Challenges for Arabic L1 English readers

• Jennifer Ball Griffith University, Australia (formerly Zayed University, UAE)

Todays session• Background to the research

• Theory– Cognitive Load– Visual Processing– Attention

• The Research– Classroom checklist

• Classroom strategies– Some ideas from the literature

Background to the research

Theory

(Miller,1956; Sweller, Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998)

Cognitive load theory

(Atkinson & Shiffrin,1968; Goldstein, 2010; Keysers, Xiao, Foldiak & Perrett, 2005; Palmer, 1999)

Long Term Memory

Working Memory

Rehearsal

Sensory Memory

DURA

TIO

N

The Information Processing Model(

CAPACITY

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)

Reading

Attention

(Lanthier, Risko, Stolz, & Besner, 2009; Pollatsek & Rayner, 2005; Randall & Meara, 1988; Randall 2007; Rayner, 1998; Theeuwes & Belopolsky, 2010)

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)

The ResearchQuestions• 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.

The checklist1. Tilts head or closes one eye when reading2. Avoids or seems to have difficulty copying from whiteboard.3. Avoids reading4. Writes uphill or downhill5. Has poor spacing in writing6. Has a short attention span.7. Has difficulty completing assignments in time allotted8. Has difficulty organizing themself for study. eg remembering book and pen.9. Fatigues easily10. Continues talking even when asked to stop (either in Arabic or English)11. Is performing below your expectations12. Is a strong English speaker13. Omits small words when reading14. Has an abnormal pencil/ pen gripChronback’s Alpha coefficient= 7.94

(Goldstein, 1999; Pallant, 2011)

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.

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 )

Some ideas from the literatureto 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;)

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)

Avoid unnecessary visual search

• Direct attention using highlighting etc

• Use consistency of formatting

(Mayer,2009; Plass,Chun, Mayer & Leutner, 2002)

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)

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