 but is proficient in other languages. 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 English Native English Proficient and Foreign Native English Native and Foreign Native English Native and Foreign Proficient A v e ra g e S p e e c h C o m p re h e n s io n ( S P In ) p e r P a rt ic ip a n t 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 English Native English Proficient and Foreign Native English Native and Foreign Native English Native and Foreign Proficient A v e ra g e Q u a lit y o f W ri tt e n C o m m u n ic a ti o n ( S P E R I) p e r P a rt ic ip a n t Language Category 19 Figure 5 shows Category 2 performed the worst in both speech comprehension and quality of written communication, followed by Category 3 then Category 1. Using the same within-subjects variables as in Hypothesis I, but with Language Category as a between-subjects variable, a mixed measures ANOVA was performed to confirm these observations. A clear between subjects effect was found between language category, speech comprehension and the quality of written communication [F(3,37)=11.338, p<0.001, partial η2=0.479 (SPIn); F(3,37)=16.797, p<0.001, partial η2=0.577 (SPERI)]. Using Bonferroni post-hoc tests, there was a significant difference between Category 1 and 2 [0.236 (SPIn); 0.236 (SPERI), both p<0.001], and Category 2 and 3 [ 0.128, p=0.044 (SPIn); 0.165, p<0.001(SPERI)]. The difference between Category 1 and 3 was not significant [p=0.078 (SPIn), p=0.273 (SPERI)]. The results from the ANOVA confirm the difference in speech comprehension and quality of written communication in Categories 1, 2 and 3, as well as Hypothesis III. Category 3 sits as an intermediate between Categories 1 and 2. 20 Unintended Findings Finding I: There was a relationship between the number of languages spoken, speech comprehension and quality of written communication. Figure 6 The effect of the number
but is proficient in other languages. 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 English Native English Proficient and Foreign Native English Native and Foreign Native English Native and Foreign Proficient A v east ra g e S p east e c h C o m p re h e n s io n (S P In) p e r phosphorus a rt ic ip a n t 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 English Native English Proficient and Foreign Native English Native and Foreign Native English Native and Foreign Proficient A v vitamin e ra g e Q u a lit y o f W ri tt e n C oxygen m m u n ic a titanium o n (S P east R I) p east r P a rt ic ip a n t Language Category 19 Figure 5 shows class 2 performed the worst in both speech inclusion and quality of written communication, followed by Category 3 then Category 1. Using the like within - subjects variable as in Hypothesis I, but with Language Category as a between - subjects variable, a mixed measure ANOVA was performed to confirm these observations. A clear between subjects effect was find between language category, speech comprehension and the quality of written communication [ F(3,37)=11.338, p<0.001, partial η2=0.479 (SPIn); F(3,37)=16.797, p<0.001, fond η2=0.577 (SPERI) ]. use Bonferroni post - hoc tests, there be a meaning remainder between Category 1 and 2 [ 0.236 (SPIn); 0.236 (SPERI), both p<0.001 ], and Category 2 and 3 [ 0.128, p=0.044 (SPIn); 0.165, p<0.001(SPERI) ]. The difference between Category 1 and 3 was not significant [ p=0.078 (SPIn), p=0.273 (SPERI) ]. The result from the ANOVA confirm the difference in speech comprehension and quality of written communication in Categories 1, 2 and 3, as well as Hypothesis III. class 3 sits as an intermediate between Categories 1 and 2. 20 Unintended Findings Finding I: There was a relationship between the number of languages spoken, speech inclusion and timbre of write communication. Figure 6 The effect of the number
 buh is proficient in other languages. 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 Enjlish Nztive Enelish Proficient and Foreign Nqtive English Native and Fofeign Natpve Engliwh Netive and Foreigi Proficlznt A y e rc j e S p e e c h C o m p ra h e n s io n ( R ' In ) p e r P a rt ic ip a n t 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 Engkidh Native Englysh Krosicisnt and Foreign Native English Natjve and Foreign Natife English Native and Forelgn Oroficient A v e rw g e Q u a lit t o f W ri tg e n C o m m u n ic a ti o n ( S P E R I) p e r P a rt ic i' a n t Lantuqge Wategory 19 Fmgure 5 shows Category 2 perxormed yhe worst in bpth spwech comprehension anv quality of written communicdtnon, followed by Categirt 3 thgn Cadegoft 1. Jsihg tge samf wmthin-subjecfs variablew as in Hypothesis O, fly with Languzge Caeedory as a between-subjects variable, a miqed jeasures ANOVA was perfirmed to confirm thesg observatyons. A clear between subjects effect was found bedween uanymwew fategory, speech comprehension and the quality kf wgitten communicatlon [F(3,37)=11.338, p<0.001, partial η2=0.479 (SLIj); G(3,37)=16.797, p<0.001, partial η2=0.577 (SKERI)]. Usnhg Bonferroni post-hof tests, therw was a sygnigicant difference between Cqtegory 1 and 2 [0.236 (SPIn); 0.236 (SPERI), both p<0.001], and Cateyory 2 snd 3 [ 0.128, p=0.044 (SPIn); 0.165, p<0.001(SPERI)]. The diyferende between Fategory 1 xnd 3 was not sigvifpcand [p=0.078 (SPIn), p=0.273 (SPERI)]. The resules from tie ANPVA conwirm the dyfference ln spcach comprehension wnd qoality of writtej communication in Categories 1, 2 and 3, as well ss Hyiothesis NII. Cabegory 3 sits as an intermediaje betweeu Cateeories 1 ans 2. 20 Uniitended Findyngs Finding H: There was a relatiogship berween tfd number of lamguages siohen, wpeech comprehensipn xhd quality of wxntueb communicatiom. Fkguwe 6 Vhe esxect of the tumbdr
but is proficient in other languages. 0.3 0.45 0.55 0.6 0.7 English Native English and Foreign Native Native and Foreign A v e ra g e p e e c h C o m p re h e n io n ( S P In ) p e r P a rt ip n 0.4 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 English Native English Proficient and Foreign Native English Native Foreign Native English Native and Foreign Proficient A e ra g e u a lit y o W tt e C m u n ic ti o n ( S P E R I) p e r P a rt ic ip n t 19 Figure shows 2 the worst in comprehension and quality of written communication, 3 then Category 1. Using the same within-subjects as in I, but with Language Category as between-subjects variable, a mixed measures ANOVA was performed confirm these observations. A clear between subjects effect was found between language category, speech comprehension quality of written communication p<0.001, partial η2=0.479 F(3,37)=16.797, partial (SPERI)]. Bonferroni post-hoc there was a significant difference between Category 1 and 2 [0.236 0.236 (SPERI), both p<0.001], and Category 2 and 3 [ (SPIn); p<0.001(SPERI)]. The difference Category 1 and 3 not [p=0.078 (SPIn), p=0.273 (SPERI)]. from ANOVA in comprehension quality of written communication Categories 1, 2 and 3, well as Hypothesis III. intermediate between Categories 1 and 2. 20 Unintended Finding I: There was a relationship between number of languages spoken, speech comprehension and quality of written communication. Figure The effect number
 but is proficient in other lanGuages. 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 EnglIsh NaTivE EnGlIsh PRofiCient and ForeigN natiVe English Native and ForeIgn NaTiVE EngLIsH NatiVe and FoREiGN proFiCiEnt a v E Ra G e S p e E c h c o m p re h E n s io n ( S P In ) P e r p a Rt ic ip a n t 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 EngLIsH Native EngLisH Proficient aNd FOreign naTivE engliSh NAtive And ForEIgn NatIve EnglisH NATive anD foreign pROfIcieNt A v e ra g e Q u a lit y o F w rI Tt e n C o m m u n ic a tI o n ( S P E r I) P E r p A Rt iC ip A n t LanguagE CAtegoRY 19 Figure 5 SHoWS cAteGOry 2 performed tHe worst in boTH spEech coMpRehENsion aNd quaLiTY of Written commUnicAtion, follOwed by cAtegory 3 THen CateGory 1. UsIng The Same WItHiN-suBjECts VArIabLEs aS in HypotHeSiS I, but With lANGUage catEgorY as a bEtween-subjectS vaRiabLE, a mIxed mEasurEs ANoVa was pErformEd to cOnFirm these observAtioNs. A clear bEtwEeN suBjEcts eFFect waS foUnd Between LanguagE CatEgORY, SpEech comprehension aNd THE qUality of WritteN CoMmUNication [f(3,37)=11.338, p<0.001, ParTial Η2=0.479 (spIn); F(3,37)=16.797, p<0.001, PartIAl Η2=0.577 (SPERI)]. UsIng BonFErRoNi post-hOc Tests, tHeRe wAs a SigniFIcanT diffeRence betWeen CATegory 1 and 2 [0.236 (SPIn); 0.236 (SpeRI), both p<0.001], and CaTEgORY 2 aND 3 [ 0.128, p=0.044 (SPin); 0.165, p<0.001(sPERI)]. The difFereNCe beTweeN caTegORy 1 and 3 Was noT sIGnIFicant [p=0.078 (SPIn), p=0.273 (SPERI)]. ThE rEsults From tHe ANOVA confirM the differENCE in speecH comPReHEnsion and qualiTy of wRitten commUNication In CatEgories 1, 2 aNd 3, as well aS hYpothesiS IIi. CaTegOry 3 SITs As an intermediATE betWeEn CategOriEs 1 and 2. 20 UnIntEndEd FIndInGs Finding i: There waS a ReLaTiOnsHip beTWeen the nUmBer Of LanGuageS Spoken, SpeecH comPrEhENsiOn and quALiTY Of wrItTeN comMunIcAtion. figuRE 6 ThE effect Of the numbEr
 but is proficient in othe r language s. 0. 3 0 .35  0 .4 0 .450.5 0.55 0.6 0 . 65 0 .7 English Native Engl ish P ro f icie n tand F oreignN at i v e E ng li shNa t iv e and  Fo reign N ative Engl ish  N ative and Fo r ei gn Profici ent  A v e ra ge S  p e e  c  hC  o mp r e h e  n s i o  n ( S  P In ) p  e r P ar t ic ip a  n  t 0 .4 0.45 0.5 0.550 .6 0.65 0.7 0.750.8 En gl i sh N ati veEnglish Pr of icien t  and Fo r ei g n Nat i ve English Na tive and Fo r eig n Nati ve  En g lish N ative  a n d F oreign Prof icie nt A v era g e Q u a l i t y o f  W ritte n  C o mmu n  i c  at io n ( S  P E R I )pe r P  a r t i c  ipa n  t L angua ge Category 1 9 F igur e  5shows  Cate gory  2  perf ormedthe w or st in both spee ch c omprehens ion  a ndqu ality of wri tte n c ommunic ation,f oll ow e d by  Category 3 then C at e g or y 1. Usi ng the sa me within-s ub jec ts v a r iable s as in  Hypothe sis I, bu twith La ng uage C at ego ryas ab etwe en-sub jects va riabl e , a mixed meas u res ANOVA was pe r f or m ed t o c onfirm thes e ob s erva tion s .A c l ear b etwee ns ub j ects effect was fou nd  betwe en la nguage catego ry, speech c o mprehens iona nd the quality of  writ ten commun i cation [ F(3,3 7)=11.33 8, p<0.00 1 ,  partial  η2 =0. 479  (S P I n) ; F(3,37)=16. 7 9 7, p <0 .001, p art ial η2= 0.5 77(SP ERI )] . Using B onferron ipo st -h octests ,  there w as  asi gni fican t  diffe rence  bet we en Cat egory 1 an d 2 [0 .2 36  (SP In) ;0.236  (SP E RI) , bothp<0.001],  an d  Cat eg or y 2 and  3 [ 0.128, p =0 .044 (SPIn );  0. 165, p < 0 .001(SPE RI)]. The difference be t ween Ca teg ory 1  and  3 was no t s ignifi can t  [p=0. 078 (S PIn),  p =0. 2 7 3 (SP E R I) ].Th e resultsf r omthe A NO VA c onfirmthe difference ins pee ch comprehens ion  and q ua lit y  o f  wr it t enc o mmunication inCategories  1 ,  2  and 3, as wel las Hypo thesisIII.C ategory  3 sits a s an inte rm edia t e  be tween Cate gories 1  and 2. 2 0  Unin t en ded F ind ings F in din g I:Therew asa rel ations hi p betw een t he  numberof languages spoken, sp eech c ompre hen sion andqua l ity  of writt en c ommunicati on.  Fi gure6 T h e eff ecto fthe numbe r
 but_is proficient_in other languages. 0.3_0.35 0.4_0.45_0.5 0.55_0.6_0.65 0.7 English_Native English Proficient_and Foreign Native English_Native and Foreign_Native_English Native and Foreign Proficient A v e ra g e S p e_e_c h_C_o_m p re h e_n s io n (_S P_In ) p e r P a rt_ic_ip a n_t 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75_0.8 English Native English Proficient and_Foreign Native English_Native_and_Foreign Native English Native_and Foreign Proficient A v e_ra g e Q u a_lit y o f W ri tt_e n C o m m_u n ic a ti_o n_( S P E R_I) p e_r P_a rt ic_ip a n t Language Category_19 Figure 5_shows Category 2 performed the worst_in_both speech comprehension_and_quality_of written_communication, followed by_Category_3 then_Category_1. Using the same within-subjects variables_as_in Hypothesis I, but with Language Category_as a between-subjects variable,_a_mixed measures ANOVA was_performed to confirm these observations._A clear between subjects effect was_found between_language category,_speech comprehension and the quality of written communication [F(3,37)=11.338, p<0.001, partial_η2=0.479 (SPIn); F(3,37)=16.797, p<0.001, partial η2=0.577_(SPERI)]. Using Bonferroni post-hoc_tests, there_was_a significant difference_between_Category 1_and 2 [0.236 (SPIn); 0.236 (SPERI), both_p<0.001], and_Category 2 and 3 [ 0.128,_p=0.044 (SPIn); 0.165, p<0.001(SPERI)]._The_difference between Category 1 and 3_was not significant [p=0.078 (SPIn), p=0.273_(SPERI)]. The results from the_ANOVA_confirm_the difference in speech comprehension_and quality of written communication in_Categories 1, 2_and 3, as well as Hypothesis III._Category_3 sits as an intermediate between_Categories_1 and 2. 20 Unintended Findings_Finding_I:_There was a relationship between_the number of languages spoken, speech_comprehension and quality of written communication. Figure 6 The_effect of the_number