東華大學圖書館 |

Learning Outcomes of the Simultaneous Exposure to Two Arabic Varieties by English L1 Learners of Arabic as an L2 at Different Stages of Their L2 Development.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Learning Outcomes of the Simultaneous Exposure to Two Arabic Varieties by English L1 Learners of Arabic as an L2 at Different Stages of Their L2 Development./
作者:	Alshehri, Mohammed Salem.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2023,
面頁冊數:	372 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-03, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-03A.
標題:	Linguistics. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30748195
ISBN:	9798380372572

Learning Outcomes of the Simultaneous Exposure to Two Arabic Varieties by English L1 Learners of Arabic as an L2 at Different Stages of Their L2 Development.
Alshehri, Mohammed Salem.

Learning Outcomes of the Simultaneous Exposure to Two Arabic Varieties by English L1 Learners of Arabic as an L2 at Different Stages of Their L2 Development. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2023 - 372 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-03, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Michigan, 2023.

The efficacy of the "integrated approach," which calls for the simultaneous integration of two varieties in teaching Arabic as a second language (L2), has not yet been rigorously examined, and the very few available studies suffer from many methodological limitations. The current study sought to bridge this gap in the literature by comparing the language output (in terms of fluency, accuracy, complexity, and overall proficiency) of 57 English first language (L1) learners of Arabic as an L2, belonging comparably to two groups: the first consisted of those instructed in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and Egyptian Arabic (EA) simultaneously, the integrated program group (IPG), and the second consisted of those instructed in MSA only, the unintegrated program group (UIPG). The participants of both groups were further divided cross-sectionally based on their three proficiency levels: first year, second year, and third year. Their performance was additionally compared to that of a control group (CG) consisting of nine native speakers of EA.{A0}Spontaneous obligatory-in-context data were elicited from the participants who performed three oral picture-based description tasks: two narrative tasks and one manipulation task. Fluency was measured by counting words produced per minute (W/M). Accuracy was examined in their production of the past tense, present tense, past negation, and verbal present negation. Complexity was measured by their error-free production of the subjunctive and cause-effect subordinations. The overall proficiency was gauged by adding up the scores attained in the above-mentioned three constructs.{A0}The findings revealed that both L2 groups produced comparable W/M when narrating past and present events. However, in other areas examined, the UIPG maintained a significant advantage over the IPG: (a) at the first-year and second-year levels on the past tense, (b) at the third-year level on the present tense, (c) at the first-year and third-year level on the past negation, (d) at the second-year level and (near-significantly) at the third-year level on the verbal present negation, (e) at the second-year and third-year levels on the subjunctive and cause-effect subordinations, and (f) at the second-year and third-year levels on the overall proficiency. The advantage of the UIPG over the IPG was further supported by the within-group analyses. The UIPG improved significantly in the long run-particularly at the third-year level-in their fluency, in all target structures (except for the past tense with the third-person singular feminine form and past negation), and in their overall proficiency. In contrast, the IPG did not show any significant improvement-particularly from the first-year to third-year levels-in their fluency, in all target structures in which MSA and EA diverge, and in their overall proficiency. Additionally, only the third-year UIPG participants were statistically on par with the CG in their accuracy on the past tense and present tense (in the third-person singular masculine context), as well as the verbal present negation.{A0}The strong implication of these findings is that the simultaneous exposure to two varieties from the outset, without sufficient recycling, visual presentation, and explicit instruction of their structures in the input, is not beneficial to Arabic L2 learners and might be detrimental to their developmental acquisition paths. Such an instructional practice can cause linguistic dissonance, hinder comprehension, and obstruct facilitative L1 transfer. Thus, it is pedagogically recommended to initially teach one variety for the first 2 years of the learning process.

ISBN: 9798380372572Subjects--Topical Terms:

524476
Linguistics.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Learning process

Learning Outcomes of the Simultaneous Exposure to Two Arabic Varieties by English L1 Learners of Arabic as an L2 at Different Stages of Their L2 Development.
LDR:04968nmm a2200409 4500 001 2402584
005 20241029122332.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2023 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798380372572
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30748195
035 $a (MiAaPQ)umichrackham005144
035 $a AAI30748195
035 $a 2402584
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Alshehri, Mohammed Salem. $3 3772821
245 1 0 $a Learning Outcomes of the Simultaneous Exposure to Two Arabic Varieties by English L1 Learners of Arabic as an L2 at Different Stages of Their L2 Development.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2023
300 $a 372 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-03, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Alhawary, Mohammad.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Michigan, 2023.
520 $a The efficacy of the "integrated approach," which calls for the simultaneous integration of two varieties in teaching Arabic as a second language (L2), has not yet been rigorously examined, and the very few available studies suffer from many methodological limitations. The current study sought to bridge this gap in the literature by comparing the language output (in terms of fluency, accuracy, complexity, and overall proficiency) of 57 English first language (L1) learners of Arabic as an L2, belonging comparably to two groups: the first consisted of those instructed in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and Egyptian Arabic (EA) simultaneously, the integrated program group (IPG), and the second consisted of those instructed in MSA only, the unintegrated program group (UIPG). The participants of both groups were further divided cross-sectionally based on their three proficiency levels: first year, second year, and third year. Their performance was additionally compared to that of a control group (CG) consisting of nine native speakers of EA.{A0}Spontaneous obligatory-in-context data were elicited from the participants who performed three oral picture-based description tasks: two narrative tasks and one manipulation task. Fluency was measured by counting words produced per minute (W/M). Accuracy was examined in their production of the past tense, present tense, past negation, and verbal present negation. Complexity was measured by their error-free production of the subjunctive and cause-effect subordinations. The overall proficiency was gauged by adding up the scores attained in the above-mentioned three constructs.{A0}The findings revealed that both L2 groups produced comparable W/M when narrating past and present events. However, in other areas examined, the UIPG maintained a significant advantage over the IPG: (a) at the first-year and second-year levels on the past tense, (b) at the third-year level on the present tense, (c) at the first-year and third-year level on the past negation, (d) at the second-year level and (near-significantly) at the third-year level on the verbal present negation, (e) at the second-year and third-year levels on the subjunctive and cause-effect subordinations, and (f) at the second-year and third-year levels on the overall proficiency. The advantage of the UIPG over the IPG was further supported by the within-group analyses. The UIPG improved significantly in the long run-particularly at the third-year level-in their fluency, in all target structures (except for the past tense with the third-person singular feminine form and past negation), and in their overall proficiency. In contrast, the IPG did not show any significant improvement-particularly from the first-year to third-year levels-in their fluency, in all target structures in which MSA and EA diverge, and in their overall proficiency. Additionally, only the third-year UIPG participants were statistically on par with the CG in their accuracy on the past tense and present tense (in the third-person singular masculine context), as well as the verbal present negation.{A0}The strong implication of these findings is that the simultaneous exposure to two varieties from the outset, without sufficient recycling, visual presentation, and explicit instruction of their structures in the input, is not beneficial to Arabic L2 learners and might be detrimental to their developmental acquisition paths. Such an instructional practice can cause linguistic dissonance, hinder comprehension, and obstruct facilitative L1 transfer. Thus, it is pedagogically recommended to initially teach one variety for the first 2 years of the learning process.
590 $a School code: 0127.
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 524476
650 4 $a Middle Eastern studies. $3 3168421
650 4 $a Near Eastern studies. $3 2122821
653 $a Learning process
653 $a Integrated approach
653 $a Egyptian Arabic
653 $a Control group
653 $a Second language
690 $a 0290
690 $a 0555
690 $a 0559
710 2 $a University of Michigan. $b Near Eastern Studies. $3 3772822
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-03A.
790 $a 0127
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2023
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30748195