1. Differences in Reading Rates of Hebrew and Arabic texts in the Psychometric Entrance Test (PET) Raphiq Ibrahim, Haifa University Zohar Eviatar, Haifa University Tzur Karelitz, NITE Anat Ben-Simon, NITE Ruth Fortus, NITE Dua Safia, NITE 1

2. Outline Motivation Scientific background Study design Instrument development Implications 2

3. Differences between Hebrew and Arabic speaking students in outcomes of language tests TestHebrew-speakersArabic-speakersStandardized difference PIRLS 2001, Reading, Grade 4 5384251.0-1.3 PISA 2002, Reading, Grade 10 4563720.7 Bagrut 1999-2003 HS matriculation tests 80.579.70.1 PET 1999-2002 5914751.3 First Year GPA in Higher Ed., 2003-2008 80.070.71.3 3

4. Reading in PET Examinees are tested in L1 (mostly) The test requires a lot of reading – more than 200 items – at least 2 long (400-500 words) reading comprehension (RC) texts in L1 – Reading is required in all domains Testing under time-pressure 4

5. Differences in reading rates of Hebrew and Arabic RC text Recent studies suggest that the reading of Arabic texts is more cognitively demanding than the reading of Hebrew texts (e.g., Eviatar & Ibrahim, 2004) In PET, translated RC texts in Arabic are about 64 words (15%) longer, on average, than the original Hebrew version Future changes to PET are expected to increase reading load Research question: Are there differences in the reading rates of PET texts written in Arabic vs. Hebrew? 5

6. Main components of reading comprehension Basic cognitive processes – Phonological Decoding – Lexical retrieval Higher cognitive processes – Comprehension The more cognitive effort devoted to decoding, the less cognitive resources left for comprehension 6 Speed Accuracy

7. Hebrew and Arabic are similar but… Arabic is diglossic: – The written language is considered a 2 nd language – Ferguson, 1959, Eviatar & Ibrahim, 2000, Ibrahim & Aharon-Peretz, 2005 – Learning the written language is complicated because some letters, structures and words are absent from the spoken language – Maamouri, 1998; Abu-Rabia, 2000; Saiegh-Haddad, 2003 Arabic has a complex orthography: – the written language is cursive – most letters have 4 forms (depending on their position within the word) in Hebrew, only five letters have 2 forms Arabic has more complex grapheme–phoneme relations: – same graphemes represent different phonemes – same phoneme is represented by different graphemes – Eviatar & Ibrahim, 2004; Abu-Rabia, 2001 7

8. The current study Goal: Identify and characterize differences in reading rates of Hebrew and Arabic speakers who read RC texts in their native language Hypothesis: Arabic speakers will have a slower reading rate than Hebrew speakers on RC texts. – Need to account for: variations in text difficulty and translation process individual differences in verbal ability 8

9. Study design Hebrew texts Arabic texts Arabic speakers Hebrew speakers PET PISA PET PISA Accuracy Reading rate Aloud Silent Comprehension PET Reading rate Socio-economic variables General cognitive & verbal measures Speed of decoding Speed of lexical retrieval Controlling for individual differences due to Differences between the languages 9 Participants Language of stimuli Reading task Text source Measures What can explain the results?

10. Study groups (N=120) Tasks Arabic speakersHebrew speakers ABAB Biographic infoAll RavenAll TrailsAll RanAll Non-wordsAll Real wordsAll Text aloud (L1)PET1, PISA1PET3, PISA2PET1, PISA1PET3, PISA2 Text silent (L1) + questions PET2PET4PET2PET4 Text aloud (L2)PET3, PISA2PET1, PISA1-- Text silent (L2) + questions PET4PET2-- 10

11. Analysis plan Compare accuracy & reading rates for Hebrew and Arabic texts Control for possible factors that affect reading rate & accuracy Cognitive abilities: Raven matrices & Trails task Verbal ability: Bagrut & PET verbal scores Phonological decoding: reading non-words Lexical retrieval: reading real words & RAN task Background variables: biographic information After controlling for these factors, any differences in reading rates & accuracy can be attributed to the complexities of the languages 11

12. Biographic Information Background: – Age – Gender – Geographic mobility – Parents education – Income level Language – Native language – Language in school – Language of fluent reading – Reading literacy – Reading habits Academics – PET scores – Bagrut scores – Learning disabilities & accommodations 12

13. Cognitive Tasks Raven RAN Trails 13

14. Words and non-words 14

15. Task 1 Reading aloud: Non-words list In this task you will be presented with 35 punctuated words in Hebrew, one after the other. The words do not have a meaning in Hebrew, but they are similar to actual words. Read the words out loud, as fast and as accurately as possible, and according to the punctuation signs. The allocated time for each word is 6 seconds. To move to the next word before the allocated time has passed, press the key. Before the task you will practice a few sample words. Press the key to start your practice. 15

16. מִזְעָף 16

17. אֲקַעֵל 17

18. מֻרְטָף 18

19. Developing RC texts Identified 14 RC texts from previous PET – Various topics – Similar difficulty levels NLP analysis Experts’ judgments Selected 8 texts and shortened them to 200 words – Reexamined difficulty Selected 4 texts  translated into Arabic – Multiple proofing cycles Shortened 2 PISA texts in Hebrew & Arabic Matched font size & clarity for screen display 19

20. Task 3 Reading aloud: Texts In this task you will be presented with a written text. Read the text out loud, as fast and as accurately as possible. Immediately after you are done reading, press the key. Press the key to start the task. 20

21. 21

22. Importance of the study The first study of its kind in Israel. Results might indicate that micro-level differences in the cognitive process of reading can account for macro-level differences in test outcomes. May lead to reconsideration of fairness issues in large-scale standardized testing. Might affect the allocation of time in PET and other tests given to Hebrew and Arabic speakers. 22