Integrating Dialects Into the Modern Standard Arabic

Home , Literary language, Varieties of Arabic

INTEGRATING DIALECTS INTO THE MODERN STANDARD ARABIC

HIGH SCHOOL CLASSROOM

BRIDGET J. HIRSCH

B.A., The George Washington University, 2003

THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION IN WORLD LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

CONCORDIA COLLEGE

MAY 2009

This thesis submitted by Bridget J. Hirsch in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Education: World Language Instruction from Concordia College has been read by the Examining Committee under whom the work has been done and is hereby approved.

As the Committee Chairperson, I hereby certify that this thesis is complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the final examining committee have been made.

This thesis meets the standards for appearance, conforms to the style and format requirements of the Office of Graduate Programs and Continuing Studies of Concordia College, and is hereby approved.

It is the policy of Concordia College to allow students to retain ownership of the copyright to the thesis after deposit. However, as a condition of accepting the degree, the student grants the College the non-exclusive right to retain, use and distribute a limited number of copies of the thesis, together with the right to require its publication for archival use.

Signature Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, thank you to all high school Arabic teachers that filled out my survey. You have an incredible task at hand, and your time and feedback is greatly appreciated. Thank you to those that assisted in the development and distribution of the survey, specifically Donna Clementi, Karin Ryding, Salah Ayari, the American

Association of Teachers of Arabic, the National Capitol Language Research Center,

Brigham Young’s Arabic Listserv, and Dora Johnson at the Center for Advanced

Linguistics.

Thank you to those that have offered unending support and patience during the past two years: my family for encouraging the pursuit of education; my professors and colleagues in the first cohort who continue to offer inspiration in the field of teaching world languages; my thesis advisor, Jonathan Clark, for the wonderful guidance along the way; my thesis committee, Jonathan Clark, Salah Ayari, and Michael Wohlfeil; and last but not least my husband, habiibii, who is the reason I truly feel the luckiest.

ABSTRACT

This research explores ways in which spoken Arabic, or dialect, can be integrated into high school classrooms alongside the literary form, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA).

Both forms are vital for authentic communicative capabilities and play an integral role to specific language functions and tasks. Yet students acquire oral skills predominantly in

MSA rather than in dialects, which this paper argues is an incomplete curriculum.

Several Arabic instructors have proven that despite the pedagogical challenges and complexities associated with spoken Arabic, a target dialect can successfully be taught in the classroom alongside MSA. This paper will use their efforts as a springboard to explore the current state of Arabic language teaching in today’s high school classrooms and conclude by presenting ways in which dialects can be integrated specifically into high school curricula. This paper also calls for further studies that will benefit the language teaching and learning community. It is anticipated that this research will benefit the Arabic teaching and learning community by offering ways to provide students with optimal modes of communication and teachers with support and guidance to move forward in integrating dialect instruction into their curriculum.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES: ...... x

INTRODUCTION: ...... 1 Goal of this Research...... 1 Defining Key Terms ...... 2 Review of Historic Influences on Arabic...... 7 Acknowledgment of Previous Work...... 9 Scope of this Research...... 10 Organization of this Paper ...... 12

CHAPTER 1: MAKING THE CASE FOR DIALECTS...... 13 1.1 The Omission of Dialects from the Arabic Classroom Today ...... 13 1.2 The Uncertain Role of Dialects in Standards and Guidelines ...... 19 1.3 Striving for Communicative Language Teaching ...... 22 1.4 A New Direction ...... 23 1.5 Critics of Dialect Integration ...... 31 1.6 Students’ Needs and Objectives Point to Spoken Arabic ...... 35 1.7 Determining the Gaps ...... 41 1.8 Summary ...... 42

CHAPTER 2: METHODS...... 44 2.1 Developing the Survey...... 44 2.2 Survey Difficulties ...... 46 2.3 Distributing the Survey ...... 47 2.4 Summary ...... 51

CHAPTER 3: SURVEY RESULTS...... 52 3.1 Section One - The High Schools ...... 53 3.2 Section Two - Teachers’ Background ...... 57 3.3 Section Three - Language Usage in the Classroom ...... 65 3.4 Section Four - Language Teaching Resources ...... 72

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 81 4.1 School Information and what it means to Dialect Integration ...... 81 4.2 Teacher Background and what it means to Dialect Integration ...... 84 4.3 Language Usage and what it means to Dialect Integration ...... 88 4.4 Resources and what it means to Dialect Integration ...... 95 4.5 Other Concerns ...... 103 4.6 Recommendations for Integrating Dialects ...... 104 4.7 Case Study I: Professor Younes ...... 107 4.8 Case Study II: Professor Ouali ...... 109 vi

4.9 Examples of Authentic Language Integration ...... 111 4.10 Future Studies ...... 115 4.11 Conclusion ...... 117

APPENDIX A: ACTFL GUIDELINES FOR SPEAKING AND LISTENING ...... 119

APPENDIX B: THE SURVEY ...... 120

APPENDIX C: THE CONSENT FORM ...... 124

REFERENCES ...... 126

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY...... 131

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Younes’ curriculum for first-year Arabic...... 25

Table 1.2: Vocabulary from Younes’ Textbook...... 28

Table 1.3: Language Representation in Interviews...... 40

Table 3.1: Number of Surveys Distributed and Returned...... 52

Table 3.2: Teachers per School...... 57

Table 3.3: Non-native speakers Proficiency and Language Training...... 61

Table 3.4: Years of Teaching High School Arabic...... 62

Table 3.5: The Typical Amount of Contact Time per Week ...... 65

Table 3.6: Dialects used in Classes that utilize both MSA and Dialects ...... 67

Table 3.7: Expected Language for Specific Tasks...... 71

Table 3.8: Textbooks in Use by High School Arabic Teachers...... 73

Table 3.9: Films in Use by High School Arabic Teachers ...... 74

Table 3.10: Music in Use by High School Arabic Teachers...... 75

Table 3.11: Internet Resources in Use by High School Arabic Teachers...... 76

Table 3.12: Other Resources in Use by High School Arabic Teachers ...... 77

Table 3.13: Comments by Teachers Indicating no Effect on Teaching...... 79

Table 3.14: Comments by Teachers Indicating Negative Effect on Teaching ...... 79

Table 4.1: Percentage of Respondents Self-Ratings in MSA ...... 84

Table 4.2: Percentage of Respondents Self-Ratings in Dialect ...... 85

Table 4.3: Respondents Dialect Capabilities ...... 86

Table 4.4: Most Amount of Time Dedicated to Spoken Arabic...... 89

viii

Table 4.5: Comparing the Average Percentage of Dialect Usage for Speaking...... 94

Table 4.6: Comparing the Average Percentage of Dialect Usage for Listening...... 94

Table 4.7: Textbook Resources currently used for Dialect Instruction ...... 97

Table 4.8: Film Resources currently used for Dialect Instruction...... 99

Table 4.9: Music Resources currently used for Dialect Instruction...... 99

Table 4.10: Textbook Resources currently used for Dialect Instruction ...... 100

Table 4.11: Other Resources currently used for Dialect Instruction ...... 101

Table 4.12: Integrating Dialect into the Standards...... 112

Table 4.13: The Researcher’s Proposed Lesson Plan for Authentic Communication.....113

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Schools in which Teachers did not return Surveys ...... 53

Figure 3.2: Approximate Location of Respondents’ High Schools...... 54

Figure 3.3: Public versus private schools ...... 55

Figure 3.4: World Language Requirements...... 55

Figure 3.5: Other Languages Offered at the Respondents’ Schools...... 56

Figure 3.6: Native versus Non-native High School Arabic Teachers...... 58

Figure 3.7: Native Arabic Instructors’ Native Dialects ...... 59

Figure 3.8: Native Speakers’ Proficiency in Additional Dialects...... 60

Figure 3.9: Self-Assessments in MSA...... 63

Figure 3.10: Self-Assessments in Dialect ...... 63

Figure 3.11: Self-Assessments in ESA ...... 64

Figure 3.12- Language used for Conducting Classroom Instruction...... 66

Figure 3.13: Method of Introducing the Language into Classroom Instruction ...... 68

Figure 3.14: Teachers’ use of MSA, Dialect, and English in the Classroom ...... 69

Figure 3.15: Students’ use of MSA, Dialect, and English in the Classroom...... 70

Figure 3.16: Teachers’ Ratings of the MSA and Dialect Resources ...... 78

Figure 4.1: Language Usage by Teachers in the MSA-Dialect Classroom ...... 91

Figure 4.2: Language Usage by Students in the MSA-Dialect Classroom...... 91

Figure 4.3: Language Usage by Teachers in the Simultaneous Dialect Classroom ...... 92

Figure 4.4: Language Usage by Students in the Simultaneous Dialect Classroom...... 93

Figure 4.5: Ratings of Dialect Resources by teachers that Instruct in Dialect ...... 96

Figure 4.6: Younes’ Language Use ...... 108

Figure 4.7: Younes’ Students Language Use...... 108

Figure 4.8: Ouali’s Language Use ...... 110

Figure 4.9: Ouali’s Student’s Language Us...... 110

INTRODUCTION

GOAL OF THIS RESEARCH

This study is being undertaken to explore the extent to which spoken Arabic dialects, or Colloquial Arabic, can be successfully integrated into the high school Arabic classroom while maintaining MSA instruction. More often than not, instruction and even language learning materials favor the heavily literary based Modern Standard Arabic

(MSA) rather than spoken Arabic dialects. The current mode for oral communication in the typical classroom is MSA. While MSA is considered appropriate for some spoken communications, it is incredibly unnatural and simply erroneous in situations that call for a speaker to utilize a spoken dialect. Still, both MSA and dialects are equally essential for authentic communication, and vital for true proficiency in Arabic. Therefore, it can be argued that a lack of instruction in the spoken vernacular for students with little if any dialect exposure could result in a linguistic deficiency that hinders Arabic language learners’ communicative capabilities.

Students have many reasons for taking Arabic: religious affiliation, heritage, culture, understanding international affairs; arguably, such objectives necessitate different forms of the Arabic language. Educators following guidelines developed by the American

Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) are unlikely to deny the importance of spoken communication, which is considered the most fundamental of their

“Five C’s”: communication, cultures, connections, communities, and comparisons.

Teaching communication is especially indispensible for students that do not speak Arabic at home, or have had any exposure to the spoken variety abroad. Therefore, these are the

students that are the target audience of this call for integrating Arabic into the high school classrooms.

Finally, in the deeply global world we live in today, language students need to obtain the skills required to interact properly in the target culture because no matter the objective, chances are students of Arabic who maintain their studies will eventually find themselves in Arabic-speaking countries, or interacting with native speakers of Arabic in their own backyard. Therefore, communicative capabilities should be obtained in a well- structured and well-rounded classroom, which is currently not the case when MSA remains as the sole, or even the main vehicle for speaking and listening. Reading and writing are vital skills that require MSA, yet the ability to speak and comprehend spoken

Arabic remains at the heart of communication and these capabilities should not be overlooked.

DEFINING KEY TERMS

At this juncture, it is necessary to define the main terms used within this paper and that utilized by the Arabic-speaking community to differentiate the various forms, or varieties within the Arabic language. While additional terms have been coined to describe the varieties of Arabic, these are the most essential for this research.

is the language ,( ا ) Classical Arabic: Classical Arabic (CA), or al-fuSH ā originating from Islam’s holy book, the Quran. Muslims believe CA represents the words of Allah and are sacred in nature. Because Classical Arabic’s linguistic characteristics have been preserved due to its reverence in the Quran as well as other religious and medieval texts, this Arabic variety has not significantly changed since its dawn. Classical

Arabic is scholarly and literary in nature, and is typically heard spoken in recitations of 2

the Quran and other religious functions. Classical Arabic is not the native language of any Arab, and is learned through religious schooling or other formal encounters that necessitate CA. For the sake of this paper, it is important to mention that there will not be many references to Classical Arabic, since it is predominantly taught in scholarly or

Islamic Arabic programs.

( ا ) Modern Standard Arabic: Like CA, MSA is often referred to as al-fuSH ā or Contemporary FuSH ā. MSA shares linguistic elements with Classical Arabic and it too holds a perceived level of authority and preference. In contrast to Classical Arabic,

MSA is a modernized form of the language and is typically written in more contemporary texts such as newspapers, official documents, letters, and contemporary texts. MSA is heard and spoken in a variety of formal or official channels such as the media, diplomatic functions, and government settings, which are often recited through predetermined script.

It is not the first language (L1) spoken by Arabs, and it is not the form utilized for spontaneous conversation on the streets or in homes. Typically, native Arabic speakers formally learn MSA through school, and their proficiency in MSA differs greatly from person to person.

Dialects: Dialect, or spoken Arabic, is also referred as Colloquial Arabic, al-

-or Arabic vernaculars. Simply put, an Arabic dialect is the mother ,( ا ) ammiyyah‘ tongue of native Arabic language speakers, which they learn in their home and community. Dialects differ from MSA lexically, morphologically, phonologically, and syntactically, and vary throughout countries, regions, and even cities. Still, Mahmoud al-

Batal and Kirk Belnap maintain that “all varieties of spoken Arabic found in the Arab

world are closely related to MSA” (2006, p. 396). Ryding clarifies the difference of dialects from MSA by explaining:

These spoken forms have evolved over more than a millennium to accommodate the needs of everyday existence and are vital, sophisticated, complex, living languages. However, within the Arab world, they are not considered suitable for written communication and, therefore, not written down. Nor are they taught in educational institutions. (Ryding, 2006, p. 14)

This description of spoken Arabic highlights two challenges for teaching and learning: first dialects are a vibrant form that adjusts to the needs of the speakers and the situation itself. Second, native speakers learn dialects as a L1 from family and friends and acquire

MSA secondly (L2) through formal education.

Classical Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic, and the dialects are all components of one language, but their relationship to the speaker differs greatly. Niloofar Haeri explains in Sacred Language, Ordinary People that “ownership” of the Arabic language differs among its varieties. Speakers “own” the dialect while God “owns” Quranic Arabic. Haeri states that Contemporary Arabic, or MSA, is disputed as having ownership by God, the

Nah a authors, or the pan-Arab “nation” (2003, p. 156). An example of dialectal ownership by its speakers is emerging as modern technologies create new opportunities for instant communication. Arabic dialects have historically lacked official orthographic systems because of their function as spoken languages, but speakers continuously improvise orthographies to partake in the virtual communicative exchanges emerging through blogs, social forums, and emails; all of which require written communication.

Rather than maintaining written communication in MSA, speakers are expressing themselves in writing as they would in speech, which leads to variations in spelling and structure.

Diglossia: Diglossia, or the simultaneous and continued usage of both a High (H) and Low (L) forms within an individual language, exists in several languages, including

Arabic, Modern Greek, Haitian Creole, and Swiss German (Ferguson, 1959, p. 326).

Charles A. Ferguson (1959) defines Diglossia in regards to the Arabic language by distinguishing the High form, CA and MSA, from the Low varieties, the Arabic dialects

(p. 327). Ferguson provides a generalized breakdown of language functions stating that the High variety of Arabic is used in the following circumstances: sermon in church or mosque; personal letter; speech in parliament, political speech; university lecture, news broadcast, newspaper editorial, news story; caption on picture; and poetry. Whereas, he highlights native speakers’ use of Arabic’s Low variety in: instructions to servants, waiters, workmen, clerks; conversation with family, friends, colleagues; radio “soap opera”; caption on political cartoon; and folk literature (Ferguson, 1959, p. 329).

Ferguson’s categorization of language functions provides readers with a simplified clarification of what has generally been considered typical, authentic Arabic communication; yet, language usage by native Arabic speakers is unfortunately not this straightforward. Many complex factors affect the relationship of selecting the form to the aim of the function, such as the speaker’s age, gender, underlying intentions, as well as their audience. Furthermore, some oral communication calls for varying degrees of incorporating both High and Low Arabic.

Rather than using Ferguson’s term diglossia, Benjamin Hary prefers to describe

Arabic’s linguistic nature with El-Said Bedawi’s 1973 description as a “multiglossic” language. Hary explains that multiglossia is a “linguistic state in which different varieties of a language exist side by side in a language community and are used under different

circumstances with various functions. The varieties used in a multiglossic situation are placed on a continuum where speakers and writers constantly shift between different lects” (Hary, 1996, p. 69).

Formal Spoken Arabic: Formal Spoken Arabic (FSA), also referred to as Educated

Spoken Arabic (ESA), is considered by some as a viable language that educated native speakers are able to produce as a ‘middle’ form. It is not as literary based as MSA, nor is it as colloquial as the spoken variety, and unlike dialects, FSA is not regionally based.

Ryding states that this form of Arabic is a result of the effort by educated native speakers of one dialect to converse with another educated native speaker of a different dialect

(Ryding, 1991, p. 212). Muhammad Ibrahim refers to FSA as a supra-dialectal low

(SDL), which he describes as being “based on the speech of such urban centers of Cairo,

Damascus, and Jerusalem” (Ibrahim, 1986, p. 120). Similar to MSA and dialects, a native speaker’s choice to communicate in FSA is based on the form necessitated by the situation. It can be heard in semiformal conversations, and as Ryding observes, it is particularly utilized in “other social occasions when the colloquial is deemed too informal, and the literary, too stilted” (Ryding, 1991, p. 212).

Sociolinguistics: Jonathan Owens defines sociolinguistics stating that, “taken broadly, any aspect of language which correlates with sociological categories may be included in sociolinguistics”. He explains:

Embedded in the modern linguistic tradition, sociolinguistics has centered on the spoken word. It thus stands in close relationship to dialectological traditions though in contrast to dialectology, the main focus of variational sociolinguistics has been on urban areas. (pp. 419-420)

These sociolinguistic complexities, which are the reality of authentic Arabic communication, should not be avoided in classroom instruction, since meaning can be found within the usage of one Arabic form over another. Haeri mentions several social and regional factors that affect native speakers’ language including social class, level of education as well as public or private schooling, urban or rural residence, and gender

(Haeri, 2003, p. 3).

“Dialect and Spoken Arabic”: For the sake of clarifying the objective of this research paper, the researcher uses both dialect and spoken Arabic interchangeably. Research discussing similar objectives refers to dialects as spoken Arabic, and vice versa. Munther

Younes (2006) explains that his program “integrates a spoken Arabic dialect” (p. 157).

He then clarifies that the specific variety used in his classroom instruction is considered the Vernacular of the Educated similar to FSA, but more specifically Educated Levantine

Arabic (ELA), the language spoken by educated speakers from Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine to each other and with other Arabs to facilitate communication (Younes,

2006, p. 159). The title of this paper, “Integrating Dialects into the MSA High School

Classroom” does not call for mere descriptions of basic dialectal features, nor does it seek to integrate elements of spoken Arabic limited to rare dialects in rural regions or small communities. Rather it urges that one target dialect emulating the capabilities of native speakers in major urban centers is brought into high school curricula in a structured manner to provide students with authentic speaking and listening skills in conjunction with MSA for reading, writing, and presentational skills. The ultimate objective is for teachers’ curricula to reflect the entirety of the Arabic language.

REVIEW OF HISTORIC INFLUENCES ON ARABIC

Similar to most languages, the Arabic language is not void of historical, cultural and political influences, adaptations, and borrowings. Languages naturally evolve overtime, but the diglossic nature of Arabic presents students and teachers with additional complexities that influence classroom instruction. The following is a brief historical and cultural overview of the language that assists in understanding the depth of pedagogical obstacles Arabic language teachers and students face in the classroom.

Islam has had an enormous impact on the Arabic language. The language of

Islam's holy book, the Quran, is today referred to by Western Arabic linguists as

Classical Arabic, but at the time of its revelation, the language was considered a dialect spoken by the Prophet Muhammed’s tribe (Eisele, 2002, p. 6). The divine connection considered between the Quran and this variant of Arabic, instantly elevated it to a level of sanctity and prestige. Upon Islam's spread throughout the Middle East and beyond, Islam became a unifying factor among Arabic speakers. The virtuous standing of the Arabic language, explains a great deal in the diglossic nature of Arabic in that it has not been altered since its dawn, nor are other forms of Arabic regarded with the same esteem or authority that Classical Arabic holds.

In addition to Islam as a unifying attribute to the Arabic language, other historical events have had its share of linguistic influence as well. Edward Said explains that this modern form of Arabic is a result from the period of al-Nahda, or the renaissance, which took place throughout the Sham and Egypt towards the end of the 19 th century. He indicates that one of the goals of this cultural awakening was to modernize the Classical

Arabic language by adopting modern technological and political terms as well as simplifying the Arabic syntax (Said, 2004, para. 16). Ultimately, these linguistic changes

were seen by some as a means for Arabs to enhance their communication in a changing and modernizing world.

The pinnacle of the pan-Arab movement was during the leadership of Egyptian

President Gamal Abdel Nasser. This nationalistic movement had additional consequences on the Arabic language. Haeri (2003) explains that, “Pan-Arabism’s explicit efforts in defining an Arab as anyone who speaks ‘Arabic’ as a native language was meant to remove religion and race as bases of an Arab identity” (p. 11). The movement has declined, but it remains an important part of Arab history and linguistic influence.

The Arab world today is unable to evade difficulties presented by diglossia.

Rather than the challenge observed in Western language programs with the typical inclination to teach MSA within the classroom, much of the Arab world suffers from high rates of illiteracy in MSA, which ultimately inhibits their reading and writing. Salah

Ayari links the rate of illiteracy to the diglossic nature of Arabic. He calls for support from parents, teachers, and others involved in language instruction to introduce the reading and writing of Arabic through a variety of subjects and functions earlier in life

(Ayari, 1996, pp. 251-252). Clearly, the pedagogical consequences of diglossia are not reserved merely to the frustrations of Western classrooms.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PREVIOUS WORK

Much research has been done on Arabic linguistics, sociolinguistics, as well as in- depth studies of the structures and features of dialects themselves. Research regarding

Arabic language studies in high schools is unfortunately absent and studies that do touch upon dialect training is limited to colleges, universities and immersion programs. Still, previous work, even at the collegiate level should be acknowledged. 9

In-depth studies on the Arabic language and pedagogical initiatives were collected from Arabic language journals, such as Arabica and al-‘Arabiyya, which is produced by the American Association of Teachers of Arabic (AATA) and contains volumes of research specialized in the teaching of Arabic. They include “An Integrated Approach to

Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language” by Younes, and “Arabic Sociolinguistics” by

Jonathan Owens. Another literary work that serves as a reference for Arabic language instruction is the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21 st Century , which developed guidelines for the teaching of Arabic prior to higher education. Here again, this source touches on the issue of dialects, but does not provide an outline or prescribe an actionable methodology that would ease the implementation of securing a role for dialects into the high school classroom.

Various topics that will be discussed in this research can be found in the

Handbook for Arabic Language teaching Professionals in the 21 st Century including articles by Ryding, Kassem M. Wahba, Younes, Belnap, al-Batal, and Mahdi Alosh. It includes articles on the study of the language specifically in America, communicative competence in the Arabic classroom, and pros and cons of integrating dialects into teachers’ curricula.

Proponents of integrating dialects into the classroom include Younes, al-Batal,

Wahba and Ouali. This paper will also include arguments made by critics of this debate, such as Alosh. Finally, an alternative approach to teaching just MSA or even MSA and dialects will be touched upon in the current research.

SCOPE OF THIS RESEARCH

This research utilizes extensive literature and studies to analyze methods of incorporating Arabic dialects into high school classrooms. In doing so, it highlights the current state of spoken Arabic in Arabic studies throughout the United States, which discusses the problems that arise from teaching MSA for oral communications. The ambiguous status of spoken Arabic is made apparent in current teaching standards and guidelines, which are to serve as teachers’ roadmaps in instruction. Also included in this research is an in-depth discussion of innovative efforts by Arabic professors who have succeeded in integrating dialects into their curriculum. They serve as examples, along with other proposals supporting dialect instruction. This research also identifies critics of this effort and their reasons for resistance.

The linguistic nature of Arabic is incredibly broad and complex, so several aspects of this topic are not in the scope of the paper’s goal. Besides the aforementioned historical influences on the Arabic language, this research does not go in-depth on the history and evolution of Arabic linguistics or sociolinguistics. When necessary, examples are used to compare and contrast MSA and dialects, but a thorough comparison is not in the scope of this work. While it is rare, there is the theory of teaching dialects-only. This mode will not be addressed in this paper since it is counter to the underlining argument of this paper: equipping students with native capabilities in both MSA and spoken Arabic.

This paper touches upon policies and guidelines that are currently laid out for teachers in the Arabic language classroom, but it does not attempt to rewrite such policies or prescribe concrete remedies. Analysis of the literature and survey results only explore grounds for dialect integration and ways in which policies and guidelines can better promote and support it. The research strives to encourage potential methodologies and

utilizes several case studies at the collegiate level that successfully incorporate dialects and MSA into their curriculum.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS PAPER

Chapter I, the literature review, provides in-depth analysis on pedagogical trends regarding language usage by teachers as well as the status of spoken Arabic in the national guidelines and standards. It reviews theories and initiatives that support the integration of dialects into classroom instruction via three potential modes. The research acknowledges key concerns and difficulties identified by critics of this proposal. Finally, the researcher utilizes current literature to highlight students’ linguistic needs and interests in spoken Arabic. Chapter II explains the methods used in this research paper as well as the design and distribution of the survey created to obtain information relevant to dialect integration from high school Arabic teachers. Chapter III presents the survey results. The survey addresses three gaps recognized in the literature, which are considered vital in terms of moving forward towards addressing the research question. The final chapter will analyze the data obtained from respondents. This information coupled with the literature review aids in discussions and recommendations. Further research initiatives are proposed, and conclusions are finalized.

CHAPTER 1: MAKING THE CASE FOR DIALECTS

This literature review sheds light on the central question that this thesis puts forth: the extent to which spoken Arabic dialects can be successfully integrated into the heavily

Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) based high school classroom. First, an analysis of current trends in classroom instruction will illustrate the efforts currently being made to include dialects into the curriculum in conjunction with MSA. Second, this research will touch upon the absence of a defined, structured role for dialects in existing standards and guidelines for the teaching of Arabic-as-a-world-language. Third, this chapter explores innovative proposals supporting dialect instruction in the classroom as well as successful efforts made by several predominant Arabic instructors at the university level that utilize an Arabic dialect along with MSA instruction in their classrooms. Such cases provide blueprints for ways in which dialects can be successfully integrated into the high school classroom. In addition to innovative efforts currently being explored, this chapter considers, fourth, the viewpoint of critics opposed to this initiative. These viewpoints lead to identifying the challenges that are considered both grounds for the integration of

Arabic dialects into classroom instruction as well as obstacles hindering such efforts.

Finally, students’ needs and interests in spoken Arabic are briefly addressed since they are at the forefront of this objective.

THE OMISSION OF DIALECTS FROM THE ARABIC CLASSROOM TODAY

Despite the increase of programs teaching Arabic at American universities and high schools, little research has been done to discuss the current state of Arabic instruction at the high school level especially in regards to the status of spoken Arabic.

Perhaps the lack of research is due to the reality that Arabic-as-a-world-language is only 13

now emerging at the high school level. In 1994, it was apparent that “almost no exposure to Arabic language or culture [took] place at the pre-university level” (Ryding, 1994, p.

23). Today Arabic is still described as a less commonly taught language (LCTL), but due to increased funds and grants, Arabic programs are finding their ways into high schools across the country.

A 2006 report announced foreign language grants to Fairfax county high schools in VA stating “don’t be surprised if your child comes home from school and tells you he’s taking Arabic or Chinese next year” (Silverberg, September 21, 2006). This sudden increase in teaching Arabic is not limited to America’s history after 9/11, especially at institutes for post-secondary education. In 1963, an article from “Saudi Aramco World” examined the increase in Arabic studies post World War II and Sputnik, as interests in global studies, politics, culture, and anthropology increased (“Arabic Language, USA”,

1963, para. 5). Another short-lived surge in Arabic studies in America occurred during the oil embargo that occurred in the early 1970s (Ryding, 1994, p. 23). 9/11 has had a profound effect on shaping the interest in Arabic studies. Al-Batal and Belnap describe the most recent surge of enrollment in both existing and new Arabic programs since 2001 as having “overwhelmed the nation’s capacity to provide quality instruction to students”

(al-Batal & Belnap, 2006, p. 393). As the number of Arabic programs increase, so too will questions and challenges of how to teach the Arabic language, and whether current trends in language usage are pedagogically sound.

In David Wilmsen’s article defining communicative Arabic, he acknowledges that the current trend of intentionally teaching the literary language as both an oral and literary form results in the teaching of a language that is not typically spoken (Wilmsen,

2006, p. 125). Ryding coined a term to describe this traditional teaching of literary

Modern Standard Arabic rather than the “tools of primary discourse” as “reverse privileging”. She further identifies the impacts that reverse privileging has on the classroom by effecting on students’ expectation, motivation, and interaction as well as teachers’ development of curriculum and materials for instruction (Ryding, 2006, p. 16).

As it stands, this current trend that Wilmsen and Ryding have pointed out unconstructively influences both teachers and students alike.

The debate on how to handle spoken Arabic in the classroom is not a new one.

The aforementioned article from 1963 presents a familiar challenge: whether to teach writing or speaking. Furthermore, it quotes a university professor as stating “anyone not interested in Arabic for serious purposes takes colloquial courses,” which illustrates the great divide in theories of teaching Arabic that still exists existing today and the unfortunate disregard for dialects (“Arabic Language, USA”, 1963; para. 23). While the article states that most schools teach both speaking and writing, it is fascinating to observe that after forty-plus years, the field is still struggling to find a balance between literary Arabic and authentic spoken Arabic in the classroom, despite the calls for more communicative language teaching.

The continued elevation of MSA as a vehicle for oral communication in the classroom and resistance towards dialect persists not only due to its sacred roots in the

Islamic religion, but also because it is perceived as being prestige since it is a variety only obtainable through education. No matter the reason for its elevation, preferences towards the literary form inevitably affect classroom instruction. Abdalla explains that “on one hand, instructors want to expose their students to authentic materials but, on the other

hand, they do not want to be accused of teaching nonstandard language” (2006, p. 319).

He continues stating:

Similarly, course planners are hesitant to integrate the teaching of dialects into their curricula. While the studying of classical Arabic is highly admired and strongly recommended by many educators, the learning of dialect does not have the same prestige. Some go so far as to suggest that dialects have “no grammar” and are not worthy of serious study. (Abdalla, 2006, p. 319)

Still, this seemingly prestigious bias towards MSA is not universal among all Arabic speakers. Haeri’s aforementioned reflection of “dialectal ownership being that of the peoples” is apparent in Ibrahim’s observation that “these varieties of L [Low], not H

[High], carry most of the important social connotations that matter to most individuals in life such as socioeconomic class, urban vs. rural origin or affiliation, and social mobility and aspirations” (Ibrahim, 1986, p. 125). Further complicating the status of the Arabic varieties is the judgment regarding the legitimacy of MSA, which emerges in some circles. Al-Wer argues that Arabic speakers are sometimes uncertain as to “what constitutes MSA” and that Arab language academies regard it with “no legitimacy” (Al-

Wer, 1997, pp. 254-255). It can be argued then that language prestige is in the words of the beholder and the situation itself. The pedagogical inclination towards MSA instruction undermines students’ acquisition of the entirety and depth of authentic Arabic.

Classrooms that use MSA as the main mode for spoken communication produce students that both sound unnatural when speaking and when listening are unable to comprehend native speakers. While MSA can be heard spoken in formal or official situations, it is often scripted in advance. An observation regarding native speakers’ attempt to maintain MSA in unscripted oral communication is that “in unscripted situations where spoken MSA would normally be required (such as talk shows on

TV), speakers usually resort to repeated code-switching between their dialect and MSA, as nearly all native speakers of Arabic are unable to produce sustained spontaneous discourse in MSA" (Habash & Rambow, 2005, p. 18). Even when native speakers converse in varying degrees of MSA, they typically modify it with their own dialectal

is often (ق ) for the qaaf (ء ) phonetic tendencies. For example, Egyptians use of the hamza reflected in their speaking of MSA, despite MSA’s maintenance of the qaaf.

Ultimately, oral communication limited to MSA fails to emulate the use of language by native Arabs, which is the intended framework for any modern language program. In an al-Ahram newspaper article, Edward Said, a famed Palestinian writer and political activist, wrote:

And yet I have only known one person who actually spoke classical Arabic all the time, a Palestinian political scientist and politician whom my children used to describe as "the man who speaks like a book" or, on another occasion, as "the man who sounds like Shakespeare”. (Said, 2004, para. 13)

In no way should Said’s above observation be taken as a suggestion that MSA instruction should be replaced with spoken Arabic. As previously mentioned, MSA and CA are typically considered the literary form of Arabic, whereas the dialects are the mother- tongues of native speakers, so both are essential components of the language and both should play a role in the Arabic-as-a-world-language classroom. Ghassan Husseinali clarifies that educated native speakers are able to freely converse in varying degrees of

MSA, dialects, and ESA, which non-native learners struggle with since most are typically instructed in MSA (Husseinali, 2006, p. 407). Therefore, current trends in MSA instruction do not mirror the linguistic and cultural realities of native-Arabic speakers.

This resistance towards spoken Arabic is also apparent in current teaching materials. The majority of instructional materials in use are for the most part MSA based not only for reading, writing, and listening skills, but also for speaking which for the most part is incredibly unnatural. Still, dialect is not completely absent from some pedagogical materials, but the degree to which MSA is being employed for speaking and listening is overwhelming. Resources that do incorporate dialects to a certain extent, such as the most prominent MSA Arabic textbook today, al-Kitaab fii Ta’allum al-‘Arabiyya: A Textbook for Beginning Arabic , by Kristen Brustad, Mahmoud al-Batal, and Abbas al-Tonsi, incorporates some Egyptian Arabic as the lessons progress, but it remains predominately

MSA in its structure. A forthcoming version of al-Kitab is designed to expose students to the Levantine dialect, and increase dialect exposure. In Redden’s 2008 interview with one of the al-Kitaab authors, Kristen Brustad, explains that the “vision of integrating colloquial into the Arabic classroom began with the first edition, and every edition has gone further with the introduction of the colloquial” (Speaking Arabic at Home section, para. 4). In addition, a growing number of colleges are offering dialect-only courses, such as Egyptian or Levantine. Rather than being offered in one course of instruction with

MSA, which would afford students with optimal understanding and functionality to hone their balance of both varieties, the dialect is in a course of its own. Furthermore, dialect- only courses often require perquisites of at least beginning MSA prior to students’ permission to enroll.

Very few language programs today incorporate MSA and dialects together in the same course of instruction, which allows students to mirror the natural linguistic nature of the language. Younes argues that instruction of MSA and dialect as different entities in

two separate courses creates wasted time and duplication, expounding that “many vocabulary items and grammatical features (including phonological, morphological, and syntactic features) are presented an explained twice” (Younes, 1990, p. 112). Offering dialect-only courses may be considered a recognition of the necessity for obtaining spoken language skills, but this method of instruction is not as constructive as other modes of dialect integration.

THE UNCERTAIN ROLE OF DIALECTS IN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

The National Standards for Arabic language instruction at the high school level assist in analyzing current trends and practices of employing MSA instruction for oral and listening skills, despite the Standards call for developing communicatively competent language students. In the National Standards for learning Arabic, the term

Arabic is used to describe both MSA and dialects ( Standards , 2006, p. 115). This attempt at showing inclusion of the dialects is unfortunately undermined by the reality of the debate expressed in the Standards :

In the effort to prepare their students well, teachers of Arabic disagree on whether their students should be taught only MSA or a dialect or a mixture of both. There is agreement that student’s needs should determine the type of Arabic to be taught; teaching should adopt an integrative approach that allows the learner to develop control of the communication process. In addition, there is undisputed agreement by teachers and scholars that a thorough understanding of MSA is important. ( Standards , 2006, p. 115)

Perhaps the merging of the terms MSA and dialect simply as Arabic further fuels the heavily based MSA instruction found throughout university and high school classrooms.

While Younes agrees that Arabic programs should consider students needs and interests, he points out that the majority of students taking Arabic desire similar expectations to students in other language courses: “They expect to learn to understand, speak, read and

write Arabic the way it is understood, spoken read, and written by native speakers”

(Younes, 1990, p. 110). Perhaps administrators, parents and students that are learning to speak and listen in predominately MSA, unknowingly accept it as a means for communication, despite the reality of its role in the Arabic language used by native speakers. Furthermore, at what point should students’ interests, override communication; arguably the heart of the Five C’s of world language instruction? Two exceptions to this prescription would be courses of instruction dedicated to learning the Quran and other texts utilizing Classical Arabic, or the differing needs of programs for heritage speakers who perhaps know a dialect and necessitate education in MSA.

Not only do the Standards lack a clear role for dialects in curricula, ACTFL’s

Arabic Proficiency Guidelines for speaking and listening necessitate dialect know-how at the more advanced levels, but neglect to address dialectal expectations at the onset of instruction in the novice level. The guidelines (see Appendix 1) state that MSA and/or dialect is acceptable, but expectations are laid out for students’ at the advanced to superior levels. The "and/or" option of dialects at the novice to advanced levels makes sense only for courses designed to teach MSA to speakers that already have spoken

Arabic expertise, either from family at home or acquisition abroad, or for students studying religious materials, which necessitate CA. The problem with ACTFL's optional instruction of dialects at the Novice to Advanced levels arises when non-native speakers that have been taught predominately in MSA reach the Advanced level of MSA capabilities with little if any dialect awareness. They cannot possibly advance without spoken Arabic.

This lack of emphasis on the dialects at the novice to intermediate level is also apparent in its recommendation for assessing speaking and listening. The ACTFL

Guidelines suggest:

… at the lower levels (Novice, Intermediate and possibly Advanced) testing be done in the form that the learner has learned, but that the higher levels, Advanced High and Superior the learner must show ability to comprehend and to communicate in both, with at least partial awareness of appropriate choice depending on the situation involved. (ACTFL, 1989, p374)

How can students be assessed on their progress towards proficiency, specifically acquiring authentic spoken language skills, when dialects are lacking, or even missing as a crucial component in the early levels of instruction? Spoken Arabic should not be treated as optional for novice to intermediate learners when it is clearly a requirement at the higher levels.

Paula M. Winke and Rajaa Aquil indicate that the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines are vague in regards to students’ proficiency in dialect and/or MSA at the Novice to

Advanced levels because the field lacks a definition of a native Arabic speaker due to the diversity and complexity of the Arabic language. They continue explaining that teachers need this definition of a native Arabic speaker to create authentic tasks (Winke & Aquil, p. 227). Wahba presents a logical solution to this dilemma and points to the educated native speaker as a prime model for Arabic students. He believes that:

The choice or the native educated user as a target model represents a kind of orientation for Arabic programs to what educated diglossic native Arabic speakers do in terms of language knowledge, skills, activities, and the tasks in the real world… it is a reference point with which to compare the learners’ outcomes. (Wahba, 2006, p. 145)

Implementation of this model as an objective at the onset of instruction in high school

Arabic, will better prepare students to become proficient. Clearly, students striving for 21

superior Arabic cannot expect to reach this level of language ability minus a spoken variety, if it is neglected from the onset of their studies.

Furthermore, the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21 st Century describes three modes of communication: interpersonal, interpretive, and presentational, which ultimately define how a student should be assessed based on the four skills: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. MSA is an appropriate form for the reading and writing task as part of interpretive and speaking specifically for presentational modes of communication. When striving for authentic communication, realistic assessment of interpersonal communication, specifically person to person interaction, presents an obstacle in predominately MSA-focused classrooms. Interpersonal communication between people, which necessitates listening and speaking, correlates not to MSA, as much as it does to the neglected FSA and dialects.

STRIVING FOR COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

The Center for Applied Linguistics defines communicative language teaching as, the use of authentic scenarios requiring communication (Galloway, 1993, para. 4). David

Wilmsen confirms that it is no secret among Arabic instructors that the literary variety of the Arabic language is taught predominantly in the classroom, rather than the spoken variety (Wilmsen, 2006, p. 127). Thus, artificial scenarios are developed in which students converse utilizing a variety that is inappropriate for the task at hand. Even when teachers do use authentic scenarios, their efforts are futile if the spoken form does not match that which is necessitated by the situation itself.

The complexities associated with speaking Arabic inevitably affect the Arabic-as-a- foreign-language learner as well as teachers. In order to be taken seriously in 22

communicative situations, the “outsider” who has a grasp of both the High and Low varieties should be able to utilize the form necessitated by the specific situation

(Ferguson, 1959, p. 329). Learners of Arabic as a foreign language are not the only group that suffers negatively from the unnatural language usage in the classroom. Younes indicates that teachers also struggle with MSA as the mode for both written and oral communication in the classroom. He explains:

Teachers do not speak Arabic with their students in or out of class because they feel uncomfortable speaking the variety of Arabic they are teaching, i.e., MSA, in ordinary conversational situations, since they themselves never use it this way. (Younes, 1990, p. 109)

Teaching authentic Arabic should be regarded as the foundation to Arabic instruction and curriculum design. Despite the diversity of students needs and objectives as well as teachers capabilities and resources, the Standards reaffirm that “the ultimate goal of

Arabic instruction is to produce students who are able to understand the full range of informal and formal styles that may be used in written and especially spoken Arabic”

(Standards , 2006, p. 122). This is an impossible feat when an integrated component of spoken dialect is missing or lacking from the beginning of the novice.

A NEW DIRECTION

A new direction in Arabic teaching suggests securing a structured role for dialects in the heavily MSA based high school classroom. Three modes regarding the sequencing of introducing varieties have been previously presented as theories and put into action into the classroom. First, some scholars argue that MSA should be taught initially as the language for speaking, listening, reading and writing until the student forms a solid foundation of comprehension prior to the introduction of spoken Arabic into instruction

(Alosh, 1992). Others suggest a second mode that introduces spoken Arabic to students prior to instruction in MSA as occurs for native Arabic speakers in their natural acquisition of the language (Yunes, 2006). A third approach calls for MSA and dialect to be simultaneously presented to students (Wahba, 2006 & Ouali, 2009). Finally, others support an alternative to dialect integration as a compromise of sorts or middle ground of teaching Formal Spoken Arabic (FSA) (Ryding, 1991).

Fortunately, the integration of Arabic dialects into curriculum is not uncharted territory and these efforts serve as evidence that it can be done. The field of Arabic instruction has several pioneers that have established programs proving that both MSA and spoken Arabic can be taught simultaneously through a variety of modes. The first mode of integration mentioned, MSA prior to dialect, is not optimal for students and proficiency-based instruction. The MSA-first approach does not equip students with authentic communicative language skills used by native speakers (al-Batal, 1992, p. 295).

To a certain degree, this method is emulated in the aforementioned al-Kitaab Arabic textbook, which introduces students to MSA and slowly integrates Egyptian Colloquial

Arabic into the curriculum through a variety of audio materials. While this method is better than teaching strictly in MSA, it lacks enough structure and focus on spoken

Arabic and allows MSA to be the predominant medium for oral communication. For the purpose of this research, this method of integrating MSA prior to dialects will not be described in-depth, since so many programs currently instruct in this suboptimal presentation of the language.

The ACTFL Arabic Proficiency Guidelines clarifies the second method of integrating spoken Arabic prior to MSA in the curriculum by stating, “Others take the

more radical position that interpretation of the Guidelines’ implications would suggest an attempt to replicate the first-language sequence by placing instruction in a colloquial dialect first in the instructional sequence” (ACTFL, 1989, p. 374). This method focuses initially on spoken Arabic and then slowly integrates literary Arabic into the curriculum.

Younes, created a curriculum based on his students learning objectives by utilizing spoken Arabic initially in classroom instruction followed with MSA for literary purposes within one course so as to emulate the authentic nature of the language used by native speakers (Younes, 2006, p.157). Younes proposes that his program emulates authentic use of Arabic by starting instruction with spoken Arabic, specifically Educated Levantine

Arabic, coupled with the continuous incorporation of literary MSA into the same course of instruction (Younes, 2006, p. 159). His course commences strictly in the spoken variety while MSA instruction for reading and listening is initiated after a foundation of understanding the spoken variety forms within the first semester, specifically around the fiftieth hour (Younes, 1990, p. 114).

The table below is generated specifically for this research paper based on Younes’ description of his lesson plan. It provides further clarification for his language usage specific to the four main skills, reading, writing, listening, and speaking.

Table 1.1: Younes’ curriculum for first-year Arabic (1990, pp. 114-116)

Variety Listening Speaking Reading Writing

Dialect Short dialogues on All speaking Not applicable to Not applicable

identification, home, activities are in dialect to dialect

family, travel, etc. colloquial.

MSA Radio broadcasts, short Not applicable to All reading All writing

stories, and short MSA activities are in activities are in

newspaper articles MSA MSA

This chart does not reflect an additional element of authenticity in Younes’ curriculum, in that oral discussion on any MSA task is conducted in dialect. He clarifies that each mode necessitating MSA, is increased in length and amount of material gradually throughout the course.

Younes claims that his method of initiating Arabic instruction in a spoken variety followed with the appropriate use of MSA will better afford students with the capabilities to overcome sociolinguistic challenges presented by authentic language situations abroad

(Younes, 1990, p. 105). In fact Younes claims that his approach is “pedagogically more effective” based on the true nature of the Arabic language, and the capabilities students in this environment obtain (Younes, 2006, p. 164). Younes created his own textbooks to support his curriculum since he found no other resource available with a similar objective . The series is called An Integrated Approach and available at both elementary and intermediate Arabic. In a 2008 interview with Redden, he clarifies that these texts, when used by other instructors, are often used as supplements in language instruction rather than their main text (Degrees of Integration section, para. 1). Younes explains further that his program is unique, “What we’re doing that’s different… is that other programs either teach the classical language by itself- they’re a small program and they don’t have the manpower or support. Other programs that are bigger introduce a spoken dialect, but they do the two in separate tracks. What we do at Cornell is integrate the two into one track… so it’s an honest reflection of what really happens in the Arab world”

(Redden, 2008, para. 3). Other teachers with varying degrees of manpower and resources have proven that dialects can be introduced with MSA as well. 26

An innovative proposal that serves as further evidence for ways in which dialects can coexist in the same curriculum is the simultaneous approach, where dialects and

MSA are in the same classroom at the onset of instruction. Ouali at the University of

Wisconsin in Milwaukee calls for simultaneous instruction of MSA and dialects in the same classroom. His proposal reserves dialects for the authentic task of speaking and

MSA for reading and writing. Both forms are prescribed for listening tasks. Ouali suggests a "minimal learning principle" which he defines as "the grammatical patterns of the vernaculars (dialects) that are similar to the grammatical patterns of MSA will be successfully learned when introduced at the same time as the grammatical patterns of

MSA." He continues suggesting that teachers can "exploit the core grammatical properties of MSA and dialects with tense, agreement, and negation examples" (Ouali,

2009, p. 2). He argues that grammatical features of “target dialects” can correlate to that of MSA. For example, he believes the introduction of the present tense form in MSA can lend itself to introducing the present tense in dialect (Ouali, 2009, p. 9). He provides the following example for “he writes/is writing”:

MSA: Jordanian dialect: ya-ktub bi-y-ktub 3M-write.IMP 3M-write.IMP

While this is merely a snapshot of verb conjugations for Jordanian Arabic, it is clear that the slight changes, specifically the removal of the /a/ phoneme and the addition of the suffix /bi/, could easily be introduced following the lesson of verb conjugations in MSA.

Ouali cites other examples of exploiting core grammatical properties of MSA such as the

introduction of the negation of MSA verbs utilizing the form “ma” ( َ ) followed with similar negation structures found in some dialects, specifically Jordanian.

The pedagogical approach for teaching dialect by “exploiting” its similarities with

MSA has also been hailed by Younes, who credits his curriculum for making connections between MSA and dialect while at the same time optimizing time by limiting repetition of structures existing in both varieties. Younes claims that relating and comparing words and pronunciations between the two aids in the students’ capabilities to “develop a sense of the relationship between MSA and the dialect and the kind of transfer that can be made from one variety to the other” (Younes, 1990, p. 116). Thus, students will be better equipped to code-switch when presented with various authentic situations. Furthermore, he points out that MSA and dialect share much lexicon with differences in pronunciation

(Younes, 1990, p. 114). The chart below provides a snapshot of lexical similarities and differences between MSA and Educated Levantine Arabic from Younes’ textbook,

Elementary Arabic: an Integrated Approach, in which he optimizes his instruction:

Table 1.2: Vocabulary from Younes’ Textbook (2006, p. 162)

CF only (Contemporary Fu a/ MSA) 48 words 4.3 %

ELA only 66 words 5.9%

Shared by the two 1,008 words 89.8%

Like Ouali, Wahba agrees that MSA and dialect should be presented to students simultaneously. However, unlike Ouali who recommends utilizing both varieties to work off of each other from the onset of instruction, Wahba promotes his “diglossic communicative approach,” which differs slightly at beginning levels. He suggests that:

the learner can start with the two varieties separated; they are interconnected at the intermediate levels, and finally they are integrated at the higher levels. The aim of this approach is to produce a competent diglossic user of Arabic who has

the linguistic knowledge (linguistic and cultural) and the communicative ability to use Arabic language in its social contexts. (Wahba, 2006, p. 151)

In this method, students will learn both varieties from the onset, but they will be kept separate. Intermediate levels are considered to be at the “interconnection stage”, while integration happens at the advanced levels. This method still provides students with the building blocks of communicative competency in the earliest stages of their studies.

In al-Batal’s call for a new approach to teaching Arabic, he highlights his preferred method of dialect integration, an “alternative approach”, or as he refers to it, a

“modification to the simultaneous approach”, where students are introduced to MSA and dialect in one single program. (al-Batal, 1992, p. 297). He suggests that MSA is introduced as a written language, but also maintained in instruction for some spoken tasks. Then, he proposes that a dialect is prescribed to reflect the mode of communication for routine or daily interactions as well as forms in which it is found in literary expressions. Finally, he recommends a third variety stating that it is “a mixture of MSA and a dialect that characterizes the speech of educated native speakers in some contexts”

(al-Batal, 1992, p. 298). His approach strives to maintain the vibrant diglossic nature of the Arabic language in order to preserve authenticity of communication. Consequently, students obtain a stronger foundation in the literary form, spoken form, as well as the flexibility of finding a middle ground through formal spoken Arabic. This approach affords students with communicative competence and embarks them on a path towards proficiency.

Similar to Younes’ decision to employ Educated Levantine in his curriculum, the

Foreign Service Institute (FSI) values the importance of second language learners to 29

obtain an advanced level of spoken Arabic deemed appropriate for oral communication abroad. Because their clientele is US government employees and diplomats heading to various Arabic-speaking countries, FSI has chosen Formal Spoken Arabic (FSA) as their variety of choice to meet their demands (Ryding, 1991, p. 213). As stated earlier, FSA is considered the “middle ground” identified within the range of Arabic use by native

Arabic speakers. FSA affords language learners with the ability to spontaneously speak in a flexible manner that doesn’t rely on the proper, formal nature associated with MSA, or the casualness expressed through the use of a dialect (Ryding, 1991, pp. 212-213). FSI also instructs its students in MSA for literary and formal tasks.

Students are not void of their own input on the varying methods for integrating spoken Arabic into their classrooms. In 2008, Jeremy Palmer conducted a survey of

Arabic students with two semesters or more of Arabic studies under their belts prior to studying abroad in the Middle East to uncover their attitude towards the use of spoken

Arabic. Interestingly enough, 71% of the respondents agreed that “spoken varieties of

Arabic should be taught at the same time as MSA” (Palmer, 2008, p. 87). Yet students’ beliefs on how dialects should be introduced into the classroom varied greatly. They were divided evenly regarding whether “Spoken varieties of Arabic and MSA should be taught separately” (Palmer, 2008, p. 89). So while students want to learn spoken Arabic, they are unsure how it should be incorporated into the curriculum. Furthermore, despite the value placed on authentic oral communication, only 57% of students poled believed that dialect should be the primary mode of instruction in first and second year Arabic (Palmer,

2008, p. 88). This indicates that students value the importance of learning MSA, since it, along with spoken Arabic, plays a vital role in the path towards Arabic proficiency.

The call for a new direction in Arabic language teaching is clearly directed to programs teaching predominantly MSA for speaking and listening skills. Non-native

Arabic speakers should have a strong grasp in both MSA, for literary purposes, and a dialect to converse with native speakers (Ryding, 1991, p. 212). Furthermore, students that are considered proficient in Arabic are capable of utilizing the appropriate blend of

Arabic, MSA, dialect, and FSA, necessitated by various sociolinguistic situations (al-

Batal, 1992, p. 296). The aforementioned initiatives are evidence that it can be done with structure, dedication, and maintaining the native speaker as a model for authentic language usage in the classroom.

CRITICS OF DIALECT INTEGRATION

Critics of dialect integration base their opinions on several reasons ranging from students’ capabilities to maintain both forms through classroom instruction, the inherent difficulties of learning Arabic, and the complexities of sociolinguistic features. Ferguson claims that there is a serious problem in maintaining both the High and Low varieties. He claims:

Whether one begins with H or L, there is a serious problem in maintaining the skill acquired during the first part of the course while concentrating on a different set of skills in the second part. Students who have learned to converse fluently in some variety of spoken Arabic and have gone on to study the classical, often in a year’s time lose their ability to converse. On the other hand, as people who have started with Classical Arabic acquire proficiency in the spoken language, they develop a tendency towards errors in the written language. (Ferguson, 1962, p.167)

This argument of concern over maintenance holds no grounds due to the authentic nature of the Arabic language that has been previously mentioned: both the high and low varieties are utilized daily through a variety of functions and purposes providing continuous exposure. In fact Younes clarifies in his proposal on dialect usage in the MSA 31

classroom that “the dialect would not be abandoned with the introduction of MSA materials, but rather both varieties would be used side by side, the way they are used by

Arabs” (Younes, 1990, p. 114). Therefore, this concern should not discourage the integration of dialects since both varieties of Arabic are maintained through proper instruction and use of the language based on each task at hand.

Alosh, a proponent of maintaining MSA instruction in the classroom explains why he favors instruction in MSA stating that it “provides immediate access to today’s immense intellectual and literary output in both written and spoken media and can serve as a viable link with the past as well” (Alsoh, 1992, p. 135). His argument regarding the needs of learners of Arabic as a second language is quite different though from what has previously been argued in this literature review. He states:

The argument that using MSA makes a person look ridiculous does not really hold to closer scrutiny. For a native speaker to use MSA might indeed look pedantic. But for a foreigner to use it looks quite different. It is true that ordinary people will experience a slight shock at the beginning, first, because they are not used to encountering MSA in everyday situations used by real people and, second, because it is being used by a foreigner. But once the initial shock is past, they will, like speakers of all languages and dialects, tend to be accommodating, even admiring. (Alosh, 1992, p. 264)

His unfortunate differentiation of oral communication amongst “real” or “ordinary” people to that of “foreigners” disregards the need for authentic communication and underestimates students of Arabic as a second language’s competence at acquiring proficiency in Arabic. While Alosh favors MSA instruction, he explains he is not against the teaching of dialects; however, he tries not to mix MSA with dialects particularly during the first two years (M. Alosh, personal communication, January 2, 2009).

In Redden’s 2008 interview, Belnap acknowledges that the teaching of spoken

Arabic and MSA can cause students confusion (On the Cutting Edge section, para. 8). 32

This concern was expressed by a student who responded to Palmer’s 2008 survey and expressed confusion when being instructed in both dialect and MSA. The student stated that “for a beginner, learning Egyptian and MSA at the same time made things more confusing. Egyptian sometimes makes one forget certain MSA grammatical rules”

(Palmer, 2008, p. 88). Still, some levels of confusion are inevitable among students of

Arabic and Belnap continues his observation that “the output is a happier product- we have students who are able to use the language for speaking earlier” (On the Cutting

Edge section, para. 9).

The alternative method of teaching the spoken variety via Formal Spoken Arabic is not void of criticism either. Al-Batal cautions against limiting instruction of oral communication to the “middle language” (FSI) rather than dialects. He explains that more needs to be understood in its sociolinguistic attributes, status, and variations (al-

Batal, 1992, p. 296).

Al-Batal speculates that his aforementioned “modified simultaneous approach” to

Arabic language instruction comprising of MSA, dialect, and FSA will be criticized by those who believe coinciding instruction in all three forms of Arabic is a recipe for confusion among language learners. He points to a common argument made by critics who prefer to teach strictly in MSA, that picking a dialect for students, such as Egyptian, for example, would not help them if they eventually travel to a region with a different dialect, such as Iraq. Al-Batal recognizes that these arguments are valid, but only to a certain degree. He reemphasizes his call for an alternative approach to language instruction by stating the confusion “is a product of the diglossic situation and is experienced not only by speakers of Arabic, but by speakers of all diglossic languages.

Therefore, teachers should be prepared to deal with this confusion and should make it clear to the students that the level of confusion will gradually diminish as they become more proficient in the language” (al-Batal, 1992, p. 302). As stated, students of diglossic languages may be greeted with confusion and challenges, but similar to the swift removal of a Band-Aid, the sting will eventually subside, as al-Batal predicts.

Even though al-Batal proposes his “simultaneous approach,” he recognizes that teaching MSA and MSA only has its advantages. He cites six benefits of an MSA-only curriculum.

1. MSA is used for some oral communication including the media both in writing

and speaking.

2. An emphasis on speaking MSA subsequently helps students reinforce vocabulary

and syntax of MSA.

3. Dialects can be learned via going abroad or in dialect specific course.

4. Considering the complex nature of Arabic, teaching only MSA is the most

efficient approach.

5. Teachers are not left to struggle with choosing a dialect.

6. Learning MSA first will help students learn any Arabic dialect rather than starting

with dialect first and then introducing MSA (al-Batal, 1992, p. 294).

It should be mentioned that the validity of whether learning MSA first actually assists in acquiring spoken Arabic is unproven. Despite these alleged benefits of teaching only

MSA, al-Batal stresses that the MSA approach to teaching has “a very serious

shortcoming” in that it is not proficiency based due to the unauthentic environment resulting from the artificial scenarios created for speaking tasks (al-Batal, 1992, p. 295).

Finally, critics of integrating dialects into the classroom may be discouraged by sociolinguistic elements that inevitably influence the pedagogy of any instructor on their curriculum as well as students prerequisites for proficiency.

STUDENTS’ NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES POINT TO SPOKEN ARABIC

Students’ needs and objectives must be taken into consideration, and several surveys have been conducted to explore students’ expectations and goals in the Arabic language classroom. A crucial similarity among these surveys indicates that the majority of students desire the ability to communicate with native speakers, similar to the objectives expressed by learners of other modern languages. Prior to exploring these surveys, a definition of the target population of students that necessitate dialect integration versus those that do not must be differentiated.

As previously observed in regards to the ACTFL Guideline, its “and/or” clause must be clarified since it is appropriate only for two groups of students. The first group is students studying Arabic for the purpose of reading religious or other classical texts.

These objectives do not necessitate spoken Arabic, thus the “or” clause allows teachers to narrow the variety used in their classrooms. The second group that does not necessitate spoken Arabic are students from families where Arabic is spoken at home and so they have communicative capabilities and are seeking to further their literary Arabic skills.

Belnap’s survey conducted between 2003 and 2004 with the National Middle East

Language Resource Center (NMELRC) indicates that 12% of the 641 Arabic students

identify as coming from a home in which “one or both parents speak Arabic natively”

(Belnap, 2006, p. 174). Caution must be taken; however, since not all heritage students have spoken Arabic skills, and these students should not be overlooked in the process of integrating dialects into the classroom.

Non-native learners of Arabic-as-a-world-language; however, expect and require communicative capabilities, which points to the integration of spoken Arabic into their classrooms. An informal survey of Arabic students conducted at Cornell University identified learners’ interests and objectives of learning Arabic similar to that of other world language learners: they want to acquire the skills to speak, listen, read, and write in

Arabic (Younes, 2006, p. 158). Belnap’s survey with NMELRC also provides insight into why university students take Arabic as a second language. The most prevalent reason for taking Arabic as a second language is 87.4% of the respondents who agreed with the statement that “studying Arabic is important because it will allow me to interact with people who speak it” (Belnap, 2006, p. 173). Parallel goals of students are highlighted in

Husseinali survey conducted in 2006. He asked students studying Arabic why they were taking the language. 91% of students indicated they wanted to converse with people in

Arabic (Husseinali, 2006, p. 401).

For the purpose of this research paper, it is important to identify the other motivating factors identified in this survey that employ oral communication skills. They include “use it with my Arabic-speaking friends”, with 65% agreeing; “travel to Arab countries”, with 90%; and “study abroad” with 47.5% of students concurring (Husseinali,

2006, p. 401). This study also breaks down the factors motivating heritage and non- heritage learners. Of the aforementioned factors, only “use it with my Arabic speaking

friends” rated significantly different between the two groups. Eighty-two percent of heritage speakers agreed whereas only 52.9% of non-heritage speakers agreed.

Husseinali indicates that these goals for interaction identified by Arabic students require the aptitude to communicate authentically with native speakers, which necessitates competence of spoken Arabic not oral communication in MSA (Husseinali,

2006, p. 401). In Palmer’s study on the NMELRC student survey, he argues that the trend in teaching MSA rather than spoken Arabic is contrary to the interests expressed by students in the final results of the survey. He concludes that the “lack of instruction in

Spoken Arabic represents an unfortunate paradox in the field of Arabic learning and teaching that remains unresolved” (Palmer, 2007, p. 120). Limiting instruction to only

MSA is not sufficient, and unfortunately, this paradox is not providing Arabic students with the tools to meet their objectives.

A study of Arab-Americans studying Arabic at an American high school reveals that 71% want to study a dialect as well as MSA and prefer the Lebanese dialect (Kenny,

1992, p.138). Dallas Kenny, who conducted this study, states that, “I found it surprising that so many of the Arab-American students were interested in dialect study, especially in light of the prevailing view that colloquial Arabic is not considered a suitable subject for study in the Arab world” (Kenny, 1992, p. 138). Unlike the reasons for studying Arabic in the aforementioned surveys, Kenny’s survey results indicate that these students take

Arabic in order to first read Quranic and religious texts, followed by literature and culture. Speaking to other Arabs ranks third, and the importance of speaking in MSA is rated significantly lower than reading, writing, and listening (Kenny, 1992, pp. 133-135).

Even with the differing objectives in studying Arabic, these students seem to value the importance of dialect instruction in addition to MSA.

Survey results have also shown that students who desire to learn spoken Arabic believe they can benefit not only in regards to communication, but also for cultural purposes. The survey results obtained in Palmer’s study of students upon their arrival home indicate that students wished they would have studied a dialect prior to their travels, and 93% of respondents that were able to utilize varying degrees of the dialect abroad believed they were more capable of assimilating into the culture because of their language capabilities (Palmer, 2008, p. 81). Additional benefits of using the language abroad are apparent in the fact that 79% of students “felt people trusted them more if they tried to communicate in spoken Arabic” (Palmer, 2008, p. 91). From these results, it is apparent that students believe Arabic dialects provide more than just speaking and listening skills; they are an integral part of culture and society. It is no surprise then that

86% of students poled by Palmer support the teaching of spoken Arabic prior to traveling to the Middle East (Palmer, 2008, p. 87).

The draft Cultural Proficiency Guidelines, which are intended to supplement

ACTFL/ILR Guidelines, can be used as additional support in the call for integrating dialects into the high school classroom:

The purpose of these Guidelines is to delineate means of improving cross-cultural communication via the identification of the components of culture and to develop a graded culture proficiency scale that includes them. (Draft 3.2 of Guidelines, as qted. in Lampe, p. 2)

The following components of these guidelines clearly indicate the need for dialectal know-how. They include: speaking styles and usage in familiar and unfamiliar situations

for different discourse functions; formal and informal registers; metaphors, idiomatic expressions, sayings and allusions; social, regional and other dialects/variants of the language (Lampe, n.d., p.2). Consequently, spoken Arabic is clearly an element in students’ quest of the superior level in cultural awareness.

While sociolinguistic features of Arabic seemingly appear as challenges, they should not dissuade the integration of dialects into the classroom. In fact these features are essential to providing students with additional awareness of sociolinguistics influences within the culture. In addition to the need for affording students with cultural awareness and authentic communication, students, their interests, needs and motivating factors must be kept in mind.

In addition to making students savvy in speaking, listening, and cultural know- how, it is suggested that learning authentic spoken Arabic has a positive effect on students’ motivation. An Israeli study explored the effect teaching spoken Arabic had on

Israeli elementary students, especially their motivation to continue Arabic studies and their outlook on Arab culture. The interesting aspect of this study is that the non-native

Arabic students learning Modern Standard Arabic had their language instruction replaced entirely with spoken Arabic. Results from surveys showed that students’ motivation increased with instruction in spoken Arabic as well as their positive outlook on Arab culture. Furthermore, Israeli parents expressed their interest in introducing spoken Arabic prior to Modern Standard, but emphasized MSA should be introduced at some point because it is an important element in Arabic instruction. The researchers of this study conclude that spoken Arabic should maintain a greater role initially in Arabic language instruction, whereas MSA can be introduced later (Donitsa-Schmidt, Inbar & Shohamy,

2004, p. 227). The capability to orally communicate in an authentic manner may elevate motivation and students drive to continue their study of the language.

In addition to providing students with authentic language skills and enhancing motivation, instructing spoken Arabic may improve students’ analytical competence when approaching authentic Arabic resources. For example, in Arab media studies, students should be aware that even when reading interviews, the interviewee’s spoken response, whether expressed in the dialect or MSA, is typically written in a variety dependent on what is deemed appropriate for the speaker considering their status or role in society. Social linguistic complexities influence this practice, and the following table is generated specifically for this research and abridged from Niloofar Haeri’s in-depth analysis on the representation of spoken interviews in a written form, specifically news articles. It provides a unique view on the authoritative, scholarly status of Modern

Standard Arabic versus the seemingly inferior, casualness of Egyptian Arabic.

Table 1.3: Language Representation in Interviews (Haeri, 2003, pp. 98-104)

Interviewee Variety for oral response Variety for written quotation

Hosni Mubarak, Mostly in Egyptian Arabic with Entirely in Classical Arabic

Egyptian President a few phrases in Classical

Arabic 1

Naguib Mahfouz, Egyptian Arabic Mostly Classical Arabic with a few

Egyptian novelist Egyptian phrases

Omar Sharif, Egyptian Arabic A mix of Classical Arabic with

Egyptian Actor Egyptian phrases delineated in

quotation marks

1 Like many Arab scholars, Niloofar Haeri uses Classical Arabic for both CA and MSA 40

Adel Imam, Egyptian Arabic Mostly Egyptian Arabic with a few

Egyptian comedian phrases in Classical Arabic

Clearly, the written source does not reflect the authentic spoken language by any of the interviewees. Haeri suggests that the alteration of dialect as the spoken language into

MSA for written representation indicates MSA as an element of the pan-Arab movement as well as its level of authority and hierarchy (2003, p. 100, 104). In an al-Ahram newspaper review online, a journalist discusses Haeri’s book Sacred Language, Ordinary

People, and responds to the aforementioned stylistic changes of the interviews:

Journalists frequently quote famous people (film stars) using phrases in Egyptian Arabic in print, and the explanation offered is that a translation into the Standard would lose the feel of the original. In my opinion, this differential treatment only goes to show how much the written language has in fact been "nationalized": the conscious permissiveness of journalists and language regulators (editors, etc.) is evidence that the stylistically appropriate use of the dialect is not considered a threat to the authority of the standard language, in which case we are moving closer to the coexistence between dialects and standard found in other language situations. (Mansour, 2004, para. 17)

This quote emphasizes that languages evolve and so do its speakers, and if students expect to reach their objectives of conversing with native speakers, MSA cannot be the dominant mode for speaking and listening in the classroom.

DETERMINING THE GAPS

Gaps in current literature and research can be summarized in three categories. The first apparent gap is the lack of information on the schools background of high school

Arabic teachers, specifically the schools in which they teach and self-assessments in

MSA as well as their rapport to Arabic dialects. Second, no literature addresses trends in language use and preferences by teachers in their classroom instruction. Third, while

Arabic language teaching resources are available, there are no studies analyzing the actual use of these resources among high school Arabic teachers, not only for MSA but also for dialects in their curriculum and instruction. This information is imperative to obtain in order to move forward in addressing the objective of this paper. Furthermore, answers to these questions could greatly improve the value of this research, and its contribution to the teaching and learning community.

SUMMARY

This literature review outlines the current state of Arabic instruction in American classrooms today. An observation of the Arabic classroom today reveals that spoken

Arabic is absent from the speaking and listening tasks conducted in most classrooms.

Furthermore, standards and guidelines for teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language lack specifics on dialects’ role and expectations per level. This literature explored a new direction in Arabic instruction by presenting three methods of bringing dialects into the classroom. Literature regards the first method, introducing MSA first, as insufficient compared to the other modes which introduce dialect at the onset of instruction. The last two modes better emulate the native speaker and the aforementioned instructors have proven that teaching dialect at the onset of instruction alongside MSA is not only a possible feat but carries great benefits for students and teachers alike.

The critics’ viewpoints and concerns regarding teaching spoken Arabic in conjunction with MSA are reviewed to provide awareness of the continuing debate over dialect integration. While some of their concerns are valid and challenging, the reality is that students are not being afforded with the ability to build a foundation of expertise in authentic spoken Arabic. Finally, students’ needs and interests in spoken Arabic were

addressed since they are at the forefront of this effort. They too value the ability and advocate its integration. Arabic is a difficult language and confusion is inevitable. Based on dialects’ potential to increase students’ motivation, cultural awareness and communicative capabilities, initial confusion in deciphering authentic language usage should be deemed more forgivable than confusion that will inevitably arise from the artificial trends in instruction today.

CHAPTER 2: METHODS

The methods applied to this research paper are deemed most appropriate to meet the needs of the gaps previously identified from available literature. The development and distribution the survey created by the researcher specifically for the goal of this research paper provides qualitative and quantitative data on spoken Arabic in classrooms today. This chapter identifies challenges specific to the methods used and clarifies steps taken to mitigate them. The information obtained from this survey coupled with existing literature aids in exploring the integration of dialects into the high school classroom.

DEVELOPING THE SURVEY

The development of the survey, found in Appendix 2, originated from the need to acquire information previously acknowledged as missing from the literature, which will subsequently be addressed in turn. A survey was chosen because it is considered the most efficient way to gather information based on the same set of questions from all identified high school teachers across the country. The questions in the first section of the survey are designed to assist the researcher in identifying the schools to categorize and organize the returned surveys as well as determining those that were not returned. The first question asks teachers for the name of their high school, which remains confidential, and the schools location. Questions regarding world language studies at the recipients’ schools are deemed important because it provides a basic portrayal of languages offered at the schools.

The three gaps identified in the literary section were the driving force behind the development and organization of the following three sections of the survey. The first main section addresses teachers’ backgrounds, specifically their proficiency and 44

preference in speaking Arabic dialects and MSA. It asks the instructors whether they are native speakers or non-native speakers of Arabic, and to self-assess their proficiency in both MSA and dialects, which provides new insights into today’s teachers and their language capabilities. This data is not compiled to advocate certain qualities for Arabic high school teachers rather it is intended to present the rich and diverse dialectal abilities and resources in today’s classrooms.

The second section attempts to identify teachers’ language trends and preferences in the classroom. This section asks how the language is introduced, and the percentage of time utilized in the MSA, dialects and English for each of the four language skills; reading, writing, listening, and speaking. This information must be obtained to identify the Arabic variety students are being instructed in for these specific tasks, since it has been established that certain varieties are appropriate for certain linguistic functions.

Finally, the third section asks teachers to catalog their Arabic teaching resources in both MSA and dialects if applicable. It asks teachers to list their textbooks, films, music, internet, and other examples. It asks whether any resource is lacking, and how it affects instructors’ capabilities to teach the Arabic language. The availability and use of

MSA and dialect resources will provide further insight into the status of spoken Arabic and its potential for integration into the classroom.

While designing and developing the survey questions aiming to extract information to address the gaps in the literature review, the researcher kept in mind lessons learned from Concordia’s online semester on technology where the cohort reviewed elements of effective survey and question design. Keeping those principles in mind, the researcher contacted Salah Ayari, who conducted a survey of counselors at

Concordia College’s Arabic Language Village, al-Waha, during July 2008 for additional guidance in survey design. He provided input to this survey which greatly enhanced its clarity and organization. The researcher honed the survey’s development through feedback from the head of the Masters Program, Donna Clementi, and the researcher’s thesis advisor, Professor Jonathan Clark. A pilot study was suggested in the outline of this research, but it was determined to be unnecessary after the extensive feedback given.

Rather, the researcher emailed the survey to colleagues in her Master’s cohort, who in term reviewed it as if they were filling it out. Three responded with feedback that was overall positive and only included suggestions for spacing the survey questions.

SURVEY DIFFICULTIES

Several difficulties became apparent in the development and distribution of this survey. The first difficulty arose from determining the extent to which Formal Spoken

Arabic, (FSA) should be included in the survey questions along with Modern Standard

Arabic, dialects and English. In an attempt to simplify the obviously complex linguistic situation Arabic poses with its various forms, the researcher decided to limit the majority of the survey’s scope to Modern Standard Arabic and dialects. Therefore, FSA is referenced in the survey only to determine if it currently used in classroom instruction and teachers self-ratings. The effect of this decision on the results is unknown.

Another difficulty in this survey is the removal of in-depth questions the researcher initially hoped to include that targeted teachers who do teach dialect in their classrooms. Such interests included more qualitative questions reflecting teachers’ experiences with the use of spoken Arabic in their classrooms and students’ feedback.

The researcher determined it unfeasible to seek as much information through this survey

from instructors that utilized dialects in their classroom because a higher level of questions oriented specifically towards teachers who teach dialects may deter those who only utilize Modern Standard Arabic in their classrooms from filling out the survey.

Thus, they may not participate in the study, or feel that the survey questions were skewed against their favor. It is assumed that upon analyzing survey results at the conclusion of this paper, additional research to pursue these questions would be feasible.

Another difficulty arose in developing the survey on how to approach teachers with multiple Arabic classes and levels. This effort was made by requesting “averages” and descriptions of “typical” situations in their classrooms, so as to acquire a broader picture of general trends in Arabic language instruction.

Finally, the researcher decided not to differentiate high schools that included grades eight through twelve from those that were limited to grades ten through twelve, as well as other unknown variants. The effects of this decision are unknown, but the researcher assumes they have no bearing on the goal of this paper.

DISTRIBUTING THE SURVEY

Survey recipients are all known male and female Arabic language teachers in both public and private high schools. In order to identify high school Arabic teachers as participants in this study, the researcher exhausted two directories that list high schools offering Arabic language programs. The National Capital Language Resource Center

(NCLRC) and their Arabic K-12 program compiled the first directory utilized in this research, and the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) compiled the second directory. Both are periodically updated by the two Centers and

posted on their websites. The researcher also did an extensive search online to determine other existing programs based on announcements on local news or school websites.

Following final approval from Concordia’s IRB committee at the end of

November, the researcher began to contact each school individually either via phone, email or both to confirm that their Arabic programs are still active, as well as the current number of their Arabic language instructors. Upon initiating contact with the secretary, head of the world language program, or the actual Arabic teacher, it became apparent that several teachers preferred to receive the survey contacted via email. Thus to accommodate this interest, the researcher modified the survey to include the consent form prior to the actual survey in hopes of obtaining optimal survey return rates via the web.

Throughout the months of December and January, the researcher distributed surveys to the identified Arabic high school teachers via mail with prepaid return envelopes as well as using her personal Concordia College email address ([email protected] ). The consent form, found in Appendix 3, was attached to the hardcopies of the survey that were mailed to participants. The consent form that was attached to the survey via email distribution differs only in the agreement to participate in the study is assumed in the return and completion of the survey to the researcher rather than the signature for participation. The researcher also utilized support from various organizations to pursue greater feedback and contact with Arabic instructors. The researcher asked Ryding, Professor from

Georgetown University and the former president of the American Association of

Teachers of Arabic (AATA) to write a short introduction to the survey to encourage teacher participation in the study. Her message is included in the survey prior the questions.

Dora Johnson at the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) suggested submitting an abstract and request for participation in the NCLRC’s newsletter to Arabic instructors.

The following message was written by the NCLRC and disseminated through their

Arabic listserve on January 9 th , 2009, prior to an abridged summary of my abstract and contact information:

Dear Arabic teachers, a colleague of ours, Bridget Hirsch is conducting key academic research on integrating Arabic dialects into the High School MSA classroom. We strongly encourage you respond to this survey soon. Research projects such as this one are crucial keys to understanding the needs and new directions in our Arabic teaching profession, and the few minutes you take to help by filling out the survey will benefit greatly the entire field. Thank you for your participation in this study.

Based on this email, approximately four teachers requested the survey. The Arabic

Listserv distributed the survey on January 23 rd , and the AATA sent it electronically with their February newsletter. It is unknown how many people who had originally received the survey returned it based on this request.

In cases where surveys were not returned, the researcher sent reminders via emails and/or phone calls to available contacts including school secretaries, heads of world language programs, or the teachers themselves. Not all of the identified population is included in the distribution of this survey. Four high schools with a total number of four Arabic teachers were identified in Fairfax County, Virginia, but the surveys could not be distributed to them, since research studies in these schools are reserved only for employees of Fairfax County Public Schools. A survey was distributed to one of these schools prior to the researcher’s awareness of Fairfax’s policy. The teacher returned it;

however the responses and the number of Arabic teachers in these institutions are not included in this research data, since collection is not allowed.

An anomaly in data collection came from potential confusion and a lack of ability to further clarify the research goals. In short, the researcher called a school and asked the secretary if the school offered Arabic language courses, and if so how many Arabic teachers taught at the course. The researcher was put on hold and subsequently spoke to the principal. The principal appeared suspicious of the intention of the survey and told the researcher that there were ten teachers. Ten surveys were mailed to this school in

December, with the principal as the point of contact. In January, the researcher called and left a message and sent an email to the school’s principal in attempts to confirm that there were indeed ten Arabic language teachers, and that the surveys were distributed. No reply was obtained, so these ten surveys are not included in the number of distributed surveys, since no confirmation was obtained, and no surveys from Arabic teachers at this school were returned. It is suspected there was confusion over “Arab” versus Arabic teachers, which likely caused concern from the school’s secretary and principal.

Two middle school Arabic instructors were mistakenly sent the surveys and returned them. While they are informative and future research should address spoken

Arabic at these levels of instruction, they are not a part of the target population, so their responses are not included in this data. All other returned surveys from high school teachers are included in the data. There are a few cases in which a question was left blank, or the response was unclear due to handwriting or misinterpretation of the question. In cases where contact information was provided, the researcher attempted to gather clarification on this data and in some cases succeeded in doing so. Incidents where

clarification was not obtainable will be noted and the numbers of surveys included in the data specific to those questions will be adjusted for further clarity.

As for the remaining schools from the two directories that are not included in this study, 19 are either elementary or middle schools, which are not in the scope of this study. Nine high schools from the two directories were contacted by phone twice and four of these schools were contacted again by email in attempts to determine if they offer

Arabic and if so, the number of Arabic teachers. No return call or email was obtained, so the status of Arabic at these schools is unknown. All other high schools informed the researcher that they no longer offer Arabic. Approximately 13 schools told the researcher that they either do not offer Arabic or that they no longer offer Arabic. Thus, these aforementioned schools are not included in any of the data compiled in the figures and tables.

SUMMARY

The methods taken in this research ultimately kept in mind the end goal of acquiring data determined to be essential for moving forward in addressing how dialects can be integrated into the high school Arabic classroom. The survey was designed to seek information identified as missing in current research from the entire, identified population of high school Arabic language instructors across the country via email and mail.

Apparent gaps in the survey and methods are minor and are not expected to interfere with the results or analysis of the data.

CHAPTER 3: SURVEY RESULTS

The following data is presented sequentially based on the four sections of the survey found in Appendix 2. Each section is labeled and all survey questions are indicated by bullet points prior to presenting the correlating data. Survey questions were selected with the intention of acquiring information that is absent in current literature and previous studies. Obtaining and compiling this data is essential to progress in addressing the goal of this paper.

The researcher identified all survey recipients by contacting high schools recognized as offering Arabic on two directories that were compiled by the National

Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC) and the Center for Advanced Research on

Language Acquisition (CARLA) as well as internet searchers. The following table outlines the total number of surveys distributed to and returned from male and female

Arabic teachers identified in both public and private high schools throughout America via email and mail.

Table 3.1: Number of Surveys Distributed and Returned

Surveys distributed Surveys returned

Emailed 27 16

Mailed 42 13

Total 69 29

The middle column shows the total amount of surveys distributed by email and mail to identified teachers. The right column shows the surveys returned by email and mail. The return rate of emailed surveys is 59%, and the return rate of mailed surveys is 31%. The

overall return rate of all distributed surveys is 42% percent. The figure below identifies the locations of 27 schools, which are not included in this data because the 40 teachers identified in these schools did not return the surveys. The researcher attempted to encourage their return by sending reminders via phone and/or email to school contacts, which ranged from secretaries, heads of world language programs, or the teachers themselves, but these surveys were not returned.

Figure 3.1: Schools in which Teachers did not return Surveys

Due to densely placed flags, some regions require clarification. Teachers from six schools in the Dearborn and Detroit area did not return surveys. Locations of schools on the East coast include one school in Philadelphia, two in Connecticut, and three schools in New

York. The teachers at schools in this figure may not have received the surveys or may have been too busy to respond.

SECTION ONE - THE HIGH SCHOOLS

Section one requests information regarding the high schools in which the respondents work, and provides a snapshot on the status of world language studies at

these schools. The respondents’ answers aid the researcher to categorize the returned surveys and to determine those that were not returned. They also provide a basic portrayal of world language education at schools offering Arabic. The compilation of information in this section is based on the number of schools included in the study, not the actual number of surveys returned. This is because 29 instructors returned their surveys, originating from 25 schools. Responses to Question 1, which asks for the name of respondents’ high schools, are not reported due to confidentiality of respondents. It was merely asked for organizational purposes, and to categorize certain questions based on schools, rather than instructors. The remaining survey questions are essentially presented in order.

Question 2 - High School Address:

The figure below shows the location of 24 out of the 25 schools that the Arabic language teachers instruct. Only one respondent did not indicate the school’s location.

Figure 3.2: Approximate Location of Respondents’ High Schools

Due to densely placed flags, some regions require clarification. The Detroit area has teachers from four schools included in this study. Five schools from the Maryland and

Washington DC area are included. Figure 3.1 identifies the schools in which teachers did not return the survey, and figure 3.2 represents schools of survey respondents. Together these figures illustrate all identified locations of current Arabic programs at 52 schools, in addition to their total number of teachers, which is calculated as 69 teachers.

Question 3 - Is your school public or private? Select one: Public [ ] Private [ ] Question 5 - Is studying a world language required? Select one: YES [ ] NO [ ] The left figure below provides the percentage of public versus private schools included in this survey. The right figure shows the percentage of schools that require students to take a world language compared to those that do not. All respondents provided data for these two questions.

Figure 3.3: Public versus private schools Figure 3.4: World Language Requirements

In figure 3.3, 14 of the 25 schools are identified as public, and 11 are private. Figure 3.4 reveals that only four schools consider language study optional, whereas the majority, 21 out of 25 schools, requires their students to take a world language. Three out of the four schools that do not require students to take a world language are public schools.

Question 4 – Languages offered at your school besides Arabic:

The figure below outlines the availability of other languages at the 25 schools. Three schools stated that Arabic was the only language offered.

Figure 3.5: Other Languages Offered at the Respondents’ Schools

In addition to Arabic, eleven other languages are offered at these schools. The seven schools that offer Chinese is seen in the left column and the languages continue in alphabetical order to the last column, which is Spanish. Spanish and French are the most available languages offered at the schools included in this survey. Languages besides

French, German, and Spanish, are supported by the Center for Advanced Research on

Language Acquisition (CARLA) as Less Commonly Taught Languages (CARLA, n.d.)

Question 6 – How many total Arabic language teachers are in your school? Include yourself: Below is the average number of teachers per school, along with the most and least amount of teachers reported per school. All respondents provided data for this question. 56

Table 3.2: Teachers per School

Average Number of Teachers per School: 1.64

Most Teachers Reported at a School: 4

Least Amount of Teachers at a School: 1

The average number of teachers is 1.64 per school. Respondents from 17 out of the 25 schools included in this study reported being the sole instructor at their high school, while three schools had the most reported number of teachers, four.

Question 7 – Does your school offer an Arabic “dialect-only” course? [YES] [NO] (a) If so, please specify which dialect-only classes are available.

While two teachers from two out of the 25 high schools indicated their schools offer dialect-only classes, the researcher determined that they misunderstood this question. A representative from one of the schools stated the course is in Modern

Standard Arabic, and the website of the other school does not indicate any separate dialect-only course. Thus, it can be concluded that no high school included in this research paper offers dialect-only courses.

SECTION TWO - TEACHERS’ BACKGROUND

Section two compiles responses from survey questions eight through 12, which seeks background information on the 29 high school Arabic teachers included in this study. It compiles their years of teaching high school Arabic in addition to self-ratings in

Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and dialects. It also asks teachers to list dialects in which they are familiar. Question 20 is included in this section for the purpose of comparison with questions 11 and 12, which requests self-ratings in MSA, dialect, and

Formal Spoken Arabic (FSA). This data is missing from current literature and previous studies, and is considered necessary since it provides further insight into the teachers’ background, experience, and language aptitude.

Question 8 – Are you a native speaker of Arabic? [YES] [NO]

The chart below compares the percentage of native Arabic high school instructors to non-native Arabic instructors. All 29 teachers answered this question.

Figure 3.6: Native versus Non-native High School Arabic Teachers

Twenty-three teachers stated they were native speakers of Arabic, and six stated they were non-native speakers of Arabic.

Question 8 (a) - If yes, what is your native dialect?

Below is a compilation of the variety of Arabic dialects in which the 23 native Arabic speakers consider their native-tongue.

Figure 3.7: Native Arabic Instructors’ Native Dialects

The column on the left starts with Egyptian Arabic, and continues in alphabetical order with Yemeni on the right. Three responses from teacher are not included in the figure above due to broad responses. The first indicated Maghrebi as a native dialect, which includes spoken Arabic from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, the area referred to as the Maghreb. Another teacher identified Levantine as a native dialect, or the varieties from Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Syria, and Jordan, or the Levant. A third instructor indicated “North Africa” as their dialect, but contact information was not provided for clarification. Two speakers identified with more than one native dialect and these are included in the data above. The first teacher mentioned Jordanian and Kuwaiti, and the second listed Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian, and Egyptian as native dialects.

Question 8 (b) - [If yes,] Are you proficient in any other dialects? Please list:

Seventeen out of the 23 native teachers indicated they are proficient in additional dialects besides the varieties shown above in figure 3.7. Four teachers’ responses are not included in the data below for several reasons. First, one teacher indicated proficiency in another dialect by writing “yes”, but provided no contact information for further clarity.

Another teacher indicated proficiencies in “all” dialects. A third teacher reported proficiency in Levantine, which is relatively broad, as previously explained. The fourth teacher stated having proficiency in “Gulf” dialects, which spans from Saudi Arabia,

Oman, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain as well as proficiency in “West

Asia”. This teacher’s contact information was not provided for clarify on what was meant by “West Asia”. Figure 4.8 below compiles the dialects reported by 13 out of the 17 native teachers with proficiency in a second dialect.

Figure 3.8: Native Speakers’ Proficiency in Additional Dialects

Algerian Arabic is the first column on the left and it continues in alphabetical order with

Yemeni in the furthest column on the right. Eight teachers identified having proficiency 60

in more than one dialect illustrated in the figure above. Combinations reported by these teachers include the following: two stated proficiency in both Egyptian and Syrian; one teacher indicated Lebanese, Jordanian and Egyptian; two teachers identified with

Egyptian and Lebanese; another indicated Egyptian, Syrian, and Palestinian; one teacher reported proficiency in Jordanian and Syrian; and finally one stated Tunisian and Algeria.

Question 9 – If you are a non-native speaker, where did you learn your Arabic? Please specify MSA versus dialect. (a) Are you proficient in any dialects? Please list:

Six instructors indicated that they are non-native speakers of Arabic. Responses to their background in language training and their proficiency in spoken Arabic are below.

All six of the non-native Arabic teachers responded to this question.

Table 3.3: Non-native speakers Proficiency and Language Training

Proficiency in dialect: Where they learned Arabic:

None University study

Cairene [Egyptian] Arabic Cairo, Egypt

Palestinian University study, and abroad in Israel

Egyptian and some Levantine University study, and abroad in Morocco and Egypt

Some Levantine College study, residency in Syria and Lebanon

Egyptian and Kuwaiti Kuwait [unsure if this was for study or residency]

Five out of the six instructors identified proficiency in dialects as well as language learning abroad in the Middle East.

Question 10 – Approximately how many years have you been teaching high school Arabic?

The table below breaks down the years of high school teaching experience based on five year increments, averages, as well as the most and least years indicated in response.

Two teachers left this question blank, so these numbers are based on the years of 27 teachers.

Table 3.4: Years of Teaching High School Arabic

0 – 5 years: 6 – 10 years: 11 – 15 years: 16 – 20 years:

22 teachers 2 teachers 1 teacher 2 teachers

Average Number of Years Teaching High School Arabic: 4.8 years

Most Years Reported: 20 years

Least Amount of Years Reported: 2 months

Approximately 81% of the teachers have less than five years of high school teaching experience while only two have between 16-20 years.

Question 11 - Please self-rate your proficiency in Modern Standards Arabic (MSA): Beginning [ ] Intermediate [ ] Advanced [ ] Superior [ ] Question 12 - Please self-rate your proficiency in an Arabic Dialect. Please specify which dialect(s): Beginning [ ] Intermediate [ ] Advanced [ ] Superior [ ]

The figures below are presented together for the purpose of comparing self- assessments in MSA as well as dialect. All teachers responded to these two questions

Figure 3.9: Self-Assessments in MSA Figure 3.10: Self-Assessments in Dialect

Sixty-nine percent of respondents indicated having superior proficiency in dialect, which is only a 7% increase from the 62% with superior proficiency in MSA. A larger increase is seen between the 10% of respondents with advanced skills in dialect compared to the

31% with advanced skills in MSA. A 10% increase is apparent between the 17% of teachers reporting intermediate capabilities in dialect compared to the 7% with intermediate skills in MSA. No one reported having beginning proficiency in MSA, whereas 4%, or one teacher, indicated beginning proficiency in dialect.

Prior to progressing to section three of the survey, question 20 regarding self-ratings in Formal Spoken Arabic (FSA) should be addressed in order to compare with the aforementioned proficiency ratings.

• Question 20 – Do you use Educated Spoken Arabic in your instruction? [YES] [NO] (a) If yes, please self-rate your proficiency in Educated Spoken Arabic (ESA): Beginning [ ] Intermediate [ ] Advanced [ ] Superior [ ]

Twenty-three out of the 29 respondents, or 79%, selected [yes], indicating they use Educated Spoken Arabic (ESA), or as it has predominantly been referred to in this research paper, FSA, in their instruction, while three instructors indicated they do not.

Three instructors left this question blank. The figure below represents the self-ratings obtained in part (a) of question 20 regarding their proficiency in ESA. Four out of the 29 respondents left part (a) blank.

Figure 3.11: Self-Assessments in ESA

The researcher emailed a respondent who left both question twenty and twenty (a) blank for clarification on reasons for doing so. He referred to FSA as ‘amiyya muthaqafa and stated:

I do not consider this to be a distinct form of the language and so would have difficulty rating my proficiency in it, especially since there are many registers even within 'amiyya muthaqafa. The main use of 'amiyya muthaqafa, in my experience, is less for Arabs with different dialects to communicate and more to strike a balance between sounding educated and overly artificial. One often hears it in Arab universities, for instance, where speaking pure fusha would be pompous and yet speaking pure dialect would sound unbecoming of the place or people. As such, I cannot imagine why this register would have any place in a class for teaching Arabic to non-native speakers. I do not mix any dialectal features into 64

my Arabic in class and I attempt to use pure fusha at all times. (Survey respondent CC)

One respondent put question marks under this question, and did not respond to email inquiries for further clarification.

SECTION THREE - LANGUAGE USAGE IN THE CLASSROOM

The researcher designed questions 13-19 in section three to determine trends in language usage by teachers and students in the classroom, specifically MSA, spoken

Arabic, and English. It was anticipated that practices in high school Arabic are similar to college Arabic in that MSA is the dominant language used for speaking and listening tasks. Understanding current trends in language usage will aid in determining better modes for integrating dialects.

• Question 13 – On average, how many minutes is your typical class period?

• Question 14 – On average, how many days per week does your class meet?

Twenty-eight out of the 29 teachers responded to the two questions regarding contact time with students each week.

Table 3.5: The Typical Amount of Contact Time per Week

Minutes per class period Class periods per week

Average class period: 56.57 minutes 4.49 class periods per week

The longest class period reported by one teacher is 90 minutes, while the shortest class period is reported as 40 minutes. The two lengths of class periods reported by most respondents include 50 minutes, reported by nine teachers, and 60 minutes, indicated by seven teachers. The most class periods per week reported from one teacher was “seven days”. Since this seems unlikely, the average can be recalculated without this number as

being 4.4 class periods per week. The least amount of class periods per week was reported by one respondent as two and a half periods per week. The majority of respondents, approximately 17 teachers, indicated their average Arabic language class meets five times per week.

Question 15 – Your classroom instruction is normally conducted using:

a. [ ] Only Modern Standard Arabic b. [ ] Only dialect(s). Please specify which dialect: c. [ ] Both Modern Standard and dialect(s). Please specify which dialect:

The figure below provides the first indication of current trends in language usage during classroom instruction. All 29 respondents answered this question.

Figure 3.12- Language used for Conducting Classroom Instruction

No respondents stated they use only dialects for instruction, while eight stated they only use MSA. Twenty-one teachers indicated that they use both MSA and dialects.

The 21 teachers that selected (c) in question fifteen, indicating they teach in both

MSA and dialect specified the dialect used in their instruction.

Table 3.6: Dialects used in Classes that utilize both MSA and Dialects

Dialects 2 used in classroom Number of instructors utilizing

instruction: this dialect:

Egyptian (includes Cairene) 10

Jordanian: 2

Lebanese: 7

Moroccan: 1

Palestinian: 1

Syrian: 2

Yemeni: 1

Levantine was indicated by two respondents and Maghribi by one. All dialects reported in use by these teachers correlate to their reported proficiency in spoken Arabic. Five teachers indicated instructing in more than one dialect. They include the following combinations: two teachers reported using both Egyptian and Lebanese; one reported

Egyptian and Syrian; the fourth indicated Egyptian and Maghrebi, and finally the fifth claims to use Jordanian, Palestinian, and Syrian. One of the teachers that indicated the use of Egyptian and Lebanese clarified that it is the students’ mother-tongues.

The 21 instructors that reported conducting class in both MSA and dialect were then asked to answer the following question to determine which of the three methods of integrating dialects previously addressed in the literature review is currently in use.

2 The compilation of these dialects is maintained as reported, as to not distort teachers’ intentions. For example, Jordanian, Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian are kept separate rather than combining them as Levantine.

Question 16- If your instruction is conducted in both MSA and dialect, which is introduced first? Please choose one: a. [ ] Modern Standard is introduced first b. [ ] Dialect is introduced first c. [ ] Modern Standard and dialect are introduced at the same time

Twenty teachers responded to this question, and the one that excluded the method did not provide contact information for clarification.

Figure 3.13: Method of Introducing the Language into Classroom Instruction

Approximately half of the respondents introduce MSA first, where as three introduce dialects first, and seven introduce both MSA and dialect simultaneously in class.

Obtaining data on the teachers’ use of MSA, dialect, and English in the classroom provides further details on current trends in language usage.

Question 17 - Please estimate the percentage of YOUR use of MSA, dialect, and English in the classroom for the following skills. Please note the numbers in each column should add up to %100. Reading Writing Listening Speaking MSA Dialect English Total %100 %100 %100 %100

The chart below reports the results obtained based on the respondents’ assessment of their own language use in their classrooms. Results from three surveys are not included in this data. One respondent’s allocations of time in language added up to more than 100% per task, and stated, “[language usage] depends on students’ level in Arabic- I teach advanced”. This instructor’s contact information was not provided for further clarification. The second teacher that is not included in this data left the column for

“listening” blank, and did not reply to the researcher’s two emails requesting this information. Finally, the third instructor left the columns for writing and listening empty, and stated “my students are all beginning”.

Figure 3.14: Teachers’ use of MSA, Dialect, and English in the Classroom

Teachers’ use of English appears in the top portion of each column, dialect use is the middle, and MSA is the bottom section of each column. The average allocation of teachers’ language usage for reading is 80% in MSA, 5% in dialect, and 15% in English.

Writing is 86% in MSA, 2% in dialect, and 12% in English. Listening is 70% in MSA, 69

12% in dialect, and 18% in English. Teachers speak 62% of classroom time in MSA,

16% in dialect, and 22% in English.

Question 18 - Please estimate the percentage of your STUDENTS’ use of MSA, dialect, and English in the classroom for the following skills. Please note the numbers in each column should add up to %100.

Reading Writing Listening Speaking MSA Dialect English Total %100 %100 %100 %100

The chart below breaks down the percentage reported by 26 instructors on their students’ use of MSA, dialect, and English for the following skills. Data from the same three teachers that are not included in figure 4.14 are also missing from the figure below.

Figure 3.15: Students’ use of MSA, Dialect, and English in the Classroom

Students’ use of English appears in the top portion of each column, dialect use is the middle, and MSA is the bottom section of each column. The average allocation of

students’ language usage for reading is approximately 85% in MSA, 4% in dialect, and

11% in English. Writing is 79% in MSA, 5% in dialect, and 16% in English. Listening is

71% in MSA, 12% in dialect, and 17% in English. Students speak 52% of classroom time in MSA, 14% in dialect, and 34% in English.

Question 19 - In your opinion, do the following tasks require MSA, dialect, or both? Please select 1, 2 or 3:

Understanding media: Reading Arabic texts: Writing in Arabic: Conversing in Arabic:

1-MSA 2-Dialect 1-MSA 2-Dialect 1-MSA 2-Dialect 1-MSA 2-Dialect

3-Both 3-Both 3-Both 3-Both

Literature clearly delineates that native speakers assign certain language varieties to specific tasks. Teachers were asked to indicate their beliefs of attributing MSA, dialect, or both to four functions; understanding the media; reading Arabic texts; writing in

Arabic; and conversing in Arabic. Twenty-eight out of 29 teachers answered question 19.

Their correlating responses are seen numerically below the task, with proper indication of

MSA, dialect or both (MSA and dialect).

Table 3.7: Expected Language for Specific Tasks

Understanding Reading Arabic Writing in Arabic: Conversing in

Media: Texts: Arabic: MSA MSA Dialect Both MSA Dialect Both MSA Dialect Both MSA Dialect Both

13 0 15 25 0 3 24 0 4 2 4 22

The majority of teachers indicated that MSA is the variety needed for both reading and writing. Understanding the media was split almost in half, and the majority indicated that

conversing in Arabic necessitates both MSA and dialect. Only one teacher wrote in a comment under this table clarifying that “I believe when students learn MSA they will be able to communicate in any Arab country” (Survey Respondent BB).

SECTION FOUR - LANGUAGE TEACHING RESOURCES

Finally, the fourth section is designed to seek feedback on the availability of teaching resources as well as those actually in use for MSA and dialect. The following data is compiled from each instructor’s responses to questions 21 through 23 regarding their use and rankings of teaching resources for MSA and dialect.

Question 21 - Please provide the following information regarding access to language teaching resources for both MSA and dialect with as much detail as possible.

The following tables are compilations of teachers’ resources that are currently in use for both MSA and dialect. Each identified material is ordered from greatest amount of use to least based on the number of teachers claiming them. This method of compiling respondents’ resources is deemed the most appropriate for recognizing the materials that are currently being used in high school Arabic instruction. The total number of materials used in each table may exceed the total number of teachers since some respondents use multiple resources. The first portion of question 21 asks teachers to indicate their textbooks for MSA and dialects. They include:

Table 3.8: Textbooks in Use by High School Arabic Teachers

Textbooks MSA Resources (name and - Al-Kitaab fii Ta’allum al-Arabiyya , Kristen Brustad, Mahmoud al-Batal, author) and Abbas al-Tonsi: 12 instructors - Alif-Baa: Introduction to Arabic Letters and Sounds, Kristen Brustad, Mahmoud al-Batal, and Abbas al-Tonsi: 10 instructors - Ahlan Wa Sahlan , Mahdi Alosh: 6 instructors - Unidentifiable texts: 6 instructors - Teacher’s own design of materials: 3 instructors - English grammar for students of Arabic: The Study Guide for those learning Arabic , Ernest N. McCarus: 1 instructor - Iqra’ [volume and author unspecified]: 1 instructor - Marhaba! Curriculum [volume and author unspecified]: 1 instructor - Huhibu wa Ata alam Al-Arabiya , Dr.Habib Al- Afasi: 1 instructor - Arabic Sounds and Letters, Raji M. Rammuny:1 instructor - Modern Arabic 2 (Samar Attar): 1 instructor - Supplementary materials: 1 instructor Dialect Resources - Left box empty (or stated “none): 15 instructors - Al-Kitaab fii Ta’allum al-Arabiyya , by Kristen Brustad, Mahmoud al-Batal, and Abbas al-Tonsi: 6 instructors - Alif-Baa , by Kristen Brustad, Mahmoud al-Batal, and Abbas al-Tonsi: 5 instructors - Teacher created resources: 3 instructors - Unspecified/supplemental texts: 3 instructors - Methode d’Arabe Maghreb Moderne, V. 1-2, by Mokhtar Djebli: 1 instructor - Not applicable: 1 instructor

Of all textbooks, Al-Kitaab fii Ta’allum al-Arabiyya , by Kristen Brustad, Mahmoud al-

Batal, and Abbas al-Tonsi, is used the most by teachers for both MSA and dialect. Some instructors specified dialects, Egyptian and Lebanese, rather than actual textbooks. Two instructors provided additional comments to their use of textbooks. In response to MSA textbooks, one teacher stated “[I] make my own units. Books are not designed for our students’ age group. Al-Kitab and Ahlan wa Sahlan are defunct” (Survey Respondent N).

In response to dialect textbooks, one teacher stated, “[there are] no books in dialect”

(Survey Respondent H).

Next, question 21 asks teachers to provide information on films they utilize in classroom instruction for MSA and dialects. Teachers provided the following answers:

Table 3.9: Films in Use by High School Arabic Teachers

Films MSA Resources 3 - Unspecified films: 8 instructors - Left box empty: 8 instructors - Specific films: 5 instructors, They include: The Message, The Syrian Bride, The English Sheikh and the Yemeni Gentleman, Rana’s Wedding, Arabian Nights, Etz Limon, Salah El-Din, The Children of Ibdaa, Alif is for Assad, Reel Bad Arabs, Benaat Chicago, Az-Zoga 13, Mahmoud Darwish - Al-Kitaab/Alif Baa DVDs: 4 instructors - Specific cartoons: 4 instructors, They include: Bah Ya Bah, Arabian Nights, اق ,The Jar - Not applicable: 1 instructor Dialect Resources - Left box empty: 16 instructors - Unspecified films: 5 instructors , ت و ا ,Specific films/tv series: 4 instructors, They include: Bab al-Hara - The Band’s Visit, West Beirut, Ali Zaoua, Caramel , ا آت - Specified cartoons: 1 instructor: Finding Nemo, Prince of Darkness - Al-Kitaab/Alif Baa DVDs: 1 instructor - Sesame Street: 1 instructor

Dialects specified for the above resources include Egyptian, Jordanian, Lebanese,

Palestinian, and Syrian. Rather than responding with a specific film for dialects, one teacher stated “most movies use local dialects” (Survey Respondent H). Another teacher stated under MSA films that she is “still trying to find resources” (Survey Respondent C).

A third respondent stated in regards to MSA films “[There are] not enough films due to

3 Several of the movies listed as MSA resources include Arabic dialects and English. They are not removed from the list.

budget cuts” (Survey Respondent I). Only one instructor indicated that films are used specifically for “mother tongue” and not “foreign learners”. It can be assumed here the teacher is referring to heritage speakers and non-native speakers of Arabic.

The following list is a compilation of the teachers’ responses to the use of musical resources in their classroom:

Table 3.10: Music in Use by High School Arabic Teachers

Music MSA Resources 4 - Unspecified music: 9 instructors - Specified artists: 8 instructors, They include: Fairuz, Um Kalthoom, Nancy Agram, Amr Diab, Carol Samaha, Elias Rahbani, Marcel Kholife, Raja Belmlih - Left box empty or indicated “none”: 7 instructors - Specified genre: five instructors, They include: folk songs, classical, children’s - Not Applicable: 2 instructors - “Chants, Rhythms and Music for Learning Arabic at Any Age” by Lonnie Dai Zovi: 1 instructor - Karaoke: 1 instructor Dialect Resources - Left box empty: 13 instructors - Unspecified: 7 instructors - Specified artists: 5 instructors: Fairuz, Um Kalthoom, Nancy Agram, Mohamed Mounir, Nass El-Ghiwane, Abdel Halim Hafez, Najzt Aatabu, Ziyad Rahbani, DAM (Ya Sayyidati), Sayyid Makkaw i - Specified genre: 4 instructors, They include: children’s, poems, and modern - Not Applicable: 1 instructor

One teacher stated that the use of music in classroom instruction is, “almost none because the school internet is restricted” (Student Respondent I).

The following table lists Internet resources indicated used for both MSA and dialect instruction by the respondents.

4 Many of the songs specified as MSA resources are in spoken dialects. 75

Table 3.11: Internet Resources in Use by High School Arabic Teachers

Internet MSA Resources (articles, - Left box empty: 7 instructors blogs, music, - YouTube (videos): 6 instructors videos, - Arab news (online newspapers, news websites): 6 instructors etc) - Unspecified use of internet (websites): 5 instructors - Songs: 2 instructors - Teacher’s blog: 2 instructors - Culture: 1 instructor - Poetry: 1 instructor - NCLRC (Arabic12.org): 1 instructor - Arabic without Walls website: 1 instructor - Not applicable: 1 instructor Dialect Resources - Left box empty: 19 instructors - Unspecified use of internet (websites): 3 instructors - YouTube (videos): 2 instructors - Teachers personal website with links by topics: 1 instructor - Internet articles: 1 instructor - Not applicable: 1 instructor

One instructor rated both MSA and dialect as being “great” in the following question, stated in the section on dialect resources that “YouTube is great as it has so many clips with great aspects of the dialects” (Survey Respondent W).

Below are the “other” resources specific to MSA and dialects that teachers indicated their use in their classroom instruction:

Table 3.12: Other Resources in Use by High School Arabic Teachers

Other MSA Resources - Left box empty: 13 instructors - Variety: 10 instructors, They include: cards, children’s books, drawings, games, short stories, poems, novels, magazines, newspapers, and/or PowerPoint - Guest speakers: 1 instructor - Newspapers: 3 instructors - Books: 3 instructors - Short stories: 2 instructors - Magazines 2 instructors - Arabic plays: 1 instructor - Cultural events: 1 instructor - Audio passages: 1 instructor - Games:1 instructor - Cards: 1 instructor - Drawings: 1 instructor Dialect Resources - Left box empty: 26 instructors - Children’s books and supplementary materials: 1 instructor - Guest speakers: 1 instructor - “Variety”: 1 instructor - Not applicable: 1 instructor

Question 22 - Please rate your access to MSA and dialect language teaching resources. Select one:

MSA Resources [ ] Great [ ] OK [ ] Lacking [ ] Nonexistent

Dialect Resources [ ] Great [ ] OK [ ] Lacking [ ] Nonexistent

The following figure breaks down the 29 respondents’ ratings on both their MSA and dialect resources. The choices are as follows: great, ok, lacking, or nonexistent:

Figure 3.16: Teachers’ Ratings of the MSA and Dialect Resources

Two teachers ranked MSA resources and did not indicate the status of dialect materials.

One indicated MSA resources as “ok”, and the other stated they are great. One teacher selected both “ok” and “lacking” for dialect materials, so both ratings are included in this data. Seven teachers believe MSA resources are “great”, 11 selected “OK”, eight stated they are “lacking” and three believe they are “nonexistent”. Four teachers believe dialect resources are “great”, six selected “OK”, nine stated they are “lacking” and nine believe they are “nonexistent”.

Question 23 - If you selected “lacking” or “nonexistent”, do you believe this affects your teaching? Please explain:

Teachers’ responses on the status of language resources are divided into two sections.

First, those that believe the status of their resources do not affect their teaching capabilities, and secondly those who believe the status of their resources influence their

instruction. Responses are narrowed down based on the responses that clearly reflect what other teachers indicated. Their ratings of resources are indicated for further clarification. Seven respondents stated that teaching resources, for the most part, do not affect their teaching. The four comments below are the most representative of all viewpoints in this category.

Table 3.13: Comments by Teachers Indicating no Effect on Teaching

Status of Resources Has No Effect on Teaching: - “I never look for dialect resources because I don’t use them in my classes” [selected “ok” for MSA resources and left the status of dialect resources blank] - “No because I am lucky: I was born in Yemen. 90% of the students are from Yemen” ” [selected “ok” for MSA and “lacking” for dialect] - “Not really because my job is to teach MSA and not dialects. We have 22 Arab dialects…which one do you want me to teach?!” [selected “ok” for MSA resources and “lacking” for dialect] - “Not really, in such diverse student body, it’s hard to choose a dialect to teach anyway” [selected “ok” for MSA resources and both “lacking” and “nonexistent” for dialect]

Thirteen respondents provided feedback under question 23 expressing that the current status of

MSA and dialect resources negatively affect their teaching. The most representative of these comments are below.

Table 3.14: Comments by Teachers Indicating Negative Effect on Teaching

Status of Resources Has Negative Effect on Teaching: - “I would like to teach more dialect but I can’t find any resources to help me. There are more resources for MSA than dialect language” [selected “lacking” for MSA and “nonexistent” for dialect] - “Yes, I develop so many materials on my own because I have not found good materials out there. I know that the al-Kitaab is the standard book for Arabic instruction, but I am not thrilled with it either” [selected “lacking” for MSA and “nonexistent” for dialect] - “It negatively affects my teaching. Teachers need access to appropriate, engaging materials” [selected “lacking” for both MSA and dialect] - “It makes it extremely difficult and time consuming to prepare a good unit” [selected “nonexistent” for both MSA and dialect] - “This strongly affects my teaching because the students are visuals [learners?] and without resources and materials for them to see and touch, learning is harder” [selected “lacking” for MSA resources and “ok” for dialect]

Chapter IV will analyze the four sections of data compiled from teachers’ responses in this chapter. Recommendations will be made based on these results coupled with the literature review. Future studies will be outlined, and conclusions will be presented.

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Evaluation of survey results aids in deciphering current trends in dialect use to determine optimal modes in which dialects can be integrated into the Arabic-as-a-world- language classroom. Analysis of each survey sections is addressed sequentially, and recommendations are presented when needed. Following analysis of survey results, two case studies illustrating different, but innovative approaches to integrating dialects by college instructors are provided for further perspectives on the matter. Next, examples of tasks and lesson plans are put forth to provide structured meaning to dialect usage in the classroom. Final recommendations further promote the integration of dialects into the high school classroom prior to final conclusions, which are based on insight obtained through the literature review coupled with the survey analysis.

SCHOOL INFORMATION AND WHAT IT MEANS TO DIALECT INTEGRATION

The first section of the survey collects data on the high schools that offer Arabic.

The teachers’ responses reveal the schools’ locations, public versus private schools, and schools that require world language instruction. It also discloses information on the total number of Arabic teachers per school and the availability of dialect-only courses. This data provides insights into the schools’ surrounding communities, and the status of language studies at these schools. The researcher utilizes much of the information provided in section one to keep track of surveys returned and not returned.

The map, figure 3.2, designates the location of the high schools in which survey respondents teach. It reveals that many schools are close together and could greatly benefit by reaching out to each other for support. The map reveals that approximately 13 out of the 25 schools, or 52% included in this survey, are close to a neighboring school 81

that offers Arabic within the same urban center. These areas include four schools in the

Detroit area; five in the DC area; two in New York City; and two schools within 15 miles of each other in southern Massachusetts. By combining figure 3.2 with figure 3.1, which identifies the locations of the 27 schools that received surveys and did not return them, 32 out of the 52 schools, or approximately 62 %, are in proximity to high schools that offer

Arabic in the same urban center. They can be broken down into 10 in the Detroit area; five schools near D.C.; four in the New York City area; three in the same area in southern

Connecticut; and two high schools that offer Arabic are near each of the following metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Minneapolis, and Salt Lake City.

In terms of integrating and promoting spoken Arabic, teachers at schools within a convenient proximity to each other can share dialect resources and brainstorm lesson plans to integrate spoken Arabic into their curricula. Students can also be put in touch as

“cell pals” rather than pen pals to practice their spoken Arabic over the phone or computer, if they have the same target dialect. If permissible by the schools, these students could benefit from different opportunities to utilize their spoken Arabic skills.

Not all schools and teachers have the ability to collaborate based on proximity.

Approximately 20 schools shown on the maps in figures 3.1 and 3.2 are isolated from other high schools identified as offering Arabic. Table 3.2 reveals that the average number of teachers in the 25 high schools included in this study is 1.64, with four being the highest number of teachers reported at one school. As previously mentioned respondents from 17 out of the 25 schools included in this study reported being the sole instructors at their high schools. If teachers and schools feel isolated in their efforts to

teach spoken Arabic, they may become overwhelmed, which could ultimately hinder any attempt to integrate dialects into their curricula.

This research encourages teachers, with or without a close network of support, to seek remedies for their lack of human or instructional resources via a network of collaboration. This support does not have to come from another school. It can be found in the community with classroom guest speakers that can communicate in the target dialect.

Collaboration with local Arabic programs at colleges, universities, elementary schools, or

Islamic organizations may prove advantageous to teachers and students seeking to integrate spoken Arabic into the classroom. One study suggests that there are many benefits to be had to both the teacher and the student in collaborative teaching experiences. According to Lee (1999) teachers can bring his or her own specialty into the classroom and grow professionally from collaborative exchanges while students gain from various introductions into the culture and language (para. 9 & 10). Lee refers to a program between university and high school language instruction entitled “Partners in

Pedagogy” that resulted in better transition between the levels of instruction as well as improved dialogue regarding language instruction and objectives (1999, para. 12). This partnership can be formed locally, regionally, or even nationally due to the convenience of online networking. For additional support, Arabic instructors should join the American

Association of Teachers of Arabic (AATA), and sign up for the newsletters from the

National Capitol Language Resource Center (NCLRC) Arabic K-12 program and the listserv distributed by Brigham Young University (BYU). These are online communities that can connect teachers to a broader community both locally and nationally for dialect teaching ideas, resources, and support.

TEACHER BACKGROUND AND WHAT IT MEANS TO DIALECT INTEGRATION

The second section of the survey collects information on teachers’ background, high school teaching experiences, and their proficiency in MSA, dialect, and FSA. The following data is in no way presented as criteria or requirements for employing high school Arabic teachers. Rather it has been obtained to illustrate the rich capabilities held by today’s teachers in terms of dialect know-how, which should be encouraged to emerge as an integrated part of their instruction.

Teachers were asked to indicate whether they are non-native or native teachers of

Arabic for several reasons that are expounded upon in the following analysis. Native speakers’ dialects are considered their first language, whereas both native and non-native speakers share the commonality of having MSA as a second language. By separating the self-ratings of both native and non-native speakers for MSA, their L2, comparison can be made to determine similarities and differences in their self-ratings compared to figures

3.9 and 3.10, which illustrate the data collectively. The table below breaks down self- ratings in MSA:

Table 4.1: Percentage of Respondents Self-Ratings in MSA

Superior Advanced Intermediate Beginning

Natives 65% 26% 9% 0%

Non-Natives 50% 50% 0% 0%

While the relative sample of non-native speakers is small, it is not surprising that they rank similar to native teachers in their capabilities in MSA since it is considered a second language for both groups. The table below compares a breakdown of teachers’ self- ratings in dialect: 84

Table 4.2: Percentage of Respondents Self-Ratings in Dialect

Superior Advanced Intermediate Beginning

Natives 87% 9% 4% 0%

Non-Natives 0% 17% 67% 17%

The rating by the majority of native speakers as superior in spoken Arabic is expected, since it is their first language. Self-ratings by non-native speakers are not surprising, since their portfolios show that five out of the six non-native teachers obtained language skills abroad and four out of the six teachers learned Arabic at the collegiate level, which primarily instructs in MSA as recognized in the literature review.

As previously mentioned, self-ratings and details regarding proficiency in specific dialects are not presented as criteria for Arabic teachers rather this data reveals that today’s high school teachers have rich backgrounds and capabilities in spoken Arabic.

Approximately 96.5% of all instructors indicated having some level of proficiency in nine different Arabic dialects. The table below provides an alternative snapshot to the abilities in dialects referred to by all 29 respondents in figures 3.7, 3.8 and table 3.3.

Table 4.3: Respondents Dialect Capabilities

Native’s Native Native’s Additional Non-Natives Total number of

Dialects Dialects Dialects Instructors with

Following Dialects

Algerian 1 1

Egyptian 5 11 3 19

Gulf 1 1

Jordanian 4 2 6

Lebanese 5 3 8

Kuwaiti 1 1 2

Moroccan 2 2

Palestinian 2 1 1 4

Syrian 4 4 8

Yemeni 1 1 2

Clearly, the Egyptian dialect is the most widely known Arabic dialect by all survey respondents. Lebanese and Syrian tie for the next most prevalent dialect, followed by

Jordanian Arabic. While self-ratings of proficiency vary, teachers’ aforementioned dialectal capabilities can and should be used for creating and implementing tasks necessitating interpersonal communication. This effort is in accordance with Wahba’s suggestion to emulate the native speaker as a model in the classroom.

Al-Batal advises that FSA should also be incorporated into the curricula along with dialect and MSA so as to reflect the natural range of language selection subject to what is necessitated by each task (al-Batal, 1992, p. 296). Approximately 87.5 percent of

the 24 teachers who assessed their proficiency in Formal Spoken Arabic (FSA) rated themselves with intermediate or advanced proficiency skills. Twenty-three respondents stated they use FSA in their instruction, while three instructors indicated they do not.

Three out of the 29 instructors did not answer whether they use this variety of Arabic in their classroom instruction. Future research should inquire on the actual percentage of

FSA used for speaking and listening tasks, which was not in the scope of this paper.

By comparing the self-ratings of MSA, dialect, and FSA, it is clear that figure 3.9, illustrating the average self-rating of teachers’ proficiency in FSA, is much more similar to the MSA ratings in figure 3.9, than the ratings in dialect. This similarity between proficiency levels in MSA and FSA is not surprising since Georgetown University

Press’s description of the textbook, “Formal Spoken Arabic: A Basic Course” by Karin

Ryding and David Mehall states that it is “a course that teaches a standardized variant of spoken Arabic that is close to, but more natural than, the literary Modern Standard

Arabic” (n.d., para. 4).

Without a doubt these high school teachers in the field of Arabic-as-a-world- language have much to offer. Those with little if any dialect expertise, but have high proficiency in MSA should not be disregarded in their potential to bring dialects into the high school classroom. Four out of the six non-native instructors indicated in the survey that they instruct only in MSA; however, five out of the six instructors rated their proficiency in dialects as intermediate and advanced. Even the sixth teacher who ranked dialect capabilities as beginning should not be discouraged. The same goes for instructors with superior dialect skills, but lower ratings of proficiency in MSA. Rather these teachers can reach out to the community for support as advised in the previously

described program, “Partners in Pedagogy” and other collaborative, networking groups.

This partnership with other professionals would aid teachers that are limited in time and resources to introduce the language as a whole while concentrating on their strengths.

The average years of high school teaching experience reported by the 27 out of the 29 respondents to this question is approximately 4.8 years of experience. As previously stated, Arabic, which is considered a less commonly taught language (LCTL), is still emerging at the high school level. Many programs are in their beginning states and need fostering in its development. It became apparent during the process of contacting schools to gather information about their Arabic programs that many schools no longer offer Arabic. At least 12 schools previously identified as having Arabic language programs, indicated over the phone or through email that they no longer offer Arabic.

This number may be skewed since some high schools stated that Arabic was not offered rather than specifying that it had been at one point. For this reason, the researcher determined that analysis of respondents’ years as high school Arabic teachers is more insightful than the years of existing Arabic programs. Grounds for terminating the language at these schools are unknown, but the field needs to secure stability in its programs so teachers can establish expertise, and so students can pursue higher levels of language capabilities. Stability in high school Arabic programs could also improve the likelihood that spoken Arabic is actually used and maintained in the classroom.

LANGUAGE USAGE AND WHAT IT MEANS TO DIALECT INTEGRATION

The third section of the survey provides current trends in language usage by teachers and students in the classroom. Much of this data requires analysis for additional

insight into current trends and practices in the Arabic high school classroom in order to determine the most optimal mode for language integration.

The mode of presenting the Arabic varieties reveals much about the classrooms today. This research confirms that the mode of initiating classroom instruction in MSA followed by dialects is by far the most popular today. This is likely due to the popular use of the al-Kitaab series in many of the reported classrooms. This research has indicated that the method of introducing MSA prior to dialect is insufficient for optimal language exposure in addition to striving towards mirroring native speakers. Still, a surprising result from question 15 is that 21 out of 29 respondents claim to teach dialect and MSA in the same course of instruction (see Figure 3.12). Of the 21 instructors that teach dialect, figure 3.13 indicates that ten teachers introduce MSA first, three introduce dialect first, seven introduce MSA and dialect simultaneously, and one respondent did not answer.

The largest percentage of time reported by one teacher for time spent in spoken

Arabic for listening and speaking is seen in the following graph:

Table 4.4: Most Amount of Time Dedicated to Spoken Arabic

Listening Speaking:

Teacher’s Use of Dialect: 60% 70%

Students’ Use of Dialect: 70% 70%

This percentage is an anomaly and when explored further it appears that this school is located outside of Detroit, Michigan in an area known for its large Arab population.

Furthermore, this teacher clarified that his student populace as being 90% Yemeni. Thus, the objective of this course is likely to be focused on acquiring MSA skills for writing

and reading tasks. It is interesting to note; however, that this class still maintains authentic and natural form of communication in dialect for speaking and listening, despite the objective of the course. The majority of respondents’ percentages differ greatly from the aforementioned school, in that approximately 22 teachers indicated spoken Arabic is used for speaking tasks less than 25% of the time.

By compiling all respondents’ percentages on language usage in figures 3.14 and

3.15, the most interesting and unexpected result is a slight increase in dialect use between teachers and students specifically in writing. Teachers’ use of dialect for writing is reported as approximately 1.9%, whereas students’ use of dialect for writing is 4.4%.

Further investigation reveals that four teachers reported their students using slightly more dialect for writing than themselves. At least one of the teachers reported teaching native speakers of Arabic, so perhaps this anomaly is because of the population of students being predominately heritage speakers. This is likely since three out of these four schools reported being in the Dearborn area, a largely Arab populated region near Detroit,

Michigan.

Unlike figures 3.14 and 3.15, which include all respondents’ percentages, the next two figures isolate the data of language use in the classrooms of the 21 out of 29 respondents, or 72.4% of teachers, who stated they teach dialect. Three out of the 21 respondents’ percentages are not included due to incomplete responses.

Figure 4.1: Language Usage by Teachers in the MSA-Dialect Classroom

Teachers’ use of English appears in the top portion of each column, dialect use is the middle, and MSA is the bottom section of each column.

Figure 4.2: Language Usage by Students in the MSA-Dialect Classroom

Students’ use of English appears in the top portion of each column, dialect use is the middle, and MSA is the bottom section of each column. When comparing all respondents percentages to those of teachers that claim to teach dialect, the most recognizable increase is seen for speaking in dialect by teachers. Teachers and students have approximately the same increase in listening to spoken Arabic.

Further insight into dialect usage can be made by excluding the data provided by teachers who introduce MSA prior to dialect, since literature suggests that introducing

MSA first is not as sound as the other two methods where dialects are introduced first or simultaneously with MSA. These modes better emulate Wahba’s model of the native speaker in regards to language acquisition in addition to providing optimal language exposure to students within the same course of instruction. The following two figures illustrate the percentage of language usage by the 10 teachers reporting to introduce dialects at the onset of instruction either prior to MSA or simultaneously with MSA.

Percentages from two out of the ten respondents are not included in the following two figures due to incomplete answers.

Figure 4.3: Language Usage by Teachers in the Initial/Simultaneous Dialect Classroom

Teachers’ use of English appears in the top portion of each column, dialect use is the middle, and MSA is the bottom section of each column.

Figure 4.4: Language Usage by Students in the Initial/Simultaneous Dialect Classroom

Only slight increases in dialect usage for listening and speaking occur in the figures above. The tables below compare the speaking and listening of teachers and students based on the three sets of figures representing language usage: figures 3.14 and

3.15; 4.1 and 4.2; and 4.3 and 4.4. The first column reports the average amount of dialect use reported by all respondents, which is illustrated in figures 3.13 and 3.14. The second column reports the average amount of dialect use by respondents claiming that they conduct classroom instruction in both MSA and dialects, which is illustrated in figures

4.1 and 4.2. Finally, the third column reports the average amount of dialect use by respondents who introduce dialect first, as well as those that introduce both MSA and dialect simultaneously, also represented in figures 4.3 and 4.4.

Table 4.5: Comparing the Average Percentage of Dialect Usage for Speaking

Instruction by all Instruction in MSA Instruction with Dialect

Respondents and Dialects at the Onset

Teachers: 15.88 22.39 28.75

Students: 14.35 18.5 18.13

Table 4.6: Comparing the Average Percentage of Dialect Usage for Listening

Instruction by all Instruction in MSA Instruction with Dialect

Respondents and Dialects at the Onset

Teachers: 11.27 15.72 20

Students: 11.85 16.28 25

The percentage of dialect use for listening and speaking reported by all respondents compared to those that specifically initiate dialect use at the onset of instruction ranges from approximately 4% to 14%. Clearly, dialect in speaking and listening tasks even by those confirming its use in their classroom is lacking in comparison to the percentage of time spent in MSA and even English for these two skills.

Perhaps teachers’ ability or even desire to teach dialects simultaneously with

MSA is hindered or obstructed by influences out of their control. These obstacles may include time limitations for the development of pedagogical materials; a lack of funding; and school restrictions on the internet, a source of authentic materials. Al-Batal addresses a challenge that teachers face in their classrooms by observing that, some Arabic programs “are exploring content-based, communicative-based, and task-based curricula without adequate knowledge of how to deal with different regional Arabic varieties and registers” (al-Batal, 2007, p. 270). One potential remedy that has already been mentioned is collaboration through the sharing of materials and resources. Palmer suggests teachers adopt the resources and curricula used at Brigham Young University (BYU), Cornell

University, and University of Amsterdam. He believes these institutions offer a contemporary approach to integrating dialects into the classroom (Palmer, 2007, p. 120).

Since these resources were developed for the timeframe and audience at collegiate programs, more research is needed to determine the feasibility of utilizing these materials in the high school classroom.

Question 20 seeks to determine teachers’ correlations of the Arabic variety to specific tasks. The tasks are presented as understanding the media; reading Arabic texts; writing in Arabic; and conversing in Arabic. Not surprising, respondents are almost

equally divided in regards to the variety required for understanding the media. Thirteen indicated MSA is appropriate, while 15 selected both for this task. Media Arabic is often heard in either MSA, specifically on al-Jazeera channel, or dialect, often used in talk- show interviews or on local news channels.

As expected, the majority of respondents selected MSA for both reading and writing tasks. While 22 teachers, or 79% of respondents, indicated both MSA and spoken

Arabic are required for conversing. This acknowledgement of the important role of dialects in speaking and listening tasks is not surprising; however, MSA continues to dominate these roles and time dedicated to spoken Arabic remains minimal.

RESOURCES AND WHAT IT MEANS TO DIALECT INTEGRATION

Teaching resources and materials are vital tools in any language classroom at every level of instruction. The availability, or lack thereof, of resources for dialects is incredibly significant as to whether it is not only considered in a classroom, but also actually implemented. Moreover, the actual use of some materials over others that are more appropriate for dialect instruction provides additional insights into current trends and potential possibilities. The analysis of resources being utilized and teachers’ feedback on their resources provides insight on the status of dialect in the high school classroom.

Approximately 64% of all respondents indicated their dialect teaching materials are

“lacking” or “nonexistent.” Of the 21 respondents claiming to teach dialects either starting with MSA first, dialect first or simultaneously, approximately 52% stated that their teaching resources for dialects are “lacking” or “nonexistent”. Their ratings for dialect teaching resources are illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 4.5: Ratings of Dialect Resources by Teachers that Instruct in Dialect

When comparing figure 3.15 to 4.5, it is clear that teachers of dialects are almost evenly divided between those that think dialect resources are “great” or “ok” rather than

“lacking” or “nonexistent”, which was indicated by approximately 64% by the majority of all respondents. Al-Batal believes there is a lack of instructional resources for dialects at the “intermediate and advanced levels, especially in reading and listening comprehension in multiple dialects” (al-Batal, 2007, p. 271). An additional negative effect on authentic resources in spoken Arabic is that some are altered into MSA. Younes indicates that many dialect materials such as stories, anecdotes, sayings, songs, plays, and movies are taught in MSA. Instead he suggests they maintain the dialect variety (Younes,

1990, p. 117).

The figure below isolates the textbook resources currently being used by instructors indicating they indeed integrate dialects into their classroom.

Table 4.7: Textbook Resources Currently used for Dialect Instruction

Dialect Textbook - Left box empty: 9 instructors Resources in use: - Alif-Baa : 5 instructors - Al-Kitaab : 6 instructors - Unspecified texts: 2 instructors - Methode d’Arabe maghrebin Moderne, v. 1-2: 1 instructor

One respondent that teaches dialect stated there were no textbooks in dialect (Teacher survey “H”). Nine instructors that teach dialect left this box empty, compared to the 15 that did so in Table 3.8, which includes all respondents dialect textbook resources.

Furthermore, the use of Alif-Baa and al-Kitaab for dialect teaching materials is limiting since the textbook is MSA-based with little dialect training for speaking and listening.

Teachers who currently consider these textbooks as their dialect teaching resource should couple it with supplementary dialect resources.

There are many texts describing the grammatical rules and structures of spoken

Arabic. An excellent guide on dialects is the series “From Modern Standard Dialect to

(Six Regional) Dialects” by Margaret Nydell. Unfortunately, this resource was not designed for beginning learners of Arabic. The AATA’s website specifies that these

“books are written for users who know Modern standard Arabic (MSA) and who wish to efficiently identify and practice dialect features” (AATA, Resources). Still, curricula may be able to employ the audio that comes with the series, and extract pertinent information from the chapters listed as including the following: Pronunciations, Nouns, Adjectives,

Participles, Personal Pronouns, Other Pronouns, Question Words,

Prepositions/Conjunctions/Participles, Adverbs, Other Verb Features (AATA,

Resources). These subjects specific to dialect can be “exploited” during the instruction of similar subjects in MSA as Ouali suggests in his “minimal learning principle.”

Even the highly acclaimed text developed for FSA, “Formal Spoken Arabic Basic

Course” by Karin C. Ryding and David J. Mehall, is potentially inappropriate for beginning learners of Arabic. Lampe praises the text for bridging dialects and MSA and states:

… with the addition of a number of key Levantine Colloquial vocabulary items, it allows learners who have a certain expertise in MSA to make use of that expertise appropriately and effectively as they pursue their daily lives in the Middle East. (Georgetown University Press)

“Syntax of Spoken Arabic” by Kristen Brustad is a comprehensive resource with a comparison of salient elements for Egyptian, Kuwaiti, Moroccan and Syrian dialects.

Some of these resources may not be as appropriate for the pedagogical needs of high school Arabic instruction as others, but when modified they are incredibly informative, so these resources should not be brushed aside. Rather than reinventing the wheel, the development of integrated dialect and MSA resources specifically oriented for high school Arabic students can use these materials as aids and reference guides.

Similar to the fifteen respondents who indicated they do not use films in the classroom for dialect instruction in table 3.9, 12 instructors claiming to teach dialects do not use films. The table below indicates the resources that are in use by the 21 instructors that teach varying degrees of dialects:

Table 4.8: Film Resources Currently used for Dialect Instruction

Film Resources in - Left box empty: 12 instructor use for Dialect: - Unspecified films: 4 instructors ت ,Specific films/tv series: 4 instructors, They include Bab al-Hara - The Band’s Visit, West Beirut, Ali Zaoua, Caramel , ا آت , و ا - Al-Kitaab/Alif Baa DVDs: 1 instructor - Sesame Street: 1 instructor

Over half of the respondents claiming to teach dialect did not indicate any use of films in their classroom instruction. Arabic films are valuable resources for dialect training and exploring culture. Because students’ interests often peak with the chance to watch movies, discussions about the film in spoken Arabic and other tasks can be incorporated to enhance this activity.

The respondents were then asked to list the music they use for dialect instruction.

The table below lists the 21 respondents’ resources for dialect instruction:

Table 4.9: Music Resources Currently used for Dialect Instruction

Music Resources in - Left box empty: 9 instructors use for Dialect: - Unspecific use of songs (Arabic, music videos etc): 7 instructors - Specific artists: 3 instructors, They include Fairuz, Um Kalthoom, Nancy Agram, Mohamed Mounir, Nass El-Ghiwane, Najzt Aatabu, Ziyad Rahbani, DAM (Ya Sayyidati), Sayyid Makkawi - Specified genre: 4 instructors, They include children’s, poems, modern music

When comparing the above table to table 3.10, it is apparent that teachers who instruct in some level of dialect use the majority of music resources. Still, with 9 instructors leaving this box blank, music resources are not being utilized to their utmost potential for dialect teaching. Similar to films, Arabic music, both classics and modern are wonderful dialectal resources. Many songs are in spoken Arabic and many lyrics and translations can be found online, adding to the pedagogical benefits of these resources.

The 21 teachers who indicated they instruct in dialect responded stating they use the following resources from the internet for dialect instruction, compared to table 3.11, which includes all internet resources from all respondents:

Table 4.10: Textbook Resources Currently used for Dialect Instruction

Internet Resources in - Left box empty: 14 instructors use for Dialect: - Youtube (videos): 2 instructors - Unspecified sources/websites: 3 instructors 100

- Internet articles: 1 instructor - Teachers personal website with links by topics: 1 instructor

Approximately 66% of instructors claiming to teach dialects did not indicate internet instructional resources. The internet may be underutilized in respondents’ schools due to restrictions or availability. Still, the internet offers a vast amount of authentic dialectal resources, and today’s generation of digital natives, who speak the “digital language of computers, video games, and the internet, will likely respond positively to its use in the

Arabic language classroom (Prensky, 2001, p. 1). Therefore, teachers, schools, and resource developers should utilize the internet for a vast amount of dialectal materials on various subjects, durations in time, and levels.

While the literature review mentioned the absence of orthography for spoken dialects, written communication of the spoken variety is easily found in blogs, emails, and social forums, which provide instructional resources for visual learners who prefer seeing the written word. Younes cautions that there is no immediate anticipation of any fashioned orthographic system for the spoken varieties of Arabic. Such developments may be considered encroaching on the status and capability that Modern Standard Arabic enjoys by most Arabs (Younes, 2006, p. 165).

Still, just as language in general has rules and structure, so should the mode in which the internet is used to introduce dialect into the classroom. Zeinab Ibrahim advises teachers to ask “when, what, where, and why do we use technology inside and outside the language classroom?” She also urges that guidelines are developed to assist teachers with integrating “intelligent” computer assisted language learning (CALL) (Ibrahim, 2008, p.

3). With these resources, students can hear and even see the dialect in its most authentic

101

form. Furthermore, online dialect resources provide additional support to self-paced students and heritage learners alike (al-Batal, 2007, p. 271).

Further research should explore reasons why the internet is not used to its upmost potential for cultivating dialect materials. Schools must be involved to ease restrictions or improve computer access for Arabic language students. For whatever reason, every effort must be made to utilize the copious amounts of quality dialectal materials on the web, a place where many students spend their free time.

Teachers were then asked to specify any other dialect resource they use in class.

The following answers were provided by the 21 respondents claiming to conduct part of their classroom instruction in spoken Arabic. One teacher referred to more than one resource:

Table 4.11: Other Resources currently used for Dialect Instruction

Other Dialect - Left Box Empty : 19 instructors Resources in use: - Variety: 1 instructor - Children’s books, supplementary materials: 1 instructor - Guest speakers: 1 instructor

Advances in technology pose prime opportunities for introducing dialects to high school students. CDs, DVDs, online materials are abundant as listening materials. These and other listening resources such as downloaded podcasts on MP3 players or IPods are especially appealing in encouraging students to have ownership over dialectal materials such as songs, excerpts from television shows, movies, and interviews, in which they can rewind and adjust the material depending on their own needs. This mobile technology is very popular and becoming more economically available even via cell phones. Ibrahim suggests that “timed listening, quizzes, and training the students on phonological or grammatical clues in listening are listening activities to be carried out in the classroom.

102

An e-portfolio will help both teacher and student to recognize weaknesses, strengths, and learning progress” (Ibrahim, 2008, p. 13).

Technology can also help students to practice and perfect their speaking skills.

Ibrahim believes that the Arabic classroom can benefit from programs such as Real Time

Pitch and Computer Speech Labs (CSL), which can assist in pronunciation (Ibrahim,

2008, p. 14). These tools should be explored for its coverage of dialects and ways in which students could compare and contrast MSA to their target dialect. The cost or intricacies of these programs are unknown.

Authentic resources for spoken Arabic are not limited to movies, songs, or the web.

Several Arab authors are famed for conveying the spoken word into their writings, which should serve as additional tools for instruction. In an NPR interview after the death of

Naguib Mahfouz, a famed Egyptian author, it was said that he “captured the feeling and the spirit of colloquial Egyptian, in classical Arabic. So when he writes his dialogue it sounds like natural speech. He’s quite a genius in that respect” (Iskandar, 2006). This would be an excellent, authentic language learning source that affords students with comparative samples of written dialogue.

Several questions must be asked regarding current teaching resources to determine prospects for integrating dialects into curricula. Do the respondents who left the resource boxes empty have access to these resources? Are they overburdened and unable to create supplementary dialectal aids? If so, efforts should be made by those institutions already implementing dialect programs to effectively develop and distribute materials to these high school teachers. Are there school or budgetary restrictions?

103

Perhaps the use of dialect in the classroom, as indicated in the survey responses, is so minimal that resources are not considered necessary.

OTHER CONCERNS

Several other concerns may arise when considering the integration of spoken

Arabic into a curriculum, but these too can be overcome. Selecting one target dialect may be a point of contention. A specific dialect can be chosen, such as Egyptian, Lebanese,

Moroccan or Saudi, or as al-Batal prefers, a dialectal group, which he cites Egyptian,

Gulf and Levantine as examples (al-Batal, 1992, p. 298). He then advises that this decision must be made by the Arabic program’s administrators and teachers. Ouali acknowledges that “the choice of which colloquial dialect to teach is not uniform among educational institutions... it depends on the educational institution’s resources and less on the communicative needs (Ouali, 2009, p. 6). Survey results confirm that the majority of teachers have dialect know-how, so their backgrounds and capabilities should be at the forefront in making the decision on what target dialect to select.

Another concern may arise over teachers with varying native dialects instructing students within the same Arabic program. There may be valid to a certain extent, but

Younes observed that students in his program at Cornell University who are exposed to

Arabic teachers with differing native dialects did not show concern over the various pronunciations of words (Younes, 2006, p. 164). Thus Levantine was maintained even by professors that were influenced by their native dialect. Additional research may include analyzing results of students exposed to multiple dialectal features through diverse teachers’ backgrounds, compared to those who are not.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTEGRATING DIALECTS 104

This research has identified several points that are pertinent for either clarification or strengthening to aid in the integration of dialects into the high school classroom. First, the Standards and ACTFL’s Guidelines for Arabic proficiency are roadmaps for teachers.

These resources currently lack clear expectations of spoken Arabic at the novice to advanced levels. The field must clearly outline expectations for teaching listening and speaking skills in spoken Arabic even at the onset of instruction, so students can build upon their expertise as they aim for superior skills. While the guidelines make note that either “MSA and/or dialect” is considered appropriate for each level, students that are not heritage speakers cannot be expected to achieve the Advanced to Superior levels of

Arabic language skills if dialects are omitted from the onset of their studies. Therefore, the Standards , proficiency guidelines, and objectives created at all levels of curriculum development, including national, state, and district must emphasize that spoken Arabic is not optional for non-native students and should be instructed alongside MSA in a structured format specifically for speaking and listening.

Second, this initiative of integrating dialects into the classroom is more likely to succeed by providing guidance and support for teacher training and material development. In a recent article announcing the beginning of a high school Arabic language program, the teacher expressed the concern that America lacks a high school

Arabic curriculum in addition to qualified instructors (WCVB interview, 2008). Al-Batal calls for a comprehensive strategy to formulate better teacher training, provide certification, and outline assessment (al-Batal, 2007, p. 270). As the field of teaching

Arabic-as-a-world-language continues to emerge and stabilize itself in high schools across America, now is the time to secure Wahba’s model of a native speaker by

105

integrating spoken Arabic as an essential element in the initiatives set forth by al-Batal and Belnap. They propose improving quality instruction to students through intensive teacher training workshops, mentoring teams, teacher training online, and national and regional institutional leadership (al-Batal & Belnap, 2006, pp 393-395). Each of their initiatives will be described individually.

Al-Batal and Belnap’s first initiative is to provide intensive teacher training workshops, which are prime environments to not only emphasize the need for teaching spoken Arabic, but actually aiding in the integrating of a target dialect into teachers’ curricula. As part of the National Security Language Initiative (NSLI), Startalk was formed to expand and improve the teaching and learning of Arabic as a second language

(About Startalk, http://startalk.umd.edu/about ). Startalks’ Arabic teacher training programs should advocate the instruction of dialect and MSA through workshops to design lesson and unit plans.

Their second initiative, mentoring teams, are defined by al-Batal and Belnap as

“pairing a master teacher with less-experienced teachers”. Such arrangements could be facilitated by national organizations such as the AATA or NMELRC, and set up at the regional level” (al-Batal and Belnap, 2006, p. 394). The pairing of mentoring teams should take into account teachers who effectively teach spoken Arabic with those who do not. AATA and NCLRC’s Arabic K-12 program can assist by providing dialect teaching guidance through their monthly newsletters and online resources, but currently very few teachers are members (al-Batal, 2007, p. 270). Partnerships and mentorships should also be organized for students so that heritage speakers can be paired with non-native speakers to further enhance rich abilities within the classroom.

106

Al-Batal and Belnaps’ third initiative, teacher training online, is arguably the most accessible mode for promoting dialects as it can reach the entire audience of Arabic teachers. Online training programs should also address dialects by indicating online dialectal resources, since there is a wealth of authentic materials that should be presented to students. Suggestions for online materials were previously mentioned, and should be included in any teacher training program, especially those online.

Finally, national and regional institutional leadership can also provide teachers with support for integrating dialects. Here al-Batal and Belnap say “the continuing growth in the number of new Arabic programs requires special effort on the part of established, successful programs to assume regional leadership” (2006, p. 395). This regional leadership can provide further training for integrating spoken Arabic, and collaboration to extract authentic and pertinent resources specific for high school instruction.

The previously mentioned forms of support for integrating dialects has focused on teacher and student networking, improved resource development and distribution, as well as redefined clarity for dialect requirements and expectations in the national guidelines.

Successful models of integrating spoken Arabic by two university professors are presented below for additional insights and encouragement.

CASE STUDY I: PROFESSOR YOUNES

Professor Younes provided details of his Arabic program at Cornell University in

Ithaca, New York through the same survey distributed to the identified population of high school instructors. His program provides one model which demonstrates that MSA and spoken Arabic can be instructed in one course rather than excluding dialects, or teaching 107

them entirely in a separate course of instruction. As previously mentioned, Younes began integrating dialects into the classroom after observing his students needs and objectives.

In regards to his background, he is a native speaker of Arabic and identifies Levantine as his L1 and rates his proficiency in MSA, dialect and FSA as superior. His class meets five times a day for 50 minute class periods utilizing both MSA and dialects, specifically

Levantine.

Figure 4.6: Younes’ Language Use

108

Figure 4.7: Younes’ Students Language Use

Based on his survey responses, Younes does not allocate any time by teachers or students to speaking in MSA and very little time is spent in English.

109

Younes reports his MSA and dialect resources in response to survey question 22 as “Great”. As previously mentioned, Younes designed his own materials to compliment his instructional objectives. His own creation of text books include “Living Arabic” and

“Intermediate Arabic: an Integrated Approach,” both of which are used for Levantine and

MSA instruction. Younes did not list any films used in his curriculum, but did mention that many songs by modern Arab singers are used, many of which are found in his textbooks. His internet resources appear to be predominantly MSA in nature, including articles from Arabic newspapers, specifically al-Ahram, al-Sharq al-Awsat, and the BBC

Arabic service website.

Younes’ objective is to teach Arabic as it is spoken by native speakers and his allocation of language to task clearly indicates the authenticity of language usage.

Additional research should investigate modes in which his texts and curricula can be brought into the high school classroom, since no respondents indicated use of his materials, which guarantee rich dialect exposure for listening and speaking.

CASE STUDY II: PROFESSOR OUALI

Professor Ouali, from University of Wisconsin, Milwaukie, provided details of his proposed Arabic program through the same survey distributed to the identified population of high school instructors. His responses are based on his “minimal learning principle” theory and are scheduled to be implemented in his classroom next academic year. Ouali’s model is another valuable theory promoting simultaneous instruction in MSA and dialects. In regards to his background, he is a native speaker of Arabic and identifies

Moroccan Arabic as his L1. Ouali rates his proficiency in MSA, dialect and FSA as superior. His class meets five times a day for 40 minute class periods. 110

Ouali proposes the simultaneous introduction of MSA and dialects for conducting classroom instruction. Below is his expected allocation of language for each task.

Figure 4.8: Ouali’s Language Use

Figure 4.9: Ouali’s Student’s Language Use

In Ouali’s proposal, MSA and spoken Arabic shares almost equal amounts of time for both listening and speaking, which presents an alternative goal for programs currently 111

instructing entirely or mostly in MSA. Regarding resources, Ouali currently uses the al-

Kitaab series as his text, and did not go in-depth on films, music, internet, or other instructional resources. He indicates that MSA resources are “ok”, and that dialect resources are “lacking”. Furthermore, Ouali explains that he struggles with determining how much dialect should be exposed to students since the lack of materials limit students abilities outside of class (Ouali, survey, 2009). Ideally the aforementioned recommendations will alleviate this concern in the near future.

EXAMPLES OF AUTHENTIC LANGUAGE INTEGRATION

As previously mentioned schools and teachers must determine the target dialect depending on their resources and capabilities. Once that is resolved, curricula and lesson plans that utilize dialect do not necessarily need to be developed from scratch in the short-term. The main objective is to modify current practices in interpersonal communications from using MSA to dialect. At the onset, these capabilities may act as mere memorized phrases, but should evolve from level to level into forms that can be manipulated and controlled by the user. Resources that teachers can enhance with dialect should include existing lessons plans based on ACTFL’s guidelines and standards, student-owned portfolios, and content-based instruction.

While the Standards require clarification in terms of differentiating spoken

Arabic, they are still an invaluable resource that can aid teachers in developing and integrating tasks that utilize dialect into the classroom. The Standards’ Five Goals or

“Five C’s”, communication, cultures, connections, communities and comparisons, can serve as pedagogical cues for dialect usage in the classroom. Each goal offers sample progress indicators, and while MSA is appropriate for some, dialect is necessitated to

112

make other task as authentic as possible based on the aforementioned description of authentic dialect usage. The table below outlines the goal, the progress indicator, and a suggestion of how to integrate dialect.

Table 4.12: Integrating Dialect into the Standards

Communication Sample Progress Indicator, Grade 4: Exchanging simple personal آ ه أ ذا ؟ .(information (p. 120

Suggested integration of dialects: The interpersonal tasks above use MSA question words, but these phrases can be easily be adjusted so students learn to ask such questions in the target dialect with the equivalent forms of question words.

Cultures Sample Progress Indicator, Grade 8: Students learn about and participate in activities enjoyed by Arab youth such as games, sports, music, dance, drama and celebrations (p. 128).

Suggested integration of dialects: Modern Arab music videos utilize dialect and often the words to these songs can be found online. Students can learn to sing the song and create their own song in the target dialect.

Connections Sample Progress Indicator, Grade 12: Discussing current events in the Arab world and its effects on life in the U.S. (p. 133).

Suggested integration of dialects: Media forms can be found in both MSA and dialect, so discussion on current events can utilize both forms.

Comparisons Sample Progress Indicator, Grade 4: Making a diagram to compare and contrast Arabic letters and Roman letters (p. 137).

Suggested integration of dialects: Students can make a diagram to compare and contrast phonemes of letters in MSA and dialect.

Communities Sample Progress Indicator, Grade 4: Students participate in conversations with native Arabic speakers about every day matters and daily experiences (p. 140).

Suggested integration of dialects: These conversations should be conducted in spoken Arabic.

Student portfolios can also be integrated with dialect, so students have a sense of ownership and awareness in their progression both in MSA and dialect. Concordia

Language Village’s “Visa” allow students to track their abilities and progress based on

113

interpersonal, interpretive, and presentational communication. Teachers and students can utilize a portfolio like this to not only track progression in both MSA and dialect but also to help distinguish the tasks necessitated by both varieties.

Dialect should also be kept in mind when developing content-based lesson plans.

Table 3.5 indicates that the average course meets 4.49 times per week, and approximately

61% of the teachers have class with their students five times a week. Based on this schedule, a week of content-based lessons are proposed to demonstrate the appropriate allocation of activities to language skills based on the model of the native Arabic speaker:

Table 4.13: The Researcher’s Proposed Lesson Plan of Authentic Communication

Objective: Students become familiar with the advertising of food products in the Middle East in magazines and commercials Day 1: In class task: Students review familiar and new vocabulary for food by reading labels on authentic products as well as viewing advertisements in magazines and newspapers. Students will watch two to three commercials advertising food

Homework: Students will think of a food item to advertise with a partner

Target language: Reading products in MSA, spoken Arabic for oral commands such as “pass it on”, “put it on the table” etc. and the two commercials Day 2: In class task: With a partner, students design a magazine advertisement for their food item and begin to discuss how it could be advertized in a commercial

Homework: Students will formulate a simple script for advertising their product

Target language: Writing the advertisement in MSA, discussion in spoken Arabic Day 3: In class task: Students finalize scripts and props with their partner for their product.

Homework: Students will practice their commercial scripts

Target language: The commercials will be in Spoken Arabic Day 4: In class task: Students will present their commercials to the class. Students watching the commercials will rank whether they would purchase it based on the advertisement and the product itself.

Homework: Students will review new and old vocabulary by listing food products they’ve recently purchased based on advertisements

Target language: The students will present their commercials in Spoken Arabic, but their rankings will be in MSA souq, or market) asking) ق Day 5: In class task: Students discuss their products at the each other how much it costs, what it is, and to describe it 114

Target Language: Spoken Arabic This proposed week of content-based lessons informs students on advertisements of foods in the Middle East. MSA is utilized appropriately in the reading of authentic food labels as well as magazine advertisements. Subsequently, MSA is used by students to write their own magazine advertisement. Students listen to spoken Arabic in commercial advertisements, as well as from the teacher and colleagues when they are given verbal commands. Students use spoken Arabic for verbal commands, as well as creating and presenting their own commercials. The last day is dedicated to spoken Arabic when

souq, or market). Other examples of authentic use of the) ق students converse at the

Arabic varieties that can easily be employed in classroom role-playing include ordering food at a restaurant in dialect, conversing with a visiting teacher in FSA, and role-playing the task of writing and presenting an official document at the United Nations in MSA.

Some teachers may be required to have heavy amounts of reading and writing tasks in their curriculum due to the readings of religious texts or the media. They too should consider dedicating time to spoken Arabic for students without a native dialect.

For example, the typical “ ” (maqha, or coffee shop) in the Middle East is an ideal place for discussing various aspects of the day, world, and life. Thus, teachers with a limited amount of time to dedicate to speaking activities could reserve Friday, for

ا “ ,example for oral discussion of the week’s readings in spoken Arabic. In fact

or “Fridays at the coffee shop” is an ideal way to bring in an authentic aroma of ,” ا mint tea and lively debate in spoken Arabic to the classroom settings. While one day dedicated to spoken Arabic is far from ideal, it is a starting point so that when these students go abroad to Arabic speaking countries and experience authentic communication 115

at cafés, which they inevitably will, they may be reminded of their high school classrooms where they were introduced to spoken Arabic.

FUTURE STUDIES

The data examined and put forth in this research leads to several areas necessitating further investigation specifically exploring the best mode for integrating dialects into the high school classroom while maintaining MSA instruction; analysis of dialect usage; and the potential for dialect in MSA only classrooms.

This research merely presents different methods actually in use as well as proposals for integrating dialects into the classroom. Data indicates that initiating instruction in dialect, or simultaneously in MSA and dialect is more fruitful in terms of time dedicated to the language (see Table 4. 5 and 4.6). Still, future studies should examine whether one method is truly more effective then another in terms of students language acquisition.

Students that are heritage speakers must also be kept in mind while implementing the integration of dialects into the classroom. Al-Batal and Belnap present the challenges brought about with a diverse student body including heritage speakers and caution that:

Although they typically do not account for more than 20% of the students in first- and second-year classes, some heritage learners’ priorities are so at odds with those of the other students that teachers find themselves at a loss to respond to the needs of the full range of their students. Few institutions have large enough numbers of heritage students to warrant a separate track. (2006, p. 391)

Research should explore potential benefits that can arise from the diversity of the student body through student and even teacher mentorships or partnerships, while at the same time keep in mind potential obstacles and ways to alleviate them.

116

More insight is also needed into the potential for integrating dialects into the respondents’ classrooms that claim to teach MSA-only. Research should address whether these respondents would teach spoken Arabic if more instructional resources specific to their dialect were available from online organizations such as AATA, NCLRC or

Startalk. Additional research should address whether the lack of dialect in the classroom is a result of the seemingly complex sociolinguistic nature of Arabic, or due to other perceptions about spoken Arabic held by the teachers, schools, or even students. Finally, future research should observe the objective and needs put forth by students in these classrooms and compare them to the variety utilized in classroom instruction.

Additional research is needed to analyze the current use of dialect in classrooms of teachers claiming to instruct in dialect. The percentage of oral communication in MSA versus dialect specifically for interpersonal tasks, arguably the tasks that necessitate dialect rather than MSA, must be determined. Furthermore, is the use of dialects merely memorized phrases, or are students progressing towards the capability to critically manipulate spoken Arabic for spontaneous communication? The low percentage of time currently devoted to spoken Arabic for listening and speaking skills indicates a potential lack of conveying functional capabilities.

Finally, several respondents indicated using FSA in their classroom. Future studies should analyze the percentage of speaking and listening in FSA by both teachers and students. This question was not in the scope of this paper, but it is important for the objective of mirroring the model of a native speaker in the classroom.

117

CONCLUSION

This research reinforces the fact that spoken Arabic is an integral part of the

Arabic language for speaking and listening and should be promoted alongside MSA in the high school classroom, especially for students with little if any dialect exposure.

These students cannot expect to reach the advanced levels of proficiency without acquisition of spoken Arabic in a target dialect. An overwhelming majority of students with varying backgrounds and objectives want to learn this variety as they consider it necessary for authentic communicative exchanges. Survey results indicate that the majority of teachers have varying degrees of dialect capabilities, and some are even using dialect in their classrooms. The time allocated to dialects should be increased by modeling the theories and curricula provided by Ouali, Wahba, al-Batal, and Younes, who confirm that dialect and MSA can mutually coexist in the same classroom.

This research calls for four essential improvements that will assist in the objective of integrating dialects into the Modern Standard Arabic high school classroom. First, the development of Arabic teaching materials should include a structured role for spoken

Arabic alongside MSA. Second, institutions that currently instruct in dialects as well as organizations that promote Arabic language studies should assist in the distribution of dialectal resources to high schools. Third, local and national training opportunities should support the teaching of spoken Arabic. Finally, guidelines and standards should clarify the status of dialects at the Novice and Intermediate levels.

Furthermore, research indicates that there are many ways to augment the use of dialect in the classroom. Teachers can collaborate with each other, the community, or other institutions promoting Arabic studies. A target dialect should be the main vehicle

118

for any interpersonal communicative task. Finally, authentic listening resources can be found on the web in additional to dialectal resources for reading, which are emerging in the written form within the virtual realm of communication.

Finally, this research concludes with a call for more research that will better promote the integration of dialect in high school classrooms. They include analyzing current dialect usage in the classroom, determining the mode of integration that is more appropriate for the high school classroom, and exploring reasons why some teachers do not teach in dialect. Answers to these questions coupled with results from this study will further promote and assist in the integration of dialect.

With the aforementioned call for support, recommendations for integration, and identifying areas that require more research, today’s teachers, who have rich dialectal capabilities (see Table 4.3), can better secure a role for dialect in the classroom. The reality is that Arabic is a complex language and learners will inevitably confront difficulties and confusion at various points in their Arabic adventure. The integration of spoken Arabic should not threaten the importance or status of MSA. If spoken Arabic is implemented properly, students will continue to progress in MSA as expected (al-Batal and Belnap, 2006, p. 396). The essential tool of being able to communicate in spoken

Arabic should not be left out of the students’ toolbox since research suggests that dialects can improve motivation, cultural awareness and communicative capabilities. Finally, integrating spoken Arabic at the onset of instruction faithfully reflects the extent of the language while providing students with a solid linguistic foundation that they can continue to build upon.

119

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES TO DIALECTS IN ACTFL GUIDELINES

Speaking: The Novice, Intermediate, Listening: The Novice, Intermediate, and and Advanced Guideline description Advanced Guideline description for for SPEAKING are predicted on the LISTENING are predicated on the assumption that Modern Standard assumption that reception involves the Arabic [MSA] and/or any colloquial ability to comprehend either MSA or any dialect will be accepted (p. 375). colloquial dialect (p. 379). Novice: [Guidelines do not specify Novice: [Guidelines do not specify dialectal expectations at this level] dialectal expectations at this level] Intermediate: [Guidelines do not Intermediate: [Guidelines do not specify specify dialectal expectations at this dialectal expectations at this level] level] Advanced: While there is a developing Advanced: Conceptual awareness of the awareness of the need to adjust speaker’s choice of MSA or colloquial language use to situation, inappropriate dialect in discourse (p. 382). choice of MSA or colloquial and/or code-switching between the two may occur (p. 378). Advanced-Plus: Increasing control of a Advanced-Plus: Increasing awareness of second category of Arabic (a spoken the speaker’s choice of language (between dialect if MSA is the first language MSA and colloquial) and emerging ability type acquired by the learner, and vice to comprehend Superior-level discourse in versa) should now be evident. both categories (p. 382). Appropriate code-switching between MSA and colloquial is partially controlled (pp. 378- 379). Superior: The Superior speaker of Superior: Sufficient comprehension to Arabic should have Superior-level understand the essentials of all speech… competence in both MSA and a spoken including hypothesis, supported opinion, dialect, and be able to switch between and technical discussions within a special them on appropriate occasions. Will be field [with a] correspondingly high level generally familiar with more of comprehension of a spoken dialect… complicated code-switching strategies Can understand common idioms as well such as dialect raising, although may as sayings and proverbs, honorific not fully control them. Will be expressions, and high frequency slogans. generally aware of features of dialects May not understand native speakers if other than the one spoken (p. 379). they speak very quickly or use unfamiliar slang or unfamiliar dialect or accent (p. 383).

120

APPENDIX B: TEACHERS SURVEY

TEACHER SURVEY

Dear Arabic colleagues,

Salaamaat to you all and greetings from the American Association of Teachers of Arabic. I am writing a brief foreword to this survey in order to encourage you to respond to it in a timely fashion, even though this is one of the busiest times of year for all of us. Research projects such as this one are crucial keys to understanding the needs and new directions in our Arabic teaching profession, and the few minutes you take to help by filling out the survey will benefit greatly the entire field. Thank you for participating in this study.

Karin Ryding President, American Association of Teachers of Arabic Professor Emerita, Georgetown University

Information Regarding Your High School

1. Name of your high school: 2. High school address: 3. Is your school public or private? Select one: Public [ ] Private [ ] 4. Languages offered at your school besides Arabic: 5. Is studying a world language required? Select one: YES [ ] NO [ ] 6. How many total Arabic language teachers are in your school? Include yourself: 7. Does your school offer an Arabic “dialect-only” language course? YES [ ] NO [ ] a. If so, please specify which dialect-only classes are available?

Your Background

8. Are you a native speaker of Arabic? YES [ ] NO [ ] a. If yes, what is your native dialect? b. Are you proficient in any other dialects? Please list: 9. If you are not a native speaker, where did you learn Arabic? Please specify MSA versus dialect: a. Are you proficient in any dialects? Please list: 10. Approximately how many years you have been teaching high school Arabic:

121

11. Please self-rate your proficiency in Modern Standards Arabic (MSA) : Beginning [ ] Intermediate [ ] Advanced [ ] Superior [ ]

12. Please self-rate your proficiency in an Arabic Dialect. Please specify which dialect(s): Beginning [ ] Intermediate [ ] Advanced [ ] Superior [ ]

The use of Modern Standard Arabic and Dialects in Your Classroom

Please select the correct answer, and fill in the blanks as needed:

13. On average, how many minutes is your typical Arabic class period?

14. On average, how many days per week does your typical Arabic class meet?

15. Your classroom instruction is normally conducted using: a. [ ] Only Modern Standard Arabic b. [ ] Only dialect(s). Please specify which dialect: c. [ ] Both Modern Standard and dialect(s). Please specify which dialect:

16. If your instruction is conducted in both MSA and dialect, which is introduced first? Please choose one: a. [ ] Modern Standard is introduced first b. [ ] Dialect is introduced first c. [ ] Modern Standard and dialect are introduced at the same time

17. Please estimate the percentage of YOUR use of MSA, dialect, and English in the classroom for the following skills. Please note the numbers in each column should add up to %100.

Reading Writing Listening Speaking MSA Dialect English Total %100 %100 %100 %100

18. Please estimate the percentage of your STUDENTS’ use of MSA, dialect, and English in the classroom for the following skills. Please note the numbers in each column should add up to %100.

Reading Writing Listening Speaking MSA Dialect 122

English Total %100 %100 %100 %100

19. In your opinion, do the following tasks require MSA, dialect, or both? Please select 1, 2 or 3: Understanding the Reading Arabic Writing in Conversing in media: texts: Arabic: Arabic:

1-MSA 2-Dialect 1-MSA 2-Dialect 1-MSA 2-Dialect 1-MSA 2-Dialect 3-Both 3-Both 3-Both 3-Both

20. Do you use Educated Spoken Arabic in your instruction? YES [ ] NO [ ] a. If yes, please self-rate your proficiency in Educated Spoken Arabic (ESA): Beginning [ ] Intermediate [ ] Advanced [ ] Superior [ ]

Information Regarding Your Language Teaching Resources

21. Please provide the following information regarding access to language teaching resources for both MSA and dialect with as much detail as possible. Use an additional sheet of paper if necessary.

Modern Standard Arabic Dialect (Specify: ) Text Books

(name, author) Films

(examples) Music

(examples) Internet (articles, blogs, music, videos, etc? Please explain) Other resources

(explain)

22. Please rate your access to MSA and dialect language teaching resources. Select one:

MSA Resources [ ] Great [ ] OK [ ] Lacking [ ] Nonexistent

123

Dialect Resources [ ] Great [ ] OK [ ] Lacking [ ] Nonexistent

23. If you selected “lacking” or “nonexistent”, do you believe this affects your teaching? Please explain:

Are you willing to be contacted with further questions? If so, please provide a phone number or email address:

اً ً Bridget Hirsch

124

APPENDIX C: CONSENT FORM

Concordia College, Moorhead, MN CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY

TITLE OF STUDY: Integrating Dialects into the High School Modern Standard Arabic Classroom

INVESTIGATOR: Bridget Hirsch, [email protected]

PROTOCOL NUMBER: 12042008

PURPOSE: You are being asked to participate in a research study. This study will explore how dialects can be integrated into the high school classroom and better understand the available resources and current policies.

PARTICIPANTS: You are being asked to participate as an Arabic high school teacher.

PROCEDURES: If you choose to participate, please sign this consent form and fill out the three page survey included. Please mail back both forms in the prepaid and preaddressed envelope.

RISKS: There are no known risks or discomforts associated with this study.

BENEFITS: I hope the results from this study will benefit Arabic teachers and learners.

CONFIDENTIALITY: Your responses will not be linked to your name or your school in my thesis. You will not be personally identified in any reports/publications that result from this study. Only Bridget Hirsch, the researcher, will have access to the data. All documents will be securely stored in the researcher’s private home office in a locked file cabinet for three years. After that period they will be shredded.

Your identity and responses will be protected to the extent allowed by law. This means that they will be treated as confidential, unless you disclose information that is construed as threatening to yourself/others, or as indicative of abuse of minors/vulnerable adults.

COSTS/COMPENSATION: There is no cost or compensation for participating in this study.

RIGHT TO REFUSE OR WITHDRAW: You may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at anytime without penalty.

If you have any questions, please contact me. My email address is [email protected] or by cell (202)329-0767

125

You may report (anonymously, if you so choose) any complaints or comments regarding the manner in which this study is being conducted to the Concordia College Institutional Review Board at (218) 299-3001 or by addressing a letter to the Chair of the Concordia College Institutional Review Board, c/o Academic Affairs Office, Concordia College, 901 8 th St. S., Moorhead, MN 56562.

My signature below indicates that I have decided to volunteer as a research participant and that I have read, I understand, and I have received a copy of this consent form.

SIGNATURE OF PARTICIPANT, DATE

______NAME OF PARTICIPANT (PLEASE PRINT) DATE

126

REFERENCES

Abdalla, M. (2006). Arabic immersion and summer programs in the United States. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, & L. England (Eds.), Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21 st century (pp. 317-330). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

About Startalk. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from National Foreign Language Center Web site: http://startalk.umd.edu/about

al-Batal, M. (2007). Arabic and National Language Education Policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 268-271.

al-Batal, M. (1992). Diglossia proficiency: The need for an alternative approach to teaching. In A. Rouchdy (Eds.), The Arabic language in America (pp. 284-304). Wayne State University Press.

al-Batal, M. & Belnap, R. K. (2006) The Teaching and Learning of Arabic in the United states: realities, Needs, and Future Directions. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, & L. England (Eds.), Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21 st century (pp. 389-399). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

al-Wer, E. (1997). Arabic between reality and ideology. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 7, 251-265.

Alosh, M. (1992). Designing a proficiency-oriented syllabus for Modern Standard Arabic as a foreign language. In A. Rouchdy (Eds.), The Arabic language in America (pp. 251-279). Wayne State University Press.

American Association of Teachers of Arabic. Other Resources. Retrieved from http://www.aataweb.org/Default.aspx?pageID=8

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (1989). ACTFL Arabic Proficiency Guidelines, Foreign Language Annals, 22(4), 373-392.

Ayari, S. (1996). Diglossia and illiteracy in the Arab World. Language, Culture, and 127

Curriculum, 9(2), 243-253.

Belnap, R. K. (2006). A profile of students of Arabic in U.S. universities. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, & L. England (Eds.) Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21 st century (pp. 169-178). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, Less Commonly Taught Languages. Retrieved from http://www.carla.umn.edu/lctl/

Donitsa-Schmidt, S. & Inbar, O. & Shohamy, E. (2004). The effects of teaching spoken Arabic on students' attitudes and motivation in Israel. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 217-228.

Eisele, J. C. (2002). Approaching diglossia: authorities, values, and representations. In A. Rouchdy (Ed.), Language contact and language conflict in Arabic: Variations on a sociolinguistic theme. (pp. 3-23). London: RoutledgeCurzon.

Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325-340.

Ferguson, C. A. (1962). Problems of teaching languages with diglossia. Monograph series on languages and linguistics, 15, 163-177.

Hary, B. (1996). The Importance of the Language Continuum in Arabic Multiglossia. In A. Elgibali (Eds.), Understanding Arabic: Essays in contemporary Arabic Linguistics in Honor of El-Said Badawi. 69- 90 .

Galloway, A. (1993). Communicative language teaching: An introduction and sample activities. Retrieved from Center for Applied Linguistics Web site http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/gallow01.html

Georgetown University Press. Formal Spoken Arabic Basic Course with MP3 Files. Retrieved from http://www.press.georgetown.edu/detail.html?id=9781589010604

Habash, N. & Rambow, O. (2007) Morphophonemic and orthographic rules in a multidialectal morphological analyzer and generator for Arabic verbs. The 1 st 128

International Symposium on Computers and Arabic Language & Exhibition, Retrieved from http://www.iscal.org.sa/joomla/images/proceedings/habash.pdf

Haeri, N. (2003). Sacred Language, Ordinary People: Dilemmas of culture and politics in Egypt. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Husseinali, G. (2006). Who is studying Arabic and why? A survey of Arabic students' orientations at a major university. Foreign Language Annals, 39(3), 395-411.

Ibrahim, M. (1986). Standards and Prestige Language: A problem in Arabic sociolinguistics. Anthropological Linguistics , 28(1), 115-126.

Ibrahim, Z. (2008). Language teaching and technology. In Z. Ibrahim & S. Makhlouf (Eds.) Linguistics in an age of globalization: Perspectives on Arabic language and teaching. 1-20.

Iskander, M. (2006, August 30). Nobel-Winning Author Naguib Mahfouz Dies at 94, NPR Morning Edition , Retrieved from NPR Archives. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5736008

Kenny, D. (1992). Arab-Americans learning Arabic: Motivation and attitudes. In A. Rouchdy (Eds.) The Arabic Language in America. 119-161.

Lampe, J. Draft Cultural Proficiency Guidelines (3.2). National Foreign Language Center. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from the National Foreign Language Center Web site: www.nflc.org/culture-prof-guide_3-2.pdf

Lee, L. (1999, October) Partners in pedagogy: Collaboration between university and secondary school foreign language teachers. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from Center for Applied Linguistics Web site: http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/partners.html

Mansour, Gerda. (2004, 29 April – 5 May) A tale of two languages. Al-Ahram Weekly , Retrieved from http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/688/bo1.htm.

Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21 st Century. (2006). Lawrence: Allen Press. 129

Owens, J. (2001) Arabic Sociolinguistics. Arabica , 48(4), 419-51.

Ouali, H. (2009) MSA or Dialects? Arguments for early simultaneous instruction in both. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from Prof. Ouali at the University of Maryland

Palmer, J. (2007). Arabic diglossia: Teaching only the standard variety is a disservice to students. Arizona Working Paper in SLA and Teaching, 14, 111-112. Retrieved from \ w3.coh.arizona.edu/awp/AWP14/AWP14%5BPalmer%5D.pdf

Palmer, J. (2008). Arabic diglossia: Student perception of spoken Arabic after living in the Arabic-speaking world. Arizona Working Paper in SLA and Teaching, 15, 81-95. Retrieved from http://w3.coh.arizona.edu/awp/AWP15/AWP15%5BPalmer%5D.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, NCB University Press, 9(5), 1-6.

Redden, E. (2008) Shifting winds in Arabic teaching. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from Inside Higher ED Web site: http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2008/10/01/arabic

Ryding, K. C. (1994). Fostering a learning community for Arabic. Theory into Practice , 33(1), 23-28.

Ryding, K. C. (1991). Proficiency Despite Diglossia: A New Approach for Arabic. The Modern Language Journal, 75 (2), 212-218.

Ryding, K. C. (2006). Teaching Arabic in the United States. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, & L. England (Eds.) Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21 st century (pp. 13-20). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Said, E. (2004, February 12-18) Living Arabic. Al-Ahram Weekly Online, Published by permission of Mariam Cortas-Said, 677. Retrieved September 17, 2008 from http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/677/cu15.htm

130

Saudi Aramco World (1963). Arabic Language, U.S.A. Retrieved December 18, 2008, from http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/196306/arabic.language.u.s.a..htm

Silverburg, H. (2006). Fairfax County schools receive foreign language grant. WTOP Radio . Retrieved December 18, 2008 from http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=600&sid=919030

Wahba, K. M (2006). Arabic language use and the educated language user. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, & L. England (Eds.) Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21 st century (pp. 139-155). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wilmsen, D. (2006). What is Communicative Arabic? In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, & L. England (Eds.) Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21 st century (pp. 125-138). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Winke, P. & Aquil, R. (2006) Issues in Developing Standardized Tests of Arabic Language Proficiency. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, & L. England (Eds.) Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21 st century (pp. 221-235). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

WCVB TV, Boston. (2008, November 16) Mass. Students Learning Arabic Language. Retrieved December 18, 2008 from http://www.thebostonchannel.com/education/17993046/detail.html

Younes, M. A. (1990) An integrated approach to teaching Arabic as a foreign language. al-‘Arabiyya, 23, 105-122.

Younes, M. A. (2006). Integrating the colloquial with Fu ā in the Arabic-as-a-Foreign- Language Classroom. In K. M. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, & L. England (Eds.) Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21 st century (pp. 157-166). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

131

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Bridget Hirsch is an aspiring Arabic language teacher. She currently works as an Arabic

Research Assistant at the University of Maryland. Bridget was a villager at Concordia

College’s Norwegian Village, Skogfjorden, for ten summers prior to embarking on her

Arabic language adventure at the George Washington University in 1999. Bridget hopes to continue her relationship with Concordia College as a counselor at their Arabic

Language Village, al-Waha.

132