ITO 3 1: GAYUNDIN
12. KO 32. PAYO

13. AYAW 33. NATUWA

14. PATLANG 34. PASUKAN
1S. HALIMBAWA 35. DIGMAAN

16. KATUTUBO 36. MAISAN

37. IKADALAWAMPU'T
17. NG DALAWA
18. LAMANG 38. MAKABLILUHAN

19. DISIPLINA 39. PABULA

20. PANGARAP 40. KAHON

21. SIMBAHAN 41.41. SARIWA

22. BUNGA 42. SUNDALO

23. DINARAYO 43. MAKAALPAS

24. PAGTUKLAS 44. NAPAKAYUMI

25. PANGUNGUSAP 45. TRANSPORTASYON

26. AKLAT 46. TRiUTUPJNGAN

27. NAPAPANAHON
,

Appendix A-4
STOP
END OF FILIPINO WORD READING TEST

TOTAL ERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
TOTAL ITEMS 46.00
% CORRECT

2. FILIPINO RAPID VISUAL NAMING TEST

Practice Card: mins. sees.

Test Card: mins. sees.

STOP
END OF FILIPINO RAPID VISUAL NAMING TEST

3. FILIPINO STROOP TEST

Practice Card: mins. secs

Test Card: mins. secs.

STOP
END OF FILIPINO STROOP TEST

Appendix A-5
4. FILIPINO PHONEME TAPPING TEST
STOP WHEN ALL ITEMS IN A LEVEL ARE FAILED.

taps words # taps

teaching: mo* (2)
teaching: aso * (3)
1. si (2) 2. kapag (5)
3. pa (2) 4. malfit (6)
5. tao (3) 6. adhika (6)
7. iba (3) 8. cavite (6)
9. kung (3) 10. digmaan (7)
11. awit (4) 12. subukin (7)
13. kuya (4) 14. magiging (7)
15. guro (4) 16. nasaktan (8)
17. gusto (5) 18. kaarawan (8)
19. aklat (5) 20. aparador (8)
e not included in score

STOP!
END OF FILIPINO PHONEME TAPPING TEST

TOTALERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
TOTAL ITEMS 20.00
I
% CORRECT

AppendixA-6
5. FILIPINO WORD SPAN
MARK THE WORDS WITH A SLASH AS THE CHILD SAYS THEM TO
KEEP TRACK OF CORRECT ORDER. GIVE BOTH ITEMS ON A
LEVEL CONSECUTIVELY.

1 I
correct level A B
11 2 Trial I tsokolate kahel rosas asul

STOP WHEN A CHILD FAILS BOTH ITEMS ON A LEVEL

I pula dilaw berde puti

2 itim biyoleta tsokolate kahel rosas asul

3 pula berde itim kahel tsokolate dilaw puti biyoleta

4 tsokolate, rosas pula puti rosas dilaw itim kahel pula
kahel

5 puti biyoleta rosas rosas itim dilaw pula pula kahel

tsokolate
6 asul dilaw puti biyoleta dilaw berde puti itim
kahel pula biyoleta tsokolate

7 berde tsokolate asul puti itim pula itim dilaw berde

rosas biyoleftan biyoleta kahel asul

STOP
END OF FILIPINO WORD SPAN TEST

TOTALERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
TOTAL ITEMS 14.00,
% CORRECT

Appendix A-7
6. FILIPINO SENTENCE COMPREHENSION TEST

TEACHING ORDER CORRECT CHILD'S ANSWER

A 123 TAN
B1 123 KUY

STOP AFTER 5 CONSECUTIVE ERRORS ON TESTING ITEMS.

TESTING ORDER CORRECT CHILD'S ANSWER
1 123 BAN
2 1234 MANG
3 1234 BULK
4 1234 MESA
5 12345 HUSAY
6 123456 ATEMOI
7 1234 LINS
8 123 PAG
9 123456 MAGLN

STOP
END OF FILIPINO SENTENCE COMPREHENSION TEST

TOTALERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
TOTAL ITEMS 10.00
I
% CORRECT

AppendLxA-8
7. SYLLABLE TAPPING TEST
STOP WHEN ALL ITEMS IN A LEVEL ARE FAILED.
H TAPS WORDS
teaching: ng * (1)
teaching: hindi * (2)
1. sa (1)
2. may (1)
3. ang (1)
4. mga (2)
5. kapre (2)
6. ilaw (2)
7. salita (3)
8. kahapon(3)
9. mahalin (3)
10. sumusunod(4)
11. arbolaryo (4)
12. lalawigan (4)
13. napakabait(5)
14. kapaligiran (5)
15. kahanga-hanga(5)
16. pinakamabilis (6)
17. naliligayahan (6)
18. pakikipaglaro (6)
* not included in score

STOP! END OF FILIPINO

SYLLABLE TAPPING TEST

TOTALERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
TOTAL ITEMS 18.00
% CORRECT

AppendLxA-9
8. FILIPINO NONWORD READING
STOP AT 10 CONSECUTIVE ERRORS.
X OR WORD SOUNDS LIKE

1. gaino gaano
2. mahusap mahusay
3. dihirian kaharian
4. amdonan ampunan
5. kadiyaman kadiliman
6. pag-obig pag-ibig
7. dapre kapre
8. datay tatay
9. panghapil panghalip
10. aspital ospital
11. daugdig daigdig
12. saru-sari sari-sari
13. sardal sakdal
14. masipar masipag
15. giaralan paaralan
16. wayuwat watawat
17. halagin halaman

STOP
END OF FILIPINO NONWORD READING TEST

TOTALERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
TOTAL ITEMS 17.00
I
% CORRECT

AppendbcA- 10
English Language Tests

AppendixA-II
1. ENGLISH WORD READING TEST
Name letter Name letter Name letter
X OR V XORV X OR../
sounds sounds sounds
4. A 4. Z 6. T
5.13 5. P 7. L
6.11 1

STOP AT 10 CONSECUTIVE ERRORS

X OR X OR X OR
WORD

8. CAT 30. THAT 52. READ

9. IN 3 1. HELP 153. TRY
1
10. YES 32. SAID 54. DOWN
1
11. RED 33. HEAT 55. NIMBLE
12. UP 34. WRITE 56. BUTTERFLY
13. IS 35. AWAY 57. WEAVE
14. OF 36. CITY 58. TADPOLE
15. ARE 37. AFTER 59. PEOPLE
16. DO 38. EARTH 60. GREAT
17. AS 39. FIRST 61. SECRET
[Link] 40. RICE 62. STRANGE
l
19. THE 4 1. ALL 63. EMPEROR
20. GIRL 42. WHICH 64. QUARREL
1
21. OUR 43. HAVE 6 RHYME
22. PLAY 44. FATHE,R 66. LIVED
23. AND 45. ANIMAL 67. MASTER

24. NOT 46. NOTHING 68. PARASOL

25. LOOK 47. HAPPEN 69. MESSENGER
26. FOR 48. MANY 70. DISTANCE
27. LONG 49. THINK 71. GOVERNMENT

F 28. HOUSE
-
50. FELT
r5
72. BENEFICIARIES

- 29. DAY 1. TURN

STOP
END OF ENGLISH WORD READING TEST

Appendix A- 12
 TOTAL ERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
TOTAL ITEMS 72.00
I
% CORRECT

2. ENGLISH RAPID VISUAL NAMING TEST

Practice Card: mins. secs.

Test Card: mins. secs.

STOP
END OF ENGLISH RAPID VISUAL NAMING TEST

3. ENGLISH PHONEME TAPPING TEST

STOP WHEN ALL ITEMS IN A LEVEL ARE FAILED.
# taps words # taps words
teaching: in * (2)
teaching: of * (2)
21. at (2) 22. from (4)
23. she (2) 24. study (5)
25. not (3) 26. plant (5)
27. wood (3) 28. piano (5)
29. said (3) 30. event (5)
3 1. make (3) 32. picture (6)
33. people (4) 34. places (6)
35. list (4) 36. everything (7)
37. went (4) 38. present (7)
o not included in score
STOP! END OF ENG LISH PHONEMI ZTAPPING TEST
TOTALERRORS
_ _
TOTAL CORRECT
_ _
TOTAL ITEMS 18.00
_
% CORRECT

Appendix A- 13
4. ENGLISH WORD SPAN
Slash words as the child says them to keep track of correct order. Give both
items on a level consecutively.

2 Trial green red black white

correct level A B
STOP WHEN A CHILD FAILS BOTH ITEMS ON A LEVEL
1 red, yellow pink, blue
2 violet, green,black orange,white, red
3 brown, blue, pink, red white, red, greenblue
4 black, yellow, pink, orange, brown, blue, white, violet,
green yellow
blue, red, pink violet, pink blue, yellow, black orange,
,
black
6 brown, orange,pink, blue, green,white, black, violet,
red, yellow brown, orange
7 violet, white, yellow, blue, red, orange,greenblack,
orange,black, red brown, pink, blue, violet

STOP
END OF ENGLISH WORD SPAN TEST

TOTALERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
TOTAL ITEMS 14.00
-CORRECT
%

5. ENGLISH STROOP TEST

Practice Card: mins. secs.

Test Card: mins. sees.

STOP
END OF ENGLISH STROOP TEST

AppendixA- 14
6. ENGLISH NONWORD, READING
STOP AT 10 CONSECUTIVE ERRORS.

X OR WORD SOUNDS X OR WORD SOUNDS

LIKE LIKE
9. sead read 10. miction fiction
10. moop mood 10. howt howl
11. bupper butter 11 garken garden
.
12. pidture picture 12. catavap caravan
13. fraces places 13. prejend pretend
14. shol shop 14. irange orange
15. klatc, grate 15. plavel travel
16. hirth birth 16. charb chart
[Link] pure

STOP
END OF ENGLISH NONWORD READING TEST

_TOTALERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
TOTAL ITEMS 17.00
:: I
% CORRECT

Appendix A- 15
7. ENGLISH SENTENCE COMPREHENSION TEST

TEACHING ORDER CORRECT CHILD'S ANSWER

A 12 KO
B 12 DR

STOP AFrER 5 CONSECUTIVE ERRORS ON TESTING ITEMS.

TESTING ORDER CORRECT CHILD'S ANSWER
1 123 DOG
2 12 NX
3 12 MA
4 123 TRN
5 123 JET
TESTING ORDER CORRECT CHILD'S ANSWER
6 1234 PICT
7 12345 STORY
8 12345678 YOUNGERS
9 123456 BENGOD
10 1234567 PLANTBE
,

STOP
END OF ENGLISH SENTENCE COMPRHENSION TEST

TOTALERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
TOTAL ITEMS 10.00
:: 1
% CORRECT

AppendixA- 16
7. SYLLABLE TAPPING TEST

STOP WHEN ALL ITEMS IN A LEVEL ARE FAILED.

# TAPS WORDS
teaching: hat* (1)
teaching: rabbit * (2)
19. dog (1)
20. from (1)
2 1. leaf (1)
22..reading (2)
23. story
_(2)
24. lighthouse (2)
25. animals (3)
26. gardener(3)
27. janitor (3)
28. filipino (4)
29. caterpillar (4)
30. dictionary (4)
3 1. international (5)
32. exclamatory (5)
33. gravitational (5)
not included in score

STOP! END OF ENGLISH SYLLABLE TAPPING TEST

TOTALERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
TOTAL ITEMS 15.00
I-
% CORRECT

Appendix A- 17
Non-Language Tests

Appendix A- 18
 1. RHYTHM TAPPING

STOP AFTER 5 CONSECTIVE ERRORS

Item # taps X OR,,. /

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. ---

12.

STOP
END OF RHYTHM TAPPING TEST

TOTALERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
TOTALITEMS 12.00
rOZo I
CORRECT

Appendix A- 19
2. PICTURE, STORIES ARRANGEMENT TEST

TEACHING ORDER CORRECT CHILD'S ANSWER

EXAMPLE 12 ON

STOP AFTER 5 CONSECUTIVE ERRORS ON TESTING ITEMS.

TESTING ORDER CORRECT CHILD'S ANSWER
1 1234 KITE
2 123 LIT
3 123 WET
4 123 POT
5 123 DOG
6 123 ICE
7 1234 SEAT
8 1234 PAGE
9 12345 DtCOR
10 12345 DRAWS
11 12345 MEDAL
12 123456 FLOWER
13 123456 BAMVOU
14 123456 STONEY
, 1
151 1234567 NUMBERS

STOP
END OF PICTURE STORIES TEST

TOTAL ERRORS
TOTAL CORRECT
EOTALITEMS
g 20.00
0/ , (co
co;
%Y(CORRECT
00

AppendLxA- 20
3. BLOCK DESIGN: Go back to 1 if first trial of #3 is failed. Stop after 2
consecutive failures.

Design Max Time P or F? Actual Time Points Final Score

I ýýTrial 1 45 secs 2
1- Trial 2 45 secs I
over time 0
45 secs 2
2- Trial 2 45 secs I
over time 0
3- Trial 1 45 secs 2
3- Trial 2 45 secs I
over time 0
4 21- 45 secs 4
16-20 secs 5
11- 15 secs
1- 10 secs
overtime
-5 21 -75 secs 4
16-20 secs 5
11- 15 secs 6
1- 10 secs 7
overtime 0
6 21- 75 sees 4
16-20 secs 5
11- 15 secs 6
1- 10 sees 7
overtime 0
7 21 -75 secs 4
16-20 secs 5
11- 15 secs 6
1- 10 secs 7
overtime 0
-8 - 1 26 -75 secs 4
21-25 secs 5
15 -20 secs 6
1- 15 secs 7
overtime 0
9 56-120 secs 4
36-55 secs 5
26-35 secs 6
1-25 secs 7
overtime 0
ýO I -7-6--120secs 4
56-75 secs 5
41-55 secs 6
1-40 secs 7
overtime 0
--ý --9-1-120secs 4
56-80 secs
41-55 secs
1-40 secs
overtime

AppendixA- 21
Filipino Word ReadingStimulusCard

Appendix A- 22
 c
0

a 0)
0 a

C3
'a
ca

E
C
13
C3

z
CL 0
0 c3) c
JM

0 c c CL

LL-

0 0 'a
Z X 0
a 5 Z 0 0 0
G .CL ->-
z» 0
-2
:1 le 2
0 Z ca -0 -0
0 2 0 C) 0
CL .! CL 92.

0
:
0 0 M
E
: 0 m t» E
0 - r_
FilipinoNonwordReadingStimulusCard

AppendLxA- 23
 C
0)
c
a
c
>4
0
E

Nm
c 0 v

h-
10

CL CD
0

0
E

c
0
... N
oý
Filipino RapidVisualNamingStimulusCards

Appendix A- 24
WIWI
PW IM 0

Q
0
FiEpinoStroopCards

Appendix A- 25
pula dilaw

berde pula

asul dilaw dilaw

pula asul

asul pula berde

pula asul

dilaw

pula dilaw asul

. j_
-.

:
Examplesof Filipino Sentence
Comprehension
Cards

AppendixA- 26
'nic child is askedto re-order the -,vords/phraseson the cardsto makea correct sentence.

Sampleitem # 1: Kunin .1m,mg1lpapelsamesa.

n
Sampleitem #2: Mahusaymagpayoangaking guro.

ý.magpýyo aking

ahusay
EnglishWordReadingStimulusCard

Appendix A-27
 .4-
(D
CD
0
V

0
0

CL

0
-6
CL CL

. 6-
1.. . 6-
N a 0 .0 CD
E
C
0 ;E
CL
x CL

CD
a M
E
0 cr

-6
E CL
c

V)
.0-
EnglishNonword ReadingStimulusCard w

AppendixA- 28
 (1)
CL 75
CL

.0
I. -

a
C.
)

%- c
a)
m

.32 V)

0
.C

c
to
0 0 (1)
.0 b-

CL
EnglishRapidVisualNamingStimulusCards

Appendix A- 29
Nor
EnghshStroopCards

AppendixA- 30
 _1
_____________ _____________ ____
 yellow
green

red red

yellow blue blue

yellow
red

green blue

red green yellow

blue blue

yellow green
Examplesof EnglishSentence
Comprehension
Cards

Appendix A- 31
The child is askedto re-orderthewords/phrases
to makea correctsentence.

Sampleitem#l: Readthenexthne.

the neit .,.ine'.

Sampleitem #2: You shouldbeproudof youryoungersister.

-1

"SS
SS
'Sr

should younger our

Examplesof PictureStoriesStimulusCards

Appendix A- 32
The child is askedto arrangethesepicturesto makea story.

Sampleitem#l: Icecreamvendor
Sampleitem #2: Making kite
a

))

I..

" .
ii4.
Sampleitem #3: Slingshot

0
 for IndividuallyAdministeredMeasures
Examýners'Manual

Appendix A- 33
 ce
9.
-4

F-Bog

Z
', "

ýý = = = A4 CD

>

Omina(
 pllýz

u0. r_ Z
cn g
ý: M
L.. Ci. tr- -Em -0 -0 in c
MA9ý: .-M tý ;Sý: r- = ce Z)
" ;9 15 c:
000 .2aZ
:1 tz .2:
?,.Z-
ig

>
15
r_ M'o
0 r1- (nce 0 r-
10
4ý
0
M cl rA

tý L) u
g :iU (6- 0 2 fA %. U

-ü -ec:
0

Ar
48 0C0
LU M=. r_ 2 -0
E 42
U) * E. > ME CA V)
t3 *-
;Z.. :J- ce$.. -
c2. -g r: 0- go= -ZEJM
N4 0ýv; 0
eu= .2v v) -
> oý äe
:3 -0
(2 c3
gl
In
Z
Qo C)
.i
L4 eä0 r- ci ce *;
Z r- C
-g cu c:
0 -A *-
0
12LaE ý: -i
'CJ U -0 00 >,
:2= -S mo
u vr
ý,ý4 1
:9 _MM
rA H
h"A-- u-0
ýr:ä0 `:: '
+ý -1:3
0 -5 0
cu C) 4ý COr-E- (L) U 4ý JA
15 0 Z
W
0.0 -
ce
12. m E; Ion ýn (A CA 0 :Z
>,
K
E
>lb
cu
40.
*ig *0 t. = +-, %Z r- 0 r. 2
0: T: r" 0
Ui U) zi d)
-
>,%c: 0o
ce >c 25 c) V) gi
SID
e0 ,u

0
25 cli c3 '0
4-
u-
je
00 4)
S>0
u) 12-.V) 5: '13-:SZ.
LMJ.ý , :3 ý4 0M
+. -6 -- , Z

ý LIJ cu ö) (A ýý0"9 d0.r-

--,
c: '
cu

0=0 -
li--
Z: 5 vý .2P. ei
e tz b.

CU
0EM In :i" ei c2. -2 .-ý (A >,
0 r: 9% (A - ID8 -ý (A0M
.
 4-
vi

Ici 1.' 0 GO2

6r -5
vi
Z -Z] U= 2 cn
b- i2 ueZ2m :i0E
,u M Cli QZ9,0 Z 9,
kD,
0 0
Cd' u E
8 4u
CU
*0

-0 0 >, bb
0 :D
E im. 10 e 20
ýt C) ar
r-
0Er
00 ZZ: J-- 0
to

LLj 0 2

-uuum Gn F-4 W«
«s u. -- cn
kz) ch M.. +ý - :3
5ý 0 cý 1-«
4ý
r4
0C=w
CU m0
-ß ý: ýZ cn

r41
Co
le: kA ýld
CO
0

r_ (A
m 0 '-> 0.
=0
0 12.
10 =2 1->
c:
E4M
0=
ci :-

0aU9 >u..0 +A -4 Z
Z ' 0 12 E
.>Z.. ;;, 52
1
. Z:
r=0 E, (j
4) tn
-EU%.
00 ;t0 ý:
t2 8< rA U -a is
(n '9 'E
CK u .
2-a 'ý
19 93
) 4.-5 ,u2, e
r= :
0 -j :a4
CK "li t' -ti *ý -Z -5 .sý: 1- Qz ci
m4s- <'=-e r- -0 ;Zt0
to)
Z ;3
:10ý: 0 cu
00 ce

ý lý
4 00 tz u2 >
0 Ili «0 -,
(L) (A >. %
-0
1. --
ýE cl. -a 80S. 4 w>
b-. w50
,v4 k-i 2 -,ýe
r- ý; --
-, 0Z =.
r- bß
->00 :b 40-
4) r=
-e v'99m 0 to Gn
14 ýr ý7 "e

(n(D J P.
34--1
@) 59ZZ0eý: ;
glik
- vý 4ý

od ce
 r_ d V) - r:
-00
ký r
ý, 7m C ce Z:
4) Z0 .2ý
"0 E Lo '-'Iß
r_ 0
v;
ß. -Z
-0 .-
rZ 'ö0 lu
4- cn
ZZ
.- (A r.
F- 97B -3
: ý
0
0, *A 9 ýöll li4) e0
4-;
S2 ri.
-2
0 0
r- u_ -0 -5 = :1E= to c fi -0 :3 c4-; 1.72
CL . «2 -d
ý: 2, 8
bo g', -Z 8uQ2
0
.E0ýý:
) 0.
(L.
Gn Q
e-i 0=
.e0*, L) Gn U
-d j2
a- 0
Ln (X
M
c) C, u
4ý
0 1 -v
.5j= -0 =E 4.22
CD. r-- r-
u7 1: C 4-
U=90
-2 -ou 10 :3
91.:
(n r= -u0
«i 00- -ti 000r- mZZ taýeLlEor-OE 0 CD
cu
CJ el ;g-.
M0
r_- .2 4) 0" .3
Ei 1-- 0
83 4Z Q) -Q
0 J-- 00. C
,2-m 000Wu g>

Ln j2'5 s
-:
00 Cu Z
>
CZ

4 4.) X
E
(L) Z
ýg E +ý
r- ce
E =O
Z ýn`, 0
0
y -,
: -c: 5
A U'.2
C. 2G -ý Z U)
-5 .> (A
.29, <
a TK -co)
L4
r. jo
Z 0 CUD.
L4 [Link] w2
3Mr. 92.0 0
Z0A .-0e ýz r-
:2ýa2 CK E
0 Z ý- l> ý O=ý
-ý :Z
r.
m e
ýt -0
&-) 4-
Z0 ýZ -- 0U
Z,
22 <
4ý E s 0X
0 le o. S ":
rA ý ý: *0
,0j
CI) -
ý:
CA
Cz. =cý: cý .2 00
-0 :.,
ýn r- "3
+ý
1--
bý

.,Z 0 0 .2
ÜJZ 9m 14-k9
k4 K
 coi

Cw

Z e; 0 191 >

45
(t)
E t: --0, -2Zýý:
AJ0
10
:3 4)
-v 0 (n 9) -x
0 V) C)<tu 22 tý 2w 55
1 ci
(f)
2ý vi 2Mjg.
k) r.

02E0 r- J-- :j0K F--1 rA

L- c2
=m0u
E
tn T tOc
22 ý: 9%U ce
c2.5

w
4-
to 00

0 ý: u9e0>,
ci
ýp 0
ý: e.
E2 to r- icz
O=
3ä
0 i -- ý-) ýJ c)

k
(I)

>b
; 14 p4
PQ pý

-0 4) = bb
ce
= ý:
10

0
CD

t- ýr a=

(1D
 1-7Z

.0 E

ýo E -a uý 72
'Z .-to. 0rA
r_
0
e ýj 0 rA ýi
0 -. Z
-1 0Sä

.
cu
14
.5 r_ce
Ci. 0 0 rz -0
r
5)
=8 0 0
mi 0
0e e J.- -i- '-, iig ;E
ui -0 A-
r--
0 -r-
Ici
-- -2
r-
2. -0
0
r-
u u rq 0
0 ý%- %zý m
.4"
j-: )
l,
b- 4)
ý: fi
Nat r: -0 4. 0ý s
e < rA
Le
,
M
E ;
_IM-5 m c2.7 62m >,
>, c
Co +0 ý; j r.
=U r- u c :, (A Q cýI
3 ?
0
g) 0 ý: Ei. c3. r-= U
0 0 (U 4.1 m

).-)-i>w-,
0
w ß_
uj
- ;t 0= H. n. '>
Z
g '-,
92 Q
 9
Vi)
E<
E
E
to ÖD 0
ýg cr 0 1.4
N2 10.1>ý% ýE 4 ww
-,
E- 2% r= 'la V)
k=Z=0 .
0ý=N.
.? :3
V)
«t
ýc) v2

Z26Z i- bi)ýa
ho - eUw
eu r- czý
Q le,- e, 2 to E ,EU
Co, P-4
0- Z:)
.2
75 Co> e9
E - w4 ej
Lii
U-
9 Ir-,1 5
ý: bý 92. w
ýE ' Gn
C)Z 0m to <
r= 2 OS c F4
ku 2: P-4
INS . C
N4 rE 0 102
to
LIJ LLI
U)
CO
w

0
Ei 0: E5
_U
m

120
ýZ, te ýa-2
-13
'm
cc): r.
cz ,0 .2 _h2
15 0(C.
>mmm
g) 2 ) M
-2 Z
a u t>0; txo>,
.-2 r- ce ÖD. . %2: =0: 44w (9
.iý 1.255ý-u c: '-, to
4ý 0t>4P., qj
g- >u' X
0 ýE Mot ýP<:
>*E to 2'OMN -aýS
r öýo 7E
,Z
u ,'g
, ro
Z2r. A) ý,' 2 C,*2 r
9 E, e, 2 -c&r) ýE
2 P.4
W-4
141.1 rA r- +g
73
ý
i.. *i-
2-, mý) u00u
;i
 fA r-
.14
ll-ý CA
to
r_
.ý4 :3
7-
0C
CE

bj) V) 0
(A
61)
9EE
0 CA
s0 -c; C)
i-; E '0
V) I ý:
uj . ,--%
0) mý 431 -'s
to on VP k-q E
a0 Cd o
to aE
0 4c,
W 4- Q.
15
CA
r-
C) cd
to 0 45
04 w.
Z .
lb d
.- . cn "0
0E
CA r, E
J) -ý.
cd
cl
C6 (t
E E ce.
Z q6 . Q.
-40
5 o: S -1-, -=, Iý: u -g E ti ý:
E .5 .5 C) -c :E,,
ýa W d
-1 r-
td 00 Eý 99 V) 0 .2
z Cl r- b4 CZE9= W) to Z %-,.0-o ý, 0.0
--

N0 C,

2
ZZE CD Q0 iz Q
L4-1-4
4 91 UZ 41
Cý C-; wi %6 -: ri C-i

0
0

lu 0 CL
r: --, mE2r ý_, to
Z
C 9, -2
g- 8 r. 0. -
0-0
-3 .E
=m0
ce -9
Z..Z
LLI 00
+ý cj cu ce
öol
F-ý V) 'CJ
9:6

=- -1p t3
&. -,
ci 0 c5
CL -Z E 51 -2 E E --ý- lui
*ý

S. 2
= "
to
9 25-,
m
2ä to to *0 ß. 2
2: go d
., Ei 2 -= 's ý,
-
00
ý3 20
4
4-
Je .88cm.5; 0

oo -tý or 5ý to
-
20 >,
4) ou
0ý
U -0
ed E- -. r- 0
ed :S -0 -*..,V p2 Ei
E ýE -be rz -Z: uZ
0=0C: w -'id .-M
-0
vs
(L) CU
ý 2 .0
1. -ý
r_
i, -"d v ec
uU :ý jm:
>
Lu
j
 9
1-ý
-0 r= .2
0 41) -£- =
0 JId
iz cli
k. ý: mý vý E

rA
E
Zw
r. 52 59 to ur «i
N4
Q. pE5 =-O
M=49mge
.>b . .2äV
fý im
-er.
;9
gh 0a
a
ce cl.
In.
(U u (A
g9 90
'5 CJ 2. umc: -0: GO e
E tu öz
Z: 10:50eö20
0 -3- 9 fE .2, re CL.r-
L4 m
00=ZSU to Q
.q&, r-
e
) 1: lu r- >, cl. Q ce bß >%
h. --1!Zm4.
ICZ 90uý
e. .20
Z
>, c2. c2, >% Z: >-%
cu ce
to
*m
n C.
L4 ý4Zt

(n 4
to
"a a
0 >. :9
Iý

0 tl-

Ix to to
.20.
Cd
94 0
C2

ý4 .-jE2Z,
090
E 1%E
cd -t
,; N0E Wg
Cl "0
0ý x
2,9) 1,6-9W
N20
-0 ,Er.

i-.
", 9
o 0- I'DEb
c -:
ýt. --
"E0 Q-)]2 V)
0WW
C'*
ý-- co
ig
ý:
cl
(n
-= =
A :2ý: 6 0
r- C:
0 a.
I r, to: E -a - E.
cz 2. s0 :2AIKý: ý 14
cl -0 E bo iz
tog. Lý- ýD to

Lq -12ý% !5 >1
.2ý, Z<C bri 00 =0F- V,
t5 :3 ; 0
tý Pk cq
c
-Z 45 En CL. a rik A4
V)

-G, _: Cý C-i
 FU-I

N-1 = -4 4,1C
< C)

cx E Z
JA ;2eu

kýß m
-=O
.-2
cu Z
g
om
).. 93L 00- m
0
E -.: >I ch >
rý rý --: rý c-; --4
ý2
 1-.
4
LU
z 04
4-
uj

Z00^Q. V0

4- au
Cc).
ol
4-4

Z
u
n CL6C
6ý om
w
144
V)
=c
,2
'IS
't -Cl.
-0
jo
-ý Eo t;
0.4
w
04
rA 2
C41

;-ý-4 -0T ý: to g
0g to.04r-) w En

0 ;p
50
uj u *t"j) 4d
o, a0
0w
u
V4 0.4

E 4.) -2 0
C43
nu
to
4 o
C-icl;

4) x
9 c-
lui 20 CA

CA 4«
Q cu -- ýý -u 0

(D 4)
(A ce x
u
"

1-1
9) 1-%
0a ký

,)0. tn 1
ýý
J-- .. p +ý ;A
v J--
j-, f) (A
(A
ce ýq -5 :2 -
CDL. 0
V) >
ci
r- n
--: >2,
s'm
r_ J-- [- CA r:
9)
ce
=
=
*ý
Q

t 0
44X
 v) 2
- ID Z
,A vi 20 _C ý
(12 c:i. -mpA>,
-;:
MW.. cu _C
-ý-- -T-1
_1_-cli U) >ý, M (A -IZ vý
> CA f..) 12 .-=0
OJ

C,3 M C/)
(D V uMm
,u M "- 1.) nz ci E
,-Z - 3
(D
ll
-C3 CZ
_c
,'Z - QI

ZQ CA CIS
M Z) -a -2
(M ýv oi4
u 0;
öz z Q) -, "
CA -ý4
ý
Q.)
,-
(m
E

--- :E U --
0r zn: (Z ýE
-2 E
E -5 ýý, , e t' Z0
mýGu (X
ýmw)
0. W
JO =C, 0 ýu %Z 0m
Vý ý- (Nn 3 =0 -c
ý- Z cri
z -c

lý -- cu , r_ m0E -0
mn

-c '
6
J--
- -t
.Z

m u 1 (D CM
u -0
cu u
oi u 71'LI m -EE it ;iE x
2
Z
ý;;
Q) -5 a
0
«) -ýn
m
cz
n
u
z3 -
&bý
ný g. uE
Z
C) r2
b.« -c
111 .-
r: li
&.
-Z LZ GM =me (U )
-1:: > = ýb
r -r- Q) -v -- .-
c
C) M >ý
CU
0 ci -
-X
cu
Qn
oi -CD *..
Q
w.
73 ci Q ý5 -2 Z

m
r- U 0
Z cl cn V) -ýe
m (1 Öl) >ý mý 0
u
Z*- CA
cz 0 'LA C) . -
CA Q) .v0 . -u
uj
2
2

u Q) :s ýw

9' csQ M- ZJ U 0
m (1) (U E' CA Qj ) Z] m
:Ec)
K
Z ý- m U <i ýýi 4 -1
ti _c *Z A- >,
.7
 ;>
V)
C)
IFR Q
CIS
ED.
1-1 -10 -0 rA
.
V)

V)

a) -
ca

ui cz
CL

E
Cd
Q) u
Q)
z LA
Q) a
=
1'-4 -1.4 Q) Cý -
e
-ý, a (D
cl m -'e
-r- 0
2t
ui

ý ý:
u
ß_
ýA
lle
0 -0 .- 0 Ci
2 cu
U ua c: ej -ýZ
u Z, ci
r_
C)
(U
ri " 0ýZ u
r- = Z ýý 0 vý
Q)
0 e Z >ý
_iz (D (A vA -ci
u
0-2 9= - A

i-: = 4.
2 r_ m 1 r_
_Z
c) u 73
cu 10
2
m
12. k. M Q (-) C,Z LU-
t- (U -0 (A cr
u
0= c (A m . 9) Q)

0
(2
Z4 - ll cu ei c vý r_

-7 >, +- ZZ=
-0 Q x
ei E r_
ci
Ln ýM
ri
Ar
-

M
gj
Z
öß
cu
,
v2
('Z
je. ci

m
CU 1>t,
- m >ý
ri
- ý::
Ln
oi , - u
LLý r_
-m -U -M
:i tr- E Ziz 0 4 - g
0 a
to)
E -a 4 x &- b- () -5
=
>ý Z;; u " cu ýD zi zo

cl) Ir) Z
h-1 fl) e Mt
r, 4
rý rý
Appendix B: Group-administeredMeasures

Appendix B-I
 GROUP TESTS
CASE NUMBER:

NAME OF CHILD:

GRADE: SECTION:

BIRTHDAY: AGE:

HANDEDNESS: LEFT-HANDED: RIGHT-HANDED:

EXAMINER:

Spelling in Listening Visual Pagbabanghay Pakikinig

English Comprehension Shape sa Filipino sa Filipino
in English Memory
Total
Errors
Total
Correct
Total Items 49.00 31.00 5.00 51.00 30.00
% Correct

AppendixB-2
Examiner'sManualfor Group-administered
Measures

Appendix B-3
GROUP TESTS

1. ENGLISH SPELLING

SAY EXACTLY WHAT IS WRITTEN ON THIS GUIDE.

SPEAK LOUDLY AND CLEARLY. DO NOT STRESS ANY SOUND WITHIN A
WORD.
DO NOT REPEAT A WORD MORE OFTEN THAN IS ALLOWED.
MAKE SURE NO ONE IS COPYING FROM THE SEATMATES.

Pre-writing Test Items:

IMPORTANT. Make the sound of the letter. DO NOT GIVE THE LETTER NAME.

To the children: Write the letter that makesthe sound I say. Example: If I say z, z in
zebra, z, what letter will you write? Call a volunteer. Write the letter Z on the board. if
I say A in apple, what letter will you write? Write the letter A on the board. Ready?
I. v-v in vacation. v
2. e-e in eva. e
3. j -j inj4cket. j
4. m-minmama. m
5. r-r in rabbit. r
6. x-x in xylophone. x
7. s-s in sun. s

Spelling Words:
To the children : Write the word I say. Only write the word after I use it in a sentence.
Listen to the sentence and the word very well.

8. to - Go to sleep. TO
9. run - Cats ran fast. RUN
10. legs - People have 2 legs. LEGS
11. tell - Tell me your [Link]
12. at -We will meet at her [Link]
13. the - The man is fat. THE
14. did - Did you like the food? DID
15. can - The can is on the table. CAN
16. like - Do you like to sing? LIKE
17. out - Let's go out for a walk. OUT
18. not - Blue is not pink. NOT
19. then - First we ate, then we slept. THEN
20. what - What is your name?WHAT
 GROUP TESTS
2

2 1. play - Children like to play. PLAY

22. look - Look at the sky. SKY
23. house- The houseis big. HOUSE
24. read -I love to read books. READ
25. felt -I felt sad when I lost my wallet. FELT
26. down - The ball rolled down the hill. DOWN
27. head- This is my head.(point to your head) HEAD
28. use - Use the scissorsfor cutting paper. USE
29. rain - Rain is good for plants. RAIN
30. try - Always try your [Link]
3 1. below - Below your paperis a table. BELOW
32. wishes -I have many wishes. WISHES
33. mother -A mother loves her children. MOTHER
34. story -I read a story before [Link]
35. all - All plants are living things. ALL
36. around - It would be fun to go around the world. AROUND
37. family - Do you have a big family? FAMILY
3 8, difficult - The test is difficult. DIFFICULT
39. voice - Does your teacherhave a loud voice? VOICE
40. small - An ant is very small. SMALL
4 1. balloon -A balloon can float in the air. BALLOON
42. beautiful - The dressshewore to the party was beautiful. BEAUTIFUL
43. write - Write your answersclearly. WRITE
44. village - The village hasvery few [Link]
45. fortune - His fortune changedwhen he found a box of [Link]
46. earth - The earth is round. EARTH
47. many - There are many shells on the [Link]
48. piece - The piece of pie was very delicious. PIECE
49. space- There are nine planetsin [Link]
GROUP TESTS 3

2. ENGLISH LISTENING COMPREHENSION

READ THE QUESTION ONLY TWO TIMES.
TELL THE KIDS TO ENCIRCLE THEIR ANSWER.

TEACHING ITEMS:
Instructions to children:
1. Look at the picture. Listen to the short stories I will say.
2. Put a ring aroundyour answer.
3. When you are done,keep quiet and put your pencils up in the air.

(WRITE A. YES NO AND B. YES NO ON THE BOARD TO

BE USED TO DEMONSTRATE THE WAY TO ANSWER THIS ACTIVITY. )

A. Is the boy sitting on the chair? (put a circle around your answer.)
B. Did he win a race?(put a circle around your answer.

IF THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, THEN PROCEED TO

THE TESTING ITEMS.

TESTING ITEMS: PICTURES

instructions to children:
1. Look at the picture. Listen to the short stories I will say.
2. Put a ring around your answer.
3. When you are done,keep quiet and put your pencils up in the air.

1. Is the door open?

2. Is a boy reading the book?
3. Can you use this pencil?
4. Are the clothes dry?
5. Is Mary getting off thejeep?
6. Is the man fixing the faucet?

TESTING ITEMS: SHORT STORIES

Instructions to children:
1. Listen to the short stories I will say. There won't be pictures anymore so listen well.
2. Put a ring around your answer.
3. When you are done, keep quiet and put your pencils up in the air.
4. Ready?

Story Ml:

Dave made a kite. Miguel wanted to make a kite, too. So Dave showedMiguel how
to make a kite. When they were done, they went up the hill to fly their kites.
GROUP TESTS 4

1. Did Miguel makethe kite?

2. Did DaveteachMiguel how to makea kite?
3. Did theyfly their kites on top of a building?

Story #2:

Long ago, there was a king who could not sleep at night. The softest soundswoke
him up. He told his soldiers to stop all those making soundsin the castle. So the king
was able to sleep.

Then therewas [Link] king heardthe loud [Link] king told his men to
stopthe thunder.
4. Did the king like to hear soundsat night?
5. Did he like the soft sounds?
6. Were the soldiers able to stop the sounds?
7. Did the thunder wake up the king?
8. Could the soldiers stop the thunder from making sounds?
9. Was the king smart?

Story #3:

Revo, the jeep, can't move fast on the street. There are so many vehicles on the street.
It is hard for the cars, jeepneys and buses on the streets to move. Revo honked his
horn but nothing [Link] one car or jeep moved. Revo blew his horn again.
Still nothing happened.

Revo learned his lesson. He learned that no matter how much he beeped, the other
vehicles wouldn't move. So he just turned on the radio and listened to music.

10. Was Revo getting impatient?

11. Did Revo try to make the other vehicles move?
12. Did he blow his horn three times?
13. Did the cars,jeeps and busesmove when he honked his horn?
14. Was Revo happy to be stuck in traffic?
15. Did Revo turn on his radio?
16. Did Revo learn to be more patient?

Story #4:

Benji looked in his pencil case.

His new pencil was missing.
He told his teacherabout it and she askedhim to check if it was in his bag.
But he didn't find it there.
GROUP TESTS 5

Then he saw his classmateChito with a pencil. It lookedjust like his pencil. He told his
teacherthat Chito got his pencil. But Chito said that the pencil was his. Benjie did not
believehim. He calledChito a thief.

Benjie stopped talking to Chito. He stoppedplaying with Chito.

When Benjie got home, he told his mother what [Link] said he should not be
cross with Chito. She told him to look for the pencil in his desk.

Benjie was so surprised when he searchedhis desk. He also felt very wrong about what
he said to Chito. He also promised to apologize to Chito the next day. He was very sorry
for his mistake.

[Link] Chito losehis pencil?

[Link] Benjie losehis pencil?
19. Did he think his classmatestolethe pencil?
20. Wasthe pencil in his bag?
21. Did his teacheraskhim to checkhis deskat home?
22. Did his motherknow wherethe pencilwas?
23. Washe mistakenfor callinghis classmatea thief?
24. Will he makethe samemistakeagainin the future?
25. Will he tell his classmatethat he hadmadea verybig mistake?

3. VISUAL SHAPE MEMORY

Instructions to the children:
1.1 will showyou a shapefor 10 seconds.
2. Then I will take it away.
3. When I say go, draw the shapein the box on your paper.
4. Look closely at the number of the box. Draw the shapein the correct box.
GROUP TESTS 6

4. FILIPINO SPELLING

SAY EXACTLY WHAT IS WRITTEN ON THIS GUIDE.

SPEAK LOUDLY AND CLEARLY. DO NOT STRESS ANY SOUND WITHIN A
WORD.
DO NOT REPEAT A WORD MORE OFTEN THAN IS ALLOWED.
MAKE SURE NO ONE IS COPYING FROM THE SEATMATES.

Pre-writing Test Items:

IMPORTANT. Make the sound of the letter. DO NOT GIVE THE LEYTER NAME.
To the children:
1. Isulat ang tifik na gumagawang tunog na sasabihinko.
2. Halimbawa: Kung sabihin kong A sa atis, isulat ninyo,ang tifik Adsulat sa pisara ang
titik A.
3. [Link]. Kung sabihin kong L [Link], isusulat ninyo ang titik L. [Link] ang
titik L.
4. Ok? [Link] tayo? I

1. g-g sa gusto. G 5. y-y sa yaya. K

2. o-o sa orasan.0 6. b-b sa bahay.B
3. n-n sa nanay.N 7. d-d sa daan.D
4. k-k sa kalapati. K
Spelling Words:
To the children :
1. Ngayon naman, isulat ninyo ang salitang sasabihinko sa tamang patiang.
2. Handa na ba?

1. si - Paboritoko si Aga. SI
2. mo - Kunin mo ang lapis. MO
3. may - May kapatid ka ba? MAY
4. ayon - Ayon sa balita, may bagyo raw. AYON
5. aklat - Ang aklat ay [Link]
6. salita - Isulat mo ang salita. SALITA
7. dalawa - Dalawa ang paa ko. DALAWA
8. sarili - Alagaan ang iyong sarila. SARILI
9. lambak - Ang lambak ay nasagitna ng [Link]
10. kalayaan- Ipaglabanang kalayaan. KALAYAAN
11. matibay - Matibay ang aming [Link]
12. puso - Ang puso ay tumitibok. PUSO
13. pangalan- Ang pangalanko ay (give you name). PANGALAN
GROUP TESTS 7

14. wakas - Ang wakas ng kuwento ay [Link]

15. kaibigan - May kaibigan ka ba? KAIBIGAN
16. mais - Matarnis ang mais. MAIS
17. babae- Ang babaeay [Link]
18. nagkaroon- Nagkaroon ng lagnat si Neneng. NAGKAROON
19. dinadala - Dinadala sa palengkeang paninda. DINADALA
20. panginoon - Ang panginoonay mabait. PANGINOON
2 1. mga - Kayo ay mga bata. MGA
22. Pilipinas - Pilipinas ang ating [Link]
23. aralin - Ang aralin ngayon ay spelling. ARALIN
24. kung - Kung ikaw ay gutom, kurnain ka. KUNG
25. hindi - Hindi ako pagod. HINDI
26. reyna - Mayarnanang reyna. REYNA
27. sabon- Ang sabonay [Link]
28. kasaysayan- Alarnin natin ang ating [Link]
29. iba't-ibang - May iba't-ibang uri ng kotse. IBA'T IBANG
30. pag-aaral- Pagbutihin ang [Link]-AARAL
3 1. isagawa- Isagawanatin ang ating proyekto. ISAGAWA
32. kanluran - Sa kanluran lumulubog ang araw. KANLURAN
33. higit - High na maraini ang 10 keysa sa 2. HIGIT
34. matapang- Ang mga sundaloay [Link]
35. kultura - Ang kultura ng mga bansaay iba-iba. KULTURA
36. kapaligiran - Alagaan natin ang ating kapaligiran. KAPALIGIRAN
37. ng - Bigay ng ninang ko ang darnit na ito. BIGAY
38. matsing - Nakatutuwa ang matsing. MATSING
39. maAari - Maaari tayong [Link]
40. hanggang- Hanggangsaanka tatakbo? HANGGANG
4 1. tadyang-Ito ang aking tadyang(show it). TADYANG
42. sanggunian- May miting ang [Link]
43. pangangalakal- Ang pangangalakalay isang uri ng hanap-buhay.
PANGANGALAKAL
44. pandaigdig - Ang Ingles ay isang pandaigdig na wika. PANDAIGDIG
GROUP TESTS

5. FILIPINO LISTENING COMPREHENSION

TEACHING ITEMS:
Instructions to children:
1. Tingnan ang larawan. Pakingganang tanong.
.
2. Bilugan ang inyong sagot..
3. Kapag tapos ka na, maghintay ng tahimik at itaas ang iyong lapis.

(WRITE A. YES NO AND B. YES NO ON THE BOARD TO

BE USED TO DEMONSTRATE THE WAY TO ANSWER THIS ACTIVITY. )

C. Naka-upo ba ang batang lalaki sa,puno? (put a circle around your answer.)
D. Magkasinghababa ang mga patpat? (put a circle around your answer.

IF THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, THEN PROCEED TO

THE TESTING ITEMS.

TESTING ITEMS: PICTURES

Instructions to children:
1. Tingnan ang larawan. Pakingganang tanong.
.
2. Bilugan ang inyong sagot..
3. Kapag tapos ka na, maghintay ng tahimik at itaas ang iyong lapis.

1. May prutas ba [Link]?

2. Ika-lima nabaangbapon?
3. Bumibili ba sila ng sorbetes?
4. Nakikipaglaroba angguro samgabata?
5. Iisa ba angnagsasayaw?
6. Natutulogbasiyasakama?

TESTING ITEMS: SHORT STORIES

Instructions to children:
1. Makinig sa,mga kuwento. Wala na itong mga larawan kaya makinig ng mabuti.
2. Bilugan ang inyong sagot.
3. Kapag tapos ka na, maghintay ng tahimik at itaas ang iyong lapis
4. Handa na?

Story#1
Masayangkasamaang aking mga kaibigan. Ang paborito ko ay ang makipaglaro sa
kanila. 0
7. Nakikipaglaro ba ang bata sa kanyang mga kaibigan?
8. May mga kaibigan ba ang bata?
9. Magandangpamagatba ang "ang aking paboritoll para sa kuwentong ito?
GROUP TESTS 9

STORY#2

Isang araw, inutusan ni Inang Manok si sisiw na kumuha ng dilaw na mais sa kusina.
Dinala ni sisiw ang basket. Pagdating,niya sa kusina nakakita si sisiw ng puting bigas,
dilaw na keso at dilaw na mais.
Sabi ni sisiw, "Ano nga ba ang ipinakukuha ni Inang Manok?"
Kaya kumuha na lang siya ng tig-kakaunting puting bigas, dilaw na keso at dilaw na
mais.
Nang makita ni Inang Manok ang basketsinabi niya, "Salarnat sa lahat ng iba mo pang
kinuha aking sisiw. Pero ano [Link] ang ipinakukuha ko sa iyo?"

10. May ipinakuha ba si Inang Manok kay sisiw sa bukid?

11. Nagdala ba ng basket si sisiw?
12. Natandaanba ni sisiw ang ipinakukuha ni Inang Manok?
13. Nagalit ba si Inang Manok na maraming kinuha si sisiw?
[Link] kayani InangManokna nakalimutanni sisiw kunganoangkanyang
ipinakukuba?

STORY#3

Binigyan ni Mario si Nanay ng maliit na halamanpara sa [Link]

mabuti ni Nanay ang tanim. Maganda ang tubo ng [Link] ay naging malaking
halaman.
Ayaw ni Nanayat Mario ng napakalakinghalamansakanilangbahay.
Kumuhasila ng gunting,maliliit na pasoat lupa.
Pinutol ni Mario ang maliliit na sangang kanilang halaman.
Itinanim naman ni Nanay ang mga ito sa paso.
Pagkatapos,ipinang-regalo nila ang mga maliliit na halamansa kanilang mga kaibigan.

[Link] ni Nanayng maliit na halamansi Mario sakanyangkaarawan?

[Link] ng sapatna tubig at arawanghalaman?
[Link] Nanayangtanim?
[Link] sila ng kutsilyo upangputulin ang'mgasanga?
19. Nagpasiyaba silang bigyan ng halamanang kanilang mga kaibigan?
20. OK ba na magbigay ng halamanbilang regalo?
2 1. Nagtulungan ba si Nanay at Mario sa paggagawang maliliit na halaman mula sa
kanilang halaman?
GROUPTESTS 10

STORY#4
Higit na maraming tubig kaysa sa lupa dito sa ating mundo.
Pinapapiligiran ng tubig ang lupa.
Maraming isda, halamanat hayop ang nakatira sa dagat.
Maari tayong sumisid upang makita sila.

Ang mgamaninisiday kumukuhang mgalitrato ng mganakatirasadagat.

ipinapakitang mgalarawanna magaganda at -Makukulay
angmga isda.
Sila rin ay gumagawang mgapelikulatungkolsabuhaysakailaliman ng dagat.
ipinapakitang mgapelikulana angbuhaysailalim ng dagatay tahimik dahil hindi
nakagagawa ng malalakas
na tunogangmga hayop nanakatiradito.

Ipinapayo ng mga magmamahalsa dagatng pangalagaannatin ang ating mga dagatat

ang mga laman dagat.
Nakikiusap sila na huwag nating gambalainat sirain ang tirahan ng mga laman-dagat.

22. Mas marami bang lupa kaysatubig sa ating daigdig?

23. May buhay ba sa ilalim ng dagat?
24. May nalalamanba tayo tungkol sa buhay ng mga lamang dagat?
25. Dapat ba nating wasakin ang karagatan?
26. Ikinukuwento ba ng mga maninisid ang tungkol sa buhay sa ilalim ng dagat?
27. Mayroon bang makukulay na isda?
28. Dapat ba nating suwayin ang payo ng mga nagmamahalsa dagat?
29. Nakakapagpagandaba ng mundo ang mga isda, hayop at halaman sa dagat?
30. Mahalaga ba ang mga lamang dagat sa buhaynatin?
PictureStimulusCardsfor EnglishListeningComprehension

Appendix B-4
A
lt 1c

E
lb
 1,
- ý- domv. ý --"
-, . -s-

-. -

1071-ýill-l
1:
"-ILI
I

t.

i
 for
StimulusCards Visual Memory
Shape Task

Appendix B-5
z
Is
Fý
PictureStimulusCardsfor Filipino ListeningComprehension

Appendix B-6
N
6
L
E
F
c
 A-
Appendix C:
MeansandStandardDeviationsof Dyslexic,
Chronological
AgeAverageReaders,
andYounger
Average
Readers

Appendix C-
Table 1. Meansand standarddeviationsof Grade 3 Dyslexicsin English,
Clironological Age Match and Grade 1 Match groupson literacy,cognitiveand
linginstic tasks
Tasks Groups ýN- Mean Std..DeTdation
P" Dy'JcXlC 7 55.71 8.97
-- Chron Aýý 30 69.93 1.22
Gr. 1 Match 14 54.43 7.05
ESPL -
Dyslexic 7 23.85 8.53
Chron Age 30 44.63 3.04
Gr. I Match 14 17.42 8.07
ESentence Dyslexic 6.00 2.23
Chron Age _7 30 9.30 91
.
Gr. 1 Match 14 4.50 1.16
--f-NW Dyslexic 7 6.00 3.51
Chron Age 30 14.46 1.61
Gr. I Match 14 6.92 4.46
EPT Dyslexic 7 5.71 3.30
Chron Age 30 7.16 4.49
Gr. 1 Match 14 5.71 3.70
EST Dyslexic 7 12.14 3.23
Chron Age 30 13.03 3.42
Gr. 1 Match 14 9.50 5.44
EPictures Dyslexic 7 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 30 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 1 Match 14 [Link] [Link]
EColours Dyslexic 7 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 30 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 1 Match 14 [Link] [Link]
7ffw--S Dyslexic 7 6.14 1.95
Chron Age 30 7.93 1.74
Gr. 1 Match 14 5.35 1.59
E Dyslexic 7 21.42 3.55
Chron Age 30 23.13 3.69
Gr. I Match 14 16.21 4.11
WWR- Dyslexic 7 33.57 10.21
Chron Age 30 43.80 2.07
Gr. I Match 14 38.71 7.62
FSPL Dyslexic 7 34.42 11.38
Chron Age 30 46.66 3.83
Gr. I Match 14 33.92 12.26
FSentence Dyslexic 7 5.28 2.92
Chron Age 30 8.43 77
.
Gr. I Match 14 4.21 2.29
FN'\V Dyslexic 7 9.57 4.75
Chron Age 30 15.73 1.31
Gr. I Match 14 14.78 1.80
Tible I contl'Varl

T asks N Mean W. Deviation

I'll, I' I )N'slexh, 7- 6.00 6.2 9-
diron Age 30 11.93 6.41
Gr. I Match 14 7.42 5.84
FST Dyslexic 7 14.85 4.18
Chron Age 30 15.90 4.12
Gr. 1 Match 14 11.50 7.09
Hictures Iýslexic 7 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 30 [Link] [Link]
Gr. I Match 14 [Link] [Link]
FCol-ours Dyslexic 7 [Link] [Link]
_ Cluon Age 29 [Link] [Link]
Gr. I Match 14 [Link] [Link]
ýSý Dyslexic 7 4.00 2.00
- Chron Age 30 6.56 2.22
Gr. I Match 14 4.35 1.64
FLC Dyslexic 7 25.85 2.85
Chron Age 30 26.70 2.03
Gr. 1 Match 14 21.35 3.12
-IýT- Dyslexic 7 3.14 2.19
Chron Age 30 6.46 2.55
Gr. I Match 14 3.35 2.87
Dyslexic 7 1.00 1.15
Chron Age 30 2.63 1.24
Gr. 1 Match 14 57 85
. .
Ps Dyslexic 7 11.42 1.27
- Chron Age 30 12.30 1.29
Gr. 1 Match 14 6.50 3.83
Blocks Dyslexic 7 28.85 7.94
Chron Age 30 35.73 9.14
Gr. 1 Match 14 11.07 9.87
Table 2. Means and standarddeviationsof Grade4 dyslexicsin English,
ChronologicalAge Match and Grade 2 Match on literacy,cognitiveand linguistic
tasks
Tasks Groups N Mean Std. Deviation
EWR I lex,ic
Dys 5 66.00 4.41
- - Chron__ Age _
25 70.68 1.24
Gr. 2 Match 63 68.30 4.85
ESPL Dyslexic 5 33.20 3.89
Chron Age 25 44.72 2.66
Gr. 2 Match 63 40.80 9.57
-fS--entence Dyslexic 5 7.40 2.60
Chron Age 25 9.40 1.19
Gr. 2 Match 63 8.33 2.04
ENW Dyslexic 5 10.40 2.50
Chron Age 25 14.56 1.82
Gr. 2 Match 63 13.84 3.15
EPT Dyslexic 5 6.60 5.22
Chron Age 25 8.60 3.45
Gr. 2 Match 63 7.04 4.80
EST Dyslexic 5 13.60 1.14
Chron Age 25 14.56 82
.
Gr. 2 Match 63 13.14 3.39
EPictures Dyslexic 5 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 25 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 2 Match 63 [Link] [Link]
EColours Dyslexic 5 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 25 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 2 Match 63 [Link] [Link]
IDwýS- Dyslexic 5 7.60 1.51
Chron Age 25 7.72 1.81
Gr. 2 Match 63 7.31 2.04
Dyslexic 5 21.40 2.60
Chron Age 25 23.76 2.47
Gr. 2 Match 63 22.36 5.37
-Dyslexic 5 43.60 2.88
Chron Age 25 45.08 1.28
Gr. 2 Match 63 44.41 1.79
FSPL Dyslexic 5 41.80 6.01
Chron Age 25 46.96 4.84
Gr. 2 Match 63 46.17 4.28
FSentence Dyslexic 5 7.20 3.03
Chron Age 25 8.56 82
.
Gr. 2 Match 63 8.03 1.58
FNW LýYslexic 5 15.40 1.14
_ Age
Chron 25 15.68 1.79
1 1
Gr. 2 Match 63 15.36 1 2.43
.1
Table2 contniual
T asks Groups N M ean Std. Deviation
P% -- 1.80 6.45
ChronAge 25 13.40 5.18
Gr. 2 Match 63 11.73 6.07
FST Dyslexi 5 16.80 83
.
ChronAge 25 17.60 64
.
Gr. 2 Match 63 15.49 4.69
FPictures Dyslexic 5 [Link] [Link]
ChronAge 24 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 2 Match 63 [Link] [Link]
FColours Dyslexic 5 [Link] [Link]
Cliron Age 24 [Link] 0.-00..09
Gr. 2 Match 63 [Link] [Link]
Dyslexic 5 6.60 1.51
ChronAge 25 7.48 2.21
Gr. 2 Match 63 6.41 2.14
FLC Dyslexic 5 23.40 2.40
ChronAge 25 26.28 3.20
Gr. 2 Match 63 26.42 2.43
KT Dysle ic 5 6.80 3.11
ChronAge 63 6.34 2.34
Gr. 2 Match 30 6.90 1.82
Dyslexic 5 2.20 1.30
ChronAge 63 2.39 1.12
Gr. 2 Match 30 2.90 1.18
Dysle ic 5 12.40 1.14
ChronAge 63 11.77 2.03
Gr. 2 Match 30 12.93 1.28
--Mlocks Dyslexic 5 33.80 9.41
ChronAge 25 37.76 8.28
Gr. 2 Match 63 32.47 10.06
TabIc 3. Mcansand standarddeviationsof Grade 5 dyslcxlcsin English,
ChronologicalAge Match and Grade3 Match on literacy,cognitive and linguistic
tasks
Tasks N Mean [Link]
V
1 1,1 -Groups
JýSlexi
LC 6 67.00 2.52
1,
Chron Age 26 71.15 1.04
Gr. 3 Match 23 68.60 1.52
ESPL Dyslexic 6 35.66 12.48
Chron Age 26 46.46 1.55
Gr. 3 Match 23 42.91 4.78
ESentence Pyslexic 6 7.66 2.73
Chron Age 26 9.73 66
.
Gr. 3 Match 23 8.65 1.64
ENW Dyslexic 6 12.16 2.92
Chron Age 26 15.57 1.77
Gr. 3 Match 23 13.60 2.10
EPT Dyslexic 6 4.83 5.03
Chron Age 26 10.15 5.19
Gr. 3 Match 23 7.43 4.62
EST Dydexic 6 12.16_ 4.44
Chron Age 26 14.50 76
.
Gr. 3 Match 23 12.65 4.02
-flTi ot _s Dyslexic 6 0: 00: 24 0: 00: 03
u-re
Chron Age 26 0: 00: 18 0: 00: 03
Gr. 3 Match 23 0: 00: 21 0: 00: 06
JýColours Dyslexic 6 0: 00: 19 0: 00: 03
Chron Age 26 0: 00: 14 0: 00: 04
Gr. 3 Match 23 0: 00: 17 0: 00: 04
__fw__S Ds exic 6 8.16 2.31
Chron Age 26 9.11 2.00
Gr. 3 Match 23 7.82 2.03
Dyslexic 6 23.83 3.06
Chron Age 26 26.07 2.46
Gr. 3 Match 23 21.30 3.77
FWR Dyslexic 6 43.50 2.07
Chron Age 26 45.23 1.10
Gr. 3 Match 23 43.78 1.90
Dyslexic 6 42.66 16.08
Chron Age 26 48.73 1.71
Gr. 3 Match 23 46.26 4.24
F Sent-_
ence Dyslexic 6 8.33 1.63
Chron Age 26 8.65 1.05
Gr. 3 Match 23 8.30 1.14
Dyslexic 6 15.50 8-3
.
Chron Age 26 16.03 1,07
Match 23 15.30 1
_1.29
/ýIbk conibutal
.; [--
Tasks Groups N Mean Std.
Deviation
ITT Dy dex 61-- 10.00 -I _ 2-3
-
Chron Age 26 14.15 642
Gr. 3 Match 23 11.39 662
TS -T f)yslexic 6 16.16 2.40
Chron Age 26 17.46 64
.
Gr. 3 Match 23 15.82 3.90
Fp, ictures Dyslexic 6 0: 00: 24 0: 00: 06
Chron Age 26 0: 00: 18 0: 00: 06
Gr. 3 Match 23 0: 00: 21 0: 00: 06
-N-0101irs Dys exic 6 0: 00: 37 0: 00: 20
ChronAge__ _ 26 0: 00: 26 0: 00: 08
Gr. 3 Match 23 0: 00: 29 0: 00..09
6 7.33 2.25
"ic
Chron Age 26 7.65 2.17
Gr. 3 Match 23 6.65 1.89
TUC- Dyslexic 26.33 2.33
ChronAge_ _ _6 26 26.69 1.56
Gr. 3 Match 23 26.00 1.65
_KT- Dyslexi 6 7.83 2.63
ChronAg 26 8.38 2.21
Gr. 3 Match __ 23 5.95 1.82
mm jýyslexic 6 3.00 63
.
Chron Age 26 3.80 1.02
Gr. 3 Match 23 2.52 1.16
-P-S- Dyslexic 6 12.50 2.42
Chron Age 26 13.46 1.50
Gr. 3 Match 23 12.04 1.39
-1 Go-s
ck Dyslexic 6 45.40 9.23
Chron Age 26 44.53 8.29
Gr. 3 Match 23 38.21 9.47
Table 4. Meansand standarddeviationsof Grade 6 dyslexicsin English,
ChronologicalAge Match and Grade 4 Match on literacy,cognitiveandlinguistic
[Link]
Tasks' G ýN Mean Std.-Deviation
FWR 6 69.83 2.40
Chron_Agc 25 71.56 1.00
Gr. 4 Match 57 70.85 L-30
ESPL 1) slexic 6 37.83 13.87
Chron Age 25 46.76 1.45
Gr. 4 Match 57 45.73 3.96
ESentence Dyslexic 6 10.00 00
_ .
Chron Age 25 9.92 27
.
Gr. 4 Match 57 9.49 1.35
ENW Dyslexic 6 16.16 1.16
Chron Age 25 16.24 1.05
Gr. 4 Match 57 14.96 1.75
EPT Dyslexic 6 8.66 5.27
Chron Age 25 11.16 4.96
Gr. 4 Match 57 8.54 4.32
EST Ds exic 6 15.00 00
.
Chron Age 25 14.60 86
.
Gr. 4 Match 57 14.59 75
.
Dyslexic 6 [Link] 14 [Link]
Chron Age_ 25 [Link] 17 [Link]
Gr. 4 Match 57 [Link] 19 [Link]
][ýC-, _
PYSICXIC __ 6 [Link] 11 [Link]
ol-otirs
Chron Age 25 [Link] 13 [Link]
Gr. 4 Match 57 [Link] 15 [Link]
EWS Dyslexic 6 8.50 1.97
Chron Age__ 25 9.36 1.77
Gr. 4 Match 57 7.91 2.23
--EL-C Dyslexic 6 24.33 3.14
Chron Age 25 25.84 2.96
Gr. 4 Match 57 24.42 2.65
Dyslexic 6 44.50 2.34
Chron Age 25 45.40 95
.
Gr. 4 Match 57 45.07 1.14
FSPL __Dyslexic 6 47.16 4.79
_
Cliron Age 25 49.68 1.93
Gr. 4 Match 57 47.94 4.15
FSentence Dyslexic 6 8.66 51
.
Chron Age 25 8.92 27
.
Gr. 4 Match 57 8.57 92
.
FNW Dyslexic 6 16.50 54
.
Chron Agý. 25 16.20 1.19
Gr. 4_ 57 15.70 1.41
_Match
Wilk 4 contýuttrl
Tasks GroU s N Mean [Link]
I )vslCxlC 6 13.50 7.12
ChronAgc_ 5 15.92 4.73
Gr. 4 Match 57 12.54 5.80
FST 7slexic 6 17.83 40
.
Chron Age 25 17.68 69
.
Gr. 4 Match 57 17.61 64
.
Hictures 6 [Link] 14 [Link]
__Dyslexic
Chron Ae 25 [Link] 16 [Link]
Gr. 4 Match 56 [Link] 0.-00..08
FColours _
L)yslexic 6 [Link] 18 [Link]
Chron Ae 24 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 4 Match 56 [Link] [Link]
FWS Fý, slexic 6 9.50 2.73
Chron Age 25 8.96 1.94
Gr. 4 Match 57 7.35 2.34
FLC 7s
lexic 6 25.00 2.75
Chron Age___ 25 26.60 2.78
Gr. 4 Match 57 26.57 2.52
RT 6 8.16 1.94
_ _Dyslexic
Chron A 25 8.40 1.63
Gr. 4 Match 57 7.28 1.99
\/SM DN"SICXIC 6 4.00 89
.
Chron Age 25 3.56 1.19
Gr. 4 Match 57 3.22 1.16
PS Dyslexic 6 14.00 63
.
Chron Age 25 13.20 1.41
Gr. 4 Match 57 12.89 1.44
Blocks Jý ýIexicC 6 50.00 7.21
- Chron Age 25 52.00 694
Gr. 4 Match 57 38.26 7.72
T able 5. Meansand standarddeviationsof Grade3 dyslexicsin Fihpino,
(Iii-onological Age Match and Grade 1 Match Groups on fiteracy,cognitive and
11m, ulstic tasks
Tasks Groups N. Mean Std. Deviation
FW'K DvSl(,XIC 14 56.14
Chron N;- e 40 70.35 2.0-3
Gr. I Match 44 61.68 14.82
Dyslexic 14 28.07 1612
Chron Age 40 43.85 646
Gr. 1 Match 44 33.97 11.45
E-Sentence Dyslexic 14 6.78 2.25
Chron Age_ 40 9.10 1.53
Gr. I Match 44 6.70 2.46
s exic 14 8.57 5.54
Chron Age 40 14.52 2.12
Gr. I Match 44 11.50 4.89
EPT Dyslexic 14 5.85 4.27
_ Chron Age 40 8.82 4.82
Gr. I Match 44 5.86 4.61
Dyslexic 14 11.78 4.37
Chron Age 40 13.65 2.41
_
Gr. I Match 44 12.06 3.66
EPictures Dysleac 14 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 40 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 1 Match 44 [Link] [Link]
-ffC--OIOUrS -Dyslexic 14 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 40 [Link] 16 [Link]
Gr. I Match 44 [Link] [Link]
EWS Dyslexic 14 6.64 2.13
Chron_A&c 40 8.10 1.72
Gr. I Match 44 6.86 1.99
Dyslexic 14 20.42 4.78
Chron Age 40 22.80 4.43
Gr. I Match 44 18.95 4.13
Dyslexic 14 37.57 8.29
Chron Age 40 44.92 1.02
Gr. I Match 44 40.20 7.68
FSPL Pyjleýc 14 33.21 12.32
Chron Age. 40 48.12 1.68
Gr. I Match 44 40.81 9.21
TýS--entence Dyslexic 14 6.35 2.56
Chron Age 40 8.55 1.06
Gr. I Match 44 6.95 2.21
_FN-W Dyslexic 14 12.21 4.37
Chron Age 40 15.90 1.25
Gr. I Match 44 14.06 3.55
lable 5 contbatal
s N Mean Std. Deviation-
HIT I )vSICXIC- 14 9.28 6.37
Chron Age 40 13.17 6.60
Gr. 1 Match 44 8.65 7.14
FST Dyslexic 14 14.21 5.54
Chron Ae 40 17.25 1.21
Gr. I Match 44 15.38 3.72
Pictures Islexic 14 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 40 [Link] [Link]
Gr. I Match 44 [Link] [Link]
Dyslexic 14 [Link] 0:0031
Chron Age 39 [Link] [Link]
Gr. I Ma tch 44 [Link] [Link]
FWS TýIexi 1ý 4.85 1.79
c
Chron Age 40 6.85 2.33
Gr. I Match 44 5.88 2.47
-TL-C Dyslexic 14 26.14 1.99
Chron Agg 40 26.52 1.76
_Gr. I Match 44 23.88 2.59
Dyslexic 14 4.42 2.62
Chron Age 40 6.75 2.09
Gr. I Match 44 4.77 2.46
Dyslexic 14 1.71 1.32
Chron Age 40 2.65 1.12
Gr. I Match 44 1.52 99
.
Dyslexic 5- 11.85 1.40
Chron Age 40 12.62 1.56
Gr. I Match 44 tO.72 2.21
Blocks Dysl xic 14 32.85 10.14
Chron Age 40 37.12 8.70
24.06 11.33
Table 6. Meansand standarddeviationsof Grade 4 dyslexicsin Filipino,
ChronologicalAge Match and Grade 2 Match Groups on literacy,cognitiveand
lHiguistictasks
Tasks Groups N Mean Std.,Dei*tion
EAVRI 13 08.38 6.30
ChronAge 42 70.38 2.44
Gr. 2 Match 63 68.30 4.85
ESPL Dyslexic 13 40.84 9.39
_ ChronAge 42 44.50 6.26
Gr. 2 Match 63 40.80 9.57
ESentence Dyslexic 13 8.00 2.61
ChronAge 42 9.04 1.95
Gr. 2 Match_ 63 8.33 2.04
Dyslexic 13 13.15 2.47
ChronAge 42 14.59 2.07
Gr. 2 Match 63 13.84 3.15
EP-T Dyslexic 13 7.76 4.12
ChronAge 42 8.66 4.32
Gr. 2 Match 63 7.04 4.80
EST Dyslexic 13 14.15 89
.
ChronAge 42 14.54 80
.
Gr. 2 Match 63 13.14 3.39
EPictures Dyslexic 13 [Link] [Link]
ChronAge 42 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 2 Match 63 [Link] [Link]
Dyslexic 13 [Link] [Link]
ChronAge 42 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 2 Match 63 [Link] [Link]
Dyslexic 13 7.23 1.87
ChronAg 42 7.71 2.40
Gr. 2 Match 63 7.31 2.04
ELC Dyslexic 13 21.69 4.21
ChronAge 42 23.88 3.50
Gr. Match 63 22.36 5.37
ýR -'
_
Dyslexic 13 43.69 1.75
ChronAge 42 45.47 50
.
Gr. 2 Match 63 44.41 1.79
-F-Spf Dyslexic 13 45.15 6.78
ChronAe 42 48.38 1.73
Gr. 2 Match 63 46.17 4.28
FSentLe"nce Dyslexic 13 7.84 1.77
ChronNgý __ 42 8.26 1.43
_
Gr. 2 Match . 63 8.03 1.58
FNW E)ysleic 13 13.30 4.53
ChronAge 42 15.85 1.04
Gr. 2 Match 1 63 1 15.361 2.43
Tible ar6mial
Tasks N Mean 9d. Deviation
6.71
Chron Age 2 13.04 5.46-
(, r. Match 63 11.73 6.07
FST -2
I)N"Slcxlc 13 17.46 96
.
Age 42 17.66 57
.
2 Match 63 15.49 4.69
Hictures --
I)yslcxic 13 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 41 [Link] 19 [Link]
Gr. 2 Match 63 [Link] [Link]
F ýIlexic 13 [Link] 0.-00:13
'Olours __ Ate
Chron 41 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 2 Match _ 63 [Link] [Link]
FWS Dyslexic 13 6.23 1.87
Chron Age --- 42 7.21 2.40
Gr Match 63 6.41 2.14
.2
FLC Dyslexic 13 26.38 1.12
Chron Age 42 27.09 1.49
Gr. 2 Match 63 26.42 2.43
RT Dyslexi 13 6.15 2.07
Chroil Age 42 7.11 2.37
Gr. 2 Match 63 6.34 2.34
vSM ýyslexic 13 2.53 1.50
Chron Age 42 3.19 1.36
Gr. 2 Match 63 2.39 1.12
Dyslexic 13 12.23 1.42
Chron Age 42 12.69 1.56
Gr. 2 Match 63 11.77 2.03
Blocks Iýyslexic 13 37.69 9.41
Chron Age 42 38.59_ 7.44
Gr. 2 Match 63 32.47 10.06
Table 7. Meansand standarddeviationsof Grade 5 dyslexicsin Filipino,
ChronologicalAge Match and Grade 3 Match Groups on literacy,cognitive and
lingtilstic tasks
Tasks Groups ",N, - 'Mean Std. Dmiation
15 70.26 2.01
Chron Age 26 70.88 2.38
Gr. 3 Match 59 69.47 5.85
ESPL Dyslexic 15 45.53 3.81
Chron Age 26 45.38 6.33
Gr. 3 Match 59 43.25 7.50
ESentence Dyslexic 15 9.26 1.48
Chron Age 26 9.30 1.95
Gr. 3 Match 59 9.00 1.69
ENNV Dyslexic 15 14.46 2.35
Chron Age 26 15.46 2.33
_
Gr. 3 Match 59 14.13 2.95
EPT Dyslexic 15 9.66 4.04
Chron Age 26 10.19 4.92
Gr. 3 Match 59 8.32 5.02
EST Dyslexic 15 13.66 2.82
Chron Age 26 13.88 2.25
Gr. 3 Match 59 13.42 3.02
jIlictures Dyslexic 15 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 26 [Link] 18 [Link]
Gr. 3 Match 59 [Link] [Link]
EColours Dyslexic 15 [Link] 14 [Link]
Chron Age 26 [Link] 15 [Link]
Gr. 3 Match 59 [Link] 16 [Link]
Dyslexic 15 8.20 2.14
Chron Age 26 8.80 2.26
Gr. 3 Match 59 8.00 1.86
ELC Dyslexic 15 24.60 4.06
Chron Age 26 24.84 4.24
Gr. 3 Match 59 22.66 4.22
-1--ý'slexlc 15 43.93 1.38
Chron Age 26 45.53 70
.
Gr. 3 Match 59 44.59 1.27
FSIIL Dyslexic 15 46.33 2.76
Chron Age 26 49.07 89
.
Gr. 3 Match 59 47.66 3.48
FSentence Dyslexic 15 8.53 1.30
Chron A&e_. 26 8.61 1.41
Gr. 3 Match 59 8.38 1.31
FNW IýYslexlc 15 15.46 1.68
Chron Age 26 16.30 92
.
Gr. 3 Match 59 15.37 1 3.13
1 1
TiNe 7 contýiutrl
Tasks Groýips N Mean Std,Dniation
FPT D),slexic_______ 15 13.60 5.44
Chron Age 26 15.15 6.33
Gr. 3 Match 59 12.93 6.16
FST Iýysle ic 15 16.86 1.59
Chron Ag 26 17.38 1.13
Gr. 3 Match 59 16.47 3.31
FIlictures Dyslexic 15 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 26 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 3 Match 59 [Link] [Link]
FColours Dyslexic 15 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 25 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 3 Match 58 [Link] [Link]
-S Dyslexic 15 7.80 2.48
Chron Age 26 7.65 1.89
Gr. 3 Match 59 7.03 2.25
FL-C Dyslexic 15 26.46 1.06
Chron Age 26 26.84 1.66
Gr. 3 Match 59 26.55 1.78
WT- Dyslexic 15 7.40 1.76
_ Chron Age 26 7.92 2.41
Gr. 3 Match 59 6.52 2.14
vSM Dyslexic 15 3.73 96
.
Chron Age 26 3.65 1.12
Gr. 3 Match 59 2.54 1.14
PS Dyslexic 15 13.20 1.32
Chron Age 26 13.34 1.52
Gr. 3 Match 59 12.67 1.47
--iý-I-ocks Dyslexic 14 41.64 11.15
Chron Age 26 44.07 8.95
Gr. 3 Match 59 37.00 8.92
Tabic 8. Meansand standarddeviationsof Grade 6 dy-slexics
in Filipino,
ChronologicalAge Match and Grade4 Match Groups on literacy,cognitive and
1111gilistic
lasks
Tasks Groups N Mtan . Std-Dmiqtfon, ýý
EWR 1ý,slexic 10 69.90 2. 7
-;
ChronAgo_ 32 71.62 9-1
.
Gr. 4 Match 70 69.57 3.70
-ES PE- Dyslexic 10 46.00 4.47
ChronAge 32 47.65 1.65
Gr. 4 Match 70 43.42 6.86
ESentence Dyslexic 10 9.90 31
.
ChronAge 32 9.90 29
.
Gr. 4 Match 70 8.72 2.10
ENW Dysle ic 10 15.40 2.75
ChronAge 32 16.12 1.00
Gr. 4 Match 70 14.25 2.35
EPT Dyslexic 10 10.10 3.17
ChronAge 32 10.65 5.59
Gr. 4 Match 70 8.52 4.12
-T
_ffs- Dyslexic 10 14.70 94
.
ChronAge 32 14.68 64
.
Gr. 4 Match 70 14.35 93
.
EPictures Sexic 10 [Link] [Link]
ChronAge 32 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 4 Match 70 [Link] [Link]
EColours Dyslexic 10 [Link] [Link]
Chroi 32 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 4 Match 70 [Link] [Link]
-EW-S Dyslexic 10 9.20 2.14
ChronAge 32 9.50 1.86
Gr. 4 Match 70 7.62 2.29
Lc
L C Dyslexic 10 25.00 3.23
ChronAge 32 26.90 2.34
Gr. 4 Match 70 22.90 4.36
Dyslexic 10 43.80 1.68
ChronAge 32 45.68 47
.
Gr. 4 Match 70 44.98 1.29
FSPf- -Dyslexic 10 48.90 2.64
ChronAge 32 50.15 95
.
Gr. 4 Match 70 47.60 3.67
FSentence Dyslexic 10 8.80 42
.
ChronAge 32 8.93 24
.
Gr Match 70 8.28 1.38
_.4
FNW r slexic 10 15.40 2.22
ChronAe 32 16.25 84
.
Gr. 4 Match 70 15.44 2.31
Ti/A -8 awtNutri
Tasks GrOURý--- N Mean [Link]
I "IcXIC 10 15.50 5.70
(Airon Age 322 14.62 5.90
Gr. 4 Match 70 11.97 6.04
FST l?).'Aexic 10 17.50 97
.
ChronAge 32 17.75 4-3
.
Gr. 4 Match 70 17.47 91
.
1"Pictures I)yslexic 10 [Link] [Link]
Cliron Age 32 [Link] 0.-00.-0-3
Gr. 4 Match 69 [Link] [Link]
FColotirs -- ---
Dyslexic 9 [Link] [Link]
Chron Age 32 [Link] [Link]
Gr. 4 Match 69 [Link] [Link]
FWS Dyslexic 10 9.20 2.61
Oiron Age 32 8.68 2.07
Gr. 4 Match 70 7.14 2.25
FLC Dyslexic 10 26.70 1.49
Chron Age 32 27.53 1.48
Gr. 4 Match 70 26.52 1.98
Wf Dyslexic 10 7.70 2.00
Chron Age 32 8.31 1.85
Gr. 4 Match 70 6.81 2.26
Dyslexic 10 3.40 1.42
Chron Age 32 3.65 1.03
Gr. 4 Match 70 3.014 1.35
-Ps- Dyslexic 10 13.500 1.35
Chron Age 32 13.43 1.36
Gr. 4 Match 70 12.45 1.71
Blocks Dyslexic 10 47.30 6.86
Chron Age 32 51.87 7.32
Gr. 4 Match 70 37.64 8.20
 Aý
,,ppendix D

Comparisons betweendyslexicswho areon or belowthe lothpercentile

on word readingscoresandnondyslexicaveragereaders

Appendix D-I
 Table 1. rsowcs 1)(va-cen Filloino [Link] and Clironol()Pli-.
il iw, r, )nl mil,
Tasks -6-'radc -3 Grade 4 6radc
-- 5 Grade 6
I)yslcxics n= 10 5 8 6
n= 37 23 25 23
111,1191,11, ___Control
()IJ 1(.1dill",
(.600) (.084)
Fliglisli Spelling
-6.069-1"' -1.051 -2.750"' -2.959"ý
(.303)
sclitence c(mipi-Cliell"1011 ý" 729-
-4.30W: -1.001 -1.252 .
(.326) (.220) (.472)
F,nglisli nonword mi(Eng 557
-6.358*` -1.628 -1.998-" .
(.116) (.055) (.582)
English Phoneme upping 529 098
-2.105' . -1.956 .
(.601) (.059) (.923)
Fliglisil syflilblc upping -2.143' 948
-1.913 -1.799 -.
(.067) (.082) (.351)
Fliglisli rapid picture naming 3.945'1',ý. 1.584 2.010'
-1.480
(. 125) (.053) (. 150)
[Link] colour miming 1.171 1.663 759
-. -2.057"'
(.248) (.108) (.454)
Ftiglisli word span -1.817 994 7-18
-. -1.179 -.
(.076) (.329) (.248) (.473)
Fnglisli listeimig comprehension 1.90ý
-1.425 -2.17Y'- - 1.422
(. 161) (.066) (. 166)
Filipino Word reachng -8.38+1"1 '
-3.182--, -5.083`ý'-* -3.061*'
Filipino SpCl6g -9.233"'c' -5.070`*ýc -4.238*** -3.948`*-
Sentence Collipi-Clielisioll -5.4IT" -.281 567
-. -1.571
(.781) (.575) (. 128)
Filipino nonword reading '-"- ' 160
-5.050; -3.618"' -2,958ý': -.
(.874)
Plionenic tappuig
1.111pulo -1.648 -2.54TI 450
-2.074- .
(106) (.656)
FIIIPIIIO sybble opping -4.088"". -. 879 484
-2.691*--', -.
(.387) (.633)
Filip1m) nipid picture muimig 1.684 1.137 1.828 808
-.
(.099) (.266 (.077) (.426)
Filipino colour naming 2.815ýý" 1.456 493 993
. -.
(.157) (.626) (.330)
Filipio word span -2.579" -1.352 882
-1.115 .
(.188) (.273) (.386)
Filipino 11swiling -1.398 -1.222 568
-. -1.923
(. 169) (.233) (.574) (.065)
Rliýilini tappmg -1.710 -2.628' 875 419
-. .
(.094) (.388) (.679)
Visual shape nicniotýý L406 925 753
-2.770"" - -. .
(.171) (.362) (.458)
Picture storics 137 011
-1.425 . -1.223 -.
(. 161) (.892) (.230) (.991)
Block design 237 202
-1.617 -1.499 . .
(. 113) 14ý (.814) (.841)
"p< 0.05 P<0.01 ý<0.001
. I

Appendix D-2
 Table 2. t-scores between Filipino dyslexics and readim!
aee matcbed cnntrf-Jz
Tasks Gi:ýde 3 Grade 4 Gradc-5- radc 6
Dyslexics 11= 10 5 8 6
Control n= 44 56 58 49
English I-cadlill, 484
. -
(.165) (.630) (.167) (.308)
I'll, 11"llSpelling -2.523" 146 897
-. -2.492"- -.
(.884) (.374)
S4-mence
compt-clicii-sion -.576 259 1.740
-. -1.200
(.567) (.796) (.235) (.088)
English tionword reading -2.296' 934 758 2.164*
-. -.
(.354) (.451)
Fligh"ll Plmlicillc Upping -.231 791 871 1.313
. -.
(.818) (.432) (.387) (.195)
Fliglish S.11.11)1(.
N, tapping 516 282 542
-. . -1.342 .
(.608) (.779) (.184) (.590)
English rapid picture naming 1.665 -.045 2.184" -2.461-"-
(102) (.964)
I"IlgllSll 11.111111lg -1.127 087 ý"-
10:
. -1.760 -2.7
(.265) (.931 (.083)
English ,vord span 052 -.223 608 1.267
. -.
(.959) (.824) (.545) (.211)
I-'iigli,,Ii listening comprehension 914 -1.159 -.749 1.535
.
(.365) (.251 (.457 (.13ý
Filipino Word reading -1.132 -.897 -1.944 -1.265
(.263) (.374) (.056) (.211)
I "lliplilo Spelhlig -3.057"" -3.03T"I -4.452*",-" 684
-.
(.497)
Sentencecomprehension -1.577 -.074 -.282 992
(.121) (.941) (.779) .
(.326)
Filipino nonword reading -1.939 -4.780-1"-" -. 515 983
(.058) (.608) .
(.330)
Filipino Phonemetapping 392 -1.757 1.063
. -1.072
(.697) (.084) (.288) (.293)
I"lllplll() S)'ILINC
UIPPIlIg -1.345 907 571 124
. -. .
(.184) (.368) (.570) (.901)
Filipino rapid picture [Link] -.991 684 513
. . -1.419
(.326) (.497) (.610) (.162)
Filipino 11.11111119 -1.015 -.432 480
-. -1.951
(.315) (.668) (.633) (.056)
I ýilipmoword span -1.463 -.591 -.278 2.529"
(.149) (.556) (.782)
Filipino listening comprehension 1.804 -.973 190 974
-. -.
(.077) (.335) (.850) (.334)
KII),111111
tapping 482 -1.456 1.088 2.262"
.
(.632) (.151) (.280)
Visual Shapc111(-111013, -.062 -. 748 1.513 1.166
(.951) (.457) (.135) (.249)
PI*L'I
tire stories 1.600 1.264 443 1.332
-.
(.116) (.211 (.659) (.188)
Block design 2.107' 066 2.08T, 3.866""""'
(. .
I 948) 1
ý:p< 0.05 P< 0.0
ýr), ýIcL"cp<0.001 -771
.

Appendix D-3
 Tabic 3. t-scores bet-weenEnOish lanatiaae dvslcXlcs and chronological
aso cc)ntrnlz
Ta sks Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
Dyslexics 11= 6 6 3 4
Control n= 18 16 18 21
A.445 ý.C32:: [Link]-),
English SP(Iling *
-8.694"' -8.30T", -5.512"", -4.927"
Scntcncccomprehemion 850
-9.389""* -2.633* -2.746' -.
(.404)
Fnglisli nOn,; %,
()rd reading -8.424'* -4.23U"' -2.512"- -1.997
8)
I'llglisli 1,11()Ilclll(,
lapping -1.720 416
-. -2.511 -1.159
(.10) (.682) (.258)
Fliglisli Syllablet.1ppuig -2.109" -1.515 897
-2.853* .
(.145) (.379)
I'liglish pictun. 11,1111ing 5.195"I'l 1.950 1.657 588
-.
(.065) (.114) (.562
English colour naming 4.401"" 974 1.659 866
. -.
(.342) (.114) (.396)
Fligllsli "vol-dSpall -1.356 112 823
. -. -2.54P'
(.189) (.912) (.420)
I'lligh"ll listclillig collipl-clicilsiOll -1.736 -1.889 -1.937 -1.752
(.096) (.073) (.068) (.093)
Filipino Word rea(fing -4.016" -1.733 -2.447" 510
-.
(.098) (.615)
Filipino Spelling -3.794: ý*- -3.295-"" --. 520", -3.031*ý',
Scivencecomprehension -5.403""" -2.308-1 604 622
. .
(.553) (.540
Filipllio nonword readIlIg -6.002*** -.627 -.085
-1.266
(.538) (.933) (.218)
Filipino Phonemetappmg -2.201" -.979 -2.274' -2.075'
(.339)
Fillpill() syllablelapping -2.805'* -1.183 -2.768' 217
(.251) .
(.830)
I-apidpicture nanung 2.591 828 1.224 023
. -.
(.417) (.236) (.982)
Illpillo colour naming 2.699' 2.612", 161 402
-. -.
(.874) (.692)
1-'ilipi io word spall -2.574ýý -.699 133 123
-. .
(.492) (.896) (.903)
1.'Illplll() listening comprehension -1.387 -1.086 476
. -1.644
(.179) (.291) (.639) (144)
Rhythill upping -2.40 1 -.914
-1.434 -1.355
(.371) (.168) (.189)
Visual shapememory -3.388"" -.985 699 1.203
-.
(.336) (.493) (.241)
Picture stories -1.919 -. 998 673 1.129
(.068) (.330) .
(.509) 271)
.
Block design -. 107 -. 464 996 602
. -.
(.915) (.647) (.332) (.553
I
ý-'p<0.05 ý-cp<0.01 *"Irp<0.001

Appendiv D-4
Table 4. t-scores k-tween E'nulish lainmam dvs1exic%
vs- [Link] -naom iiclipl r,,,, i ý-],
Tasks Grade 3 Grade 4 Gradc 5 Grade 6
Dyslexics n= 6 6 3 4
Control n= 14 31 23 56
English Wold Itadill" I I lo:,
(.353) (.077)
English Spellirig 1.246 83" -
-11 -3.603"-*ý, -5.246,-'-ý'-,
(.229)
Sciiiencecomprehension 1.429 635 389
-1.716 -. .
(.170) (.095) (.532) (.699)
English nonword reading -.214 743
-2.661" -1.195 -.
(.833) (.244) (.461)
Filglisll I'llonellic tappillo -.934 1.032 -2.114-' -69
(.363) (.309) (.789)
English syflabletappmg 391 019 635" 1.076
. . -.
(.701) (.985) (.531) (.286)
English rapid picturenamirig 2.042 -.352 434
(.056) . -1.458
(.727) (.668) (.150)
Fnglisli colour nartung -.979 -.436 461
. -1.740
(.341) (.666) (.649) (.087)
Filglisli Nvordspan 1.514 563 -. 120
. -1.237
(.147) (.577) (905) (.221)
English listeningcomprehension 2.009 -.763 461
. -1.418
(.060) (.450) (.649) (.161)
Filipino Word reading -1.311 -.088 -.098 119
-.
(.206) (.930) (.922) (.906)
Filipulo Spelling -. 149 -1.320 -2.000
(.196) -1.106
(.883) (.057) (.273)
Sentencecomprelictision 379 -1.942 1.033 876
. -.
(.709) (.060) (.312) (.384)
f,'I]IpLliononword rcading ANY, * 325 914 910
. . -.
(.747) (.370) (.367)
Fillpll Io Plioncillt, tapping -.319 273 772
. -1.658 -.
(.753) (.787) (.110 (.443)
I"llipillo'syllabletappmg 795 547 209 428
. . -. .
(.437) (.588) (.836) (.670
Filipino rapid picturemunuig -.202 -. 150 729 936
. -.
(.842) (.882) (.473) (.353)
I -'dipmocolotir naming -.086 058 661
. -. -1.446
(.932) (.954) (.515) (. 154)
1-'Illpllioword Spiul -.862 018 854 1.309
(.400) . .
(.986) (.402) (. 196)
listertirigcomprelionsion 2.836"" 871
-1.482 . -1.979*
(.147) (.393) (.053
R'll"11111
tapping -.018 310 586 05-1
. . -.
(.986) (.758) (.564) (.959)
Visual shapememory 202 319 1.175 1.674
. .
(.842) (.751) (.252) (.099)
Pictimestorics 2.88V 534 2.329" 1.569
.
(.597) (. 122)
Block design 4.061 1.150 2.184* 1494*
(.258)
*p< 0.05 0.01 :ýýr%'P<0.001

Appendix D-5
 Appendix E

Singlecaseprofiles

AppendLxE-I
Singlecaseshowingliteracydifficultiesrelatedto generalabilityproblems

(0)

tý
V) 0
1-1 P,

(UL) lull 4

If,"I
PL-4 419 P-4 '!
4 . Cn u
0 C/) (U 0
ýWW,
P4 944 Wu -4 OW
U( u0 ) PQ
P-4
W

Fig. 1. CNId319

.1
0
-2
u
-3 23
(UCLI) : >
4--) Wu0UP444
:30P.
V4 cl U ra,

Fig. 2. ChUd250

Appendix E-2
 2

-1
0)
0-
0

-3
w-
wu00
24
wwg. ý4-ý4
ý Eu
Ir--.
(qrý» cý '-,
ý4
4ý
ý4 g,
wW4. - (i

.2
Cf)

Fig. 3. Clifld 317

6-4
0
u
lp
N

>4 u b. 1,9-) t2
9 u3
152 1-vi
>ýli,
Www Z-W:oi wirc-/3.
0

q)v-,
g, ;J0

Fig. 4. Child 326

AppendixE-3
Singlecasesshowingliteracydifficulties relatedto languagecomprehensionin
Filipino and in English

-1

U, -2

I1 -4 .. .... ......
P-1
..
44 u4 P4
r-4
N

Fig. 5. Child320

"1
(n

0-
0

-3 ...... ..... -
:gs r-4

P4 P4 V4
P4 W
P4

Fie. 6. Clild 331

AppendixE-4
Singlecaseshowingliteracydifficultiesrelatedto Englishlisteningcomprehension

Ir

-1

-2

gu. 2 cn P, -ýd

.ý,
Fig. 7. CHd 288

0
t4
4, t

(Ou
on
14 W-4 >0
ýL4
14 914
0 0
91 U pq
U r-L.
4
". P4
4-4 4

Fig. 8. alld 318

AppendixE-5
Singlecaseshowingliteracydifficultiesrelatedto Filipinolisteningcomprehension

-1

0 -2
0

-3
P-4 P,
:3ý: .4
cu ,
.,

PL4

P4

Fig. 9. Child 333

difficulties
Singlecaseshowingreadingcomprehension

-1
0-
U

-3 u
In
04
&4 p C)
Qj
Z)
1-4
P-4 P-4 P.
vlýww 0W 0 1-4
W-1 iL4 >
V) oj Uou wE ; 14 ý4 -0-1 ýt,
ww 44
4ýw
91 . ýu -4 U
A4 A4
(U

Fig. 10. Child 3ý2

UNWERS" OF SU;ZRV ILIBRAM'

Appendix E-6