Abstract

Although there is a growing research base on Arabic literacy development to inform our understanding of the factors that account for variability in word reading skill, the current body of research is limited by two major constraints. First, although several studies examine one or more early literacy constructs, we were able to locate only two studies that included phonological, orthographic and morphological factors together. Second, all of the studies conducted to date rely on the use of researcher-developed measures that include tasks associated with the construct(s) of interest, but that are not based on a comprehensive conceptual framework of these constructs. In this study, 188 students in grades 1–2 completed measures of phonological processing, orthographic knowledge, morphological awareness, and word reading. Results of multiple regression analyses indicate that phonological awareness, and, in particular, elision, accounted for significant variance in word reading, regardless of how word reading was measured. Morphological awareness and orthographic knowledge measures also accounted for significant variance in some word reading measures. RAN and Phonological Memory measures only contributed to some measures of word reading ability. Results are discussed in the context of the existing literature on Arabic. Implications and next steps for research are discussed.

摘要

尽管有越来越多的关于阿拉伯语识字发展的研究基础，以告知我们对解释单词阅读技能可变性的因素的理解，但当前的研究主体受到两个主要限制因素的限制。首先，虽然有几项研究检查了一个或多个早期识字结构，但我们只能找到两项将语音、拼写和形态因素结合在一起的研究。其次，迄今为止进行的所有研究都依赖于研究人员开发的措施的使用，这些措施包括与感兴趣的构念相关的任务，但并非基于这些构念的综合概念框架。在这项研究中，1-2 年级的 188 名学生完成了语音处理、正字法知识、形态意识和单词阅读的测量。多元回归分析的结果表明，无论如何测量单词阅读，语音意识，特别是省略，都会导致单词阅读的显着差异。形态意识和正字法知识测量也解释了一些单词阅读测量的显着差异。RAN 和语音记忆测量仅对单词阅读能力的某些测量有贡献。结果在有关阿拉伯语的现有文献的背景下进行了讨论。讨论了研究的意义和下一步。形态意识和正字法知识测量也解释了一些单词阅读测量的显着差异。RAN 和语音记忆测量仅对单词阅读能力的某些测量有贡献。结果在有关阿拉伯语的现有文献的背景下进行了讨论。讨论了研究的意义和下一步。形态意识和正字法知识测量也解释了一些单词阅读测量的显着差异。RAN 和语音记忆测量仅对单词阅读能力的某些测量有贡献。结果在有关阿拉伯语的现有文献的背景下进行了讨论。讨论了研究的意义和下一步。