Promoting academic literacy skills among seven graders in Arabic as L1 in Israel ( El fomento del lenguaje académico de los estudiantes de lengua árabe en el primer curso de secundaria en Israel )
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2020
Promoting academic literacy skills among seven graders in Arabic as L1 in Israel ( El fomento del lenguaje académico de los estudiantes de lengua árabe en el primer curso de secundaria en Israel )
The current study presents findings from an academic literacy intervention programme targeting Arabic-native-speaking seventh-graders. Ninety-two pupils were assigned to either print (36 pupils) or computerized (30 pupils) learning platforms, whereas the remaining pupils (26) were in a control group. Three academic vocabulary knowledge tests (receptive, productive and application in context) and a reading comprehension test were administered before and after intervention. Additionally, prior to intervention, both experimental groups were assessed for Arabic diglossic context awareness. Following intervention, higher improvement in vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension was observed as compared to the control group. No significant differences were found between the two learning platforms. Awareness of Arabic diglossic context predicted 26% of pupils’ performance on the application pre-test, 18% of their performance on the receptive pre-test and 10.4% of their performance on reading comprehension. Gender effects were also noted with girls outperforming boys. The study results point to the benefits of an academic literacy intervention on promoting performance of Arabic-native-speaking middle schoolers. Awareness of Arabic’s diglossic nature and gender seem to modulate academic literacy performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abu-RabiaS.ShareD.MansourM. S. (2003). Word recognition and basic cognitive processes among reading-disabled and normal readers in Arabic. Reading and Writing, 16, 423–442.
2.
Al GhanemR.KearnsD. M. (2015). Orthographic, phonological, and morphological skills and children’s’ word reading in Arabic: A literature review. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 83–109.
3.
Anderson-InmanL.HomeyM. A. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 153–160.
4.
AyariS. (1996). Diglossia and illiteracy in the Arab world 1. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 9, 243–253.
5.
BayraktarS. (2001). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 173–188.
6.
BiemillerA.BooteC. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 44–62.
7.
BlokH.OostdamR.OtterM. E.OvermaatM. (2002). Computer-assisted instruction in support of beginning reading instruction: A review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 101–130.
8.
BruceB.PeytonJ. K. (1990). A new writing environment and an old culture: A situated evaluation of computer networking to teach writing. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 171–191.
9.
CarloM. S.AugustD.McLaughlinB.SnowC. E.DresslerC.LippmanD. N.WhiteC. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–215.
10.
CoxheadA.NationP.FlowerdewJ.PeacockM. (2001). The specialised vocabulary of English for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 252–267). Cambridge: Cambridge Applied Linguistics, Cambridge University Press.
11.
De WitteK.RoggeN. (2014). Does ICT matter for effectiveness and efficiency in mathematics education?Computers & Education, 75, 173–184.
12.
FergusonC. A. (1959). Diglossia. WORD, 15, 325–340.
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamletC. L.PowellS. R.CapizziA. M.SeethalerP. M. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skill in at-risk first graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 467–475.
14.
GanB.MenkhoffT.SmithR. (2015). Enhancing students’ learning process through interactive digital media: New opportunities for collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 652–663.
15.
Greenlee‐MooreM. E.SmithL. L. (1996). Interactive computer software: The effects on young children’s reading achievement. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 17, 43–64.
16.
GuthrieJ. T.WigfieldA.MetsalaJ. L.CoxK. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–256.
17.
HansenA. (2014). A review of the effects of computer-based reading programs on middle school students(Graduate Research Papers. 174). Retrieved fromhttps://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/174
18.
IbrahimR. (2009). The cognitive basis of diglossia in Arabic: Evidence from a repetition priming study within and between languages. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 2, 93–105.
19.
IbrahimR.Aharon-PeretzJ. (2005). Is literary Arabic a second language for native Arab speakers?: Evidence from semantic priming study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 51–70.
20.
Israeli Ministry of Education. (2013). Arabic Language Curriculum for Arab and Druze Education (7th– 12th grades). Jerusalem: Pedagogical Secretary Language Department.
21.
Khamis-DakwarR.FroudK. (2007). Lexical processing in two language varieties: Anevent-related brain potential study of Arabic native speakers. In MughazyM. (Ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XX (pp. 153–168). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
22.
KimA. H.VaughnS.KlingnerJ. K.WoodruffA. L.Klein ReutebuchC.KouzekananiK. (2006). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students with disabilities through computer-assisted collaborative strategic reading. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 235–249.
23.
KirkwoodA.PriceL. (2013). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39, 6–36.
24.
KrashenS. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.
25.
KrashenS. D.LeeS.LaoC. (2018). Comprehensible and compelling: The causes and effects of free voluntary reading. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
26.
KyleF.KujalaJ.RichardsonU.LyytinenH.GoswamiU. (2013). Assessing the effectiveness of two theoretically motivated computer‐assisted reading interventions in the United Kingdom: GG Rime and GG Phoneme. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 61–76.
27.
LawrenceJ. F.CapotostoL.Branum-MartinL.WhiteC.SnowC. E. (2012). Language proficiency, home-language status, and English vocabulary development: A longitudinal follow-up of the Word Generation program. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 437–451.
28.
LesauxN. K.CrossonA. C.KiefferM. J.PierceM. (2010). Uneven profiles: Language minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 475–483.
29.
LynchL.FawcettA. J.NicolsonR. I. (2000). Computer‐assisted reading intervention in a secondary school: An evaluation study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 333–348.
30.
MacArthurC. A.FerrettiR. P.OkoloC. M.CavalierA. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 273–301.
31.
MakhoulB.Kamis-DakwarR.Th.Copti-Mshael (2015). The development of sociolinguistic diglossic knowledge in oral-literacy mismatch situations: Preliminary findings from Palestinians Arabs.Psychology, 6, 1168–1179.
32.
MakhoulB.OlshtainE.IbrahimR. (2015). Let’s read together”: A balanced computer assisted intervention program and its effect on comprehension amongst at linguistic risk Arab first graders. Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 5, 626–645.
33.
MakhoulB.OlshtainE.SabahK.Copti-MshaelT. (2018). The development of academic vocabulary among Arabic-native-speaking middle school pupils: How much do they really know?Psychology, 9, 323–339.
34.
MathesP. G.TorgesenJ. K.AllorJ. H. (2001). The effects of peer-assisted literacy strategies for first-grade readers with and without additional computer-assisted instruction in phonological awareness. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 371–410.
35.
MeyerA.RoseD. H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In D. H. Rose, A. Meyer & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 13-35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
36.
MoD.ZhangL.LuoR.QuQ.HuangW.WangJ.RozelleS. (2014). Integrating computer-assisted learning into a regular curriculum: Evidence from a randomised experiment in rural schools in Shaanxi. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 6, 300–323.
37.
MorenoR.MayerR. E. (2000). A learner-centered approach to multimedia explanations: Deriving instructional design principles from cognitive theory. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-enhanced Learning, 2(2), 12–20.
38.
MullisI. V.MartinM. O.FoyP.DruckerK. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. International association for the evaluation of educational achievement. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
39.
NagyW.HermanP.AndersonR. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233–253.
40.
NagyW.TownsendD. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91–108.
41.
NationI. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do (Volume 1, Revised edition, February 2014): Student performance in mathematics, reading and science. Paris: Author.
43.
OECD. (2015). The ABC of gender equality in education: Aptitude, behavior, confidence. Paris: Author.
44.
OECD. (2016). Indicator B1 how much is spent per student? In Education at glance 2016: OECD indicators (pp. 180–197). Paris: OECD.
45.
OlsonR. K.WiseB. W. (1992). Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech feedback. Reading and Writing, 4, 107–144.
46.
PerfettiC. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.
47.
PotockiA.EcalleJ.MagnanA. (2013). Effects of computer-assisted comprehension training in less skilled comprehenders in second grade: A one-year follow-up study. Computers & Education, 63, 131–140.
48.
PotockiA.MagnanA.EcalleJ. (2015). Computerized trainings in four groups of struggling readers: Specific effects on word reading and comprehension. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 45, 83–92.
ReinkingD.SchreinerR. (1985). The effects of computer-mediated text on measures of reading comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 536–552.
51.
RidingR.GrimleyM. (1999). Cognitive style, gender and learning from multi‐media materials in 11‐year‐old children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 43–56.
52.
RossC. S. (2002). Reading in a digital age. In GormanG. E. (Ed.), The digital factor in library and information services (pp. 91–111). London: Facet publishing.
53.
RothS. F.BeckI. L. (1987). Theoretical and instructional implications of the assessment of two microcomputer word recognition programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 197–218.
54.
Saiegh-HaddadE. (2003). Bilingual oral reading fluency and reading comprehension: The case of Arabic/Hebrew (L1) - English (FL) readers. Reading and Writing: an Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 717–736.
55.
Saiegh-HaddadE. (2005). Correlates of reading fluency in Arabic diglossic and orthographic factors. Reading and Writing, 18, 559–582.
56.
Saiegh-HaddadE. (2007). Linguistic constraints on children’s ability to isolate phonemes in Arabic. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 605–625.
57.
Saiegh-HaddadE.Henkin-RoitfarbR. (2014). The structure of Arabic language and orthography. In E. Saiegh-Haddad & R. Malatesha Joshi (Eds.), Handbook of Arabic literacy (pp. 3–28). Dordrecht: Springer.
58.
Saiegh-HaddadE.JoshiM. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Arabic literacy: Insights and perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
59.
SaineN. L.LerkkanenM. K.AhonenT.TolvanenA.LyytinenH. (2010). Predicting word-level reading fluency outcomes in three contrastive groups: Remedial and computer-assisted remedial reading intervention, and mainstream instruction. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 402–414.
60.
SaineN. L.LerkkanenM. K.AhonenT.TolvanenA.LyytinenH. (2011). Computer‐assisted remedial reading intervention for school beginners at risk for reading disability. Child Development, 82, 1013–1028.
61.
SavageR. S.AbramiP.HippsG.DeaultL. (2009). A randomized controlled trial study of the ABRACADABRA reading intervention program in grade 1. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 590–604.
62.
SchmittN. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329–363.
63.
SchmittN.SchmittD.ClaphamC. (2001). Developing and exploring the bahviour of two versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18, 55–88. 10.1177/026553220101800103
64.
ShannonL. C.StyersM. K.WilkersonS. B.PeeryE. (2015). Computer-assisted learning in elementary reading: A randomized control trial. Computers in the Schools, 32, 20–34.
65.
SiboldC. (2011). Building English language learners’ academic vocabulary: Strategies and Tips. Multicultural Education, 18(2), 24–28.
66.
SlavinR. E.CheungA.GroffC.LakeC. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best‐evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 290–322.
67.
StetterM. E.HughesM. T. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to enhance the reading comprehension of struggling readers: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(4), 1–16.
68.
WiseB. W.OlsonR. K.RingJ.JohnsonM. (1998). Interactive computer support for improving phonological skills. In J. L. Metsala, & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 189–208).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
69.
WoodC. L.MustianA. L.CookeN. L. (2012). Comparing whole-word and morphograph instruction during computer-assisted peer tutoring on students’ acquisition and generalization of vocabulary. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 39–47.
70.
ŽupanecV.MiljanovićT.PribićevićT. (2013). Effectiveness of computer-assisted learning in biology teaching in primary schools in Serbia. Zbornik Instituta Za Pedagoska Istrazivanja, 45, 422–444.
