Challenges for Arabic L1 English Readers
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•272 views
TESOL Arabia 2014
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (12)
Similar to Challenges for Arabic L1 English Readers
Similar to Challenges for Arabic L1 English Readers (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Challenges for Arabic L1 English Readers
- 1. Challenges for Arabic L1 English readers • Jennifer Ball Griffith University, Australia (formerly Zayed University, UAE)
- 2. Todays session • Background to the research • Theory – Cognitive Load – Visual Processing – Attention • The Research – Classroom checklist • Classroom strategies – Some ideas from the literature
- 3. Background to the research
- 4. Theory (Miller,1956; Sweller, Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998) Cognitive load theory
- 5. (Atkinson & Shiffrin,1968; Goldstein, 2010; Keysers, Xiao, Foldiak & Perrett, 2005; Palmer, 1999) Rehearsal DURATION The Information Processing Model ( CAPACITY
- 6. So why is this important to L2 Reading? • Reading involves visual processing + comprehension + critical evaluation • All 3 happen in Working Memory • The visual processing skills required for reading are developmental:- Are the same skills developed to read all languages? (Birch, 2007; Dweik, Abu,& Mustafa 2007; Randall, 2007)
- 7. Reading Attention (Lanthier, Risko, Stolz, & Besner, 2009; Pollatsek & Rayner, 2005; Randall & Meara, 1988; Randall 2007; Rayner, 1998; Theeuwes & Belopolsky, 2010)
- 8. Visual Perception Spatial Bilateral Integration Laterality Directionality Analysis Visual Attention Coming to Attention Sustaining Attention Perceptual Speed Form Perception Form Discrimination Size Colour ShapeOrientation Form Constancy Visual Closure Figure Ground Visualisation Visual Memory Spatial Sequential (Borsting, 1995; Palmer, 1999; Verdes, 2010)
- 9. The Research Questions • Do Arabic L1 EFL students demonstrate behaviours similar to those known as possible indicators of visual processing strain? • Is there a relationship between these behaviours and English language learning? Aims: To develop a classroom tool to indicate when students might be experiencing visual processing strain.
- 10. The checklist 1. Tilts head or closes one eye when reading 2. Avoids or seems to have difficulty copying from whiteboard. 3. Avoids reading 4. Writes uphill or downhill 5. Has poor spacing in writing 6. Has a short attention span. 7. Has difficulty completing assignments in time allotted 8. Has difficulty organizing themself for study. eg remembering book and pen. 9. Fatigues easily 10. Continues talking even when asked to stop (either in Arabic or English) 11. Is performing below your expectations 12. Is a strong English speaker 13. Omits small words when reading 14. Has an abnormal pencil/ pen grip Chronback’s Alpha coefficient= 7.94 (Goldstein, 1999; Pallant, 2011)
- 11. Zayed Results • 5 classes – 4 female / 1 male • total of 50 students • All classes around intermediate level (ZU classes 4-6) • Strong negative correlation between the number of observed behaviour and final grade for the term (r= -.62 n=34 p<.001) • With a higher number of observed behaviours associated with lower final grades.
- 12. Working Memory Classroom Strategies • How might the checklist inform the choices you make in the classroom? Visual Processing (Pass, Tuovinen, Tabbers & Gerven, 2003; Pollatsek & Rayner, 2005; Randall, 2007; Randall & Meara, 1988 )
- 13. Some ideas from the literature to reduce students Cognitive load • Remember more is not necessarily better • “Delete extraneous words, sounds or graphics” (Mayer,2009) • Minimise input from other senses (eg noise) when visual attention is needed. (Paas, Renki & Sweller, 2003;)
- 14. Avoid split attention • Separate vocabulary learning from comprehension exercises • Place labels or vocabulary as close to the item as possible • Present corresponding aural and visual information simultaneously. (Mayer, 2009; Pass, Renkl & Sweller, 2010; Plass, Chun,Mayer & Leutner, 2002; Yeung, Jin, & Sweller, 1998)
- 15. Avoid unnecessary visual search • Direct attention using highlighting etc • Use consistency of formatting (Mayer,2009; Plass,Chun, Mayer & Leutner, 2002)
- 16. Summary • It may be possible to notice indications of visual processing strain using the checklist • To reduce overall cognitive load eliminate extraneous input • Avoid split attention (spatial / temporal)
- 17. References • Abbot, M. (Centre for R. in A. M. and E. (2004). The Identification and Interpretation of Group Differences on the Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment Reading Items. In Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) San Diego, California, USA (pp. 1–41). San Diego, California, USA. • Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press. • Birch, B. M. (2007). English L2 Reading. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Borsting, E. J. (1995). Visual Perception and Reading. In Vision and Reading (pp. 149–191). • Dweik, B., Abu, A., & Mustafa, D. (2007). (2007) The Effect of Arabic Proficiency on the English Writing of Bilingual-Jordanian Students. Online Submission: Eric ED497505. • Goldstein, D. (1999). NLD Rating Scale. NLD on the Web! Retrieved February 01, 2014, from http://www.nldontheweb.org/nldentrylevelreading/nldratingscale.html • Goldstein, E. B. (2010). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning, 2010. • Keysers, C., Xiao, D.-K., Foldiak, P., & Perrett, D. I. (2005). Out of Sight but not out of Mind: The Neuropsychology of Iconic Memory in the Superior Temporal Sulcus. In R. I. Rumiati & A. Caramazza (Eds.), The Multiple Functions of Sensory -Motor Representations (pp. 316–332). • Lanthier, S. N., Risko, E. F., Stolz, J. a, & Besner, D. (2009). Not all visual features are created equal: early processing in letter and word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 67–73. • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multi-Media Learning (2nd ed.). Cabridge University Press. • Miller, G. A. (1956). THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN , PLUS OR MINUS TWO:, 63(1). • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design : Recent Developments Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design : Recent Developments, (April 2013), 37–41. • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Gerven, P. W. M. Van. (2003). Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71. • Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS Survival Manual (4th ed.). Sydney: Allen& Unwin. • Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology. MIT Press. • Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2), 221–243. • Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2005). Reading. In K. Lamberts & R. L. Goldstone (Eds.), The Handbook of Cognition (pp. 276–293). London: SAGE Publications Inc. • Randall, M. (2007). Memory, Psychology and Second Language Learning. John Benjamins B.V. • Randall, M., & Meara, P. (1988). How Arabs Read Roman Letters. Reading in a Foreign Language, 4(2), 133–145. • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9849112 • Sweller, J., Merrienboer, J. J. G. Van, & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design, 10(3), 251–296. • Theeuwes, J., & Belopolsky, A. (2010). Top-Down and Bottom-Up control of visual selection. In Tutorials in Visual Cognition (pp. 67 – 92). • Verdes, P. (2010). Optometric Evaluation For Learning Related Vision Problems. American Optometric Association. Retrieved May 06, 2010, from http://www.aoa.org/x4639.xml • Yeung, A., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Cognitive Load and Learner Expertise: Split-attention and Redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(1), 1–21. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9514686
Editor's Notes
- This presentation is a preliminary look at a research paper I am writing with a colleague at Griffith University. The data for the research was collected while I was teaching in the AAcademic Bridge Program at Zayed University in the UAE.
- I am firstly going to speak about some of the theoretical concepts underlying the research, and in particular how this might be important to Arabic L1 learners. I am then going to talk about the research project and introduce the simple classroom checklist that was developed to help teachers become aware of visually initiated cognitive overload in their students. Finally I’ll try to tie this into the literature about how teachers can manage their students’ cognitive load in ESL classrooms.
- My experience with mixed L1 ESL classes suggested Arabic L1 students tended to be stronger in listening and speaking than reading and writing. Actually we don’t have a lot of empirical evidence for this but I don’t expect it to be a terribly controversial assertion. When I first taught a mixed L1 class, I was really aware of this because I had just moved from an Asian context where the reverse tends to be the case. Some of you will recognise this scene of needing to really scaffold a speaking activity for shy students. I presumed that there were primarily cultural reasons for this difference including the way both 1st and 2nd language and literacy are taught in the home countries and the consequent learning style preferences of students. I still think this. But now I also think that perhaps we sometimes underestimate the impact of differences in scripts as an influence in these differences in teaching and learning. One reason why I started to think about this was that I noticed that my Arabic students sometimes displayed a particular learner profile that I recognised as similar to one that in a native speaker might indicate a delay in the development of visual processing skills maybe due to interrupted schooling from illness or some other reason. I started to wonder whether the visual skills required to process the 2 scripts are perhaps not very transferable. This research was about exploring that idea.
- The underlying theory behind this research is cognitive load theory. In essence this theory states that the brain only has the capacity to work on a fixed number of things at a given time. Many of you might have heard of the 7+or- 2 formulae proposed by Miller in the 60s.
- The 7+-2 refers only to a sort of control central in our brains. Typically cognitive models include some sort of control centre, often called working memory or short term memory within a broader system of 3 memory stores. The 7+-2 refers to the capacity of WM or how much information it can hold at any given time. Each of the stores varies in the amount of info it can hold. This is represented by the width of the store in the diagram. You can see WM represented with a fairly limited capacity. it is this capacity that we are looking to not overload in the classroom. Compare this to the initial store where sense data enters the cognitive system. This is a sort of sensory buffer zone – sometimes referred to as very short tem memory. These stores have a very big capacity, You can see this represented in the length. They are sense specific so presumably we have 5 of these. Visual sense memory is often called Iconic Memory. These stores seem to be limited only by our physical ability; so in the case of the visual buffer by the size of the visual field – what can I see in 1 look. The catch however, is that although this line is long, representing large capacity, it is only a line because the duration, or how long it can hold the information is extremely short; some where round 1 second. Because of this limited duration, most people are able to report only four to five characters of a briefly exposed image before they forget the rest of the image. Hence the name very short term memory. Short term memory also has a short duration just not quite as short. It’s about 20 seconds although this can be temporarily extended by a process of aural rehearsal. This is when we mentally repeat verbalised information over and over. However, this takes up capacity. This is important because activities that require students to hold information in short term memory will not leave much room for comprehension. The most fantastic of our memory stores is this one LTM because it is apparently unlimited in both duration and capacity. Obviously we can’t just throw all the information just randomly into LTM. We have to have some systems so we know how to get it back out again. 1st WM selects and categorises and makes connections between pieces of information. We sometimes call this creating schema. It’s a process of grouping information together into larger chunks. For eg lines and dots combine to form letters and letters combine to form words. With repetition this chunking becomes automatic. This not only helps with the retrieval of information from LTM but it reduces the number of individual items that need to be dealt with in WM The information that we keep in LTM can feed back into working memory to help it make sense of the bits of sense information coming in – that is how recognition works for eg. LTM also helps to direct what info comes in by directing the sense receptors. Eg looking for me up the front. That reaction was so well learnt you didn’t need to consciously tell yourself to do it. You didn’t even really need to be aware that you were doing it so you didn’t waste any WM capacity. So LTM can send automtic directions to iconic memory to tell it what info to collect You can see there is also a red line from WM to Iconic M because WM can consciously direct Iconic M.
- Reading involves visual processing + comprehension + critical evaluation All 3 happen in Working Memory The visual processing skills required for reading are developmental But to what extent does learning to read in 1 language help you to read in another? Well studies have shown that it certainly does help, as we would expect. However, other researchers point out that, the degree to which these skills transfer across languages is limited by the basic level of similarity in the processes involved in reading in the two language systems
- Let’s look at just one of the visual processing skills involved in reading. We know from the research that when good readers read English they don’t usually pay careful attention to every word. In fact. when reading a word they don’t even pay careful attention to every letter. English readers tend to pay attention to the beginnings and ends of a word because that is where the important information is. This is a different scanning pattern to what we use if we look at a string of numbers or random shapes. If we look at a sting of shapes we tend to look 1st at the middle and then the edges. Interestingly this latter viewing pattern has been found to be used by Arabic readers to read Arabic words. Even more Interestingly, research has suggested that Arabic L1 readers continue to use this scanning strategy to read English Words. And what’s more this pattern does not seem to change as their English proficiency increases. Most research shows that scanning strategies are very robust. So you can expect that this is still happening at least to some extent even with higher level students. And of course Arabic letters are different to English letters and the letters themselves may require different attentional focus. Lanthier and colleagues have shown that vertical lines are extremely important in the recognition of English letters. On the other hand, Arabic letters have a lot of important information in the small diacritic marks above and below the line requiring a broader, split scan. This might be an unfortunate attention habit to bring to English reading as poor English readers have been seen to demonstrate a broader scanning strategy than good readers. There are 2 problems with inappropriate scanning: 1st unnecessary information is brought into WM wasting capacity and 2nd not enough necessary information might be obtained. WM may have to redirect a second scan to get enough information. Not only is this slower of course but once again takes up capacity because the 2 or 3 scans must be held in WM until they can all be combined. All this means less capacity for comprehension and critical evaluation of the text.
- And that’s just attention focus. But attention is only 1 of the many visual skills required to read English I suspect there are differences in many of the visual skills used to read Arabic as compared to English. Eg: Directionality could be important given that Arabic is written from right to left. Directionality can also come into play when discriminating letters in terms of orientation eg b/d. There are no letters in Arabic that need to be discriminated purely in terms of orientation. Sequential Memory may not play as important a part in Arabic reading because several Arabic letters change shape depending on whether they come in the beginning, middle or end of the word so shape discrimination can be used instead of sequential memory. Furthermore, Abbot, (2004) claims that Arabic readers might be less likely to use bottom up visual processing in general when they are reading. Because of the devowelling of Arabic script, often words cannot be discriminated purely by their visual form and it is necessary to refer to context to know which word is intended. Given these likely differences it seemed likely that Arabic L1 readers would demonstrate some signs of visual processing strain in the classroom. This research was an exploration of that idea.
- Questions Do Arabic L1 EFL students demonstrate behaviours similar to those known as possible indicators of visual processing strain? Is there a relationship between these behaviours and English language learning? The trouble with VP strain is that is difficult to detect. Teachers might be more likely to accommodate students having trouble processing aural information than those having trouble with visuals. This is simply because we notice. If we give an instruction and nobody moves we rephrase it or slow it down. But we might not even be aware that they are stumbling over visuals That is why this tool was specifically developed to detect indications of visual processing strain.
- I will first talk a little bit about the tool and how it was developed and then I’ll give a few brief statistics about the Zayed Research. I looked at behavioural check lists that are used to screen for Nonverbal developmental delay in English speaking children in English speaking classrooms. I took what items I thought were appropriate in an adult EFL classroom, adapting them slightly when I felt it was necessary, and came up with a checklist of 14 items that were used in the ZU research. I examined the ZU results statistically using SPSS. I first checked the frequencies and because there was only one reported case of unusual pencil grip I felt this was perhaps only suited to the original disability scale and so I eliminated that item. (*). Next I measured the internal consistency of the items. This indicates to what extent the items all seem to be measuring the same thing. The list as a whole had an acceptable internal consistency . However, 3 items had Corrected Item total correlations less than .3 indicating they were perhaps not measuring the same thing as the other items. Removing these brought Cronback’ Alpha coefficient up to 7.94 suggests the remaining list is indicating the same thing although we cant be sure it is visual processing load. This leaves a nice short list of 9 behaviours teachers might look out for.
- The ZU study was just a very small pilot study. 4 teachers observed 5 classes (1 teacher repeated the test the next semester). A total of 50 students were observed, though not all of the teachers returned their final grades so correlation statistics only included 34 students. Students were around intermediate level (ZU Classes 4-6). 4 classes of girls and 1 of boys. I don’t have the ages but typically Zayed students come straight from high school into the ABP program. There were no significant differences in any between group effects. This suggests the teachers were able to administer the tool consistently even without previous experience of it, which is good. It also means that there were not significant differences between the boys and the girls. This is to be expected. Although NVLD is far more common in males than females, we wouldn’t have expected to find that result in our population because the behaviours are not indicating disability but a lack of learnt skills. In the UAE there is no reason to suspect these learnt skills would be different between boys and girls. We also would not have expected a difference between higher and lower level classes because they were working on level appropriate material. There was a strong– negative correlation between the total number of observed behaviours and final ABP grade. So the more behaviours the teacher observed, the lower the final grade – no real surprises there. Given the nature of some of the tick boxes such as seems to have a short attention span or avoids reading. But what was interesting was that there was no significant difference between the predictability of the items. That is, tilting their head was just as likely to predict a lower final grade as not reading. So maybe the list was tapping into something a bit deeper than just good student / bad student. The significance levels indicate that the checklist can help to explain 38% of the variance of ABP grades.
- How might the checklist inform the choices you make in the classroom? Given the strong negative correlation between observed behaviours and final grade it would seem desirable to attempt to reduce the incidence of these behaviours. As I have already mentioned, VP skills are developmental and it may be that the Arabic related automatic processes are quite fixed, that is, it will likely take a long time for them to learn new ones. Of course, while that is the eventual aim, in the mean time we probably need to work with the fact that when they are reading, much of our students’ working memory capacity is going to be taken up by the initial demands of processing the print. However we can reduce the visual processing strain by reducing the overall cognitive load when students are doing reading activities. So here are some tips from the literature for doing that.
- When student start to show some of the behaviours on the checklist it is tempting to add some bells and whistles like flashy graphics or maybe even just cheering them on with motivational teacher talk. These things can sometimes constitute extraneous or ineffective cognitive load: they do not directly add to learning and can needlessly take up cognitive capacity, leaving not enough left to perform the task. Don’t forget all 5 senses feed into WM so minimise input from other senses (eg noise) when visual attention is needed. This doesn’t mean you can never use bells and whistles; but just not with the more cognitively demanding comprehension tasks.
- Even when it seems what you are adding very directly ads to the learning, for example adding a glossary, it may still add cognitive load that actually decreases learning. Plass and her colleagues found that comprehension was worse for the learners in their study when they were given translation access to vocabulary translation notes. Sometimes this happens because of what is known as split attention. This is when students need to combine 2 physically separate pieces of information. So while a separate glossary is good for vocab learning it is not the best for comprehension. Students need to leave the text, holding the word in WM (remember we need to use that rehearsal mechanism to do that which decreases the capacity of WM), search in the glossary for the word, hold the meaning (using the rehearsal mechanism), then go back to the text and search for their place. The comprehension of the text can decrease simply because students have no WM capacity left for it. This is why some researchers recommend separating vocabulary learning from comprehension exercises whenever possible. When it is necessary to have support information, eg a text contains vocab that students have seen but would not yet have memorised or Text contains words you don’t really need your students to memorise like names or scientific terms, Try to physically joining the text and the glossary eg by putting it in the margin, or labels ON diagrams rather than having a key. This reduces the need to hold it in working memory. Split attention also happens when visual and aural clues are delivered separately. It’s always better if students can see what you are talking about while you are talking about it.
- Be aware that visual search takes up capacity. Students must both hold what they are searching for in WM and WM must direct the search. This is why search exercise work well for vocabulary learning but once again might detract from comprehension. To minimise this work with highlighting and other methods of directing attention. Use consistency of formatting. I think this is the essence of genre in writing. The reader knows where to look to find the key information eg 1st sentence in the paragraph – really easy to spot visually. In my opinion this is why authentic materials work best: they tend to stick to the conventions of the genre. Students can use their previous knowledge of the genre and add to that knowledge for future encounters with material from the genre. Mayer suggests that consistancy is particularly important in online environments so that students don’t forget what they are looking for by the time they have found where to like to get there.