Page 196 - Second language development of newly arrived migrant kindergarteners - Frederike Groothoff
P. 196

196 Chapter 8 There was an interaction effect of Peer Interaction, although the fixed main effect of Peer Interaction was not significant. The significant interaction effect between Age and Peer Interaction means that the relation between Age and MLR scores differs per percentage of time spent in Peer Interaction. However, for the interpretation this interaction effect a word of caution is warranted as the standard errors in the last model appeared to be large. Therefore, we are not sure about the specific values for each parameter (See Table 6.9 in Appendix 6 with the estimated parameters). Since the fixed main effect of Peer Interaction is not significant we can only say that the influence of Peer Interaction is larger for younger pupils than for older pupils. We do however refrain from plotting the model in a graph because this would be difficult to interpret. A larger sample is necessary to confirm the effect. The addition of the other five variables, percentage of time spent on Language Activities and Mathematical Activities or time spent in Language Situations with Peers, Balanced Language Situations, or Teacher-Focal Pupil Interaction did not improve the general model of growth in MLR. This means that we could not show that the fact that pupils at DL2-schools were more likely to be engaged in Language Activities, Mathematical Activities, Balanced Language Situations, or Teacher-Focal Pupil Interactions compared to pupils at Mainstream schools had any significant impact on the pupils’ development of lexical richness. Additionally, we could not show that the fact that pupils at Mainstream schools were more likely to be engaged in Language Situations with Peers compared to pupils at the DL2-schools had any significant impact on the pupils’ development of lexical richness. Macrostructure In the next three sub-sections the new growth models for macrostructural elements of the narrative ability will be modelled and related to learning environmental aspects focusing on focal pupils’ experiences. First Story Structure (SS), then Structural Complexity (SC), and finally Internal State Term (IST) will be modelled. After the building of the new growth models, we will present the significant explanatory variables from the school learning environment first, followed by the discussion of the non-significant variables. Story Structure (SS) From the comparison between the consecutive models for the SS score (Table 8.19) it is apparent that a model with a fixed linear component – allowing for differences in Age – fit the data better than a model with only an intercept (ΔΧ2 (SSII) = 93.14; df = 1; p < .001). The variance within (SSIII) or between (SSIV) individuals did not depend on the age of the participants. Adding Age2 to the model improved the fit significantly (ΔΧ2 (SSV) = 5.15; df = 1; p = .02). Hence, in the final model (SSDEF) a fixed effect of Age1 and Age2 is needed, and with this model we continued the analysis. 


































































































   194   195   196   197   198