Abstract
As Cook (2004) states learning another language does seem to change people's 'thinking' to some extent. This study intends to investigate how monolingual and bilingual ESL learners perform on reading comprehension tests in mixed-mono/bilingual classrooms. To this end the interaction between mono/bilinguality with gender and reading ability in respect to general English proficiency has been taken into account. As data analysis indicated, mono and bilingual students differed significantly in their reading comprehension scores and also the interaction effect between linguality and proficiency was found to be significant, indicating that reading comprehension scores were different for students with low and high proficiency in different linguality backgrounds. On the other hand, male and female students had statistically equal reading comprehension scores. Further, the interaction effect between linguality and gender is found to be non-significant. Therefore, it was concluded that monolingual students need to be provided with more consideration so that they may not lag behind their bilingual peers in reading comprehension tasks in mixed-mono/bilingual classrooms.

Key terms: Linguality, reading comprehension, language proficiency

Introduction
Improving reading achievement for all students is one of the major goals of learning an additional language. Reading literacy is one of the most fundamental academic skills, important in its own right and essential for success in language learning. The purpose of reading is to connect the ideas on the page to what you already know. If you don't know anything about a subject, then pouring words of text into your mind is like pouring water into your hand. You don't retain much. Similarly, if you like sports, then reading the sports page is easy. You have a framework in your mind for reading, understanding and storing information.

According to Chastain, (1988, p. 216) “Reading is a basic and complementary skill in language learning.” Second language learners need to read and to read greater and greater quantities of authentic materials for communication. It involves comprehension and when readers do not comprehend, they are not reading.

Among other skills, reading is probably the most important skill learners will need to succeed in their studies. Since reading is a problem-solving activity, the idea of strategic learning of reading became the matter of investigation in recent years. Urquhart & Weir (1998, p. 95) define strategies as “ways of getting around difficulties encountered while reading”. When encountering comprehension problems, accomplished readers take immediate steps by monitoring their reading process carefully. They are aware of their own cognitive and linguistic resources, and are capable of directing their attention to the appropriate clues in anticipating, organizing and retaining text information. Such readers are strategic readers and their reading behavior is referred to as “strategic reading” (Koda, 2005, p. 204).

During reading many interactive processes occur. These may vary by reader, and the fact that readers engage in different activities while reading does not necessarily mean that their comprehension of the text will be different, and vice versa. One variable in the reading process is activation. Researches have shown that readers’ knowledge and experiences influence the realization of meaning, and if relevant schemata are activated during the reading process, then the reader may comprehend the text better.

What can be said, though, is that gender and linguality as variables in L2 reading deserves more attention. Alderson (2000) contends that readers may differ in their knowledge and experiences, and therefore the products of reading will also differ. In a discussion of stable reader characteristics, he lists the gender of the reader and sites only one study to support his claim that test designers need to be cautious not to bias assessment tasks toward one gender. Because of the lack of L2 reading studies that consider gender, it is difficult to provide evidence to support Alderson’s suggestions.

Knowing two or more languages well gives kids so many advantages in life. Bilingual kids have the advantage of knowing two cultures, of being able to communicate with a wider variety of people, and of possible economic advantages in their future (Rosenberg, 1996).

Parents frequently have questions about how second language learning affects reading ability, social skills, and scholastic achievement. Research suggests that children who learn a second language are more creative and better at solving complex problems than those who do not. Studies have shown that bilinguals outperform similar monolingual peers on both verbal and nonverbal tests of intelligence and tend to achieve higher scores on standardized tests. Additionally, individuals who speak more than one language have the ability to communicate with more people, read more literature, and benefit more fully from travel abroad. Knowing a second language also gives people a competitive advantage in the workforce.

According to Baker (2000), the advantages of bilingualism have been identified by research projects around the world. Bilingual children have more fluent, flexible and creative thinking. They can communicate more naturally and expressively, maintaining a finer texture of relationships with parents and grandparents, as well as with the local and wider communities in which they live. They gain the benefits of two sets of literatures, traditions, ideas, ways of thinking and behaving. They can act as a bridge between people of different colors, creeds and cultures. With two languages come a wider cultural experience, greater tolerance of differences and less racism. As barriers to movement between countries are taken down, the earning power of bilinguals rises. Further advantages include raised self-esteem, increased achievement, and greater proficiency with other languages.

As Cook (2004) states learning another language does seem to change people's 'thinking' to some extent. Human beings do not all think in the same way. The starting point must be to show that speakers of different languages indeed have different concepts in each language in their mind. For example speakers of Berinmo in Papua New Guinea and speakers of English have two pairs of colours nol/wor and blue/green with different boundaries between them (Davidoff, Davies & Roberson, 1999); and speakers of languages that mark gender perceive inanimate objects as having characteristics typical of their grammatical gender (Boroditsky, Schmidt & Philips, 2003, cited in Cook, 2004).Cook (2004) uses the term multicompetence to refer to the knowledge of two or more languages in one mind. This term was devised to encompass both the language systems present in the same mind – the first language (L1) and the interlanguage (Selinker, 1972). Since the first language and the other language(s) are in the same mind, the concept of multi-competence suggests that they must form a language super-system at some level rather than completely isolated systems: bilinguals don't have two heads. Bilingual cognition research also supports the view that L2 users differ from their monolingual peers in many ways, “in particular having a different knowledge of the L1 in terms of syntax, vocabulary, phonology, pragmatics, and so on”(Cook, 2004, p.1).

Some researches found that successful bilingual readers have figured out how to utilize their knowledge and abilities developed in Spanish to enhance their English reading comprehension. They strategically implement this knowledge in a timely manner; specifically, they have well-defined strategies when confronting unknown words and/or unfamiliar expressions in English. Less proficient bilingual readers appear to view their two languages as separate and unrelated, and consequently do not take advantage of their full linguistic repertoire (Langer, et al, 1990; Jiménez, 1992; Jiménez, Garcia & Pearson, in press).

What seems to be pivotal is the interaction between linguality and reading comprehension abilities in language learning, which has not been focused more to date. In other words, the present researchers are keen to find out whether linguality has any effect on reading comprehension ability. The outcome of this research will indicate whether monolinguals and bilinguals should be treated the same or differently in reading tasks. Therefore the present study formulates the following hypotheses:

1. Bilingual and monolingual students differ significantly in reading comprehension scores.
2. There will be significant interaction between linguality and proficiency in reading comprehension scores.
3. Male and female students differ significantly in their reading comprehension scores.
4. There will be significant interaction between linguality and gender in reading comprehension scores.

Methodology                                                                                                  
Subjects
The participants of the present study were male and female first year pre-university students (number=157) from private and government pre-university colleges (P.U.Cs) with Kannada as medium of instruction in the city of Mysore, India. They were of 16 to 18 years of age. These colleges were randomly selected.

Through a background questionnaire two groups of students in terms of linguality participated in this study:
Group A (47 male and 30 female monolinguals)
Group B (53 male and 27 female bilinguals)
In the present study monolinguals are those students who use just one language (except English) at home or in society fluently. Although they may understand another language, they are not able to communicate with others by using more than one language, while bilinguals use more than one language (except English) at home or in or in their communications.

In this study English has not been considered as an additional language for those subjects who were not capable of using it as a means of communication in their daily conversations whether inside or outside of their homes.

Participants, in all groups were homogenous, in terms of their age, methodology used at schools, and the number of hours devoted to the teaching of English.

Materials       
The following instruments were used:
a) Language proficiency test (NELSON, series 400 B).
This test was composed of multiple-choice cloze passage, vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation sections. In order to have a reliable test of proficiency at the piloting stage the test was administered to 15 students. Its reliability through the K-R21 formula turned out to be. 71.

b)Test of reading comprehension in English
The test of reading comprehension in English was from the reading component of the Cambridge Preparation for the TOEFL Test (Gear, J, 1993. pp. 416-421). The time allowed was 30 minutes as determined at the piloting stage.The reading passages used in this study contained a general content, which were of interest to the students. Readability of the reading text is an objective, but not necessarily very valid, measure of the difficulty of a text. Readability formulae look at texts only as products. As Rigg (1896, p.75) puts it, ‘the basic assumption underlying any readability formula is that meaning is in the print, in the text. There is no recognition that meaning is created by each reader as the reader engages with the text’. Even leaving aside issues of social context and individual motivation, and looking at texts as products, the criteria used by readability formulae are doubtful. Factors other than word and sentence length are not accounted for. For example, reduced clauses, which tend to shorten sentences, can create greater difficulty for the reader than longer sentences, which are easier to ‘unpack’. Where this is not used, intuition may be relied on. If materials are perceived as boring or as too easy or too difficult, learners will be unmotivated to do the task (Scarcella and Oxford, 1990). A text that is too easy to comprehend furnishes few opportunities for strategy use and in this case students will probably fail to grasp the value of strategy use. On the other hand, a text that is too difficult to understand may not be comprehensible even with the employment of a variety of strategies. “Metacognitive capabilities become operative only in reading task perceived as hard but attainable. Tasks that offer minimal challenge will not be incentive enough for readers to make extra efforts to manipulate their cognitive resources” (Koda, 2005, p. 211). 

   To have a reliable test it was piloted on 15 students and through the K-R21 formula the reliability turned out to be .68. Then after calculating the correlation coefficient (.75) between the Nelson test of proficiency and the test of reading in English in the piloting stage for the purpose of having a valid test, this test of reading turned out to be suitable for this study.

c) Self-evaluation proficiency scale;
In order to classify the participants into monolinguals and bilinguals they were requested to rate their abilities in Kannada, English, Hindi, Tamil, Urdu and Telugu (the subjects were also asked to specify if there is any one not mentioned in the questionnaire) on 4-points in each language. To gain this aim the investigators developed a questionnaire (see table 1) included five tables; inside each table the subjects were provided with different languages and also different skills, therefore they were requested to have a self- evaluation on their level of proficiency in different languages based on Likert scale ranging from excellent (1) to very weak (4) (see appendix 3). To measure the internal consistency of the questionnaire, after piloting it with 15 students of the similar group, Cronback alpha was utilized as the most appropriate reliability index (Oxford, 1995). The questionnaire appeared to be reliable with a mean coefficient of .59, which is significant.

d) A background questionnaire:
In order to elicit information about participants, a background questionnaire was developed by the investigators (see table 2). It covered issues such as the subjects’ age, gender and linguality status. The subjects were assured that the elicited information would be accorded full confidentiality. 

Procedure
The investigators approached the pre-university college authorities in order to get their consent for conducting the study. The conditions for testing were strictly followed as far as possible. The researchers firstly read instructions printed on the top of the questionnaires clearly and then before the start of each test, the investigators cleared doubts. The way of answering the questions was made clear to the participants and in case of any difficulty they were encouraged to ask question and were provided with help. The subjects were also informed that their performance will be kept confidential and will not have any effect on their final exam scores.

   The administration of proficiency and reading comprehension tests took 60 minutes. The whole study was completed in three phases as shown below:
Phase 1: First, through administering the Nelson Proficiency test (Series 400B) to 157 pre-university students, two groups of High and Low language proficiency levels were identified, that is, those whose scores were below the medium were taken as Low and those whose scores were above the medium as High group, making 157 students in total. The time allowed as determined at the pilot study was 30 minutes.
Phase 2: Then the reading comprehension test was administered to the students to be completed in 30 minutes as determined at the pilot study in order to have an assessment of their reading ability in English.
Phase 3: Soon after completing the reading comprehension test the subjects were given the background questionnaire in order to elicit some information on the basis of the participants' age, gender and linguality status.

Results and Discussion
The two-way ANOVA was employed in order to analyze the collected data. The statistical representation of analyzed data is given in the following tables:

Table 1
Mean Reading Comprehension scores of mono and bilingual subjects with high and low proficiency in General English knowledge and
Gender

Variables		Linguality				Total
		Monolingual		Bilingual
		Mean	S.D	Mean	S.D	Mean	S.D
Proficiency	Low	9.16	2.47	9.40	3.61	9.26	2.97
	High	11.38	3.62	14.20	3.85	13.17	3.99
	Total	9.91	3.07	12.10	4.43	11.03	3.97
Gender	Male	9.81	3.40	12.43	4.91	11.20	4.45
	Female	10.07	2.53	11.44	3.26	10.72	2.96
	Total	9.91	3.07	12.10	4.43	11.03	3.97

 

Table 2
Results of two-way ANOVA for mean Reading Comprehension
scores of mono and bilingual subjects with high and low
proficiency in General English knowledge and Gender
see PDF

Figure1
Mean reading comprehension scores of mono and bilingual
students with high and low proficiency

Figure2
Mean reading comprehension scores of male and female
students in mono and bilingualism

Regarding the first research hypothesis (Bilingual and monolingual students differ significantly in reading comprehension scores.) as indicated in table 2, mono and bilingual students differed significantly in their reading comprehension scores as the obtained F value of 7.606 was found to be significant at .007 level. From the mean values it is clear that bilingual students had significantly higher scores than monolingual students (means 12.10 and 9.91 respectively). Further, students with high proficiency (mean 13.17) had significantly (F=40.158; P<.000) higher scores than students with low proficiency (mean 9.26). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is accepted for reading comprehension scores as there was significant F value where bilinguals scored significantly higher than monolingual. 

Actually, many studies prove that bilingual learners have linguistic advantages compared to their monolingual equals. For example, bilinguals have been shown to have a much higher level of linguistic awareness, and the cognitive processes connected to learning a second language are very similar to the processes connected to third language acquisition, which means that bilinguals should be better equipped for learning their third language than monolinguals for learning their second language. In addition, bilingual pupils have access to much larger amount of language material than the monolingual pupils by which their linguistic capability is enlarged and they are much more flexible with regards to code shifting and the usage of strategies. 

Herinda and Jessner (2000) propose that bilingual and multilingual learners have significant advantages compared to monolingual ones both in terms of language learning, management and maintenance skills. Firstly, the multilingual learner’s cognitive aspects of learning are more developed than monolingual pupils who do not know the skills for acquiring a new language. Secondly, the pupil has to choose from his or her language repertoire which language to use in a given communicative situation, which demands the act of balancing communicative requirements with one’s language resources. Thirdly, the multilingual learner has to develop his or her skills in all three languages in order to process: “the acquisition of more than one language encourages the development of a metasystem which is then used in subsequent processes of language learning” (Hernida and Jessner, 2000, p. 93).

With respect to the second research hypothesis (there will be significant interaction between linguality and proficiency in reading comprehension scores) the interaction effect between linguality and proficiency is found to be significant (F=5.38; P<.022) indicating that the pattern reading comprehension scores are different for students with low and high proficiency in different lingual backgrounds. From the mean values it is evident that bilinguals with high proficiency had significantly higher reading comprehension scores than any other 3 groups. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is accepted, as there was a significant interaction effect between linguality and proficiency, where students with high proficiency and bilingualism had highest scores.

As far as the third and forth research hypotheses are concerned (H3: male and female students differ significantly in their reading comprehension scores, H4: there will be significant interaction between linguality and gender in reading comprehension scores). Male and female students had statistically equal reading comprehension scores as the obtained F value of .329 was found to be non-significant (P<.567). Further, the interaction effect between linguality and gender is found to be non-significant (F=.958; P<.329) indicating that the pattern of reading comprehension scores are similar for male and female students irrespective of the lingual background they have. Therefore, the third and forth hypotheses were rejected as there were no significant differences between gender as well as for interaction between linguality and gender.

Conclusion and Implications
As the data analysis indicated, mono and bilingual students differed significantly in their reading comprehension scores. This is to suggest that bilingual students had significantly higher scores than monolingual students irrespective of their proficiency levels. Further, students with high proficiency had significantly higher scores than students with low proficiency.It has also been manifested that male and female students had statistically equal reading comprehension scores. In another view the interaction effect between linguality and gender is also found to be non-significant indicating that the reading comprehension scores are similar for male and female students irrespective of the linguality background they have.

An obvious advantage of learning to read one's native language and subsequently learning to read a second language is that it offers a promising opportunity to become biliterate - a skilled reader and writer of two languages. Work by Diaz & Klinger (1991), Bialystok (1991), Hakuta (1986), suggest that bilingualism and biliteracy enhance cognitive and metalinguistic abilities and this appears to support the findings of the present study. Because of the critical role that language development has in reading, the role of bilingualism in the development of reading skills needs to be clearly delineated.

Main implication of this study
As Rosenberg (1996) mentioned, knowing two or more languages truly gives an advantage to bilinguals. Bilinguals have the advantage of knowing two cultures, of being able to communicate with a wider variety of people, and so on. As Cook (2004) states learning another language does seem to change people's 'thinking' to some extent. This study has also manifested that bilinguals’ ability was greater than their monolingual peers in reading comprehension. In other words bilinguals had an advantage over monolinguals in the reading skill. It is suggested that in the process of teaching reading abilities, enough care should be paid to the monolinguals that are at a disadvantage compared to their bilingual peers.

References
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press.

Baker, C. (2000). A parents and teachers guide to bilingualism. (2nd edition). Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.

Bialystok, E. (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L.A. & Phillips, W. (2003).Sex, syntax and semantics. In   D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (pp. 61-78). Cambridge, MA, London, UK: The MIT Press.

Chastain, K. (1988). Developing Second Language Skills: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Orlando. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cook, V. (2004). Bilingual cognition and language teaching. Draft of Paper for Talk in Taiwan 2004. Online:     http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/
writings/papers/bilcog&teaching.htm

Davidoff, J., Davies, I. & Roberson, D. (1999). Colour categories in a stone-age tribe, Nature,2(1), 398.

Diaz, R. &Klinger, C. (1991). Towards an explanatory model of the interaction between bilingualism and cognitive development. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children(pp. 62-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language. New York: Basic Books.

Herdina, P. & Jessner, U. (2000). The dynamics of third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz &U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp.121-143). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Jiménez, R. T. (1992).  Opportunities and obstacles in bilingual reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.

Jiménez, R. T., Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (In press). The metacognitive strategies of Latino students who read Spanish and English. (Technical Report). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.

Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Langer, J. A., Bartolomé, L., Vasquez, O., & Lucas, T. (1990).Meaning construction in school literacy tasks: A study of bilingual students. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 427-471.

National Association of Educational Progress. (2000) http://nces.ed.gov.
Oxford, R. (1995). Gender differences in language learning styles: What do they mean? In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom(pp. 34-46). New York: Heinle and Heinle.

Rigg, P. and Enright, D. (eds.) (1986).Children and ESL: Integrating perspectives. Washington, DC: TESOL.

Rosenberg, M. (1996). Raising bilingual children. The Internet TESL Journal, 2(6). Retrieved February 1, 2007 from
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Rosenberg-Bilingual.html

Scarcella, R.C. and Oxford, R. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle arid Heinle.

Selinker, L. (1972), Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209-231.

Urquart A. and Weir, J.C. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process and product. London: Longman

 

Appendix 1: Measurement of linguality
The language or languages that you use (1) and with the groups 2-5. And also place one of the following numbers in each cell to indicate the competence knowledge of yours in these skills of language(s)

  Excellent =1               Good =2                       Weak =3                         Very weak =4

Language(s) used with self

Name of language	Understand	Speak	Read	Write
Kannada
Urdu
Hindi
Telugu
Marathi
English
Tamil
Others(specify):

Name of language	Understand	Speak	Read	Write
Kannada
Urdu
Hindi
Telugu
Marathi
English
Tamil
Others(specify):

Language(s) used with brothers and sisters

Name of language	Understand	Speak	Read	Write
Kannada
Urdu
Hindi
Telugu
Marathi
English
Tamil
Others(specify):

Language(s) used with Parents/ and other elder members of family

Name of language	Understand	Speak	Read	Write
Kannada
Urdu
Hindi
Telugu
Marathi
English
Tamil
Others(specify):

Appendix 2

Students’ Proforma

1-Name of the student:………………………………
2-Age……………………………………………….
3-Gender……………………………………
4-Name of college…………………………
5- Class studying: ………………………..
 6-Medium of instruction....................…….