Handbook for arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century — facebook.com/LinguaLIB


Чтобы посмотреть этот PDF файл с форматированием и разметкой, скачайте его и откройте на своем компьютере.
Trends and Recent Issues in Teaching and Learning Arabic
Social, Political and Educational Contexts of
Arabic Language Teaching and Learning
Identifying Core Issues in Practice
Language Var
Arabic Prog
rams: Goals, Design and Curriculum
Teaching and Learning
Approaches: Content-Based Instruction and Curriculum
Arabic Teaching and Lear
ning: Classroom Language Materials and Language Corpora
Assessment, T
esting and Evaluation
Teacher Education and Professional De
velopment
Technology-Mediated
Teaching and Learning
Future Directions
aces new challenges since the publication of Volume I, including increasing and diverse demands,
motives and needs for learning Arabic across various contexts of use; a need for accountability and academic
research given the growing recognition of the complexity and diverse contexts of teaching Arabic; and an
increasing shortage of and need for quality of instruction. Volume II addresses these challenges. It is designed to
generate a dialogue—continued from Volume I—among professionals in the eld leading to improved practice,
and to facilitate interactions, not only among individuals but also among educational institutions within a single
country and across different countries.
Kassem M. Wahba
is Professor in the Department of Near Eastern Studies, Cornell University, USA.
is Principal at Liz England and Associates, LLC, USA.
Zeinab A. Taha
is Associate Professor in the Department of Applied Linguistics, The American University in
Cairo, Egypt.
Teaching Professionals in
the 21st Century
Language Teaching
Century
Volume II
Edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Liz England
and Zeinab A. Taha
First published 2018
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor
& Francis Group,
an informa business
© 2018 Taylor
The right of Kassem M.
Wahba, Liz England and Zeinab A. Taha to be identied as editors of
this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections
77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
We dedicate this book to our students, who struggle with life’s most valuable gift and
the most difcult challenge in the 21st century—learning another language; and to
their teachers, who guide them in their journey.
Foreword by Roger Allen
Preface
Acknowledgments
Trends and Recent Issues in Teaching and Learning Arabic
Trends and Recent Issues in T
eaching and Learning Arabic
Kassem M. Wahba,
Liz England and Zeinab A. Taha
Teaching and Learning
Teaching Arabic in the United States II
Karin C. Ryding
Teaching and Learning Arabic in J
Akiko M. Sumi and Katsunori Sumi
Approaches to Second Language Acquisition in Relation to Arabic
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
Beliefs, Motivation,
and Engagement: What Every Teacher of Arabic
Should Know About Self-Efcacy
Nicole Mills and R. Kirk Belnap
Syntactic Variation in Moder
n Written Arabic:
A Corpus-Based Study in
Egyptian Newspapers
Zeinab A. Taha
Contemporary Arabic V
ariation and Conditionals: Hypotheses From Arab
Blogs 2014–2015
Manuela E. B. Giolfo and Feder
ico Salvaggio
Intercultural Communication, Cur
riculum Development and Assessment
Jerry Lampe
The Implementation of the Common European Framework of Refer
for the Teaching and Learning of Arabic as a Second Language in Higher
Rasha Soliman
10
Arabic as a Foreign Language at A
UB: History and Current Trends
David Wilmsen
11
Study Abroad Arabic Pr
ograms: Issues of Concern, Research and Future
Directions
Emma Trentman
Teaching Arabic in Elementary
, Middle, and High School
Steven Berbeco
Motivating Heritage Students to
Acquire the Standard Arabic Language
Teaching and Learning Approaches: Content-Based
14
Arabic for Specic Purposes: Prob
lems and Potentials
Mohssen Esseesy
‘Arabiyyatii: An Inno
vative Technology-Based Curriculum for Teaching
Arabic to Native Speakers
Zeinab Ibrahim, Pantelis P
apadopoulos and Andreas Karatsolis
Arabic Teaching and Learning: Classroom Language Materials
16
Using Linguistic Corpora in Arabic For
eign Language Teaching and Learning
Lynn Whitcomb and Sameh Alansar
Materials Development in
Arabic Language Learning and Teaching:
Realities, Needs, and Future Directions
Kassem M. Wahba
Assessment, Testing and Evaluation
18
Arabic Language Assessment
John M. Norris and Mic
Assessment of Spoken Arabic Prociency:
Mahdi Alosh
20
Writing Across the
Arabic Curriculum:
Towar
ds Assessment for Program
Development
Clarissa Burt
21
Integrating Listening and Speaking Skills in a Content-Based Instruction
Class Using a T
ask-Based Framework
Shahira Yacout
Integrating Reading and Writing:
Literature Circles
Dalal Abo El Seoud
A Strategy for Teaching Arabic Pr
onunciation
Khaled Rifaat
The Pedagogy of Arabic Grammar
Hristina Chobanova
Teacher Education and Professional Development
25
Proposing Professional Standards for
Arabic Teacher Certication
Technology-Mediated Teaching and Learning
26
Francesco L. Sinatora
Importance of a Collaborative
Tech-Based Learning Model for Teacher
Raghda El Essawi
28
Future Research Directions in
Arabic as a Foreign Language
Karin C. Ryding
Empirical Directions in the Future of
Acquisition and Second Language Pedagogy
Mohammad T. Alhaw
ary
List of Contributors
Index
The publication of this volume of the
provides the clearest possible evidence of the con
tinuing, indeed increasing, signicance of its primary topic: by which I
Arabic as a language of major importance in international politics,
business and culture, but also the
pleasing reality that the professionalization of Arabic language teaching is now not merely rmly
established in academic institutions in the United States and beyond, but also thriving as an environ
ment for research on multiple aspects of both language teaching and learning. This volume of new
studies makes it abundantly clear that teachers and supervisors of Arabic language instruction are
now recognized as full and active participants in the various subelds of research on language peda-
have else
where previously described as needing to be placed
Alongside these many questions of application, and indeed framing them, are a number of theo

) and the possibilities of lear
ner motivation through a stimulation
“self-efcacy” are the topics of a particularly impor
tant contribution to the volume.
The role of the language pedagogue is, needless to say, bound to be an important component of
any handbook such as this; much attention is therefore paid to the kinds of qualications and skills
that are needed in order for a teacher of Arabic to be successful. Long past, we must hope, are the days
when a “textbook” would be placed into the hands of a native-speaker graduate student whose task
it would then be to teach the initial levels of instruction (in many cases, the only level[s] on offer). As
the title of this volume proclaims with abundant clarity, we are now talking about “professionals,” a
reection of a radical change in institutional attitudes (at least within American academe) to the status
of language instruction and its practitioners, one that has occurred, albeit gradually, over the last three
myself was
privileged to observe and participate
in for many years and with the greatest satisfaction.
Roger Allen, Professor Emeritus of Arabic and Comparative
Literature, University of Pennsylvania, ACTFL National
Trainer of Oral Prociency Testers in Arabic, 1986–2002
The overarching purpose of the second volume of
Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals
in the 21st Century
is to continue to promote excellence in Arabic language teaching. It is to com
plement, supplement, and update research in Volume I. Since the publication of the rst volume
2006, a large amount of excellent resear
ch in the eld of Arabic teaching and learning has emerged
(specic reference here to Ryding, 2013; Younes, 2015; Al Batal, 2018; and others), and the quality of
that has recei
ved excellent response and some very helpful reviews as well. All of those have
been utilized in the preparation of
Volume II. W
e wish to acknowledge in particular the contribu
tions of three individuals who have passed away in the past ten years. Professor El Said Badawi, who
wrote the foreword to Volume I, and whose students are represented in this volume provided a model
for future scholarship and teaching of Arabic. Dr. Waheed Samy, who dedicated his life to scholar
ship in the eld of teaching Arabic and linguistics will be sorely missed by all of us. Finally, Professor
Abdu al-Rajhi, who dedicated all his life to researching Arabic grammar and linguistics not only at
Alexandria University but also in the Arab world as well will be missed by us all.
Brief Overview
The author of each chapter in the second volume was asked to draw on research ndings related to
and engagement: what every teacher of Arabic should know about self-efcacy. It also contains
topics that are rarely combined in a single volume on Arabic language. The chapters chosen reect
not only recent developments in the eld but also changing emphases. Examples include chapters
the new goals of teaching foreign languages, are addressed. Professor Ryding concludes her chapter
by calling for a change in research and teaching in the Arabic language instruction.
Moving from the United States to the Far East, the second chapter in this theme reects the his
tory of teaching and learning Arabic in Japan. Professors Akiko M. Sumi and Katsunori Sumi have
pointed out that since the beginning of Arabic language instruction in 1925 and Islamic studies there
in 1930, the quantity of Arabic language instruction has increased and decreased until the 1960s
when the Japanese government developed a specic interested in the Middle East—an interest that
has continued to the present time. This chapter addresses the present situation by shedding light on
the number of universities that teach Arabic in Japan in comparison with the United States, text
books used, courses offered and learning outcomes and attitudes of Japanese learners toward learning
Arabic. The chapter discusses the core issues facing Arabic language instruction in Japan. It ends by
addressing the future of Arabic language instruction in Japan in terms of courses offered, approaches
and research.
How Arabic is acquired by nonnative speakers of Arabic is a complicated question. This question is
related to how languages are taught for the purpose of facilitating acquisition. Theme 3 sheds light
on the processes of teaching and learning and their relation to models of second language acquisition.
In general, it is about what Arabic language teachers should know about second language acquisition
and self-efcacy.
In the rst chapter, Professors Susan Gass and Ayman Mohamed continue to provide the Arabic
language teacher with the basic principles and models of second language acquisition (SLA) that Ara
second language research to be conducted on Arabic instruction.
In the second core subject, professors Nicole Mills and Kirk Belnap discuss what Arabic language
teachers should know about self-efcacy. According to Mills and Belnap, self-efcacy is
an individual’s
4 introduces these four factor
s by giving examples from
Arabic language programs to illustrate how they contribute to self-efcacy in foreign learning. Self-
The rst and the second chapters in Theme 4 focus on Arabic language variation. In these two
chapters, Professors Zeinab A. Taha, Manuela E.B. Giolfo and Federico Salvaggio address language
variation in modern written standard Arabic. Professor Zeinab Taha, in her chapter, analyzed mor
phological and syntactic variation of conditional clauses as written in Arabic newspapers. Professors
Manuela E.B. Giolfo and Federico Salvaggio analyzed variation by analyzing samples of conditional
systems derived from one of the genres of contemporary Arabic as blogs and forums dealing with
12), Professor Ste
ven Berbeco discusses the situation of learn
ing the Arabic language in K-12 education in terms of building Arabic language programs and
the teaching practice. After shedding light on the Arabic language teaching situation at the K-12
level in the United States, he discusses its future by calling for a national curriculum that focuses
number of Arabic cor
pora which have been created are reviewed and applications are
discussed. Issues such as how corpora serve as rich sources for students to take as models in using the
language, and for instructors to identify authentic sample language tokens to use in curriculum and
materials creation are discussed.
In the second chapter, Professor Wahba briey reviews the history of Arabic language learning and
teaching materials. He also sheds light on the current state of Arabic language materials by surveying
a sample of Arabic language textbooks. The chapter concludes with a discussion of several issues in
the eld of teaching Arabic as a foreign language as related to materials development and research,
making recommendations for future directions and research in the eld of Arabic language materials.
Theme 8: Assessment, Testing and Evaluation
This theme discusses various issues of assessment, testing and evaluation in the Arabic language
instruction including oral prociency interviews and writing assessment.
In the rst chapter, Professors John Norris and Michael Raish discuss key concepts related to
the assessment literacy of Arabic language educators, including notions of useful assessment, con
alternative assessments. The chapter concludes with recommendations for the research and develop
ment needs of Arabic language assessment as well as goals for training and dissemination of good
The second chapter discusses the problems caused by the diglossic nature of Arabic language in
conducting the Arabic oral prociency interview. The difculty that the testing eld faces resides in
obtaining a valid measure of oral prociency by means of an oral prociency interview (OPI) that
can assess overall Arabic prociency. Here, Professor Mahdi Alosh proposes a modied OPI to assess
oral prociency in Arabic more accurately and fairly in order to assess the ability in oral Arabic with
Theme 10: Teacher Education and Professional Development
In this chapter, Professors Mouna Mana and Liz England present a proposal for comprehensive pro
fessional standards for certication of teachers of Arabic. These standards serve as a framework for
Al-Batal. M. (Ed.). (2018).
Arabic as one language: integrating colloquial in the Arabic curriculum
. Washington, DC:
The editors of this volume are grateful to many individuals—throughout the world—who have
brought us to the publication of
Volume II of
Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the
21st Century
. Throughout the preparation of this volume, we have worked hard to offer readers our
combined skills and knowledge in delivering a volume that will be of use to a wide range of readers.
We are grateful to those readers who have found the rst volume to be useful and we hope that in
the second volume, we will help to inspire those earlier readers as well as new ones.
We would like to thank numerous people who have individually contributed in many ways to the
many steps required in the preparation of a book of the quality and breadth we have tried to provide.
First, we would like to thank all the contributors who showed ongoing interest in writing chap
ters and who continued to work with us through the long process of writing, reading and editing.
Although the names of some authors of the chapters you see in the second volume are the same
as those found in the rst volume, there are many new authors as well. Indeed, the current volume
contains exceptional work by a number of new members of the Arabic language teaching profession.
As was the case with the rst volume, herein one nds authors and content who represent Arabic
language teaching on four continents and worldwide. It is due to these extraordinary contributors’
continuous support and loyalty to the eld of teaching Arabic as a foreign language that the book is
his work in designing the cover of volumes I and II. Many thanks to him.
And nally, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the amazing Naomi Silverman,
publisher at Routledge/Taylor
& Francis. Naomi has been supporti
ve, insightful and always helpful
in this project. Many thanks go, too, to the Taylor
& Francis/Routledge staff of editors and assistants
for their vision and
professional commitment during the development of this project. Without their
help and steadfast involvement, this book would not have been possible.
Trends and Recent Issues in
Teaching and Learning Arabic
Welcome to the second volume of
Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century
Following the publication of the rst volume (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006), the second
volume provides readers with a volume reecting the extraordinary and wide range of work com
Trends and Recent Issues in
Teaching and Learning Arabic
Kassem M. Wahba, Liz England and Zeinab A. Taha
As in the teaching and learning of any language, there are trends that identify and separate Arabic
language teaching from other languages. “Trends” are dened as “general directions in which Arabic
language teaching is developing or changing.”
We believe that there are two qualities that describe trends in Arabic language teaching: a) higher lev
cursory look
at job postings shows increasing demands for highly quali
ed teachers of Arabic.
Written standards of curriculum and instruction are required for Arabic program recognition and
national and/or international accreditation. These high standards are applied not only in universities
and postgraduate programs, but also in schools where children and young adults are taught Arabic
language skills. And nally, teacher education programs continue to evolve in the strength of their
Trends and Recent Issues
dramatically in their quality, diversity of topics and revision for publication in refereed journals. There
is no doubt that the range of research on Arabic language teaching and learning is an established
trend and will continue into the next decades.
Topics addressed in research will include many, among which are the following critical issues for
Arabic language teaching professionals: curriculum (language focus, scope and sequence of skills,
level issues); materials—books, digital materials (audio and video); assessment; and teacher education.
crys
vation; but a sound graduate teacher education program offers teachers skills
they can use, adapt and apply to programs where they seek employment in the future.
There are dozens of trends at play in the teaching and learning of Arabic today; those will con
20, 2016
Trends and Recent Issues
Abedalla, R. W. (2015).
Students’ perceptions of the use of mobile applications technology in learning Arabic as a second
. Robert Morris University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 3701933.
Al-Mohsen, A. (2016).
Arabic teachers’ perception of an integrated approach for teaching Arabic as a foreign language in
colleges and universities in the United States
. University of San Francisco, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing,
El Omari, S. (2014).
The impact of computer assisted language learning adhering to the national standards for foreign lan
guage learning: A
focus on modern standard
Arabic at the university level
. University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 3624355.
Hammami, N., and Ismail, A. (2014).
Perceptions of developing cultural awareness of rst level Arabic language learners
Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
Long, M. H., and Doughty, C. J. (Eds.). (2009).
The handbook of language teaching
. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ryding, K. C. (2013).
Teaching and learning Arabic as a foreign language: A
guide for teachers
Washington, DC:
Teaching and Learning
Karin C. Ryding
Teaching Arabic in the United States II
As I
write this chapter on teaching Arabic in the United States, enrollments in Arabic have leveled off
the all-time high achieved in the y
ears immediately following 2001; however, Arabic is now rmly
established in the top ten foreign languages studied in U.S. institutions of higher education (ranking
number eight). The most recent Modern Language Association (MLA) enrollment statistics indicate
that many foreign languages have lost ground in terms of enrollment in the past decade (an average
loss of 6.7%), but that Arabic enrollments—although they have lost some of their earlier momentum—
have remained relatively robust. Arabic enrollments in 2013 dropped off slightly from 2009, when
they were recorded at 34,908. In 2013 they were recorded at 32,286, a 7.5% drop. It is important to
note, however, that at least part of this decrease results from a change in survey categories in 2013,
think just about
ev
eryone in our eld would consider such enrollments part of Arabic enrollments overall. An encour
aging statistic is reected in the percentage of advanced undergraduate programs reporting stable or
increasing enrollments in Arabic: 66.8%, indicating that learners are tending to pursue Arabic learning
at more advanced levels (Goldberg and Looney, 2015, p. 79).
One more telling statistic from the MLA report of 2015 gives the results of enrollments listed by
the kinds of institutions offering Arabic from 1990 to 2013 (two-year, four-year, and graduate). This
shows a steady increase in offerings at two-year institutions (from 20 in 1990 to 109 in 2013) and at
four-year institutions (from 110 in 1990 to 473 in 2013), but a different pattern in graduate institu-
tions. In 1990, 36 graduate institutions offered Arabic; in 2002, 51 offered Arabic, but in 2013 the
number declined to 46 graduate institutions, which indicates that increased study of Arabic remains
Teaching Arabic in the
Karin C. Ryding
underscores the need for considerably more extensive research and scholarship on the topic of Arabic
second language acquisition (ASLA). Curriculum development in Arabic language departments con
Teaching Arabic in the United States II
Diglossia, moreover, embodies not only linguistic differences, but also reects signicant cognitive,
al. (rst pub
lished in 1968), and
Intermediate Modern Standard Arabic
(IMSA) by Abboud, Abdel-Massih, Altoma, Erwin, McCarus, and
Rammuny (rst published in 1971).
At approximately the same time, in the 1960s in particular, projects were undertaken by Western
scholars to study, document, and describe the major Arabic vernaculars: for example, North African,
Egyptian, Levantine, and Iraqi. Reference grammars, dictionaries, and basic courses were developed
that represented linguistic eldwork, lexicography, and descriptive analysis at their very nest.
The resulting situation did not lend itself to the effective marriage of spoken and written Arabic
in the classroom, however. Academic programs leaned toward teaching either classical Arabic or
MSA; dialect materials were seen as useful in the eld, and for special purposes, but rarely afforded
legitimacy as courses in university curricula. Over the years, this situation has resulted in curricula
where the focus, even in teaching speaking skills, is on formal topics, even at the lowest levels of
prociency, whereas authentic topics and functions of everyday life (normally dealt with in colloquial
Arabic) have been given substantially less attention. A
kind of conceptual gap de
veloped in the mate
rials and approaches to teaching Arabic in America, and a very real pragmatic gap developed as more
students prepared to study abroad, and as they began to participate widely in prociency testing. Full
Teaching Arabic in the United States II
Primary Versus Secondary Discourse
Leaving aside the issue of MSA or colloquial Arabic for the moment, there is a useful framework
for classifying discourse types, raised and discussed by Heidi Byrnes in her 2002 essay, “Toward
academic-level foreign language abilities: Reconsidering foundational assumptions, expanding peda
gogical options.” In this article, Byrnes refers to the work of J.P. Gee (1998) who in the context of
“the professions, the academy
read these astute observ
ations about the teaching of most European languages that in the
eld of Arabic teaching and curriculum development, we have traditionally done the opposite. We
have privileged the secondary discourses of literature and the academy over the primary discourses
of familiarity. I
refer to this
as “reverse privileging,” and it remains the key issue facing Arabic as a
foreign language in America today.
This “reverse privileging” is a central reason why the Arabic eld faces complex issues in dening
of language.
One of the effects of the privileging of MSA and secondary discourse has been a skewed con
cept of grammatical accuracy and its role in instruction. “Grammar” rules are often considered by
the Arabic-speaking public as applying only to the written language and not to the spoken variants.
Grammatical structure has traditionally provided a base upon which to build courses, syllabi, and
materials, and therefore MSA materials were largely grammar-based until the 1980s. The study of
grammar as “noncontextualized focus on form” (Byrnes, 1998, p. 288) is rarely useful in and of itself;
but grammar learned through interaction and the complex interplay of discourse is the strong scaf
folding upon which communicative condence can be built.
The Multilingual Turn
In recent published research on instructed second language acquisition (ISLA), a number of themes
have emerged that are of relevance to Arabic language teaching. Among these are interaction in the
classroom, Focus on Form, acquisition of grammar, acquisition of vocabulary, acquisition of pronun
ciation, acquisition of pragmatics, and individual differences in ISLA.
The focus of second language
acquisition (SLA) studies has expanded in the past decade and is now more interdisciplinary; Ortega
proposes the reframing of SLA “as the study of late bi/multilingualism” (2013, p. 1). Rather than
have noted else
where:
believe that the academic eld of Arabic studies must make its own future, with new
Teaching Arabic in the United States II
community as a whole, much as the team efforts in the 1960s and 1970s led to breakthrough materi
als in MSA. As I
noted in the 2006 version of this chapter
, expanding the intellectual foundation and
infrastructure of Arabic as a foreign language is a task that lies before the eld in the 21st century.
Bringing vernacular Arabic studies into the mix as an equal partner and fertile eld of research will
both broaden and strengthen Arabic studies today.
On American public attitudes toward foreign language study and multilingualism in general see Pratt, 2003.
See also my response to Pratt,
Edwards, 2015,
p. A44.
This McCarus article is a must r
ead for anyone interested in the history of Arabic teaching. Equally impor
tant is Roger Allen’s “Teaching Arabic in the United States: Past, Present and Future.” These two articles
The approach applied to language teaching is referr
“The enduring effects of this national effort wer
Ferguson, 1959, is the classic ar
ticle on the linguistic phenomenon of diglossia. See also his 1996 follow-up
article.
The concept and practice of literacy in the Arab w
orld are deeply complex and contested. See Haeri, 2009
for a substantive critique of Arabic pedagogical literacy practices and Said 1999 for a chronicle of estranging
experiences as a learner of literary Arabic. See also Suleiman 2011 on language and identity.
Yasir Suleiman (2013b)
disputes the aptness of the term “vernacular” as applied to colloquial variants of
Arabic, but I
believe it applies accurately to the e
ver-emergent forms of spoken language that characterize
the Arabic speech community.
Newly emergent in the past ten years is the language of wr
itten Arabic social media (e.g., Facebook and
: p.
46. Another website places Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean into Category V,
requiring 88 weeks or 2,200
hours of study (“Effectiv
e Language Learning” website, April
18, 2013).
Not “because of the complexity of the grammar of modern standar
d Arabic,” as claimed by Edwards, 2015.
agree with his statement that
“part of what’s holding back Arabic study in the United States is a resist
For discussion of the implications of diglossia for teaching Arabic,
see Alosh, 1991, Al-Batal, 1992, and
Ryding, 1991, 1995, 2011, 2013.
See Leaver and Shekhtman, 2002,
On Arabic code-mixing, see Badawi,
1973, 1985; Bassiouney, 2006; Mejdell, 2006. On mutual adaptation in
interactive communication see Vorwerg, 2013.
For an introduction to continuum theor
y, see Badawi, 1973, 1985. See also Hary, 1989, 1996 for further
discussion of “middle” Arabic and continuum theory. See Mejdell, 2006 for an extensive analysis of “spoken
academic discourse” in Egypt.
See Loewen, 2015,
pp. 179–183 for more on these topics.
Abboud, P. F., Abdel-Malek, Z. N., Bezirgan, N. A., Erwin, W. M., Kouri, M. A. McCarus, E. N., Rammuny,
R. M., and Saad, G. N. (1968, 1983).
Elementary modern standard Arabic
, Two volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Abboud, P. F., Abdel-Massih, E. T., Altomah, S., Erwin, W. M., McCarus, E. N., and Rammuny, R. M. (1971).
Intermediate modern standard Arabic
, Three volumes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Department of
Near Eastern Studies.
Al-Batal, M. (1992). Diglossia prociency: The need for an alternative approach to teaching. In A. Rouchdy
(Ed.),
The Arabic language in America
study in the relation of language to culture.)
Cairo: Daar al-ma
aarif bi-mi
Badawi, E. M. (1985). Educated spoken Arabic: A
problem in teaching
Arabic as a foreign language. In
K. R. Jankowsky (Ed.),
Scientic and humanistic dimensions of language
15, p.
A44.
Effective language learning
7, 2015, fr
om www.effectivelangugelearning.com/language-guide/
language-difculty.
Elkhafai, H. (2007–2008). An exploration of listening strategies: A
descriptiv
e study of Arabic learners.
Arabiyya
, 71–86.
Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia.
Word
, 325–340.
Ferguson, C. (1996). Epilogue: Diglossia revisited. In A. Elgibali (Ed.),
Understanding Arabic: Essays in contemporary
(pp. 49–68). Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
Gee, J. P. (1996). (2nd edition).
Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses
. London: Taylor & Francis.
Goldberg, D., and Looney, D. (2015).
education, Fall 2013
. Modern Language Association web publication, winter, 2015.
Golonka, E., Bowles, A., Silbert, N., Kramasz, D., Blake, C., and Buckwalter, T. (2015). The role of context and
cognitive effort in vocabulary learning: A
study of intermediate-lev
el learners of Arabic.
Modern Language
Journal
(1), 19–39.
Teaching Arabic in the United States II
Haeri, N. (2009). The elephant in the room: Language and literacy in the Arab world. In D. R. Olson and
N. Torrance (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of literacy
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hary, B. (1989). Middle Arabic: Proposals for new terminology.
Al-Arabiyya
, 19–36.
Hary, B. (1996). The importance of the language continuum in Arabic multiglossia. In A. Elgibali (Ed.),
standing Arabic: Essays in contemporary linguistics in honor of El-Said Badawi
(pp. 69–90). Cairo: The American
University in Cairo Press.
. (2004). George P. Schultz National Foreign Affairs Center, School of Language Studies,
Foreign Service Institute, U.S. Department of State.
Leaver, B. L., and Shekhtman, B. (2002). Principles and practices in teaching superior-level language skills: Not
just more of the same. In B. L. Leaver and B. Shekhtman (Eds.),
Developing professional-level language prociency
(pp. 3–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loewen, S. (2015).
. New York: Routledge.
McCarus, E. (1992). History of Arabic study in the United States. In A. Rouchdy (Ed.),
The Arabic language in
America
new approach for
Arabic.
Modern Language Journal
(2),
guide for teachers
Washington, DC: George
town University Press.
Ryding, K. (2015). Arabic language learning: If diglossia is the question, then what is the answer?
Annals of Japan
Association for Middle East Studies
Said, E. W. (1999).
Out of place: A
memoir.
New Y
ork: Alfred A. Knopf.
Suleiman, Y. (2011).
Arabic, self and identity:
A
study in conict and displacement
Oxford: Oxford
Univer
sity Press.
Suleiman, Y. (2013a).
Arabic in the fray
. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Akiko M. Sumi and Katsunori Sumi
Teaching and Learning Arabic in Japan
Arabic has been taught in formal education in Japan for the past 90
years. Arabic instruction is mainly
conducted within the sphere of higher education in Japan, wher
e the most important L2 (i.e., sec
This chapter is an investigation of both the history of Arabic teaching and
learning in Japan, and an analysis of the current situation. Ofcial statistics, data originally obtained
by inquiry, and original survey results were used as data. Also, parts of our previous studies are
included. The focus of this chapter is core issues concerning the actual condition of Arabic instruc
tion in Japan, and a discussion of the strengths and limitations of current practices. Future directions
in the eld are also proposed.
This section traces the origin of Arabic instruction in Japanese formal education and examines how
the eld developed alongside changes in the historical, economic, and industrial backgrounds. The
historical period is comprised of two main phases: 1925 to the 1960s, and the subsequent period
inuenced by the rst oil crisis of 1973.
In Japan, formal Arabic education began in 1925 at the Osaka Foreign Language College. There,
Arabic was categorized as a second language in the Indian and Malayan Departments (now the
School of Foreign Studies in Osaka University). Shigeharu Matsumoto, who originally specialized
in Japanese history and was a graduate of the History Department at Tokyo Imperial University in
1912, was dispatched by the Ministry of Education to study Arabic in Germany from 1922 to 1924.
He became the rst professor to teach Arabic in the college (Ikeda, 1980, p. 76). Seventeen students
chose to study Arabic under him in 1925 (Ikeda, 1980, p. 76). Matsumoto taught Arabic from 1925
Teaching and Learning
Teaching and Learning Arabic in Japan
According to Shinji Maejima (1980, p. 2), the Japanese scholar who translated the
Arabian Nights
into Japanese, Arabic instruction started rather late compared to Persian and Turkish, which were
already being studied before 1925. Maejima attributed this to three factors within the 1920s and
1930s: (1) al-Nah
textbooks that had been adopted by the Wafdist government. In 1949, the college became a uni
versity and changed its name to Osaka University of Foreign Studies, which became the School of
Foreign Languages at Osaka University in 2007. Fifteen students were accepted each year from 1940
until 1975, and in 1976 the quota was increased to 25 students each year.
In 1940, Keiichir
Kikuchi introduced an Arabic short course text in serial format within the
Kaiky
, which means “Islamic World” (Kikuchi, 1940). This publication coincided
with a rise of interest in Islamic regions among Japanese scholars in the late 1930s. The Second Sino-
Japanese War began in 1937, which led to an effort to manipulate Muslims in China and Central Asia.
Japan was also interested in natural resources in Southeast Asia, which contains Muslim countries
(Itagaki, 1980, p. 60). Kikuchi wrote the Arabic portion of the short course text employing handwrit
ten Arabic characters. Ikeda said that Kikuchi also attempted to explain the basics of Arabic grammar
increased (Itagaki, 1980, p. 61). Taiz
Itagaki stated that at the start of the 1980s there were hundreds
of Japanese Arabic trainees in Cairo, who had been dispatched from private Japanese corporations
(Itagaki, 1980, p. 61).
Shitennoji International Buddhist University, a private university, established a
specialized program for Arabic Language and Culture in 1983 as part of its Department of Languages
and Cultures (Shitennoji University, 2014). That program started with a quota of 30 students per year
and ve teachers, but it was discontinued in 2008. It seems that the number of universities offering
Arabic courses increased gradually until it reached 37 in 1997, although there are no specic data
Because there have been only a few studies depicting the contours of Arabic teaching and learning
in Japan, a more comprehensive and current examination is needed. This section describes the state
of Arabic teaching and learning based on statistics since the late 1990s, and our own survey data and
investigation.
The number of universities offering Arabic courses, and of students learning Arabic in Japan are
examined below.
These gures are compared with statistics for other L2 languages both in J
Figure
3.1 indicates changes in the number of four-year universities offering Arabic courses since
1997 on the basis
of the available data. In 1997, the number was 37. There has been a gradual increase
since 1998. The number rose to 50 universities by 2006 (the same number existed in 2008), but after
3.1 also offers a breakdo
wn into three categories: (1) national, (2) public (i.e.,
prefectural or municipal), and (3) private universities. In this breakdown, private universities are
predominant. The private universities increased from 26 in 1997 to 33 in 2013. The larger number
of private universities is understandable because their percentage in the overall ratio of higher educa
tional institutions is the highest in Japan. For example, in 2013, the number of all private universities
was 3.6 times higher than the other (i.e., national and public) universities (601 and 169, respectively:

Teaching and Learning Arabic in Japan
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan, 2015). In 2013, the per
centage of private universities offering Arabic courses (33) in contrast to all private universities was
5.5%, while the percentage of national and public universities offering Arabic courses (13) compared
to all of the national and public universities was 7.7%. Because the numbers of national and public
universities offering Arabic courses remained largely stable throughout the period, the increment in
the whole number was due to the opening of Arabic courses in private universities.
Several factors may have inuenced the opening of Arabic courses in universities. It is difcult to
clarify such inuences. Of these factors, events pertaining to the Arabs and Islam that shocked the world
may have affected changes in the number of universities offering Arabic. For instance, the impact of 9/11
in 2001 may have been a factor, as the number 40 in 2001 increased to 50 by 2006. The Arab Spring in
2010–2011 is regarded as a small inuence, as the number of universities offering Arabic actually dropped
3.2. illustrates the offerings of ten different L2 languages, including Arabic, in four-year uni
3.3 compares how many four-year universities in Japan and in the USA offered ten specic

The number of four-year
universities offering L2 language courses in Japan from 1997
in 2002 and 3,039 in 2013 (US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
2016, p. 562). In Japan, the number was 686 (including two correspondence universities) in 2002, and
782 (including seven correspondence universities) in 2013 (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science, and Technology of Japan, 2002, 2013).
In the USA, Arabic offerings increased greatly from 2002 (199) to 2013 (473), which is an increase
of 2.4 times. This is the highest growth in all of the ten languages, including Chinese and Korean. In
Japan during the same period, the number of universities that offered Arabic rose very slightly (from
44 to 46), and the rises for offerings of English, Chinese, and Korean all had a higher rate.
We compared the ratio of universities offering Arabic to all four-year universities in Japan in 2013
with the situation in the USA. The ratio in Japan was 5.9%, as described above. In the USA in 2013,
the ratio was 20.6% because the overall number of universities was 3,039 (US Department of Educa
tion, National Center for Education Statistics, 2016, p. 562), and the number of universities offering
Arabic was 473 (Goldberg, Looney, and Lusin, 2015, p. 75). The ratio in Japan is statistically signicant
and much lower than that in the USA (
33.04,
Approximately 3,700 students enrolled in at least one Arabic course during the 2014 academic year in
all of the four-year universities within Japan (A. M. Sumi and Sumi, 2016b, p. 10).
The number in the
USA was 26,497 in 2013 (Goldberg, Looney, and Lusin, 2015, p. 31). In Japan in 2014 and in the USA in
2013, 2,855,529 and 13,407,050 students were enrolled in four-year universities respectively (Ministry
of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan, 2014; US Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, 2016, p. 416). Therefore, the ratio of students learning Arabic
compared to the entire population attending four-year universities were 0.13% and 0.20% in Japan in
586.47,
0.001), the ratio in the USA is only some
what higher than that in Japan.

Teaching and Learning Arabic in Japan
Arabic Teaching Institutes and Materials
This section describes the current Arabic teaching programs in high schools, universities, language
institutes, and other projects in Japan. In addition, several teaching materials are mentioned. No jun
ior high schools offer Arabic in Japan.
Three high schools presently teach Arabic as an elective subject in Japan.
All of these are located
and Sumi, 2016b,
p. 108). It should be noted that this number
includes the two above-mentioned universities that have Arabic major programs, as they also offer
Arabic courses as electives for students who do not major in Arabic.
In general, Arabic majors take Arabic courses as required courses because they have chosen Arabic
as their major upon entering a university. Therefore, earning Arabic credit hours is a requirement of
their program. They attend more than four or ve Arabic classes per week (one class is 90 minutes in
duration), though this frequency varies depending on the university and the students’ academic year.
Along with Arabic, they typically take other subjects pertaining to the Arab regions. In most of the
Arabic language courses, the students learn modern standard Arabic; but a few courses offer instruc
tion in Arabic dialects. Both Arabic majors have study abroad programs.
The Arabic Major at Osaka Univer
sity is the oldest Arabic program in Japan,
but it has changed in institutional form and name over the past 90
years.
The current program
aims to train people to transmit balanced and unbiased messages about Arabs and Arabic culture.
They focus on teaching the extensive Arab cultural attainments from the classical to the modern
periods, and thorough knowledge of modern standard Arabic (Osaka University, School of For
eign Studies, Arabic Major, 2016). The quota of the department is 25 students per year. A
few of
apanese major students in each academic year also study Arabic in the Arabic major program.
The program has mainly relied on textbooks written in English, namely
Elementary modern standard
Arabic
(EMSA) Part I (1975) and II (1976), from 1986 to 2016. In 2015, there were four Japanese
full-time teachers, one visiting full-time native speaker Arabic teacher, and a few part-time Japanese
teachers.
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Since the foundation of the Arabic Department in 1961
Arabic Major Program in 1993), the department has, according to its faculty,
emphasized contemporary affairs—particularly practical knowledge concerning Arab regions
and Islam (Tokyo Gaikoku-go Daigaku-shi Hensan Iinkai, 1999, p. 1102). Their policy is appar
ently to teach Arabic to students so they may pursue Arab studies as area studies. The quota of
the department was ten students per year when it began, and in 1974 (the year after the rst oil
crisis) it increased to 15. In 2012, following the university’s reform of the Arabic Major Pro
gram’s structure, its quota was doubled to 30 students. In 2015, there were four full-time teachers,
including one native speaker teacher, and some part-time non-native speaker and native speaker
Arabic teachers. The teachers published a series of Arabic textbooks for Japanese students in
2013, 2014, and 2016.
ARABIC COURSES OFFERED AS ELECTIVE COURSES FOR NON-ARABIC MAJOR STUDENTS
Among approximately 50 universities offering Arabic courses (see Figure
3.1), a few big universities
offer more than 20 Arabic courses,
while many universities offer only one or two courses per year.
Most of the Arabic courses for non-Arabic majors offer only modern standard Arabic. Regarding
the number of classes, 138 Arabic courses for non-Arabic major students were offered in Japanese
universities in 2005 (Takashina, 2007).
According to our study (A. M. Sumi
and Sumi, 2016b), the
number of the same kind of courses was 273 in 2014.
Therefore, the number of courses doubled from
2005 to 2014. Although the number of universities offering Arabic courses has been fairly steady
since 2006, the number of actual courses remarkably increased in the same period.
Based on our survey for the 2014 academic year (A. M. Sumi and Sumi, 2016b), the number of
university enrollments in Arabic elective courses for non-Arabic majors were approximately 2,917
students in the Spring semester and 2,362 students in the Fall semester of 2014.
These numbers
include enrollments in the course Introductory Arabic at Open University of Japan, which offers
and Sumi, 2016b), the fr
equency of Arabic elective courses which
Teaching and Learning Arabic in Japan
Language institutes and other projects relating Arabic teaching and learning do exist outside of
formal education in Japan. In language institutes, intensive study of Arabic can be pursued by both
students and the general public. Other projects, like Arabic intensive camps (Sumi Laboratory at
this chapter. According to our research, since the 1960s many books concerning Arabic learning
have been published: more than 70 Arabic textbooks (including those for learning only the Arabic
vey b
years,
1.85) and 634 non-Arabic majors in 23 univ
ersities (441 women and 193
men: mean age
years,
5.26). Nine elements wer
e selected for the Arabic language skills
and knowledge: speaking ability, listening ability, writing ability, reading ability, grammar, vocabulary
and expression, pronunciation, communication ability, and an understanding of Arabic culture. Com
munication ability means a comprehensive ability to create and deepen relationships with others.
Each element was rated by the participants on a ve-point scale ranging from “not emphasized in
Arabic courses” to “very emphasized in Arabic courses.”
Figure
3.4 illustrates the calculated means and 95% condence intervals for the item scor
es of
the skills and knowledge for the Arabic and the non-Arabic majors separately. Although there were
statistically signicant differences in the mean scores of the skills and knowledge (except for vocab
Teaching and Learning Arabic in Japan
it was said to be below-average by the Arabic majors. It is assumed that writing includes learning

Means and 95% condence intervals for the scores on items about skills and knowledge
emphasized in Arabic courses,
stated by Arabic and non-Arabic majors in Japanese four-
students in Japanese universities may treat these three abilities as less emphasized skills. The results
seem to suggest that teachers in the Arabic major go against the current of the communication-
focused approach, rmly adhering to the traditional instructional approach.
Adequate knowledge about attitudes and outcomes while learning Arabic is necessary to evaluate and
improve current Arabic instruction. However, very few attempts have been made to investigate Arabic
learning attitudes and outcomes among university students in Japan (A. M. Sumi and Sumi, 2016a;
K. Sumi and Sumi, 2016). Based on our recent ndings on these topics (K. Sumi
and Sumi, 2016),
and Sumi, 2016) was conducted among 261
Arabic majors (184 women and
77 men: mean age
years,
1.88) and 235 non-Arabic majors (129 women and 106
men: mean age
years,
2.49) in Japanese univ
2009 and Febru
ary
2012. All of the questionnair
e items were rated on a seven-point scale.
“Orientation” has been used in the social psychological study of language learning as a term
that refers to reasons for learning languages (Gardner, 1985, pp. 11–12; 2010, pp. 11–18). Orien
tation is closely related to motivation, which in turn exerts an essential inuence on language
learning success (Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003, p. 589; Ehrman and Oxford, 1995, p. 68; Gardner,
1985, p. 11). Using a factorial approach (both exploratory and conrmatory factor analyses), we
conrmed the same ve types of orientation to learning Arabic among both Arabic and non-
Arabic majors: integrative, instrumental, friendships, travel, and knowledge orientations. Integrative
orientation for learning Arabic means that a learner wants to interact and communicate, and pos
sibly identify with members from the Arabic language community. Instrumental orientation refers
to a pragmatic reason, such as reading Arabic novels or working with Arabic. Friendships, travel,
and knowledge orientations refer to seeking new friendships, traveling, and acquiring knowledge,
respectively. These types of orientation were elicited in different contexts in a previous study, with
Teaching and Learning Arabic in Japan
third issue,
which must not be ignored, involves
research on Arabic teaching and learning in Japan.
Compared to data for the USA, which indicated a surge in the number of universities offering Arabic
The Need for Advancement of Research on Arabic Teaching and Learning
Little research on the actual condition of Arabic teaching and learning has been conducted in Japan
from the viewpoint of improving practices. This situation is one of the factors which impedes the
making of improvements in Arabic teaching and learning. Furthermore, only a small number of
people are seriously interested in academic research within this eld. This may be attributed to the
fact that most Arabic teachers in Japan are specialized in other elds of Arab studies, such as history,
politics, and religion.
An example is that Arabic instruction in Japan currently focuses on modern standard Arabic,
and colloquial and vernacular Arabic instruction is very limited. The issue of teaching colloquial or
vernacular Arabic as a second language has hardly been addressed, though it has been discussed by
non-Japanese scholars in the eld of Arabic teaching (Ryding, 2016; Younes, 2006). One of the rea
sons for this problem is that there has been little research upon which to build an understanding of
current Arabic instruction in Japan. Another example concerns Arabic textbooks. Few studies have
appeared on that subject in Japan, though a number of studies have been conducted outside of Japan
(e.g., Wahba, 2016). In addition, it would be necessary to understand the effects of events associated
with the Arab world and the Middle East on Arabic learners and courses in Japan. Further research
is needed to clarify this issue.
Through research, we are able to grasp actual conditions, make others aware of problems and
issues, and attempt to nd solutions. The advancement of research, both in quantity and quality, will
allow Arabic teaching to spread and be more effective for learners. There is a current need for an
objective assessment of the present condition of Arabic teaching and learning in Japan, which should
be based upon a broad scientic and statistical analysis.
Future Directions for Arabic Teaching and Learning in Japan
Apart from the three issues above, some strong points concerning Arabic teaching and learning in
Japan are worthy of note. First, the number of universities offering Arabic courses has not decreased
since the turn of this century. Second, the number of available Arabic courses doubled from 2005
to 2014, which shows that demand for Arabic has been growing. Third, new efforts, such as the
Arabic intensive short camps and teaching workshops, staffed by experienced and skilled native
speaker instructors, have appeared. Fourth, Arabic courses are (according to the students’ perceptions)
emphasizing grammar, reading, and vocabulary and expression. This instructional approach is at least
intended to develop students’ linguistic foundations. Fifth, the fact that an understanding of Arabic
culture is emphasized in Arabic courses within Japanese universities is a strong point.
Teaching and Learning Arabic in Japan
This research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 26370642. We would like to express our
gratitude to Dr.
Sumikazu Yoda for his helpful comments on this manuscript.
In this chapter, the term L2 or
“second language” (Richards and Schmidt, 2010) is used to broadly mean “any
language learned after one has learned one’s native language.”
Therefore,
According to Ikeda (1980, p. 77), it seems that Matsumoto studied Arabic mainly in Berlin, and traveled to
Egypt and Syria on his wa
y from Germany back to Japan.
Izutsu’s textbook (Izutsu, 1950) should perhaps be considered the r
st one for Japanese readers. Although
one Arabic grammar book was published in 1942 and one text for reading Arabic appeared in 1943, both of
these were reprints of Arabic textbooks for French speaking readers.
Takushoku Univ
ersity already had opened an Arabic study group for Islamic studies in 1935. They later
included Arabic courses as one of the L2 language subjects in 1962 (Mori, 2003, p. 261).
According to Itagaki (1980, p.
61), many Japanese people studied in the Middle East Center for Arab Stud
ies (MECAS), which was originally founded to train British diplomats before the outbreak of the Lebanese
Civil War in 1975.
Though Takashina (2007, p
. 18) stated that there were 24 universities that offered Arabic courses as elective
courses in 2001 (based on his survey and information from the University of Osaka for Foreign Studies), a
survey by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan in 2001 shows that
40 universities offered Arabic courses, including three universities that had Arabic major programs. The data
was directly obtained from the ministry.
The number above a bar is a total of uni
versities. There are no data for 1999 and 2010. This gure is based
on Figure
1 in A. M.
and Sumi (2016b), which was dra
wn using data from the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.
The reason for the choice of the ten languages,
including Arabic, is that these languages have been researched
by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan since 1997.
The order of these languages from highest to low
est are English, Chinese, French, German, Korean, Spanish,
Russian, Italian, Latin, Greek, Portuguese, and Arabic (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and
Technology of Japan, 2015).
The reason for the selections of 2002 and 2013 is that these are the year
There are no data for 1999 and 2010.
There are also no data for Latin in 1997 or Italian from 1997 to 2001.
This gure is based on Figure
2 in A. M.
and Sumi (2016b), which was dra
wn using data from the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.
The white and gray bars r
epresent data in 2002 and 2013, respectively. This gure is drawn using data from
the statistics of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (2004, 2015)
and the Modern Language Association of America (Goldberg, Looney,
and Lusin, 2015).
The statistics concerning Japanese students and univ
ersities in 2014 are based on data originally collected by us.
According to a surv
ey of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan
(2012), there were three high schools that offered Arabic in 2009, two high schools that offered Arabic in
2012, and no high schools that offered Arabic in 2014 (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and
Technology of Japan, 2012). However, our survey has conrmed that three high schools offered Arabic in
2014, 2015, and 2016.
In this chapter, the Japanese ter
m “senko¯” translates into English as “major.”
Aoyama and ‘Uba
yd (2013), Yagi, Aoyama, and ‘Ubayd (2013), Mohamed and Yoshida (2014), and Alaaeldin
and Aoyama (2016).
Because Takashina does not show the n
umber of courses by semester, the number by semester was partially
In the Japanese educational system, most univ
ersities begin the academic year in April and have two semes-
ters. Generally, the Spring semester (the rst semester) extends from April to the beginning of August, and
the Fall (second) semester extends from the end of September to the beginning of February, and includes
the winter holidays which are about two weeks in length.
A circle represents a mean for the item scor
e. A
bar represents a 95% condence inter
val. A
for the Arabic major students, and a dotted line is used for the non-Arabic major students.
“M” is Arabic
majors. “nM” is Non-Arabic majors. “a” is Mean for all the item scores of the Arabic majors. “b” is Mean for
all the item scores of the non-Arabic majors.
Abdalla, M. (2006). Arabic immersion and summer programs in the United States. In K. Wahba, Z. Taha, and
L. England (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century
(pp. 317–330). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Teaching and Learning Arabic in Japan
Alaaeldin, S. and Aoyama, H. (2016).
Daigaku no Arabia-go sho¯kai bunpo¯ no tameno shokyu¯ hyo¯gen jissen kyo¯hon
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan. (2002).
Gakko kihon cho¯sa
1,
2017, fr
om http://www.ouj.ac.jp/hp/movie/study/language/02.html.
Osaka University. (2014).
Contents of self-study of Arabic
The Open Univer
sity of Japan.
Sumi, A. M. (Ed.). (2011).
Shoho no arabia-go
[Introductory Arabic]. Tokyo: Foundation for the Promotion of The
Open University of Japan.
Sumi, A. M. (2017). Arabic teaching and learning in China and Japan: A
comparative study
.
Asian Research Trends
New Series
, 29–58.
Sumi, A. M., and Sumi, K. (2008). Interest and motivation in Arabic language learning: The role of Arabic cultural
elements.
(pp.
Sumi, A. M. and Sumi, K. (2009a). Interest in Arabic culture and Arabic learning among Arabic learners.
Teaching and Learning Arabic in Japan
Sumi, A. M., and Sumi, K. (2009b). Motivation in Arabic language learning among Japanese students: Trig
gers and orientations.
(pp.
Sumi, A. M., and Sumi, K. (2010). Skills and knowledge acquisition of Arabic language in Japanese university
27, 2015. [Handout document].
ahba, K. M. (2016). The current trends in Arabic language teaching materials.
Annals of Japan Association for
Middle East Studies
, 83–113.
Yagi, K., Aoyama, H., and ‘Ubayd, E. A. (2013).
Daigaku no arabia-go sho¯kai bunpo¯
[Arabic for university education:
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
Second Language Acquisition in Relation to Arabic
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
The goal of this chapter is to acquaint the reader with basic principles and models of second language
acquisition (SLA) and to review works that directly relate to Arabic. Because of the limitations of
what is included in this chapter, the interested reader is referred to other works that provide a com
prehensive coverage of the eld (e.g., Gass with Behney and Plonsky, 2013; R. Ellis, 2015). In most
instances, the topics were selected because of (1) their currency, (2) the basic underlying principles
they represent, and/or (3) the availability of Arabic-based research. This chapter uses, to the extent
possible, examples from the acquisition of Arabic by nonnative speakers (NNS) and the acquisition of
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
Further, it is often the case that a great deal is expected of the eld of second language acquisition
with regard to the way it should inform second language pedagogy. Considerations of this sort
may be misguided or at least premature (cf. Lightbown, 1985, 2000), in as much as that what is
known about the way acquisition takes place does not necessarily provide denitive guidelines about
classrooms, but rather provides information about how we might think about the learners in our
classrooms. Finally, it is important to recognize that SLA researchers do not have all the answers to
pedagogical issues.
What is the domain of SLA? The eld of Second Language Acquisition is the study of the acquisition
of a non-primary language, that is, the acquisition of a language beyond the native language. As such,
the eld addresses some of the following questions: How are second/foreign languages learned? How
do learners create a new language system with only limited exposure to a second/foreign language?
What do learners learn? What do they not learn? Why do most learners not achieve the same degree
of knowledge of/prociency in their second language as they do in their rst language? Why do
some learners appear to achieve native-like prociency in a second language? What are the patterns
of acquisition that are similar regardless of rst language and regardless of second language? Given
these many questions, the eld impacts and draws from many disciplines, including linguistics, psy
chology, psycholinguistics, sociology, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, conversational analysis, and
education. This chapter will only be able to touch briey upon some of these areas.
Five basic, well-accepted principles are considered here: (1) interlanguage, (2) errors, (3) U-shaped
learning and chunked learning, (4) the role of the native language (NL), and (5) developmental
Interlanguage (see Selinker, 1972 and papers in Han and Tarone, 2014) refers to the linguistic system
that second or foreign language learners create. Interlanguages are individually created systems that
major point, as noted pre
viously, is that these systems
are in no way the result of
“faulty” learning.
Errors
Because interlanguage is a system, the concept of error is meaningless with reference to that system.
43
oor
“He wrote it/him”kitaba (kitab+a)
katabtu (katab+t+u)“I
kitabta (kitab+t+a)“I
katablu (katab+l+u)“He wrote to it/him”kitabla (kitab+l+a)
katabtilu (katab+t+l+u)
kitabitla (kitab+t+l+a)
“I
U-shaped learning refers to the well-known phenomenon where learners seem to have “unlearned”
what they apparently knew at an earlier time. When one investigates further, however, it becomes
closer look suggests the typical pattern of U-shaped learning of
“correct”, “incorrect,” and
then “correct.” In this instance, one can surmise that
, in the early stage, is a chunk rather than
two separate words, more appropriately written as
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
The native language plays an important role in the development of a second language. There are many
views on this phenomenon, including (1) the earlier traditional notions of closeness being easy, that
is, where there is similarity there is little to learn and, conversely, where there are differences, there is
a greater amount to learn; (2) Kellerman’s (1979) view where perceived distance and the extent to
which learners view elements of their own language as unique or more universal (see Gass with Beh
ney and Plonsky, 2013; Gass and Selinker, 2001 for elaboration); and (3) more current views within
formal linguistic models where the starting point (e.g., the native language or Universal Grammar) is
in question. In any view, however, there are numerous examples where the native language strongly
inuences the system that the learner creates in the process of learning a second language.
The common way of thinking about the native language is to look for a linguistic feature in
the native language that appears in the second language. However, there are more subtle ways of
considering the role of the native language, as is shown in the following examples. Henkes (1974)
conducted a longitudinal investigation of the acquisition of English of three children, native speakers
of French, Spanish, and Arabic. One area of concern was the copula which is present in French and
Spanish, but not in Arabic.
French:

Spanish

Arabic
baytuhu qad
mun

None of the three children used the copula in English consistently so one could argue that this was
velopmental issue rather than an issue of native language. However, Zobl (1982) pointed out that
there was a denite, but more subtle inuence of the native language in the form of learning rates.
The French and Spanish children regularly used the copula after the early stages of learning, whereas
the Arabic child (possibly because there is a counterpart [no copula] in the native language) contin-
ued variable usage for a much longer period of time.
common phenomenon well accepted in both rst and second language learning is that there are
predictable de
velopmental sequences. What this means is that construct A
is learned befor
e construct
B. This is well documented for many languages. For example, Schumann (1979) investigated the
acquisition of English negation by Spanish learners of English and found that learners rst used
a generalized negative marker. A
second stage nds learners using
don’t
as a negative marker, followed
by
. A
next stage is the use of various for
ms of the auxiliary +
(e.g.,
doesn’t
), but combining it
with other forms (
I didn’t went to Costa Rica
). Al-Buanain (1987—cited in Mansouri, 2000) through a
manipulation and a translation task investigated the acquisition of Arabic negation,
progression:
each used with a different tense.
One of the most commonly researched areas in second language morphology is the area of agree
45
Processability Theory (1989, 1998, 2005). The main idea underlying this account is that there is a
predictable order of emergence of morphosyntactic elements. More important than just a statement
of acquisition order are attempts to provide an explanation for that order based on processing dif
culties and limitations. According to Pienemann (1998, p. 1):
Structural options that may be formally possible, will be produced by the language learner
only if the necessary processing procedures are available.
. In other
words, the task of acquir
procedural skills
needed for the processing of the
. unfolds in the
learner
crucial element of
the theory is that kno
wledge of a previous stage assumes knowledge of a later stage. Thus, a counter
Verb
*Sally wa Lynda w
Sally and Lynda and Susan F-eat-
the-bread
‘Sally, Lynda and Susan eat pizza (at lunch time).’
Full agreement marking in SVO-type sentences: [Subj
3PL;
Verb
Susan wa Nicole wa L
ala al-waraqa
Susan and Nicole and Lynda F-write-
‘Susan, Nicole and Lynda wrote on the paper.’
Full agreement in VSO-type sentences: *[Subj
3PL;
Verb
*ka:n-u:
was.3MPL
the-teacher.3M.
‘The teachers wer
e sad (about the three students not nishing the course).’
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
Reduced agreement in VSO-type sentences [Subj = 3PL;
Verb = 3S]
aqat kabi:ra : dima
live-3MS
‘The students lived in a big at in Damascus.’
om these examples we can see that learners do not learn agreement marking all at once. In the rst
example the learner has marked gender and person on the verb, but not plural despite the plural sub
ject. In the next stage the learners have full agreement marking on the verb for subject-verb-object
(SVO) sentences which appears to be carried over to verb-subject-object (VSO) sentences (the third
sentence) despite the fact that Arabic does not have plural marking (only gender and person) in VSO
sentences. The predicted acquisition order is maintained in his studies.
Mansouri, in two additional studies (2000, 2005), provided evidence from English-speaking learn
ers of Arabic in favor of Pienemann’s Processability Theory. His claim (2000) was that noun-adjective
agreement had emerged before data collection and that subject-verb agreement was learned later.
47
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
A similar study was conducted by Alkohlani (2016). She extracted written data of advanced
L2 learners from a corpus of L2 Arabic by Alfai, Atwel, and Hedaya (2014). All learners were
adults studying in Saudi Arabia with an approximate average of seven years of study. As with
Mansouri’s data, semantic gender (i.e., natural gender) is acquired before grammatical gender.
The latter is late learned particularly when there are no morphological cues to aid grammatical
Mansouri, in the same study, also looked at the role of discourse cues. To elicit data, he had learn
ers perform cloze tests that were either rich in discourse cues or were not, nding that the availability
they receive as young children. In L2 acquisition, learners are faced with a similar task to that of
49
L1 acquirers, namely the need to arrive at a system account for L2 input. In addition, L2 learners
are also faced, at least potentially, with a logical problem of language acquisition, in that there are
.” (p
. 84). Higher prociency level
L2 Arabic learners were able to “recover” from their L1 inuence, although even after three years of
instruction, they only reach an accuracy rate of 74% on one of the tasks.
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
A second part of his study considers singular noun phrases, in two contrasting conditions, match
ing and mismatching. An example of a matching condition is the following where both English and
Hiroko:
Izumi:
yeah
knee.
so sorry.
As can be seen, Hiroko had a problem with the prepositions
whereas Izumi had a prob
lem with the pronouns
, but through the conversation, they were both able to work their
way through to a mutually acceptable and correct form (
on his knee
). Conversations with non
native speakers (or non-procient speakers) have a number of unique features. As an example,
consider work by Tweissi (1987, pp. 107–108) who presents examples of decomposition in his data
51
based on a telephone interview on food and nutrition that took place as part of a larger research
project in Jordan.
The NS is answering the phone; the caller is a NNS of Arabic.
mary
, w min
we.n
‘Are you sure you’re Maryan? And where are you from?’
‘mm
yes?’
maryam
maryam/
Maryam.
. m
il?urdiniyyih

‘And from the Univer
sity of Jordan?’
In the preceding segment, the NS’s question is decomposed into two questions (the name and the
university) as a result of the negotiation.
Conversation can serve a number of purposes. For example, learners may use the conversation
as a way to test hypotheses. Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000) present the following example
to illustrate this. Learners of Italian were rst involved in a videotaped task-based interaction (two
interview
poi un bicchiere

then a glass
un che, come?

a what,
bicchiere

During the intervie
w, the NNS reported: “I
was drawing a b
lank. Then I
thought of a vase but then
thought that since there was no o
wers, maybe it was just a big glass. So, then I
thought I’ll say it
and see.
Then, when she said “come” (
?), I
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
the negotiation to advance their own knowledge? Long (1996) has argued for the important role of
selective attention as has Gass (1997, p. 132) who claims that “attention, accomplished in part through
negotiation is one of the crucial mechanisms in this process [of learning].” Above is a modied dia
gram (Figure
4.1) taken from Gass (1997) that illustrates the pr
Correction (through negotiation and/or other forms of correction) draws learners’ attention to a
problem. It is not always the case that a learner will notice the problem or know how to correct his/
her speech, but at least this initial noticing (as a result of directed attention) may prompt learners to
search the input (oral/written) to conrm or disconrm a hypothesis that she or he may have gener


\r\f
\f\n\r\t\b\t \f\n\r\t\b\t

Negative evidence.
53
of the working-class group never pronounced words using the /th/ variant. Thus, for native speakers,
al. (2002), who
a’dik ktir Hilu, Ha-yaakul min ra’btik sha’fe.
(Your necklace is very beautiful;
it will eat a piece of your neck.)
shukran ruuHii! M’addam, maa b-yighla
(Thank you my dear! [It is] presented [to y
ou], nothing can be too precious for you.)
(Thank you! It looks much nicer on its owner
common distinction was made in early resear
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
explicit learning of vocabulary (Gass, 1999; Ellis, 1999; Hulstijn, 2001). Paribakht and Wesche (1999)
dened incidental learning as the potential of acquiring new lexical items as a byproduct of process
ing meaning rather than on the explicit goal of learning new words. However, this construct was
difcult to operationalize given the fact that researchers could not assume that learners acquired new
words without attending to them. Gass (1999) and Ellis (1999) similarly argue that incidental learn
ing must involve some cognitive processing of vocabulary with the primary attention directed to
The hypothesis received empirical support from several studies (e.g., Huang, Willson, and Eslami,
2012; Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008). To test the hypothesis in a foreign
study by Khoury (2008) touched upon the r
oot-and-pattern feature in Arabic mor
phology and its association with vocabulary acquisition. She argued that for English speakers learning
Arabic as a foreign language (L2), lexical acquisition is a major challenge. Her hypothesis was that the
explicit teaching of root and patterns would facilitate lexical acquisition. This should raise learners’
morphological awareness, which should in turn facilitates word acquisition. The study involved two
controlled classroom experiments that included a total of 109 beginning learners of Arabic enrolled
in rst- and second-semester Arabic classes at an American university. The experimental groups
received explicit instruction and training on roots and patterns whereas the control groups did not.
An immediate and a delayed posttest consisting of three sections were administered to measure the
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
suggest that reading yields different outcomes for different aspects of word knowledge, with more
substantial gains in meaning recognition compared to other lexical aspects. They also point to the
large
amount of resear
ch used recordings of eye movements to explore the psychological processes that
control the reading behavior of adult skilled readers (see Rayner, 1998, 2009 for a review).
Previous eye movement studies have looked at native and nonnative speakers’ processing of writ
57

Funding for an earlier version of this project w
as provided by a federal grant from the US Department of
Education to the Center of Language Education and Research (CLEAR) at Michigan State University—
#P229A020001. Rana Al-Smadi was the research assistant on the earlier draft and we are grateful to her for
assistance in gathering data.
In some multisyllabic words,
a similar pattern occurs, but it is more complicated. Egyptian Arabic speakers
Also investigated was the acquisition of inter
rogatives.
This can be seen in three pronunciations of the w
ord
third
in Cairene Arabic (a:li; sa:lis ta:lit)
Khaldieh, S. (1996) points out that
American learners of Arabic have great difculty with the shapes of Ara
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
Abu-Rabia, S. (1998). Reading Arabic texts: Effects of text type, reader type and vowelization.
Reading and Writ
ing: An Interdisciplinary Journal
, 105–119.
Al-Amry, A. (2014).
The acquisition of gender agreement in adult learners of Arabic
cross-linguistic perspective
. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Al-Buanain, H. A. F. (1987).
Second language acquisition of Arabic: The development of negation and interrogation
. Doha,
Qatar: Dar Al-thakafa Publications.
Alfai, A., Atwell, E., and Hedaya, I. (2014). Arabic learner corpus (
A
new written and spok
en corpus
of Arabic learners. In S. Ishikawa (Ed.),
Proceedings of learner corpus studies in Asia and the world 2014
national symposium learner corpus studies in Asia and the world (LCSAW) 2014
(pp. 77–89). Kobe, Japan: Kobe
bidirectional framework
. Dissertation, University of Arizona.
Barlow, M. (1992).
A situated theory of agreement
. New York: Garland Publishing.
Broselow, E. (1992). Nonobvious transfer: On predicting epenthesis errors. In S. Gass and L. Selinker (Eds.),
Language transfer in language learning
. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brown, C., Sagers, S. L., and LaPorte, C. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from oral and written dialogue
journals.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21
(2), 259–283.
Chafn, R., Morris, R. K., and Seely, R. E. (2001). Learning new word meanings from context: A study of eye
movements.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27
, 225–235.
Gass, S., and Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in NNS discourse. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.),
Variation and second
(pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum.
Godfroid, A. (2012). Eye tracking. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition

(pp. 234–236). London: Routledge.
Godfroid, A., Boers, F., and Housen, A. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in incidental
L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye-tracking.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
(3), 483–517.
Han, Z. H., and Tarone, E. (Eds.). (2014).
Interlanguage: Forty years later
. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hanania, E. (1974).
Acquisition of English structures: A
case study of an adult native speaker of
Arabic in an English—
. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Hanania, E., and Gradman, H. (1977). Acquisition of English structures: A
case study of an adult native speak
of Arabic in an English-speaking environment.
Language Learning
, 75–91.
study of three children from Zaire
, Ven
ezuela, and Saudi Arabia
. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Horst, M. (2005). Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A
measurement study.
ern Language Review
(3), 355–382. doi:10.3138/cmlr.61.3.355
Hu, H. C. M. (2013). The effects of word frequency and contextual types on vocabulary acquisition from exten
sive reading: A
case study.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research
(3), 487–495.
Huang, S., Willson, V., and Eslami, Z. (2012). The effects of task involvement load on L2 incidental vocabulary
learning: A
review
.
Second Language Acquisition
(2), 181–193.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A
reappraisal of elabora
tion, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
(pp. 258–286).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. H., and Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary
acquisition.
Language Learning
(3), 539–558.
Husseinali, G. (2006).
Processability and development of syntax and agreement in the interlanguage of learners of Arabic as
. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Joe, A. (2010). The quality and frequency of encounters with vocabulary in an English for academic purposes
programme.
(1), 117–138.
Kasper, G., and Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language.
Language Learning
1), 1–352.
Keating, G. D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis
on trial.
Language Teaching Research, 12
(3), 365–386.
Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
, 37–57.
Khaldieh, S. (1996). Word recognition of Arabic as a foreign language by American learners: The role of phonol
ogy and script.
Al-‘Arabiyya
, 129–152.
guage Learning,
(2), 285–325.
Lai, F. K. (1993). The effect of a summer reading course on reading and writing skills.
, 87–100.
Lardiere, D. (1998). Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state.
Second Language Research
, 1–26.
Susan M. Gass and Ayman Mohamed
Lardiere, D. (2003). Second language knowledge of [+/-past] vs. [+/-nite]. In J. Liceras, H. Goodluck, and
H. Zobl (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASAL
(pp. 176–189). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Lardiere, D. (2008). Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, and H. Goodluck
(Eds.),
The role of formal features in second language acquisition
(pp. 106–140). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in L2 acquisition.
Research
, 173–227.
Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning.
EUROSLA Yearbook
, 223–250.
Laufer, B., and Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-
induced involvement.
(1), 1–26.
Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and classroom teaching.
, 173–189.
Lightbown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching.
, 431–462.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and
T. Bhatia (Eds.),
(pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., and Gass, S. (2012). Interactionist approach. In. S. Gass and A. Mackey (Eds.),
(pp. 7–23). New York: Routledge.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., and McDonough, K. (2000). Learners’ perceptions about feedback.
Studies in Second Lan
, 471–497.
qualitative and
ve analysis.
MSU Working Papers in SLS
(1), 30–48.
Mohamed, A. (2016). Task-based incidental vocabulary learning in L2 Arabic: The role of prociency and task
performance.
, 121–157.
Mohamed, A. (in press). Looking at words: Investigating incidental vocabulary acquisition from L2 Arabic read
ing. In M. Alhawary (Ed.),
Handbook of Arabic second language acquisition
. New York: Routledge.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001).
Learning vocabulary in another language
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?
Canadian Modern Language
, 59–82.
Nelson, G., Al Batal, M., and Echols, E. (1996). Arabic and English compliment responses: Potential for pragmatic
failure.
, 411–432.
Nelson, G., Carson, J., Al Batal, M., and El Bakary, W. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian
Arabic and American English refusals.
, 163–189.
Nelson, G., El Bakary, W., and Al Batal, M. (1995). Egyptian and American compliments; Focus on second
language learners. In S. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.),
Speech acts cross cultures: Challenges to communication in a second
(pp. 109–127). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nielsen, H. (1997). On acquisition order of agreement procedures in Arabic learner language.
Al-‘arabiyya
, 49–93.
Paribakht, T. S., and Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and “incidental” L2 vocabulary acquisition: An introspective study
of lexical inferencing.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
(2), 195–224. doi:10.1017/S027226319900203X
Parry, K. (1991). Building a vocabulary through academic reading.
TESOL Quarterly
, 629–653.
Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2015). Incidental L2 Vocabulary acquisition from and while reading.
, 1–34.
Pellicer-Sanchez, A., and Schmidt. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel: Do things
fall apart?
(1), 31–55.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses.
, 52–79.
Pienemann, M. (1998).
Language processing and second language development: Processability theory
. Amsterdam: John
Pienemann, M. (2005). Discussing PT. In M. Pienemann (Ed.),
Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory
(pp. 61–83).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pigada, M., and Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulry acquisition from extensive reading: A
case study.
(1), 1–28.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20
years of
research.
Psychological Bul
vocabular
y research manual
. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schumann, J. (1979). The acquisition of English negation by speakers of Spanish: A
revie
w of the literature. In
R. Andersen (Ed.),
(pp. 3–32). Wash
ington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Schwarz, B., and Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model.
Research
, 40–72.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage.
International Review of Applied Linguistics
, 209–231.
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism.
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
(1), 1–33.
direction for contrastiv
e analysis: The comparative study of developmental sequences.
Quarterly
, 169–183.
Nicole Mills and R. Kirk Belnap
Beliefs, Motivation, and Engagement
Language learning can be a signicant challenge to the psyche (Dewaele and MacIntyre, 2014).
language learner who does not immediately “succeed”
may become anxious and doubtful about
their future prospects. Bandura, who originally coined the term “self-efcacy,” wisely observed
that “what people think, believe, and feel affects how they behave” (1986). Decades of educational
research on self-efcacy, or
Beliefs, Motivation,
What Every Teacher of Arabic Should
language learners, whose motivation, cultural identity, and language learning goals often differ from
these students, are typically enrolled in Arabic courses alongside foreign language (FL) students (Kenny,
1992; Kono and McGinnis, 2001; Ibrahim and Allam, 2006). Their conversational ability, however
limited, can intimidate the novice FL learner with no prior exposure (Abuhakema, 2012). Students’
self-condence may also be unintentionally challenged if their instructors have different pedagogi
cal norms and cultural expectations in the classroom (Elkhafai, 2005). For instance, this may occur
when American students are exposed to different pedagogical practices in study abroad programs in
the Middle East (Kuntz and Belnap, 2001). Whereas pedagogical practices may be perceived as com
fortable for learners within one particular cultural context, they may be perceived as stress-inducing
for learners from another cultural background (Horwitz, 2001). Therefore, the educational context,
mismatch in the educational goals and expectations of teachers and students has the potential to
ners (Magnan, Murphy, and Sahakyan, 2014).
. exceptionally difcult for English speaker
s” (Department of State, 2015).
As a result
al. (2015)
maintain that “becoming a
ware of negative emotions and dealing with them before they become
crippling is critical” (p. 285). A
student’s beliefs, attitude
, and motivation about the language learn
ing process can have a considerable impact on their performance in Arabic over time. Students are
ultimately responsible for what they think and do, but teachers can do much to stoke motivation,
provide positive feedback, and create opportunities for success in the Arabic classroom and thereby
encourage persistence, continued effort, and engagement in the language learning process.
Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efcacy
Because language learning may pose a signicant challenge to the psyche (Dewaele and MacIntyre,
2014), attention to students’ self-beliefs may be just as important to a language learner’s success as
Bandura, who originally coined the term “self-efcacy” as a central motivational variable in social
cognitive theory, wisely observed that it is not “the number of skills you have, but what you believe
you can do with what you have” (Bandura, 1997, p. 37). Decades of educational research on self-
efcacy, or
student’s self-efcacy also
his effort, persistence, engagement, and choice of academic activities (Schunk and Pajares, 2009). As
such, students high in self-efcacy will engage in challenging tasks aimed at skill development with
the intention and anticipation of mastery and exert sustained effort and persistence in the face of
obstacles. When self-efcacy perceptions are high, students attribute failure or challenges to a lack of
personal effort, persistence, or knowledge as opposed to a lack of capability. In contrast, students low
in self-efcacy may engage in task avoidance, show resignation and apathy, disengage in tasks that
might help them learn new skills, and attribute failures to external circumstances (Bandura, 1997).
When students engage in a language learning task or activity for the rst time, their self-efcacy per
ceptions may differ depending on personal attributes, prior experiences, and social inuences. While
series
of studies with French language lear
ners have similarly revealed that students with higher self-
65
about language and culture as more valuable than those with lower self-efcacy (Mills, Pajares, and
Herron, 2007). In addition, students who report higher self-efcacy to read and listen in French also
attain higher reading and listening French prociency (Mills, Pajares, and Herron, 2006).
multitude of ndings from the last decade highlight the
itical importance of ensuring that students feel capable in their ability to learn a FL and therefore
the need to make curricular modications in all languages, including Arabic, in order to enhance
learners’ self-efcacy.
Sources of Self-Efcacy
al. (2015) pro
and sustain a conversation on politics or social practices. Students were prepared in class through
vocabulary building exercises and then given a survey assignment in which they were required to ask
Jordanian students several questions. Sample questions included:
Do you think that the Arab Spring succeeded in any of the Arab countries? How?
Do you think that there were planned conspiracies in the Arab Spring? Clarify your response.
What is your opinion of the Arab Spring in Egypt?
Although the students generally had limited conversational prociency for discussing this topic, the
guided survey format and classroom preparation activities allowed them to actively converse about
these topics with greater ease and uency. These guided communicative activities are particularly
helpful for shy learners because they have a communicative purpose.
Vicarious Experiences
Students’ sense of efcacy is also partly inuenced by their
vicarious experiences
capabilities of peers (Bandura, 1997). Observing peers successfully engage in language learning activ
ities can convey the impression that a student too may be capable, whereas observing peers fail may
cast doubts on a student’s perceived ability to succeed. To experience success when accomplishing a
complex language learning skill, students often need to observe models, engage in guided practice,
and then practice collaboratively with follow-up corrective feedback. Observing successful models
may provide students with the ability and condence to translate conceptions of modeled tasks into
the execution of those same tasks. Teacher presentation and modeling, particularly of effective lan
guage learning strategies, can therefore enhance students’ sense of efcacy and provide students with
67
can’t spread
the story
don’t speak the language.
” True stories such as these can be powerful motivators to students. As
their programs mature, wise program leaders could compile their own video resources featuring stu
dent success stories and invite former students back to visit the institution where they began learning
Arabic to share their inspiring stories with currently enrolled Arabic language learners.
Verbal Persuasions
An additional source of efcacy information may come from
verbal persuasions
, or performance feed
al. (2015) found that
“encouraging words from language
teachers” was the students’ most positively rated survey item contributing to Arabic language learn
ing. Daily coaching, which included discussions of student progress accompanied by encouragement
from instructors and TAs, was the second-highest-rated item by Arabic students. If students receive
specic teacher feedback that conrms their abilities and attributes their language learning successes
(and/or failures) to internal factors such as effort, preparation, and language learning strategies, they
tend to perceive more control over the language learning process and further grasp their role in their
own success (Hsieh and Kang, 2010).
Language professionals who can simultaneously encourage and hold their students to high but
realistic expectations can signicantly contribute to Arabic language learners’ self-efcacy. The sec
ond author of the present chapter has been involved since 1989 in running and conducting research
ing on intensive Arabic study abroad programs. For the rst time in December
2015, all 46 semester
abroad
preparing for m
y speaking presentations just a little bit more, because that is the place where I
like I
want to make the best of that.
” In week
three, another student who struggled to connect with native speakers in Jordan wrote about how
the feedback encouraged her to innovate and try new speaking strategies. She stated, “I
really enjoy
having the time with my speaking partner at school—since I
have been ab
le to elsewhere) and make horrible mistakes but
.”
Whereas some students exper
ienced positive feedback that encouraged increased effort, persis
This week was a rough week with my speaking partner. It was bad enough that she made me
cry, and I’m not someone who cries easily. She spent a few days mostly drilling me rather than
speaking with me, which was frustrating and made me question my speaking ability. This nega
tively affected a few of my days. However, the problem seems to be xed, so I [am] hoping that
come in with specic topics to talk about this week, and am slightly mor
e assertive
with her we will be able to have a quality 30-minute conversation. However, speaking at the
university and other places was enjoyable. I
made a few friends a couple of w
eeks ago, and this
week we went down[town]
have in
fact
made progress despite what my speaking partner might make me feel like.
Her comments contrast strikingly with her comments about this same person in week two: “I
loved
made plenty of mistakes but she w
as so encouraging that I
really looked forw
ard to learn
ing from those.” Such examples suggest that language professionals’ comments and attitude may pro
69
Perseverance
, which is in part a response to Dörnyei’s (2009) observation that “we need to shift our
. to the learner’
s self-regulating capacity, that is, the extent of the learner’s proactiveness”
al. (2015) document how students who possessed or de
veloped a high degree of
self-awareness and were able to emotionally self-regulate were able to persevere and make impres
sive language learning gains that could not have been predicted from their prior language learning
performance. For example, a political science major with little prior language learning experience
before learning Arabic, but with vision, discipline, and a high degree of self-awareness, wrote in depth
about her emotions, thoughts, and feelings in her weekly journals and personal blog. Similarly, the
student with the disappointing encounter with her speaking partner (described earlier) was able to
focus her attention on the deep sense of enjoyment and the positive feelings that she had experi
enced from her recent mastery experiences with making friends and using her Arabic skills with
them. Her reports included one mastery experience after another and her accompanying positive
emotions. For example, in week 11 she wrote:
I focus a lot on my speaking presentations each week and they are paying off. This week I
led the issue of adoption and initially it wasn’
t as successful, because my thoughts didn’t stay
started speaking to her.
However, today when I
gave m
keep the organization and it made sense and it was so r
ewarding.
am able to describe the per
of another person and (2) I
can describe the physical appearance of another per
son. Knowledge of
students’ perceived abilities (or inabilities) may provide instructors with the tools to revise curricula,
about a language program’s strengths and weaknesses, areas of the curriculum in need of revision, and
the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of a given language program by evaluating students’ self-
efcacy. One could learn how students’ self-efcacy beliefs evolve throughout a language program
Table 5.2

How sure are you that you can perform each of the tasks below with
reasonable grammatical accuracy, uency, and ease when [speaking,

Table 5.3

Sample self-efcacy interview guide for Arabic students.

[SOURCES OF EFFICACY INFORMATION]

provided you encouragement/and or strategies for overcoming obstacles in learning Arabic? [VERBAL



[EFFICACY APPRAISAL]


How well do you feel supported by the instructor, fellow students, and the Arabic program? (Are there


Arabic or engaging in Arabic communicative tasks? How do you react? How well do
10.

How do you attempt to experiment or practice new vocabulary, language functions, and grammatical
structures in Arabic? How well do you feel you that you can take risks in Arabic? [INNOVA

To what do you attribute success or failures in Arabic? To what extent do you feel you have control over
the language learning process? [ATTRIBUTIONS]

How much effort do you put in learning, reinforcing, and practicing Arabic? Do you feel like there is a
Another example
of self-efcacy assessment is from Belal Joundeya who began the school
year by skillfully proposing a challenging goal to his seventh-grade students of Arabic that they
reach intermediate speaking prociency level by the end of the school year. When these children
learned that no class had done this before, they enthusiastically embraced the challenge. These
students were so absorbed in their passion for Arabic that when the second author asked them
during a visit to their school how much homework they did each night, one responded that they
didn’t really have homework, but that he spent approximately 45 minutes every evening practic
ing Arabic. Intrinsic motivation is the natural result of students who have a high degree of self-
efcacy. Can-do statements and daily self-reection at the end of class helped keep these students
focused on their lofty prociency goal (for example, see Table
5.4 of a daily reection used in
ve Arabic summer camp that was based on what these students did each day). The use
of self-efcacy statements to encourage guided reection can be a great benet to all language
programs and is a key area for future research.
Table 5.4

Daily Reection Template in Arabic language learning.
Language labLanguage
Fun with ArabicStudy hall
Wednesday 7/29
From authors’ STARTALK program, not copyrighted.
Summary
Although widely quoted, estimates from the For
eign Service Institute (FSI) for the length of time it takes
to reach various prociency levels have never been veried. Al-Batal and Sypher (2007) document that “a
well-motivated, non-heritage student, placed in a challenging learning environment with considerable time
on task can achieve a Superior level prociency in Arabic in as little as 1100 contact hours” (p. 68) which
contrasts markedly with FSI’s 2,200-hour estimate (
Jackson and Kaplan, 2001).
The considerable “time on
task” outside of the classroom and the aptitude of the learners they studied are critical variables. Neverthe
less, Al-Batal and Sypher (2007) make a convincing case for the importance of an appropriately “challenging
learning environment” and for questioning long-held assumptions about the difculty of learning Arabic.
These widely quoted FSI estimates need to be reexamined. One recent study indicates that there are simi
survey of their
professional and institutional proles and attitudes.
Al-‘Arabiyya
, 1–28.
Abuhakema, G. (2012). Heritage and non-heritage language learners in Arabic classrooms: Inter and intra-group
beliefs, attitudes and perceptions.
Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages
, 73–106.
Al-Batal, M., and Sypher, C. (2007–8). Toward superior-level prociency in Arabic: A
study of successful CASA
full-year applicants 2002–2006.
Al-‘Arabiyya
, 57–70.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2011).
surve
y of program coordinators and
teachers of Arabic in U.S. institutions of higher learning. In M. Al-Batal (Ed.),
The teaching of Arabic as a foreign
language: Issues and directions
(pp. 35–77). Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic.
Belnap, R. K. (2006). A
prole of students of Arabic in U
.S. universities. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, and L. Eng
land (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals
(pp. 169–178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Belnap, R. K., Bown, J., Dewey, D., Belnap, L., and Steffen, P. (2016). Project perseverance : helping students
become self-regulating learners. In P. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen, and S. Mercer (Eds.),
Positive psychology in SLA
(pp. 282–301). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Belnap, R. K., Bown, J., Dewey, D., Dean, E., Schouten, L. J., Smith, A., Smith, R., and Taylor, J. (2015). Project
perseverance and study abroad.
Al-‘Arabiyya: Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Arabic
, 1–21.
Borg, S. (2001). Self-perception and practice teaching grammar.
ELT Journal
, 21–29.
Bown, J., Dewey, D., and Belnap, R. K. (2015). Student interactions during study abroad in Jordan. In R. Mitchell,
N. Tracy-Ventura, and K. McManus (Eds.),
Social interaction, identity and language learning during residence abroad
Eurosla Monographs Series
, 4, 199–222.
Department of State. (2015). Language incentive pay.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual
75
surve
y of Arabic students’ motivations at a major
university.
Foreign Language Annals
, 395–412.
Ibrahim, Z., and Allam, J. (2006). Arabic learners and heritage students redefined: Present and future. In
K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, and L. England (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st
century
(pp. 437–446). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jackson, F. H., and Kaplan, M. A. (2001). Lessons learned from fty years of theory and practice in government
language teaching. In
re-ev
Polio, C., Mackey, A., Malone, M., and VanPatten, B. (November, 2015). Are some languages really more dif
cult to learn? Maybe not. Presentation at the
American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages Conference
, San
Diego, CA.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J., and Pintrich, P. (2014).
Motivation in education
. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Schunk, D. H., and Miller, S. D. (2002). Self-efcacy and adolescents’ motivation. In F. Pajares and T. Urdan (Eds.),
Academic motivation of adolescents
(pp. 29–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Schunk, D. H., and Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efcacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel and A. Wigeld (Eds.),
motivation at school
(pp. 35–53). New York: Routledge.
Trentman, E. (2013). Imagined communities and language learning during study abroad: Arabic learners in
Egypt.
Foreign Language Annals
(4), 545–564.
Winke, P., Gass, S., Fox, J., Rubio, F., Hacking, J., Soneson, D., and Malone, M. E. (March, 2016). Assessing college
foreign language learners’ prociency: What, why, and how. Presentation at the
Language Variation, Communicative
Zeinab A. Taha
Syntactic Variation in Modern Written Arabic
& Ver
schueren, 2010). Variation within a language can be studied from a diachronic per
spective, which takes the shape of tracing diachronic relations across linguistic patterns or studying
change in specic linguistic categories (Fried, Östman,
& Ver
schueren, 2010). A
primary concer
n of
historical linguistics is tracing the earlier, attested stages of language to later stages of development.
As Hickey (2010) pointed out, the eld of diachronic analysis started out as an enterprise in dis
covering and documenting instances of change; however, in recent decades diachronic research has
shifted its focus explaining instances of language change and suggesting generalizations across those
instances, thus laying the groundwork for identifying and explaining recurrent types and direction
of change. Language variation is its property of presenting oscillation, uctuation and grey areas
(Berruto, 2004). Based on Berruto’s denition, one can consider language as a conditioned simul
taneous presence of elements, which means that variations in a certain language do not happen in
Syntactic Variation in Modern
Written Arabic
Zeinab A. Taha
Zeinab A. Taha
“deviations” from the norm; hence, institutionalizing a form of Arabic that is not up to the level of
. There are, of course, less subtle reasons. The scarcity of electronic data and linguists willing to
carry such research are the most obvious ones.
This chapter aims at looking into two types of variation in Arabic: syntactic and morpho-syntactic.
Economy: Speaker
s tend to make their utterances as efcient and effective as possible to reach com
municative goals. Purposeful speaking therefore involves a trade-off of costs and benets. The princi
ple of least effort explains how speakers especially use economy in their articulation, which tends to
Analogy: reducing w
ord forms by linking different forms of the word to the root.
Language contact: borro
wing of words and constructions from foreign languages.
Syntactic Variation in Modern Written Arabic
Approaches to Studying Syntactic Variation
Broadly speaking, there are three conventional ways to study variation in syntax. The rst is to simply
describe the variation as alternative syntactic structures expressing fundamentally “the same thing.”
Recognize aspects of the grammar of a language that had pre
viously been ignored (e.g., use of
/iða¯/ vs. /law/);
Identify changes in progr
ess (e.g., the loss of prepositions with verb);
Contribute to the dev
elopment of a formal syntax (e.g., semantic widening and morphological
reduction).
Variation in Using /iltaqa¯/ With or Without a Preposition
Zeinab A. Taha
(1998–2005) Shows That the Verb /iltaq
/ Was
Table 6.1
(1998–2005): the verb /iltaqa
¯/ was always followed by a preposition either /bi/ or /ma
ثوعبملا میكح مرشم دیسلا عم سمأ داصتق�ا ریزو يلاغ سرطب فسوی روتكدلا ىقتلا
طسو�ا قرشلا ةقطنمل ةیداصتق�ا نوئشلل يسینودن�ا سیئرلل صاخلا
ئر رورس يحتف دمحا روتكدلا يقتلا
سلا عم سما حابص
ریزو يجاتلبلا حودمم روتكدلا ىقتلا
رصم ىدل دیدجلا ایناملأ ریفس نازتلام نوف لواب نورابلاب ةحایسلا
رصم يف ناكسإ ةمزأ دجوت�
بلطلا عم
رش بسانت ن�ا
Headlines from
Al-Ahram
(1998–2005) that included the verb /iltaq
/ show that the preposition
that follows /iltaq
/ was not dropped in any single incident. Following are some headlines from that
period juxtaposed with headlines from the period 2011–2015:
Table 6.2

Headlines that included the verb /iltaqa¯/ from
2011
يحابص نیدمحو ىسوم ورمع يقتلی يسرم سیئرلا
(2013, March
ءابط�ا
يسنرفلا باونلاب ةیجراخلا تاق�علا ةنجل ةسیئر
(2015, February
ىقتلا دلیفسمار
ىلع هع�ط�
نم نوللقی نویطارقمیدلاو يصقو يدع لتقمل ةغلابلا هتداعس نع ربعی ضیب�ا تیبلا
ةیلمعلا ةیمھأ
Syntactic Variation in Modern Written Arabic
2011
(2004, March
Year 2011 from
Al-Ahram
newspaper is very signicant because in some cases the preposition
was mentioned in the headline and dropped within the text, and in other cases the preposition was
dropped from the headline and mentioned in the text as follows:
Table 6.3
Text
ةفرغلا سیئر يبرعلا میھاربإ ةرھاقلا ظفاحم ةفیلخ يوقلا دبع ىقتلا
مجلا ةسائرل لمتحملا حشرملا ىسوم ورمع سمأ
بئاقح يلوتل نیحشرملا نم يأب ن�ا ىتح قتلی مل هنأ ىلإ اریشم
تیقتلا: يروزنجلا
ةساردو ةیلاملا نع تانیمأتلا لصفو راث�ل ةرازوب دعأ .ذاقن�ا
شملا ىقتلا
سلا و يعداربلا دمحم روتكدلا نم لك عم ةحلسملا
نییرسیوس نیلوئسم عم نریب ىف يرصم يئاضق دفو ىقتلاةداعتسإ ثحبل ن
ىرصم ىئاضق دفو
فیرشلا رھز�ا خیش بیطلا دمحأ روتكدلا ربك�ا مام�ا ةلیضف ىقتلا
Table 6.4

Data from
y Al-Yawm
is rare and in most of the contexts /iltaqa¯/ is directly followed by the noun and the preposition is
Al-Masry Al-Yawm
نیفقثملا نم ةبخن روصنم يلدع راشتسملا تقؤملا سیئرلا ىقتلا
مجلا ةسائر رقمب ةماعلا تایصخشلاو ءابد�او
س لئابق نم ردصم فشكو
خ سدنهملا
ملسملا ناوخ�ا
س رومأ ةدع نافرطلا
(2013, January
(2013, January
ئرلا ىقتلا
(2014, February
(
Zeinab A. Taha
Variation in the Structure of the Conditional Clauses
More than twenty years ago, I
presented a paper at a Middlebury symposium addressing a pedagogi
cal issue of what
to teach in grammar. Among other things, the structures of conditional sentences
were analyzed. The obvious observations at the time were: (1) Ið
and law were used interchangeably
irrespective of the fact that law is classically presented as a condition irrealis and (2) the response
classical Arabic texts, including the Quran,
featured similar variations, did not help much in keeping
an angry audience satised.
Last year, an MA thesis from BYU (2015) and a forthcoming article by M. Sartori (2016) address
the syntactic variation in Modern Standard Arabic with respect to conditional clauses. They both argue
that they identied “many deviations from the rules of classical Arabic” and that the denition of MSA
is vague with respect to the variation that takes place and the perception of Arabic speakers.
6.5 and 6.6 are taken fr
om editorials of
Al-Ahram
Youm7
newspapers.
Variation and the Reality of the Linguistic Situation
The variations that are presented and analyzed here are only a sample of hundreds of morpho-
syntactic variations that exist in modern Arabic today. Modern written Arabic features variations
within the realm of what is known as fus
a¯ Arabic, but also variation of styles that include incidents
Al-Masry Al-Yawm
ىفطصم ءاوللا ىقتلا
نادف ٢٨ هحاسم ىلع ةصاخ ةعماج ءاشنإ ةشقانمل
لك مضت راودلا.
(2014, March
نكل
نییلاطی�ا لامع�ا لاجر نم ادفو يسیسلا حاتفلادبع سیئرلا ىقتلا
(2015, February
ریزو ةحلسملا تاوقلل ماعلا دئاقلا يحبص يقدص لوأ قیرفلا ىقتلا
(2015, February
ئرلا ىقتلاو
(2015, February
Table 6.4
Table 6.5 (a,b)

Clauses that introduce the
result clause without a particle. Data from from
and
Youm7
Youm7
Title:
Type of article:
(2015, March
ةحلسملا تاوقلا كانھ نوكتس دوجوم ریغ كرابم سیئرلا ناك اذإو
دیكأتلاب حجنیس ةلبقملا ةرملا يف هسفن كرابم حشر اذإو
Title:
Type of article:
(2010, January
Title:
Type of article: opinion
(2015, February
Title:
Type: opinion article
(2010, January
�عف لوحتیس ناك اذإو ةیادب لعفلاب نوكیس ذیفنتلل ةلباق تاوطخ ىلإ
Title:
Type of article: opinion
(2015, March
ىلع �وأ ءاضقلا بجی ةیباھر�ا لامع�ا كلت ىلع ءاضقلا اندرأ اذإ
Title:
Type: readers’ opinion articles
(2011, January
ز�ا راودا انلوانت اذإ امأ
� تامجهلا
Title:
Type of article: Ahram post
(2015, March
رثكأو ةیبذاج رثكأ ودبت فوس موی لك خوخلاو رزجلا لكأت تنك اذإ
Title:
Type: health and medicine
(2011, January
نم نیرشعلاو سماخلا ةروثل ىلو�ا ىركذلا ذنم يرجی ام ىلإ انرظن اذإ
عم اهلماعت.
Title:
Type of article: opinion
(2015, January
Title
Type: opinion articles
(2012, January
تایح نم ةریثك تارتف يف ةم�ا تناكو
Title:
Type of article: opinion
شأ يف برعلا فلتخا
دجت فوس ىبرع دلب يأ ترفاس اذإ كنأ ةجردل مامإ لداع
Title:
Type: opinion article
(2012, February
برعلل هوركم � ردق � ثدح ولو.
Title:
Type of article: culture
Title:
ناك اذإ
Title:
Type of article: accidents
اھاوس ىری � ىمعأ حبصی لجر ةایح تلخد اذإ ةأرما تنأ ىتریمأ
ناك نم ناك.
Title:
Type: readers’ articles
(2015, February
Title:
Type of article: opinion article
(2013, March
كانھ نوكت دق ،ىلكلا ةحص زیزعتل ءىش لضفأ نع لءاستت تنك اذإ
Title:
تابورشملا لضفأ ..توتلاو نومیللاو بنعلا ریصعو هایملا
Type: health and medicine
(
Youm7
نأتب رعشا أطخلا تلعف اذإو ةحارلاب رعشأ باوصلا تلعف اذإو

خ توترا اذإ
نس يف لفطلا ناك اذإ
هرمع نم ةعساتلا وأ ةنماثلا يف ناك اذإو
Title:
Type of article: opinion article
(2013, March
ع عمدت دق ىكشوت تاكولب نكاسم نم تبرتقا اذإ نكلو
�ا
ردنكس�اب ىكشوت تاكولب ناكس..
Title:
نوش
نونطاوم تا
اكح ..
ةاناعم ةصقل ةا
حلا
لوحتت امدنع
ب رشتنت
و يحصلا فرصلا ها
م ا
رمغت ةر
نم ل
زانم طسو
لاوم�ةجاحب ةلكشملا لح :ة
رماع
لا يحو ..ضراوقلا
Type: issues and investigations
(2015, March
رش تذخأ اذإ
Title:
Type: culture
(2011, January
نحلا كذخأ اذإ
س
هطت مت ولف
اهلك.
Title:
Title:
Type: political opinions
(2015, March
نأ ناسن� ردق ولو
Title:
جضلاو بخصلا مغر
Type: opinion article
(2013, March
قحتست اھارت ةدیس ىأ وأ ،كتراج وأ ،كتبیرق وأ ،كتخأ وأ ،كتدلاو ول
انیلإ اهتصق لاسرإو اھراوشم ریدقتب اهیلع لخبت � ،میركتلا.
Title:
Type: Al-Yawm Al-Sabi
(2015, March
دیربلا ربع ةلسارملا ىجری راسفتساوا لاؤس يأ كیدل ناك اذإ
Type: feature story
لمعلا ءانثأ مونلا يف ةبغرلاو لسكلاب رعشت تنك اذإ
Title:
Type: lifestyle articles
(2015, March
Table 6.5
Table 6.6

awm
Al Sabi
Youm 7
Title:
Type: editorial
(2010, March
مل ول
Type: sport news
(2010, January
Title:
Type: opinion
(2011, January
هدانع يف رمتساو ”هغامد بكر”و نجسلا ىلإ ب
ذ كرابم نأ ول
Title:
Type: opinion articles
Syntactic Variation in Modern Written Arabic
Youm 7
لاصیإ نویلم ةظفاحملاب ت�اصی�ا ددع نأ ضرف ولف
Title:
Type: Ahram post
Type: reviews
ةیبرتلا رازو يف تادایقلا دحا راج يتح وا بیسنوا بیرق تنك ولف
دقف ,ایصخش ریزولا نم ةیكزتب ایبھذ اتراك كلتمت تنك وا میلعتلاو
نودب لوبقلا كئانب� بتكو اهیعرصم يلع ءامسلا باوبا كل تحتف
Title:
رفص ةلیصحلاو ةیمیلعتلا ةمظن�ا تعونت!!!
Type: opinion
(2015, March
Title:
ىناعی لاز ام ىرصملا عمتجملا :نسحلا وبأ ناهیرش
Type: review: arts
(2014, August
As we see from the previous tables, this reality of linguistic practices is not at all different from
older/common practices followed in classical written Arabic. With the conditional clauses, the use of
Zeinab A. Taha
Modern Arabic-English Dictionar
. Beirut: Dar El-IlM Lilmalayin.
Badawi, E. S., Carter, M., and Gully, A. (2013).
Modern written Arabic: A
comprehensive grammar
. London: Routledge.
Barron, A., and Schneider, K. P. (2009). Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language
use in interaction.
Intercultural Pragmatics
(4), 425.
Bentley, R. S. (2015).
Conditional sentences in Egyptian colloquial and modern standard Arabic: A
corpus study
. Masters
degree, Brigham Young University
Berruto, G. (2004). The problem of variation.
(3–4), 293–322.
Fried, M., Östman, J. O., and Verschueren, J. (Eds.). (2010).
Variation and change: Pragmatic perspectives
(Vol. 6).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Hasan, R. (1989). Semantic variation and sociolinguistics.
Australian Journal of Linguistics
(2), 221–275.
Hickey, R. (2010). Language change. In M. Fried, J.-O. Östman and J. Verschueren (Eds.),
Variation and change:
Pragmatic perspectives
(Vol. 6, p. 171). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hinds, M., and Badawi, E. S. M. (1986).
A dictionary of Egyptian Arabic: Arabic-English
. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.
Holes, C. (1987).
Language variation and change in a modernising Arab state: The case of Bahrain
(Vol. 7). London:
Taylor
http://arabicorpus.byu.edu/index.php
Z. (2009).
Beyond lexical variation in modern standard Arabic: Egypt, Lebanon and Morocco
. Cambridge:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Manzur, I., and ibn al-Mukarram, M. (1955).
Lisan al-’Arab
(15 Vols). Beirut: Dar al-Sadir.
Meyer, C. F. (2004). ADS annual lecture: Can you really study language variation in linguistic corpora?
American
Speech
(4), 339–355.
Parkinson, D. (1996). Variability in standard Arabic grammar skills. In A. ElGibali (Ed.),
Understanding Arabic:
Essays in contemporary Arabic linguistics in honor of El-Said Badawi
(pp. 91–101). Cairo: American University in
Cairo Press.
Manuela E. B. Giolfo and Federico Salvaggio
Contemporary Arabic Variation and Conditionals
At least due to the presence on the web, since the so-called Arab Spring if not before, of innumer
Contemporary Arabic Variation
2014 to March
2015. In order to ana
lyze the large amount of linguist data provided by our corpus we have opted for the realization of a
digital corpus to be investigated by means of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).
In particular we have opted for the use of a term extractor, the freeware AntConc software, to inter
rogate our corpus in search of the concordance lines (i.e., parts of the text that represent the context
in which a particular element occurs) produced by the keyword
The results of our research present us with extremely interesting new data that can be used as a
starting point for the further development of what has been so far outlined by scientic literature
on conditional systems in contemporary Arabic and, at the same time, for the elaboration of a teach
Contemporary Arabic Variation and Conditionals
of Islamic literature has been developed from the earlier times (Cook, 2003) to collect the signs, as
extrapolated from the
, of the approaching of the nal days (the rst of which
being the advent of Islam itself
). Such signs not only refer to minor and major ev
ents to occur but
also to some geographical areas that will play a crucial role as the predicted events will supposedly
unfold. Among these areas are the Najd, Yemen, the land of the so-called Rum, and cities like Mecca,
Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus and Constantinople.
One should not then be surprised to learn that the recent geopolitical events and the consequent
radical transformation of the aforementioned areas have evoked, within the Islamic world, a number
of apocalyptic speculations, expectations and fears that have stimulated the revival of an apocalyptic
literature in our days (Cook, 2005a). This new eschatological discourse is differently used by opposed
groups and factions to legitimate or discredit the various actors involved in the contemporary Mid
dle East scenario. In an attempt to make sense of the unfolding geopolitical changes, contrasting
hermeneutics have been invoked to justify or condemn the conduct of ISIS, the political positions of
2014 (date of the announcement of the restoration of the
by ISIS) to March
2015, are nw
7.1 shows a list of the 153 pages, with
elative URLs (web addresses), which constitute our corpus.
As already mentioned, the software used for our corpus analysis is the freeware AntConc software,
a term extractor (or concordancer) that automatically extracts from a given corpus a concordance,
7.1 shows
ch results produced by AntConc for occurrences of
(or more precisely, as our
texts were not vocalized, for the sequence
Table 7.1

List of Web pages consulted.
CODESITE
CODESITE
CODESITE
CODESITE
0002_0019http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t1104-
CODESITE
CODESITE
0002_0046http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t372-topic0004_0014http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0047http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t385-topic0004_0015http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0048http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t473-topic0004_0016http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0049http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t1000-
0004_0017http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0050http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t466-topic0004_0018http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0051http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t1327-
0004_0019http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0052http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t1098-
0004_0020http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0053http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t391-topic0004_0021http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0054http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/f17p200-
0004_0022http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0055http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t776-topic0004_0023http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0056http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t1440-
0004_0024http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0057http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t387-topic0004_0025http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0058http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t939-topic0004_0026http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0059http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t384-topic0004_0027http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0060http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t646-topic0004_0028http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0061http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t359-topic0004_0029http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0062http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t679-topic0004_0030http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0063http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t425-topic0004_0031http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0064http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t469-topic0004_0032http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
0002_0065http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t465-topic0004_0033http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
it/2015_02_01_archive.html
0002_0066http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t361-topic0004_0034http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.
Contemporary Arabic Variation and Conditionals
As we can see, the number of the tokens found for
(or more accurately for the sequence
) is 243. This preliminary result is far from being a reliable estimation of the
exact number of
conditional operators in our corpus for the reasons that will be explained in the
following section.
Expanding and Rening Search Results
As mentioned earlier, our texts were not vocalized (like the vast majority of contemporary Arabic
texts on the web). As a consequence of that, among the results of our search for
, we found a large
number of occurrences of the particle
(which in nonvocalized texts is a homograph of
).
Therefore many of the 243 occurrences of the sequence
actually were not
occurrences of
but occurrences of its homograph
Besides that, many occurrences of actual
operators in our corpus were not found, through
the search for the sequence
for reasons related to the way AntConc works.

Example of search results produced by the freeware AntConc software for occurrences of
was 413. This number did not only include, as already mentioned, a large number of
but also of
wa-
fa-
. In addition to that we found some spelling mistakes:
1.
كلذ ریغ وأ ةعقاف ءارفص وأ ءارمح وأ ءادوس نوكت نإ امإف دسجلا نول نع اهنول فلتخی ةم�ع يھو
لیلق ربكأ وأ لاخلا لثم يھ
(http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t1159-topic)
2.
follow
ed by a misspelled
looking like
followed by a
verbal form:
يلیثمت ينف يمارد لمع يأو ةایحلا نم ةأرملا جرخن نأ عیطتسن � انن� ؛هنم دب� يرورض رمأ لیثمتلا يف ةأرملا كرتشا نإ :سانلا ضعب لوق
ركذف متاخلا لوسرلا ىتح م�سلا هیلع مدآ ذنم ينآرقلا صصقلا نأ كلذ ىلع لیلدلاو ،يقطنم ریغ لمع وهف ،ةأرما هیف دجوت � فداھ
؟ةایحلا نم اهجرخنو اهمامأ بابلا قلغن انب فیكف ،يویحلا اھرودب ةأرملا اهیفو اهلك ،خلإ .
هتجوزو طول ..هتأرماو
حون .ءاوحو مدآ
(http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t646p15-topic)
After screening out all the
Classication of Search Results
Through the steps illustrated in the previous section we isolated 101 occurrences of
. Then, as our
research focuses on the use of
as a conditional operator, we decided to further rene our search
in order to exclude those occurrences in which
was not used with a conditional value. Out of a
total number of 101 occurrences we found that in 14 cases
was not used with a conditional value
but with a concessive one. Once we eliminated these latter occurrences, we reached a number of 87
occurrences of
as a proper conditional operator.
Due to the particular nature of our corpus, in which, as mentioned earlier, recent events are sys
tematically related to passages of the
, we observed that a certain number of the
religious form
authentic productions

Occurrences of
Contemporary Arabic Variation and Conditionals
At this stage of the research process one could perhaps reasonably argue that a 32.2 percentage of
authentic productions, out of the total number of conditional sentences operated by
, shows a
signicant persistence in our corpus of the use of
as a conditional operator.
The data so far collected do represent a nonnegligible linguistic fact. This stands in itself for
the survival of
as conditional operator. However, as mentioned in the introduction, in order to
assess the persistence of the use of
as conditional operator we will have to compare the number
occurrences with the number of occurrences of the other two conditional operators,
Before moving to that we will have to further expand our search for
occurrences for the rea
Further Expanding Search Results
As seen in the preceding sections, our search results once were rst expanded when we decided to
include occurrences of
wa-
and
fa-
in order to nd also
occurrences following
wa-
and
-.
However, in order to assess the exact number of
occurrences in our corpus we had to expand
search results a second time.
In blogs and forums the spelling is often inaccurate and therefore
is frequently written without
, being simply represented by the sequence
. Therefore, to make sure that we did not
leave out any
occurrences we had to search also for
occurrences spelled without
. This
process presents some practical difculties. In inaccurate spelling, such as is the case with our corpus,
in,
inna,
, and
, all of which become homographs (see
Table
The search for
consequently generates a large number of results that have to be examined
one by one manually. In the case of our corpus, search results for the sequence
gave 1,265

Table 7.2

hits to which we had again to add the results for
wa-
fa-
(32) thus reaching
a total number of 1,372 occurrences.
The other two conditional operators,
, pose less practical difculties in this respect.
has only one homograph,
, even in inaccurate spelling, and the other,
, has no homo
graphs at all. The analysis of
occurrences spelled without
requires a great amount of time
and effort. When confronted with these practical difculties, researchers, like Bentley (2015), may
even decide to leave out
occurrences from their studies on conditional sentences. As Bentley
Compared to the 32.2 percentage of authentic pr
as a conditional operator previ
ously found, this new percentage of 41.6 of authentic productions, that takes into account the new
data collected, represents an even more important element which attests a signicant persistence of
the productive use of
as a conditional operator. Nevertheless, as mentioned, to draw more certain
conclusions this percentage has to be contextualized by comparing it with that of the other two
conditional operators,
, within our corpus.

Total number of
Contemporary Arabic Variation and Conditionals
As stated in the previous section, individuating
occurrences poses less practical difcul
ties (and consequently requires less time and effort) because
has only one homograph and
has no homographs at all. Nevertheless in the case of
. Moreover for both operators, for the reasons explained previously,
we had to consider the possibility of their concurrence with
wa-
fa-
. Finally, in rening search
results, as in the case of
out of a total number of 143 occurrences of
as a conditional operator, we found
As we
can see from Figures
7.4, 7.5 and
7.6, out of the total number of occurrences of each opera
tor in its conditional value,
has a 77.6 per cent of authentic productions,

Percentage of

Percentage of
of authentic productions and
has the lower value with a 41.6 per cent of authentic productions.
(with a percentage of 58.4) is the one that in our corpus
As we can see,
the 30.8 per cent of all conditional sentences found in our corpus are operated
by
. This percentage accounts for all
occurrences as a conditional operator including
occurrences in quotations. If we rene our analysis and restrict it only to authentic productions
we will nd that out of a total number of 318 conditional sentences (authentic productions), 138
are operated by
, 69 by
, and 111 by
showing the following percentage distribution (see
Figure
Therefor
e, after conning our analysis only to authentic productions, we found that the percent
age of occurrences of
decreased from 30.8 to 21.7, a decrease that can be related to the presence

\r\f \n\t\b \t

Taken from a selection of four Arab blogs and forums, June
2014 to March
Contemporary Arabic Variation and Conditionals
among conditional sentences operated by
. On the other side, the percentage of
raised from
raised from 26.6 to 34.9 per cent.
Discussion of Search Results
As mentioned in the introduction, recent linguistic descriptions of contemporary Arabic such as
Sartori (2010, pp. 68–98) theorize a restriction in the use of
in contemporary Arabic. Girod (2000,
al. (2004, pp.
40, 623–624, 632–670) hypothesize the increasing falling
to introduce conditional clauses to the benet of
. For Badawi this
tendency “is likely to lead to the disappearance of
from MWA except in conservative (e.g.,
One of the users describes a dream to the other user
if possible
dream. The operator
is used in its conditional value and within an authentic production.
'id 43.4%'in 21.7%law 34.9%

Taken from a selection of four Arab blogs and forums, June
2014 to March
اھریسفت جاتحا ایؤر
.ءازجلا ریخ انع
(http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t1327-topic)
One of the users
analyzes the text of a famous
from a grammatical point of view. He draws
the attention of the other users on the fact that a certain noun is used in its indenite form and
not in its denite form (
.). The operator
is used in its conditional value and within
an authentic production.
(http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t646-topic)
One of the users relates the fact that the Mahdi has not manifested himself y
(http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t514-topic)
One of the users discusses here some possible inter
(http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t680-topic)
Contemporary Arabic Variation and Conditionals
One of the users denies any possibility of the Mahdi having the status of a pr
(http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t1104-topic)
One of the user
s discusses the possibility of the Mahdi actually being an author of posts on
بتك يبارافلا:
ىرخأ ىؤرو ایؤرلا هذھ ىلع ءانبو .ةنام�ا باب نمو.
ةظح�م:
ىدتنملا نیناوق راطإ نع جرخی ام هذھ يتلخادم يف ناك نإ.
(http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t1354p15-topic)
One of the users discusses the hypothesis of the identication of the Rum mentioned in
with nowadays Russians and makes a comparison with the case of Khazar Jews (
Khazar Jews are not
). The operator
is used in its conditional value and within an authentic
production.
نیملسملا مهعم فلاحتی فوس نیذلا مورلا مھ نم ریثكلا لاؤس انھ ى
1037
One of the users explains why according to his vie
w Syria (
mujahidin
if you refuse military jihad in Syria
). The operator
value and within an authentic production.
(http://akhiralzaman.blogspot.com/2014/10/3.html)
One of the users claims to be the Mahdi and addresses the king of Saudi Arabia Salman bin
Al Saud. He resorts profusely to conditional sentences operated by
productions (perhaps in order to give more credibility to his claims).
نأب ينامیلا دمحم رصان مام�ا ةوعدب متفرتعا نإف
نأ مغربف
ابلق
(http://mlahim.rstgoo.com/t1440-topic)
Occurrences Versus Systems
Contemporary Arabic Variation and Conditionals
ask ourselves which is the percentage in our corpus of conditional sentences expressing uncertainty
and possibility at the same time. The same search should be done for the other conditional operators
and for the conditional sentences that express the conditional values originally associated with them.
Only after this systematic semantic tagging of all the conditional sentences in our corpus, we will be
able to draw more certain conclusions.
In other words what we should try to assess is not only if a certain operator occurs with a certain
frequency in our corpus but if that frequency reects the percentage of conditional sentences that
express the conditional value classically associated with that particular operator. In our case, should
we nd that a percentage of 21.7 of
actually reects the percentage in our corpus of conditional
sentences expressing uncertainty and possibility at the same time, we could denitely conclude that
al. state that the replace
ment of
by
and
will probably lead to the disappearance of
“except in conservative
(e.g., religious) contexts” (Badawi, 2004, p. 636). Given the existence in our corpus of a signi
cant percentage of
authentic conditional productions we should ask ourselves if our blogs and
forums t into the category of conservative/religious contexts and therefore are to be considered
To nd an answer to this question is particularly difcult for several reasons. First of all, the recent
emergence of new actors on the geopolitical scene challenges any easy denition of what is to be
Islamic thought, one can likewise argue, for instance, that the language of contemporary media and
newspapers is often inuenced by linguistic models pertaining to international Western languages
such as English and French. The same logic can be applied to the case of the language of contem
porary literature where one can identify different linguistic models for different authors and works.
Therefore, if we discard one particular genre, in our case apocalyptic discourse, and we label it as a
marginal or exceptional case in the broader context of contemporary Arabic, we should motivate our
choices by making explicit the rationale behind them. If the principle we apply when we decide that
apocalyptic discourse has to be considered a marginal case in the general context of contemporary
Arabic is that it adheres to a specic linguistic model (i.e., classical Arabic), for reasons of coherency,
we should apply the same principle to every other single genre. By doing so, for the motivations just
expressed, we would probably end up by discarding all genres of contemporary Arabic.
Likewise if we decide that religious discourses are marginal in the context of contemporary
Arabic, we should motivate this assumption in terms of the sociolinguistic framework we adopt and
make this latter explicit. In our opinion, it would be safer to consider as part of the broader context
of contemporary Arabic as many genres as possible and thus to present as many samples of variation
as possible.
We should not only include religious and apocalyptic discourses, but virtually any other particular
genre we nd in contemporary Arabic. This should be done by incorporating in our description of
contemporary Arabic any sort of confessional and non-confessional topics, from religious sermons to
ofcial political talks, from media language to human/animal rights activism and gender issues, thus
& Salvaggio
, forthcoming), in our opinion it is equally important for students to learn about
Contemporary Arabic Variation and Conditionals
This would lead to the necessity of a reconceptualization of the very notion of ‘Standard Ara
bic’, which should not be dened on the basis of ideologies and linguistic policies, it should not
serve as a modern version of the founding myth of both identity and unity of Arabs, but should
rather be dened as: (i) not being an arbitrary, a priori description of Arabic, or of a form of Arabic;
(ii) not being dened by reference to the usage of any particular group of Arabic users; (iii) not being
statistically the most frequently occurring form of Arabic; (iv) not being imposed upon those who
use it (Strevens, 1981). All this would hugely impact on the way we present Arabic to our students.
Although the ideas expressed in this chapter come from a joint resear
ch project of both authors, Manuela E. B.
Giolfo is to be held responsible for sections
Introduction, First Remarks,
Further Expanding Search Results, Discus
sion of Search Results, Illustrative Passages, Occurrences versus Systems, Text and Context, and Concluding Remarks, and
Federico Salvaggio for sections Eschatology in Islam and the Contemporary Islamic Eschatological Discourse, The Corpus,
Expanding and Rening Search Results, Classication of Search Results and The Conditional Operators
and law.
Alosh, M. (2005).
Using Arabic: A
guide to contemporary usage
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Badawi, E.-S
., Carter, M., and Gully, A. (2004).
Modern written Arabic: A
comprehensive grammar
. London: Routledge.
Bentley, R. S. (2015).
Conditional sentences in Egyptian colloquial and modern standard Arabic: A
corpus study
. All Theses
and Dissertations. BYU Scholars Archive. Paper 4440.
Buckley, R. P. (2004).
Modern literary Arabic: A
reference grammar
Beirut: Librairie du Liban.
Cook, D. (2003).
Studies in Muslim apocalyptic literature
relativistic inter
Journal of Semitic Studies
, Sup
plement 34, pp. 119–143). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giolfo, M. (2015). Real and irreal conditionals in Arabic grammar: From al-
bawayhi. In A. E.
Marogy and K. Versteegh (Eds.),
The foundations of Arabic linguistics II. Kit
b S
digitally assisted model of integration of standar
Arabic based on the common European framework. In M. Al-Batal (Ed.),
Arabic as one: Integrating the dialect
within the Arabic curriculum
. Ne
w York: Cambridge University Press.
Marçais, W. (1930). La diglossie arabe.
L’enseignement Public
, 401–409.
Mejdell, G. (2008). Is modern fusha a ‘standard’ language? In Z. Ibrahim and S. Makhlouf (Eds.),
(pp. 41–52). Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press.
Ryding, K. C. (2005).
A reference grammar of modern Arabic
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sartori, M. (2009). L’évolution des conditionnelles en arabe égyptien contemporain.
Jerry Lampe
Communication, Curriculum and Assessment
This chapter discusses the current state of both communication and culture in the Arabic language
classroom. In particular, it talks about the need for all teachers to carefully plan the integration of cul
ture and intercultural communication (IC) into the curriculum. It addresses the need for alignment
Intercultural Communication,
Curriculum Development
Jerry Lampe
Jerry Lampe
with peoples of other cultures. In an article entitled Beyond Frontiers: The Critical Role of Cross-
al. stated clearly:
“the demonstrated need for our personnel to commu
nicate, negotiate, and inuence members of various cultures—and the agencies involved with these
missions—is equally as critical as the military’s ability to effectively aim and re.”
Our intent here is to discuss the current state of both communication (i.e., verbal and nonverbal) and
culture in the Arabic language classroom and to make recommendations for educating learners to become
111
attitudes should usually be dealt with at the Superior level of instruction and beyond. It should be
noted, however, that some practices, such as the Muslim practice of fasting during the month of
Ramadan, may appropriately exist as more than one level of instruction, depending upon which
aspects of it are introduced in the classroom. Fasting, as a practice, is an Intermediate level phenom
enon, but if the teacher were to ask what is the purpose of fasting (i.e., the perspectives behind it), this
involves
inter alia
discussion of social responsibility, self-discipline, patience, and goodwill—all abstract
concepts—and would raise the level to ILR Level 3 (ACTFL Superior).
It is a natural phenomenon for people to translate ideas and concepts from their own culture into

erences.
areness of obvious differences.
erences] exist.

Awareness
• Participate successfully in
including those that may require a
, though not always acceptably.
basic survival
needs.

It is recommended that all Arabic language learners participate prior to beginning the study of
Arabic in a cultural orientation session similar to that of the US Peace Corps.
This two-day ses
sion will help learners understand their own culture and acquire knowledge regarding styles of
ideas expressed in the arts, as well as the concept, values,
ke part successfully in
public discourse.
e.g. history, politics, literature, and the arts.
in encounters.

Tasks and Functions
Jerry Lampe
Classroom activities should have most, if not all, of the following characteristics:
They include authentic resources.
They align language and culture at a specic lev
el or range of prociency. Too much cultural
information may take the activity beyond the comprehension of the learner and his/her lan
guage capacity.
They provide backg
round information, the context, the situation, and the people involved.
They provide oppor
tunities for both knowledge acquisition and performance, i.e., communica
tion with procient speakers of the language.
At all levels, activities should prompt learners to interact/communicate in multiple contexts, and they
should cause them to reect on the ways they have actually improved their communication skills.
The following are some suggestions regarding the characteristics of activities that are appropriate for
Levels 0+ to 3. At level 0+ (ACTFL Novice High), the focus should be on everyday memorized
good example might be found in the verbal and nonv
erbal communication
115
since the principal communication style in the West is explicit and direct and that of the Arab world
us implicit and indirect, the potential for misunderstanding is considerable.
Well-known linguist, Claire Kramsch, expands the concept of context to include “double-voiced
discourse,”
dialogue with others, both native and nonnative speakers. For her, context, is a “social
construct, the product of linguistic choices made by two or more individuals interacting through lan
guage.”
Jerry Lampe
process of learning and not add to what seems to be an ever-increasing number of achievement and
prociency exams administered to learners.
Activities should be designed to prompt learners to interact in multiple contexts, and they should
lead them to reect on how they have improved their ability to communicate. Appropriate types of
activities are recommended for Levels 0+, 1, 2, and 3.
Culture is context, and it is not only situational, but it also has the potential of being created by
teachers and students in the dialogue among them and with others.
Some specialists in teaching culture advocate separating teaching language and teaching culture.
Patrick Moran, for example, states that tailoring “the language and the culture so as to make it acces
sible necessarily involves separating language from culture and working separately on the language to
learn culture.”
should say,
language and culture eld—forward.
See another good example cited in Dr. Zeinab T
aha’s
Kentucky standard for world language prociency
, p. 4.
The author thanks his friend and colleague, Mohammad
Taha, for providing technical assistance and permit
See Storti and Bennhold-Samaan (1999),
, the cross-cultural workbook and trainer’s guide.
, p. 27
Ibid., p. 46.
Ibid., p. 47.
Ibid., p. 70.
The author asked thirty academics and thirty go
vernment professionals what types of assessment would best
Teaching and assessing intercultural comm
In Teaching culture:
Perspectives in practice
, p. 47.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2006).
National standards in foreign language learning in
the 21st century
. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2015).
The language educator, several articles pertaining to
117
Byram, M. (1997).
& intercultural communication
& Heinle.
guide to working with people from other cultures
Yarmouth, ME: Intercul
tural Press.
Seelye, H. N. (1984).
Teaching culture: Strategies for intercultural communication
. Lincolnwood: National Textbook
Company.
Seelye, H. N. (Ed.). (1995).
Experiential activities for intercultural learning
. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing,
Intercultural Press, Inc.
Shrum, J. L., and Glisan, E. W. (2015). Teacher’s handbook, contextualized language instruction. In
learning: World-readiness standards for learning languages
(pp. 67–78). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning Company.
Sinicrope, C., Norris, J., and Watanabe, Y. (2007).
summary of
theory
, research, and practice (technical report for the foreign language program evaluation project)
. University of Hawai’i
Second Language Studies Paper 26 (1).
Storti, C., and Bennhold-Samaan, L. (1999).
Culture matters: The cross-cultural workbook and trainer’s guide
. Washing
ton, DC: Peace Corps Information Collection and Exchange.
Van Houten, J. (2013).
Kentucky Standard for World Language Prociency
. Kentucky Department of education.
10, 2016, fr
om www.bullitt.k12.ky.us/userles/9/my%20les/ world-language-stand
ard-for-program-review.pdf?id=542718.
Wahba, K. M., Taha, Z. A., and England, L. (2006).
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in
the 21st century, vol I
. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
The Common European Framework of Reference
This chapter discusses the benets of implementing the Common European Framework of Refer
ence (CEFR) scale for Arabic language teaching at university level and the process that such imple
mentation entails. The chapter starts with an introduction to the framework and its development
as well as its principles for application to non-European languages. I
then present rationale behind
adopting the CEFR for Arabic and r
eview the current attempts for implementing it. The chapter
concludes with suggestions for research directions that would support the creation of an objective
and a comprehensive CEFR for Arabic.
Since 1971, the Council of Europe has organised a number of symposiums and created working
groups in order to investigate the possibility of forming a European scheme for second language (L2)
learning. The idea of the scheme was based on the Council’s language policy which aims to support
language learning and intercultural communication across European countries and internationally.
The scheme intended to provide a common foundation in dening L2 curriculum and the levels of
prociency that can be systematically measured in different learning contexts across Europe (Trim,
1991). The European scheme aimed to promote and support the following four motives:
The growing need for comm
unication skills across language boundaries
Increased personal mobility
Wider access to information
Mutual understanding and tolerance
1991, the Council of Europe organised a symposium in Switzerland on language lear
ning
in Europe which laid the rst stone into the creation of a Common European Framework that is based
on the principles of transparency and coherence in language learning and teaching. The symposium’s
The Implementation of the Common
for the Teaching and Learning of
recommendations stated that the framework is to have scales of prociency levels that are open, exible
and adoptable to different learning contexts (Trim, 1991). For a decade, more efforts were put by the
Council in providing clearer descriptors of the principles and the approach of the framework and to
state the number of prociency levels in a scale starting from zero knowledge to a procient user level.
In 2001, the most restructured version of the CEFR was released by the Council of Europe and
the English version was published by Cambridge University Press (Council of Europe, 2001). It is a
long document of 265 pages that presents the history of the development of the framework, its aims
and signicance as well as its approach in dening the levels of the prociency scale. The framework
is based on three universally recognised stages of language learning: (A) basic, (B) independent and
(C) procient use of L2. These are then divided further into two levels each. This division makes the
Table
shows the generic description of the language skills acquired at each of the six levels based on the
9.1 are
intentionally generic in order to allow exibility in implemen
. It is not the function of the Common European Frame
work to lay down
CEFR-based curriculum or assessment ther
efore must be based on
121
progression from a CEFR-based curriculum for heritage children learning Arabic. Both curriculums
nevertheless would be based on the same principles and would both consider the types of learners,
their motivations and the learning contexts. The choice of objectives and language content as well as
the grading of the content into progressing levels has to be based on intuitive, qualitative and quan
9.1, is not narr
owly dened and would
9.1 or, in contrast,
its unsuitability to non-European
Is there a rationale for creating a CEFR for Arabic in higher education (HE)?
Since the publication of the CEFR more than a decade ago,
what attempts have been made to
implement it for Arabic?
How can a CEFR for Arabic in HE be objectiv
The increasing demand for learning Arabic at university level due to the ongoing political and
economic developments in the Arab region and in its relations with the rest of the world as well as
There are a number of widely recognised Arabic prociency tests that either refer to the CEFR
as the basis of their assessment or they benchmark their scale of assessment to the CEFR scale. These
include the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) prociency scale
which upon request can be aligned with the CEFR with a focus only on Modern Standard Arabic
Al-Arabiyya Test developed by Eckehard Schulz and based on a jointly authored textbook
(Schulz and Maisel, 2013) which asserts to be covering A1 to B2 CEFR levels including elements
from a range of spoken dialects,
the Standardised Arabic Test developed by the Saudi Electronic
University and which can assess MSA prociency across the six CEFR levels,
the ILA certicate in
Arabic which was developed by nine researchers with a focus on MSA at A1 and A2 levels only,
TELC Arabic language test which assesses candidates against the B1 level in MSA
and nally, the
Arabic test developed by Pearson Education.
The CEFR content that these tests are assessing against
is based solely on the developers’ intuition of the linguistic skills in Arabic which they see to match
125
perception of why Arabic should be taught or would be heavily based on learners’ views which can
be limited by a lack of awareness of employers’ needs and insufcient understanding of how Arabic
is used in reality.
In developing a CEFR scale, it is important to look at the contexts in which the language is used
. the Framew
ork cannot conne itself to the knowledge, skills and attitudes learners will need
127
There are general SLA theories that can still be of relevance to the teaching of any L2 and a
9.1 illustrates the three components of Arabic lear
should equally feed into the design of an Arabic CEFR.
As presented in the last sections, there is a gap in research ndings regarding the learning needs
fo
r
Ar
abic

in HE
regarding the factors
that
facilitate
acquision of

linguisc elements
in

dierent Arabic variees
Arabic variees
are used by

the NS and the funcons

needs of the
students and the wider

order to assist the teachers in developing a comprehensive CEFR scale. Such questions may include:
am suggesting here a model that may be consider
ed
by some universities, especially the ones that do not have the capacity to teach a dialect during the rst
year of an Arabic degree. Tables
9.2, 9.3 and 9.4 list
expected content to be taught at A1, A2 and B1
CEFR levels of Arabic. This content is based on reference to work that has already been done, includ
ing Suçin’s model for Arabic (Suçin, 2015), the English Prole and the EAQUALS core inventory for
English (North, Ortega, and Sheehan, 2010). The content also draws upon content covered in most
popular Arabic textbooks
and the most frequently used words in Arabic (Buckwalter and Parkinson,
2011) as well as ndings regarding learners’ needs and my own intuition and experience. The pro
posed content lists the functions to be learnt in the four skills as well as the vocabulary themes and the
grammatical structures. The content also refers to the cross-dialectal knowledge that I
believe should
be gradually introduced to the learners in order to raise their awareness of the Arabic variability. As
explained in the tables, relying on MSA in teaching real-life dialectal tasks is seen here as a temporary
phase which does not necessarily reect how the language is used by the NS but it acts as a foundation
Table 9.2

WritingListeningSpeakingGrammar
Vocabulary
Topics
directions
menus
WritingListeningSpeakingGrammar
Vocabulary
Topics
Verbal and nominal
Variation in the possessive
Table 9.3

WritingListening
SpeakingGrammar
Vocabulary Topics
Written simple
Table 9.4

WritingListening
Vocabulary Topics
certain verbs
Topics in the news
Lexis and phrases
used in debates
and in expressing
Talking about
Travelling
Personality
describe places
Biographies
events
Phrasal verbs
Ideally, students should be
and, ideally, they should
be reinforced upon their
& Writing
Table 9.4

WritingListening
Vocabulary Topics
certain verbs
Topics in the news
Lexis and phrases
used in debates
and in expressing
Talking about
Travelling
Personality
describe places
Biographies
events
Phrasal verbs
Ideally, students should be
and, ideally, they should
be reinforced upon their
& Writing
This chapter presented important background information regarding the CEFR and laid down the
principles and the components that are ought to be considered when implementing the framework
for Arabic. The suggested content for the rst three CEFR levels for Arabic, presented in the tables,
relied on a combination of sources and tried to address some of the leaning needs that we are already
aware of in the eld of teaching Arabic as L2. This content can be used as a stepping stone to further
development of an Arabic CEFR scale. Nevertheless, this content is also to be investigated from an
In his chapter on the teaching of Arabic in Italy, Grande (2012) r
efers to an element of limitation in the
CEFR in the context of Arabic teaching, learning giving the example of the A2 level descriptor not men
For examples of Arabic course descr
iptions aligned with CEFR, see the learning outcomes of the SOAS
Certicate
& Diploma in Communicativ
e Arabic, www.soas.ac.uk/languagecentre/languages/arabic/
diploma-in-communicative-arabic/ or the course description of the BA in Linguistics with Arabic at the
See Language Testing International (2012).
ACTFL Assessments
, from http://d2k4mc04236t2s.cloudfront.
See Schulz, E. (2010).
Al-Arabiyya Test
, from www.test-arabic.com/en/home
See Istituto Marcelline Scuole Paritar
ie. (2016).
ILA Certicazione Lingua Araba
, from www.certicazio
nearabo.com/en/
See TELC.
TELC Ar
This is a totally computerised test for Arabic and is based on validated r
esearch that ensured that automated
recognition of prociency is as close as possible to prociency level judged by experienced language teach
ers and assessors. The research team requested a number of trained and experienced language assessors who
used different prociency scales including the CEFR to map the results of computerised test takers with
their own judgements of corresponding levels within the CEFR scale and to observe any discrepancies.
Remarkably, the computerised judgement revealed to be very close to the human judgement. The validation
An exception is Al-Arabiyya T
est which incorporates knowledge of some Arabic dialects into their assessed
The reason that I
believe that the g
raduates of Arabic should aim to reach a higher level of producing MSA
(in both speaking and writing) than the average NS is that the latter is not necessarily a specialist in Arabic
and therefore, it may not be a problem for them if they are not able to speak or write accurate MSA; however,
for a graduate in Arabic, there are higher expectations of their language capabilities and their linguistic
These may include
pronunciation features that distinguish some urban dialects as well as basic lexical and
morphological features such as the question words, negation particles and highlight frequently used lexis.
Pedagogical
tasks do not necessarily have to emulate real-life tasks. Pedagogical tasks are activities done in
the L2 classroom which are not usually encountered in real language use outside the classroom but they
are designed on the basis of SLA theories and aim to reinforce learning. Examples of these include word-
matching exercises, information gap speaking activities and substitutions drills. In contrast, real-life tasks are
used in the classroom in order to prepare the learners for the real use of the language beyond the classroom
These include:
Alosh, M., and Clark,
A. (2009).
Ahlan Wa Sahlan: Functional modern standard Arabic for beginners
. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Brustad, K., Al-Batal, M., and Tunisi, A. (2004).
Al-Kitaab Fii Ta’allum Al-’Arabiyya: A
Arabic: With
DVDs
Preferably,
the vocabulary is to be given to the students in lists for reference after they have been introduced
Authentic material will be needed for most of the written and spoken announcements and signs.
This can be of importance to students who choose to learn Arabic for r
eligious purposes.
Abu-Melhim, A.-R. H. (1992).
Communication across Arabic dialects: Code-switching and linguistic accommodation in
informal conversational interactions
. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.
Agius, D. A., and Shivtiel, A. (1992).
Educated spoken Arabic: What, why, how? Proceedings of the Leeds University
workshop, July
. Leeds:
University of Leeds, Department of Modern Arabic Studies.
Alhawary, M. T. (2013). Arabic second language acquisition research and second language teaching.
Al-Arabiyya
, 23–35.
Alosh, M., and Clark, A. (2009).
Ahlan Wa Sahlan: Functional modern standard Arabic for beginners
. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Badawi, E. S. (1973).
Mustawayaat ‘al carabiyya ‘al-mucaasira  Misr
. Cairo: Dar ‘al-Macaarif.
Bailly, S., Devitt, S., Gremmo, M.-J., Heyworth, F., Hopkins, A., Jones, B., Makosch, M., Riley, P., Stoks, G., and
Trim, J. (2002).
Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment a guide for
. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
Belnap, R. K. (1987). Who’s taking Arabic and what on earth for? A
surve
y of students in Arabic Language pro
grams.
Al-Arabiyya
, 29–49.
Belnap, R. K. (2006). A
prole of students of Arabic in U
.S. Universities. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, and
L. England (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century
. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Brustad, K., Al-Batal, M., and Tunisi, A. (2004).
Al-Kitaab Fii Ta’allum Al-’Arabiyya: A
textbook for beginning Arabic:
With DVDs
Dukes, K. (2009–2011).
The Quranic Arabic corpus
surve
y of Arabic students’ orientations at a Major
University.
Foreign Language Annals
(3), 395–412.
Introductory Guide to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for English language teachers
. (2013).
common framework for Chinese
. Paper presented at the
Lowden, K., Hall, S., Elliot, D. D., and Lewin, J. (2011).
Employers’ perceptions of the employability skills of new gradu
. London: Edge Foundation.
Mohammed, A. M. T. (1998).
Needs analysis and course design for Dacwa students: Teaching Arabic for specic
purposes(TASP)
. Unpublished Thesis (Ph D), University of Leeds (Department of Arabic and Middle Eastern
Studies), Leeds.
North, B. (2014).
The CEFR in practice
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
North, B., Ortega, A., and Sheehan, S. (2010).
British Council—EAQUALS core inventory for general English
pilot study. P
aper presented at the
model curriculum.
Paper presented at the
The First International Conference of the Arabic Language Teaching to
Speakers of Other Languages: Visions and Experiences
, Istanbul.
Taylor, L., and Jones, N. (2006). Cambridge ESOL exams and the Common European Framework of Reference
(CEFR).
Research Notes
(1), 1–24.
. Leeds:
University of Leeds,
Department of Modern Arabic Studies.
Trim, J. (1991).
Transparency and coherence in language learning in Europe: Objectives, assessment and certication
. Rüsch
likon: Council of Europe.
Using the CEFR: Principles of good practice
Goals, Design and Curriculum
David Wilmsen
Arabic as a Foreign Language at AUB
The teaching of Arabic as a foreign language (AFL) at the American University of Beirut (AUB)
began in the early 1920s, when the young Anis Fray
a took up a position as adjunct professor in the
Department of Arabic and Near Eastern Languages and began teaching new American faculty mem
bers and their wives Lebanese colloquial Arabic (Kozah, 2016, p. 282). AFL at AUB thus predates Ara
bic study-abroad programs at other Western institutions, having begun some two decades before the
foundation of the famous (or infamous) British institution the Middle East Centre for Arab Studies
(MECAS) in 1944, for most of its existence, calling the village of Shemlan in the Chouf Mountains
above Beirut its home (Craig, 1998), and 38
years befor
e that of its more illustrious counterpart, the
Center for Arabic Studies Abroad (the CASA programme), established in Cairo in 1967 (McCarus,
1992, p. 214).
Both MECAS and CASA were formed in response to world events. The former during the nal
year of WWII and the latter after the events of the
2001. The shock of those e
vents motivated the United States government to play one
of its generational games of catch-up, reversing a decades-long trend in diminishing federal funding
for Arabic language instruction, hoping in a short time to build a cadre of specialists procient in
Arabic. American university students, recognizing the career advantage in studying the language and
in gaining area experience, began to seek study-abroad opportunities, outing travel advisories to
come to Beirut.
A decade later, events continued to work their effect on the program. When, following the Arab
uprisings, which began in Tunisia in late 2010, breaking out in Egypt and Yemen in January
2011,
Liby
a and Bahrain in February of the same year, and Syria a month later, other popular Arabic
study-abroad destinations, notably the CASA programs in Cairo and its newly established center in
Arabic as a Foreign
History and Current Trends
David Wilmsen
David Wilmsen
study-abroad programs at AUB, Lebanon at the time being described as an “island of stability in the
region”.
143
A nal consideration is that throughout the year, AUB hosts a large inux of heritage learners—
students of Lebanese or Arab background—pursuing study abroad, some wishing to improve their
command of the dialect of their parents and in-country relatives and others hoping to enhance their
command of the language of writing. The summer program especially accommodates the particu
lar needs of these students, often opening sections devoted to heritage students alone. Otherwise,
teaching heritage language students either aspect of their language of heritage remains a largely
unaddressed and growing matter of concern. It is felt especially keenly in Lebanon with the large
Lebanese diaspora—some estimates placing the numbers of Lebanese living abroad at three times
their numbers in the home country. Those visiting home in the summer reach one-and-a-half times
the local population of about four million souls. A
large cohort of the younger generation of those
iate Lebanese come to AUB (and other Lebanese universities) for an education, some of them
taking that opportunity to study their heritage language as well. The needs of these heritage students
itself bring the curricular tasks of the study-abroad Arabic experience into sharp focus.
The teaching of Arabic as a foreign language in Western institutions abroad began as a practical
years after the implementation of Lebanese
Arabic language instruction
at AUB, “teaching of spoken Arabic remains a contested area of curriculum, as well as an important
one” (Ryding, 2013, p. 177) throughout the profession, if less controversial at AUB.
history of host institution the Amer
ican University in Cairo published that year denes
the focus of the program as then constituted: “the study of Arabic as used by educated Egyptians in
conversation and writing, supplemented by work in newspaper and classical Arabic” (Murphy, 1987,
p. 256).
Later programs, such as the Middlebury summer Arabic program (founded in 1968) and
David Wilmsen
others adopted a
. when many of the US
ograms that send their students [abroad] desire only a “nishing school” to produce “native
readers.” For such a clientele, any skill in a spoken dialect
. is a purely tangential benet.
For
other US programs of Arabic, [study abroad] represents a crucial opportunity to develop all skills
[that is, especially listening and speaking in a local vernacular] of the language.
(Allen, 1992, p. 231)
What this means is that home institutions were either unconcerned that their students gain facility in
spoken Arabic or that they relied upon study abroad to round out their students’ language education.
The effect has been long lasting, such that even today when studying Arabic abroad, students
often spend all or most of their time concentrating upon the skills of reading and writing, with some
universities reluctant to grant credit for anything but classes in the Arabic of writing. This is as true
at AUB as it is anywhere else. Some students of Arabic as a foreign language spending a semester or
two abroad at AUB are required by their home institutions to register in MSA classes, meaning that
they will often have no time in a crowded schedule to enrol in a spoken Lebanese Arabic class, losing
what will be for some their only, for others perhaps only their rst, opportunity to learn an Arabic
vernacular in its living milieu.
The practical limitation that this approach inicts upon students becomes painfully obvious in
their study abroad, especially at the advanced to superior levels. Despite their having attained highly
advanced prociency in the formal registers of writing, they are incapable of participating fully in a
classroom of Arabic speakers. Their training in peroration in the formal Arabic of declamation not
withstanding, they lack the discourse skills necessary to the cut-and-thrust of conversation, even in
the highly formalized atmosphere of the classroom, in which the teaching is conducted in a combi
nation of high formal and conversational Arabic, with the instructors tending toward the former and
the students interrogating them in the latter.
A generation after Allen wrote about the state of affairs, the difculty has not been resolved by the
recent implementation of the integrated approach to Arabic teaching, which attempts to introduce a
spoken vernacular of Arabic and the language of reading and writing simultaneously in a single class
room. Indeed, the adoption of that approach has if anything complicated the Arabic study-abroad
curriculum, becoming once again a matter of practical concern in programs, including that at AUB.
145
2016, p. 284), and certainly since its revival in the early 21st. This is a sensible position, reecting the
the point. Just as students at a Br
itish school may justiably expect to receive
their instruction in British English, so may students of Arabic at the American University of Beirut
justiably expect to receive instruction in Lebanese Arabic.
Regardless, AUB teachers took the new curricular orientation with some good humour and a
measure of goodwill. The larger problems that emerged with it lay elsewhere. The rst of these to
appear with a vengeance was that the 13 lessons of the third edition of Book I
no longer articulated
well with the r
emaining seven of the 20 lessons of its second-edition predecessor, lessons that stu
dents and their teachers, lacking any other alternative, were in the event obliged to follow. The result
was that students were leaving the beginning levels of MSA to enter the intermediate less prepared
cipitate curricular collapse: The dialect materials in the third edition did not constitute a fully devel
oped course in the study of a local vernacular but were instead meant to shadow the MSA lessons, for
example, providing students with the by now infamous Lesson 1 vocabulary item “United Nations”
rendered into the Damascene colloquial
m il-mutah
but never the Arabic word for the pil
low that the Egyptian Maha character’s Damascene double Nesreen is cradling or the couch upon
which she is sitting when they rst hear it, neither those nor any of a myriad everyday words and
entered business school,
as my father
wanted
”), its Arabic equivalent is provided, in MSA, Egyptian, and Levantine Arabics. But
David Wilmsen
the Arabic for the verb ‘to give’ is not, presumably because the basic MSA stories never encounter the
need for it. If the MSA curriculum may be justied in postponing until later stages the introduction
of the defective IVth measure verb
‘to give’, a well-constructed course in any spoken vernacular
of Arabic is entirely remiss if it does not present it early. Nor could it neglect requesting and giving
pronominal objects, syntactic constructions that students are likely to encounter daily and, it is to be
hoped, begin to use:
badd-i yy
‘I want it; give me it.’
The long-awaited 2013 release of the third edition of Book II resolved the rst difculty, but
the integrated approach it adopts can never address the second. With that realization, the Arabic
are roughly of tw
o types. The rst consists mainly of graduate students
who have made some commitment to some eld of Middle Eastern Studies. This often is the
only thing they have in common, and here they part ways. Some want only enough control of
147
Be that as it may, if we assume along with Younes that what is meant is that average students are
actually “mainly undergraduates, many of whom have no denite commitment to the eld but take
Arabic to fulll foreign language requirements” (Abboud, 1971, p. 4), then plying them with nothing
but MSA, which, by the admission of this stout advocate of the
. as inter
cultural mentors who mediate communication, these u
. speaker
s might provide more scaffolding for learners than typical, monolingual native
speakers.
(Magnan and Black, 2007, p. 55)
Experience with AFL students at AUB who integrate themselves to some degree into the social fab
ric of Beirut corroborates this, some of them making noticeable gains in prociency as much from
David Wilmsen
their involvement in the many opportunities for social engagement in and around Beirut as from
their classroom practice. It is semester and year abroad students who manage this kind of integration
more easily than do summer students, there being little time for such integration during the intensive
consistent theme of research into the study-abr
oad experience
is that male students make greater prociency gains than do their female colleagues when pursuing
In 1947, the Arabist Charles Ferguson established in Beirut an 18-month training program for two Ameri
can foreign-service ofcer
After closing its center in Damascus in 2011, the CASA pro
gram has since opened an alternate Levantine
location at the privately owned Qasid Institute of Amman, Jordan.
The war in Lebanon in the summer of 2006 depressed enrolments in the follo
wing year, but numbers had
recovered by 2008, with the summer program witnessing a high point of some 95 students, despite the brief
By contrast, the teaching at MECAS aimed initially to “impar
t a full reading knowledge of newspaper and
radio Arabic .
. with little systematic attempt to teach colloquial” (Craig,
1998, p. 22). It was to remain such
for more than a decade until 1956 when MECAS eventually produced and began to use a grammar of con
versational Lebanese Arabic; but it was not until 1966 that “colloquial Arabic began to be taught seriously”
(Craig, 1998, pp. 60–61). Regardless, Ryding (personal communication) observes that in the mid-sixties, her
teachers at AUB used MECAS materials in the teaching of spoken Lebanese Arabic.
If “Arabic as used by educated Egyptians in conv
ersation” seems to indicate the spoken vernacular of Cairo,
it happens that in that era, the Arabic teaching profession appeared to be placing its hopes in an elusive entity
called “Educated Spoken Arabic” among other names, which was apparently imagined to be some sort of
light, preserving the basic structures of MSA while allowing an occasional colloquialism in a vernacu
lar pseudo verb, negator, or interrogative to slip into the ow of speech now and then. A
textbook even
outinize for students this type of intermingling of the two forms of the language (Ryding,
149
1990). See Ryding’s (2013, pp. 178–180) practical considerations for implementing such a curriculum in the
classroom.
The production values of the earlier Syrian mater
ials are considerably inferior to those of later ones, the
sound quality in the early lessons being such that some of the dialogue is almost imperceptible, especially in
an open classroom.
With the Beiruti realization of the pseudo-v
badd-
bidd-
This sort of functionality transcends the dichotomy of “pr
imary” and “secondary” discourses to which
Ryding (2006, pp. 15–16; 2013, p. 178) refers, the former constituting “the most basic everyday discourse”
supposedly being conducted amongst family and friends and the latter in public venues, vernacular Arabic
being appropriate in both contexts.
Students at the beginning levels,
for whom the Maha and Khaled story is intended as means of introducing
the basic structures of Arabic, nd the speech in the Yara and Jamil Lebanese materials to be impossibly rapid.
The assertion can also be contested as impressionistic (with the orig
in of the impression being by no means
clear), whereas actual data collected 15
years later
(Belnap, 1987) present an entirely different picture of the
average student of Arabic, ndings corroborated early in the new millennium (Belnap, 2006).
For a good illustration of the awkwar
d moments engendered when a student arrives in an Arabophone
environment after several semesters of the reigning
-only approach of the 1970s, see Campbell (1986),
and the subsequent critique of that technique, much of that critique still relevant today.
Because of which, in 2009, the
ork Times
named Beirut as the rst of 44 travel destinations for the year,
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/11/travel/20090111_DESTINATIONS.html.
Abboud, P. (1971). State of the art IX: Arabic language instruction.
surve
y of students in Arabic language programs.
Arabiyya
, 29–42.
Belnap, K. (2006). A
prole of students of Arabic in U
.S. universities. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, and L. Eng
land (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century
(pp. 169–178). Mahwah, NJ:
Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D. E., and Ginsberg, R. B. (1995). Predictors of foreign language gain during study
abroad. In B. F. Freed (Ed.),
Second language acquisition in a study abroad context
(pp. 37–66). Amsterdam: John
Campbell, S. J. (1986). The modern Arabic course: A
challenge.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Lan
guage Teaching
(2), 145–156.
Craig, J. (1998).
Shemlan: A
history of the Middle East Centre for
Arab Studies
. Basingstoke: MacMillan.
Davidson, D. E. (2010). Study abroad: When, how long, and with what results? New data from the Russian Front.
Foreign Language Annals
(1), 6–26.
Fray
a, A. (1980).
arabiyya wa ba
[On the Arabic language and some of its problems]. Beirut:
Dar El-Nahar.
Kinginger, C. (2011). Enhancing language learning in study abroad.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
Kozah, M. (2016). On Anis Frayha. In N. M. El-Cheikh, L. Choueiri, and B. Orfali (Eds.),
(pp. 281–286). Beirut: The American University of Beirut Press.
McCarus, E. (1992). History of Arabic study in the United States. In A. Rouchdy (Ed.),
The Arabic language in
America
David Wilmsen
Murphy, L. R. (1987).
The American University in Cairo 1919–1987
. Cairo: The American University in Cairo
Press.
Polanyi, L. (1995). Language learning and living abroad: Stories from the eld. In B F. Freed (Ed.),
acquisition in a study abroad context
(pp. 271–291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ryding, K. C. (1990).
Formal spoken Arabic
Emma Trentman
Study Abroad Arabic Programs
The 21st century has witnessed a marked increase in both the numbers of students studying Arabic
and studying abroad in Arabic-speaking countries. Enrollment data from the Modern Language
Association show that in 1998, a mere 5,505 students were studying Arabic in U.S. institutions of
higher education. By 2002, this had nearly doubled to 10,584 students. These numbers have con
tinued to rise, with a high of 34,908 students in 2009. Although the 2013 numbers dropped slightly
to 32,286 students, this remains a 486% increase from 1998, demonstrating that the 21st century has
indeed witnessed a remarkable surge in Arabic learning (Modern Language Association, 2013).
The number of U.S. students studying abroad in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
regions has also increased dramatically since the turn of the 21st century, despite security concerns
immediately following the September
11, 2001,
terrorist attacks and the 2011 Arab Spring (Institute
of International Education, 2015). Indeed, many students describe their interest in this region as a
11, 2001, ter
rorist attacks (Gore, 2005; Lane-Toomey, 2014; Trent
man, 2013b). In the academic year 2013–2014, 6,349 students studied in the MENA region, a 165%
increase from the 2,410 students who studied in this region in 2000, albeit down from an all-time
21st-century high of 8,281 in 2009–2010, the year immediately preceding the 2011 Arab revolutions
(Institute of International Education, 2015). Though language learning is not emphasized in interna
tional education (Gore, 2005; Kinginger, 2009), there is evidence that many students studying in the
Arabic-speaking world are focused on language, especially if they view Arabic prociency as a crucial
component of their future career success (Lane-Toomey, 2014; Trentman, 2013b).
Government funding for U.S. students of Arabic and other “critical” languages at home and
abroad has also increased in the 21st century (Belnap, 2008; Lane-Toomey, 2014). In 2006, President
Bush announced the National Security Language Initiative to increase the number of Americans
learning “critical” languages (including Arabic) at all levels of education and in the workforce (U.S.
Department of State, 2006). This initiative has led to the expansion of existing programs for pro
moting language study, such as Title VI funding, the Fulbright exchanges, and the National Security
Education Program. It has also created new programs, such as the National Language Flagship and
Issues of Concern, Research
Emma Trentman
Emma Trentman
of students studying in more common destinations. Some students also stated that the availability of
funding caused them to focus their studies on the MENA region.
Given these rapid increases in the numbers of students studying Arabic and studying in the
MENA region, and the increased funding available for Arabic study at home and abroad, it is criti
cal for Arabic language professionals in the 21st century to be aware of the research surrounding
language learning and study abroad, particularly as much of this research rejects the popular assump
tion that study abroad will result in high levels of language and intercultural prociency (Freed,
2008; Kinginger, 2009; Vande Berg, Paige, and Lou, 2012). In the remainder of this chapter, I
review
esearch on study abroad and discuss a framework for research-based interventions that can be imple
153
French-speaking environments is unclear (Howard, 2012). The use of sociolinguistic variants may
also be inuenced by students’ own desired identities. For example, Ringer-Hilnger (2012) found
, and posited that this was due to
their preference for the Latin American variants more prevalent in the United States.
The acquisition of sociolinguistic variation is particularly relevant for Arabic learners abroad due
to the diglossic nature of the Arabic language. The majority of everyday situations learners encounter
abroad call for the use of Arabic dialects; however, many Arabic learners continue to learn only MSA

Jackson, 2013;
Vande Berg, Paige, and Lou, 2012). In contrast to the idea that studying abroad
al. (2014) found that students with higher intercultural sensiti
vity scores prior to study abroad and
Emma Trentman
al.
al. study,
the greater the English prociency of their Arab friends, the more
likely the students were to make gains in Arabic, potentially as they were able to use the power of English
155
Emma Trentman
157
world, already incorporate these types of opportunities, recognizing that mere physical presence in a
& Engle,
2012; Vande Berg,
Quinn, and Menyhart, 2012) can be highly effective, interventions in the study
abroad experience are most successful when they begin prior to the experience abroad and continue

Jackson, 2010,
2013; Lou and Bosley, 2012). Some students in fact make the

Jack
son,
2013), and intercultural prociency prior to study abroad was found to be one of the strongest

Jackson, 2006; 2008;

Jackson, 2006; Shi
vely, 2010).
Emma Trentman
exception rather than the norm. This must change if students are to develop to their full linguistic and
intercultural potential abroad, as it cannot be assumed study abroad is enough for students to learn dia
lect. Both empirical evidence (Trentman, 2011) and student opinion (Shiri, 2013) reveal that learning
one dialect can be benecial in learning others, which means that programs should not be concerned
if students learn multiple dialects at home nor if the dialect they learn at home differs from that abroad.
al. (2001), Rober
ts (2003) and Jackson (2006, 2008, 2010).
In the Open Doors Data, this also includes Israel and Iran.
Anderson, A. (2003). Women and cultural learning in Costa Rica: Reading the contexts.
Frontiers: The Interdisci
plinary Journal of Study Abroad
, 21–52.
Baker-Smemoe, W., Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., and Martinsen, R. A. (2014). Variables affecting L2 gains during study
abroad.
Foreign Language Annals
, 464–486.
159
gendered perspecti
ve.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study
, 173–188.
Hernández, T. A. (2010). The relationship among motivation, interaction, and the development of second lan
guage oral prociency in a study-abroad context.
The Modern Language Journal
, 600–617.
Howard, M. (2012). The advanced learner’s sociolinguistic prole: On issues of individual differences, second
language exposure conditions, and type of sociolinguistic variable.
The Modern Language Journal
, 20–33.
Emma Trentman
Jackson, J. (2008).
Language, identity and study abroad: Sociocultural perspectives
. Oakville, CT: Equinox Publishing.
Jackson, J. (2010).
Intercultural journeys: From study to residence abroad
. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jackson, J. (2013). The transformation of “a frog in the well”: A
path to a more intercultural,
critical reading of research
. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kinginger, C. (2011). Enhancing language learning in study abroad.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
Kinginger, C. (2013). Identity and language learning in study abroad.
Foreign Language Annals
, 339–358.
Knight, S. M., and Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C. (2002). Enhancing the homestay: Study abroad from the host family’s
perspective.
Foreign Language Annals
, 190–201.
Kuntz, P., and Belnap, R. K. (2001). Beliefs about language learning held by teachers and their students at two
Arabic programs abroad.
Al-cArabiyya
, 91–113.
Lane-Toomey, C. K. (2014). U.S. government factors inuencing an expansion of study abroad in the Middle
East/North Africa.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad
, 121–140.
Lane-Toomey, C. K., and Lane, S. R. (2012). U.S. students study abroad in the Middle East/North Africa: Factors
inuencing growing numbers.
Journal of Studies in International Education
, 308–331.
6, 2016, fr
https://apps.mla.org/survey_search.
O’Dowd, R. (2010). Online foreign language interaction: Moving from the periphery to the core of foreign
Language Teaching
, 368–380.
case study of language and culture clash.
Bilingual Research Journal
, 405–421.
Ringer-Hilnger, K. (2012). Learner acquisition of dialect variation in a study abroad context: The case of the
θ].
Foreign Language Annals
, 430–446.
161
Shiri, S. (2013). Learners’ attitudes toward regional dialects and destination preferences in study abroad.
, 565–587.
model of pragmatics instruction for study
abroad.
Foreign Language Annals
, 105–137.
Siegal, M. (1995). Individual differences and study abroad: Women learning Japanese in Japan. In B. F. Freed (Ed.),
Second language acquisition in a study abroad context
(pp. 225–244). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

January
5, 2006).
National security language initiative
28, 2015,
from
http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/58733.htm.
Van Der Meid, J. S. (2003). Asian Americans: Factors inuencing the decision to study abroad.
Frontiers: The Inter
disciplinary Journal of Study Abroad
, 71–110.
Vande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., and Lou, K. H. (2012). Preface. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, and K. H. Lou (Eds.),
Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it
(pp. xi–xvi).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Vande Berg, M., Quinn, M., and Menyhart, C. (2012). An experiment in developmental teaching and learning.
In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, and K. H. Lou (Eds.),
Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what
they’re not, and what we can do about it
(pp. 383–410). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Wenger, E. (1998).
Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkinson, S. (2002). The omnipresent classroom during summer study abroad: American students in conversa
tion with their French hosts.
Modern Language Journal
, 157–173.
Steven Berbeco
Arabic in Elementary, Middle, and High School
American public schools have a long history of promoting language study as a core part of a student’s
basic education. Still today, students take foreign languages, Spanish and French dominating the eld
but with many other languages commonly offered in elementary, middle, and high schools across the
country (NCES, 2016).
But the very presence of these language courses in our schools, and the expectation by most
universities that applicants will have learned at least one before starting post-secondary studies, point
ricular mater
ials, few teacher-training programs, and an audience of students who lack the advanced
study skills of university students: these combine to create a taxing problem for even the more expe
rienced classroom instructors.
Teaching Arabic in Elementary,
Arabic in Elementary, Middle, and High School
The American national identity, especially in regards to language use and study, is in many ways
Janus-faced (Lantolf and Sunderman, 2001). There is perhaps a sense of stalwart pride in the isola
tionist view that our nation’s monolingualism promotes; to paraphrase the late Governor Miriam
Ferguson’s possibly apocryphal quote: “If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be
good enough for the children of Texas.” And at the same time, our public schools are almost entirely
funded and governed locally, and foreign language study is offered nearly universally alongside classes
that build basic literacy and math skills, pointing to a tacit appreciation for the eld.
This push me-pull you sentiment is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by a graph of the enroll
ment in modern languages among secondary students over the last century, as demonstrated in
ure
12.1 (Berbeco, 2011;
NCES, 2007; Parker, 1954).
The greatest apparent dip in percentage of secondary school students enrolled in modern languages
appears to corresponds to America’s participation in World War I (1914–1918) and World War II
(1939–1945), as the country separated itself in many ways from its neighbors. Another slight dip in
11, 2001, widely seen as a
Arabic education in the United States. At the university level, enrollment in
Arabic experienced an exponential increase in 2002, as indicated in Figure
12.2 (Berbeco, 2011;
Brod and Huber, 1992; Furman, Goldberg, and Lusin, 2007; Furman, Goldberg, and Lusin, 2009;
Goldberg, Looney, and Lusin, 2015).
Although Arabic has been taught in some capacity for at least thirty years in Islamic schools and
Coptic and Maronite weekend schools, it generally hadn’t been introduced into public schools until
10
1880190019201940196019802000
Percent of Secondary Students

Enrollment in modern languages among secondary students as a percentage of total
19651975198519952005
Percent of Post-Secondary Students

Enrollment of post-secondary students in Arabic as a percent of total post-secondary
10
1988199219962000200420082012

Number of public and private elementary, middle, and high school Arabic programs
established by year.
this same decisive event of September
11, 2001.
Similar to university-level study there was also a
rapid increase in interest in elementary, middle, and high school Arabic programs, as indicated by the
brisk establishment of programs in public and public charter schools during a similar time period
(Figure
12.3, Dofng, Compton,
and Allaf, 2013).
Arabic in Elementary, Middle, and High School
12.4 (Ellis, 2016).
As an
example, the STARTALK Arabic Summer Academy (ASA, 2016) is a four-week intensive
language course for Boston-area high school students. The course follows a scope and sequence for
rst-year Arabic in Boston Public Schools and the program works with local school registrars to
award credit for the class. Post-program Oral Prociency Interview assessments consistently place
students with no prior exposure to the language in Novice-Mid to Intermediate-Low range. The
STARTALK Arabic Institute for the Next Generation (AING, 2012) at the Outreach Center, Center
for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University, provided credit-bearing undergraduate course work
in pedagogy, applied linguistics, and cultural studies, as well as practicum teaching. The goal of this
The Teachers of Critical Languages Program (TCLP) (Hovhannisyan, 2016), also established
in 2006, has tried to fulll a similar goal through different means. This teacher exchange program
brings a small number of experienced classroom teachers from Egypt and facilitates their place
ment in public and private schools for a year as elementary, middle, or high school Arabic teachers.
rigorous v
100
2007200

Cumulative number of student
and teacher participants enrolled in STARTALK Arabic
programs by year.
Arabic in Elementary, Middle, and High School
teachers in the Middle East and the expectations of students in an American classroom. In fact, the
second-most cited reason for a program to discontinue is that the teacher didn’t work out (Dofng,
Compton, and Allaf, 2013), and not a lack of interest among the students.
Even among teachers who are successful instructors in the classroom and have dependable fund
ing for their courses, the weight of being the only elementary, middle, or high school Arabic teacher
in the district—and often even the state—can stimulate feelings of professional isolation. Some
teachers also have the pressure of professional friction with colleagues, a “friendly resentment” from
European language teachers who worry that the Arabic program is taking students from their classes
and jeopardizing their positions at the school.
questions about the scope and sequence of introductory Arabic. For example, some high school pro
Arabic in Elementary, Middle, and High School
complementary resear
ch project demonstrated the effectiveness of the cur
riculum regardless of students’ grade level or socioeconomic status, and the results held up even in
cases where students disliked the curriculum or learning Arabic in general (Berbeco, 2011).
The high school Arabic curriculum that Wafa Hassan has developed is another example of a
widely used, standards-based curriculum (Hassan, 2012). Currently in use in almost a hundred
A small number of foundations and not-for-prot groups have been instrumental in connecting
teachers and aspiring teachers with the curricular resources they need, from teacher training and
licensure to curriculum development and techniques for effective classroom instruction. For exam
ple, Qatar Foundation International has been a leader among these, as a grant-maker to teachers
percent of instructional time”
(STARTALK, 2016).
million federal grant
velop Arabic classes. However, local residents expressed great concern and local politicians
labeled the project an “atrocity” and “a decided effort to suppress the history of our own country”
(Knight, 2011). The community and local political pressure quickly stopped the educational project
11, 2001, and mor
Arabic in Elementary, Middle, and High School
than ten years old represent the growing institutional knowledge and expertise of the eld. The
more experienced teachers and the administrators that support them continue to look for ways to
mainstream the study of Arabic, seeking to achieve the stability enjoyed by other foreign languages in
order to gather the benets of long-term administrative and especially curriculum planning.
Many Arabic teachers have expressed a strong interest in a national curriculum focused on
language performance, similar to the near-universal adoption of
allum al-arabiyya
(WPR, 2009). This desire may reect native speakers’ experience with national curricula used in
their home countries, or a reaction to the time-consuming effort of creating curricular materi
absorb a great deal about effective prociency-based teaching by learning from successful elementary
school programs, especially the few that manage to coordinate a dual immersion program.
Elementary, middle, and high school Arabic teachers usually feel a great sense of responsibility. They
are not only engaging young learners and inspiring them to think more globally, but also introduc
ing students to the Arab world at an important time in our country’s history. Some teachers say that
they feel like an ambassador, and they have goals of changing how people think to create a more
Those involved in Arabic education more generally have this same goal in mind, directly or
indirectly, since successful education can be simply dened as developing greater understanding of
a subject area. As well, there are very few educators in this area who have not had to consider cross-
cultural communication in their teaching, research, or their own early studies. This sense of a shared
univer
sity instructor who looks to the long-
The author wishes to thank colleagues for participating in structured inter
views in preparation for this chap
ter: Rana Abdul-Aziz, Fadi Abughoush, Carine Allaf, Mahdi Alosh, Richard Cozzens, Britten Dixon, Tamara
Haddad, Jerry Lampe, Mouna Mana, Nada Shaath, Mohammad Taha, and Lucy Thiboutot. This chapter also
beneted from feedback from anonymous reviewers. Any shortcomings, errors, or omissions are the author’s
responsibility.
For further discussion, see
Al-Batal, 2007–2008; Belnap and Abuamsha, 2015; Stevens, 2006.
For further discussion, see
“Proposing Professional Standards for Arabic Teacher Certication” in the present
volume.
Abdalla, M., and Al-Batal, M. (2011–2012). College-level teachers of Arabic in the United States: A
survey of
their professional and institutional proles and attitudes.
al-Arabiyya
, 1–28.
Arabic in Elementary, Middle, and High School
ACTFL [American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages]. (1989). ACTFL Arabic prociency guide
lines.
Foreign Language Annals
, 373–392.
ACTFL [American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages]. (2006).
Standards for foreign language learning
in the 21st century
(3rd ed.). Lawrence, KS: Allen Press.
ACTFL [American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages]. (2010).
1, 2016, fr
1, 2016, fr
om cmes.fas.harvard.edu/news/cmes-outreach-holds-
arabic-teacher-training-program-undergraduate-students.
Al-Batal, M. (2007–2008). Toward superior level prociency in Arabic: A
study of successful CASA full year
al-Arabiyya
, 57–70.
American Councils (2017).
15, 2017, fr
om www.americancouncils.
org/services/testing-and-assessment/newl/arabic.
ASA [Arabic Summer Academy]. (2016).
Arabic summer academy
1, 2016, fr
om www.arabic
summeracademy.org.
Belnap, R. K., and Abuamsha, K. (2015). Taking on the “Ceiling Effect” in Arabic. In T. Brown and J. Bown
(Eds.),
1, 2016).
The current state of K-12 public and
public charter school Arabic language programs
, PowerPoint.
Ellis, D. (2016). The STARTALK experience. In S. Berbeco (Ed.),
Foreign language education in America
(pp. 85–111).
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ellis, R. (1990).
. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Furman, N., Goldberg, D., and Lusin, N. (2007).
tions of high education, Fall 2006
1, 2016, fr
om www.mla.org/content/download/2849/
79750/06enrollmentsurvey_nal.pdf.
Furman, N., Goldberg, D., and Lusin, N. (2009).
tutions of high education, Fall 2009
1, 2016, fr
om www.mla.org/content/download/
2872/79842/2009_enrollment_survey.pdf.
Goldberg, D., Looney, D., and Lusin, N. (2015).
tions of high education, Fall 2013
1, 2016, fr
om www.mla.org/2009_enrollmentsurvey.
Greer, M., and Johnson, D. (2009).
National survey of schools teaching Arabic as a core course
1, 2016, fr
om www.nclrc.org/arabick12/schools/Arabic%20K-12%20Survey%20Presentation-
ACTFL09.pdf.
Gregg, K. R. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor.
(2), 79–100.
Hassan, W. (2012).
Flagship high school curriculum, results in three modes: Face to face, hybrid, and online
, PowerPoint.
1, 2016, fr
om www.thelanguageagship.org/media/docs/results/2_hassan.pdf.
Hovhannisyan, Z. (2016). The teachers of critical languages program. In S. Berbeco (Ed.),
tion in America
(pp. 213–239). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Knight, S. (2011). County republicans condemn Manseld ISD plan to teach Arabic.
Cleburne Times-Review
, Feb
ruary
1, 2016, fr
Lantolf, J. P., and Sunderman, G. (2001). The struggle for a place in the sun: Rationalizing foreign language study
1, 2016, fr
om http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_053.asp.
NCES [National Center for Education Statistics]. (2015).
English language learner (ELL) students enrolled in public
elementary and secondary schools, by grade and home language: 2013–14
1, 2016, fr
nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_204.27.asp.
NCES [National Center for Education Statistics]. (2016).
Number and percentage of high school graduates who
took foreign language courses in high school and average number of credits earned, by language and number of credits:
2000, 2005, and 2009
1, 2016,
from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/
NCLRC [National Capital Language Resource Center]. (2015).
Teaching world languages: A
practical guide
1, 2016, fr
om www.nclrc.org/TeachingWorldLanguages/TWL_Arabic/index.
Parker, W. (1954).
(3rd ed.). United States Department of State publica
tion 7324. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Ofce.
QFI [Qatar Foundation International]. (2016).
Regional teachers’ councils
1, 2016, fr
http://q.org/programs/arabic-language-and-culture/regional-teacher-council.
Ryding, K. (2006). Teaching Arabic in the United States. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, and L. England (Eds.),
book for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century
(pp. 13–20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
STARTALK. (2016).
Summer 2016 programs: Eligibility, criteria, and priorities for selection
1,
2016, fr
om https://startalk.umd.edu/public/programeligibility.
Stevens, P. B. (2006). Is Spanish really so easy? Is Arabic really so hard? Perceived difculty in learning Arabic as
a second language. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, and L. England (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching
professionals in the 21st century
(pp. 35–63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language
8).
Here on ear
th: Radio without borders show on 12/08/2009
1, 2016,
from www.wpr.org/shows/here-earth-radio-without-borders-show-12082009-0.
Motivating Heritage Students
Research on heritage students has received considerable attention in recent years. According to
Lee and Oxelson (2006, p. 455), when heritage students lose their heritage language prociency,
this reects not only a linguistic loss but also a separation of heritage students “from their roots”
heritage students in the same classroom and recommended a separation of both g
roups. A
number of
resear
chers also examined the linguistic prociency level of heritage students in relation to oral/aural
and written skills. In addition, several factors that de
motivate heritage students fr
om learning their
heritage language, namely, language instruction, educational material, students’ cultural backgrounds,
agree with pr
evious researchers that teaching heritage language students poses a great challenge for
both students and teachers. In an attempt to contribute to previous research, I
was urged to conduct
the present pilot study
. From among the different denitions of heritage language learners which
Motivating Heritage Students
to Acquire the Standard
that our heritage students have is that they come to our department while already having a stressful
experience from learning modern standard Arabic at school, a matter that causes de
motivation for
both students and instructor
establish their ties to their
herit
age language and culture.” In their study that has examined the linguistic levels of heritage students
taking Arabic at the American University in Cairo, their motivation and their parents’ motivation
toward their learning of the Arabic language, Ibrahim and Allam (2006) indicated that there are four
types of heritage students. These are heritage students that speak Arabic in their homes with one or
both parents speaking it; those with one parent of an Arab origin but Arabic is not spoken in their
homes; non-Arab Muslims whose connection to Arabic is for religious purposes; and those who are
studying in international schools, had never received instruction in modern standard Arabic, but they
are Arab living in Arab countries.
While examining students’ motivation to study their heritage language (Arabic), Ibrahim and
Allam (2006, p. 441) explained that their students reported that they are motivated to learn their
heritage language for religious purposes (Moslems), to learn how to read and write, to be acquainted
(2012) who stated that to motivate students, focus should be on their needs and that instruction
As for the linguistic prociency level of heritage language students, Wang and Garcoea (2002,
p. 3) noted that “there is a wide range of language prociency among heritage language students.” They
added that both linguistic and educational needs of heritage language learners vary from one group to
another. Wang and Garcoea (2002, p. 4) further emphasized that heritage students’ “linguistic skills may
be unevenly developed, and any of these skills may fall anywhere on the continuum from receptive/
passive at one point to productive/active at the other point.” According to Abuhakema (2012,
pp. 75–78) heritage students “come with varying levels of prociency in their respective dialects and
heritage students, Hong (2008, p
. 1) argued that “heritage students
are dened as those who surpass non
heritage in ter
ms of speaking and listening, and cultural compe
tence.” Kagan and Dillon (2008, pp. 141–151) further stated that heritage speakers are those “whose
rst language is no longer their dominant language.” They have near
native pron
unciation, but may
have problems with complex grammar forms and the use of advanced registers and vocabulary. These
students also have individual weaknesses or strengths based on their linguistic histories. Campbel and
Rosenthal (2000, p. 10) previously noted that heritage students have “limited literacy skills (reading
and writing).”
was responsib
le for creating and developing the teaching material.
students’ lives and sociolinguistic issues, with the linguistic and cultural content. According to Leslie
(2012, p. 29), “sociolinguistic education is of vital importance in a heritage language classroom.” Thus,
also adopted one of Leslie’s (2012,
. 50) “linguistic exercises” in both classes. In other words, to gauge my students’ opinions on a certain
topic, I
engaged them in a
class discussion where they came up with innovative conclusions. While
dealing with students’ writing errors, I
encouraged students’ cr
itical thinking about the language so
linguistic aware
linguistic awareness is
years old,
the stereotype of Egyptians in Arab countries, problems
motivating.
Arabic teachers did not teach in a fun way. They
also added that the Arabic class was not benecial and that attending it was not really strict and
mandatory, as it lacked a serious disciplined manner. They further added that they were forced to
memorize the information provided by heart without understanding it. One student expressed an
enjoyment doing the spelling tests. As for the intermediate students they stated that the teaching
true level of students of their age learning their heritage language. On the other hand, the interme
diate students stated that the educational material covered aimed at reecting the ideas included in
the assigned articles. In addition to the educational material used in Arabic class, heritage students
suggested including documentaries and short stories.
While investigating what heritage students want to see more of in the Arabic classes in relation to
movies in modern standard
Arabic. Another student recommended that each student should have
ten-minute conversations in the Arabic language with the professor daily. On the other hand, the
intermediate heritage language students recommended having projects related to real life problems,
watching movies/plays in Arabic, being helped to speak in classical Arabic, and learning more about
It is apparent that this pilot study has been an attempt to revive Arabic language instruction for
heritage language students. In other words, its aim was to change the stereotype of the stressful
Arabic language instruction at school. Teaching both classes of heritage language students was very
challenging and hectic for me as the instructor
however, students’ progress in the Arabic language
supports Wang’s and Garcoea’s (2002, p. 6) recommendation that the use of “innovative approaches
serves the needs of heritage language students.” Thus, the educational material developed in com
believe that r
esults of the present pilot study
might attract the attention not only of the teachers at the department of Arabic Language Instruc
tion but also of school teachers lacking the real experience and true knowledge of teaching Ara
bic to heritage language students. Since heritage language students’ stressful experience in Arabic
language instruction begins at school, I
agree with
Wang and Garcoea (2002, p. 7) who stressed
that as part of school systems, teachers should receive linguistic, educational, and pedagogical train
ing that provides them with knowledge and understanding of the “needs and socio
psychological
ientations of heritage students in order to maximize their instruction.” Students’ responses to
the open ended questionnaire conducted at the present study reinforced what has been stressed in
previous research. As stated by Corson (2001), Macias (2004), and Neito (2002) (cited in Lee and
Oxelson, 2006, p. 456), “teachers can play an inuential role in shaping students’ attitudes towards
the maintenance of their heritage language.” It is advisable to shed light on one of the comments
made by one of the students about learning the Arabic language at school. This student reported
that he or she did not know the grammatical structures and had to learn them all in one year. Such
a comment brings up Wang and Garcoea (2002, p. 8) who previously stated that “issues related
to the language system itself, such as pronunciation, vocabulary, and syntax must be incorporated
appropriate and contextualized manner.
” Based on the results of the present pilot study,
also support the establishing of training pr
ograms so as to develop the “necessary expertise in the
teaching of heritage languages” that was made by the UC Consortium for Language Learning and
Teaching (2002, p. 5).
This was previously emphasized by Heath (1983), McCarty and Zepeda (1995), Philips (1983),
Tharp and Gallimore (1990), and Vygotsky (1978) (cited in Wang and Garcoea, 2002, p. 6) who
stated that “teachers also need to engage in culturally responsive teaching so that every student may
participate in meaningful schooling experiences.”
Finally, it is worthwhile to conclude with the statements made by Lee and Oxelson (2006, p. 455)
that “heritage language maintenance is a matter worth serious consideration and investment from
I would highly appreciate your participation in this research paper that aims at improving the
teaching of the Arabic language so as to help you and your colleagues continue to study the standard
Arabic language and be procient in it. All your responses will be condential.
Thank you for your co
1.
For how long hav
e you studied the Arabic language at school?
What were your general thoughts about the
Arabic language class (at school) in relation to
Have you had an
y bad/good experiences while learning Arabic at school? Explain.
What did you like the most about the educational material co
vered in your Arabic class at AUC?
What did you like the least about the educational material co
vered in your Arabic class at AUC?
What would you like to see mor
e of in Arabic classes in future:
Educational material cover
Adapted from Maria Estling Vannestål, 2008
Abuhakema, G. (2012). Heritage and non
heritage language learners in
Arabic classrooms: Inter and intra
group
beliefs, attitudes and per
ceptions.
Journal of the National Council of Less
Commonly Taught Languages (
, 73–106.
Campbell, R., and Rosenthal, J. (2000). Heritage languages. Chapter
8.
. In Torres, K. (2011).
Heritage language learners’ perceptions of taking Spanish language classes: Investigat
attitudes toward students’
heritage language.
Bilingual Research Journal
(2), 453–477. University of Califor
nia, Santa Barbara.
Gardner, R. C. (2006). The socio-educational model of second language acquisition: A research paradigm. In
Temples, A. (2010). Heritage motivation, identity, and the desire to learn Arabic in U.S. early adolescents.
Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages (JNCOLCTL) 9
, (pp. 103–132).
Heath (1983), McCarty and Zepeda (1995), Philips (1983), Tharp and Gallimore (1990), and Vygotsky (1978).
In Wang, S., and Garcoea, M. (2002).
Heritage language learners
. US: National Council of State Supervisors of
Foreign Languages (NCSSFL).
Hong, S. (2008). The role of heritage students in incorporating culture into language teaching. In Renganathan,
V. (Ed.),
South Asia language pedagogy and technology
(Vol. 1). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Ibrahim, Z., and Allam, J. (2006). Arabic learners and heritage students redened: Present and future. In Wahba,
K. M., Taha, Z. A., and England, L. (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century
(pp. 437–446). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Kagan, O., and Dillon, K. (2008). Issues in heritage language learning in the United States. In
Encyclopedia of
(pp. 143–156).
Kelleher, A. (2010). Who is a heritage language learner?
Heritage Briefs
, University of California, Davis.
Lee, J., and Oxelson, E. (2006). “It’s not my job”: K
12 teacher attitudes toward students’
heritage language.
gual Research Journal
(2), 453–477.
Leslie, S. (2012).
The use of linguistics to improve the teaching of heritage language Spanish
. Bachelor of Arts Thesis.
Mango, O. (2011). Arabic heritage language schools in the United States.
Heritage Briefs
, Center for Applied
Linguistics, California State University, San Bernardino.
& Teaching,
Temples, A. (2010). Heritage motivation, identity, and the desire to learn Arabic in U.S. early adolescents.
Journal
Commonly Taught Languages (
, (pp. 103–132).
Torres, K. (2011).
Heritage language learners’ perceptions of taking Spanish language classes: Investigating perceptions
Teaching and Learning
Content-Based Instruction and Curriculum
Arabic for Specic Purposes
Arabic has been a language with a global reach beyond the Arab Middle East and North Africa,
where it is natively spoken. Motivations for learning Arabic are mounting across many academic dis
ciplines and occupational domains, heralding unprecedented need for creating and teaching courses
with specialized content. These specic purposes, dened in this chapter within the genre analysis
paradigm shift is called for in Arabic,
where lan
11, 2001, and
the subsequent second military invasion
of Iraq in 2003. These, along with the designation of Arabic in the United States, for example, as a
language critical to the U.S. national security have contributed in no small part to the unprecedented
growths in enrollments and spread of Arabic learning as a foreign language across the broad spectrum
of educational institutions in the United States. Although interest in Arabic has been steadily growing
in the United States over the last half century, as the data in Table
14.1 indicate, in
11,
2001, per
iod spikes in enrollments reached 126.65% followed by another staggering 45.5%.
The data in Table
14.1 suggest g
rowth in enrollment in Arabic in the U.S. schools and universities
overall is steady, even if the rates of growth periodically uctuate. Manifested in the dramatic rise in
national enrollment gures in post-secondary education institutions from 5,505 in 1998 to an all-
time high enrollment of 34,908 in 2009,
Arabic has, thus, rmly secured a solid ranking within the
fteen most commonly taught languages in the United States. Worthy of note is that of the 32,286
enrollments reported in 2013 by MLA, 27,563 are in introductory courses compared to only 4,102
Year
Source
(web publication, February
2015), https://apps.mla.org/pdf/2013_enrollment_survey.pdf
mentioned in Hee-Man (2006, p. 97), where Korean companies eagerly supported Arabic studies at
Hankuk University in the late 1970s in order to help developing prociency in Arabic suitable for
the workplace. According to Hee-Man, attainment of prociency in Arabic is also believed to open
career opportunities with Korean companies, such as Samsung and Daewoo. From the foregoing,
ample evidence suggests that beyond the historical import of teaching Arabic for religious purposes,
there is observable broadening of its utility in other disciplines such as security, business, media, legal,
which should serve as a catalyst for learning and teaching ASP.
With these rising global demands in mind, a few questions beg for answers. What possible impact
should these dramatic changes and prospects have on the stakeholders of a given Arabic program? Relat
offer a brief
overview of selected representative instructional materials for teach
ing and learning Arabic across various specic disciplines in order to shed light on the developments
that have taken place until now. Within this review, I
examine the current challenges facing ASP
and offer some recommendations for further pro
gress in ASP, which is growing in a wide range of
ASP, in the light of the operational denition, is a relatively new eld of academic interest and
pedagogical practice in most domains. Up to now, research efforts have, outside the religious and
specically Islamic domain, focused largely on the lexicographical aspect of ASP as evidenced in
the production of a considerable number of bilingual print, and increasingly electronic, dictionaries
containing domain-specic technical terms.
These came about most often as a result of the com
piling lexicographer’s own endeavor. Thus, they are vulnerable to the following: (a) the intuitions
of the author, (b) randomness of selection of terms, (c) not as one might expect, as research-based,
collective, collaborative efforts of the material developer and members of a professional organiza
tion. Hence, they are not based on systematic, data-driven research. Two important implications for
ASP emerge from this state of affairs: Lack of collective conscious effort to standardize the “techni
cal” terms in a given eld by its practitioners, and the assumption that terminological knowledge
of “core vocabulary,” in Kendall’s terms (2012, p. 1), in the discipline is central to achieving com
Beginning with one of the earliest motivations for teaching Arabic, religious purposes, as stated ear-
Supplementing this vast array of literary pieces is a bilingual glossary of approximately eighteen hun
dred entries (Frangieh, 2005, p. xvi). Primacy of lexicon in this work cannot be overlooked, especially
when one considers the author’s example of historical meaning shifts in certain vocabulary. This is
the case with the word
jadd
, for example, which the author highlights in the ninth century poems
of Abu Tammam: Its meaning ‘good luck,’ the author points out, is at signicant variance with its
contemporary meaning as ‘grandfather.’
This literature compendium contains an array of genres across centuries and, as the author aptly
notes, “does not merely teach the Arabic language .
., it illustrates the wa
y the Arabs have thought and
argued throughout the ages, carrying within its pages a wealth of cultural understanding” (Frangieh,
2005, p. xvi). It represents, therefore, a fertile ground to be plowed for the nonnative Arabic learner to
the specics of a given literary genre and its diachronic evolution across the Arabic-speaking world.
A more recent textbook series,
Mastering Arabic Through Literature
by Soliman and Alwakeel (2014)
is a three-part, genre-based series on modern Arabic literature comprising short stories, drama, and
191
the article was extracted, and any navigational tools that might aid the aspiring readers of Arabic news
papers. Visuals, such as proportions of the original titles to subtitles and body of the article, graphics,
& A
These questions beg for future curr
icula and teaching approaches that go beyond merely cover
ing the “essential” or “canonical” literature in a given Arabic program. For example, how condent
process in Arabic, or conceive of solutions for a struggling family-owned company in the Arab world,
as someone who could in the future assume a business consultant function? These questions expose
the limitations in the utility of the existing instructional materials in ASP and guide us towards the
many possibilities for future development and growth.
We then turn our focus to instructional materials developers themselves and the challenges they
face. So far, existing materials suggest that they are author-based rather than being based on assessment
of the learners’ and other stakeholders’ needs, motivations, and goals. Selection of materials and their
arrangement is largely dependent on the author’s subjective conception of its relative importance
rather than data-driven objective criteria. Though materials are authentic overall, the tasks for which
they are used may not always be so. Acquisition and knowledge of specialized and technical terms is
awarded a central place in ASP materials development and it seems indispensable to functioning in
the specialized domain. Topic or theme selection is based on the author’s own understanding of the
discipline to which the content materials belong rather than expertise and practices of the eld itself.
surpasses that of the course instructor. Whereas the earlier group lacks knowledge of language, culture,
and content, the latter lacks only language and culture. Similarly, teaching a business Arabic course in
the Arabic-speaking world should require a different approach than that used when teaching the same
course in the United States or any other non-Arabic speaking environment. Immediacy of language
use and content learned play a role in the latter situation more than in the former. Gollin-Kies, Hall,
and Moore (2015, p. 77) highlight the context (immediate, non-immediate use) of LSP teaching and
how closely it affects course planning as does the “specicity of purpose,” which can “vary enormously.”
surmise that most, if not all,
ASP practitioners are self-trained. This state of affairs
is not unique to Arabic. Master (1997) nds most teachers of English for specic purposes, too, are
“still largely left to their own resources when it comes to teacher education” (p. 34). This represents
a challenge for the teacher but also for the eld. Individual teachers must not only understand the
students’ needs but also their own learning needs in the discipline. For the eld there are no widely
shared standards of learning in content-based instruction. One possible reason for this educational
lacuna is the perception that teachers’ education and training for general language is sufcient for
every level of language, and by extension for content courses too. In LSP, on the other hand, inex
which curricula are developed in these cases is also unmatched in the development of materials
belonging to domains distant from humanities. (Some would argue that literature is the closest kin
to language studies—certainly more than business and law, for example). That the course developer
is a researcher in the same eld or in a eld closely linked to language does not guarantee excellence
in the delivery of instruction. The passion that the researcher may have is often linked to a very spe
cialized subgenre of literature, for example, which nonnative learners may not appreciate or nd as
engaging as the instructor-researcher does. So, what basis should inform the design of an ASP course?
Should it be the research interests of the course designer, the perceived interest of the learner, or the
In LSP research, needs analysis of stakeholders has been emphasized frequently but not always fully
implemented, when a program contemplates offering an LSP course. Belcher (2009, p. 3) and Gollins-
Kies (2015, p. 84) emphasize the primacy of needs as they wrote “Needs First” and “needs analysis
is often referred to as the most important part of LSP,” respectively. West (1997) offers a historical
shops focused on education and research in the specialized discipline. An example is the Center for
International Business Education and Research (CIBER), which periodically sponsors conferences,
workshops, and webinars (e.g., George Washington University, Arizona State University, University
of Colorado at Boulder in recent years) that tackle important aspects of teaching and developing
business language materials for instruction. Though these are by no means comprehensive they pro
vide useful training and provide resources for further connection and communications among peers
On the material production front, co-development of materials and instructional techniques with
a subject-matter expert could help lessen the burden for ASP instructors, who in such cases would
not need to invest an inordinate amount of effort on gaining the necessary knowledge of the dis
cipline in order to carry out their instructional tasks. In this vein, learning outcomes could be
in the classroom.
If cooperation with the subject expert is not possible the ASP course material
developer should consider what Dudley-Evans (1980, cited in 1997, p. 63) calls “grasp the
of a subject his students are studying if he is to understand fully how language is used to
represent that structure.”
have
about growth is even truer today, considering Arabic in the United States has rmly established a
national ranking among some of the most studied foreign languages. With this acquired status comes
pressure for developing curricula and teaching courses that cater to the growing needs of nonnative
In spite of the lowered national enr
ollments by this small percentage, the number of institutions reporting
Arabic programs increased over the same period from 565 to 588 (MLA, 2013 report).
MLA Report “Enrollments in Languages Other
tion, Fall 2013” (web publication, February
2015), https://apps.mla.org/pdf/2013_enrollment_sur
vey.pdf.
In an MLA 2013 report this gure was lowered to 32,286 representing a loss of 7.5%. However, there is
In business and economics, for example,
A dictionary of business terms: English-Arabic
, by Ghali and Ghali, 1997;
insurance eld:
A dictionary of insurance terms English-Arabic
, by Treky, 1985; legal: Faruqi,
Faruqi’s English-Arabic
law dictionary
(multiple editions); religious:/Quranic:
Arabic-English dictionary of Qur’anic usage
, by Badawi, 2008.
Only male authors are included in the selections.
See (Fakhri 2014:6), mov
e analysis (inspired by Swales 1990), which he aptly utilized in the analysis of Arabic
legal texts in court opinions and
fatwas
See Lear (2012) for benets and examples of community service learning to the for
eign language learner.
Naumes, William,
& craft of case writing
. London and New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
Ashtiany, J. (1993).
Media Arabic
. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Badawi, E.-S., and Abdel Haleem, M. (2008).
Arabic-English dictionary of Qur’anic usage
. Leiden: Brill.
Belcher, D. (2009). What ESP is and can be: An introduction. In D. Belcher (Ed.),
English for specic purposes in
theory and practice
(pp. 1–20). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Boutros, M. (2005).
Arabic for designers
. New York: Mark Batty Publisher.
Diouri, M. (2013).
Dudley-Evans, T. (1997). Five questions for LSP teacher training. In R. Howard and G. Brown (Eds.),
Teacher
(pp. 58–67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Elgibali, A., and Korica, N. (2014).
Media Arabic: A
course book for reading Arabic news
. Cairo: American University
Press, 2007 (Revised and updated ed.).
Evans, M. (2013).
Security Arabic
. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fakhri, A. (2014).
Fatwas
& court judgments:
genre analysis of Ar
. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Felber, H. (1981). The Vienna school of terminology: Fundamentals and theory.
Info term Series
, 69–86.
Faruqi, H. (1985).
Faruqi’s English-Arabic law dictionary
. Beirut: Libraire du Liban.
Ferguson, G. (1997). Teacher education and LSP: The role of specialist. In R. Howard and G. Brown (Eds.),
Teacher education for LSP
(pp. 80–89). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Frangieh, B. K. (2005).
Anthology of Arabic literature, culture, and thought: From pre- Islamic times to the present
. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ghali, W. R., and Ghali, A. J. (1997).
A dictionary of business terms English-Arabic
. Beirut: Libraire de Liban.
Goldberg, D., Looney, D., and Lusin, N. (2015).
Institutions of higher education, Fall 2013
. Web publication, February. www.mla.org/Resources/Research/
Surveys-Reports-and-Other-Documents/Teaching-Enrollments-and-Programs/Enrollments-in-Lan
guages-Other-Than-English-in-United-States-Institutions-of-Higher-Education/Enrollments-in-Lan
Gollin-Kies, S., Hall, D. R., and Moore, S. H. (2015).
Language for specic purposes
. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Haddad, T., and Wahbe, A. (1932).
Medical Syllabus in the Colloquial Arabic of Syria and Palestine
. Beirut: American Press.
Hee-Man, S. (2006). Teaching Arabic in Korea. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, and L. England (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic
language teaching professionals in the 21st century
(pp. 97–105). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
case study of non-Arab Muslims in the
Arabic
classroom
This chapter presents an original research that aims to provide a path towards addressing a long-
standing problem in the teaching of the Arabic language to native speakers. Using an interdisciplinary
approach, this research focused on the development of technology-based curriculum for the teach
ing of Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) to 5 to 6-year-old (kindergarteners) Arabic native speakers.
An Innovative Technology-Based Curriculum
for Teaching Arabic to Native Speakers
university students specializing in the Arabic language could not differentiate which words in their
dialects were MSA.
The ineffectiveness of teaching and learning Arabic in some Arab countries can be read in almost
daily articles written in different newspapers discussing the issue and reporting that the Arabic lan
guage is in danger. Ibrahim summarized the situation, after surveying more than 2,000 Arabs, by
saying
It becomes obvious from the results above that there is a conict within the respondents (Arabs)
towards their language. It is a love-fear relationship as one of the respondents described it. This is
positive climate can energ
ize
students’ learning, especially if this climate is also supported by a physical conguration which affords
socialization and emotional involvement with peers. Enacting a student-centered curriculum should,
ideally, entail, as a rst step, physically positioning students at the center of the classroom.
201
In addition, we know learning and performance are best supported when students engage
contingency:
teacher support adapted to the cur
rent level of a student’s performance
fading:
the gradual withdra
wal of scaffolding
transfer of responsibility:
the increased contr
ol in learning the student assumes
The design applied in the study followed an empirical case-study approach. The main aim of
Preliminary Considerations
In the initial schedule of the designed curriculum, students were supposed to be taught one new
203
The class of the research project had 18 Qatari students (nine boys and nine girls), native speakers of
main objective
of the soundboard was to build ne
w vocabulary and also change the pronunciation of some words
that are used in the dialect to the MSA (many words that exist in the dialects are MSA, but the pro
nunciation is different). Figure
15.1 illustrates the soundboard activity
Although the original research intended that each group of students (ve to six) would be lis

Soundboard game.
205
writing activities. The writing activities were performed in two ways: on paper, and on the surface
computers. The affordances of these two mediums and the way they were utilized offered two differ
ent learning experiences to the students.
The teacher, during the rst class which the LPI attended, introduced the writing immediately
15.2 illustrates the writing activity
. Actually each table had four work spaces so each mem
ber of a group of four would be carrying out the activity at the same time.
After using the tables rst in writing, the LPI observed that the students felt more comfortable

For the following activities, students were asked to form groups and always answer after consult
ing the group members.
al. (2009) has pro
ven that the multi-touch technology encourages the students
to have task-focused decisions whereas single-touch technology encourages turn-taking discussion.
al. (2009), offer a deeper discussion of the

207
Following our pedagogical approach of alignment and scaffolding, our goal was to attempt to
connect all activities. Since the story the class covered was Aladdin and the Magic Lamp, if the stu
dent chose the correct word, Aladdin’s image popped up as a reward; if it was a wrong choice, the
magician image popped up, as illustrated in Figure
15.4. The use of these images w
class activities (the story, the instruction, and the games) into a unied whole instead of individual
or sporadic activities. The table was split into two, allowing two or three students to form a team

correct pair
ing refers to images that depict items that start with

209
these items are pronounced in MSA. The students can have as many tries as they need to connect
the correct images into pairs.
shows the interf
ace of the Pairs application.
Initially, the students did not like playing this game, because, as they said, it was too hard for them.
By the time we were ending the nine weeks, students began to like the Pairs game and asked to play
it. An additional version for two teams of students was developed.
The most important result of these games was actually reported by the class teacher in February of
2014, when she told us that despite the long vacation the students had, the research class came back
remembering everything, whereas the control class did not remember anything and she had to start

Pairs application.
Listening (Storytelling) Activity
Koki’s (1998) article titled “Storytelling: The Heart and Soul of Education” describes the role of sto
rytelling in class. Koki quotes both Wright (1995) and Van Groenou (1995) in expressing that story
telling is the heart of a language and in orality as a means for cognitive growth respectively. The main
vehicle to deliver information to the students in the project is an adapted version of the famous and
loved Arabic folklore story of “Aladdin and the Magic Lamp.” Although the story is known through
many variations, it is very often enriched with additional episodes and characters that t different
contexts. Our version, based on the original story, excluded parts that would be too violent for the
students and not suited for their age, while maintaining all the aspects of Arabic heritage, along with
short additions that would emphasize the pedagogical teachings of the narrative (e.g., Aladdin has
211
). Although
as linked to a sound le related to the part of the story related to the image, this feature
was muted due to the classroom's physical space constraints. The students could have as many tries
as they needed to put the scenes in the right sequence. The system points out if a scene is placed in
the right position, and the students had the chance to watch the scene repeatedly to end up with the
correct answer. After all scenes were placed correctly, the students had the option to watch the whole
episode sequence they recreated as a reward. Alternatively, they could start over or go back and select

Storyboarding application. The images of the scenes of the episodes are scattered on
the screen and students need to place them in the right order.
After the third episode, the storyboarding activity was performed right after an episode was shown.
Students’ performance increased dramatically, jumping to 50% success rate for the next two episodes,
having four and six scenes respectively, and reaching 69% in episode eight, containing ve scenes.
Despite some errors during the activity, students in all the tables were able to put the scenes in the
Love
.” Some of the students asked the LPI to have these games on their IPads.
Moreover, there was no class on Thursdays so some of the students would go every Thursday
during their break to the teacher and ask her to have a class. The teacher, as an integral part of this
research, used to submit a weekly report and in most of them she mentioned that the parents who
213
connections to her children’s names with their own siblings and comparing her country with theirs.
Actually, one anecdote is extremely important to mention about the students’ linguistic skills. In one
of the classes, the LPI asked the class teacher about how to say the word joke in the Qatari dialect
and before the teacher could respond, one of the students said the word.
Dr. Papadopoulos was a postdoctoral research associate at Carnegie Mellon University, Qatar, when this
research w
as carried out.
Dr. Karatsolis was an assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University, Qatar, when this research was carried out.
It is as well called
Both terms “colloquial” and
“dialect” are used interchangeably in Arabic.
www.samsung.com/us/business/displays/dig
There are four short v
owels in Arabic. Short vowels in Arabic are not written inside the word. They are
“Excluding Speakers of the Dominant V
215
Papadopoulos, P. M., Ibrahim, Z., and Karatsolis, A. (2015). Educational games for early childhood: Using table
research.
Educational Psychology Review
Arabic Teaching and Learning
Classroom Language Materials and
Language Corpora
Lynn Whitcomb and Sameh Alansary
Using Linguistic Corpora
This chapter discusses various ways in which linguistic corpora can be employed within Arabic foreign
language teaching and learning to assist students in achieving their goals and to help teachers pro
vide effective instruction. We review a number of Arabic corpora which have been created and discuss
straightforward applications, such as how corpora serve as rich sources for students to take as models
in using the language, and for instructors to identify authentic sample language tokens to use in cur
riculum and materials creation
We also briey consider the potential usefulness of corpora in efforts to address Arabic’s sociolin
guistic realities for students. We reect on how these corpora help students within the foreign language
classrooms to engage with Arabic as a living modern language which possesses a long and elegant lit
erary tradition, as well as a dynamic contemporary written form and diverse regional spoken dialects
corpora
(singular: “corpus”) offer much to the Arabic language student and teacher alike. From
the early stages of learning core syntax—in which students struggle with the absence of the copula or
simple, present “to be” verb in basic nominal sentences—through learning the correspondence pat
terns for particle verbs and coming to accept that, in speaking Arabic, one really does say the equivalent
of “to draw near
,” linguistic corpora (as large collections of authentic language use) can provide
important input for the language learning process. When students advance further, examining corpora
during editing of their essays provides the tools to strive towards native-like production, enhancing their
million native speak
ers
across many different nations.
Historical Discussion (Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign
Language—TAFL)
Foreign Language Teaching
Lynn Whitcomb and Sameh Alansary
Lynn Whitcomb and Sameh Alansary
viewed as the standard
par excellence
. Although as Kennedy (2014) observes, a text
may
constitute a
corpus, these earlier teaching approaches share relatively little with what we would consider corpus-
based language teaching today. These “grammar and translation” teaching frameworks also bear little
resemblance to the majority of foreign language instruction around the U.S. at this time. The Foreign
Language eld as a whole has cycled through different characterizations of communication and
221
. termed
‘general corpora’ or ‘reference corpora’, while others attempt to represent a par
ticular kind of language use and are termed ‘specialised corpora’
” (p. 4).
ware of some of these unresolved “big picture” issues in corpus lin
guistics, for our purposes of adopting linguistic corpora as resources for foreign language instruction
it is mainly important to clarify concerns relating to the creation and manipulation or searching of
the corpora themselves. Both Cheng and Kennedy observe that many factors play important roles
in the compilation of a corpus. For example, Cheng (2012, p. 4) notes that the issues of length and
Lynn Whitcomb and Sameh Alansary
Whereas the situation as far as availability and ease of working with English language corpora has
vastly improved, such that
By the 1990s, improvements in personal computers
. and the av
ailability of commercial soft
ware packages designed for corpus analysis, have meant that most corpus linguists can now con
centrate not on how to program and use a computer but on problems and issues in linguistics
which can be addressed through a corpus.
(Kennedy, 2014, p. 7)
And Cheng heralds the fact that
. the dev
elopment of fast and reliable corpus linguistic software has gone hand in hand with
the growth in corpora. The software can do many things, such as generate word and phrase
frequencies lists, identify words that tend to be selected with each other such as
black + white
number of corpora ar
e available online, or commercially, with built-in software and user-
friendly instructions.
(Cheng, 2012, pp. 3–4)
It is very important to acknowledge here that corpus resources in Arabic have developed much
more slowly than in the commonly taught, Latin script European languages. In fact, English is the
and digitizable Arabic texts. Progress has been impeded by a lack of accurate and efcient tokenizers,
taggers, morphological analyzers, and optical character readers capable of handling Arabic, all tools
which are generally benecial for developing a corpus.
One specic and prevalent challenge has been the “tagging” or annotation of individual elements
within corpus texts to identify part-of-speech (POS) and other characteristics. This has proven to
be a difcult task for machines and, as a consequence, creating an Arabic corpus has been viewed
by many as an extremely labor-intensive process, requiring a great deal of human Native Speaker
(NS) review to ensure that “tagging” is accurate. In the corpora descriptions that follow, we will see
that one corpus of Arabic language material is formatted to conduct only a cursory POS evaluation,
which it carries out as a part of the search process itself leaving “checking” of the POS to the user
in his or her use of the results. For pedagogical, as opposed to research purposes, we will see that this
turns out not to be especially problematic.
Regardless of continued debate within corpus linguistics on the question of “representativeness”—
In fact, these advantages of corpora are important for Arabic language instruction in particular
tagged reference cor
pus of 200,000 words and an indexed marked
up corpus of 200,000 words were also generated.
The English/Arabic Parallel Corpus was developed at the University of Kuwait and funded by
the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (Al-Ajmi, 2004). Its aim was to improve
bilingual dictionaries and to develop collocational dictionaries, as well as being available for use in
Lynn Whitcomb and Sameh Alansary
teaching and research. The current size of the corpus is three million words, which is considered to
be the prototype with future plans to increase its size. The texts of the corpus are derived from the
series
‘Aalam Al-Ma’rifa
(the World of Knowledge), which is published by the National Council of
word por
tion of this corpus has been tagged for part-of-speech.
Bibliotheca Alexandrina (BA), Egypt, has initiated a large project to build the “International Corpus
of Arabic (ICA),” striving to provide an extensive, publicly available, representative Arabic corpus
reecting usage across the Arab world, in order to support linguistic research on the language. Upon
million words of wr
itten Modern Standard Arabic
selected from a wide range of sources designed to represent a wide cross-section of written Arabic.
The ICA is similar to the well-known International Corpus of English (ICE), in terms of concept
more so than in design. Through its design and compilation, the ICA aims to build an international
corpus of MSA material from every Arab country that uses Arabic as ofcial language, in the same
way that ICE attempts to cover the English-speaking world. In addition, however, the ICA team has
decided to include important Arabic publications from outside the Arab nations, reecting the fact
that several well-known and widely read newspapers are produced outside the Arab world, but are
distributed and consumed both within and without its borders (i.e., ash-Sharq al-AwSaT, al-Hayat).
Despite this shared overarching concept, ICE and ICA differ in terms of other corpus design
criteria and data compilation. For example, Egyptian Modern Standard Arabic constitutes the largest
a sample of a xed size (one million words) was taken from each country that uses English as
an ofcial language.
One of the anticipated advantages of corpus-based research with this particular tool is that the
ICA can be used to show how samples from different parts of the region may reveal subtle differences
in usage norms. Although written MSA is generally regarded as fairly uniform, the size of the Arabic-
speaking world ensures that there will be some differences among writers in word choice, relative
frequencies of alternate, equivalent constructions (i.e., use of a verbal noun/gerund/
particle/
followed by a conjugated present tense/
verb) or other features. Research using a
corpus such as the ICA will allow identication of regional or sociolinguistic patterns in these
million Ara
bic w
ords and is a tool for Arabic learners, teachers, and researchers around the world via the web
interface at http://arabiCorpus.byu.edu, requiring only an email address to log-in. In the announce
ment of this resource on the website of the National Middle East Languages Resource Center
(http://nmelrc.org/online-arabic-corpus), Parkinson explicitly invokes potential applications in
TAFL as he describes its purpose,
This tool can be used to nd citations for lexicographical and scholarly purposes, but it was
also designed with the advanced student of Arabic in mind. The hope is that teachers will be
able to send students to this site with the instruction to nd 5–10 good examples of a particular
word, construction or idiom, and it will motivate the students to search about and discover the
language on their own.
ArabiCorpus contains primarily formal, written Arabic (a.k.a.,
), and is divided into several
Lynn Whitcomb and Sameh Alansary
transliteration system is specied to facilitate use by indi
to type in a search request written in Arabic. As a natural language corpus of (primarily) written texts,
ArabiCorpus contains language that illustrates clearly the usage of particular words or phrases in NS
writing, including prototypical uses, less common uses, and typographical or other errors.
The corpora previously described all represent important steps along the way toward increasing our
insights into the Arabic language, and the ongoing project of the ICA promises more interesting
results as its phases unfold. However, the clear majority of the examples given herein are intended
primarily as research corpora/tools, and are difcult or impossible for unafliated individuals to use,
even if they were aware of their existence. Within the TAFL eld, such resources appear to be pri
marily known only among specialists with one foot in another discipline, one closely related to cor
pus linguistics. Consequently, the resources that exist are underutilized, and students and instructors
are unable to derive the vast potential benets which linguistic corpora can provide to the foreign
language teaching and learning endeavor. Described next is an example of a small project that suc
ةفیظو لصح
227
Going out-her daughter-for/to-the mother-to-permit (she-past)
attempting to respect the argument structure upon which they had drilled, but inappropriately plac
ing the two necessary prepositions with the wrong objects. This results in the intended verbal subject
(“the mother”) becoming object of the preposition “to,” and the element intended as that object
(“her daughter”) instead functioning as the activity which is being permitted!
These sorts of difculties suggested the rst candidate task for a corpus-based activity, because
Lynn Whitcomb and Sameh Alansary
حلل ينعم �
“there is no meaning to life and then (there is) death after that—unless one derives
enjoyment
“the true lover of soccer derives enjoyment when he sees with his eyes upon the
eld the mind/strategy of the coach”
In each of these examples, we fail to nd the prototypical usage which includes “from”/
. Instead,
another sort of element takes its place, but in a constrained manner, consistent with another dimen
sion or modication of meaning. Examples like these help students to begin to recognize not only
the prevalence of the prototypical structures, but also the sorts of contexts in which non-prototypical
uses may be possible.
Students additionally came across one or two confusing typos such as:
enjoyment [from]) in one of ArabiCorpus’ smaller newspaper sub-corpora,
Ahram
—1999, for
example, turned up this example:
ةحفص فلا
يلاوح اهفلم مضو ادھاش
يلا تعتمتساو ةسلج
اهل�خ تدقع ةلماك تاونس
ةمكاحملا تقرغتسا دقو .
in which the verb “to derive enjoyment [from]” was mistakenly written in place of a similarly
spelled verb meaning “to listen [to]” (
ىلإ عمتسا
). Through their encounters with ArabiCorpus, students
input or examples for students, such “learner corpora” are typically used to provide data to teachers
and researchers about the learners’ progress and to identify patterns of errors.
Norrbom, of the National Center for Assessment in Higher Education (NCA) in Saudi Arabia
has investigated the potential use of a “Learner/NNS corpus” as a data-based and objectively valid
means to extend the Common European Frame of Reference (CEFR) for linguistic and cultural
Lynn Whitcomb and Sameh Alansary
is necessarily “defective” or weak in any sense, but because the diversity of human creativity and the
continual change inherent in any living language mean that no book or curriculum will ever be
able to stay on top of it all). We need to recognize and acknowledge variation with our students, in
order that they not “lose faith” in our instruction and become overly discouraged by encountering it.
Acknowledging variation and helping students learn ways to research that variation—to see both
its extent and its limitations—is an effective approach to Foreign Language instruction in our current
information overloaded world. Our students “Google” their way into atrocious constructions and
collocations by consulting an unsophisticated linguistic corpus (“Google Translate”) naively, search
ing for a single word-to-word correspondence. In light of the availability of ArabiCorpus or other
among options, using a linguistic corpus can encourage them to consider meaning and structure
from an Arabic-oriented perspective and select a lexical item based on that criterion, rather than
expecting to immediately nd a convenient and straightforward word-to-word equivalent in the top
item mentioned in the listing. The corpora described here are not so much a new phenomenon in
the world of learners and language instruction; rather, they are an alternative and complement to the
many “corpora” and information sources which already constitute a part of our students’ daily lives.
As long as one accepted the presupposition that the Qur’aan and other classical texts, as the “best”
Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., and Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2016).
And, it should be noted, still harbors acti
Kennedy recommends Lancashire (1991) for mor
University College London (2011).
Our Research—Constructing Corpora: The International Corpus of
Ofce of Digital
Humanities, Brigham Young University, DH@BYU (2012). Research Projects: ArabiCor
pus. Provo, UT, from http://arabicorpus.byu.edu/
Consistent with the practice in Linguistics, the asterisk here is used to indicate an ung
rammatical usage.
Expanding the reach of foreign languages through digital humanities
, 6 F
ebruary
Abboud, P. F., and McCarus, E. N. (1983).
Elementary Modern Standard Arabic
. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Al-Ajmi, H. (2004). A
new English-Arabic parallel text corpus for lexico
graphic applications.
[Online],
27, 2016.
Alansary
, S., and Nagi, M. (2014). The international corpus of Arabic: Compilation, analysis and evaluation. In
The Proceedings of EMNLP Workshop
, Doha, Qatar, August.
231
Alosh, M. (2000).
Ahlan Wa Sahlan: Functional Modern Standard Arabic for beginners
. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni
versity Press.
Attar, S. (1988).
Modern Arabic: An introductory course for foreign students
. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.
Brustad, K., Al-Batal, M., and Al-Tonsi, A. (2011).
Al-Kitaab i Ta‘allum al-‘Arabiyya: A
textbook for beginning Arabic
Kassem M. Wahba
Materials Development in Arabic Language Learning
Language materials development is not only a practical activity for educators but also a relatively
new growing eld of academic inquiry in Arabic language education. It refers to the design, use,
adaptation, and evaluation of materials for language instruction (Tomlinson, 2012). Given the various
purposes for materials development, it is important for Arabic language educators to have compre
hensive overview of the available language materials to be informed of the main trends in the eld
of materials development and of the gaps in the literature that exist. Given the recent various needs
of both Arabic language programs and language learners, surveying and analyzing current language
materials helps language educators develop principles that enable teachers to write, use, evaluate, and
make proposals for future progress in both materials development and research.
This chapter briey reviews the history of Arabic language learning and teaching materials. It
also sheds lights on the current state of Arabic language materials by surveying a sample of Arabic
language textbooks. The chapter concludes with a discussion of several issues in the eld of teaching
Arabic as a foreign language as related to materials development and research, making recommenda
tions for future directions and research in the eld of Arabic language materials.
Language materials analysis and development is a relatively new eld of inquiry in teaching and
Language Learning and Teaching
Kassem M. Wahba
selected, annotated bibliography, and many other works in this eld have taken the form of individual
book reviews rather than comprehensive academic studies. Recently there have been more studies
on language material analyses such as Karin Ryding’s (2013, pp. 81–87) investigation of the issue of
Arabic language teaching materials in terms of selecting a textbook and using supplementing materi
als and reference works. In addition, she shed light on the limitations of using a textbook for both the
student and the teacher as well as how this limitation might be overcome. Wahba and Ishmael (2013),
and Wahba (2016) have attempted evaluations of three textbooks based on a systematic analysis of
Kassem M. Wahba
The approach followed by traditional grammarians of Arabic had the following characteristics:
The meaning-making of texts (i.e., oral and written) w
as central to their approach.
Knowledge of the formal features of
Arabic was applied (i.e., grammar and pronunciation) as a
necessary step for learners to acquire Arabic.
Following S
bawayhi, Arabic language materials as represented in grammar materials were mani
fested in many textbooks attempting to explain S
bawayhi’s
with the goal of correcting
learners’ mistakes in Arabic. For example, see
by Ibn al-Sarr
j (d. 928) to mention just
one. The language materials and the views of S
bawayhi have been carried through the centuries
beginning and
advanced
Table 17.1

Prociency levelNu. Of TextsTitle
Beginner1
Al-Tuff
sDied in 950
*It is a summary of
ji’s textbook in
century
Yaz
See Table
17.1 for an example of each prociency lev
We may note in Table
17.1 that the classication of grammar materials acr
oss prociency
levels seems to have started in the tenth century or earlier (see
Al-Tuff
w (The Apple
or The Fruit in Grammar) by Ab
far al-Na
s, Ab
far A

(d. 950)). This book was preceded by
The Brief
, written by Abu
s Mu
ammad ibn Yaz
d al-Mubarrad (d. 899). This trend of teaching Arabic with the
goal of either grammar simplication or explanation has continued to the present day. There
are many studies that traced the development of Arabic grammar from S
bawayhi’s
to
Kassem M. Wahba
al. (1971). Since then,
the EMSA textbook was widely used
in many American universities until 2000, and there are a few Arabic programs still using these books.
With the emergence of the prociency movement and its emphasis on all forms of Arabic (fus
Comprehensive Introductory Course
Tracing all Arabic language materials and their development along with describing their contents
is outside the scope of this chapter, and a review of Arabic materials, their impact on teaching and
learning Arabic, and their development through history would require a lengthy study of its own.
A brief review of the history of Arabic language teaching and learning reveals that grammar language
materials seem to have played a major role in Arabic language instruction and materials development reect
ing the philosophy of teaching and learning in the past, where accuracy concerns were often paramount.
With applying many teaching approaches such as the audio-lingual and the communicative approaches,
Arabic language materials have started to show diversity not only in applying different approaches but also
in the range of language skills emphasized and language components (e.g., grammar and vocabulary) as
well. The next section explores the reality of Arabic materials and what needs to be done.
The Arabic Language Materials Available: What Is There?
In the last few years, the number of people who want to learn Arabic has experienced remarkable
growth (Modern Language Association (MLA) report by Goldberg, D. Dennis Looney, and Natalia
Lusin 2015). This increase in the number of learners, with their various goals and needs in terms
of language prociency levels and content, has led to a concomitant increase in programs that has
outpaced the development of teaching materials for Arabic. The lack of the availability of Arabic
surve
y of technology supported materials (e.g., computer software, web-based programs, com
puter programs and resources such as CD-ROMs, and any type of multimedia resources) is outside
the scope of the present study.
The present short survey aims to give a descriptive overview of the available materials for Arabic
language in order to provide the Arabic language teacher professionals with estimated percentage g
ures on what is readily available and what remains to be done in the area of Arabic language material
development. The survey identied 410 textbooks currently available as part of the Arabic textbooks
Kassem M. Wahba
Table
17.2 shows Arabic as represented in the following three categories:
17.2 and Figure
17.1 show
also that the main trend in teaching Arabic as a foreign language is
to teach fus
/MSA as a primary goal in the majority of the Arabic language materials available. Teach
ing regional dialects usually comes only as a secondary goal. As for the integration of fus
/MSA with
regional dialects in learning Arabic as a foreign/second language, Table
17.2 shows such an approach to
not be a priority in TAFL education. Even though most TAFL literature has been addressing the diglossic
issue for a long time, it seems that attempts to take up the issue of diglossia in TAFL materials has not
gotten any sustained attention from the producers of Arabic language learning materials.
Classifying Arabic materials within fus
/MSA reects the following four categories:
b)
Vocabular
All language skills (i.e., materials that addr





\r\f \n\t\b\f\f
\f
\n\r\b\n 
\b
OM 410 TEXTBOOK
S


h
·


h
·
The next question is: how are language components represented in the fus
/MSA category?
Table
17.3 shows the percentage of g
rammar and vocabulary textbooks in comparison to general
As noted in Table
17.3 and in Figure
17.2, materials that addr
ess language skills represent the
highest percentage, followed by grammar (30.3%), content subject (11.3%), and vocabulary (5.5%).
This suggests that language skills and grammar represent the most important categories for Arabic
materials writers. In turn, content subject and vocabulary seem to be the least important categories
for creators of Arabic language learning materials.
Grammar materials represent an important category for Arabic learning materials. Despite the fact
that grammar materials come second after the all language skills category, as shown in Table
Figure
17.2, the category
“all language skills” contains a large amount of instructional grammar activ
ities. The high percentage of grammar materials not only indicates that instruction of grammar takes
a large amount of class time, it also reects how many Arabic language educators perceive teach
ing/learning Arabic. For many language teachers, the emphasis on grammar while teaching Arabic
yG
rammar
Content Subjects
All Language Skills
5.5
30.3
11.3
52.9
5
30.
3
11.
3
52.
9
FU TEXBOOKS CATEGORIES

Percentages of Arabic language materials across vocabulary, grammar
Table 17.3

The percentages of Arabic language materials
across grammar, vocabulary, all language skills,
/MSA Textbook Materials
Total Number of Textbooks 311 (100%)
Vocabulary
Kassem M. Wahba
may reect the perception of grammar as one of the most difcult aspects of Arabic language (See
Abdallah and Al-Batal (2011–2012, p. 12). As pointed out by Karin Ryding (2013, p. 211) “grammar
instruction has provided a base on which to build courses, syllabi, and materials.” Therefore, fus
MSA materials were grammar-based until 1980.
As for vocabulary, we may note also that vocabulary materials represent the smallest percentage
(5.5%) in Table
17.2. This means,
on the one hand, that there is a lack of materials designated for
learning vocabulary. This small percentage in vocabulary materials reveals the following contradic
tion: while material writers consider vocabulary to be one of the least important aspects in Arabic
language learning materials, Arabic language teachers also often assume it to be one of the most
difcult aspects (Abdalla and Al-Batal (2011–2012, p. 12). Nowadays, many Arabic language educa
tors, including Karin Ryding (2013) and Mahmoud Al-Batal (2006), think that learning vocabulary
should be the primary task for beginning Arabic students. Al-Batal (2006) points out that the eld
lacks any consensus on vocabulary learning strategies. In addition, he added that there is a lack of
research on vocabulary acquisition in Arabic (p. 332), continuing on to write that “learning vocabu
lary is the most important challenge that learners of Arabic face.”
The high percentage of materials in the language skills category and the lower percentage of
language materials in the content subjects category may reveal that the goal of most Arabic language
instruction is not to train learners to comprehend content materials but rather to provide language
activities without content.
The question we now face is: how are language materials distributed across the different language
Table
17.4 shows that while the combined language skills, r
eading, and pronunciation have the
highest percentages, writing, speaking, and listening have the lowest percentages. The presented dis
tribution indicates that language skills are neglected in Arabic language education materials (see
Figure
Table
17.4 shows that reading and pr
onunciation are the most highly represented language skills
in Arabic language materials. Since the combined language skills address more than one skill in com
bination, grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary are also relatively represented within the com
bined language skills category in addition to their representation in separate categories. The opposite
might be the same for listening, speaking, and writing skills. Since they are less represented as separate
language skills, they might also be less represented in the combined skills. This is supported by the
fact that, in addition to grammar, reading and pronunciation have been the most preferred language
skills for practicing throughout the history of Arabic language teaching (see the previous section of
the present article). These results contradict many teachers’ perceptions of the most important skills
for language learners. In a survey conducted with 209 college teachers of Arabic in the United States
(Abdalla and Al-Batal (2011–2012)) about their attitudes towards the importance of language skills
for Arabic language learners, speaking and listening were shown to be the most important skills, fol
lowed by reading, culture, and writing. Comparing Arabic teachers’ perceptions of the most impor
tant language skills for learners of Arabic with the available language materials designed for language
skills in the present sample reveals the following (see Table
Table 17.4
The percentages of Arabic language materials across separate and combined language skills.
/MSA Textbook Materials distributed across separate versus combined language kills
ReadingWritingSpeakingListeningPronunciation and Handwriting
Combined Language Skills*
7 (4.3%)7 (4.3%)3 (1.2%)
241





\r
\f \n
\b
\b 





  \r\n  

Percentages of Arabic language materials across separate versus combined language skills.
Table
17.4 shows that teachers’ perceptions of what is important for language learners in terms of
language skills does not correspond with the language skills emphasized in the av
ailable Arabic lan
guage materials. Though the teachers’ perceptions about speaking and listening skills comes as their rst
priority of what they perceive as important for language learners to learn, those same speaking and lis
tening skills come last in the available Arabic language materials. Also, whereas the survey reveals teach
ers’ perceptions that pronunciation was one of the most difcult aspects in learning Arabic, followed by
grammar (Abdalla and Al-Batal (2011–2012, p. 12)), the present survey shows pronunciation to have
the most highly available materials, following the categories of all language skills and reading materials.
This means that perceptions of Arabic language teachers do not always match the available language
materials or what actually happens in the classroom. Thus, Arabic language materials emphasize gram
mar, reading, pronunciation, and handwriting as the most important skills for nonnative speakers of
Arabic while speaking, writing, and listening remain somewhat neglected within those same materials.
This brings us to another question: how are language materials distributed across language levels?
Exploring how the available materials in fus
/MSA combine language skills textbooks versus sepa
rate language skills’ distribution across language levels reveals that 63.1% of the materials for fus
MSA focus on the beginning level (see Table
17.6). The amount of mater
ials decreases to 23.4% at
Table 17.5

Comparing Skills: Teacher Perceptions and Available Materials.
The survey of Arabic language teachers’ perceptions
Available language materials
Writing
Kassem M. Wahba













\r\f \n\t\b


  \n

\t \n

\t\n \n

\b

\b

\r\f

\f\n\r\r
\n




Table 17.6

h

Language Component/LevelBeginningIntermediateAdvanced
Reference Source
Total
Pronunciation and Handwriting24
Vocabulary
Total
the intermediate level, and to 13.5% at the advanced level. Table
17.5 re
veals that there is a lack of
materials at both the intermediate and advanced levels across all the language skills (both combined
and separate). Though MSA/fus
(Combined Skills) and reading skills have a higher percentage of
textbook distribution across all levels, with more textbooks located at the beginning level and less
textbooks at the intermediate and the advanced levels, writing, speaking, and listening skills are char
acterized by an overall lack of materials (see Figure
Table
17.7 shows that all the materials found for pr
onunciation and handwriting are at the begin
ning level. Thus, it seems necessary to have materials for pronunciation and handwriting improve
ment at both the intermediate and advanced level. Table
17.6 also shows that there is a lack of
ials for vocabulary across all levels. The distribution of grammar and content subjects seems to
go in opposite directions. Table
17.6 shows that although content subjects hav
e more materials at the
intermediate and advanced levels, grammar has more materials at the beginning level than at either
the intermediate or the advanced level. Reference materials are characteristic of both grammar and
vocabulary. Though grammar has more reference materials, such as reference grammar textbooks,
vocabulary has few reference textbooks (e.g., dictionaries and word lists).
Reference materials (e.g., dictionaries, reference grammar textbooks) are the main component for
learning foreign languages. They are the primary source for information about learning words and
grammar in Arabic. According to Karin Ryding (2013, p. 84) vocabulary acquisition is the most
“time-consuming learning activity that Arabic learners undertake.” It may be noted that although
vocabulary has recently been considered to be one of the most challenging aspects that learners face
in learning Arabic (Al-Batal, 2006), it represents a low percentage of reference materials (7). Refer
ence grammar materials have the highest number of textbooks (25) in comparison with the low
number of reference texts for vocabulary (7).
In general, the limited number of textbooks available at higher levels connes the Arabic language
Reference materials: dictionar
ies, reference grammar books, or source books for reading materials.
Grammar texts: either core
grammar series (going from beginning to advanced) or reference
books not typically used as student texts, but useful for both teachers and learners as specic
questions arise.
General language skill books: these books address more than one language skill.
The skills
addressed in those books range from two to four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and
writing). Some of these books put more emphasis on only two skills. Many series include a vari
Content subject books: books addressing literature (shor
t stories, media, history, religion, social

625


Vocabulary (V)
Writing (W)
Speaking (S)
6
1
Listening (L)
1
1
1
Content Subjects (CS)
4
14
17
713
Total
5246
Total%
(17.3%)(12.7%) (11.2%)100%
Kassem M. Wahba
15
8
4
2
1
6
0


REGION
EC
T TEXTBOOKS AC
RO
SS
GE LEVELS
Beginner

We may note in Table
17.8 that although most of the language materials for language var
The Nile Valley Reg
ion: Egyptian and Sudanese dialects
The Levantine Region:
Lebanese, Syrian, Palestinian, and Jordanian dialects
The Maghrib Region: Lib
yan, Tunisian, Algerian, Moroccan, and Mauritanian dialects
The Arab Gulf Region: Saudi,
Yemeni, Omani, Emirati, Kuwaiti, Bahraini, Qatari, and Iraqi
Figure
17.5 shows
the Arabic dialect textbooks for four different regions across language levels. It
may be noted that although the Nile Valley dialects have textbook materials distributed across the
three language levels, the other three dialect regions have textbooks only for the beginner and inter
mediate levels.
It may be noted also that most of the dialect materials are located at the beginning level, which
contains 60 textbooks. Fewer textbooks are written for the intermediate (six textbooks) and advanced
(seven textbooks) (see Table
17.8). The Egyptian and Sudanese dialects ar
e the only dialects that have
a relatively balanced distribution across language levels. The other three Arab regions do not have
materials designed for advanced learners. It may be noted that all regions have very few reference
materials (e.g., dictionaries) (see Table
Table 17.9

The regional arabic dialects across language levels The Nile Valley dialects (Egypt and Sudan) (N = 28).
Years/LevelBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedReferenceTotal


Total
Years/LevelBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedReferenceTotal


1950
7
1

2000
6
1
12
Total
The North African dialects (Lybia, Tunis, Algeria, Morocco, and Mauritania) (N = 11).
Years/LevelBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedReferenceTotal

1950
5
1
2
8
2000
2

Total
The Arab Gulf dialects (Saudi, Yemeni, Oman, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Iraq) (N = 28).
Years/LevelBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedReferenceTotal




16
2
1
2
21
2000
7


Total
Except for a few textbooks, e.g., Abbas al-Tonsi’s textbooks on Egyptian Arabic (see Al-Tunsi,
2010), most of the materials written for all the dialects are in Latin script. This trend has been adopted
17.6 shows that there w
ere no Arabic dialect materials across the Gulf region at the begin
As for the diglossia found in the Arabic language,
it may be noted that there are few textbooks
designed to address this issue. There is a need for materials that address how learners integrate the
Kassem M. Wahba
\r\f
abic Dialects Across Time

Table 17.10

Years/LevelBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedReferenceTotal




1
5
7
2000
2
1

6
10
17.10). This is a par
challenging skill, considering that even many native Arabic speakers nd it difcult to master.
for Teaching Arabic as a Foreign/Second Language and
Arabic language materials have passed through many stages of development since the rise of Islam.
247
The lack of pr
The present Arabic
language materials show gaps in addressing the following skills: listening,
writing, and speaking. This is reected in materials that deal with either each skill separately or
in an integrated manner with each other (See Ratio of Distribution Across Prociency Levels,
and Wahba, 2016).
The diglossic nature of Arabic poses a challenge for designing prociency-based language mate
rials. The vague goals of many Arabic programs about what learners should be able to do with
Arabic make it difcult for Arabic language writers to design materials that t what they need
(see Ryding, 2013). Should one use an integrated or a separated approach in approaching the
Kassem M. Wahba
and academic) of an Arabic program? Three concepts need to be adequately dened in Arabic
There is no question that the availability of mater
ials that deal with grammar is an important
for Arabic language instruction. However, grammar materials should be oriented towards the
functions of the grammatical structures and contexts in which these structures are used. Corpus-
based research needs to be done in that respect. Though there is an adequate amount of gram
mar materials to be used as reference materials, there is a lack of grammar materials presented
according to prociency in the various language levels.
There is a lack of material addressing v
ocabulary learning across various prociency levels in
Arabic (see Table
The selection of materials in many Arabic language pr
ograms follows more subjective criteria
than objective ones. It seems important for Arabic programs to base their selection of Arabic
materials on the goals of the programs and the needs of their learners.
The evaluation of textbooks appear
s through book reviews which do not reect an established
Research in Arabic language materials.
There is little research done on Arabic language materi
als. The role played by the Arabic language materials in the language acquisition process needs
empirical investigation. Several textbooks have played an important role in the eld of the
acquisition of Arabic as a foreign language. For example,
al-Kita¯b ¯ ta
Arabi¯yah
, by
K. Brustad, M. Al-Batal, and A. Tu¯nisi¯ (2004) or
Elementary Modern Standard Arabic
(EMSA)
al. (1968).
The effects of either one of them on the performance of their
users in terms of language acquisition and development need to be examined. According to B.
Tomlinson (2012, p. 9), this kind of study requires a longitudinal research involving the control
of many variables. However, materials development needs to be taken seriously as an academic
eld of inquiry.
The eld needs courses designed for materials dev
elopment that help teachers of Arabic develop
their own material.
Material evaluation,
analysis, and selection. Although many attempts have been made to establish
evaluative criteria through analyzing textbooks of English as a foreign language (e.g., Candlin
and Breen (1980), Cunningsworth (1984, 1995), Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2004)), there are
249
that used the same book in order to know the strengths and weaknesses and how their design
complements the goals of a particular program.” In addition, reviews by practitioners can be a
good source of information. Also in analyzing a textbook, everything the comes with it (e.g.,
DVDs, CDs, or MP3s) has to be examined and analyzed before coming up with a decision to
use it. This is what Littlejohn (2011) has referred to as an objective description of the materials
as they are. Thus, selection of a textbook is an accumulative and continuous process that starts
with an objective analysis of the materials, user feedback (i.e., teacher and student), and match
ing the textbook analysis with the program’s curriculum learning goals, pedagogy, and content.
Technology in Arabic language lear
ning materials and the future of materials development.
There is no question that technology provides resources to Arabic language teachers and stu
dents. It provides language learners and teachers with access to information, media materials,
Kassem M. Wahba
specic aims, approaches, and activities deserves a separate study. By surveying a sample of Arabic
language textbooks, the following was made clear:
Most of the materials dev
eloped are for the beginning prociency level in either fus
/MSA or
the regional dialects.
Reading skills are more emphasized than other skills.
Grammar materials occupy a large percentage of the total,
whereas vocabulary materials occupy
a small percentage.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of several issues in the eld of teaching Arabic as a foreign
language as related to materials development and research, posing some questions and making rec
ommendations for future directions in research with Arabic language materials.
This question was asked by Littlejohn (1992) for English language materials, and it is now time to
ask the same of Arabic language materials.
There are many types of Arabic language materials available to people involved with Arabic lan
guage education, including students, teachers, and administrators. Each one claims to provide some
language activities to achieve certain prociency in one or more language skills and in the language
components (e.g., grammar and vocabulary) and in various topics.
The lack of materials at the advanced level is due to the fact that neither programs nor professors
were ready to deal with higher levels of prociency. The speed at which Arabic language education
had to start dealing with the advanced level has outpaced teacher education and the creation of suit
able materials.
Moving from one philosophy to another takes time. The concept of prociency was introduced
at a time when the eld was not prepared to move in that direction. Taking into account the fact that
Arabic is a diglossic language and lling what is required in the ACTFL has been a challenge in terms
surve
professional and institutional proles and attitudes.
Al-’Arabiyya
, 1–28.
Abdel-Massih, E. T. (1978).
A comprehensive study of Egyptian Arabic
. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Near Eastern and
North African Studies, University of Michigan.
Al-Ani, S. H. (1990). Instructional materials for teaching Arabic as a second language: A
selected annotated, bib
graphy.
International Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies
(1), 1–30.
Al-Batal, M. (2006). Playing with words: Teaching vocabulary in the Arabic curriculum. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A.
Taha, and L. England (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century
(pp. 330–340).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Al-Mubarrad, A. (1965–69).
b al-muqtad
. Edited by Mu
aymah. al-Q
251
s, A. M. (1991).
. Cairo: Shubr
: Ma
Al-Naqah, M. K., andTo’eimah, R. A. (1983).
: Preparation, analysis, and evaluation
. Makka: Omm
al-Qurah University.
Alosh, M., and Clark, A. (2013).
Ahlan wa sahlan: Functional modern standard Arabic for intermediate learners
. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Al-Tunsi, A. (2010).
An intensive course in Egyptian colloquial Arabic
. Cairo: American University in
Cairo Press.
, A. A. I. (1986).
. Bayru¯t: Mu’assasat al-Ris
, M. U. (2004).
al-Mufas
Arabiyyah
n: D
r li-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawz
Badawi, E. S. (2006). Arabic for non-native speakers in the 21st century: A
shopping list. In K. M.
Wahba, Z. A.
Taha, and L. England (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century
(pp. xi–xvi).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Badawi, E. M., Yunis F. A., Zayed, I., Mirghani, J., al-Sahtri, H., Awwad, M., al-Naqa, M., Al-Hamdi, Y. (2008).
m al-Lughah al-‘arabiyyah li Ghayr al-N
na biha. Cairo: The American Univer
sity in Cairo.
Behnstedt, P., and Woidich, M. (2011).
Wortatlas der arabischen Dialekte
. Leiden: Brill.
Bernard, M. (2005). “The contribution of mawali to the Arabic linguistic tradition” in M. Bernard and J. Nawas.
(Eds.).
Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam
(pp. 426–453). Leiden: Brill.
Brustad, K., Al-Batal, M., and Tu¯nis
, A. (2004, 2006, 2010, 2011).
Arabiyya: A
beginning Arabic
.
& Heinle.
Candlin, C
. N., and Breen, M. (1980). Evaluating and designing language teaching materials. In
Practical papers in
(Vol. 2). Lancaster: Institute for English Language Education, University of Lancaster.
Carter, M. G. (2004).
Sibawayhi
. London: I.B. Tauris.
Cowan, D. (1958).
An introduction to modern literary Arabic
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cowell, M. (1964).
Reference grammar of Syrian Arabic, based on the dialect of Damascus
. Washington, DC: George
town University Press.
Cunningsworth, A. (1984).
Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching materials
. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995).
Choosing your course book
. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Furayh
ah, A. (1958) (2nd ed.).
The essentials of Arabic; a manual for teaching classical and colloquial Arabic
. Beirut:
Khayat’s.
Goldberg, D., Looney, D., and Lusin, N. (2013).
MLA report: Enrollments in languages other than English in United
& Heinle.
Harr
ell, R., and Sobelman, H. (Eds.). (1963).
A dictionary of Moroccan Arabic
history of its dev
elopment.
Al-Arabiyya
(1/2), 13–27.
McCarus, E. M. (1992). History of Arabic study in the United States. In A. Rouchdy (Ed.),
The Arabic language
in America
Kassem M. Wahba
Qasheh, H. A. (1975).
A basic course in gulf Arabic
. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press; Beirut: Librairie du
Richards, J. (2001).
Curriculum development in language education
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ryding, K. C. (2013).
Teaching and learning Arabic as a foreign language: A
guide for teachers
Washington, DC:
comprehensive introductory course
. Ithaca, NY: The Language Resource Center,
Cornell University.
Younes, M., Weatherspoon, M., Saliba, and Foster, M. (2013–2014).
‘Arabiyyat al-naas
. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ziadeh, F. J., and Winder, B. (1957).
An introduction to modern Arabic
Assessment, Testing and
John M. Norris and Michael Raish
Arabic Language Assessment
do Arabic teaching, and as a way of demonstrating the value of our language educational efforts.
Occasionally as well, assessments may serve to constrain what we do, or even to exert powerful social
forces that impact our professional lives and the life prospects of our students.
Traditionally in language education, the practice of assessment has been the purview of a handful
of experts who work outside of the educational environments within which assessments play out
The basic argument for Arabic language educators, then, is that they can and should develop suf
cient familiarity with language assessment to be able (a) to understand the qualities of and appropri
ate uses for assessments that are developed by others, (b) to develop their own assessments in relation
to their daily teaching activities, and (c) to make sound decisions about assessments in relation to
their students, curriculum and instructional practices, and professional identities. In fact, ACTFL, the
largest professional organization of language teachers in the United States, has explicitly advocated
such assessment literacy by including “Assessment of Languages and Cultures—Impact on Student
third category
volves what Brown and Hudson refer to as
assessments which “allow students to
communicate what they want to communicate” (p. 663). Here, techniques such as teacher-student
conferences, learner best-works portfolios, and various kinds of self- and peer-assessments enable a
focus on learners’ own awareness of their language learning and abilities as well as their dispositions
prociency
(Daher, 1983; Rammuny, 1975, 1983). Reective of other language assessments (and
large-scale standardized testing) typical of that era, achievement tests of Arabic, including the APT,
Similarly, Eisele (2006) suggested a exible assessment framework that takes into account learning
al. (2009) describe the
number of so-called shortcut assessments ha
ve like
wise been developed and used to estimate learner prociency levels in Arabic for research purposes.
Several studies report employing the Cloze format, in which whole words (e.g., every seventh word)
(Abu-Rabia and Siegel, 2003; Parry and Child, 1990), and has been employed in studies of learner
acquisition of Arabic (e.g., Mansouri, 1995). A
similar approach, the C-test,
asks learners to restore
So, what are the most common intended uses for assessments in Arabic language education? Obviously,
uses differ by institutional context and educational level, but three broad categories of assessment use
are generally written tests of reading ability, writing, and knowledge of specic vocabulary and gram
matical structures that are chosen in relationship to the content of the course textbook (Ryding,
2013). These tests provide both instructors and students information about students’ progress through
course material, and the results of these tests are typically used as the basis for decisions about the
grades assigned to individual learners. Furthermore, these assessments can be effectively used to spur
learner progress, helping them “study and provide useful feedback for review and further prepara
tion” (Ryding, 2013, p. 90). However, in the absence of widely agreed-upon standards of practice for
assessment in Arabic education, individual programs and instructors are left to shoulder the burden of
the development and implementation of assessment tools such as classroom tests. Arabic instructors
are often required (due to a lack of institutional support, lack of appropriate materials, gaps in the
number of univ
sity Arabic programs around the United States have undertaken the process of articulating student
learning outcomes (SLOs), primarily in response to the requirements of regional accrediting bod
ies for an increase in attention to the educational effectiveness of college instruction. However, it
should be clear to Arabic educators that SLOs are very useful in guiding instruction by providing
drafting of SLOs based on course content, curricular expectations, and the ACTFL guidelines. The
teacher-researchers then collected feedback from both incoming and outgoing learners through
focus groups and online questionnaires, focusing primarily on learners’ perceptions of both the
value and extent of achievement of the stated SLOs. In turn, they used that information to imple
ment changes in the rst-year curriculum. Major changes included choosing a new textbook for
instruction, expanding course offerings to promote cultural learning, and restructuring the rst-year
Arabic curriculum to allow more contact hours per week. As the authors note, the process of using
SLO assessment formatively for curriculum improvement is ideally a cyclical one. Thus, following
the initial development of rst-year SLOs, they report on the next step of developing second-year
Arabic language pro
grams:
Are assessments useful and in alignment with your curriculum?
Specify the
intended uses for all assessments within a program, in terms of who, what, why, and impact (see
265
Arabic language teachers:
ou understand basic ‘best practices’ in language assessment? Are you
assessment-literate? Can you design your own assessments?
Pursue an understanding of the array
Arabic language test developers:
Are your assessments useful? Are they being used in intended ways?
Do they support advances in Arabic language education?
Evaluate the actual uses for all commercial
assessment products (including those associated with textbooks) on a regular basis, in order to
ensure that they are being used as intended and that they are having intended consequences.
Though technical qualities, including the extent to which an assessment is measuring what it
was intended to measure (validity) and the extent to which it is doing so consistently (reliability)
are necessary conditions, it is also incumbent on test developers to actively investigate the roles
played by their assessments as they are put into practice. No language test is appropriate for all
purposes, and test consumers must be made aware of inappropriate as well as appropriate uses
for commercial assessments.
Arabic language education profession:
What are best practices for Arabic language assessment? What
are the needs of Arabic language teachers, learners, and programs? To what extent is information about Ara
Engage proactively with the topic of assessment as a critical
Note also that the ‘objectivity’ of these assessments can be enhanced thr
ough the use of rubrics for scoring,
and through the incorporation of multiple perspectives (e.g., teacher, learner, experts) on whatever per
formances or products are created. For one interesting example of a foreign language portfolio assessment
project, see Grau-Sempere, Mohn, and Pieroni (2009).
Of course, this assumes that a lear
ner’s score on the multiple-choice APT is reective of their general ‘pro
ciency’ in Arabic in the rst place.
See Ryding (1991) and Younes (2006) for alternati
ve approaches to dealing with the posited MSA-colloquial
binary in Arabic instruction.
This phenomenon has been noted in L1 Arabic prog
rams in the Arab world, as well, as individual depart
ments and ministries are often required to shoulder the burden of creating assessment standards for Arabic.
See Taha-Thormure (2008, p. 187).
See CARLA (2015) for examples.
Similar efforts might be made for other valued constructs of par
ticular interest for Arabic, such as intercul
surve
professional and institutional proles and attitudes.
Al-’Arabiyya
, 1–28.
Abu-Rabia, S., and Siegel, L. S. (2003). Reading skills in three orthographies: The case of trilingual Arabic—
Hebrew—English-speaking Arab children.
Reading and Writing
(7), 611–634.
29, 2017, fr
om www.act.org/sites/default/les/CAEP/ACTFLCAEP2013Standards2015.pdf.
Adair-Hauck, B., Glisan, E. W., Koda, K., Swender, E. B., and Sandrock, P. (2006). The Integrated Performance
Assessment (IPA): Connecting assessment to instruction and learning.
Foreign Language Annals
(3), 359–382.
Al-Batal, M. (2007). Arabic and national language educational policy.
The Modern Language Journal
(2),
Alosh, M. (1987). Testing Arabic as a foreign language.
al-’Arabiyya
(1/2), 51–72.
Alosh, M., and Clark, A. (2013).
Ahlan wa sahlan: Functional modern standard Arabic for intermediate learners
. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
. T
aylor, J. R. (2015). Project
perseverance and Arabic study abroad.
Arabiyya
(1), 1–21.
Brown, J. D., and Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment.
TESOL Quarterly
, 653–675.
Brustad, K., Al-Batal, M., and T
, A. (2004).
Arab
yah, ma
s? DVD: Al-Juz' al-awwal
textbook for beginning Arabic
29, 2017, fr
om http://carla.umn.edu/assessment/vac/CreateUnit/unit_examples.html.
Chapelle, C. (2003).
English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and
communication technology
. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cheng, J., Bernstein, J., Pado, U., and Suzuki, M. (2009). Automatic assessment of spoken modern standard Ara
bic. In
4th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications
, NAACL-HLT, Boulder, CO.
Clark, M. (2010).
Arabic computerized assessment of prociency (Arabic CAP): Technical report
surve
y of current classroom practices among teachers of Arabic.
Al-Arabiyya
Khoshaba, M. P. (2004). The Integrative Test of Arabic (IAT).
(1), 53–65.
Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (2003). The ACTFL prociency guidelines and the oral prociency interview: A
brief his
y and analysis of their survival.
Foreign Language Annals
(4), 483–490.
Malabonga, V., Kenyon, D. M., and Carpenter, H. (2005). Self-assessment, preparation and response time on a
computerized oral prociency test.
Language Testing
(1), 59–92.
19, 2016, fr
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-arabic-language-and-linguistics/modern-
standard-arabic-EALL_COM_vol3_0217.
Nier, V. C., Di Silvio, F., and Malone, M. E. (2014). Beliefs about assessment and language learning: Findings from
Arabic instructors and students.
, 56–76.
Norris, J. M. (2000). Purposeful language assessment.
English Teaching Forum
(1), 18–23.
Norris, J. M. (2006). The why (and how) of student learning outcomes assessment in college FL education.
Modern Language Journal
(4), 576–583.
Norris, J. M. (2008).
Validity evaluation in language assessment
rating scale for assessing communicativ
. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED445538).
Rammuny, R. M. (1999). Arabic language testing: The state of the art.
Al-’Arabiyya
, 157–189.
Ricks, R. (2015).
Development of frequency-based assessments of vocabulary breadth and depth for L2 Arabic
. Unpub
new approach for
Arabic.
The Modern Language Journal
(2), 212–218.
Ryding, K. C. (2006). Teaching Arabic in the United States. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, and L. England (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century
(pp. 13–20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl
Ryding, K. C. (2013).
Teaching and learning Arabic as a foreign language: A
guide for teachers
Washington, DC:
new elicited imitation test
of L2 Chinese.
Foreign Language Annals
(4), 680–704.
Younes, M. (2006). Integrating the colloquial with fusha in the Arabic-as-a-foreign-language classroom. In
K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, and L. England (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st
century
(pp. 157–166). New York: Routledge.
Younes, M. (2007).
Living Arabic: A
comprehensive introductory course
. Ithaca, NY: The Language Resource Center,
Cornell University.
Assessment of Spoken Arabic Prociency
Arabic oral prociency has been tested successfully for over 30
years, using the
ACTFL Guidelines
(American Council on the Teaching of F
oreign Languages) and even longer with the FSI (Foreign
Service Institute) system and later with ILR (Interagency Language Roundtable) oral interviews
(Hertzog, no date). However, this process is not without its problems and inadequacies caused mainly
by the diglossic nature of Arabic. The difculty that the testing eld faces resides in obtaining a valid
measure of oral prociency by means of an oral prociency interview (OPI) that can assess overall
Arabic prociency. This measure is purported to show how well a candidate can perform along the
al.
, 1989). This stipulation
was of little use considering that the vast majority of university-level interviewees were below the
Superior level at the time. In addition, ACTFL formulated an Arabic-specic introduction in 2012
years, using the
ACTFL Guide
(American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) and even longer with the ILR
system (Interagency Language Roundtable). However, this process is not without its problems and
inadequacies caused mainly by the diglossic nature of Arabic. The difculty that the testing eld
faces resides in obtaining a valid measure of oral prociency by means of an oral prociency inter
view (OPI). This measure is purported to show how well a candidate can perform along the speech
Prociency
considerable demog
raphic change in the OPI takers has occurred (see the MLA 2015 survey of
enrollments). Today’s candidates are no longer restricted to the novice-advanced university students
specializing in Arabic and Middle Eastern studies. We can safely assume that the majority of candi
dates have language experiences in both MSA and CA in the United States particularly those who
had the opportunity to study overseas. They largely fall into the following categories:
Beginning learners intending to study abr
Advanced and Superior learner
s planning to study abroad for academic or professional purposes
American gover
nment employees with varying degrees of prociency
American professionals
Heritage speakers exposed to one local v
Heritage speakers with some schooling in MSA
Educated native speaker
Secondly, in 2012, ACTFL approved an introduction for Arabic OPIs that does not require any one
proposed a fe
w years ago (Alosh, 2000) two models of assess
ment, the consecutive model and the comprehensive model. The latter incorporates situations and
. we do not test for those
, because Low German is actually more like a dialect spoken only in
. It is true that the major
ity of Germans do not speak High Ger
man with one another—they use the local dialect or language of their region. However, when
dealing with non-native speakers, most Germans try to use High German, although it is often
tainted in terms of pronunciation and vocabulary and, especially, idioms. We have simply made
the decision to test only MSG (Modern Standard German).
(Otto, 2007, personal communication)
271
distinctly different from the standard language. There are no OPIs devoted to testing, for example,
High German and Low German, Parisian French and Canadian French, or Appalachian English and
conducted (Alosh, 1997, pp
. 103–139), the speech
of some native-speaker interviewees from the same dialectal speech community as that of the inter-
viewer (i.e., local) tended to be closer to the standard end than other interviewees who come from
other dialectal speech communities (i.e., nonlocal), contrary to what the model suggests. Of course,
this discrepancy may be attributed to other factors such as language planning in the Arab world, the
perception of MSA as a nationalistic instrument, and possibly one with religious connotations. It
should be noted that most oral communication in the Arab world, except in the media, takes place
in CA. The situation, obviously, is certainly neither simple nor static.
Area of Overlap of Standard and Colloquial in Oral Performance
One of the reasons that makes testing the dialects separately awed is the inability of the rater to
19.2 utilizes the concept of the inver
ted pyramid to illustrate
this phenomenon. It shows that the overlap begins somewhere within the Intermediate range and
increases exponentially as one moves higher on the scale in unison with the expansion of topics,
vocabulary, and structures. It is substantial enough to warrant attention.
Two Testing Models
ge
rm
al
Fa
mi
li
ar
en
t
Se
tt
in
g
La
ng
ua
ge

nt
iu
um
bl
ic
Pr
iv
at
eP
ub
li
c
In
ti
ma
te
ca
No
n-
lo
ca
lN
L
NL
NL
A
ll
oq
ui

273
former model may be called the
consecutive model
l
Novice

19.1 represents the pr
oposed OPI format. Level 0/N is not included because speakers at
this level have no real functional ability. The role-plays are in bold face type to highlight them in the
OPI structure. The number following global tasks (GT) indicates the frequency of the task. The same
scheme may be implemented for the ILR and ACTFL systems.
Table 19.1

A proposed model for an Arabic oral prociency interview.
1+/IH2/AL2+/AH3/S3+/S4-5/D
Warm-upWarm-upWarm-upWarm-upWarm-upWarm-upWarm-up
Current event
Past narration 2Past narration 2Description 2Description 2Abstract 3Abstract 3
275
1+/IH2/AL2+/AH3/S3+/S4-5/D
RP 1RP 2
RP 2RP 2RP 3RP 3
colloquial segment of the speech sample, though it contains cor
rect colloquial forms, may
be rated lower if it contains too many MSA instances. Likewise, a standard segment (e.g., luncheon
speech) showing a low register or speech peppered with too many colloquial words and phrases may
be rated lower. The interface model is rated like a regular OPI, using the four assessment criteria
of global tasks, content/context, accuracy, and text type, but with an added dimension. This dimen
sion, for practical purposes, provides two scores on exactly the same criteria. This would yield more
information for the party that ordered the OPI. The following scores are examples of OPIs given to
assess CA. One example, Candidate A: The tester feels that the candidate is highly educated and auto
matically raises the level of their language toward MSA as most educated Arabic speakers normally
do when they discuss intellectual topics abstractly. The candidate understands all the L-3 questions
and preludes very well, but decides to continue in CA even in a situation that clearly calls for the
use of MSA. In such a case, the OPI should be rated 2/AM because the sample does not contain any
evidence of L-3 performance in MSA.
Table
19.2 shows a few unitar
y scores followed by dual scores which might have been yielded
by the proposed system (all four cases are based on actual OPIs. It should be noted, however, that
not many existing OPIs can be rescored in the same manner because they would lack the appropri
ate situations both in frequency and type and, therefore, not enough language generated to allow a
reasonable rating. The proposed system implies a departure from the 1989
Arabic Guidelines
it has performance in CA on an equal footing as that in MSA. That is to say, it recognizes CA as an
and D. In or
Table 19.2

Unitary versus dual scores.
Unitary
testers’ awareness of the crucial role of situations in obtaining a realistic ratable sample and arriving at
an informative rating. This activity would, at the same time, broaden the stock of situations available
for use in interviews.
The vast majority of American government and academic institutions rely on the ACTFL and ILR
scales to evaluate Arabic oral prociency (Liskin-Gasparo, 2003). Kanbar (2008, p. 1) suggests that
ACTFL has more exibility than DLI, “to devise a testing system adapted to Arabic, and to undertake
the necessary steps to implement it.” Though the ACTFL system may be more amenable and perhaps
receptive to modication than the somewhat more rigid ILR system, the ACTFL system must still
overcome, according to Kanbar (2008, p. 1) four challenging areas that might prevent implementing
an interface OPI:
The global tasks cannot vary from language to language
2.
The length of the interview is normally limited to 30 min
utes, and should never go beyond
45 minutes.
The testers have to be nati
ve speakers, so only a native speaker of Iraqi Arabic, for example, is
qualied to elicit and assess performance in Iraqi, and so on. Very few Arabic testers can adapt
their dialect to that of the candidate.
Most candidates are students, the majority of whom focus exclusi
vely on MSA.
These points need to be taken into account if the proposed system is to be seriously considered for
adoption by different government agencies and/or ACTFL. The proposed interview structure for
277
the diglossic nature of Arabic and how Arabic scores are reported, one for MSA and one for CA.
However, concern is expressed on rating the interface OPI because of the subjectivity issue. Lowe
(2008) nds the concept of unitary scores confusing, and supports using separate scores. This reserva
tion may be due to testers being unclear about what they are rating. He admits lack of knowledge
comprehensiv
e approach. Unpublished paper presented
at New York University.
Bachman, L. F. (1990).
Fundamental considerations in language testing
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Breiner-Sanders, K. E., Lowe, P. Jr., Miles, J., and Swender, E. (1999).
ACTFL prociency guidelines—Speaking
Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Goldberg, D., Looney, D., and Lusin, N. (2015).
, Fall 2013. New York: Modern Language Association of America.
Hertzog, M. (n.d.).
A review of the history of the ILR language prociency skill level descriptions and scale
brief history
vival.
Foreign Language Annals
(4), 483–490.
Lowe, P. (2008). Personal communication.
Otto, K. (2007). Personal communication.
Stanseld, C. (2009). Personal communication.
Clarissa Burt
Writing Across the Arabic Curriculum
Writing Across the Arabic
Towards Assessment for Program
Writing Across the Arabic Curriculum
of Arabic program assessments and their value to program stakeholders, and discuss the develop
ment and usefulness of such assessment tools for program improvement and communication to
stakeholders.
The eld of teaching Arabic as a foreign language has changed radically in the last twenty to
thirty years, with the introduction and adoption of new pedagogical principles, standards, and prac
tices developed and tested in the elds of second and foreign language acquisition with the goal of
) pointed out the relative neglect of wr
iting skills and the “severe shortage”
of textbooks supporting the development of writing skills, which characterized Arabic programs
specically and foreign language teaching in general at that time. At the same time he indicated the
growing interest in investing in teaching writing skills as an important mode of communication,
serving to mark growth of student prociency toward that of a native. In this same article, al-Batal
discusses the value of writing activities across all levels of an Arabic program, from the lowest levels of
prociency to the most advanced. He could mention only two textbooks for Arabic which offered
some support for teaching prociency through writing: Rammuny’s (1980)
Advanced Arabic Composi
tion Based on Literary Texts and Audio Visual Materials
and al-Warraki and Hassanein’s (1984)
Adawaat
al-RabT i al-’Arabiyya al-Mu’aaSira
[Connectors in Modern Standard Arabic].
The late and beloved Waheed Samy contributed directly to remedy this shortage, and give greater
describe in this chapter.
Arabic whose area of research is
in second or foreign language pedagogy or
applied linguistics, my own academic background did little to prepare me for such a task. Only due
to a number of experiences with practitioners and such specialists have I
have br
ought to bear on this issue of assessment. One must
give credit and mention to the several individuals who, and specic resources which, have guided
had the privilege of working with Marty Abbott, the Direc
tor of Education at
ACTFL at the time, to found and direct a STARTALK program in Annapolis for
high school and college-aged students, I
frankly knew little of and how to apply the standar
ds and best
practices in the eld. Through her guidance and that of team leaders, workshop presenters, and teacher
trainers, I
was introduced to strateg
ies for applying the ACTFL standards and guidelines and STAR
TALK principles for an integrated student program and ultimately for a teacher training program as
well, to empower participating teachers to apply best practices in their own classrooms and programs.
Some of the most important and inuential of those who guided me in these discoveries (among
Writing Across the Arabic Curriculum
the development of Integrated Performance Assessments (IPAs) to provide ongoing feedback to
student and teacher concerning student growth in all skills and modalities in language performance.
His work convinced me of the integral role that ongoing formative and summative assessment plays
in adapting instruction to student needs, supporting student responsibility for her own growth in the
language, and documenting accountability to all program stakeholders.
have found to date on wr
iting assessment which can inform Arab
have encounter
prociency in overall linguistic development, and the need for writing assessment across language
programs. In addition to the development and implementation of a cross-language (including Arabic)
program-wide writing assessment administered over a ve-year period, the authors protably com
pared and tried the results of their writing assessment with other forms of prociency assessment,
specically the Simulated Oral Prociency Interview (SOPI). Other Arabic professionals may nd
the model of such a long-term program broad assessment useful as they build their own assessment
programs.
The Arabic program at the U.S. Naval Academy, for which this pilot assessment was developed,
was established with an initial offering of beginning Arabic classes in 2004. In the short time since
then, the program has grown from a small program under one faculty member to an undergraduate
speaking assessment was dev
eloped and piloted in the following 2015–2016
academic year.
Numerous questions had to be resolved in the development of a writing assessment tool. The fac
ulty agreed that the assessment would best be structured, in-class, for a limited amount of time,
in response to prompts students had never encountered before. The modality of the writing, then
would
be exactly presentational—well thought out, slowly developed, researched and corrected
draft—but more spontaneous rst-draft material in response to a previously unknown prompt. Fur
thermore, we agreed we needed to offer students a choice of prompts in order to allow the students
to select to write a response showing their best abilities, and for which they felt best prepared. The
prompts were a means by which to solicit students’ writing samples, which would then be rated
using a rubric evaluating the level of writing prociency exhibited in said samples. We also agreed
that in the pilot program assessment, the results would not be incorporated into student grades, in an
Writing Across the Arabic Curriculum
become more effective teachers of writing skills and assessment. If the results are not consonant
opportunities they had enjoyed, often including a signicant immersion experience abroad, there
were also students who did not have the same abilities, had not enjoyed the same opportunities, and
thus had more modest prociency gains. Our anticipated outcomes had to reect what the average
student could expect to achieve if she or he were to only have access to the sequence of classes and
the number of contact hours she or he would enjoy in the Arabic program at the Naval Academy
itself. These outcomes are much more modest than I
imagine are the case in pr
ograms that have more
contact hours, language houses, or required semester abroad.
The results of the writing assessment were consonant with the outcomes Arabic faculty had
We calculated the mean score for the writing assessment by level to arrive at the mean
Writing Across the Arabic Curriculum
learning. Student feedback from the writing assessment suggests that students considered the writ
ing assessment a valid means by which to measure their abilities and limitations at the time of the
assessment. The survey comments offered some very helpful observations and suggestions for making
adjustments to the strictures of the assessment to allow students to offer their best performance on
the tasks. The comments also suggested students are interested in benetting from such assessments
look forward
برعلا ةغللا جمانرب
Arabic Writing Assessment—Please READ THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT PAPER FIRST
There are two sections in this assessment. Read the prompts in sections and choose a
total of six (6) prompts and write as full a response as possible in ARABIC.
SECTION A: Write answers to the following:
You must ll out a form in
Arabic. Give your name, address, and home telephone number.
Look around you in this classroom.
Write a list of the names of as many things that you see as
you can.
Write as much as you can about y
our family.
Write as m
uch as you can about this picture: [picture of a girl studying with a stack of books
Write as much as you can about y
our academic institution and your studies.
SECTION B: Answer a minimum of TWO (2) prompts from this section
Write as much as you can about what is in this image:
[picture of various sports’ activities]
Write up your daily and/or weekly schedule
, explaining what you do every day or every week.
Which of the seasons of the year do you prefer and wh
y? Which do you dislike and why?
Write about your last vacation,
or the vacation of your dreams.
Describe your family home in as g
برعلا ةغللا جمانرب
Arabic Writing Assessment—Please READ THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT PAPER FIRST
There are two sections in this assessment. Read the prompts in sections and choose a
total of four (4) prompts and write as full a response as possible.
SECTION A:
Write as much as you can about this pictur
e [of a multigenerational family] or about your family.
Write as m
uch as you can about this picture: [picture of a girl studying with a stack of books
Write as much as you can about what y
ou see in this image: [picture of various sports’ activities]
Answer to NO MORE than THREE (3), and no fewer than TW
Write up your daily and/or weekly schedule
, explaining what you do every day or every week.
Describe your family home in as g
Tell us as much as you can about y
our best friend.
Write a story to t the pictures in the P
AST TENSE [cartoon strip of a stressed-out mom who was up
with baby at 2 a.m., whose kids asked for breakfast at 7 a.m., whose boss scolded her for being late at
8:15 a.m., who was in a car accident at 5:15 p.m., had bills to pay at 8 p.m., and who lost it at 8:01 p.m.]
قت - ٢٠١٥ ةنس - ة
برعلا ةغللا جمانرب
Arabic Writing Assessment—Please READ THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT PAPER FIRST
Read the prompts and choose a total of three (3) prompts and write as full a response
as possible.
Write about weekly/yearly r
eligious observances/rituals or holidays, either in your culture and/
or in the Arab World.
Write a story to t the pictures in the past tense:
[cartoon strip of two young women moving
Write a short biog
raphy of a public gure, past or present, who is familiar to you.
Write about gender issues in the Arab W
orld and/or in your own experience.
Write up what you hav
e learned about the Arab Spring.
In your opinion, what challenges confront
Argue for a particular approach to or stance on Amer
ican foreign policy in the Middle East.
Writing Assessment Rubric (Developed by the French Group, adapted for Arabic)
Feedback questions for the Arabic writing assessment
Read the following statements and circle the number that best matches your opinion
on a scale from 1 to 6:
1—Strongly disagree 2—Somewhat agree 3—Disagree 4—Agree
5—Somewhat disagree 6—Strongly agree
This assessment tool shows your ability and your limits in wr
iting Arabic 1

The time allocated to the assessment is adequate. 1

The Arabic courses that I
took at the USNA adequately prepared me for the assessment.
Other remarks [please gi
Both the third edition al-Kitaab series (Brustad,
al. (parts I,
II, III, 2014) include regular writing exercises across all levels and volumes of the series. A
thorough re
view
of textbooks from the perspective of skills’ development may be in order, for future research on the state of
the eld in Arabic.
Cf. Paesani,
18, 2016. Of cour
se,
STARTALK,
STARTALK-Endorsed Principles for Effective Teaching, from https://startalk.umd.edu/pub
lic/principles, accessed June
18, 2016.
STARTALK maintains its o
wn online catalog of materials on in support of STARTALK programs, and
links to numerous other valuable reseources: https://startalk.umd.edu/public/searchresources, accessed
June
18, 2016. Other v
aluable resources that I
encountered through the mediation of ST
ARTALK were
CLASSRoad, www.classroad.org/, HADI, www.hadi.org/, and Teacher Effectiveness for Language Learning
(TELL) Project, www.tellproject.org/. Accessed June
18, 2016.
Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) (n.d.).
Assessment for language instructors: The basics
. https://startalk.umd.
edu/public/system/les/resources/cal_guide.pdf. Accessed June
18, 2016. Meg Malone and Nier (2013) co
ver
much of the same material.
Appendix 5: Student
Feedback Survey
My eyes were opened to the importance of appropriateness when, having learned and worked to implement
many of the principles of standar
ds-based teaching, focussed on stimulating student production and communi
cative success, I
had been producing and using for year
s with their emphasis
on grammar points and textbook specics would not effectively reect the living language my students had
been producing in the classroom at all. I
had to nd new and other wa
ys to assess student language learning.
Assessment and Evaluation Resource Center,
18, 2016.
2015), from https://aelr
18, 2016.
Stewart,
Rehorick, and Perry (2001) referred to an earlier version of the Canadian Language Benchmarks
(2012), a more recent version of which can be found here: www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/language-
benchmarks.pdf, accessed June
18, 2016.
This is but one of the Michigan Series on T
18, 2016.
In the 2015–16 academic year, the
The original one-hour-per-week offer
ings were run as experimental sections with the hope of implement
ing an increase in contact hours to four hours a week. There has been no administrative support for this
change, so faculty have wearied of offering such credit sections as an overload with no compensation or
recognition.
The issue of how to approach a pro
The Arabic faculty who contrib
uted to the development of this assessment tool are Jocelyne Owens, Hezi
Brosh, Guilnard Moufarrej, Maria Swanson, and Clarissa Burt.
Thus, the prompts that appear in the appendices are mer
The rubric is in the appendix.
There are numerous valuable sources for sample rubrics online to support the
development of rubrics tailored for a practitioner’s specic program on any level. A
30, 2016.
The Arabic faculty agr
eed that the huge increase in vocabulary to which students in third and fourth year
levels had been exposed might argue for the use of dictionaries to check spelling or a specic term—the
one factor which may make these samples one step closer to “presentational,” rather than spontaneous speech
written down.
al. (2015). The
pilot described here is but one
of a cycle of assessments initiated in the department to be minimally repeated once every four years. The
Arabic program’s original ambition to run two biannual skills’ assessments every year so that every Arabic
major would be assessed twice for each skill in the course of her studies has now been modied to match
the assessment program of the department as a whole. In his fascinating plenary talk at GURT, John McE.
Davis (2016) outlined the very real potential usefulness of program assessment mandated by administrations
of institutions of higher education. His concept of “Assessment or Evaluation Capacity,” however, suggests
that there may be limits on the extent of that usefulness, which are outside the control of language faculty
themselves, and thus may limit how washback can effectively improve programs.
Faculty did, howe
ver, revise the anticipated outcomes for listening skills on the basis of the results of the pilot
listening assessment which was run at the same time in 2015.
The survey for
m is in the appendices. Again, specic results and comments are for internal USNA use only.
Cf. www.cal.org/ad/tutor
ial/impact/5washbackinstruction.html for idea of how assessment can inuence
teaching. Accessed June
18, 2016.
Aalto, E., and Tarnanen, M. (2015). Approaching pedagogical language knowledge through student teachers:
Assessment of second language writing.
(5), 400–415.
Abrams, Z. (n.d.)
Writing Across the Arabic Curriculum
al-Batal, M. (1995). Issues in the teaching of productive skills in Arabic. In M. al-Batal (Ed.),
The teaching of Arabic
as a foreign language: Issues and directions
(pp. 115–133), al-Arabiyyah Monograph Series #2. Provo, UT: Ameri
can Association of Teachers of Arabic (AATA).
Alosh, M. (1992).
Advanced Arabic I: Arabic composition
. Columbus, OH: University of Ohio.
Alosh, M. (2006).
Standards for foreign language learning the 21st century
(3rd ed.). Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, Inc.
al-Warraki, N. N., and Hassanein, A. T. (1984).
Adawaat al-RabT i al-’Arabiyya al-Mu’aaSira
[Connectors in
Modern Standard Arabic]. Cairo: Center for Arabic Studies, American University in Cairo.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012).
18, 2016, fr
om www.act.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/act-prociency-guidelines-2012/
arabic.
Amor, T. B. (2012).
Developing writing skills in Arabic
. New York: Routledge.
Bernhardt, E., Molioris, J., Romeo, K., Lin, N., and Valderrama, P. (2015). Designing and sustaining a foreign
language writing prociency assessment program at the postsecondary level.
Foreign Language Annals
(3),
Brown, J. D. (Ed.). (2012).
Developing, using and analyzing rubrics in language assessment with case studies in Asian and
Pacic languages
. Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Resource Center.
Arabic
textbook for intermedi
15, 2016, fr
om http://jstor.
org/stable/40985261.
Canadian language benchmarks: English as a second language
. (2012). Ottawa, Ontario: Centre for Canadian Lan
Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) (n.d.a).
Assessment for language instructors: The basics
18,
2016, fr
om https://startalk.umd.edu/public/system/les/resources/cal_guide.pdf.
Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL). (n.d.b).
Understanding assessment: A
guide for foreign language
18, 2016, fr
om www.cal.org/ad/tutorial/impact/5washbackinstruction.html.
18, 1016, fr
om www.classroad.org/.
Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning, University of Texas at Austin (COERLL).
18, 2016, fr
11–13. W
Hassanein, A., Abo El-Seoud, D., and Yehia, H. (2013).
Uktub al-’Arabiyah: Beginners writing skills in modern standard
Arabic
. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
Hassanein, A., Abo El-Seoud, D., and Yehia, H. (2015).
Uktub al-’Arabiyah: Intermediate writing skills in modern
standard Arabic
. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
Hassanein, A., Abo El-Seoud, D., and Yehia, H. (2016a).
Language program evaluation in contemporary language educa
tion: Current practices, future directions
. Plenary talk March
11, 2016. GUR
T (2016). Washington, DC: George
town University.
Hassanein, A., Abo El-Seoud, D., and Yehia, H. (2016b). Toward a capacity framework for useful student learning
outcomes assessment in college language programs.
Modern Language Journal
Javed, M., Juan, W. X., and Nazli, S. (2013). A
study of student’s assessment in writing skills of the English lan
guage.
International Journal of Instruction
(2), 129–144.
Kissau, S., and Adams, M. J. (2016). Instructional decision making and IPAs: Assessing modes of communication.
Foreign Language Annals
(1), 105–123.
Lee, I. (2016). Putting students at the centre of classroom L2 writing assessment.
The Canadian Modern Language
Review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes
(2), 258–280.
Lenski, S. D., and Verbruggen, F. (2010).
Writing instruction and assessment for English language learners K-8
. New
York: Guilford Press.
Long, M. (2015).
Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching
. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Malone, M., and Nier, V. (2013). Understanding assessment: Resources for language teacher educators. Presented
8th International Conference on Language Teacher Education
. May
30–June1, 2013.
Washington, DC: Center
18, 2016, fr
om le:///home/chronos/u-766332507f93a4a524c3dc
cc22939d419589bc90/Downloads/understanding-assessment%20(2).pdf.
National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign Language. (2009).
LinguaFolio: Show the world what you can do
18, 2016, fr
National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign Language and ACTFL. (2013).
NCSSFL-ACTFL can-do state
ments: Performance indicators for language learners
. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.
The National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015).
World-readiness standards for learning languages
(4th ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Author.
Norris, J., and Davis, J. McE. (Eds.). (2015).
Student learning outcomes: Assessment in college foreign language programs
Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Norris, J., Davis, J.McE., Sinicrope, C., and Watanabe, Y. (2009).
Toward useful evaluation in college foreign language
. Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
O’Donnell, M. E. (2007). Policies and practices in foreign language writing at the college level: Survey results
and implications.
Foreign Language Annals
(4), 650–671.
Oscarson, A. D. (2009).
Self-assessment of writing in learning English as a foreign language: A
study at the upper secondary
hool level
International
Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
(5), 148–153.
Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated language writing assessment
. Language Testing
(4), 453–476.
Plakans, L. (2015). Integrated second language writing assessment: Why? What? How?
(4), 159–167.
Polio, C. (2016).
Teaching second language writing
. Abingdon: Routledge.
Puljic, B. K. (2014). The impact of Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) on the assessment of
writing skills in German language teaching in Slovenia.
(1), 47–59.
Rammuny, R. (1980).
Advanced Arabic composition based on literary texts and audio visual materials
. Ann Arbor, MI:
Department of Near Eastern Studies, The University of Michigan.
Rammuny, R. (2013).
Advanced Arabic composition: Student guide
. Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Near Eastern
Studies, The University of Michigan.
Samy, W. (1999).
Al-Kitaaba wa-l-’Usluub/ Arabic writing for style
. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
Writing Across the Arabic Curriculum
Sandrock, P. (2010).
The keys to assessing language performance: A
teacher’s manual for measuring student progress
. Alex
andria, V
A: The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Scott, R., and Rodgers, B. (1995). Changing teachers’ conceptions of teaching writing: A collaborative study.
Foreign Language Annals
(2), 234–246.
Sevigny, S., Savard, D., and Beaudoin, I. (2009). Comparability of writing assessment scores across languages:
18, 2016, fr
om www.tellproject.org/.
Troyan, F. J. (2016). Learning to mean in Spanish writing: A
case study of genr
e-based pedagogy for standards-
based writing instruction.
Foreign Language Annals
(2), 317–335.
Wahba, K., Taha, Z., and England, L. (Eds.). (2006).
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st
century
. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Winke, P., and Aquil, R. (2006). Issues in standardized tests of Arabic language prociency. In K. Wahba,
Z. Taha, and L. England (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century
(pp. 221–
235). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Younes, M., and Al-Masri, H. (2014).
‘Arabiyyat al-Naas, part two
. London: Routledge.
Younes, M., and Chami, Y. (2014).
‘Arabiyyat al-Naas, part three: An advanced course in Arabic
. London: Routledge.
Younes, M., Weatherspoon, M., and Saliba Foster, M. (2014).
‘Arabiyyat al-Naas, part one
. London: Routledge.
Shahira Yacout
Integrating Listening and Speaking Skills
Growing out of the documented increase in interest in Arabic language learning over the past fteen
years, there is an urgent demand for Arabic language programs to focus on intercultural communica
tion. Many of these programs have not only reshaped themselves in light of this demand but have
Instruction Class Using a
Task-Based Framework
Shahira Yacout
Shahira Yacout
designed are not focused on integrating listening and speaking. Additionally, some Arabic language
programs focus on reading and writing at the exclusion of the two other skills, while others focus
only on listening, speaking, and reading. In many programs, listening is often considered only as a
passive skill and not given much emphasis in class. Listening skills are frequently left alone to be
learned naturally through reading and speaking (Flowerdew and Miller, 2005; Rost, 2011).
The integration of listening and speaking skills has remained a topic of interest for many decades.
The main question raised by earlier studies is why in-class activities usually integrate listening and
speaking but not reading and speaking? Indeed, reading is also a receptive skill. Many researchers
emphasize the importance of integrating listening and speaking, which is based on Krashan’s claim
(Nation and Newton, 2009) that learners’ comprehension, uency, and vocabulary improve when
they are exposed to interesting listening material several times within a period of one to two minutes.
This meaningful input helps students not only to acquire the language but also to practice participat
ing in a real-life situation within an appropriate speaking context. Weaver (1980) indicates that there
are two factors that help in learning a language, exposure to a meaningful, natural environment and
practicing the language. In such an environment, students are exposed to authentic listening material
and reproduce what they hear. Osada (2004. p. 56) mentions that learners need to integrate informa
301
Much of the professional literature argues for the importance of teaching through a content-
Shahira Yacout
2004, Skehan, 1998). According to Nunan (1989), effective integrated modules are characterized by
303

Goals and Tasks of the Illegal Immigration in the Arab World Unit
Understand the content learned and apply it to different r
Converse using differ
ent registers and discourses of Arabic language according to different con
texts and interlocutors.
Conduct interviews and participate in spontaneous interaction with immig
rants in the Arab world.
Summarize interviews.
Negotiate and defend one’s own point of view
Report orally by expressing per
sonal ideas and opinions on the subject matter.
In the pre-activity task, the teacher uses warm-up questions, brainstorms relevant vocabulary, and
shows pictures in order to prepare the students for the listening comprehension activity. Pre-task
activities play an important role in activating cognitive abilities and accessing the students’ reserve of
prior knowledge. The teacher presents a photo (see Figure
21.1) through which learner
ent social and cultural backgrounds can apply different schemata in order to relate new knowledge
Shahira Yacout
Step 2: Controlled Practice
In this step, students—with the teachers’ help—are required to write down a vocabulary of key words,
top-down approach
should be adopted in this listening practice. The teacher
activates the students’ schemata and reserve of previous language knowledge to process the incoming infor
mation. Goh (2008) mentions that this type of top-down process helps learners understand the nature of
listening comprehension so as to be more independent when using listening strategies learned in class.
Accordingly, the teacher selects listening material related to the discussed topic—here, illegal
immigration—plays video segments from a talk show (one- to three-minute clips), documentary
lms, and interviews with immigrants for general comprehension. Potentially, the instructor can use
authentic listening texts to stimulate the students’ imagination so they gather and accumulate infor
305
pedagogical tasks or “creative language work” (Nunan, 2004) corresponding to real-world tasks such
as commenting on illegal immigration documentary lms, role-playing on a TV program, interview
You are
an anchor on a famous TV program hosting family members (for example, the mother,
wife, or children of illegal immigrants), representatives from the EU or Arab countries, NGO
members, or others involved with a human rights organization.
You are a journalist/r
eporter asked to interview a group of illegal immigrants about the reasons
for trying to escape from their home countries.
You hav
e attended a press conference in an EU country and now must reect on the EU
countries’ diverse points of view as far as accepting or rejecting illegal immigrants/refugees. You
report back to your NGO.
Interviewing a gr
oup of youths to know their opinions about illegal immigration to Europe.
Conducting a survey in differ
ent universities to nd out opinions on the question: Are illegal
immigrants job stealers?
Interviewing NGO members r
egarding the illegal immigration of children aged seven to fteen
to Italy.
Creating a short documentary lm about illegal immig
this phenomenon on Arab countries.
Interview a la
wyer who specializes in illegal immigration and their rights when they arrive in a
Western country.
Conduct a survey with y
oung Arab students replying to the question
Shahira Yacout
To promote learners’ language prociency in a content-based instruction course, teachers need to
include explicit tasks in the course, and these tasks have to be lexically and functionally connected
to the content being addressed. As language teachers we need to be particularly aware of our task
selection, while students need to see the differences in the tasks introduced in order to create a strong
al. (2010) explain,
“Usually, teachers must balance the needs of their
students within a somewhat xed curriculum. If this is the case, pronunciation is not always explicitly
included even in a speaking course, and teachers need to nd ways to integrate pronunciation into
existing curriculum and textbook materials” (p. 381). Ideally, teachers should develop activities that
are specically devoted to pronunciation prociency development. However, it would be more ben
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., and Griner, B. (2010).
Teaching pronunciation: A
teachers of English to speakers of other languages
(2nd ed.). Cambr
idge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, A. C.-S. (2009). Gains to L2 listeners from reading while listening vs. listening only in comprehending
short stories.
(4), 652–663.
Crandall, J. (1994).
Content–centered language learning. ERIC digest
. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Lin
brief re
view of the past thirty years.
, 53–66.
Rose, D., and Dalton, B. (2006).
Plato revisited: Learning through listening in the digital world
. Unpublished white paper, RFB&D.
Rost, M., 2011.
Teaching and Researching Listening
. 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman.
Shah, M. I. A. (2003). Language learning content—based English as a second language (ESL) Malaysian class
rooms.
Journal of Language and Learning
(2), 73–97.
Skehan, P. (1998).
A cognitive approach to language learning
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Snow, M. A. (1998). Trends and issues in content-based instruction.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
, 243–267.
Stoller, F. L. (2002a). Promoting the acquisition of knowledge in a content based course. In J. Crandall and D.
Kaufman (Eds.),
shell for language teaching or a framework for str
content learning?
developmental per
spective on technology in language education.
TESOL Quarterly
(3), 453–475.
Weaver, C. (1980).
Psycholinguistics and reading: From process to practice
. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978).
Teaching language as communication
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (2003).
Dening issues in English language teaching
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalal Abo El Seoud
Integrating Reading and Writing
Integrating Reading and Writing
Literature Circles
Integrating Reading and Writing
grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation, and this approach continues to exist in textbooks teach
ing Arabic as a foreign language. Freeman and Freeman (2003) argue that globally used approaches
to reading usually concentrate on word recognition. This may lead to good decoding of texts, but
can do with the assistance of others (Vygotsky, 1978). More recently, teaching writing has broadened
to reect a communicative approach with task-based activities. With such an approach, writing must
be integrated with different genres of reading texts. Following these developments, Hyland (2003)
Integrating Reading and Writing
developments focus on the necessity of linking reading and writing while taking into considera
tion the creation of meaningful tasks and reection opportunities for students. They also call for
using various reading sources to create a richer output: stories, newspapers, articles, research reports,
. in their margins.
This allows learners to make
connections to their readings. When reading, if one does not write annotations, short summaries,
move fr
connected to reading is the writing of summaries. Geisler (1995) states that “a summary is the sim
plest text that attempts to represent some form of what another text says” (p. 105). Bazerman (1985)
Integrating Reading and Writing
It is worth mentioning that before students go ahead with these writerly reading activities,
they should rst know the organizational patterns they will be trying to use. This suggests that
mining activities ought to go rst when using this technique (Hirvela, 2013). Using both activi
number
esearchers have called for using literature as a basis for reading and writing. In selecting which
works to give students, Blecher and Hirvela (2000) and Hirvela (2001) (in Hirvela, 2013, p. 154)
have proposed different approaches. The rst is an experiential approach in which students use the
texts to reect on their own experiences. Here, Vandrick (1997, in Hirvela, 2013, p. 154) suggests
using what he calls “diaspora literature,” which includes stories from “a wide range of locations
Hirvela (2013) proposes a different way of posing questions to students when reading that focuses on
how they feel after reading rather than what the author intended to say. This is a practical application
of “Reader response theory” in which readers are encouraged to overcome the barriers to semantic
understanding used by the author and move towards critical reading.
So how is this connected to writing? This theory is closely related to social theories combining
Integrating Reading and Writing
and characters in the text, and answer them if possible, (2) memories of their own that the reading
has provoked in them, (3) guesses about the way the story will develop, (4) reections on points and
Reciprocal teaching involves students teaching each other and giving elaborative explanations.
Slavin (1996) says that such students are the ones who learn the most from cooperative learning. After
writing summaries, students can ask peers about gaps or misunderstandings they have through “note-
taking pairs” activities. Another activity is “jigsaw reading,” in which a different problem or paragraph
suggest constructing mental maps to connect information students nd with their prior knowledge
and information.
In the (3) rereading stage, students “Identify and Reproduce Textual Messages,” “Express Tex
tual Messages” (Swaffar and Arens, 2005 p. 74), and “Create Longer Discourses” (p. 75). Repeated
encounters with the text encourage students to engage in production skills and thus answer questions
about “why” and “how.” They now start to engage in analyzing, developing arguments, critical think
ing, and evaluating by relating the text to other texts or to real-world experiences in their writings,
thereby reaching the higher order levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. One important activity at this stage
is the guided matrix, introduced by Swaffar and Arens (2005), during which students write different
Integrating Reading and Writing
Hirvela (2013) says that when we integrate reading and writing, we have to take into considera
tion meaningful input that would support writing. This input should be a source of knowledge about
writing so that students learn the choices writers make when producing a text (Kroll, 1993, p. 93).
decide on how to create the story and by doing so improve their skills. Such activities change reluc
tant readers and encourage them to read more (Morgan, 2014). They also engage students in critical
and creative thinking aligning tasks with 21st-century skills.
Taking all of the preceding information into consideration, this chapter proceeds by describing
“Understanding by Design,” which the researcher uses to build her curriculum, followed by 21st-century
standards, which are considered to be the learning outcomes of the curriculum. Finally, the researcher
explains how the “literature circles” strategy was used and gives some examples of students’ work.
In this chapter, I
advocate a backward-design curriculum represented by the Understanding by
Design (UbD) curriculum.
This is a task-based framework created by Wiggins, Wilbur and McTighe
(2005). This framework enables learners to think purposefully about their curriculum (McTighe and
Wiggins, 2012). It is thus exibly designed in three steps. First, it starts with the outcomes that need
to be achieved—referred to as “big ideas and transfer tasks” (p. 14)—followed by the evidence of
learning, or, in other words, assessment. Such assessment reects how learners transfer their knowl
edge and skills through using effective learning activities starting from Bloom’s lower-order skills to
higher-order ones, and from in-class learning to the real world through authentic performance and
Find two articles under the same theme in the newspaper
Construct a mind map combining the most important points of the two ar
Reconstruct the points into one essay,
Integrating Reading and Writing
reading texts. This takes place through three different modes of communication: (1) interpersonal
aada wa ssuruur/ (happiness and pleasure)
as well as paves the way for teaching through a communicative approach. It provides students with
real samples of authentic language (Babaee and Yahya, 2014). It also introduces language in a con
textualized way. Swaffar and Arens (2005) also add that literature creates strong readers with cogni
al. (2007) believ
e that literature circles could be used
with nonction texts as well. Langer (2002) indicates that the literature circles strategy is considered
one of the most effective literacy instruction strategies for supporting students’ learning.
The discussion leader: begins the discussion with open-ended questions r
elated to the story
or article. His or her responsibility is to keep the discussion going while others respond and
Integrating Reading and Writing
ask follow-up questions. He or she deals with the text from a global standpoint. This reects
the “communication” standard, as students rst communicate the information of the text to
themselves through the interpersonal mode of communication, then to the rest of the students
The summarizer: pr
esents a one- or two-minute summary of the story without copying too
The connector: this student’s r
The word master:
chooses from ve to eight words which s/he thinks are the key words in the
text. He should ask his peers about their meaning in the context in which they appeared. The
word master should also be ready to dene them in Arabic to his or her peers. This is a very
important skill as it reects the “connections” standard which connects language to content.
Accordingly, the lexical meanings of some key words, provided by this role, make the meaning
of other words clearer to students in a way that helps them understand the content.
The passage person: nds passages that are impor
tant, interesting, or confusing. Students all col
laborate to dene these passages or reect on them. Here the theory of zone of proximal devel
The cultural collector: focuses on cultural issues and notes differences and similar
The web master: F
ocuses on representing the article in a mind map so that others can relate their
understanding to it. It could also be a drawing mirroring the story. See Appendixes 2 and 3.
As each role reects a certain standard, it is safe to say that they all have a part in developing each
and every standard.
As the teacher assigns a role to each student, s/he is training them about problem-solving skills.
This is because each task demands thinking of a way to achieve it and present it to the other students.
about the same subject, they could develop the same information, with the addition of a summary of
what has been read and reactions to it.
The researcher has used this strategy in conducting an Arabic media course. After reading about
Syrian refugees in Europe in the news, students were given a story about illegal immigration. Another
urge foreign language teachers to use literatur
e circles in their classes, not only for ction
but also with nonctional texts.


Web master work: mind map
Aronson, E., and Patnoe, S. (1997).
The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the classroom
(2nd ed.). New York:
Babaee, R., and Yahya, W. R. B. W. (2014). Signicance of Literature in Foreign Language Teaching.
International
riculum De
velopment (ASCD).
Burns, A. (2003). Reading practices: From outside to inside the classroom.
TESOL Journal
(3), 18–23.
Carlisle, A. (2000). Reading logs: An application of reader-response theory in ELT.
ELT Journal
(1), Oxford
University Press, 21–39
Cavdar and Doe (2012) in Li, Z., and Yang, C. (2014). Reading-to-write: A
practice of critical thinking.
Journal
of Arts and Humanities
(5), 67–71.
Daniels, H. (2002). Expository text in literature circles.
Voices From the Middle
(4), 7–14.
Daniels, H., and Zemelman, S. (2004).
Subjects matter: Every teacher’s guide to content area reading
. Portsmouth, NH:
Davis, B. (2010). A
reading workshop approach
. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Article representation.
Integrating Reading and Writing
Eisterhold, J. (1990). Reading-writing connections: Toward a description for second language learners. In A.
Hirvela (Ed.),
Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections
(pp. 71–73). Ann Arbor, MI: Uni
versity of Michigan Press.
Elbow, P. (1998).
Writing without teachers
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Feuerstein, T., and Schcolnik, M. (1995).
Enhancing reading comprehension in the language learning classroom
. San
Francisco, CA: Alta Book Center Press.
Freeman, D., and Freeman, Y. (2003). Revisioning the blueprint: Building for the academic success of English
learners. In G. G. Garcia (Ed.),
English learners: Reaching the highest level of literacy
(pp. 197–226). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
transactional socio-psycholinguistics view.
In R.
Ruddell, M. Ruddell, and H. Singer (Eds.),
social response to
process.
Journal of Second Language Writing
Julapho, P. (2008).
Using transactional strategies instruction with online learning to promote English reading comprehension,
summary writing ability and autonomous learning of learners
. Master’s Degree thesis, Chiangmai University.
Kennedy, M. L., Kennedy, W. J., and Smith, H. M. (2000).
Writing in the disciplines: A
reader for writers
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kirk, J. J., and Orr, R. I. (2003). A
premier on the effectiv
e use of threaded discussion forums. In J. Bow
ers-Campbell (Ed.),
Take it out of class: Exploring virtual literature circles
Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy

(pp. 557–567). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Koda, K. (2005).
. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1984).
Writing, research, theor, and applications
. Oxford [Oxfordshire]; New York: Pergamon Institute
Kroll, B. (1993). Teaching writing IS teaching reading: Training the new teacher of ESL composition. In J. G.
Carson and I. Leki (Eds.),
Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives
(pp. 61–81). Boston,
MA: Heinle
& Heinle.
Langer,
J. (2002).
Effective literacy instruction
. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Lay, N. D. (1995). Response journals in ESL classrooms: Windows to the world.
Teaching English in the Two-Year
, 38–44.
Leki, I. (1993). Reciprocal themes in ESL reading and writing. In J. G. Carson and I. Leki (Eds.),
composition classroom: Second language perceptives
(pp. 9–32). Boston, MA: Heinle
& Heinle.
Lyuta
ya, T. (2011). Reading logs: Integrating extensive reading with writing tasks.
English Teaching Forum
, 26–34.
Maley, A., and Prowse, P. (2013). Reading. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),
Applied linguistics and materials development

(pp. 165–182). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., and Pollack, J. (2001).
Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for
increasing student achievement
. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
McCall, A. L. (2010). Teaching powerful social studies ideas through literature circles.
McTighe, J., and Wiggins, G. (2012).
Understanding by design framework
9, 2016,
from www.
ascd,org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/publications/UbD_WhitePaper0312pdfs.
Miller, I., Straits, W., Kucan, L.,Trathen,W., and Dass, M. (2007). Literature circle roles for science vocabulary.
Science Teacher
(5), 52–56.
Morgan, H. (2014). Using digital story projects to help students improve in reading and writing.
Reading Improve
(7), 20–26, Spring.
Munkundan, J., and Nimehchisalem, V. (2013). Materials for writing–was this the case of the runaway band
wagon? In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),
Applied linguistics and materials development
(pp. 213–230). London: Bloomsbury
Academic.
Omaggio, H. A. (2000).
Teaching language in context
(3rd ed.). Thomson Heinle.
Reid, J. M. (1986). The writer’s workbench and ESL composition’.
Computers and Compositions
(3), 53–61. In
B. Tomlinson (Ed.),
Applied linguistics and materials development
(pp. 214–230). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Richards, I. A. (1929).
Practical Criticism: a Study of Literary Judgment
. London: Kegan Paul.
Richards, J. C., and Lockhart, C. (2007).
Reective teaching in second language classrooms
. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rodulfo, M. A. (2004).
Reading in and out of school: Factors of inuencing the literacy achievement of American students
in grades 4–8. and 12 in 2000 and 2002
. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Rosenblatt, L. (2005).
Literature as exploration
. New York: MLA.
Rosenblatt, L. (1994).
The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work
(revised ed.). Carbon
dale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Salvatori, M. (1996). The uses and limitations of personal and personalized writing.
Reading Research Quarterly
, 758–776.
Sanacore, J. (2013). Slow down, you move too fast: Literature circles as reective practice
. The Clearing House:
Journal of Educating Strategies
, Issues and Ideas
, 116–120.
Selden, R. (1989).
Practicing theory and reading literature
. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., Coyne, M. D., and Chard, D. (2002). Effective strategies for teaching beginning
reading. In E. J. Kame’enui, D. W. Carnine, R. C. Dixon, D. C. Simmons, and M. D. Coyne (Eds.),
Effective
teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners
(2nd ed., pp. 53–92). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools.
The Clearing House
(4), 200–204.
Steele, V. (2015). Product and process writing: A
comparison. English teaching.
balanced approach
New York: Pearson.
Vidakovic, D. and Martin, W. O. (2004).
Starting point teaching entry level geoscience
. Cooperative Learning Tech
perfect match for online instruction.
TechTrends
, 53–58, July/August
Khaled Rifaat
A Strategy for Teaching Arabic Pronunciation
The task of presenting a strategy for teaching Arabic pronunciation is a particularly challenging one
given the complex nature of this area and its current state of research and practice. The most chal
lenging part of presenting such a strategy is probably that a linguist is usually not grounded in peda
A Strategy for Teaching
(2013)—that investigate Arabic pronunciation teaching as the main goal. Alosh (1987) dealt with
pronunciation teaching of Arabic as an implicational correlate of a perceptual and acquisitional
investigation.
The main cause of deprioritizing pronunciation teaching of Arabic is the dominance of the tra
ditional approach to language among researchers and practitioners in this eld. This deeply rooted
approach, standardly called ‘traditional grammar’, assumes the superiority of writing over speech

Jones, 1997; Kautzsch,
A Strategy for Teaching Arabic Pronunciation
Ramírez Verdugo, 2006; Rezaei and Hashim, 2013; Sypia
ska and Olender, 2013; Venkatagiri and
Levis, 2007). A
positive cor
of different cognitive processes (multi-cognitive approach): analysis, synthesis, association, contrast,
comparison, and memorization in the conscious teaching and learning of foreign pronunciation.
Additionally, he proposed the combination of multiple senses (multisensory approach): auditory,
A Strategy for Teaching Arabic Pronunciation
Perception
Another proposition that opposes the traditional articulatory approach to pronunciation teaching is
that perception plays an important role that may outweigh production and precedes it in pronuncia
Explicit instruction improv
es pronunciation and this improvement is maintained by learner’s
self-monitoring and correction.
Fluency-oriented training is more helpful than the segmentally oriented one
Learners’ r
eal or perceived needs drive learners’ efforts toward accuracy in L2 speech.
Pronunciation cannot be acquired b
y simply providing an input-rich environment as promoted
by the communicative approach. A
technique of some sort must be implemented for teaching
onunciation.
Success in learning pronunciation is link
ed to the amount of exposure to native models.
Jones (1997) likewise implied that both behavioral audio-lingual imitation and discrimination
drills and contextualized communicative materials are useful in pronunciation teaching. Addition
A Strategy for Teaching Arabic Pronunciation
presented a ve-stage model of L2 acquisition (see gure
2.1 in Hill and Flynn, 2006) that we would
23.1 represents an outline of the proposd strategy.
The basic teaching program based on
this strategy has the span of seven years embracing ve stages. As pronunciation is known to be the
latest to acquire, the approximate period of each stage represents the upper limit to the comparable
ve stages of Krashen and Terrell (1983). However, this span is very general and teaching programs
can tweak it to its goals and available resources. For example, a four-year program would compress
the rst two stages in the rst year. A
two-year pr
by
accentedness, of which only the rst correlates solely with phonemic and intonation errors, which
are the concern of a pronunciation program.
Implied from the previous point, it is inadequate to assume the native-like accuracy of pronuncia

Outline of the proposed strategy.
A Strategy for Teaching Arabic Pronunciation
al. (2012). In this r
espect, studies on the acquisition of Egyptian Arabic as L1
replace the missing research on the frequency of occurrence of phonemes. Studies in this area are
that of Ammar (1991), Ammar and Morsi (2006), Morsi (2001), Ammar and Rifaat (1998, 2004), and
Several studies have presented the acoustic characteristics of Arabic. Acoustic cues have been used
al. (2010),
al. (2008), Gilber
(2012), Jones and Evans (1995),Linebaugh and Roche (2013), Masterson and Daniels (1991), Mol
holt (1990), Morrison (2001), Noble (2014), O’Connor (2014), Odisho (2005), Pike (1947), Roth
and Worthington, (2015), Smotrova (2015), Turner and Boston (2007), and Tyler (2002).
Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Research
and adequate strategies and techniques tailored to teaching Arabic pronunciation are developed.
The gure shows only elements of the basic dichotomies. Other dichotomies ar
e presented in the text.
Two biblio
review of goals and best practices
& Learning
4, 2016, fr
om www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/ptlc/proceedings/ptlcpaper_32e.pdf.
A Strategy for Teaching Arabic Pronunciation
Al Mahmoud, M. S. (2013). Discrimination of Arabic contrasts by American learners.
Learning and Teaching
(2), 261–292.
Alosh, M. M. (1987).
The perception and acquisition of pharyngealized fricatives by American learners of Arabic and impli
cations for teaching Arabic phonology
. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
Alosh, M. M. (2000).
Ahlan wa-sahlan: Al-
Arab
yah al-waz?
yah lil-mubtadi’
. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Alwabari, S. A. (2013).
Non-native production of Arabic pharyngeal and pharyngealized consonants
. MA disserta
1, 2016, fr
multilingual perspective
(pp. 204–232). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
paper presented at the
, Bristol, UK.
Aquil, R., and Living Language (Firm). (2006).
Ultimate Arabic: Beginner-intermediate
. New York: Living Language.
Avery, P., and Ehrlich, S. (2008).
Teaching American English pronunciation
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28, 2017,
from http://
gipsa-lab.fr/~pierre.badin/PublisPDF_Badin_Endnote/Badin_BenYoussef_Bailly_Ellisei_Hueber_Articu
latoryVisualFeedback_L2WS_2010.pdf.
Bajuniemi, A. (2013). Teaching intervention on the pronunciation of Spanish intervocalic/d/. In
ings of the 15th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Cascadilla Proceedings Project
(pp. 39–50).
Balaic, B. T., Pogaj-Hadi, V., and Horga, D. (2012). Speech uency: A
result of oral language prociency?
, 87–100, January
Barrera P
ardo, D. (2004). Can pronunciation be taught? A
revie
w of research and implications for teaching.
, 31–44, November.
Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., and Goodell, E. (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying
in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system.
& Sons, Inc.
yer, S., and Boyer, L. (2012).
Understanding English pronunciation: An integrated practice course
. Lapstone, NSW:
Boyer Educational Resources.
textbook for beginning Arabic
25, 2015, fr
om http://repositories.lib.utexas.
Childs, J. A. (2012).
Suprasegmental features and their classroom application in pronunciation instruction
. MA thesis, Uni
18, 2015, fr
om http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/
handle/2152/19921/Childs_Report_20129.pdf.
Defense Language Institute. (1974).
A contrastive study of English and Arabic
10, 2016, fr
http://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED105761.pdf.
Derwing, T. M., and Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A
research-based
oach.
Tesol Quarterly
(3), 379–397.
Dodd, B., and Bradford, A. (2000). A
comparison of three therap
& Communication Disor
(2),
Dodd, B., Crosbie, S., McIntosh, B., Holm, A., Harvey, C., Liddy, M., and Rigby, H. (2008). The impact of
selecting different contrasts in phonological therapy.
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
(5),
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction.
Language Learning
(s1), 1–46.
Escudero, N. P. R. (2005).
Linguistic perception and second language acquisition: Explaining the attainment of optimal
phonological categorization
Linguïstische Perceptie en T
handbook for teachers and trainers:
Three frameworks
for an integrated approach
. Sydney: TAFE NSW, Access Division.
Gairdner, W. H. T. (1925).
resource book for teaching English pronunciation
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hill, J., and Flynn, K. (2006).
Classroom instruction that works with English language learners
. Alexandria, VA: Associa
tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
lu, M. (2006). Current perspectives on pronunciation learning and teaching.
Journal of Language and
(1), 102–108.
Hitotuzi, n. v. (2004).
A comparison of the effects of two approaches towards pronunciation instruction involving two groups
of beginning learners of English as a foreign language
1, 2016, fr
om www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/matetesldisserta
tions/Hitotuzidiss.pdf.
Hussein, I. (2007). Practical mechanisms for teaching perception and pronunciation of problematic conso
nants in Standard Arabic. In
& Learning Conference
21, 2016, fr
om www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/ptlc/proceedings/ptlcpaper_09e.pdf.
A Strategy for Teaching Arabic Pronunciation
Hussein, L. (1994).
Voicing-dependent vowel duration in standard Arabic and its acquisition by adult American students
Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
Huthaily, K. Y. (2008).
Second language instruction with phonological knowledge: Teaching Arabic to speakers of English
1, 2016, fr
comparison
classroom
study.
Language Awareness
(3), 171–185.
Kenworthy, J. (1987).
Teaching English pronunciation
. London: Longman.
Keys, K. J. (2012). Discourse level phonology in the language curriculum: Review of current thinking in teach
ing pronunciation in EFL courses.
(1), 89–105.
Kharrat, M. (1994).
A descriptive analysis of standard Arabic intonation with implications for teaching English as a second
. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.
contrastive study of Egyptian
Arabic and American English: The segmental
phonemes.
Language Learning
(1–2), 25–33.
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching.
Tesol Quarterly
(3),
Linebaugh, G., and Roche, T. (2013). Learning to hear by learning to speak: The effect of articulatory training
on Arab learners’ English phonemic discrimination.
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
(2), 146–159.
Liu, Q. (2011). On current conditions of pronunciation teaching and learning under occupation-related criterion.
English Language and Literature Studies
beginner’s course in spoken Egyptian
Arabic
. Cairo: American University
in Cairo Press.
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., and Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approach. In S. Gass and A. Mackey (Eds.),
(pp. 7–23).
Marks, J., and Bowen, T. (2012).
The book of pronunciation: Proposals for a practical pedagogy
. Peaslake: Delta.
Martin, K. E. (2013).
Goals and priorities for English pronunciation instruction
7, 2016, fr
repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/22724.
Masterson, J. J., and Daniels, D. L. (1991). Motoric versus contrastive approaches to phonology therapy: A
study.
Child Language Teaching and Therapy
(2), 127–140.
McCarus, E. N., and Rammuny, R. M. (1974).
A programmed course in modern literary Arabic phonology and script
Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of Michigan.
Mitchell, T. F. (1990).
Pronouncing Arabic
. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mohamud, A. A. (2008).
Arabic for reading and speaking
. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s.
Molholt, G. (1990). Spectrographic analysis and patterns in pronunciation.
(1–2),
Morrison, M. (2001).
Clear speech: Practical speech correction and voice improvement
. London: A.
& C. Black.
si, R. A. (2001).
Developmental articulation test for phonologically disordered Egyptian children
. MA thesis, Univer
sity of Alexandria.
Munro, M. J., and Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of
second language learners.
Language Learning
(s1), 285–310.
Nahar, K. M., Elshafei, M., Al-Khatib, W. G., Al-Muhtaseb, H., and Alghamdi, M. M. (2012). Statistical analysis of
Arabic phonemes for continuous Arabic speech recognition.
International Journal of Computer and Information
Technology
(2), 49–61.
study of intonation awar
eness and learning in non-native speakers of English.
Language Awareness
(3), 141–159.
Ranalli, J. M. (2004).
Discourse intonation: To teach or not to teach?
Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
18, 2015, fr
om www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/ Rannali4.pdf.
Rezaei, A., and Hashim, F. (2013). Impact of awareness raising about listening micro-skills on the listening
comprehension enhancement: An exploration of the listening micro-skills in EFL classes.
Australian Journal
of Teacher Education
(8), 1–15.
A Strategy for Teaching Arabic Pronunciation
Rifaat, K. (2005). The structure of Arabic intonation: a preliminary investigation.
In Perspectives on Arabic linguistics
XVII-XVIII: Papers from the seventeenth and eighteenth annual symposia on Arabic linguistics
. (pp. 49–67).
Rifaat, K. (2010). Towards a Theory of Egyptian Arabic Intonation. A paper presented at the 4th International
Symposium on Arabic Linguistics held at the University of Alexandria, Egypt from 11–12 Dec.
Rinaldi, N. (2014).
Perception and production of geminate consonants by English speakers and Kuwaiti Arabic speakers
11, 2016, fr
om https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/
xmlui/handle/1794/18293?show=full.
Roth, F., and Worthington, C. (2015).
Treatment resource manual for speech language pathology
. Clifton Park, NY:
Cengage Learning.
Saadah, E. (2011).
The production of Arabic vowels by English L2 learners and heritage speakers of Arabic
. Doctoral dis
4, 2016, fr
om www.ideals.illinois.
edu/bitstream/handle/2142/24104/Saadah_Eman.pdf?seque.
synthesis of 15 quasi-experimental
interv
ention studies.
TESOL Quarterly
(4), 842–854.
Saito, K. (2013). Reexamining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development.
Second Language Acquisition
(1), 1–29.
Saito, K., and Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation
development of/
/by Japanese learners of English.
Language Learning
(2), 595–633.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A
tutorial on the role of attention and a
ware
ness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.),
Attention and awareness in foreign language learning
(pp. 1–63). Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Silveira, R. (2012). Pronunciation instruction classroom practice and empirical research.
(1), 93–126.
Smotrova, T. (2015). Making pronunciation visible: Gesture in teaching pronunciation.
TESOL Quarterly
(1),
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A
revie
w of classroom and labora
tory research.
Language Teaching
(2), 73–87.
narrativ
review.
(3), 326–344.
, A., Sawi, L., and Massoud, S. (2010).
Kalaam gamiil: An intensive course in Egyptian colloquial Arabic
. Cairo:
American University in Cairo Press.
Turner, J. C., and Boston, J. (2007).
Voice and speech in the theatre
literature re
view on strategies for teaching pronunciation.
Online Working Papers in Linguistics
(1), 1–9.
Worrell, W. H. (1915).
The consonants Z and Z? in Egyptian colloquial Arabic
. New Haven, CT: American Oriental
series of six lectures
. 57–85). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Hristina Chobanova
The Pedagogy of Arabic Grammar
Over the past 30
years the eld of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language (TAFL) has undergone a
sensible development in the light of the
years after the pub
345
created in recent years, experience the shortage of textbook literature
teaching of grammar
, which follows this model, works towards
another question must be addressed: how ought Arabic grammar be taught so that the grammatical
statement like this can only stimulate
Arabic grammar teachers to continue
broadening their repertoire of techniques and procedures. In order to bring up the possible results
of the implementation of the two main approaches and their diversications, the eld of TAFL
also needs more case study research analyses of the effect of explicit and implicit instruction on the
347
knowledge of some specic structures of Arabic like Passive Voice, Cases (i‘raab al-ism) and Modes
(i‘raab al-‘l), Dual and Plural Feminine, and so on.
From my personal practice of teaching Arabic grammar to matured nonnatives, I
have found that
ogram, both explicit and implicit approaches give positive results,
given that we do not entirely exclude the elements of analysis, even when we teach grammar implic
itly. Small chunks of analysis do not contradict the communicative use of the processing of the rule in
the correct language register. It can be explicit analysis, which stimulates the students to use the full
capacity of options through an inductive-deductive continuum (Decoo, 1996, Erlam, 2003)
, given
that we teach grammar as a separate activity in a stand-alone course. It can also be a small chunk of
analysis of the grammar norm excerpted from the language input, to which the students are inten
tionally exposed. Matured learners do not feel condent enough if they take in the grammar norms
349
teachers need to dene to what extent they will expand the language range and to help their students
overcome this challenge.
The explicit teaching of grammar, with its present-practice-produce steps and with a cautious
systematized elements of the basic approaches and
sent 69 personal requests for par
tion in the survey, to which I
receiv
ed responses from colleagues from Australia, Bahrain, Bulgaria,
Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Morocco, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Syria, Turkey, UAE, Ukraine, and USA,
totaling 38 people.
As the teacher develops a personal approach to the teaching of Arabic grammar for foreigners, he
or she relies on his or her thoughts and principles regarding the following points: the teacher’s role
in the classroom, the nature of effective teaching and learning, the difculties learners face and how
they can be addressed, successful learning activities, and the structure of an effective lesson.
A Summarizing Analysis of the Responses Traces Out
A tendency towards the use of comm
Arabic grammar is perceiv
ed as a system of structures used to express meaning in an ade
quate contextual usage.
b.
Teachers predominantly tend to train students’
ability to use the grammar rules and lan
The establishment of a foundation for adequate communication with the language is clearly
dened as most important objecti
ve of Arabic grammar teaching.
As most important principle in the teaching of grammar
, the participants indicate the
building of students’ ability to use the grammar structures in a contextually appropriate way
and leave the pure memorization of grammar rules on the last place.
The teaching of Arabic grammar still tends to remain focused on the teacher
, rather than the
The role of the teacher shifts from the traditional perception of him or her as a dir
grammar class and acquires the features of a facilitator and manager of the communication
Communication in g
rammar classes predominantly stems from the teacher’s side as a facili
tator, but also as a governor or mentor. The alternating initiative from the students’ side
The challenges, which students come across in grammar classes,
are addressed with respect
of how students feel. The constant communication in an atmosphere of encouragement,
The respondents in this surve
y predominantly indicate that they teach grammar in context
and tend to nd realistic social situations.
The answer
s of the questions that specify distinctive characteristics of the processes of teaching
This shows in the organization of grammar lessons, which v
Depending on the norm, rules ar
351
c.
The real-life contexts for the use of some Arabic grammar norms can be also instructional
if we discuss them with a follow up wr
itten or spoken text. The elements of
i’raab
, Dualis,
The focus in the Arabic grammar classes of the respondents dissipates in equal par
the use of correct language forms during the communication or the communicative inter
action itself, the explication of the language forms and grammar rules, and the independent
“grasping” of the correct language forms during work with written or spoken texts or
combinations of the mentioned earlier depending on the norm and the level.
e.
The teaching of Arabic grammar appears pr
edominated by activities, which mechanize the
The respondents mostly
The purposeful decreasing of the function of the nativ
e tongue.
In the responses of this survey there is no such clear tendency. Mother tongue is frequently used
by both the teacher and students as a familiar bridge to the unfamiliar. The use of educa
tional role-playing games and procedures can prove a helpful technique for the students to
overcome the barrier for understanding the grammar norms and structures through Arabic
Communicative techniques to cor
rect students’ oral grammatical mistakes.
correct use or the assignment of a task for its deduction from some given information could
intensify the communication in the grammar classroom.
The respondents believe that cultur
e is an integral part of the learning process and choose the
texts they use in grammar classes from socially important contexts and enrich them with arte
facts. Priority is still given to the texts related to MSA. Teachers that consider the distinction
Games in grammar teaching in SLA are a popular approach for training specic str
uctures in a
light, tension-free and interactive atmosphere even among mature nonnative learners. Respond
ents, who use games when structures of Arabic grammar form pose a challenge for their students
(42.9% in this survey) share with us the following variations t to train grammar structures of
Arabic: the Ball Toss Game, the Matching Cards, the Word/Sentence Charades, Social Interac
tion Games (lling the information gap or negotiation type), Quizzles (puzzles in a diagram
format), creating ashcards, drawings and charts, making students create imaginary characters
Responders compensate for the short class hours
for grammar as they train students on grammar
Providing empirical r
353
Compilation and publishing of new series of practical handbooks,
designed for teachers, which
systematically describe techniques and practices for teaching Arabic grammar, planning, and
Constant development of the assessment systems for the prociency of
Arabic grammar in its
integrated nature as part of a exible and updated system for assessment of the prociency of
Arabic among foreigners. This can happen both “top to bottom,” through the development of
existing guidelines and framing structures, and “bottom to top” in the context of each individual
Arabic Studies program.
Further inv
estigations of effective modes of instruction in the Threshold level B with the pur
pose of simplifying the enormous weight of the learners in this intermediate level. The extensive
exposure of different groups of students to reading and listening helps for modeling and testing
of strategies for working with grammar structures in the context of written and spoken texts.
Empirical research can be made on the results and can then draw a comparison with the results
from groups non-trained in extensive reading and listening
Consumption of corpora basis of written and spoken texts fr
om all registers of the Arabic
language, in order to provide a comprehensible textual input for the communicative teaching
of Arabic grammar. The only common accessible corpus, listed as actively used for the Arabic
language in the conducted survey, is
arabicorpus.byu.edu
Opportunities provided from the institutions of TAFL to train the instructors to work with
designed specically for the Arabic language.
International forums and workshops,
during which teachers are able to communicate their
professional beliefs, to exchange practice techniques and training experience, and to conceptual
ful pedagogy of teaching grammar of
ASL seeks also to develop learners’ awareness of the correct
registers of language use and to activate the communicative use of their Arabic. Grammar provides
the indispensable resources of basic language and text-building structures, pragmatic and discourse
organization of the communication.
would like to shar
Al-Batal, M. (Ed.). (1995).
The teaching of Arabic as a foreign language
. Provo, UT: American Association of
Teachers
of Arabic.
Wahba, K. M.,
Taha, Z. A., and England, L. (Eds.). (2006).
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in
the 21st century
. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Up until the beginning of the 90s, the designed student handbooks in T
AFL continue to be the classically
famous advanced reference grammar books, and the textbooks in applied Arabic are way too sparse, as it
shows in the following list:
Wright, W. (1896).
A grammar of the Arabic language
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yushmanov, N. (1928).
Grammatika literaturnogo arabskogo yazika
Concerning the problem of ter
minology, which unavoidably appears in the integrated approach towards the
Arabic language, I
strongly support Said Badaui’
s paradigm, suggested 43
years ago in Egypt (1973),
to this day the only published one in the Arabic world.
355
This list provides information for the most applied handbooks in
TAFL, as well as for some Arabic textbooks
for foreigners, which are compiled in non-English and non-Arabic speaking countries:
Badawi, E., and Yunes, F. (1992).
arabiyya li-ghayr al-n
. Cairo:
The American University in Cairo Press.
Muhammed, B. (1992).
Uchebnik arabskogo yazika
(A textbook of Arabic) Moskva: Santlada.
Deheuvels, L. (1993).
Manuel d’arabe modern
. Paris; L’Asiathèque.
Brustad, K. Al-Batal, M., and Al-Tonsi, A. (1995–2013).
Al-Kitaab i Ta’allum al-‘Arabiyya series
. Washington,
Textbook). Russia: Sankt P
Pashov
a, T., Salim, S. Chobanova, H., and Todorov, V. (2004).
Arabski ezik—osnoven kurs
(Textbook in modern
standard Arabic—an essential course). Colibri: Soa.
Ryding, K. (2005).
A reference grammar of modern standard Arabic
comprehensive introductory course
. Cornell University: Language Resource
Center.
For reference
, see Larsen-Freeman, 2000, Richards and Rodgers, 2001, Celce-Murcia and Hills, 1988.
Diane Larsen-Freeman, 2000.
Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching
. Oxford University Press, p. xii.
Cited according to Rafael Salaberr
Zaynab Taha g
ives evidence of this feature of MSA syntactic variation in today’s newspapers as not presented
in Arabic language textbooks (Taha, 1995).
Generalized on the base of explor
ing corpus of spoken texts of the Arabic media in (Chobanova, 2005)
(Pashova, Chobanova, Forthcoming).
Diane Larsen-Freeman reacti
vates the term “inert knowledge problem” rst established by Alfred North
Whitehead in 1929 to designate learners’ inability to use in real context what they learned in the classroom.
Teaching Language:
From Grammar to
Grammaring
(2003a
), Diane Larsen-Freeman develops in
I am truly thankful to my colleagues, who shar
ed moments from their practice in order to answer my
Cited according to Richards and Rodgers (2001) on the topic of SLA.
Only 25% of the participants in the surve
It is proven that students who do ER or EL de
In recent years in the eld of descr
iptive corpus linguistics, there have been initiated a number of projects
language resource. I
will here briey mention the International Corpus of Arabic (ICA), www.bibalex.org/
ica/en/about.aspx. Text cor
pora are built as data bases and are linked to many universities worldwide, for
Cited according to Richards and Rodgers (2001),
who attribute this title to the Cooperative Learning, the
Whole Language Approach, Neurolinguistic Programming and Multiple Intelligences in the last decade of
the 20th century.
ACTFL. (2012).
Performance descriptors for language learners
. Alexandria, VA: The American Council on the Teach
ing of Foreign Languages.
Al-Batal, M. (Ed.). (1995).
The teaching of Arabic as a foreign language
. Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers
of Arabic.
Bachman, L. (1990).
Fundamental considerations in language testing
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Badawi,
. (2002). In the quest for the Level 4+ in Arabic: Training Level 2–3 learners in independent reading.
In B. L. Leaver and B. Shekhtman (Eds.),
Developing professional-level language prociency
(pp. 156–176). Cam
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Badawi, E. (2011).
Mustawayaat al-‘arabiyya al-mu‘aasira  Misr (The levels of contemporary Arabic in Egypt)
. Cairo:
Celce-Murcia, M., and Hills, S. (1988).
Techniques and resources in teaching grammar
. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Chobanova, H. (2005). Mushkilaat amaam tadriis el-lugha al-‘arabiyya al-mu‘aaSira kawaSiila li al-muwaaSala
wa al-iHtikaak—al-mu’tamar al-duwalii al-awwal li ta‘allum al-‘arabiyya li ghayr al-naaTiqiin bihaa. (Prob
lems ahead of the teaching of Arabic for non-natives as a language of communication.). In
First Conference of TAFL
, May
27–29, 2004, Damascus (pp
. 288–289).
Council of Europe. 2001.
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment
Cambridge, U.K.: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Chuprygina, L., and Solovyeva, E. (2013). Arabskiy yazik v visshey shkole: aktualnie voprosi prepodavaniya (Ara
bic language in Higher School: Challenges of teaching). In
World of Scientic Discoveries: Problems of Science and
(Vol. 11, No. 7, 47), Krasnoyarsk (pp. 332–346).
Crashen, S. (1981).
Second language acquisition and second language learning
. Oxford: Pergamon.
Crashen, S. (1982).
Principles and practice in second language acquisition
. Oxford: Pergamon.
Decoo, W. (1996). The induction-deduction opposition: Ambiguities and complexities of the didactic reality.
, 95–118.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning.
Asian EFL Journal
, 209–224.
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns
in French as a second language.
The Modern Language Journal
, 242–260.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1990).
research synthesis and quantitati
357
Pashova, T., and Chobanova, H. (Forthcoming). Osnovni printsipi za formirane na uchebnoto sadarjanie na
zadaljitelniya kurs po arabski ezik v bakalavarskata programa kam katedrata po arabistika i semitologiya, SU
19, 2016.
Taha,
Z. (1995). The grammar controversy: What to teach and why. In M. Al-Batal (Ed.),
The teaching of Arabic as
a foreign language: Issues and directions
Teacher Education and
Professional Development
Standards for Arabic Teacher Certication
This chapter will present a proposal for comprehensive professional standards for certication of
teachers of Arabic. These standards serve as a framework for achieving pedagogical and professional
Improve the kno
Ensure the continued impro
vement of teaching of Arabic as a foreign language across the P-16
learning continuum
It is the aim of this chapter to articulate these standards such that they may serve as a starting point
for teacher educators engaged in preparing and training pre- and in-service Arabic language teachers.
for Arabic Teacher Certication
). P
lel efforts in Arabic would be desirable as Chinese and Arabic are the two most frequently taught
of the Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs) at the P-12 levels. Though Arabic is no longer
Standards for Arabic Teacher Certication
considered a “less commonly taught language” at the postsecondary level there is reason to question
future enrollments in tertiary Arabic programs if consideration for the professional preparation of
teachers is not brought up to date. The need for professionally prepared teachers K-12, however, will
maintain or increase.
resources and formats. The teacher of Arabic effectively integrates culture in Arabic lessons and is
able to present the language and culture as parts of a whole. Moreover, the qualied teacher of
Standards for Arabic Teacher Certication
Domain 3 corresponds to NBPTS standards I
Knowledge of Students
and IV Fair and Equitable
Learning Environment. This domain also corresponds to the TESOL CAEP Standards Domains
2 Culture as it affects student learning, and Domain 5 Professionalism. With respect to the TELL
Framework, this domain corresponds to the Learning Environment Domain.
An effective teacher of Arabic knows that assessment is about evidence of learning. He or she has a
Standards for Arabic Teacher Certication
develop further skills and expertise. Nationally, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
languages and the American Association of Teachers of Arabic serve as fora for active discussion of
strategic interdisciplinar
curriculum of this natur
e would constitute an agreed
upon program of study that would ultimately result in certication of Arabic teachers for the differ
ent levels of Arabic language learning and study, P-16. Such an initiative may not be able to overcome
repeatedly expressed their need for mentors or guides and noted the lack of adequate mentorship
as a key challenge in becoming certied teachers of Arabic (Mana, in preparation). In the following
few paragraphs, some explanation is provided for mentors and Arabic language teacher educators to
Standards for Arabic Teacher Certication
In-Service Training
The proposed standards can be integrated in the professional development of teachers who already
have experience in the classroom. In particular, studies have shown that in-service teachers are in
need of feedback and analysis of their own practices both in workshops or training sessions outside


NBPTS Standards, II Knowledge
of Language, III Knowledge
(



Understanding and

develop intercultural


Prociency Scales, World
language performance





NBPTS Standard VI Designing
Curriculum and Planning
TESOL CAEP Standards Domain
3 Planning, Implementing
TELL Framework Domains of
the Learning Experience and
Understanding of Learners
Learning Environments












NBPTS Standards I
Table 25.1
Standards for Arabic Teacher Certication
prociency and performance
language performance
• Familiarity and engagement
Al-Batal, M. (2012). College-level teachers of Arabic in the United States.
Al’Arabiyya
Journal of the
American Association of Teachers of Arabic
, 1.
Alosh, M., El Khafai, H., and Hammoud, S. (2006). Professional standards for teachers of Arabic. In K. M.
Wahba, Z. A. Taha, and L. England (Eds.),
Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century
(pp. 409–417).
case study of preservice w
orld language teachers in US secondary
schools.
Foreign Language Annals
(1), 148–166.
Byram, M., Nichols, A., and Stevens, D. (2001).
Developing intercultural communication in practice
. Clevedon: Mul
tilingual Matters.
Byrnes, H. (2012). Of frameworks and the goals of collegiate foreign language education: Critical reections.
(1), 1–24.
CLASS professional standards for K-12 Chinese teachers. (2016). National East Asian Languages Resource
Center: Ohio State University. Web, November, 2.
International School Services Blog
“Why Arabic? Why now? And why the WLI?
International School Ser
vices. Web. March
Mana, M. (2012).
Arabic-teacher training and professional development: A
view from star talk.
Al-’Arabiyya
, 87–101.
Mana, M. (forthcoming).
Arabic teachers in their own words: Narratives about becoming licensed teachers of Arabic in the
U.S
. Unpublished manuscript.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review
(1), 1–23.
Taha, T. A. (2007). Arabic as “a critical-need” foreign language in post-9/11 era: A
study of students’ attitudes and
motiv
ation.
Journal of Instructional Psychology
(3), 150–161.
Technology-Mediated Teaching
and Learning
Francesco L. Sinatora
With recent sociopolitical events in the Arab world and the rise of social media, the need for further
focus on ‘discourse’
will introduce Blommaert’
will then refer to a pilot study conducted by the author of this chapter in an
‘diversication of di
versity’ not just
Appadurai’s (1990, 1996) and Vertovec’s (2007) studies represent a shift in the social sciences,
will provide a br
overview of recent studies on language and identity, and emphasize their relevance to Arabic SLA.
The Arabic sociopolitical context best epitomizes the understanding of mobility as physical ows
suggest that online discourses consist of
uid practices, or locally situated expr
essions of ideal standards. These practices mediate identities;
attending to them constitutes an important component in the achievement of prociency within a
context of transcultural and translingual communication.
A mobility approach is concomitant with an increased interest in the study of language and identity
from a social constructionist paradigm (cf. De Fina, Schiffrin, and Bamberg, 2006), which looks at
Identity has increasingly attracted the interest of second-language acquisition specialists. As pos
ited by Duff (2012, p. 420):
Studies of identity and agency in SLA have clear relevance for both language learners and
educators. It is important for teachers and learners to understand their own stances and posi
tionings, and how these affect their engagement with (or participation in) language education.
” in Japan and in the world as a successful w
] an Arabic language repertoir
only”. Moreover, she argued that a “situated discourse-in-use paradigm for Arabic lan
second wav
e shifted the focus from the analysis of
formal features to the study of CMC from a socially oriented discourse analytic perspective. This
shift is consistent with another important direction undertaken by sociolinguistics in the late 1980s,
،نورق دعب �إدوعت � دق ةیخیرات ةصرف يهف ،نودیرت تقو يا يف ةنكمم ةروثلا نأ اونظت نأ مكایإ ،ریبكلا يبرعلا ملاعلا اذھ يف نورئاثلا اهیا
اً دبأ اوبتكت نلف مویلا اوبتكت مل نإو .ةیناث ”ةیخیراتلا ةظحللا هذھ“ لولح لبق تارمو تارم تارم نومرهتس �إو
،اھونتغاف
De Fina (2016) observed that ‘practice’—informed by Wenger’s (1998) concept of Community of
Practice and Bourdieu’s (1991) notion of habitus as a group of unconscious practices—is central to
the occurrence of this shift. Moreover, she suggested that this new direction prevailed with the advent
of Web 2.0 technologies, dened by Herring (2013, p. 4) as “web-based platforms that emerged as
popular in the rst decade of the twenty-rst century, and that incorporate user-generated content
and social interaction, often alongside or in response to structures or (multimedia) content provided
by the sites themselves”.
The task consists of a pre-class activity, a classroom activity, and a post-task in-class evaluation. It was
implemented in an advanced media Arabic class, which focused on contemporary, political events.
Throughout the semester, students were required to give oral presentations on contemporary Arab
17, 2011, in which he incites the r
evolutionaries in the Arab world to persist with their
struggle.
Oh revolutionaries in this great Arab world, beware not to believe that the revolution is possible anytime you
don’t think I
consulted with the
main course instructor before conducting the activity, who perused the
material and conrmed that it was accessible to the students. What was then problematic? I
suggest that
the answ
er can be found in a persistence to look at languages as systems rather than resources, and at the
complexity underlying discourse and identity as secondary issues in Arabic language instruction. I
will
illustrate this point through the follo
wing comment, with which students particularly struggled. The
commenter addresses Fay
sim in a way that a native Arabic informant perceived as sarcastic.
dawwir ‘al
ib yal
‘al-thawr
t fa-lam ’
yal
I’m trying to think of a rank that bets you in the Spring of revolutions, but I
bets you; you are greater than all the r
The commenter does not engage with the content of the post itself. Rather, he evaluates the post
author vis-à-vis other people who sided with the “Spring of the revolutions”. Doing so, the com
menter positions himself at a higher level, as someone who has the authority to rank the prominent
journalist. Moreover, it is argued that the students’ puzzlement at construing the commenter’s stance
derives from an expectation of clarity and xity which, as more and more research on linguistic
hybridity suggests, constitutes an exception rather than the norm in communication.
The vernacular expression
‘am dawwir ‘al
(‘I’m looking for’, ‘I’m trying to think of’) is immedi
ately followed by the ambiguous phrase
yal
q b
(‘bets you’). At rst glance we would classify
yal
, especially given the presence of alternative vernacular ways to express the same concept,
. Moreover, the choice of the preposition—
evokes the presence of
However, the insertion of a—
ya¯’
could not nd any’) the commenter
gives us the hint that w
e should resort to our knowledge of
emphasize the need to
bring recent sociolinguistic knowledge to ASL focus
ing on the shift in sociolinguistics from a paradigm of distribution to one of mobility (Blommaert,
2010). Underlying a sociolinguistics of mobility is an understanding of language as the deployment
of increasingly superdiverse resources, through which users construct identity in discourse, within a
context of globalization. These resources, more often than not, have the shape of ‘bits of language’,
which prescriptive approaches to language instruction fail to capture, or, worse, would dismiss as
incorrect, and therefore marginal and inappropriate. Online practices best exemplify language as
mobile resources. In the task discussed earlier, learners approached data expecting xity and clar
ity. The encounter of ambiguous forms, as well as the high frequency of typos and unconventional
spelling, provoked surprise, puzzlement, and discouragement. The students’ reactions suggest a need
‘Language learning’ is effectiv
learning”.
don’t
know the n
uances of each dialect”; and “I
encountered a lot of expressions,
like emojis and Roman
ized script. Most people talk half
mmiyya
approach, turned students into cooperative independent learners. To use Ryding’s (forthcoming, p.
The term ‘discourse’ here is used in line with Ryding’s (2006) and Byrnes’s (2002) denition. Throughout
the chapter I
also refer to online
discourse, consistent with Androutsopoulos’s (2008) Discourse-Centered
CLT and TBLT ar
e used in the literature for Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Language
Teaching.
The original text contains a typo.
The author probably intended to use the word
The term ‘focus-on-form’
is borrowed from Task-Based literature. It was proposed by Long (2000), who
advocated for a more incidental learning of grammar and structure in the classroom. Unlike ‘focus on forms’,
The presence of several v
ernacular elements renders the transliteration of this text very complex. For the
purpose of this chapter, I
have pr
ioritized a transliteration that allows the identication of different Arabic
The sentence “you are g
I used the term ‘ideal standards’
to express a similar concept.
See Woolard (1999) and Mejdell (2014) for the concept of
‘strategic bivalency’.
https://alternative-democracy-r
esearch.org/2015/12/23/teaching-the-language-that-makes-one-happy/
Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated Communication.
Journal of
(4), 419–438.
pedagogy for learning and
The Modern Language Journal
(1), 103–115.
De Fina, A. (2016). Storytelling and audience reactions in social media.
Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. D. Lambert and E. Shohamy (Eds.),
Language policy and pedagogy
Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton
(pp. 179–192). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
McMahill, C. (1997). Communities of resistance: A
case study of two feminist English classes in Japan.
Quarterly
(4), 612–622.
Mejdell, G. (2014). Strategic bivalency in written ‘mixed style’? A
reading of Ibrahim
r, In Alf
a wa lah
a. In
Proceedings of the 9th AIDA Conference
, LIT Verlag (pp. 273–278).
Raghda El Essawi
Collaborative Tech-Based Learning
Learning has gained new meaning with the increasingly wide acceptance of social-constructivist
views in the eld of education. Thanks to social constructivists, learning today is regarded as a
social phenomenon in which interaction and knowledge sharing are necessary preconditions for
reaching the best results. Learning requires a collaborative or cooperative effort from all partici
al. (2011)
oliferation of digital, social and mobile technologies has created a culture in which youth
participate more in creating and sharing content, profoundly changing the way students com
municate, interact, and learn. In many cases students spend as much (or more) time online in an
informal learning environment—interacting with peers and receiving feedback—than they do
with their teachers in the traditional classroom.
(p. 3)
MOOCs, blogs, wikis, and other forms of technology-based spaces that are open to and are
increasingly being used by practitioners today stand as evidence of this new direction in educa
tion. With this change in the nature of learning and learning spaces comes a change in the teach
ers’ role. For example, the idea of teacher as expert has been shifted to teacher as one among
many sources of knowledge. Teachers have become creators of learning communities rather than
creators of learning (Schrader, 2015, p. 33). Such changes are expected to—and, in fact, should—
change practices used in teacher education programs to ones leading to a more collaborative,
technology-based learning model similar to the one teachers are currently encouraged to use in
their own classrooms.
In an attempt to further understand this new model of learning and the means of putting it to
practice in teacher education programs, this chapter presents an overview of social-constructivist
views about learning, the practices such views entail, and the reasons they ought to be adopted in
the eld of teacher education. The chapter then discusses the usage of social media tools to create
Tech-Based Learning Model for
Teacher Education
An overvie
w of social constructivism and the practices it entails
Reasons for the adoption of collaborative lear
Collaboration via social media
Using social media tools in teacher education: applications from a T

Jhon-Steiner and Mahn, 1996, in Churcher
, Downs, and
Tewksbury, 2014) as opposed to ZAD or the zone of actual development (ZAD). “Learning” in
this case means moving knowledge from ZPD to ZAD. The framework of ZPD interaction with
more peers can provide all learners with new facts and patterns of thinking that benet the entire
group.
This does not mean denying the importance of work done at the individual level. In reality, cog
nitive development is seen as follows: “a given level of individual development allows participation in
certain social interactions which produce new individual states which, in turn, make possible more
sophisticated social interaction, and so on” (p. 3). In other words, while learning takes place at the
individual level, it is a product of knowledge resulting from collaboration. Therefore, the internali
zation of knowledge is both an individual and a social process (

Jhon-Steiner and Mahn, 1996, in
Churcher
, Downs, and Tewksbury, 2014, p. 35).
Research has in fact shown that peer interaction in collaborative activities—when done under
Collaborative Tech-Based Learning
a.) the students construct their knowledge, learning; b.) the process of learning is an active and
not a passive one; c.) the student has a central position in the learning process; d.) the students
have to use their knowledge to solve meaningful and complex problems; e.) the learning pro
cess is based on cooperation, collaboration; students learn through interaction with others, as a
The Effect of Collaborative Learning on Developing Student-Teachers’
Collaborative Tech-Based Learning
this student-centered environment, teachers become mentors as well as collaborators in the process
of structuring knowledge.
The ease with which communities are created by Web 2.0 tools is another reason lending itself
to the creation of a collaborative environment within which student-teachers as well as in-service
teachers can exchange ideas and experiences that contribute to their professional development. Thus,
it helps create a space where student-teachers can practice collaboration and witness its benets,
rather than simply being told about the benets of such system (Angela, 2011, p. 178). In fact,
student-teachers being mostly digital natives, they can be easily enticed to make use of the social
media they are familiar with to create their own learning communities. This allows for the natural

Junco, Heiberger
, and Loken, 2011; Blaschke,
Porto, and Kurtz, 2010). Social media was also found to have a positive effect on collaboration, the
quality of content generated by the learner, and the learner’s accumulated knowledge (McLoughlin
and Lee, 2007, 2008, 2010). Social media also has a positive effect on helping students learn how
not limited to: exchanging online comments on readings, online discussions, peer evaluation of stu
dent developed lesson plans and teaching material, as well as writing three papers in which students
reected on their performance in demonstration sessions conducted in AFL classes.
Technology Tools Used
The blended pedagogical format used in the course made resorting to online spaces a necessity.
Social media spaces were especially tempting since they were mostly user friendly and familiar to
students. However, the course instructor was reluctant to use tools like Facebook, blogs, YouTube, and
wikis out of fear that the casual community practices related to these tools might affect the serious
ness of course discussions and/or debates. Some students also had fears about privacy issues related
to these tools. The course instructor nally decided to use Google Docs and Vialogues (among other
The document can be saved on a computer for long term access in a v
The interface is similar to a regular wor
d document in which students do all their work/assign
ments, thus making it easy to use and relatable to a standard work environment.
It is searchable.
It can be accessed online and shared via e-mail.
Users can revie
w content before sharing it.
Notications of any action that takes place in the document (commenting, editing) ar
all parties with whom the document is shared.
Content is automatically saved.
A revision of history option exists,
allowing one to trace changes that that occurred in the docu
ment content since the point of its creation.
Real time collaboration is possible.
Allows for the exchange of any form of w
ord document and making them available for
Helps peers or instructors monitor the de
velopment of a document or a collaborative or coop
erative task by using the revision of history option.
One can track contributions to a gr
oup document through the revision of history tool.
Collaborative Tech-Based Learning
HOW CAN GOOGLE DOCS BE USED IN TEACHER EDUCATION?
All of the preceding makes clear that this tool is most effective when used for the collaborative con
struction of texts along with peer review and the evaluation of written texts. Hence it could be used for:
Group work/projects
Peer editing
Teacher guidance during the process of pr
Video can be shared with any number of indi
Vialogue creators choose who can access an
y Vialogue created, since only invited people are
given access. This limits the privacy concerns that are often associated with the use of other
Vialogues can also be made public.
Vialogue creators can choose the le
Vialogue allows time-coded comments, thus making it possib
questions about specic incidents, events, /or even a particular moment in a video. Thus, when
students play the video the questions and or comments are displayed at the exact moment or
Questions and/or comments for
the Vialogue creator as well as responses received on the video
can be saved in a PDF le or printed.
Discussions are threaded, making it possib
le for learners or individuals commenting on or dis
cussing the video to easily respond to each other’s comments or points in discussion. This makes
it possible to hold extended discussions about a certain portion, moment, or event in the video
Creators of Vialo
gues as well as all individuals with whom video is shared receive notications
every time new comments are added.
Vialogue users can immediately mov
e to a moment or event on shared video that the Vialogue
creator has placed a comment on by clicking on that comment.
It allows asking surve

Preparation page for V
ialogue where Vialogue creator species Vialogue users and their
Collaborative Tech-Based Learning
case supposedly by teacher trainer). In this gure video images can be noted on the right with space
Eliciting student comments on certain pedagogical beha
viors.
Using it for a more interactive for
mat of ipped classes where video-taped lectures or AFL
instructional sessions are uploaded to Vialogues and then shared with student-teachers to ask
questions or place comments that could be used in class discussions later.
Using Vialogues for
Sharing and starting a discussion about student teacher’s self-r
performance.
Student teachers can create their own
Vialogues from teacher, course professor, trainer or peer
Vialogues for their own group analyses of sections they nd interesting or relevant to a certain
project they are working on. However, this has to be permitted by Vialogue creator.
Vialgoues could also be used for comparing standpoints on certain pedagog
ical issues. Student-
teacher group discussions can then be shared with others (learners or experts) in the same insti
tution or anywhere around the world.
It allows students to revie
w their comments on previously created Vialogues to trace the change
of opinions/stances towards certain pedagogical issues and then discuss these changes. This
allows both student-teachers as well as their trainers or course instructors to trace changes/
developments in teachers’ pragmatic conceptions.
example of this includes
For self-reection and collaborative reection

Vialogue page showing Video (on the left) and part of threaded discussion or video-
to. Evaluation of the paper depended upon how successful the student teacher was in
reecting on his or her teaching. Students worked on these papers in groups (referred to
as “support groups”) that discussed each member’s teaching performance using a provided
rubric. Each member of the group created a Vialogue of his/her teaching demonstration
and shared it with members of his/her support group to initiate a discussion highlighting
how each fared regarding the questions provided by the rubric. This framework forced
them to exchange roles of the observer, commentator, and/or evaluator and those of the
observed and/or commented upon. Though the nal paper was produced individually,
student-teachers were expected to address their support group’s comments. Before using
Collaborative Tech-Based Learning
Concerns
One of the main concerns students had about using Vialo
. I
feel that observing a
class on Vialo
. but what mak
es
it a really amazing experience is that it will help me as a teacher in the future with my students.”
All the preceding shows that student-teachers comments were mostly in line with research show
ing that such tools have a positive effect on student teachers’ learning.
In conclusion the experience of collaborating using social media tools in the course addressed in
this chapter validates the benet gained from using a collaborative technology-based learning model
in AFL teacher education and encourages its application in future courses.
Agarwala, M., Hsiao, I. H., Chae, H. S., and Natriello, G. (2012). Vialogues: Videos and dialogues based social
learning environment. In
Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies,
ICALT 2012
(pp. 629–633). [6268195] 10.1109/ICALT.2012.127.
Angela, T. (2011). A
constructivist appr
oach to new media: An opportunity to improve social studies didactics.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences
, 185–189.
social constructivist peda
gogy of knowledge building through classroom social media use.
Journal of Effective Teaching
(1), 33–50.
& teacher
education international conference 2012
(pp. 560–565). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
Collaborative Tech-Based Learning
& learning in the age of social media: Chang
ing minds and learning
communities
. New Directions for Teaching and Learning
Karin C. Ryding
Future Research Directions
The eld of Arabic second language acquisition (ASLA) is ripe for research and for the construction
key issue in this regard is
problematization: for
mulating considered, insightful, and signicant questions whose answers provide
use the term
“complex dichotomy” because the traditional
have stated else
where,
Research design, data analysis, concepts such as input, intake, and interaction, the natural order
hypothesis, skill acquisition theory, processability theory, sociocultural theory, error correction
and feedback, and other topics need to be further investigated and redened for Arabic-specic
purposes. Little is known about Arabic learner cognition, memory, or ultimate attainment. If
signicant research into acquisition of Arabic as a foreign language does not happen, key deci
sions on how to build uency, accuracy, and authentic interactive discourse skills will continue
to be based not on Arabic-grounded ndings, but solely on research within Western language
(Ryding, 2013b, 406).
The sociolinguistic work of Badawi (1973, 1985), of Bassiouney (2006, 2009), of Mejdell (2006,
2008), and others points to the complex nature of Arabic usage, but further discussion is needed in
order to connect these insights with contemporary characterization of Arabic language learning
goals, materials, and with Arabic language acquisition studies. In this chapter I
undertake to examine
ee key areas of ASLA importance: research on vocabulary acquisition, on intercultural pragmatics,
and on “elite closure” in Arabic. All three topics are impacted by sociolinguistic complexities that
Future Research Directions in
Karin C. Ryding
Research on Vocabulary/Lexis
have noted else
where,
“vocabulary is the most essential tool that Arabic learners can use to construct meaning and
it provides the context and anchor for grammatical structure” (Ryding, 2013a, 197). By vocabulary,
do not refer only to single wor
ds, but also multi-word phrases, xed expressions, conventionalized
word sequences, formulaic expressions, and prefabricated “chunks” that serve as building blocks for
early stages of language acquisition, in particular.
Research on transfer of L1 conceptual structures to the L2 could be of great importance to ASLA.
As Wolter notes, “L1 conceptual/lexical knowledge has a massive inuence on how the learner struc
am well a
ware that there is an extensive anecdotal tradition of learner horror stories
about inappropriate Arabic lexical choices (including my own). To some extent this is unavoidable;
but because it is a pervasive and long-standing structural problem for Arabic learners, I
believe it is
orth investigating in a principled manner. How can researchers contribute to smoothing the way
Future Research Directions
for learning lexical selection, to ways of providing declarative as well as procedural knowledge to
learners that allow appropriate lexical choice for a range of social situations?
Situated discourse is a key concept in the teaching of any language. It signals the importance of align
ment, positioning, and “enregisterment,” that are central to communicative practice.
This approach puts situated action rst, it sees linguistic conventions/structures as just one
(albeit important) semiotic resource among a number available to participants in the process of
consideration. In learning an L2, students become aware that their normal discourse behaviors may
be inappropriate or awkward in the new language, but are often at a loss as to how exactly to modify
their verbal and non-verbal behavior. Many if not most learners of Arabic come to the language with
previous foreign language learning experience; that is, Arabic is often an L3 or L4 for them, and they
are often concerned about the need for appropriate cultural adjustments to their interactional style.
realized that I
dislike having for
eigners speak my language”
(Kilito, 2002, p. 100).
Hearing an American woman speak uent colloquial Moroccan Arabic,
he confesses feeling that “the American woman robbed me of it” and that because of her skill,
“my language is slipping away from me” (Kilito, 2008, p. 91). This feeling is intensied because
Future Research Directions
of her ease and control not only of the language but of the pragmatics of Moroccan discourse, as
she utters the deeply Moroccan phrase “
wallahila
” at one point, astounding her listeners with her
uency, but not winning any friends by doing so. Kilito admits that he feels transgressed: “it was
wallahila
”) were an exclusive right to Moroccans and forbidden to others”
(Kilito, 2008, p. 92).
Thus here is an instance of learned uency in colloquial Arabic causing a sense of estrangement
rather than acceptance by the native speaker. I
appreciate Kilito’s honest confession of discomfor
t,
but I
also take it as a challenge.
Would most native Arabic speakers prefer to hear foreigners speak in
a less directly intimate style? In a more “educated,” formal, or psychologically distant style? I
imagine
that pr
otected intimacy or elite closure varies with the speech community and the speech situation;
that in certain situations the [+intimacy] register is acceptable on the part of nonnative speakers, but
in others, it needs to be more [+formal]. I
believe that
carefully
delineated discourse model for
Arabic teaching theory would represent a step forward in the eld.
Articulating distinctive issues pertaining to Arabic as a foreign language—vocabulary acquisition,
intercultural pragmatics, appropriateness and ordinary discourse—could streamline and strengthen
“Despite the spotlight on Arabic learning since the ev
ents of 9/11, the total number of Arabic-specic
second language acquisition studies is still low compared to equivalent published data and research in other
foreign language elds” (Ryding, 2013b, p. 395).
Anecdotally, but cer
tainly, by far the most frequent request from Arabic students, in my experience, regards
advice on strategies for vocabulary learning.
The key role of vocabulary acquisition in the L2 (especially in Arabic) resonates with the concept of “lexical
bootstrapping” in rst language acquisition,
where the young child acquires not only words, but also con
cepts through lexical expansion and development.
See Ricks, 2015.
Wolter notes: “the pr
“Discourse enregister
ment—processes that differentiate a language into recognizable registers, each capable
of indexing a distinct speaker persona or activity type” (Agha, 2005, p. 2).
Kecskes, 2015,
p. 422. See his remarks on the “the decisive role of individual willingness and motivation in
modifying L1-base pragmatic norms and conventions and making room for the pragmatic requirements of
the new language.”
i yawm-in min al-ayy
aam-i tabayyana lii anna-nii laa u
ibb-u an yatakallam-a l-ajaanib-u lughat-ii
See Ryding, 2015.
Here I
allude to Edward Said’
s remark about “the inane formulas given out to American youngsters for what
passed for spoken (but was really kitchen) Arabic” (Said, 1999, p. 82). Said is referring to his own educational
study of intermediate-lev
el learners of Arabic.
Modern Language
Journal
(1), 19–39.
contrastive analysis and translation.
(4), 694–716.
Loewen, S. (2015).
. New York: Routledge.
Martinez, R., and Schmitt, N. (2012). A
phrasal expressions list.
(3), 299–320.
Mejdell, G. (2006).
Future Research Directions
Meyers-Scotton, C. (1993). Elite closure as a powerful language strategy: The African case.
International Journal of
the Sociology of Language
, 149–163.
Moon, R. (1997). Vocabulary connections: Multi-word items in English. In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (Eds.),
Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy
(pp. 40–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ricks, R. (2015).
The development of frequency-based assessments of vocabulary breadth and depth for L2 Arabic
. Dis
guide for teachers
Washington, DC:
vocabular
y research manual
. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Taka
, Višnja Pavi
. (2008).
Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition
. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing and adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams
(Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition
(pp. 115–135). New York: Routledge.
Mohammad T. Alhawary
Empirical Directions
This chapter offers a brief overview of areas which have been investigated in Arabic second language
acquisition research, discusses areas which have only recently received some attention, and then
points to roads not taken in light of well-established and emerging models and trends in both second
language acquisition research and teaching. Beyond the areas of research hoped for in Arabic as a
1 provides a br
ief overview of areas which have
been investigated in Arabic second language acquisition research and the yielded implications for
second language teaching; Section
2 discusses areas which
have only recently received some attention
3 points to roads not taken in light of exist
ence of well-established and new emerging models and trends in both applied linguistics and Arabic
Mohammad T. Alhawary
second language acquisition and teaching; and Section
provide an overview of areas which have been investigated in Arabic second lan
guage acquisition resear
ch and which have
relevance to Arabic second classroom teaching
Mohammad T. Alhawary
it is likely not to emerge early despite the frequency of the form in the instructional input. Such
ndings have signicant implications for teaching and can be addressed by means of early presenta
tion and intense recycling in the input, adopting a more tolerant attitude of errors by learners whose
L1 does not exhibit the gender feature, and employing a long-term strategy of error correction of
such forms (for more elaborate implications, see Alhawary, 2009a).
Other areas: Phonology, Vocabulary, Listening,
Speaking, Reading, and Writing
Unlike Arabic morphosyntax, other areas, such as Arabic L2 phonology, vocabulary, and the various
processes to do with listening, speaking, reading, and writing, received a lot less attention in Arabic SLA.
In the area of Arabic L2 phonology, one notable exception is Alosh (1987) who investigated the percep
tion and production of Arabic pharyngealized fricatives (also known as emphatic sounds) by English-
speaking learners. Although the three groups of participants (divided according to three prociency
levels) did not exhibit difference in performance with respect to production of emphatic consonants,
their perception of such consonants did improve over time. The ndings also reveal that pharyngealiza
tion is mostly “vocalic” to English L1 speakers, as they tend to associate the pharyngealized feature as
part of vowels rather than consonants unlike L1 Arabic speakers. Alosh (1987) suggests that the implica
am awar
e of a number of other studies on Arabic L2 phonology underway, including doctoral disser
tations, on the velars, gutturals (uvulars, pharyngeals, and glottals) and lexical stress, among other areas.
Not unlike Arabic L2 phonology, Arabic SLA research on vocabulary remains under-investigated.
Two studies are relevant to classroom teaching. Redouane (2001, 2003) compared the performance
of second-year L2 learners of Arabic (most of whom are L1 English speakers) with that of native
Arabic speakers on production and comprehension tasks. One of the signicant ndings of the study
is that learners at higher levels of vocabulary knowledge made signicantly more use of word forma
tion processes (to coin new meanings) than those at lower levels. This is taken to suggest that lexical
411
Similarly, little SLA research in Arabic has been done on the ability to use the various pro
cesses of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. With respect to listening, one research study was
conducted on listening comprehension.
Elkhafai (2005a) examined the effectiveness of different
types of advanced organizers (i.e., pre-listening activities) as well as repeated listening exposures.
Mohammad T. Alhawary
Arabic L2 reading has received little attention in Arabic SLA research. A
few studies ha
ve been
conducted on Arabic word recognition and reading comprehension with some important implica
tions. Khaldieh (1996) investigated word recognition at the word and sentence level by English-
speaking learners of Arabic belonging to three prociency levels. The study also employed a control
group of native Arabic speakers. The results show that the phonological and graphic systems of Ara
413
nonexistent. Although Arabic L2 Speaking has received a good amount of attention, this has been
conned to investigating the production or processing of Arabic morphosyntactic features in order
to examine speech processing prerequisite claims. The situation is hopeful, however, as I
am awar
a number of studies being currently conducted, some of which include doctoral dissertations.
On the positive statement concluding the previous section, other important areas, such as interlan
guage pragmatics and heritage language acquisition, have recently received some attention, especially
the latter. In interlanguage pragmatics two recent studies have emerged. Morkus (2009) investigated
the development of refusals in Egyptian Arabic by two groups (intermediate and advanced) of Ameri
can English-speaking learners of Arabic. The study included two control groups of Egyptian Arabic
and American English native speakers. Among the signicant ndings with respect to L2 Interlan
guage development, data analysis of participants’ performance on role play tasks showed that the L2
groups used a higher percentage of direct strategies (especially in higher status situations) as well as
control
group of Saudi
Arabic speakers was used. Data consisted of participants’ performance in two role-play
tasks which involved the participants making formal requests to university administrators in Saudi
Arabic where the study took place. The main ndings indicated that overall the participants initially
started to use indirect requests and then they reverted to using direct requests as their prociency
heritage language is acquired as
Mohammad T. Alhawary
the input and interaction with such input in comparison with that of L1 acquisition (Polinsky, 2008,
series of her
itage language acquisition studies yielded results conrming such
intuitive observations (especially for classroom language teachers), including presence of gaps in their
morphosyntactic and lexical knowledge (Albirini, Benmamoun, and Saadah, 2011; Albirini, Ben
mamoun and Chakrani, 2013), in their root and pattern morphological knowledge (Benmamoun
415
conducting studies in the classroom context rather than laboratory context
conducting studies on the different types of feedback and error cor
rection techniques
controlling for the various cr
ucial variables in order to avoid any possible confounding effects
controlling for L1 as well as heritage language kno
wledge carefully, even though this is a limita
controlling for L2 language knowledge when inv
estigating language transfer (i.e., taking into
account L2 transfer in L3 acquisition), since different effects have been observed in the literature
on transfer recently
future research in her
itage language acquisition should incorporate longitudinal design and
tease apart developmental variables from social ones (as suggested by Albirini and Benmamoun
2014b), quantify heritage language input received, provide more information about their herit
future research in study abr
oad environment should implement longitudinal design and provide
data (both quantitative and qualitative) about the specic language gains under different condi
tions in order to develop more accurate expectations and address their further needs in the local
foreign language environment
future research in the study of
Mohammad T. Alhawary
contexts of Arabic L2 use and sociopsychological factors such as identity, attitude, and motiva
tion (i.e., not just needs) which may be involved (see also Jenkins, 2004).
Finally, although Arabic questionnaire survey research intended for the purpose of analyzing data
offering teachers
offering summaries of resear
ch studies in which SLA jargon is reduced to minimum
conducting collaborative resear
training and encouraging teachers to conduct action resear
conducting research on teacher cognition education
do not observe this distinction her
e and use the term “second” to mean both
throughout.
Although Azaz (2016) does not explicitly state that introduction of the semantic concept of deniteness
should be at an “early”
stage of Arabic L2 acquisition, the overall suggested implications seem to point that
way.
Another important implication of Alosh’s (1987) ndings is to utilize L1 English speak
ers’ perception ten
dency by encouraging such learners to adopt a strategy of initially identifying the pharyngealized consonant
417
by noticing the vowel quality (heavy/deep) occurring with the consonant then gradually noticing the
pharyngealized feature of the consonant itself. This is a strategy which I
found to work successfully when
teaching Arabic sound system in beg
inning and subsequent language courses.
This implication is not incongruent with SLA vocab
ulary research ndings in general where vocabulary
learning is observed to be less efcient at an early acquisition stage than later, since the learner has not
In addition, Elkhafai conducted one study related to listening compr
Finding many MSA features in the passages which speaker
s of the three dialects produced in response to
Trentman’s request (in order to use the recorded responses in the study), Trentman assumed that the speakers
were accommodating to MSA as they were responding to her, knowing that she is a nonnative speaker, based
on general observations in the literature (e.g., Abu Melhim, 1991; Mitchell, 1986). Trentman (2011) also
states that “linguistic differences and listener familiarity are good predictors of intelligibility, and the dialects
are more similar to each other than to MSA. Therefore, it is reasonable to predict that familiarity with one
dialect would be more useful in understanding other dialects than knowing MSA would be to understand
Trentman acknowledges a n
(and unfortunately, a transcript of the listening passages was not provided) and the lack of control for pro
ciency which may be “a potentially confounding variable” (2011, p. 45). Trentman also stated that other
factors may explain the ndings including: prevalence of teachers from Egypt and the Levant under whom
the majority of participants studied and inclusion of case and mood endings in the MSA passage, which may
have distracted the participants and affected their comprehension. There are other problems with the instru
ment of the study, including lack of control for age, for gender, for the type of Arabic instructional input
received (i.e., the type of textbooks the participants used and the nature of MSA and dialectal exposure), and
for L1 and L2 language knowledge. No information was provided about the L1 or L1s of the participants
other than that all but three participants (who came from European universities) studied at US universities.
In addition, there are two other likely confounding variables not acknowledged by Trentman. First, in both
types of listening transfer tests, many participants who knew either Levantine or Egyptian also knew other
dialects (Trentman, 2011, pp. 32–33, Tables
3–4) which may hav
e biased their familiarity to dialects versus
A recent study by Show
Although one counters other studies to have emplo
Mohammad T. Alhawary
Khaldieh (2001) notes that future research of this line of in
vestigation should employ Classical Arabic prose
(in addition to that of MSA) in order to shed more light on the importance of
i‘raab
to reading—perhaps in
reference to types of style where formal features such as case and mood endings can carry more functional
loads. However, the importance of lexical knowledge to reading comprehension is consistent with ndings
in the L1 and L2 reading literature in general (e.g., Stahl, 1983; Taglieber, Johnson, and Yarbough, 1988,
respectively). This is also in line with ndings in the L2 listening comprehension literature (see Elkhafai,
Hansen (2010) does not mention explicitly the textbook used by the participants in Lev
els/groups 1–2.
Another plausible explanation is that such participants—if using a textbook where full vowelization of texts
is not provided as some textbooks provide full vowelization only of words when rst introduced in a given
lesson—may have not adjusted to the sudden requirement of the study condition and, therefore, the supplied
vowels may have distracted and slowed the participants down. In addition to the limitations acknowledged in
the study (e.g., not controlling for the L1 of the participants nor their knowledge of L2s, and the small token
size of the comprehension questions), to avoid a possible outcome biased by textbook use, a more accurate
Many ndings are consistent with the literature on r
pragmatics (e.g., individual variation, L1 transfer, and use of direct rather than indirect strategies). However,
although other studies revealed signicant gender-related differences, Morkus (2009, 2014) did not control
for gender in his study (cf. Al-Issa, 1998 investigating refusals in Jordanian EFL participants; for a similar nd
ing from a study on apology strategies by Jordanian EFL participants, see Batianeh and Bataineh, 2006).
L1 was not controlled for in the study,
although evidence in the literature suggests that L1 may play a role
(e.g., Olshtain, 1983).
It may be possible that L1 transfer effects may ha
ve contributed to the trend exhibited by the four groups, as
Al-Gahtani and Roever (2015) acknowledge.
Despite presence of some llers (or distractors) in tw
o of the tasks, that the study’s focus on negation was
Another study on heritage speakers w
orthy of mention is Saadah (2011) which investigated the production
of Arabic vowels by heritage speakers and English L2 learners of Arabic. Participants of the study belonged to
two groups of heritage speakers (an experienced and an inexperienced group) and two groups of L2 learners
(an advanced and a beginner group). The results of the study expectedly showed that more exposure to and
419
longitudinal and cross-sectional study
.
Foreign Language Annals
(4), 570–583.
Alhawary, M. T. (1999).
Testing Processability and effectiveness of computer-assisted language instruction: A
study of Arabic as a foreign/second language
J. (2001).
. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mohammad T. Alhawary
Elkhafai, H. (2005a). The effects of prelistening activities on listening comprehension in Arabic learners.
(4), 505–513.
descriptiv
e study of Arabic learners.
Al-‘Arabiyya
, 71–86.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A
revie
w with implications for theories of implicit
and explicit language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
(2), 143–188.
Ellis, N. C. (2012). Frequency-based accounts of second language acquisition. In S. Gass and A. Mackey (Eds.),
(pp. 193–210). New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: An educational perspective.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
, 69–92.
Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy.
Language Teaching
(2),
Falk, Y., and Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor.
Language Research
(1), 59–82.
Flynn, S., Foley, C., and Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition:
Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in rst, second and third language acquisition of
relative clauses.
International Journal of Multilingualism
, 3–16.
resource for chang
ing teachers’ professional cultures.
The Modern Language Journal
, 80–93.
Mitchell, T. F. (1986). What is educated spoken Arabic?
International Journal of the Sociology of Language
, 7–32.
Morkus, N. (2009).
The realization of the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic by American learners of Arabic as a
. PhD dissertation, University of South Florida.
Morkus, N. (2014). Refusals in Egyptian Arabic and American English.
Journal of Pragmatics
, 86–107.
Nation, I. S. (2001).
Learning vocabulary in another language
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nielsen, H. L. (1997). On acquisition order of agreement procedures in Arabic learner language.
Al-‘Arabiyya
, 49–93.
421
Odlin, T. (2014). Rediscovering predictions. In Z. Han and E. Tarone (Eds.),
Interlanguage: Forty years later

(pp. 27–45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(pp.
149–164). London: Routledge.
Rainey, O. (2000). Action research and the English as a foreign language practitioner: Time to take stock.
cational Action Research
, 65–91.
Rebuschat, P., and Williams, J. N. (2012).
Statistical learning and language acquisition
. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Rdouane, R. 2001. The use of Modern Standard Arabic word formation processes by English-speaking and
French-speaking adult L2 learners and native speakers. PhD dissertation, University of
Toronto.
, R. (2003). Learners' variability in coining new words in L2.
Al-‘Arabiyya
, 49–80.
Römer, U., Ellis, N. C., and O’Donnell, M. B. (2014). Second language learner knowledge of verb-argument
constructions: Effects of language transfer and typology.
The Modern Language Journal
(4), 952–975.
step towar
second language learning.
(3), 371–391.
Taglieber, L. K. Johnson, L. L., and Yarbrough, D. B. (1988). Effects of preceding activities on EFL reading by
Brazilian college students.
TESOL Quarterly
(3), 455–472.
Trentman, E. (2011). L2 Arabic dialect comprehension: Empirical evidence for the transfer of familiar dialect
knowledge to unfamiliar dialects.
L2 Journal
, 22–49.
Tsui, A. B. M., and Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 performance.
(4), 432–451.
VanPatten, B. (2012). Input processing. In S. Gass and A. Mackey (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of second language
(pp. 268–281). New York: Routledge.
Webb, S. (2007). The effects of synonymy on second-language vocabulary learning.
(2), 120–136.
Younes, M. (2014).
The integrated approach to Arabic instruction
. London: Routledge.
Sameh Alansary
, Alexandria University, Egypt
Mohammad T. Alhawary
, The University of Michigan, USA
Roger Allen
, University of Pennsylvania, USA
, San Diego State University, USA
R. Kirk Belnap
, Brigham Young University, USA
Steven Berbeco
, The U.S. Department of State, USA
Clarissa Burt
, US Naval Academy, USA
Hristina Chobanova
, St. Kliment Ohridski University, Bulgaria
Raghda El Essawi
, The American University in Cairo, Egypt
Dalal Abo El Seoud
, The American University in Cairo, Egypt
, Principal, Liz England and Associates, LLC, USA
, George Washington University, USA
Susan M. Gass
, Michigan State University, USA
Manuela E. B. Giolfo
, University of Genoa, Italy
, The American University in Cairo, Egypt
Zeinab Ibrahim
, Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar, Qatar
Andreas Karatsolis
, Harvard University, USA
Ayman Mohamed
, Michigan State University, USA
John M. Norris
accountability: in Arabic language instruction 4,
accreditation 4, 257,
263; standards 4;
for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)
agreement, second language morphology 44
8;
Processability Theory
“Aladdin and the Magic Lamp” 207, 209
Al-Arabiyya Test 123,
Algeria 224; Algerian dialect
alignment, language and culture 109,
111, 113
Al Jazeera
allophonic variation
Al Qaeda
American Association of
Teachers of Arabic (AATA)
12, 168,
American Council of T
eachers of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL) 70, 109, 111, 116, 168, 237, 247, 249,
250, 256, 257, 269
70, 276, 279, 281,
349, 363,
60, 262, 264, 269
70, 279, 280, 283,
345;
ratings 284; Standards for the Preparation of
Foreign Language Teachers 109, 362; Standards of
FL Learning 65, 70, 345; “3 Ps” 111;
Prociency Interview (OPI)
American Council on Education
American English (language) 53, 145,
333, 410,
American Sign Language
American Univ
ersity in Cairo (AUC) 143, 175, 176,
177, 179, 280; Press
American Univ
ersity of Beirut (AUB) 141
8,
148n4; Center for Arabic and Middle East Studies
2, 145, 147, 148;
Department of
Arabic and Near Eastern Languages 141; Ras
Beirut (Beirut Promontory) neighbourhood
AntConc software 90,
anti-Semitism
appropriateness,
concept of 114, 280, 285, 292n6,
367, 402
Arab American exper
Arabian Peninsula 189,
Arabic (language) 44, 49
50, 212, 213, 363;
contemporary 89
91, 95, 98, 101,
6, 376;
diglossic nature of 123
6, 153, 199, 220,
8,
245, 247
8, 250, 269
71, 277, 345, 354,
355n12,
363, 376, 377, 402, 415; formal 20, 143
5,
147, 237, 401;
informal (low) form 199, 237,
401; and Islam 188
9; as liturgical language
185; m
ultiglossic nature of 363; as ofcial U.N.
language 185; as Semitic language 199; spoken
11, 15, 17n9, 143
5, 269
77, 348, 377, 403,
405, 406n10; writing direction 205; written
14, 15, 17n9, 81, 84, 87
8, 89, 224, 225,
228,
284, 376, 402;
Arabic corpora; classical
Arabic (CA); colloquial Arabic (CA); dialect(s);
diglossia; Educated Spoken Arabic (ESA);
h¯a¯;
medieval Arabic; Modern Standard Arabic (MSA);
vernacular(s)
17, 55, 141
2,
6, 185
6, 299, 301, 308,
390, 393, 395, 401,
402, 405, 408, 415, 416; learning 233; students 147,
167–8, 299, 306, 405;
teaching Arabic as a
foreign language (TAFL)
Arabic as a second language (ASL) 32, 57, 234, 346,
347, 349, 353, 375, 381
Arabic conditionals 89
Arabic Contemporary Corpus (A
Arabic corpora 125
6, 128, 219
20, 222, 223, 229,
353, 355
6n17; Arabic Corpus 125;
Corpus 125
6;
Contemporary
Corpus (ACC); ArabiCorpus; Arcolex;
DIINAR-MBC; English/Arabic Parallel Corpus;
General Scientic Arabic Corpus (GSAC);
“International Corpus of Arabic (ICA)”; Leuven
Corpus; SemArch—Semitisches Tonarchiv; Vienna
97;
business 186
7, 191, 192
6, 197;
“focus on language” appr
5;
lexicographical aspect of 188;
literature/literary
50, 353;
Arabic language assessment(s);
ies;
Elementary Modern Standard Arabic
Arabic language teachers
teachers of Arabic
Arabic literature 12, 142, 187, 189
90, 192, 196, 247,
ArabiCorpus 225
30, 230n5,
Arabic orthog
raphy 214n6, 214n7,
Arabic phonology 329, 337,
338, 338n2, 410, 412,
414, 415
Arabic pronunciation 329
38, 416
17n3; consonant
ventory 333, 410; educational component
330, 331
2, 338; focus-on-form instr
uction 331;
glottals 410; graphemes 412, 417n8; gutturals
410; intonation 333, 337; linguistic component
1, 338; pharyngeals 333,
410; pitch phonemes
333, 412; resources 337; rhythm 337; segmental
features 330, 332, 333, 334, 337, 338; stress 337;
suprasegmental features 330, 332, 334, 337, 338;
38; uvulars 333, 410,
417n8; velars
410, 417n8; vowels 410;
Arabic script 17n9, 95,
126, 189, 192, 245, 317, 417n8
Arabic second language acquisition (ASLA) 12,
346, 377, 401–2, 405n1, 408–9; research 408
16;
“elite closur
e”; intercultural pragmatics;
morphosyntax; vocabulary acquisition
8, 223,
260
1, 269
70,
276, 382,
382n6; regional 265;
dialect(s);
vernacular(s)
Arabic vocabulary 28, 55, 57, 128, 402, 412;
vocabulary acquisition; vocabulary, learning
Arab Gulf region/states 186,
190–1, 236, 362; dialect
Arab Spring 23, 66,
90, 151, 288, 376,
Arab world 6, 13,
17n7, 32, 90, 91, 110, 113
15, 124,
154, 155,
7, 168, 170, 171,
172, 176, 193, 220,
224, 246, 247, 249, 266n4, 272, 288, 300
3, 354n4,
375,
376, 379
Arcolex (Arabic Raw Cor
purposes)
articulation, pr
assessment(s): denition 255; de
velopment of 256,
261, 263
4, 265, 279; pur
6, 261,
264, 366;
and Understanding by Design (UbD)
framework
assessment expertise 363,
assessment literacy 255
8; selected-response 257,
262, 351; self- 351, 366; summative 366;
technology-mediated 258; translation-based 258,
351;
Oral Prociency Interview (OPI)
assessment validation and evaluation
analysis 187, 189
90, 192, 194, 196;
media 187,
188, 191
2, 194; medical 187,
191; needs analysis
190, 193, 195,
197; and perceived vs. actual
9;
security 186, 188,
194; teacher training 193
4,
6; technology 187; texts for 188
93, 197n3;
workplace
Arabic grammar,
teaching of 21, 89, 106, 234
5,
56, 382, 382n5; and assessment 348,
351,
353; explicit 346
7, 349, 350; games 352;
handbooks for 353, 354n3; history of 344
6;
7, 350; and “iner
t knowledge
problem” 355n11; textbooks 34n4, 84, 235;
Arabic language assessment(s) 255
66, 376, 382;
CTFL Assessment for Performance toward
Prociency in Languages (AAPPL) 366; Arabic
Prociency Test (APT) 258
9, 260, 265n2; C
Oral Prociency Exam (COPE) 260; Classroom
1; comprehensiv
e model 270;
Computer Assisted Screening Tool (CAST) 260,
263; Computerized Oral Prociency Instrument
(COPI) 256, 259
60; consecutive model 270,
3; C-test 261; Elicited Imitation T
261; Foreign Language Achievement Test (FLATS)
256, 260, 262;
Integrated Performance Assessment
(IPA) 263; interface model 272
7; Language
Testing International’
s Writing Prociency
Test (WPT) 260; Linguafolio 366; New York
University Foreign Language Prociency Test 260;
Oral Prociency Interview— computer (OPIc)
260; PLACE Assessment 256, 262; Simulated
Oral Prociency Interview (SOPI) 259
60,
282; sociolinguistic model 272
3; STAMP 4S
Assessment 256, 260,
366; standards 266n4;
Stanford Foreign Language Oral Skills Evaluation
Matrix (FLOSEM) 260; student learning
4; student portfolios 257,
264, 265n1, 366; uses for 262
4; Ver
Arabic Test (VAT) 256, 260; vocabulary size test
261; Written Prociency Test (WPT) 366;
American Council of Teachers of Foreign
Languages (ACTFL); Oral Prociency Interview
(OPI); writing assessment(s)
Arabic language learning and teaching materials
50;
Arabic language learning materials
Arabic language learning materials (ALLM) 233
6,
43, 247
50, 401;
al-Kita¯b
234, 248, 256,
259, 291n1; content subjects 238, 240, 242
4,
249; g
rammar 234
6, 238
40, 242
4, 246
8,
50; handbooks 354n3, 355n5; language skills
4, 247, 248, 249;
reference 242
4, 248,
345, 353;
and technology 249; textbooks 224,
3, 236
9, 242
6, 248
9, 256,
262
3, 265,
80, 291n1, 299, 309,
345, 353, 355n5, 355n9,
378, 417n7, 418n11; vocabulary 238
40, 242
4,
communities standard 318, 319,
community(ies) of practice 154, 185,
188, 194, 196,
197, 363, 366, 368, 379, 388,
community service lear
ning (CSL) 196, 197, 197n7
comparisons standard 319,
comprehensible input,
theory of 170,
computer-based tests 255, 258; Computer
Screening Tool (CAST) 260; Computerized Oral
Prociency Instrument (COPI) 256, 259
Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)
connections standard 319,
conspiracy theory(ies) 91,
content-based language instruction (CBI) 300
1,
306, 364; example 303
6; thematic-based
content knowledge
continuum theory 17n16,
cooperative lear
ning 201, 312, 315
16, 322, 348,
385, 387; denition
corpus linguistics 220
2, 226, 352, 355n17;
Arabic
language 229; software for
Council for Accreditation of Educator Pr
(CAEP) 362, 364, 365, 366,
Council of Europe 109, 111,
19; “The English
Prole”
128;
Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
creative thinking 318, 319,
critical thinking 178, 196,
310, 316, 318, 319, 320,
321, 322, 347, 389; and social media 389; and
writing
cross-cultural communication
cultural development 157;
intercultural
development
cultural prociency 155
6;
prociency
cultures standard 319,
curriculum,
student-centered
Danish (language) 46,
Defense Language Institute 147,
developmental sequences 42,
8, 409;
agreement; negation
diachronic analysis
diachronic studies 89, 106,
dialect(s) 13
15, 17n5, 89, 125
6, 143, 167, 199
200,
214n4, 245
6, 271, 273;
Arab Gulf Region 244,
245; Arabic 25, 123, 134n9, 144
5, 153, 157, 171,
200, 219
20, 244
5, 271, 380, 381,
404, 411,
415, 417n6–7, 418n15; as informal (low) form
199; Levantine Region 244, 245; local 88, 144
5;
Maghrib Region 244;
as mother tongue 14, 125,
199, 200; Nile Valley Region 244, 245; North
African Region 245; spoken 123, 144, 189, 219;
8, 128, 145, 157
8, 167, 236, 238;
5; urban 124
6, 135n11;
diglossia; vernacular(s)
dialogism
diaspora: Lebanese 143; literatur
audio-lingual approach 14, 236,
258, 308
9, 335,
Australia
Australian English (language)
Austria
Bahrain 141, 349; Bahraini dialect
Beirut 141
2, 145, 147
8, 148n1, 149n8, 149n13
bimodalism
bivalency 381;
strategic 382n9
blended learning approach 169, 320, 389
Bulgaria
Cantonese (language)
Center for Advanced Resear
Acquisition (CARLA)
Center for Arabic Studies Abr
oad (CASA) 141,
4, 148n2, 302, 376;
study abroad
Chaldaic (language)
child language acquisition 42,
China 21,
Chinese (language) 17n10, 24, 25,
27, 34n11,
121, 134n1, 165, 186, 362; Chinese Language
Association for Secondary and Elementary schools
(CLASS) 362;
Cantonese (language);
Mandarin Chinese (language)
chunked learning 42,
classical Arabic (CA) 14,
84, 87, 105
6, 124, 143, 180,
200, 236, 258, 262,
330, 345, 418n10
cloze test/format 48, 260
code-mixing 17n15,
code-switching
collaborating (as 21st-century skill) 318, 319,
collaborative lear
ning 65, 66, 69, 201, 320, 385
8;
computer-supported (CSCL) 201; and
Web 2.0
95;
Arabic (CA) 14
15, 84, 141, 142,
148n4,
153, 177, 199
200, 214n4, 223, 262,
77, 330,
352, 363,
376, 401, 405, 414, 415;
dialect(s);
vernaculars
Common Core standards
Common European Framew
ork of Reference for
Languages (CEFR) 106, 111, 118
28, 134, 134n1,
134n8, 229, 237, 247, 345, 347,
communicating (as 21st-century skill) 318,
communication standar
d 318
19, 320
1;
interper
sonal 319, 320
1, 364; interpr
1, 364; presentational 319,
communication styles
15; dir
ect 114
15;
explicit 114
15; implicit
15; indir
ect 114
communicativ
e approach 15, 31, 32
3, 220, 236, 258,
302, 310, 320, 334, 335, 336, 344, 364,
communicativ
16, 17n14, 110,
20, 220, 230, 279,
Communicativ
e Language Teaching (CLT) 200, 259,
331, 346, 378, 382n2, 412; denition
communicativ
e naturalistic approach
English/Arabic Parallel Corpus; International
Corpus of English (ICE)
English/Arabic Parallel Corpus 223
English for specic purposes 187,
ESL (English as a second language) 41, 56
7, 281,
302, 364,
Europe 12, 20,
109, 111, 118, 120, 122, 142, 178, 237,
247, 302, 305,
European Union
eye
tracking 56
Facebook 17n9, 249n11, 379,
Failed Functional Features Hypothesis
Feature Reassemb
exible bilingualism
uency 66, 70, 300,
302, 334
7, 351, 353, 401,
402,
405, 414; vs. accuracy 335
6; denition 335;
nonnativ
5; oral 152; reading 55
focus on form(s) 16, 33, 54,
331, 346, 382n5
Foreign Service Institute (FSI) 63, 73n1, 148n1, 269,
376; and oral prociency assessment
formal Arabic 20,
5, 147, 401;
Modern
Standard Arabic (MSA)
formal language 14, 15, 114, 143,
Freemasonry 91,
French (language) 25, 30,
34n4, 34n11, 44, 46, 64
5,
106, 121, 147,
3, 162, 166, 171,
191, 223,
1, 283; and Alliance Française 171;
271; Parisian
h¯a¯
14, 79
80, 91, 147, 149n12,
213n3, 238
42,
246, 248n10, 249
50, 377, 378, 379,
1; as
native language
gender: ag
reement 46, 47, 126, 409; grammatical 48;
natural 48; semantic
General Scientic Arabic Corpus (GSA
7, 281;
1, 281, 412; dialects of 270;
diglossic nature
1; Low
1; MSG (Modern Standard Ger
Germany 20,
34n3, 270; Berlin
globalization 375, 377, 378,
Google 230, 390,
391; “Google Translate”
Google Docs 390
1, 395; and collaborativ
e learning
grammar-based approach 364, 382n5
rammaring 5, 355n12
graphematic var
Great Britain 122;
Greek (language) 34n11,
Gulf countries/reg
Arab Gulf region/states
diatopical variation
Dictionaire Informatise de l’Arabe
4,
230, 232, 235,
243, 244, 247, 258, 292n17, 322;
Arabic-Dutch/Dutch-Arabic 224; Arabic-English
230, 283; bilingual 223; collocational 223;
digital nativ
diglossia 13
14, 17n6, 17n12, 89,
6, 157
8, 178,
200, 238,
245, 345, 354, 355n12, 402; as advantage
200; and textbooks 245
6, 247
8;
discourse analysis 42, 375
6, 378, 382n1, 414;
Arabic
405; interactive discourse 403; online 379, 382,
382n1; primary discourse 375, 376, 381; reverse
privileging 375
6, 381; secondary discour
se 375,
EAQU
ALS core inventory for English
educated native speak
er 13, 16, 125, 126, 259, 270;
Educated Spoken Arabic (ESA) 125,
148n5, 405,
EFL (English as a foreign language) 56, 248n10, 302,
Egypt 17n16, 21, 34n3, 66, 81, 141, 153, 154, 155,
166, 178, 179, 199, 224, 236, 280, 349, 354n4,
406n10, 417n7; Alexandria 21; Arab language
academy in 199; Cairo 22, 141, 143, 148; sexual
Egyptian Arabic ver
nacular/dialect 11, 14, 43, 52
3,
57n2, 98, 125,
143, 145, 153, 175, 178, 224
5,
5, 260, 337, 379,
411, 413, 417n7; Cairene
Arabic 57n4, 145, 148n5
Elementary Modern Standard Arabic
(EMSA) 14, 26,
220, 236, 247, 248n8,
“elite closure” 401,
5; denition
Emirati dialect
emotional indicators 68
empathy (teachers’) 363,
English (language) 20, 23, 24, 30,
34n11, 43
7,
50, 53, 55, 56,
57, 106, 110, 111, 114, 119, 121,
128, 135n10, 147, 154, 155, 162
3, 165, 178, 186,
191, 194, 205, 209, 223, 225, 226
7, 270
1, 282,
315, 319,
355n5, 378, 401, 402, 409, 410, 411, 413,
416n3, 417n8; Appalachian 271; Black 271; British
145; consonant inventory of 333; corpora 222;
“The English Prole” 128; as a foreign language
248; intonation of 333; materials for teaching 250;
pitch phonemes of 333; pronunciation 329
33,
337;
American English; Australian English;
Iraq 185, 234, 236; invasion of 185; Iraq war
Iraqi Arabic vernacular/dialect 14,
43, 57n2, 244, 260,
ISIS 90, 91,
Islam 21, 23, 26,
170, 185, 188
9, 233
4, 246;
eschatolog
Islamic empire
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 170;
Islamic world 21, 91,
I Speak Arabic
website
Israel 158n1, 349; policies of
Italian (language) 34n10, 34n11
Japan 20
34, 34n3, 155, 349,
378; Arabic instruction
in, history of 20
2; Arabic instruction in high
34n15; Arabic instruction in university
32, 34n14; Arabic intensi
ve camps 27, 31, 32,
33, 72; Arabic Islamic Institute in Tokyo 27; Arabic
majors 25
6, 28
31, 32, 34n7, 34n20;
Arabic
teaching and learning, research on 32, 33; Arabic
teaching materials 20
1, 27, 34n4;
workshops 27, 32, 33; Asia-Africa Linguistic
31, 32, 34n20; Osaka 26;
Tokyo 26; traditional
instructional approach 29
30, 31;
Modern
Standard Arabic (MSA)
Japanese (language) 13, 17n10, 21, 121, 165,
Jerusalem
Jordan 51,
67, 70, 144, 148n2, 154, 169, 196, 349;
Amman 148n2; Middlebury program 196, 376;
Qasid Institute 148n2; Virginia/Yarmouk summer
program
Jordanian dialect
Korean (language) 13,
17n10, 24, 25, 34n11
Kuwait 224; National Council of Culture, Arts and
Kuwaiti Arabic v
ernacular/dialect 13,
L1 Full Transfer (FT) Hypothesis
L2 learning: childr
en vs. adults
land of the so-called Rum 91,
language contact
language for specic purposes (LSP) 187, 193
4,
197n6; course de
velopment 194
5; goals of 196;
needs analysis 195; teacher training 193
language/linguistic prociency 109, 115
16, 120,
152, 155
6, 167, 171, 213,
237, 271, 280, 301, 306,
345, 364, 366, 368; foreign 259; heritage 175
language pedagogy 41
2, 220, 279, 280,
368, 376,
Harvar
d University 12, 165; Center for Middle
Eastern Studies 165
Hebrew (language) 12, 13,
191, 412; Modern
heritage language acquisition 413, 417n7;
research in
heritage learners 67,
110, 121, 143, 155
6, 165,
80, 363, 365, 413–15,
417n7, 418n15;
denition 175, 176; motivations of 176
7; types of
176;
heritage language acquisition; heritage
speakers
heritage speakers 177, 270, 363, 413–14
heritage students
heritage learners
Hindi (language)
hybridity 377,
identity 14, 17n7, 64,
107, 154
5, 158, 353, 375
8,
380, 416;
American 162
ILA certicate in Arabic 123,
informal language 14,
input/interaction/output hypothesis 50
Input Processing approach
instructed second language acquisition (ISLA)
Integrated Perfor
mance Assessments (IPAs)
Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) 109, 111,
153, 269, 271, 274, 276; Language Skill Level
Descriptions 111; and oral prociency assessment
269, 274; Skill Level Descriptions (SLDs) for
11, 118,
299, 404;
denition 110; framework 115;
10, 113, 115, 116n1,
116n4; assessment of
266n6; denition 110; framework
4;
intercultural development 153,
Intercultural Dev
elopment Inventory (IDI)
interculturality 111, 116;
intercultural pragmatics 401, 405
cultural prociency 152,
Interface Hypothesis (IH)
interlanguage 42
3, 47, 53, 57n2,
403, 415; denition
42; pragmatics 413, 414, 418n12
Intermediate Modern Standard Arabic
“International Corpus of
Arabic (ICA)” 224
5, 226,
International Corpus of English (ICE) 224
Involvement Load Hypothesis 54
Iran 158n1
Middle East 32, 63, 91, 167, 170, 236, 302;
Middle East and North Afr
2, 185,
Middle East Center for Arab Studies (MECAS) 34n6,
141, 148n1, 148n4
Modern Language Association (MLA) 11,
34n12,
34n13, 109, 151, 186, 197n2, 236, 270; Foreign
Languages and Higher Education: New Structures
for a Changed World
Modern Standard
Arabic (MSA) 11, 14
16, 84, 88,
106, 123, 134
5n9, 142
7, 148n5, 153, 157
8,
171, 175
6, 177, 178, 180,
189, 191, 199
200,
201, 203
4, 209, 210, 212,
220, 223
6, 238
42,
50, 259, 260, 262,
77, 279, 333, 348,
352,
363, 404, 411, 412, 413, 414, 417n6–7, 418n10,
418n15; vs. dialects 200, 417n6, 418n15; Egyptian
Modern Standard Arabic 224; as formal (high)
form 199, 271
3, 330, 401; intonation of 333;
Japan 24
6, 27, 32; MSA-colloquial binar
y 265n3;
phonemes in 337; privileging of 15; ‘prociency
through MSA’ 259; religious connotations of 272;
syntactic variation 355n9; teaching of 236, 415;
textbook of 145, 236;
Arabic (language);
audio-lingual approach; classical Arabic; dialect(s);
diglossia; vernacular(s)
Morocco 154, 236, 349; Moroccan Arabic
vernacular/dialect 13, 244, 379, 404–5
morphological reduction 80,
morphology 45,
49, 330, 338, 345; Arabic 49, 55,
57, 225, 229, 349; derivational 55, 402; second
morphosyntactic agr
eement/elements/features 45,
49, 411–14
morpho-syntactic structures 127,
morpho-syntactic var
iation 80, 84;
morphological reduction
morphosyntax 409–10, 414; features 411, 412, 413
mother tongue 13, 14, 125, 177, 199, 200, 347, 351,
401, 404
Multilingual Computerized/Corpus-based Arabic
Dictionary
Najd, the
National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards
(NBPTS) 362, 364, 365, 366, 367; world language
standards
National Examinations in World Languages (NEWL)
National Middle East Language Resource Center 63,
66, 225;
see also Project Perseverance
native language (NL) 4, 5, 14, 33n2, 42, 47, 49, 53, 10,
191, 337, 347, 352, 409; role of in SLA 44;
NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements
70, 73, 364;
benchmarks 281, 283,
language skills 4, 5, 28,
111, 116, 120
2, 124, 178,
236, 238
44, 247
50, 258,
299
302, 345,
347, 353, 415; integration models 311; integration
of 300, 302, 306, 308, 310
18;
reading skills; speaking skills; writing skills
language variation 6,
79, 377; causes of 80, 106;
denition 79;
diatopical variation;
graphematic variation; lexical variation;
morpho-syntactic variation; phonic variation;
semantic variation; sociolinguistic variation 152;
synchronic variation; syntactic variation
Latin (language) 34n10, 34n11, 165,
Latin script 192, 220,
222, 245, 417n8
learner language
learning communities 385,
learning orientation 30,
31; friendships 30, 31;
instrumental 30, 31; integrative 30, 31; in Japan 30,
31; knowledge 30, 31; travel 30, 31; types of
learning spaces 5,
least effort, pr
Lebanese colloquial Arabic/dialect 141
5, 147,
148n4, 149n10,
Lebanon 142, 143, 147,
148n3; Civil War 34n6, 141;
Lebanese diaspora 143;
Beirut
Leuven Corpus
Levant,
the 191, 417n7
Levantine Arabic vernacular 14, 145
6, 244
5, 379,
411, 413,
lexical knowledge 41, 57, 188, 261, 317, 402, 410,
412, 414, 418n10
lexical variation 84,
Libya 141;
Libyan dialect
linguistic accommodation strategies
linguistic-based resear
ch 48
50;
eatures Hypothesis; Feature
Reassembly; Input Processing approach;
Interface Hypothesis (IH) 49; L1 Full Transfer
(FT) Hypothesis 49; Representational Decit
linguistic corpora 219
30; denition 221; general
221; r
eference 221; specialised
listening skills 241
2, 292n19, 299
300, 301, 302,
6, 364, 407, 409,
410–11, 412, 414, 415,
417n5, 418n10
literary culture studies approach
literature circles 308,
22; denition
Mahdi 102
Mandarin Chinese (language)
mastery experiences 65
6, 68, 69,
Mauritanian dialect
Mecca
medieval Arabic
Medina
models 334; intelligibility principle 334; and
perceptual training 333; teacher as coach model
334;
Qatar 202, 213n1, 214n2; Doha 202; Qatar Academy
Qatar Foundation International 167,
169, 170; Arabic
Resource Box
Qatari dialect 200, 203
4, 212, 213,
Qur’an 62, 79, 84,
124, 125
6, 189, 219, 230,
4,
7; Uthmanic script in
Ramadan 111; fasting dur
reading skills 13, 179,
242, 299
300, 308
9, 310
18,
322, 364, 409,
16,
412, 418n10; effer
ent 309, 320; extensive 309, 310,
313; intensive 309; reading logs 314
18; teaching of
309, 310
18;
e circles
reciprocal teaching 315
regional v
rev
erse privileging 15
16, 375
Romanized script
Russia 91,
Russian (language) 34n11, 153,
Saudi Arabia 43, 48,
104, 191, 224, 229; National
Center for Assessment in Higher Education
(NCA)
Saudi dialect 244, 411, 413
65, 68, 147, 195, 201, 203, 207, 330,
364; characteristics of 201; denition
second language: morpholo
gy 44; pedagogy 42,
second language acquisition (SLA) 16, 33, 41
2, 47,
57, 124,
8, 134, 135n12, 147,
152, 344, 346,
349, 353, 354, 377
8, 408, 409, 416n1;
53, 55
7, 126
7, 408,
417n4;
student-centered 354;
developmental
sequences; chunked learning; heritage language
acquisition; input/interaction/output hypothesis;
interlanguage; linguistic-based research; native
language; processing-based research; second
language; sociolinguistic approaches;
U-shaped learning
Second Sino-Japanese War
self-efcacy 5; assessment of 69
70, 72, 115;
64; in foreign language learning
70, 72
3; sour
ces of 65
9, 73;
emotional indicators; mastery experiences; verbal
persuasions; vicarious experiences
semantic variation
semantic widening
SemArch—Semitisches T
onarchiv 355
Semitic languages 12, 13,
September 11, 2001
9/11 terrorist attacks
negotiation 50
2, 54, 115, 155
6, 158, 319, 352,
377,
386, 388, 413; exchanges 50; skills
New W
orld Order 91,
9/11 terror
ist attacks 23, 141, 151, 163, 164, 170,
6, 405n1
Arab-Israeli War 21; and oil crisis 20, 21,
non-heritage learner
s 70, 73n1, 156,
non-heritage students
non-heritage learners
non-linear reading-writing model
nonnative lear
ners 189, 194, 197, 247, 344, 348,
nonnative speak
ers (NNS) 41, 50, 56, 87, 115,
142, 165, 169, 188, 233, 237, 241, 344
7,
404–5, 417n6
nonv
erbal communication: denition
North African Arabic
vernacular
Omani dialect
Open University of J
oral prociency 152
4, 230, 259, 261,
262,
271, 275, 281; assessment/testing of 259
61,
77; as
continuum 271
4;
Oral Prociency
Interview (OPI)
Oral Prociency Interview (OPI) 152, 165, 171, 220,
255, 256, 257, 259
60, 261, 262, 264,
71,
7, 282,
Osaka University 20
1, 25
6, 28; Arabic education
1, 25
6, 27–8; online teaching materials
as Osaka Foreign Language College 20
1; as
Osaka Univer
sity of Foreign Studies 21,
Pacic War
21;
World War
Palestinian dialect 244,
pedagogical content kno
wledge (PCK) 363, 364
performance error
Persian (language)
phonology 49, 329
30, 331, 337, 338,
338n2, 345,
409–10, 412, 414, 415;
Arabic phonology
Portuguese (language) 34n11
pragmatic development
pragmatics, concept of 53;
intercultural
pragmatics; interlanguage: pragmatics
problem solving 315,
Processability Theor
8, 401, 411, 414
ocessing-based research
profession: denition
professionalism 363, 366
project-based learning 65,
Project Perseverance
63, 68
pronunciation:
measures of 355–6;
pronunciation; pronunciation learning
pronunciation learning 332
7; Cover
t Rehearsal
Model 334; ve stages of 334
5; inner-circle
teacher education programs 385; and apprenticeship
of observation 387; collaborative learning in
Teacher Effectiv
eness in Language Learning (TELL)
362, 363, 364, 365, 366,
teachers of Arabic:
certication of 361
9; domains
7; education of
95; in-service 368, 369;
mentoring of 368;
pre-service 368; in the United States 361
2,
369; outside the United States 369;
assessment expertise; content knowledge; empathy
(teachers’); pedagogical content knowledge (PCK);
professionalism; teacher education programs
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
(TESOL) 362, 364, 365, 366,
teaching Arabic as a foreign language (T
AFL) 16, 169,
20, 223, 225, 226,
228, 229, 232, 237, 238,
60, 279, 301, 302,
309, 329, 344
7, 349, 354,
364, 366, 367, 368, 386, 389; degree programs
in 168; integrated approach 144
7, 348; and
teaching of grammar 344
54, 355n12
teaching Arabic as a nativ
teaching practices 299
300; learner(student)-
centered 299,
309, 344, 365, 387; teacher-centered
299, 300, 304; and Web 2.0 388
technology-based learning 385,
technology-based spaces
TELC Arabic language test
Tokyo Uni
versity 21; Arabic education at 21, 27–8;
online teaching materials 27–8; Tokyo Imperial
University 20; Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
(TUFS) 21, 25
touch technology 199, 202,
206; multi- 206;
translanguaging 376,
translingual practice
Tunisia 141;
Tunis 148n1; Tunisian dialect 244,
Turke
Turkish (language)
21st-century skills 318, 319,
322;
collaborating; communicating; creative thinking;
critical thinking
21st-century standards 318
19, 322;
communication standard; communities standard;
comparisons standard; connections standard;
cultures standard
Twitter
Ukraine
Understanding by Design (UbD) frame
work 308,
United Arab Emirates (UAE) 191,
United Kingdom 120, 122, 141,
376; Quality
Assurance Agency (QAA) in Higher Education
United Nations 145,
Serbia
sexual harassment 63, 148,
sign languages
Six-Day War
141;
social constructi
vism 385
sociolinguistic approaches 52
3, 79, 106;
sociolinguistic education
sociolinguistics of mobility 375
sociolinguistic var
iation 152
social learning
social media tools 389
90, 395;
Facebook;
Google Docs; Vialogues
social theory of interaction
Southeast Asia
Spain 153,
Spanish (language) 23, 25, 30,
34n11, 44, 153, 162,
165; Latin American variants
speaking skills 14, 67, 299
300, 302, 305, 330,
364,
401, 409, 410, 411, 412–13, 414, 415
Standardised Arabic Test
standardized prociency assessments 255; OPI as 255;
Oral Prociency Interview (OPI)
structural linguistics
study abroad 14, 25,
26, 33, 63, 65, 67, 70, 143
8,
149n7, 151
8, 196, 261, 264,
270, 282, 376, 379,
380, 415; homestay 154, 156, 157; as “immersion”
experience 152, 154, 284; interventions 156
8;
and pre-/post-prociency tests 264;
8; and student identity 155
6, 158;
U.S
. students 152, 155
subject-verb agr
eement 46
subject-verb-object (SVO) or
dering/sentence(s)
Sudanese dialect
Suez Crisis
Switzerland 118,
synchronic var
synchrony 89,
106; synchronic studies
syntactic variation 80,
84, 89, 355n9; ways of
Syria 34n3, 104,
2, 236, 349; Damascus 91,
141,
Syriac (language)
Syrian Arabic v
ernacular /dialect 53, 145, 244;
4, 156, 157, 170,
186, 192, 260, 261,
301, 313, 319, 331, 355n16, 410, 413, 417n4
task-based language instruction (TBI) 300, 301
2;
activation tasks 306;
communicative tasks 306;
Task-Based Language T
eaching (TBLT) 378, 383n2,
variationist approach
verbal persuasions 67
verbal skill
verb-subject-object (VSO) order
vernacular(s) 13,
15, 17, 17n8, 88; Arabic 11, 14,
17n9, 28, 144, 146, 149n9, 260, 380, 382n6, 404,
405; educated regional 13, 237, 238, 248, 249
50;
literacy 17n9; local 63, 144
6; as mother tongue
13; prestige v
ariants 13, 53; super- 381; teaching of
32;
Vialogues 390, 391
5; and collaborative lear
vicarious experiences 66
7, 70; coping model 66;
Vienna Corpus of Arabic
Vienna School
vocabulary
, learning of 53
7, 412, 414, 417n4;
4, 56; intentional 54; r
esearch on
410;
eye tracking; Involvement Load
Hypothesis; vocabulary acquisition
vocabulary acquisition 401–3, 405, 405n2, 406n3;
vocabular
Web 2.0 379, 388
World War I
World W
ar II 13, 62, 141, 163,
writing assessment(s) 278
92; Arabic Language
Prociency
Test 280; Arabic 12/16-Point
Prociency Exam 280; Assessment as Learning
(AaL) 281; Assessment for Learning (AfL) 281;
Assessment of Learning (AoL) 281; examples
8; portfolios 280; rating r
ubrics 289
90,
writing prociency
writing skills
writing skills 127, 178, 203, 220, 226, 228, 240, 260,
82, 284,
299
300, 308,
310
18, 322,
330,
364, 401, 409, 410, 412–13, 414, 415; genre-based
approach 310; reading logs 314
15; role of
technology
18; teaching
of 309
18;
e circles
Yemen 91, 141; Yemeni dialect
YouTube 249,
zone of actual development (ZAD)
zone of proximal de
velopment (ZPD), theory of 309,
United States 3, 4, 11,
12, 17n3, 17n11, 55, 62, 111,
142, 185
6, 194, 220, 236,
257, 270, 280, 349,
362, 368, 369, 413; Arabic instruction in 22,
5, 31, 62
3, 70, 109, 143
5, 151, 153, 163,
71, 185
7, 189, 197, 197n1,
197n2, 226,
235, 237, 240, 247, 262, 264, 269
70, 362, 365,
Arab relations 155; assessment practices
64; Boston 165, 167, 168;
Department of
Defense 109; Department of Education 165, 169;
Department of State 13, 162, 165; foreign language
instruction in 163, 165
7; Fulbright exchanges
151; go
vernment of 109, 141, 151; Kentucky 111,
5, 292n18, 292n20; Ne
Haven 165, 167; New York City 165; Peace Corps
113; position vis-à-vis Middle East 91; President
Bush 151; South Carolina 111; teachers of Arabic
in 361; Texas 170; Title VI funding 151;
U.S.
Arabic curricula 169
70; Al-Kitaab curr
series 226;
169; standards-based
U.S.
U.S.
language programs: American Councils for
International Education 165; Foreign Language
Assistance Program 165; International Research
and Studies Program 165; Middlebury Language
Schools 27, 143, 376; National Foreign Language
Center 165; National Language Flagship 151,
169; National Security Education program 151,
169; National Security Language Initiative 151;
STARTALK 151, 165, 168, 170, 280, 291n4;
Teachers of Critical Languages Program (TCLP)
U.S. schools: charter 164; Coptic 163; elementary
162, 164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171
2; high 162, 165,
9, 170, 171, 172;
Islamic 163; Maronite
165; middle 162, 164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172;
private 165–6; public 162, 164

Приложенные файлы

  • pdf 10974120
    Размер файла: 5 MB Загрузок: 2

Добавить комментарий