You Are What You Read: A Study of Literacy Practices of Emirati ESL Students

You are what you read: A study of literacy practices of
Emirati ESL students.
This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements

governing the award of the Master of Arts in TESOL.
September 2009
Sandra Emily West
The Westminster Institute of Education
Oxford Brookes University.
1
2
Table of Contents
Statement of Originality ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
Abstract.............................................................................................................................................8
1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................9
1.1 Background to the Study.................................................................................................10
1.2 Context and Rationale.....................................................................................................12
1.3 Research Question...........................................................................................................15
1.4 Organization of the Remainder of the Study...................................................................16
2 Literature Review....................................................................................................................17
2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................17
2.2 Definition of Literacy.......................................................................................................17
2.2.1 Functional literacy...................................................................................................19
2.2.2 Ideological literacy...................................................................................................20
2.3 Literacy in L1....................................................................................................................21
2.3.1 L1 literacy and Arab literature.................................................................................23
2.4 Literacy in L2....................................................................................................................24
2.5 Culture and Schema in L1 and L2 Reading.......................................................................28
3 Research Methodology...........................................................................................................32
3.1 Methodology...................................................................................................................32
3.2 Sampling..........................................................................................................................33
3.3 Data Collection................................................................................................................34
3.4 Student and Teacher Interviews......................................................................................36
3.5 Limitations.......................................................................................................................37
4 Results.....................................................................................................................................39
4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................39
4.2 General Analysis of Skills.................................................................................................39
4.3 Genre Analysis of Literacy...............................................................................................40
4.4 Literacy in L1 and L2........................................................................................................45
4.4.1 Literacy practices in L1.............................................................................................45
3
4.4.2 Literacy practices in L2.............................................................................................47
4.4.3 The impact of L1 on L2 acquisition..........................................................................48
4.5 Literacy and Academic Performance...............................................................................50
4.5.1 Are reading and/or writing practices in L2 linked to academic performance?........50
4.5.2 Is reading and writing frequency in L1 and L2 linked to performance in L2?...........52
4.6 Perceptions of IELTS........................................................................................................55
5 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................57
5.1 Summary of Findings.......................................................................................................57
5.2 Discussion and Recommendations..................................................................................58
5.3 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................62
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................64
Appendices......................................................................................................................................79
Appendix 1.1: IELTS Results 2008...........................................................................................79
Appendix 3.1: Clock Face........................................................................................................81
Appendix 3.2: Learner Questionnaire.....................................................................................84
Appendix 3.3: IELTS Teacher Questionnaire...........................................................................88
Appendix 3.4: IELTS Student Questionnaire...........................................................................89
Appendix 3.5: IELTS reading Task............................................................................................90
Appendix 3.6: Focus Forum Group Agenda............................................................................91
Appendix 3.7: Teacher Interview Questions...........................................................................92
Appendix 3.8: Ethics Review Checklist........................................................................................94
Appendix 4.1: Reading Frequencies Collated from the Questionnaire...................................96
Appendix 4.2: Writing Frequencies Collated from the Questionnaire....................................97
Appendix 4.3: Reading Frequency by Genre Type..................................................................98
Appendix 4.4: Writing Frequency by Genre Type...................................................................99
Appendix 4.5: Focus Forum Group Results...........................................................................100
Appendix 4.6 Findings from Teacher Interviews..................................................................102
Appendix 4.7: IELTS Reading Questionnaire Results.............................................................104
4
Table of Figures
Figure 1 An excerpt from published IELTS 2008 results..............................................................9

Figure 2 L2 skills practiced in a 24 period.................................................................................39
Figure 3 Genre analysis of regular functional reading practices at home.................................41
Figure 4 Genre analysis of regular functional reading practices at work..................................42
Figure 5 Genre analysis of regular non-functional reading practices at home.........................43
Figure 6 Genre analysis of regular non-functional reading practices at work...........................43
Figure 7 Distribution of L1 reading genres................................................................................44
Figure 8 Distribution of L2 reading genres................................................................................45
Figure 9 Regression analysis of reading and writing frequencies in L1 and L2..........................49
Figure 10 Individual analysis comparing IELTS literacy scores to literacy practices outside the
classroom.....................................................................................................................51
Figure 11 Regression analysis between frequencies of reading and writing for non-functional
purposes and academic performance.........................................................................52
purposes and academic performance.........................................................................53
Figure 13 Students perceptions on an IELTS reading task...........................................................55
Figure 14 Gap in perceptions of teachers and students..............................................................56
5
List of Acronyms
APU Arabian Publishers Union
CERT Centre of Excellence for Applied Research and Training
DEET Department of Employment, Education and Training
ESL English as a Second Language
ELT English Language Teaching
GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education
HCT Higher Colleges of Technology
IELTS International English Language Testing System
UAE United Arab Emirates
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
6
“You may have tangible wealth untold: Caskets of jewels and coffers of gold.
Richer than I you can never be – I had a Mother who read to me”
Gillian Strickland (1936)
7
Abstract
Over the past several years, English as a Second Language (ESL) researchers have noted a
discrepancy in the emergence of oral and aural English language skills and of English
literacy skills among Arab ESL students (Fender, 2003; Milton & Hopkins, 2006; Ryan,
1997). Evidence from general observations seems to indicate that Arab ESL learners
exhibit more difficulties in developing ESL reading and literacy skills relative to other ESL
learner populations (Milton & Hopkins, 2006).
Although extensive reading is now recognised as an important element of language

learning, it appears that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ESL students do little reading in
English beyond course requirements. In this research I am attempting to ascertain the
reading habits of the UAE student and any correlation between this and performance.
This proposed study of Emirati adult learners' literacy practices is motivated by the
argument that literacy skills must be practised and that this is largely achieved in an out-of-
classroom context. Thus, what is taught in the classroom should reflect both the functional
and social practices of the learners. According to LaBerge & Samuels (1974) the cognitive
demands of reading and writing words change according to their written contexts.
Examining the different types of contexts inherent in different reading and writing
practices (e.g. reading lists, novels, mortgages; writing essays, personal letters, notes) is
necessary to explore the frequency and focus to which adult learners are practicing their
newly acquired literacy skills.
The study illustrates the findings of a survey of reading frequency related to reading and
writing practices in Arabic (L1) and English (L2) and establishing a relationship between
L1&L2 literacy frequencies and any correlation with the participants’ academic
performance. The findings of this research will be useful for defining appropriate practices
needed to ensure enhanced performance and identifying areas for further development
necessary to effectively promote extensive reading and ensure the successful emergence of
the UAE as a reading culture.
8
9
1 Introduction
The ability to read confidently, fluently and efficiently in English is a key professional and
academic enabler for all ESL learners (O’Sullivan, 2004). Alderson (2000, p.14)
summarised recent accounts of what comprises fluent reading as a process which is “rapid,
purposeful motivated interactive... it is comprehending it is flexible and it develops
gradually”. However, English language teachers in the UAE recount that many students
struggle to read at a level of proficiency appropriate to their current or future needs. This
professional perception is supported by recent IELTS (2008) results (Figure 1) where the
UAE lagged far behind other Arab countries (see Appendix 1.1).
IELTS Mean Bands (Rankings)

Reading (General Training) Writing (General Training)
L1 is Arabic 4.73 5.04
UAE 3.91 4.4
Figure 1 An excerpt from published IELTS 2008 results
So why is the UAE performing worse than countries such as Egypt? Are Emiratis
inherently bad linguists or are there other factors? In order to investigate this, attention
should be predominantly focused on the reading habits of Emiratis. In this respect we have
to look at what the EFL learners’ literacy practices are outside the classroom and whether
these influence the learners’ performance in exams. Additionally, other factors may also
influence the IELTS results noted above. These include the background of the country, the
educational system in situ and the motivation for learning an L2 and achieving in external
exams. While I will address these issues, this study will not involve primary research on
these factors.
10
1.1 Background to the Study
“The best way to improve one's knowledge of a foreign language is to go and live
among its speakers. The next best way is to read extensively in it.”
Nuttall (1982, p.168, cited in Yu, 1993)
The UAE is a relatively ‘new’ country established in 1971. Many of the populace was
traditionally Bedouin and primarily an oral society. Few members of the founding
generation had any formal schooling and it was only in the 1970’s that a “systematic
approach to education” was instituted (Sayed, 2001). Consequently many learners today
have parents who received no formal training in L1 reading and writing. It is inevitable that
such an environment will continue to impact the literacy practices of Emiratis in Arabic
(L1). In 1972, when Ras al Khaimah joined the six other emirates to complete the United
Arab Emirates, the new country had just 45 university graduates; now the UAE has 60
colleges and universities and at the largest institution of higher learning, the Higher
Colleges of Technology (HCT), there are over 16,000 students. It is at CERT, the profit
making arm of this establishment, that the study will be focused.
The place of English in Arab countries (i.e. the Middle East and Northern Africa) is an
eminent one. Acquisition of English is viewed as desirable since it is seen as the language
of wider international communication and of business and technology. According to
Rababah (2003) most Arab learners enjoy few opportunities to encounter or use English
outside the classroom. However, he comments that “The situation is different in the United
Arab Emirates, for example, where people use English in their daily lives because of the
multilingual nature of the residents” (Rababah, 2003, p.15). Indeed, the nature of modern
UAE society especially in the larger urban areas, where there are large populaces of
expatriates, means there is quite a lot of exposure to the English language in use for real
communicative purposes. Because of this informal establishment of English as the lingua
franca there is also a substantial English language segment of the local and regional press
and electronic media.
11
So why does L2 reading of native Arab speakers lag so far behind other ESL communities?
The phenomena of ‘diglossia’ may be present to some extent with UAE students just as it
is in other Arab countries where children learn to speak a colloquial dialect of Arabic as
their L1 but then learn to read and write using Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) or fusḥ ạ,
which is the formal or literary form of Arabic used for all written texts. There is a marked
differentiation between two related varieties of Arabic: on the one hand, fusḥ ạ, which is
mostly used for “high” functions, such as formal prayers, speeches, or lectures, and on the
other, a number of Arabic dialects, usually used for “low” functions, defined as home and
family discourse. This diglossia gives fusḥ ạ special prestige valuation, as the language of
written Quranic tradition, literary heritage, and literacy and education. It also creates a
significant linguistic distance (Ibrahim, 1983; Maamouri, 1998) between the language of
orality and the language of literacy. When learning to read, young and adult Arab readers
cannot put their inherent native linguistic competence in colloquial Arabic to task
(Thompson-Panos and Thomas-Ruzic, 1983; Ayari, 1996; Saigh-Hadad, 2003). They
cannot use their lexical familiarity with native Arabic sounds, forms or structures because
these are not necessarily identical with fusḥ ạ forms and structures. This, therefore, does
not contribute positively to successful reading (Perfetti, 1986). Consequently, literacy even
in L1 is difficult to attain and many students have reading skills that are still at a second
language inter-language levels.
Furthermore, why do the reading scores of the UAE L2 learners lag behind other Arab
countries? There is a lack of a reading culture or reading habit (in L1) in society because of
the prized oral tradition in Gulf societies (Shannon, 2003). Anecdotal evidence of Arabic
speaking ESL teachers has reported that standards of reading in the Arabic language are
low. One other possible explanation is that many UAE ESL students are sponsored by
Government related entities with no targets of attainment set; thus there is little intrinsic
motivation to acquire L2 skills. Furthermore there is little aspiration to develop additional
skills (including reading) outside the classroom. Consequently ESL learning is not
supported by the typical external input.
12
1.2 Context and Rationale
The Centre of Excellence for Applied Research and Training (CERT) began as the
commercial arm of the Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT) in Abu Dhabi, UAE in
1996. It has now grown to be the largest private education provider in the Middle East. As
part of its continued endeavour to ensure L2 linguistic competence and highly qualified
staff, numerous Government organizations (ranging from oil companies and banks to
police and military branches) enroll employees for the purpose of General English training
where the ultimate goal is the International English Language Testing System (IELTS)
exam. This is the setting for this study.
The reading component of the IELTS General Training exam takes 60 minutes to complete
and contains one long narrative or descriptive text and several shorter more factual texts.
Questions are designed to test a wide variety of reading skills. For example, skimming,
scanning, reading for gist or detail and inferences. The texts are authentic and are taken
from books, magazine, notices or advertisements. These texts are based on the type of
written material that “candidates are likely to encounter on a daily basis in an English
speaking country” (http://www.ielts.org).
The written exam is also for 60 minutes and consists of two tasks. In Task 1 candidates are
expected to write a letter either requesting information, proffering an explanation or filing
a complaint. This will be in response to a set situation. Task 2 is a more formal style essay
where candidates are expected to respond to a point of view, argument or problem.
Concern over poor standards in English is growing within the UAE. This concern is clearly
evident in a report on higher education institutions from the Federal National Council’s
Committee for Education and Youth and Information and Culture Affairs (2000) which
expressed anxiety over the “general deterioration” in the English standards of UAE
students (cited in O’Sullivan, 2004). English language teachers in the UAE and CERT
share the common world-wide experience of English instructors that most students fail to
read adequately in L2. In addition teachers in the UAE also posit that their students don’t
even read frequently in L1.
13
Yet reading is both a central ingredient of lifelong learning and a key means of creating a
knowledge society. Literacy is very much linked to social and cultural practices, such as
reading the newspaper, scanning job advertisements, reading novels for pleasure,
composing emails, completing job applications or writing reports. Such practices become
embedded in our societies from an early age (e.g. the “goodnight” story, the letter to
Santa). However, Emirati social practices still appear (to a lay person) to function
primarily on an oral/aural level. Conversation, debate and poetry and stories recited from
memory appear rooted in the cultural practice.
The recitation, and ultimately memorization, of the Holy Qu’ran has been the foundation
of the UAE education system to date. Indeed, the Gulf school system is blamed for
students lacking reading habits and English levels are described as “low” (Saffarini, 2005).
Despite adequate funding and resources, the effectiveness of the state schools remains
disturbingly low and attainment levels are worse than those of private schools. According
to Mograby (1999), the education system in the UAE has received severe criticism
including inappropriate methods of teaching and learning and inflexible curricula and
programmes, which lead to high dropout rates and long duration of study. As a
consequence only a relatively small proportion of each annual cohort of pupils who enter
the system finally complete their studies. One comparative study by Ibraheem Mohanna
(1990) on the phenomenon of educational wastage in the region revealed that the drop out
and repetition rates are higher in the UAE than in other Gulf States. This can lead to a
decline in confidence, morale and motivation over the years of schooling for many pupils.
Religion and associated cultural values are very strongly represented in UAE education. By
western standards, a major part of the curriculum, especially at the primary stage, is taken
up by the Arabic language and Islamic religious studies. This has the consequence that
expressive elements (i.e. art, music and drama) and humanities (history and geography) are
relatively limited. The centrality of Arabic/Islamic studies in the curriculum relates to the
need to hold the line against western values and styles, and to ingrain and protect
Arab/Islamic identity, seen as under serious threat from the ever-present western
consumerist and secular lifestyle.
14
A superficial analysis would seem to conclude that the English-rich environment of the
UAE (as noted in 1.2 above) should provide excellent opportunities for UAE learners of
English to develop their competence in the language. However, the reality of the classroom
at CERT and other institutions in UAE does not bear out this conclusion. Despite extensive
use of English as a means of communication locally, many UAE students experience
difficulties in the learning of English. The reality for many UAE students entering CERT is
that they view English as
…a school subject rather than a means of communication. The pass mark is often
very low, which means that learners can proceed to further learning of the language
without having first mastered fully what they ought to have mastered.
Kharma and Hajjaj (1989, p.2)
Students of any language need to be able to read in that language. Catherine Wallace
(1992) has identified three general purposes for reading which involve different reading
processes: reading for Survival, reading for Learning, and reading for Pleasure. In the case
of foreign language students, what is important is the extent to which they can recognise
this and interact with a particular text for the most appropriate purpose.
In recent years educators involved in foreign language instruction have become

increasingly aware of the importance of extensive reading (Camiciottoli, 2002). This is
defined by Hafiz and Tudor (1989, p.4) as “the reading of large amounts of material in the
second language (L2) over time for personal pleasure or interest, and without the addition
of productive tasks or follow-up language work.” A major benefit of extensive reading is
incidental vocabulary learning (Krashen, 1989). Through reading they can acquire (rather
than learn) an understanding of the subtleties of meaning, carried by the use of a particular
choice of words, and see the role of grammar in action.
As we have established, reading plays a central role in the development of L2 literacy

skills which, in turn, will possibly have an impact on IELTS achievements. If this
hypothesis is valid then the lack of a reading culture amongst UAE learners may be the
principle reason for the low attainment levels demonstrated above. This is the cornerstone
of this study.
15
1.3 Research Question
The focus of this research is two-fold. Initially I wish to establish what the participants
read and write outside the classroom and whether this is similar to what is encountered
inside the classroom. Secondly I plan to investigate if there is any relationship between L1
and L2 literacy practices and whether these practices impact on the students’ performance
in IELTS style reading assessments. By carrying out this research I hope to identify ways
to improve acquisition of reading skills, both in and outside the classroom. It is hoped that
through the promotion of extensive reading the students will acquire a valuable tool to
enable lifelong learning.
To undertake this research, I have established different (though not necessarily distinct)
stages to focus on:
(1) Do UAE students read extensively in L1 and/or L2 and what texts do they
encounter outside the classroom?
(2) Are the texts encountered in the classroom supported by the literacy practices of the
participants?
(3) Is there a relationship between the participants’ L1 and L2 literacy practices? And
finally
(4) Are reading/writing frequencies outside the classroom related to students’
performance in IELTS-style academic tests?
It is recognized that UAE students underperform other Arab nations on IELTS exams.
However it is acknowledged that reasons for this may not be solely confined to their
literacy practices. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that other factors may provide
explanations for this poor performance; for example, motivation. Many students in the
UAE are primarily extrinsically motivated as part of a Government mandate to promote the
learning of English. Additionally, IELTS exams have become the generally accepted target
for many of these adult education programmes, where there is no plan to study or live
overseas. These factors fall outside the scope of this study and may be the subject of
further research.
16
1.4 Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter 2 will provide a review of the literature on literacy practices, both in L1 and L2,
and reading habits. Chapter 3 will outline the research methodology and the various
instruments used to collect the data. The problems faced during the data collection period
and the limitations of the study will also be mentioned. Chapter 4 will present the results of
the study, along with analysis and discussion of the data. Finally, Chapter 5 will offer a
summary of the findings of the study, conclusions, and suggestions for further
development including recommendations for development of more effective literacy skills,
both within and outside the classroom. Additionally, suggestions will be made to help
improve assessment criteria and hopefully assessment results.
17
2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
The ability to read is acknowledged to be the most stable and durable of the second
language modalities (Bernhardt, 1991). Reading, whether in a first or second language
context, involves the reader, the text, and the interaction between the reader and text
(Rumelhart, 1977). Research has shown that students learn most efficiently when materials
reflect and incorporate students’ prior experiences (Sribner, 1997).
So do the IELTS texts that these participants study achieve these aims? This chapter offers
a review of the literature relevant to the study and is divided into 4 main sections: defining
literacy; looking at the literacy in the UAE in Arabic (L1); focusing on the development of
literacy in English (L2); and finally considering factors of cultural differences and schema.
2.2 Definition of Literacy
Despite numerous research studies surrounding the relationship between first and second
language (Clarke, 1979; Cummins, 1979; Bossers, 1991) there is little consensus regarding
the relationship. Evidence supporting the major two hypotheses – the Language
Interdependence Hypothesis (LIH) and Language Threshold Hypothesis (LTH) – exists.
However, both theories accept that, under certain varying conditions, there is a transfer of
L1 ability to L2 reading. Consequently this is why I have selected L1 literacy as a starting
point to research on L2 reading proficiency.
There is an increased awareness of the association between education, the work place, and
personal development. Literacy is a word that is usually connected with the positive
aspects of human civilization and social and economic development with theorists like
Jack Goody (1977, 1986) arguing that literacy is a primary determinant of technological
advancement.
18
So what is literacy? The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) has drafted the following definition:
Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate,

compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts.
UNESCO 2003, p.26. cited in

http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/Literacy/LiteracyReport2008.pdf,
In many societies a basic standard of literacy is the ability to read the newspaper. But it is
argued that literacy includes the cultural, political, and historical contexts of the
community in which communication takes place. According to Breen et al (1994), literacy
is learned throughout the social practices that we are involved in during the day to day
events that occur. It is not just schooling that teaches an individual the appropriate literacy
practices and processes to use. Everyday activities and social interactions that occur
outside the school teach individuals literacy.
The importance that we attach to the definition of literacy, however, has numerous social
implications beyond reading and writing. Literacy has also been used as a way to sort
populations and control who has access to power. Indeed, in the years following the US
Civil War, the ability to read and write was used to determine whether one had the right to
vote. This effectively served to prevent former slaves from joining the electorate and
maintained the status quo. One wonders if this is still the case in certain countries.
Another application of literacy is in the field of educational assessment. In a given country

or context, when one is asked to provide an assessment of “literacy rates,” a reference must
be made to some criterion. Obviously, the level or criterion used will determine the
resultant “literacy rates.” However on reviewing the recorded literacy rates of the UAE of
89.8% (UNESCO, 2009) I noted that the criterion was merely a Yes/No response to the
question “Can you read and write”? (UNESCO, 2008, p.21). This self reported answer
therefore reveals more about the perceived rate of literacy in the country; indeed, it can be
hypothesized that respondents would have taken the question at its basic literal meaning
and answered ‘yes’.
19
Wrigley and Guth (1992) point out that the lack of a single definition of literacy has led
educators to adopt different approaches to ESL literacy instruction. However, it is of
critical importance that teachers identify a theoretically sound model of literacy that is
appropriate for their particular student group in order to ensure that student learning and
outcomes are maximized.
For the purpose of this study I will confine the definition to two distinct perspectives which
Street (1993) refers to as ‘autonomous’ and ‘ideological’ dimensions of literacy.
2.2.1 Functional literacy
For centuries, the view prevailed that literacy was a simple, learned cognitive skill. This
view of literacy has come to be referred to as autonomous literacy (Street, 1993).
Proponents of functional (autonomous) literacy suggest that a functionally literate person is
defined as one who can apply reading and writing skills to accomplish ‘daily’ literacy tasks
(e.g. complete job applications and other common forms, read signs, make lists) demanded
by the community that he lives in (DEET, 1990).
A literate person can be defined as someone who is able to understand and “manipulate the
culturally significant symbols” and be able to do so “in a culturally appropriate manner”
(Ferdman, 1990, p.187). Functional literacy theory is reflected in a curriculum that teaches
students the skills deemed necessary to participate in school and society successfully
(Apple, 1996; Kelly, 1997).
Critics of functional literacy claim that this approach restricts learners’ roles in society by
teaching learners minimum language and literacy skills required to accomplish everyday
tasks (Auerbach & Burgess, 1985). Indeed Yegen (2007) recounts in her research how a
Sudanese man who had basic literacy failed to understand the consequences attached to a
TV subscription form and ‘ended up’ having to pay hundreds of dollars which resulted in
having no money left to buy food for his children. She explained that he did not understand
the purpose of the form but filled it in anyway because that is what he thought people do
20
with all forms. This indicates that functional literacy alone is not adequate to understand
literacy events.
Another limitation of the functional perspective is reflected in the views of Dubin and
Kuhlman (1992). They argue that learning literacy involves new ways of thinking.
Learners need to be taught not only different print and non-print texts but, more
importantly, they need to be taught the meanings, rules, values, behaviours and attitudes
associated with different literacies in the new culture. This might explain the low-level of
L2 literacy in the UAE as it is considered inappropriate to import rules from the target
culture (i.e. English) as these (sometimes) contravene the strict Islamic code of the UAE.
Thus the learners are trying to apply one set of rules (L1) in a totally foreign culture (L2).
2.2.2 Ideological literacy
There is a growing consensus amongst researchers regarding the limitations of autonomous

literacy and the importance of cultural and social aspects of literacy. The ideological view
of literacy is meant to focus attention on the nature and function of literacy in a social
system. Every society places a different importance on varying types of literacies. This is
supported by Young (2002) who contends that literacy is what society does with literacy
and therefore literacy practices are part of the culture.
Barton and Hamilton (1999) suggest that people bring different types of knowledge,
experiences and understanding to literacy events in order to make sense of them. This
implies that in order to help students understand and effectively participate in these literacy
events we need to build prior knowledge and/or teach cultural norms, specific behaviours,
perceptions, attitudes and values associated with literacy events. This literacy specifically
consists of a network of information that all competent readers should possess (Hirsch,
1988).
In any given society, therefore, the import placed on literacy will vary greatly depending
on the socio-economic development of the country. Thirty years ago there was little
requirement for Emiratis even to be functionally literate. However, the rapid development,
21
along with the integration of the UAE’s economy with international markets, has
demanded that the UAE embrace accepted literacy standards of developed nations.
Consequently it is natural that the literacy model adopted by UAE educators will be shaped
by Street’s ideological literacy theory.
The Government recognizes that higher levels of L1 and L2 literacy are required;
nevertheless, with over 80% of the population expatriates, there remains an obvious desire
to avoid potential loss of cultural identity and, conversely, this could play a detrimental
role in L2 literacy development.
2.3 Literacy in L1
As defined by the ideological perspective, literacy is constructed socially as part of the

process of becoming literate and, as such, individuals acquire the norms governing literate
behavior within specific social contexts (Powell, 1999). Individuals differ in their approach
to reading based on their personal experiences at home or at school as well as their cultural
background (Aebersold & Field, 1997; King, 1986). According to the Arab Human
Development report (2002), there is currently widespread concern among Arab
intellectuals (including Thoraya Obaid, a Saudi executive director of the United Nations
Population Fund and Mervat Tallawy, an Egyptian diplomat who heads the Economic and
Social Council for West Asia) that Arabs do not read in L1 or L2. This view is shared by
many ESL teachers in the UAE although, as Williams (2006) points out, it is important not
to assume this is true for all Emirati learners.
‘Reading culture’ at home, in school and in the wider community
The observations of ESL teachers in the UAE are that books are not the primary source of
information or entertainment (compared to internet and television). Reading is not a
lifelong activity – once formal schooling is finished so too the need to read. So are current
UAE national learners’ reading attitudes and performance evidence of our contemporary
‘post-linguistic’ culture, where visual images are ousting language (Fairclough, 1989)?
22
“The Kids and family reading report” (Scholastic, 2008), found that parents in the USA
who read “for fun” every day are six times more likely than parents who read less often to
have children who also read recreationally every day. However, this researcher noted that
many of the participants in this study of the UAE had at least one illiterate parent and
therefore the habit of reading is not imbibed in their family life. In 2007 an international
conference was organised by the Qatar Foundation and UNESCO to discuss literacy in the
Arab World and noted the importance of reinforcing the habit of reading among the
younger generations to ensure the development of all forms of knowledge in the Arab
region. Here in the UAE, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, Vice-President and
ruler of Dubai, launched the Million Book Challenge in 2008, which called on local
children to read a million books in two weeks, whilst the 2009 Abu Dhabi International
Book Fair also featured activities to promote reading.
According to Britten (2008), The UK Institute of Education’s 2008 study found a

correlation between mothers who read to their toddlers, and children's subsequent
achievement at the age of five. In an interview with The National newspaper (2009) UAE
National Asma Al Zaabi recognizes this importance of reading and gives her children
“incentives such as stickers if they read the Holy Qu’ran, say their prayers and read
books.” However, she mentions how difficult it is to get the children to read in their
mother tongue: “They don’t like reading in Arabic.” Children’s books in Arabic tend to be,
in her words, “shallow”. To help foster a reading culture in the UAE, the Government of
Sharjah officially launched a project which will ensure every single Emirati family is
provided with a library of 50 Arabic books.
L1 reading standards and methods of teaching
Non-Native ESL teachers at CERT have commented that the level of reading and writing
in Arabic amongst the students is “very low”. Although difficulties associated with
diglossia can be used to help explain this, it does not entirely excuse it. The UAE provide
free and compulsory education but Al Taminimi (Pathways, 2005) suggests that an
education system based on rote learning is another reason for the lack of extensive reading.
Ayish (2008) goes further
23
“The problem, according to a recent study, is that many education systems in the
Arab region take too narrow a view of literacy as a mechanical text-centred process
of translating print into speech. The goals of literacy instruction have become too
focused on basic decoding skills” (The National newspaper).
As noted in UNESCO‘s Education for All report (2000), there is a high absenteeism rate in
schools and communication between parents and educators is often not effective and
supportive.
Learner motivation, interest and attitude
Students are not interested in reading (DWC 2001) and at best are only instrumentally
motivated to read for very ‘narrow’ purposes and do not do a lot of recreational reading
(DWC 1999). Many see literacy as associated with schooling and not with everyday life,
and some see greater prestige in relying on memorized texts than on being able to read e.g.
the annual Ramadan Holy Qu’ran memorization competition. However, these ideas are
slowly on the decline as modern education diffuses into the region.
2.3.1 L1 literacy and Arab literature
Arabic is the official language of 22 countries and is spoken by five per cent of the world’s
population, but fewer than 10,000 books have been translated into Arabic since the 9th
century. That’s less than the average yearly output for Spanish books translated into
English, according to the Arab Human Development Report.
According to a UNESCO (2008) survey, the average Arab in the Middle East reads
approximately four pages worth of literature a year compared to Britons who average eight
books. One reason could be the poor quality of books available. According to the head of
the Arab Publisher’s Union, “Textbooks in most Arab countries are a means of torture for
students. They are very badly written, very badly illustrated, poorly printed, too long and
tedious” (cited in Al Malky’s article in Egypt Today, 2004).
24
Dr Sulaiman Abdul Moneim of the Foundation for Arabic Thought (cited in Moheet, 2008)
elaborates that the Arab world publishes one book for every twelve thousand people
compared to one book per five hundred in England (Pathways 2005). Indeed, in an
interview with the British Council, Isobel Abulhoul, one of the founders of the UAE’s
most prolific book store Magrudy’s, commented that many of the books being translated
are not of the standard of the original text and that UAE initiatives to publish books in
Arabic will have a very positive effect on reading habits in the next few years. One of the
initiatives to bridge the gap was the Emirates Airline International Festival of Literature
which set an important precedent by holding the first literary festival of this stature and
size in the Middle East in February 2009. It highlighted the significance of reading and
literature in the UAE, where interest in the arts is growing rapidly, and enabled people of
all nationalities to celebrate literature together.
The issue of translation highlights one of the many problems with the Arab publishing
industry. Furthermore, many local writers do not see royalties until their work is published
into English and many so-called publishing houses are just printers. According to the
Khaleej Times (2009) the sales gap between Arabic and Western literature evident in the
UAE is exasperated by the inclusion of only one Emirati writer, Muhammad Al Murr, in
the Anchor Books Anthology of Modern Arabic Fiction. This book features short stories
and excerpts from 79 Arab writers, with the average age of the writers being 65. Indeed
there is a huge absence of UAE writers; even in Dubai’s seven public libraries of 360,000
books, the number of Emirati authors amount to just 48. It is hoped that future Festivals
will inspire young Emirati authors. Through positive role models learners may be
encouraged to write better (and read more!).
2.4 Literacy in L2
Carrell (1988a, p.1) states that for many students “reading is by far the most important of
the four skills in a second language, particularly in English as a second or foreign
language.” Literacy depends on making sense of written text and being able to apply
25
reading and writing skills consciously for specific purposes (Duffy & Roehler, 1989).
Successful literacy depends on prior knowledge, purpose and awareness of genre. First,
when students have knowledge about a topic, they have greater potential for both reading
comprehension and successful writing. If, however, they have limited knowledge of a
topic, they are likely to have difficulties with both reading and writing even if they are
proficient with the language. Next, setting purposes for reading and writing has significant
influence on literacy. People read newspapers, popular novels, and textbooks for different
reasons. Students write letters, procedures, and compositions. They will more likely be
successful in reading or writing if they know why they are reading and writing it. L2
students frequently have difficulty realizing that different literacy tasks require different
approaches.
A previous study by Taylor (2008) in the UAE found that 41% of students answered on a
self reporting questionnaire that they spent no time reading outside the class in a 16 week
period. A further 48% reported that they spent 3 hours or less reading in English outside of
class. Therefore, a total of 89% of students reported that they spent 3 hours or less reading
English outside of class. This could be explained by the lack of motivation and interest
exhibited by some students in reading in English. Learners viewing English reading as
purely for narrow academic and professional purposes may be less inclined to read for
anything other than these restricted reasons.
We can observe this very ‘applied’ view of English reading amongst CERT students. As
recounted in O’Sullivan (2004), this “reading problem” is often seen as rooted in negative
prior learning experiences from school. Mustafa (2002) performed extensive interviews
with UAE high school teachers and students and concluded that the students’ English
reading abilities are “extremely poor” (Mustapha, 2002, p.117) and that much of school
based language teaching is based on outmoded methodology and that students blame this
for their failure to develop positive attitudes towards the language. Additionally, Mustafa
characterizes the situation in UAE schools as teachers using “…the transmission model to
deliver information to exam takers” (Mustapha, 2002, p.117).
ESL readers need "a massive receptive vocabulary that is rapidly, accurately and
automatically accessed" (Grabe, 1988, p.63). Since learners "need to see a word many
26
times in different contexts before it is learned" (Aebersold and Field, 1997, p.139), they
may need to read a great many more texts than is usually the case in reading courses.
Encouraging students to read for pleasure is advocated by several authors (Bamford and
Day, 1997; Carrell and Eisterhold, 1983; Wallace, 1992) and will hopefully lead to the
kind of extensive reading learners need to do if they are to gain any 'automaticity' in their
word and phrase recognition abilities (see Eskey and Grabe, 1988, p.235). As Bamford and
Day (1997, p.7) state, “until students read in quantity, they will not become fluent readers."
Learners may be motivated to read extensively by being allowed to choose their own texts
based on their own interests.
Moran and Williams (in Day & Bamford, 1998, p.3 cited in Shannon, 2003) say that
despite the acceptance that one becomes good at reading from reading, very little class
time is actually spent on reading. I agree with Gobert (2009) that it is important for
teachers of Emirati students to spend class time reading extensively and reading for
pleasure, because what teachers spend most of their class time doing is what students will
think is the most important.
It is clear that taking prior experiences and knowledge into account when teaching is a
necessary and critical part of not only literacy development but also language
development. There is now ample research and literature emphasising the need to
investigate and pay attention to learners’ prior literacy and language experiences (Street
1993, 2003; Weinstein-Shr, 1992). However, there is little available research into the way
learners from traditionally oral cultures transfer skills to literate modes. This is what
prompted my interest in this research topic; to be able to make effective recommendations
for the improvement in teaching literacy skills.
Other studies suggest that much of the growth made by participants in general literacy
programmes is likely to be lost if recently learned skills are not practiced in real-life
situations (Brizius & Foster, 1987). Research by Norton (2000) has investigated the role of
social contexts and relations between learning in and out of the classroom. These studies
indicated that there may often be a gap between teacher and learner expectations of
classroom practice, and this gap may construct a barrier to learning. In addition, Heath
(1983) asserts that teachers can better support learners’ literacy development by finding out
27
the extent to which their learners’ literacy and language practices correlate with classroom
literacy practices.
For a course to help a learner to acquire a language, it needs to be perceived as relevant to

the learner’s needs and wants and to provide new learning experiences that connect with
the learner’s previous experiences (Arnold, 1999). This is consistent with the ideological
model. Ideally, it should be designed to facilitate localisation and personalisation by
teachers and learners, but unfortunately this is rarely the case, and it is left to the teacher to
adapt and supplement the course material in ways that connect with their learners’ previous
experiences. I agree with Sheldon that “textbook criteria are emphatically local” (1988,
p.241). All the texts and tasks in the IELTS modules are supposedly designed to be widely
accessible and to accommodate as far as possible candidates’ prior linguistic, cultural and
educational experience irrespective of nationality or first language. An external study by
Mayor, Hewings, North and Swann (2000) which investigated the written performance of
different L1 groups found no evidence of significant cultural bias due to task. However, I
believe a major limitation is the measure of literate performance is most commonly
decided by school-based tasks such as cloze exercises or composition writing rather than
by attempts to assess the use of literacy in the context of societal use. Becoming literate in
a specific language is a considerably more complicated process than can be easily
measured by IELTS exams.
The issue surrounding the relationship between the first language (L1) and the second
language (L2) in second language reading has been hotly debated for decades (Bossers,
1991). Anderson (1984) posed his well-known question “reading in a foreign language: a
reading or language problem?” and identified this question as crucial to the understanding
of the nature of L2 reading. There has been no consensus among theorists and researchers
regarding the relationship between L1 reading, L2 reading and L2 proficiency (Bossers,
1991). Research studies focused on this relationship have drawn on two hypotheses,
namely, the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis (LIH), and the Linguistic Threshold
Hypothesis (LTH) (Clark, 1979; Cummins, 1979). The former hypothesis proposes that L1
reading ability transfers to L2 reading, whereas the latter posits that L1 reading ability
transfers to L2 reading only when learners attain a certain level of L2 proficiency.
28
Most ESL literacy teachers would agree that learners who are literate in their native
language generally make better progress than those without native language literacy. This
supports the LIH theory. According to Cummins (1981), if proficiency in L1 is established
then this can be transferred to L2 providing there is adequate exposure to L2 and
motivation to learn L2. Thus, developing literacy in an L2 may be affected by literacy
capabilities in the L1 (the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis). Additionally, Clarke
(1978) found evidence that good L1 readers are also good L2 readers. This would imply
that the low level of reading in L1 has a negative impact on Emiratis learning English and
this will be tested in this study.
Various studies have attempted to verify which hypothesis can better explain the
relationship between L1 reading and L2 proficiency. Anderson (1984) reviewed a number
of empirical studies with a view to gathering evidence in support of either of the two
hypotheses. In order to verify the hypotheses, he made a number of statements. The first
one concerned “poor reading in a foreign language is due to poor reading ability in the first
language” (p.4), and the second pertained to “poor reading in a foreign language is due to
inadequate knowledge of the target language” (p.4). Anderson found, however, little direct
evidence to support either statement. Krashen (1984) has claimed that second language
learners' writing competence derives from large amounts of self-motivated reading for
interest and/or pleasure. It is difficult to imagine that second language input would not play
a significant role in developing literacy skills in L2, i.e. reading and/or writing input
presumably affects the development of writing and reading abilities. The situation for
second language learners is much more complex than it is for first language readers and
writers: one must take into account not only the learner's L2 language proficiency, but also
the possibility of interaction of first language literacy skills with second language input.
2.5 Culture and Schema in L1 and L2 Reading
Cultural differences between the UAE and the UK can have huge consequences to the
cultural ‘impediments’ Emirati learners bring when learning another language. According
29
to Hall (1982, p.18) Arabic is a high context culture where “most of the information is
either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded,
explicit, transmitted part of the message”. This is totally dissimilar to English which is a
low context culture where communication tends to be specific and explicit (Ting-Toomey,
1985). The UAE is a culture that takes pride in its oral traditions, but maybe at the
detriment of literacy. Ultimately, the absence of documented written word is evident and
the indirect and non-linear format to speech encumbers the L1 (and ultimately L2) writer.
Rather than viewing language as a means for transferring information with a stress on
factual accuracy, the Arabic language appears to be a social conduit in which emotional
resonance is stressed as both an art form (Hitti, 1958) and as a religious conduit (Chejne,
1965). Repetition in Arabic is a decidedly positive feature and it is not uncommon to find a
string of descriptive phrases or words all referring to one phenomenon (Shouby, 1951).
This does not translate well into writing in L2 and is often evidenced in the writings of the
students.
The reading process involves identification of genre, formal structure and topic, all of
which activate schemata and allow readers to comprehend the text (Swales, 1990). As
Carrell and Eisterhold (1983, p.80) point out, "one of the most obvious reasons why a
particular content schema may fail to exist for a reader is that the schema is culturally
specific and is not part of a particular reader's cultural background”. Numerous researchers
(Ammon, 1987; Carrell, 1981; Johnson, 1981; Shimoda, 1989) have found that participants
better comprehended and remembered passages that were similar in some way to their
native cultures or were more familiar to them. Further studies also suggested that readers’
content schema affected comprehension and remembering more than their formal schema
for text organization (Carrell, 1987; Johnson, 1981).
For learners reading at the limits of their linguistic abilities, "if the topic... is outside of
their experience or base of knowledge, they are adrift on an unknown sea" (Aebersold and
Field 1997, p.41). When faced with unfamiliar topics, some students may overcompensate
for absent schemata by reading in a slow, text-bound manner; other students may
overcompensate by wild guessing (Carrell, 1988a). Many UAE students lack this general
background knowledge and global awareness that goes with digesting and comprehending
30
text. Unfortunately the same can be said for today’s native speakers, which is evidenced by
the rapid decline in entries of English literature GCSE largely because potential candidates
do not have the ‘background knowledge’ to analyse the required texts.
Texts should include the “activities, experiences and interests of different cultural groups”
(Matwiejczyk & Rees, 1998, p.130). Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) also noted that where
schema deficiencies are culture-specific, it could be useful to provide local texts or texts
which are developed from the readers' own experiences. For example in the Middle East,
Euro and Anglo-centric texts should be limited in favour of texts which reflect the culture,
lifestyles and values of the host country (e.g. Arabic moral tales translated into English).
Jehad Al-Omari’s The Arab Way (2003) is a Business Studies text which details important
differences between business expectations in the West and the Middle East. Such texts
highlight shared cultural values, as well as universal needs stimulating the interest (and
hopefully the learning) of students.
Readers' beliefs play an important role in the reading process; they can deeply influence
readers by influencing their attention and affecting comprehension of a reading passage
(Garner & Alexander, 1994). An investigation by Devine (1984, as cited in Devine, 1988)
found that L2 readers exhibited three different sets of beliefs about reading (i.e. reading as
a sound-centered, word-centered, and meaning-centered process), which were reflected in
reading behaviours. Devine concluded that readers' theoretical orientation to reading may
determine, to some extent, the degree to which low proficiency in the language restricts L2
reading ability. Another investigation (Blonski Hardin, 2001) showed that able bilingual
readers viewed reading as gathering meaning whereas less able bilingual readers viewed
reading as focusing on words.
Formal schema refers to the organizational forms and rhetorical structures of written texts.
It can include knowledge of different text types and genres, and also includes the
understanding that different types of texts use text organization, language structures,
vocabulary, grammar, and level of formality/register differently. Schooling and culture
play the largest role in providing one with a knowledge base of formal schemata. Because
of the disparity of textual matter, what students read, I feel, has no bearing on the IELTS
31
tasks. Lonsdale, Dyson & Reynolds (2006) found that text type influenced performance in
situations of reading to search for specific information in a text under time pressure.
The dangers of a presumption on the part of ELT curriculum and course designers with
regard to shared values and ideological systems has been highlighted by Edge (1994) who
maintained that allowance must be made for the different educational systems and teaching
modes in effect in much of the non-Western world. According to Wallace (1995) many
teachers find that their students have few background ideas or opinions to contribute to
writing tasks. Eskey and Grabe (1988, p.227) concluded from their research that not only
should time be spent ensuring that students have a sufficient foundation of “lexical and
grammatical forms”, they should also develop top-down skills of reading for global
meaning and the willingness to take chances, as well as on the development of
“appropriate and adequate schemata for the proper interpretation of texts”.
However, Singhal (1998) adds a note of caution with regard to the implications of schema
theory for second language reading instruction stating that it was not desirable or realistic
for teachers to prepare students for everything they will encounter in texts.
32
3 Research Methodology
3.1 Methodology
This research is intended to clarify what the current literacy practices of the participants are
and to establish whether there is a relationship between the literacy practices the
participants engage in outside the classroom and the texts they encounter in the learning
environment. By carrying out this research I hope to identify ways to improve acquisition
of reading skills, both in and outside the classroom. It is hoped that through the promotion
of extensive reading the students will acquire a valuable tool to enable lifelong learning.
I am therefore challenging if UAE students read extensively in L1 and/or L2, what texts
they encounter outside the classroom and if there is a relationship between the participants’
L1 and L2 literacy practices. Furthermore I wish to ascertain if the texts encountered in the
classroom are supported by the literacy practices of the participants. Finally, is
reading/writing frequency outside the classroom related to students’ performance in
IELTS-style academic tests?
Tools of enquiry were selected to ensure adequate triangulation and validity to the results
obtained. In order to ascertain the balance of skills that the participants engage in L2
outside the classroom in any given 24 hour period, a clock face was used. A finite
questionnaire was then developed to determine the frequency with which participants
engage with a variety of texts types and genres, both in L1 and L2. To ensure completeness
of information, a focus forum was conducted with the students to discuss their literacy
backgrounds and habits. Finally, the students were polled on the familiarity and
complexity of an IELTS reading in order to garner information with respect to whether the
texts encountered in the classroom are supported by their literacy practices. Based on the
information obtained from the questionnaire and copies of the exam results, I could then
establish whether there is any relationship between the two.
33
This combination of research tools generated quantitative and qualitative data which taken
in aggregate, allowed me to draw conclusions and make recommendations as presented in
Chapter 5.
The research was carried out in 2 distinct phases covering the time frame of a fortnight.
The “clock face” timetable and frequency questionnaire were distributed to the participants
in Phase 1. A week later phase 2 was activated encompassing the IELTS text
questionnaires (for both students and teachers) and a focus group discussion. At the same
time informal teacher feedback about learners was also requested. The staging was
necessary because by spreading out the stages, participants may have thought of new input
and the English course was near completion and the attendance of participants was rapidly
dwindling. If phase 2 had been delayed there may have been potentially few participants
left to join the focus forum.
3.2 Sampling
It was ensured that a number of factors that could potentially bias the research were
constant for all participants. These included: (1) basic oral proficiency in English; (2) the
amount and type of English instruction previously received; (3) formal literacy instruction
in their native language; and (4) socio-economic background. This therefore ensured a
fairer test of the research question.
The target population was, therefore, a UAE government employer sponsored course in
general English run by the largest higher education facility in the UAE. The ultimate aim
of this course was to facilitate the participants to sit the IELTS General Training exam.
Approximately 45 students (8 females and 37 men) were enrolled and varied in abilities
from beginner to intermediate. Such gender distributions are the norm in Government
organizations and accurately reflect the ratio of males/females. All the participants were
Emirati, had Arabic as their L1 and had attended government schools, where Arabic was
the mode of delivery. None had attended tertiary education. For the purpose of this
34
research, the intermediate classes were selected i.e. those classes that were sitting the
IELTS exam in May 2009.
In selecting participants for this study, a stratified population was considered. This would
have broadened the basis of the study and allowed results to be extrapolated across a
broader network. However, because of time constraints this was not possible. It would be
beneficial to conduct such a study in the future.
In an attempt to avoid non sampling errors, 3 classes of 28 pupils in total were selected.
However the response was lower than anticipated and only 13 students participated (8
females and 5 males). This response level of 46% was mainly due to participants’ lack of
consistent attendance on the course (and consequent non-availability at the time the
research was performed). However, student disinterest was noted and this researcher made
a judgement call to exclude questionnaires where the participants simply ticked the same
columns in 30 seconds for all responses.
3.3 Data Collection
The students were asked to initially complete a clock face (see Appendix 3.1) to determine
how a 24 hour period would be allocated in the 4 skills in L2. This activity was resourced
from the Lancaster Literacy Study (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/resources). When conducting
the research, directions were given to the participants verbally and an example of a
completed clock was presented on the board. By not providing suggestions, the timetable is
open ended and might result in novel ideas (Dornyei, 2003), although Bacon and
Finnemann (1990, p.461) have suggested that learners “may respond in a way that they
believe they are expected to respond” but that is a peril of any research. Frequency charts
were then produced from the compiled data.
Participants then completed a questionnaire soliciting the following information

concerning their English language reading habits: (a) frequency of reading at home, in both
L1 and L2, in specific genre areas ranging from functional to pleasure (b) frequency of
35
reading at work, in both L1 and L2, in specific genre areas ranging from functional to
general understanding. The aim of this written questionnaire was to collect data on literacy
practices outside the classroom and the various literary events that are encountered by the
learners. However, as no existing questionnaires suitable for the study could be found, the
researcher prepared her own (see Appendix 3.2). This was loosely based on the literacy
practices researched in Currie and Cray (2004), where types of literacy texts were
identified as encountered by immigrants to Canada on a regular basis. It consisted of a list
of various text types for which participants rated the frequency with which they
encountered them on a 5 point Likert scale. To avoid participant confusion, I kept the scale
of different genres as ‘loose’ as possible i.e. I simply used ‘novels’ rather than individual
genres of ‘romance’ or ‘horror’. Additionally, I deliberately omitted the inclusion of the
Holy Qu’ran. This is because, although ‘read’ every day, it is actually recited from text or
memory and it was my opinion that the inclusion would skew the results in some way.
The relative value of the questionnaire data collected in this study was increased by:
 the questionnaires being initially filled out anonymously by the learner - I

only asked them to annotate their names when collecting them (and only if
they felt comfortable doing so) and thus no responses were changed. Thus
they were much less likely to be affected by self flattery, because learners
would know that their names would not, initially, be connected with their
responses.
 the questionnaire was translated into Arabic (by a bilingual speaker) to
avoid learner misunderstanding and the English and the Arabic translation
were given together. This very much reduced the possibility that there was a
“surreptitious measure…of language proficiency” (Oller and Perkins,
1978a, p.85) of the learners, rather than a measure of their opinions or
attitudes.
Genre analysis was then performed in accordance on reading and writing material
encountered outside the classroom, both in L1 and L2. This was done in accordance with
Bhatia (2002) where the formal schema and use of the readers were determined. According
to Keller-Cohen (1986) the purpose of the reading seems to determine which type of
36
reading – ‘for learning’ or ‘for doing’ – is being used and how much information is/isn’t
read. Similarly, the users’ prior knowledge seems to influence the identification of the
textual structure by allowing them to anticipate the kind of information each document is
likely to contain.
Correlations were identified, if any, between what was read and written in L1 and L2.
In order to establish any similarity between what is expected of the participants on the
course and what they regularly encounter outside the classroom, participants and teachers
were asked to complete a short questionnaire about an IELTS reading task (taken from
IELTS express Intermediate Coursebook,2006,p.42 ) (see Appendices 3.3 ,3.4 & 3.5).
Finally, class teachers provided summary averages of performance grades in various

internal tests. Tasks for all of these assessments were taken from previous IELTS material
and consequently all were of a General Training IELTS level exam standard.
3.4 Student and Teacher Interviews
A focus group was established to encourage all the participants to share their thoughts and
opinions on:
(i) what their literacy practices are outside the classroom
(ii) how they could improve their reading/writing and;
(iii) whether the IELTS course addresses the reading and writing requirements in L2
that they encounter and utilize outside the classroom environment.
Due to numbers, all sampled students participated.
Bloor et al. (2001) outline the various stages of such a group and, accordingly, a ‘loose’
agenda was prepared and distributed in advance of the meeting (see Appendix 3.6).
Examples of different texts types were made available (from IELTS material) in order to
avoid confusion. In addition, to overcome any potential barriers in communication, an
37
Arabic speaking teacher helped as a translator, when needed. Transcriptions were prepared
by both the researcher and the Arabic speaking teacher to ensure completeness of notes. In
awareness of cultural sensitivity, separate groups for men and women were held and
neither was videoed.
In order to gather perceptions about the IELTS tasks the students are expected to sit, the
teachers interviewed were those teaching the classes sampled (3 in total). The interviews
were conducted in an informal group setting and prepared questions were given to the
teachers for their completion before we met (see Appendix 3.7).
3.5 Limitations
There are three broad limitations to note which may impact the potential validity of the
research results.
Researcher bias
My own bias, which could affect my interpretation of results, evolves from sample
selection and even research proposal selection. However no research is completely bias-
free. Janesick (2000, p.385) expounds “The myth that research is objective in some way
can no longer be taken seriously”.
Reliability of data
Extrapolation of data is only as reliable as the data used. As previously mentioned,

questionnaires and timetables could be filled in to please the teacher or to ensure students
are looked at favourably. It is important for the class as a whole to be well perceived and
duplicate answers are therefore probable.
Additionally, because the sample is selected from a homogeneous population, in order to

validate results, the sample may have to be extended longitudinally. The sample size was
extremely small and distributed amongst a homogeneous population. In order to solidify
38
inferences, the sample size should be dispersed amongst different population groups (i.e.
Emirati sponsored students and paying students).
The study was conducted in an extremely short time frame. Although this captured a ‘snap
shot’ of the participants current habits, it would be interesting to extend the study to 6
months after implementing an extensive reading programme and then see the correlation
between L2 reading frequencies and performance.
Interpretative analysis
Qualitative data analysis is so much more subjective then quantitative (although one can lie
with statistics as much as with a misinterpretation). However, not only is the data collected
again dependent on the questions asked but then the answers have to be coded, collated and
categorised all based on the researchers opinion of the feedback given. This subjectivity
surely increases the susceptability of the results garnered.
39
4 Results
4.1 Introduction
The results have been compiled from both the qualitative and quantitative data acquired
through the data collection processes outlined in Chapter 3.
4.2 General Analysis of Skills
From those participants who completed the clock face we can see in Figure 2 the
distribution of the skills (in L2) in a sample 24 hour period. Research demonstrated the
participants spent approximately 1 to 2 hours a day engaging in L2. This included
watching television and movies, engaging with expatriate staff, ordering food in
supermarkets, going shopping and perusing magazines and newspapers.
11%
33%
20% speaking
listening
reading
writing
36%
Figure 2 L2 skills practiced in a 24 period
It is obvious that speaking and listening skills are by far the most practiced. Almost 70% of
their L2 interaction involved these two skills and this reinforces the ‘oral’ stereotype of the
40
UAE. It also addresses the nature of L2 interaction required where Emiratis require oral
and aural skills in order to communicate socially and professionally. On the other hand
only 30% of L2 outside the classroom involved reading and writing. It is arguable whether
these results would be any different in a clock completed by a native English speaker i.e.
speaking and listening would presumably be used more than reading and writing but would
the gap between them reflect the same 70:30 ratio.
The absolute time value spent reading and writing by the research group is extremely low
and this reinforces the initial hypothesis that literacy practices remain unsupported outside
the classroom. Further analysis from the questionnaire results in Appendices 4.1 & 4.2
demonstrates that these reading and writing skills appear to be confined to utilitarian
purposes.
4.3 Genre Analysis of Literacy
For the purpose of this genre analysis, the types of text encountered in the home or ‘social’
environment have been kept distinct from those that the participants are obliged to engage
with in the work environment. This is primarily because the impact of successful extensive
reading should involve choice on the students part (Day, 2002) and choice is more readily
available in the home environment then at work. Additionally, the information garnered
from the frequency questionnaire has been categorized into:
(a) Functional (both at home and at work) - those texts that are read or written in order
to meet a purpose. This will involve small amounts of text to be read or completed.
(b) Pleasure (at home) – those texts that the students choose to engage in for pleasure
where reading is its own reward. For this purpose these included newspapers,
magazines, poetry, both fiction and non-fiction, song lyrics, writing diaries and
stories.
(c) General understanding (at work) - those texts that are necessary for students to
read/write in order to garner understanding. These texts are more complex in terms
of content, vocabulary and style and included reports and minutes from meetings.
41
The questionnaire was a 5-point Likert scale and points were awarded for each response
(5=Every Day; 4=Once a week; 3=Once a month; 2=Once a year; 1=Never). Results are
presented and categorized in Appendices 4.1 & 4.2. In Appendices 4.3 & 4.4, the data is
collated and the mean, mode and standard deviation of each genre calculated. It is evident
from the highlighted genres in Appendices 4.3 & 4.4 that the genres encountered on a
‘regular’ basis (i.e. at least once a week) when considering the modes of distribution, are
primarily to facilitate functional literacy.
When looking at functional literacy in L1, eight genres in reading (four from both home
and work) were encountered by the participants on a daily or weekly basis (i.e. had a
modal value of either 4 or 5). At home, these included lists, text messages, emails and
phone numbers/addresses (see Figure 3). At work these were comprised of to do lists,
formal letters, emails and legal documents (see Figure 4). In functional L1 writing, the
participants regularly used seven genres (four from home and three from work).
However, L2 reading involved the participants regularly reading only two genres, menus
and phone numbers/addresses (see Figure 3). Regular L2 writing was restricted to writing
lists and texts messages.
The charts below show the proportion of the sample that encountered these genres on a
regular basis (i.e. at least once a week).
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20% Reading in English
0% Reading in Arabic
ts es nts rds ails nus rms al es
s ns
Lis sag e ca m Me fo orm ddr ctio
s m t E
e te os f
rs rs/ /dir
a e
x t m sta s/p tte e s
Te ank tter Le mb tion
/B Le u c
ills ne n stru
B o In
Ph
Figure 3 Genre analysis of regular functional reading practices at home

42
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
10%
0%
t s s ts ts
lis tter ail ain en
do le Em pl
um
To al m oc
rm Co l d
Fo ga
Le
Figure 4 Genre analysis of regular functional reading practices at work
With regard to L1 reading at home for pleasure the Emirati participants appeared to
actively engage in two genres on a regular basis – reading newspapers and magazines (see
Figure 5). At work, L1 reading for general understanding was regularly engaged in both
genres – reading reports and minutes of meetings (see Figure 6). Regular non-functional
writing in L1 was confined to the writing of minutes at work with no regular writing
performed at home.
No non-functional reading was performed regularly in L2, either at home or at work (see
Figures 5&6). Similarly, no writing in L2 was regularly performed for pleasure or general
understanding.
Again, the illustrations below show the proportion of the sample that encountered these
genres on a regular basis (i.e. at least once a week).
43
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Reading in Arabic
10%
0%
er ry on es ics
ap et cti zin lyr
p Po fi a
ws n- ag
Ne /no m
v els
No
Figure 5 Genre analysis of regular non-functional reading practices at home
70%
60%
50%
40%
Reading in English
20%
10%
0%
Reports Minutes of Meetings
Figure 6 Genre analysis of regular non-functional reading practices at work
An analysis of the reading results in L1 would indicate that the Emirati participants do a
significant amount of reading in the workplace for both functional and general
understanding purposes. With regard to the home context, approximately half of the
participants appear to regularly read for both function and pleasure. This is an apparent
anomaly with regard to the premise that Emirati ESL students do not extensively read
outside of the classroom. In L2, there is negligible evidence of any established reading
practices outside of the classroom, neither at home or at work nor for function or pleasure.
44
There is some evidence that the participants engaged in functional writing in L1; however,
they appear to have little experience of writing for pleasure in L1 or for any reason in L2.
Results from the research questionnaire suggest that they appear to have quite extensive
reading for pleasure in L1. However, this was not supported by the findings of the Focus
forum (see Appendix 4.5), where it was revealed that, at home, newspaper and magazine
articles were merely perused (i.e. only headlines, bylines and captions were read).
Surprisingly, one major finding form the questionnaire is the frequency that the
participants engage in report and minutes reading and writing in L1. This is an important
insight for course organizers when deciding the mode of assessment. As an illustration,
perhaps the transference of reading skills from L1 to L2 (in support of Cummins’ LIH)
would make the IELTS Academic exam more relevant and attainable for the candidates.
The above confirms the presumption that this Emirati population do not read extensively
and that the majority of reading done outside the classroom (in both L1 and L2) is purely
for functional purposes (see Figures 7 & 8 for illustrative purposes).
11%
17%
Functional-home
43%
Functional-work
Pleasure
General understanding-
work
29%
Figure 7 Distribution of L1 reading genres
45
8%
17%
Functional-home
Functional-work
Pleasure
General understanding-
59% work
16%
Figure 8 Distribution of L2 reading genres
Additionally, the genres that are most encountered by the participants (in L1 and L2) offer
little transference of skills to the academic tests and (ultimately) the IELTS General
Training exam that these participants encounter.
4.4 Literacy in L1 and L2
4.4.1 Literacy practices in L1
As noted above, there is an absence of a regular reading habit for pleasure in L1. However
is this simply a common problem in the post-linguistic era? Evidence from the literature
review also suggests that Emiratis infrequently engage in pleasure reading in L1 primarily
due to the lack of developed reading habits and the absence of adequate literature in L1.
Indeed, from the evidence of the focus forum (Appendix 4.5), the participants
acknowledged that there was little reading done outside of school, except for reciting the
Holy Qu’ran (reinforcing the memorization practices that is the basis of the education
system of the UAE). The form of Arabic writing was mainly reinforced (i.e. style and
language), rather than the development of structure, form and content to suffice different
writing purposes (e.g. letters, stories, arguments, factual reports, narratives, newspaper
46
articles). The participants acknowledged the difficulty of learning written Arabic and also
commented on the absence of Arabic literature. In ten of the participants’ households there
was at least one illiterate parent and there was a total absence of story reading; if read to it
was purely for imparting information (e.g. from the Holy Qu’ran or newspapers). These
habits appear to be richly embedded in the society as all the respondents said they do not
read to their children and in two cases tutors were engaged to read with them (usually in
L2). Nevertheless, the participants did comment that their parents told them stories, as they
do their children. Some of the participants who had children said “it was the school’s job to
teach reading and writing”. Indeed, there was a common thread that if any reading was
done it was to find out information or help with homework – not one participant mentioned
reading for pleasure. When pressed to name magazines they read only vague answers were
received from “what is lying on the table” to “what my friend gives me”.
The focus forum findings above clearly confirm the genre questionnaire results and clarify
the apparent anomaly with regard to L1 reading at home for pleasure. This lack of instilled
reading habit could be because of the rapid growth of the UAE. In less than 40 years the
people have moved from the desert to ultra urban cities. The literal darkness, through
absence of electricity, that preceded the discovery of oil has been replaced with non–stop
television, computers and trips to the numerous malls. So the populace has moved from a
position of not being able to read to not wanting to read in two generations. As a colleague
commented, the UAE has moved “from camel to Cadillac” overnight! (see Appendix 4.6).
Not surprisingly the questionnaire has shown the extensive use of Arabic at work. The
research sample was selected from a homogeneous population where all the participants
are Government employees and in order to preserve the culture of the UAE, Arabic is the
primary language of communication. This is very much limited to public sector
employment as English is the principal language of ‘doing business’ in the private sector
and banks, due to the international nature of the business.
If we look at the regression analysis performed on the reading and writing frequencies (see
Figure 8) we note a moderate positive correlation between reading and writing in L1
(ρ=0.54). Indeed Bernhardt & Kamil (1995) also found that L1 school writing proficiency
could be partly accounted for by the learner’s L1 reading experiences.
47
For a country and culture that revere poetry and storytelling, this is very much limited to
the oral traditions embedded in the society. This researcher has encountered great
enthusiasm in students when attending L1 poetry readings – however, extend this to the
classroom with simple L2 poems and there is limited interest in reading or writing.
4.4.2 Literacy practices in L2
English is widely available in the UAE – it is spoken in every shop, business and
restaurant. It is also the language of instruction in all tertiary learning establishments.
However the motivation shown by all participants was mainly extrinsic – they were
sponsored to attend the course and had to sit the IELTS exam. Moreover, no minimum
attainment level is specified and thus the exam has little bearing on future career
development. When asked in the focus forum why they wanted to learn English, all
mentioned the former reasons – a few mentioned promotion and family development but
none mentioned developing English competence or increasing interaction in English at
home or at work. This may be unique to the UAE as many of the Emirati ESL learners are
sponsored by the Government and therefore participate through mandate rather than
through choice.
So what is the L2 background of these participants? From the focus forum (Appendix 4.5)
it was identified that all have learnt English since the age of 10; however, reading was
limited to sentences and writing was focused on letter formation and copying. Free writing
or reading was not encouraged. Most respondents are confident at speaking in limited
scenarios (McDonalds, shopping or at the petrol station); however all said that they would
never write or read English outside the classroom. Many mentioned the culturally
inappropriateness of course books or texts they had encountered and also that the topics
were outside local interest (e.g. texts about Government taxes, issues on pollution or
recycling). “Why I want to know?” was put forward when challenged about their lack of
interest in texts. This concurs with Aebersold and Field (1997, p.41) that "if the topic... is
outside of their experience or base of knowledge, they are adrift on an unknown sea". The
48
participants also demonstrated a lack of background knowledge about the IELTS tasks they
encountered (see Chapter 4.5).
The problem, according Ayish (2008), is that many education systems in the Arab region
take too narrow a view of literacy as a mechanical, text-centred process of translating print
into speech. The goals of literacy instruction have become too focused on basic decoding
skills, limited to and achieved during the first few grades of primary education. Indeed,
feedback from the focus forum intimated that the participants still “dissected” L2 text and
analysed the language (grammar, form and vocabulary); however, they took little note of
the topic and were not interested in researching topics they read about. The participants
admitted they struggled with historical texts and mainly enjoyed text they were familiar
with. I think that, in accordance with the ideological method, reading skills in knowledge
societies require more than decoding simple printed text; they depend on critical cognitive
interactions. This feature is highly significant for the young who constitute more than 60
per cent of the region’s population and if they can be taught to love books at an early age,
then the rest of their education will become that much easier. Thus I applaud the types of
initiatives that are being taken as noted in 2.3 above.
A strong correlation was found (see Figure 9) between L2 reading and writing frequencies
(ρ=0.66). This appears to infer that if a strong reading habit is established in L2, then a
strong writing habit will follow. Thus, it is imperative that teachers get students reading in
L2 through in-class reading and structured extensive reading programmes.
4.4.3 The impact of L1 on L2 acquisition
Eisterhold (1990), in a theoretical comparison of L1 and L2 literacy development, noted

that many L2 acquirers come to the task of second language literacy acquisition with well-
developed L1 literacy skills. An adult second language learner usually has some meta
cognitive knowledge of reading and reading strategies from literacy experiences in
learning his/her native language (L1), but his/her linguistic knowledge of the second
language (L2) is usually limited. However, if we look at the findings in Chapter 4.3.1
49
above, we see this is not the case here. Additionally, studies of reading-writing
relationships such as Alderson (1984), Carrell (1991) and Carson (1991) suggest that L2
literacy acquisition may result in varying outcomes depending on the nature of L1 literacy
and/or the extent to which it has been mastered.
Relationships between L1 and L2 reading and writing frequencies were investigated by

examining the Pearson correlation coefficient. Correlations are reported in the Figure 9
below. There were weaker correlations across a language (ρ=0.33 for both reading and
writing skills) then within the language which inferred that if you read or write in L1 it
does not necessarily mean you will read or write in L2 i.e. the habits present in L1 are not
the only significant barriers/scaffolds to reading or writing in L2. Other research (Canale,
Frenette, & Belanger, 1988) also reported weak to moderate correlations between L1 and
L2 writing abilities.
Pearson coefficient (ρ)

Relationship All participants Females Males
L1 reading X L2
0.33 -0.07 0.90
reading
L1 writing X L2 writing 0.33 0.39 0.54
L1 reading X L1 writing 0.54 0.07 0.93
L2 reading X L2 writing 0.66 0.69 0.73
Figure 9 Regression analysis of reading and writing frequencies in L1 and L2
However, correlation magnitudes for the reading-writing relationship may also be

considered in terms of Shanahan and Lomax's (1986) proposed model of the reading-
writing relationship, which argues for the existence of multiple relations (i.e. the
interactions among language skills such as word analysis, spelling knowledge and word
recognition may differ within and across discourse levels), as well as the possibility that
the nature of the reading-writing relationship might change with development and thus not
be linearly related. In this case, the Pearson correlation thus may underestimate the actual
relationship between these two language skills.
What is interesting is that, when the sample size is split by gender, the correlations reveal
themselves as gender biased. The males’ reading habits in L1 have a very significant
50
influence on reading frequencies in L2 (ρ=0.90); however, for the females there is a
negligible negative relationship between frequencies of reading in L1 and L2 (ρ=-0.07).
This could be related to the amount of time available to the females outside of the course
as they are more likely to be constrained by family commitments; thus, when they read in
one language they have less time to read in another. Additionally, in both L1 and L2,
where the males were frequent readers, there was a strong relationship to how often they
wrote. However, this strong relationship only existed in females in L2. Heath's study
(1986) of transferable generic literacies also evidenced similar findings across total
populations.
4.5 Literacy and Academic Performance
4.5.1 Are reading and/or writing practices in L2 linked to academic performance?
All the participants on the course undertook four exams in each of the four skills (reading,
writing, listening and speaking). These exams contained tasks similar to what candidates
would encounter when undertaking the IELTS General Training Exam. For the purpose of
this study, the exam scores in the reading and writing assessments were averaged to
present a mean skill score in L2. This was then compared to the frequency of reading and
writing performed in L2 (where points were assigned ranging from ‘Every day’ = 5 points
to ‘Never’ which scored 1 point). From there, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was
calculated.
We can see from Figure 10 that no evidence of a relationship was established between
what is read outside the classroom in L2 and how the participants performed in the reading
exams. There was a weak positive correlation (ρ= 0.31) between writing in L2 outside the
classroom and performance in L2 writing assessments. This could be due to the style of
teaching that was adopted for writing. Because the IELTS exam consists of two distinct
tasks (Task 1 is a letter; Task 2 an essay expressing opinion), the teachers adopted a genre
approach where they determined “what kind of texts are valued and also to make these
51
genres accessible to the students” (Gallagher, 2000, p.14). Writing frames were established
which provided “a skeleton framework that consists of differing key words or phrases,
according to a particular generic form” (Lewis & Wray, 1992, p.1). Teachers, therefore,
provided starters, connectives and sentence modifiers which helped the students to expand
their writing. Consequently the average scores in writing assessments are higher than in
reading.
Participan Average score in Average score in Reading Writing

t Reading Writing frequency frequency
All L2 Genres
1 87 89 9 29
2 83 86 14 20
3 84 93 59 47
4 72 81 11 9
5 61 79 21 7
6 70 83 43 35
7 62 63 33 30
8 75 79 36 15
9 82 86 33 13
10 60 68 11 6
11 65 70 20 25
12 68 67 21 14
13 63 72 59 30
Mean 72 78
L2 reading coefficient: ρ=0.01 L2 writing coefficient: ρ=0.31
Figure 10 Individual analysis comparing IELTS literacy scores to literacy practices outside the
classroom
To delve into this further, an attempt was made to correlate reading in L2 for ‘pleasure’
and ‘general understanding’ to the academic achievement (see Figure 11). This is due to
the nature and format of the texts in the IELTS exam resembling
newspaper/magazines/novels or reports more than phone texts, menus or forms. However,
this analysis yielded a weak negative correlation (ρ=-0.35) implying the more they read,
the worse they performed. It has to be considered that frequency charts included findings
where students had merely ‘perused’ material (rather then read in detail) and therefore
these findings could be misleading. In order to validate these findings, it would be
recommended that an extensive reading programme be implemented and further
investigations performed longitudinally.
52
For writing, again a very negligible weak negative correlation (ρ=-0.13) was noted. This
could possibly be due to the dearth of writing frequencies for these purposes in L2, where
results garnered have minimal implication.
Participant Average Average Reading frequency Writing frequency

score in score in -pleasure and -pleasure and
Reading Writing general general
understanding in L2 understanding in L2
1 87 89 1 1
2 83 86 4 1
3 84 93 11 7
4 72 81 3 0
5 61 79 6 1
6 70 83 12 6
7 62 63 17 7
8 75 79 5 0
9 82 86 6 0
10 60 68 4 0
11 65 70 6 7
12 68 67 2 0
13 63 72 17 6
L2 non-functional reading coefficient: ρ=-0.35 L2 non-functional writing coefficient: ρ=-

0.13
purposes and academic performance
4.5.2 Is reading and writing frequency in L1 and L2 linked to performance in L2?
When a comparison was made of total exposure to L1 and L2 reading frequencies

compared to L2 reading academic performance, there was little correlation (see Figure
12).
53
Participan Average score in Average score in Reading Writing
t Reading Writing frequency frequency
females All Genres In L1 &L2
1 87 89 72 63
2 83 86 59 43
3 84 93 99 93
4 72 81 36 42
5 61 79 86 48
6 70 83 91 73
7 62 63 79 61
8 75 79 98 47
males
9 82 86 86 54
10 60 68 57 32
11 65 70 55 52
12 68 67 72 55
13 63 72 138 86
Reading correlation coefficient: -0.04 Writing correlation coefficient: 0.28
purposes and academic performance
This concurs with the Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis (LTH) (Clarke, 1979; Cummins,
1979) where L1 reading ability transfers to L2 reading only when learners attain a certain
level of L2 proficiency. This can also be justified by the type of text they are encountering
outside the classroom compared to those that appear on the tests. Indeed the most common
text that was read in Arabic was the Holy Qu’ran whilst in English these consisted of text
messages and short excerpts from magazines. Khoury and Berger (2005) suggest that if a
learner’s main experience of reading is recitation, they will transfer these skills to any kind
of reading and assume that they will be successful. There is, however, a huge gap between
this high school approach and the type of strategies required at college (or even IELTS)
level.
Nisbet and Shucksmith (cited in Williams and Burden, 1997) point out that most of us rely
on what we know, avoiding the need to learn by sticking to familiar routines. This is very
much evidenced here. In both L1 and L2, people have favourite types of text genres and
54
can confine themselves solely to these and never branch out of their comfort zone. Thus
reading becomes ‘automatic’ and is not a stimulating activity.
Finally we have to consider the lack of familiarity of reading environment. Currently all
exams are paper based – conversely outside the classroom the participants predominantly
encounter these skills through computers and phones. This establishes a barrier to
transferring acquired skills to the in-class environment.
According to Hedgcock and Atkinson (1993), extensive exposure to written texts, whether
in L1 or L2, may have little impact on nonnative writing proficiency. There is, however, a
weak positive association between what is written socially and professionally and how
learners performed in classroom tests (ρ=0.28) suggesting that format and language is
consistent to patterns students are expected to produce in test situations. Indeed, in the
workplace, students wrote reports/minutes in both L1 & L2 where formats would not be
dissimilar and rather prescriptive. This equates to the IELTS writing tasks where marks can
be gained for the “acceptable” structure of Part 1 a letter and Part 2 structured opinion or
argument.
When classified by gender, it is evident that there is no established relationship between

the male participants reading and writing outside the classroom and their performance on
tests (with correlations ranging from ρ =0.05 to 0.14). However, the females showed a
weak positive correlation between what was written outside class (both in L1 and L1 &
L2) and how well they performed on the assessments (ρ=0.30 & 0.36 respectively). This
may simply be a result of women more effectively recalling and implementing the writing
frames taught. No further investigation was performed as part of this study.
While these findings are interesting, further research is needed to establish the depth of
relationship between native and nonnative literacy development on the one hand and L2
academic achievement.
55
4.6 Perceptions of IELTS
A brief questionnaire and a sample IELTS General Training task was distributed to the
students and results are displayed in Figure 13 below. As we can see although over 90% of
the students were familiar with the text format, almost all of the students were not familiar
with the background to the article. Additionally over 80 % said they would not read this
type of text on a regular basis. This very much supports the premise that their literacy
expectations within the classroom are not supported by their literacy practices outside the
classroom.
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided

Disagree Strongly Disagree
Figure 13 Students perceptions on an IELTS reading task
The teachers were then polled with the same text and questionnaire to establish whether
there are any major gaps in what ESL teachers perceive how their students will find a task
compared to what the students think (Figure 14).
56
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Students
Teachers
Figure 14 Gap in perceptions of teachers and students
As we can see from the chart above, the major gap is evidenced in the difficulty of the
vocabulary. Nearly 80% of the participants said they would find the vocabulary difficult
whilst only 30% of teachers anticipated the students experiencing difficulty. This
obviously reveals the potential stumbling blocks that vocabulary can present.
57
5 Conclusion
5.1 Summary of Findings
Very little reading or writing is engaged in outside the classroom – the UAE students
demonstrated that they are still primarily an oral society (in both L1 and L2) where
speaking and listening are the dominant skills to be used. The genres that were engaged in
were primarily related to functional literacy while very little reading is engaged for
pleasure either in L1 or L2. Within a language there were moderate to strong relationships
between reading and writing (particularly in L2). Furthermore, for the sample as a whole,
there was little relationship across languages; paradoxically, when analysed by gender, the
males demonstrated a strong relationship across languages. There was no obvious rationale
for this anomaly and this should be a subject for further research.
This research also indicated that there was no relationship between reading frequency in
L1 and/or L2 and academic performance - findings suggested that the more students read
for pleasure in L2 the worse they performed on the reading assessments. There was,
however, a slight relationship between all writing practices researched (in L1 and L2, and
solely in L1) and academic performance. However this could be ‘coincidental’ and
tempered by the fact that writing frames are given to students to hinge their writing tasks
upon.
Although the IELTS text type was recognizable, participants found the vocabulary difficult
and said they lacked background knowledge to adequately complete the task. Additionally
they demonstrated that they would not habitually read this genre of text outside the
classroom adding an additional barrier of non-familiarity to task completion.
58
5.2 Discussion and Recommendations
Reading habits in L1 exactly mirrored reading habits in L2. Results indicated that over
70% of reading in L1 and L2 was purely functional. Furthermore, the amount of reading
done for pleasure was established at ~20 %, primarily newspapers and magazines.
However, on further analysis, it was discovered that this reading was mainly superficial
and entailed nothing more than perusal of headlines and captions with little focused,
detailed reading being performed. This would therefore indicate that the Emirati
participants were predominantly functional readers.
The lack of extensive reading for pleasure in L1 appears to have had a negative effect on
the reading habits in L2. This lack of reading in L1, for anything other than function, has to
be addressed both educationally and culturally. Until this has been recognized, there
appears little hope of establishing any extensive reading in L2. It is widely commented (the
National newspaper, 2009) that, unlike in English where Harry Potter and Twilight
abound, there is little in Arabic literature to provide a stimulating source of reading
material for the young generation. Therefore, there has to be a sea of change in the
availability of high standard, engaging Arabic literature and Emirati and other Arab
authors should be encouraged through grants, publicity and recognition.
In the absence of such a change, I fear that a more pragmatic approach to ESL teaching is
necessary. This would entail adopting an alternative teaching methodology which
recognizes the intrinsic lack of reading habit. This may include changing course formats to
reflect existing language usage (i.e. addressing functional literacy and concentrating on
speaking and listening).
It is unsurprising that the relationship between reading and writing in both L1 and L2 were
strong. Thus, by encouraging students to read more within L2 through extensive reading
we can hope to increase the frequency of their writing. The results across L1 and L2
yielded an apparent anomaly between gender. The weak correlation for the sample as a
whole (disputing Heath’s transferable generic literacies study) disguised a strong positive
correlation for males and no correlation at all for the female sample. None of the different
59
research tools gave any justification for this anomaly. It would therefore be interesting to
see whether these results correspond with findings in other Arab countries or indeed other
L1’s. Additionally, to investigate the possibility of sample bias due to homogeneity, further
research should be conducted across other populations of Emirati students.
This research unexpectedly demonstrated no evidence of any correlation between reading

outside the classroom, in L1 and/or L2, and academic performance. A number of factors
may have contributed to this.
Firstly, the IELTS assessments are, on the whole, very dissimilar from the reading genres
engaged in regularly outside the classroom. This disparity may affect the students’ ability
to transfer reading skills and any background knowledge from their personal experiences to
the in-house ESL reading assessments. Indeed, this researcher questions the validity of
IELTS as a justifiable assessment tool for this Emirati sample. Because of their lack of
inherent reading skills, the low score in IELTS could reflect a mismatch between the
students and the test. The IELTS website (http://www.ielts.org) states that “IELTS
motivates test-takers to develop real and well-rounded English ...... valid for real life in an
English-speaking country”. However, none of our participants are engaged in this setting.
Furthermore “The General Training format ...is for those who are going to English-
speaking countries to do secondary education, work experience or training programs.”
Again this is not the case with the participants in this study. In my teaching experience the
L2 goals of very few participants on various Government-sponsored were aligned with the
purpose of the IELTS programme, as noted above. Thus, this researcher proposes that a
more congruent assessment is developed where the assessment methodology fits the goals
of these adult education programmes.
Secondly, the homogeneous profile of the sample may have skewed the correlation. Most,
if not all, read infrequently (i.e. less than once a week) for non-functional purposes.
Moreover, all of the sample were extrinsically motivated. Accordingly one can challenge
whether the cause and effect between reading and academic performance has been
accurately determined. In order to confirm the validity of these results, further testing is
required on a larger, more diverse sample of Emiratis. This should include independent L2
60
learners that are not Government sponsored e.g. university students, private sector graduate
programmes.
Additionally one must remember that reading extensively for pleasure should not purely be
an enabler or predictor of academic success. Reading is invaluable as an independent
learning tool and therefore these results should have little bearing in the decision to
encourage students to read, read, read! What is positive is seeing that the writing frames
promoted by teachers within the teaching environment have a positive effect on the
participants writing performance. Indeed, the overall writing assessments scored higher
than the reading assessments which is also reflected in the UAE’s IELTS scores (see
Appendix 1.1). However, do these findings mean that students write better than they read?
Perhaps writing book reviews could be incorporated in line with an extensive reading
programme. Given the Emiratis traditional comfort in speaking, it may be recommended to
initially foster this writing process through oral book reviews. This would encourage
students to give opinion freely and develop both their descriptive and critical vocabulary.
Lack of familiarity of vocabulary is a major stumbling block when assessment of reading

success hinges entirely on the IELTS exam. The gap in perception of difficulty is another
contributing barrier to students’ reading: perhaps the vocabulary pre-taught by teachers is
not sufficient to provide students with ease when reading. Thus students fail at the first
unknown word and consequently stop reading. If these two factors are not addressed it is
unlikely that the UAE’s IELTS reading scores will improve to match levels of attainment
in other Arab countries and other international countries.
One recommendation to overcome this is to devise a plan where high-frequency

vocabulary is introduced, such as memorization exercises. Indeed Grabe and Stoller (2002)
promoted this automatic word recognition as a fundamental requirement for fluent reading
comprehension. However, it is also important for students to realize that they will not
understand every word and therefore these exercises above should be combined with an
extensive reading programme similar to the Furukawa’s (2006) Start with Simple Stories
(SSS). These involve the use of graded readers where the three rules are: not to use
dictionaries, skip unknown words and get a new book if the present one is boring. The
61
focus on ease and fun would make this an attractive method for Emirati learners where
reading has rarely been associated with being easy or enjoyable.
At present, IELTS preparation courses involve numerous exam technique exercises with
little focus on top down processes. Both top-down and bottom-up processes need to be
developed and emphasized consistently by ESL teachers in the UAE. For this to be
effective, teachers need to consciously redistribute the balance of their focus on skills
within the classroom. Many texts can be literally incomprehensible without world
knowledge and therefore this development is paramount. Reading short newspaper articles
on varying topics will ensure that students increase their awareness of issues and ideas that
shape the world. To stimulate students interest it may be beneficial to start with items of
local interest and expand slowly. Also, in line with the orality of the UAE, one could start
by reading aloud with the students whilst they follow the text. This would assist in
developing bottom up processes such as phonics and spelling - always weak in Emiratis
due to the distance between the Arabic and English orthographies and the way English as
an L2 has been taught in schools.
As we have identified, current educational and cultural attitudes towards reading in the
UAE need to be addressed and this researcher is happy to see the current drive that has
started to address this reading deficit. According to HE Dr Al-Khaili, Director General of
Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC) a historic transformation plan is underway towards
creating the highest quality, comprehensive system of education based on world-class
standards and expertise. Highlights from the plan (to be implemented from September
2009) include:
- employing UK qualified teachers to develop and implement the L2 curriculum in

primary schools. This will hopefully ensure that bottom-up processes of reading are
introduced, practiced and achieved.
- amending the current curricula with an increased focus on humanities thereby
broadening background knowledge.
- focusing less on memorisation and more on problem solving and analytical skills.
62
Additionally, the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation in Dubai has also
recognised the need to empower future generations through knowledge and education and
is actively promoting reading amongst UAE children as a lifelong habit along with an
awareness of the high value of books.
By combining these cultural initiatives with ESL teachers’ classroom practices it is hoped
that the reading habit, and ultimately education, will develop and prosper in the UAE.
5.3 Conclusion
It is my opinion that the UAE’s IELTS results have maybe been distorted through a
mismatch between the abilities and wants of the participants and the wants of the sponsor.
To improve the success of Government sponsored adult L2 educational programmes, it is
vital that goals of the individuals and sponsor are adequately assessed through detailed
needs analysis (both present and target). A comprehensive understanding of the rationale
behind various international assessments (e.g. IELTS, TOEFL) will make it possible for
educators to more effectively align requirements. Failing this it may be necessary to
diverge from established testing and design a local evaluation with which to measure
candidates’ progress.
Reading in Arabic can be a self educational tool that allows independent development of
vocabulary and knowledge whilst providing pleasure. It is a lifelong skill which, when
acquired, will ensure the participant has an enjoyable and beneficial pastime. The alarming
decline of reading as a knowledge acquisition tool in the Arab world has been perceived as
a literacy issue. There is a huge deficit in the literacy practices of Emiratis and reading
habits are not embedded in society; thus any skills acquired are not practiced. Reading in
L1 is a difficult skill to acquire, with diglossia and antiquated teaching methods presenting
huge barriers. It is therefore gratifying to note the steps being taken within the Emirates to
ensure that a reading culture is established. In the fast changing world of the UAE, the
revered tradition of orality is not, I believe, an adequate one and needs to be rooted by
strong reading habits.
63
From the results above, it is evident that some Emirati students attending English courses
are at present ill-prepared due to their lack of established reading habits. Although English
as an L2 is part of the curriculum from a young age, it appears the teaching is confined to
grammar-based exercises, rote learning and copious script copying. Steps are now in
progress to implement a strong L2 curriculum in all Government primary schools;
nevertheless, ESL teachers cannot afford to wait for the fruition of these schemes. We must
seize the current opportunity to enable our learners to develop their extensive reading
practices both in and out of the classroom. I believe this is not only a luxury afforded to
individual students but of National import if the UAE is going to maintain and advance in
the international arena.
64
Bibliography
Aebersold, J.A. and Field, M.L. (1997). From Reading to Reading Teacher: Issues and
Strategies for Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J.C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: a reading problem or a language

problem? In J.C. Alderson and A. H. Urquhart (eds.), Reading in a Foreign Language.
London: Longman.
Al Omari, J. (2003). The Arab Way. Oxford, Uk. How to Books Ltd.
Ammon, M.S. (1987). Patterns of performance among bilingual children who score low in
reading. In S.R. Goldman & H.T. Trueba (Eds.). Becoming literate in English as a second
language, pp. 71-105. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Anderson, N.J. (1994). Developing active readers: a pedagogical framework for the second
language reading class. System, 22, 177-194.
Anderson, R.C. & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in
reading. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research vol. 2. White Plains, NY: Longman, 255-292.
Apple, M.W. (1996). Cultural Politics and Education. Buckingham. Open University
Press.
Arnold, J. (Ed.) (1999). Affect in language learning. Cambridge. Cambridge University

Press.
Auerbach, E. & Burgess, D. (1985). The Hidden Curriculum of Survival ESL. TESOL
Quarterly 19 (3): 475-495.
Ayari, S. (1996). Diglossia and illiteracy in the Arab world. Language Culture and
Curriculum, 9, 243–253.
65
Ayish, M. (2008). Literacy and a reading culture are not the same thing. The National, 3
November. Retrieved July 2009 from
www.thenational.ae/article/20081103/OPINION/790592041/1080/NEWS.
Bacon, S.M. & Finnemann, M.D. (1990). A study of the attitudes, motives, and strategies
of university foreign language students and their disposition to authentic oral and written
input. Modern Language Journal 74/4, pp. 459-473.
Balliro, L (1993). What kind of alternative? Examining Alternative Assessment. TESOL

Quarterly, Volume 27. No 3, Special Topic Issues: Adult Literacies.
Bamford, J. and Day, R.R. (1997). "Extensive Reading: What is it? Why bother?" The
Language Teacher, 21(5):6-8, 12.
Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy Practices, in D. Barton, M. Hamilton and R.

Ivanic (eds) Situational Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context (pp 7-16). Routledge
London.
Bell, J.S. (1995). The Relationship Between LI and L2 Literacy: Some Complicating
Factors TESOL Quarterly Vol. 29, No. 4, Winter 1995.
Bernhardt, E. & Kamil, M. (1995). Interpreting Relationships between L1 and L2 Reading:

Consolidating the Linguistic Threshold and the Linguistic Interdependence Hypotheses.
Applied Linguistics, Volume 16, No 1.
Bernhardt, E.B. (1991). Reading development in a second-language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bhatia, V.K. (2002). Applied genre analysis: Analytical advances and pedagogical
procedures In: A.M. Johns, Editors, Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ , pp. 279–284.
Blonski Hardin, V. (2001). Transfer and variation in cognitive reading strategies of Latino
fourth-grade students in a late-exit bilingual program. Bilingual research journal, October
2001. Accessed August 2009 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/IP3-117916498-html.
66
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M and Robson, K. (2001). Focus Groups in Social
Research. Introducing Qualitative Methods, Sage: London, Thousand Oaks and New
Delhi.
Bossers, B. (1991). On thresholds, ceilings, and short circuits: The relation between L1
reading, L2 reading, and L2 knowledge. AILA Review 8, 45-60.
Breen, M.P., Barratt-Pugh, C., Derewianka, B., House, H., Hudson, C., Lumley, T. and
Rohl, M. (1997). Profiling ESL children: how teachers interpret and use national and
state assessment frameworks. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training
and Youth Affairs.
Britten, N. (2008). Reading to children daily 'improves achievement and behaviour at

school. Daily Telegraph. Retrieved July 2009.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/3918675/Reading-to-children-daily-
improves-achievement-and-behaviour-at-school.html.
Brizius, J. & Foster, S. (1987). Enhancing adult literacy: A policy guide. Washington, DC:
The Council of State Policy and Planning Agencies.
Camiciottoli Crawford, B. (2001). Extensive reading in English: habits and attitudes of a

group of Italian university EFL students. Journal of Research in Reading, Vol 24,Issue
2,pp 135-153.
Canale, M., Frenette, N. & Belanger, M. (1988). Evaluation of minority student writing in
first and second languages. In J. Fine (Ed.), Second language discourse: A textbook of
current research. Volume xxv. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Carrell. P.L. (1991). Second Language reading: Reading ability or Language proficiency?
Applied Linguistics, 12, 159-179.
Carrell, P.L. (1988). Interactive text processing: Implications for ESL/second language
reading classrooms. In P.L. Carrell, J. Devine & D.E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches
to second language reading. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, p. 239-277.
Carrell, P.L. (1987). Readability in ESL. Reading in Foreign Language, 4(1), 21-40.
67
Carrell, P.L. (1981). Culture-specific schemata in L2 comprehension. In R. Orem & J.F.
Haskell (Eds.), Selected papers from the ninth Illinois TESOL/BE (pp. 123-132). Chicago,
Illinois: Illinois TESOL/BE.
Carrell, P.L. & Eisterhold, J.C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL
Quarterly. 17, 553-573.
Carrell, P.L., Pharis, B.G. & Liberto, J.C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL
reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), p.647-678.
Carson, J. (1991). Becoming Biliterate: L1 influences. Paper presented at the 25th Annual
TESOL Convention, New York.
Carson, J., Carrell, P., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B. & Kuehn, P. (1990). Reading-Writing
Relationships in First and Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, Vol 24,No. 2.
Chejne, A. (1965). The Arabic language: its role in history. University of Minnesota Press.
Minneapolis,USA.
Clarke, M.A. (1979). Reading in Spanish and English: Evidence from adult ESL students.
Language Learning, 29, 121-150.
Cohen, A.D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. Wenden

& J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 55-69). New York: Prentice
Hall.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational

success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A
theoretical framework. Los Angeles: California State University; Evaluation,
Dissemination, and Assessment Center.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of

bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, pp. 222-251.
Cunningsworth, A. (1984). Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching materials. London:

Heinemann.
68
Currie, P. & Cray, E. (2004). ESL literacy: language practice or social practice? Journal of
Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 111–132.
Davis, J. & Bistodeau, L. (1993). How do L1 and L2 Reading Differ? Evidence from
Think Aloud Protocols. The Modern Language Journal, 77, iv.
Day, R. R. and Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom.
Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Department of Employment, Education and Training (1990). The Language of Australia:

A Discussion Paper on an Australian Language and Literacy Policy for the 90’s Canberra:
AGPS.
Devine, J. (1988). The relationship between general language competence and second
language reading proficiency: Implications for teaching. In P.L. Carrell, J. Devine & D.E.
Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 260-277.
Devine, J. (1984). ESL readers’ internalized models of the reading process. In J.

Handscombe, R. Orem & B. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL ’83. Washington: TESOL, 95-108.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction,

administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dubin, F. & Kuhlman, N.A. (1992). The dimensions of cross-cultural literacy. In F. Dubin
& N.A. Kuhlman (Eds.) Cross-cultural literacy: Global perspectives on reading and writing
(pp. v-x). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.
Duffy, G.G. & Roehler, L.R. (1989). Why strategy instruction is so difficult and what we
need to do about it. In G. Miller, C. McCormick & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy
research: From basic research to educational applications (pp. 133-154). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Edge, J. (1994). Comments on Donald Freeman and Jack C. Richards's "Conceptions of

teaching and the education of second language teachers: A reader reacts." TESOL
Quarterly, 28, 2, 395-400.
69
Eisterhold, J.C. (1990). Reading-writing connections: Toward a description for second
language learners. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the
classroom (pp. 88–101). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Eskey, D.E. and Grabe, W. (1988). "Interactive Models for Second Language Reading:
Perspectives on Instruction," in Carrell, P.L., Devine, J. and Eskey, D.E. (eds) (1988)
Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: CUP.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. Harlow: Longman.
Fender, M. (2008). Spelling knowledge and reading development: Insights from Arab ESL
learners Reading in a Foreign Language April 2008, Volume 20, No. 1 pp. 19–42.
Fender, M. (2003). English word recognition and word integration skills of native Arabic-
and Japanese-speaking learners of English as a second language. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 24, 289–315.
Ferdman, B.M. (1990). Literacy and Cultural Identity. Harvard Educational Review 60, 2:
181-204.
Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Press.
Furukawa, A. (2006). Start with Simple Stories and enjoy reading.

http://www.seg.co.jp/sss/english/index.html.Retrieved November 2008.
Gallagher, C. (2000). Writing across genres. The Language Teacher. 24, 7, p. 14.
Gardner, R.C. (1980). On the validity of affective variables in second language acquisition:
conceptual, contextual and statistical considerations. Language Learning 30, pp. 255-270.
Garner, R. & Alexander, P.A. (1994). Beliefs about text and instruction with text.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gee, J. (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses (second edition).
London: Falmer Press.
70
Gobert, M. (2009). Key Findings from Research and Implications for the classroom. In:
Anderson, D. & Mcguire, M. (eds) Cultivating Real Readers. Abu Dhabi: HCT Press,
pp.53-63.
Goody, J. (1986). The Logic of Writing and the Organisation of Society. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Goody, J. (1977). The domestication of the savage mind. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in Second Language Reading Research. TESOL

Quarterly,25(3),p.375-406.
Grabe, W. (1988). "Reassessing the Term ‘Interactive’", in Carrell, P.L., Devine, J. and
Eskey, D.E. (eds) (1988) Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading.
Cambridge: CUP.
Grabe, W. & Stoller, F.L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. New York: Longman.
Hafiz, F.M. & Tudor, I. (1989). Extensive Reading and the development of Language
skills. ELT Journal,34 (1),p.5-13.
Hall, E.T. (1982). Context and meaning. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural
communication: A reader. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Heath, S. B. (1986). Socio-cultural contexts of language development. In Beyond

language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 143-
186). Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education, Sacramento, Bilingual
Education Office. [ED 304 241] .
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language: Life and Work in Communities and
Classrooms. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Hedgcock, J. & Atkinson, D. (1993). Differing Reading-Writing Relationships in L1 and

L2 Literacy Development? TESOL Quarterly, v27 n2 p329-33.
71
Hirsch, L. (1988). Language across the curriculum: A model for ESL students in content
courses. In S. Benesch (ed.) Ending remediation: Linking ESL and content in higher
education. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Historic transformation for education. ADEC outlines 10 year plan. AME June 29 2009.
Retrieved July 2009. http://www.ameinfo.com/202101.html.
Hitti, P.K. (1958). History of the Arabs. Macmillan. New York.
Ibraheem Muhanna, M. (1990). Educational Wastage in the General Education of the Gulf
States. Arab Bureau of Education for the Gulf States.
Ibrahim, M.H. (1983). Linguistic distance and literacy in Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 7,
p. 507-515.
IELTS test results. Data retrieved from IELTS Website, April 2009.
http://www.ielts.org/researchers/analysis_of_test_data.aspx.
Hallow, R., Lisboa, M., Unwin, M. (2006). IELTS express Intermediate Coursebook.
London. Thomson ELT.
Janesick, V.J. (2000). The Choreography of Qualitative Research Design –Minutes,

Improvisations and Crystallization in N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 379-399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jazzar, M.R. (1991). A probe into Arab home literacy and its impact on college students’
reading ability in Arabic and English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.
Johnson, P. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural

background of a text. TESOL Quarterly, 15(2), 169-181.
Keller-Cohen, D. (1986). Reading periodic bills. AILA Review 3, 61–70.
Kharma, N. & Hajjaj, A. (1989). Errors in English among Arabic speakers: Analysis and
Remedy. Longman. London.
72
Khoury, S.B. & Berger, G. (2005). How do students really read? Reading strategies in a
UAE context. In P.Davidson,M. Al-Hamly, M.A. Khan, J. Aydelott, C. Coombe, S. Troudi
(eds.), Proceedings of the 10th TESOL Arabia Conference: standards in English Language
Teaching and Assessment, 9, 121-132. Dubai. TESOL Arabia.
King, G. (1986). How not to lie with statistics: Avoiding common mistakes in quantitative
political science. American Journal of Political Science, 13, p. 666-68.
Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, Theory & Applications. Laredo. Beverly Hills.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence

for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, p.440-462.
LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing
in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Lancaster Literacy Study (clock face activity). Retrieved in March 2009.

www.lancs.ac.uk/.../Resources%20for%20your%20own%20research.doc.
Lerche, R.S. (1985). Effective adult literacy programs: A practitioner’s guide. New York:
Cambridge Book Company.
Lewis, M. & Wray, D. (1992). Writing frames: scaffolding children's non-fiction writing
in a range of genres. Exeter: The Exeter Extending Literacy Project.
Lonsdale, M., Dyson, M. & Reynolds, L. (2006). Reading in examination-type situations:

the effects of text layout on performance. Journal of Research in Reading, Volume
29,Issue 4, pp. 433-453.
Luke, A. (1996). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse

analysis. In Apple, M.W. (Ed), Review of Research in Education 21, 3-48. Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Maamouri, M. (1998). Literacy in the Arab region: An overview. International Literacy

Handbook (Wagner, D.A., Venesky, R.L., Street, B.R.) (eds), p. 400-404. Westview press.
USA.
73
Matwiejczyk, R. & Rees, D. (1998). Some Criteria for Examining and Selecting Texts.
ESL in the mainstream teacher development course: Participants’ Manual (pp.130-140).
The State of South Australia: Department of Education and Children Services.
Mayor, B., Hewings, A., North, S. and Swann, J. (2000). A linguistic analysis of Chinese
and Greek L1 scripts for IELTS Academic Writing Task 2. Report from study conducted
under the IELTS joint-funded research program.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Milton, J. & Hopkins, N. (2006). Comparing phonological and orthographic vocabulary

size: Do vocabulary tests underestimate the knowledge of some learners. The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 63, 127–147.
Mograby, A. (1999). Human development in the United Arab Emirates. Education and the
Arab world. Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research. UAE.
Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum foundation - the reading strategy. Retrieved July
2009. http://www.mbrfoundation.ae/English/Culture/Pages/ReadingStrategy.aspx.
Moran, C., & Williams, E. (1993). Survey review: recent materials for the teaching of
reading at intermediate level and above. ELT Journal, 47 (1), 64-84.
Mustapha Ghasoub, S.H. (2002). English Language teaching and learning at Government
schools in the UAE. University of Exeter. Unpublished doctoral thesis.
Nisbet. J. & Shucksmith, J. (1988). Learning Strategies. New York: Routledge, Chapman
and Hall Inc.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and Language Learning (Language in Social Life). Pearson
ESL.
Nuttall, C. (1982). Teaching Reading skills in a foreign language. London. Heinemann

Educational.
74
Oller, J.W. Jr., & Perkins, K. (1978a). Intelligence and language proficiency as sources of
variance in self-reported affective variables. Language Learning 28/1, pp 85-97.
O’Sullivan, A. (2004). Reading and Arab College students: Issues in the United Arab
Emirates Higher Colleges of Technology. Retrieved August, 2009 from The Reading
Matrix website http://www.readingmatrix.com/conference/pp/proceedings/sullivan.pdf.
Pathways - Al Jazeera 27 December 2005 (Television broadcast). Doha: Al Jazeera

(transcript). Cited in Khoury, S. & Duzgun, S. (2009). Reading habits of Young Emirati
Women from the East Coast. In: Anderson, D. & Mcguire, M., (eds) Cultivating Real
Readers. Abu Dhabi: HCT Press, pp.25-34.
Peacock, M. (1996). Motivating EFL learners in the classroom with authentic materials.
English Language Teaching Journal 50.
Peacock, M. (nd). Truthfulness in learner interviews on empirical investigation

www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics. Retrieved March, 2009.
Perfetti, C.A. (1986). Reading Ability. New York. Oxford University Press.
Powell, R. (1999). Literacy as a Moral Imperative: Facing the Challenges of a Pluralistic

Society.USA. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1996b). Literacy practices of adult learners. In J. Comings, The

National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL). Grant proposal
submitted to Office for Educational Research and Improvement (CFDA#84.309B).
Washington, DC: Office for Educational Research and Improvement.
Rababah, G. (2003). Communication problems facing Arab learners of English: A personal

perspective. TEFL web journal, Vol 2 No 1, p.13-30.
Roig, D. (2009). Hooked on Books. The National newspaper.

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090601/LIFE/705319971.
Retrieved June 2009.
75
Rumelhart, D.E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (ed.),
Attention and Performance IV. New York, NY: AcademicPress.
Ryan, A. (1997). Learning the orthographical form of L2 vocabulary: A receptive and

productive process. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description,
acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 181–198). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Saffarini, R. (2005). Arabic to English. Gulf News. Dubai.
Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2003). Linguistic distance and initial reading acquisition: The case of
Arabic diglossia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 431–51.
Sayed, S. (2001). Women and governance in the UAE. Women and Sustainable
Development in the Arab World, Abu Dhabi: United Arab Emirates.
Scribner, S. (1977). Modes of thinking and ways of speaking: culture and logic
reconsidered. Discourse production and comprehension (ed. R. Freedle), Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ. Reprinted in: Mind and social practice: selected writings of Sylvia Scribner
(ed. E. Tobach, R. Joffe-Falmange, M. Parlee, L. Martin, and A. Scribner) (1997).
Cambridge University Press
Shaheen, K. (2009). Search for a new chapter in Arabic youth fiction. The National
newspaper. Accessed July 2009. http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20090912/NATIONAL/709119793
Shanahan, T. & Lomax, R. (1986). An Analysis and Comparison of Theoretical Models of

the Reading-Writing Relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, (2), 116-123.
Shannon, J. (2003). Getting Gulf Students to enjoy reading. Perspectives, 11/1, p. 21-24.
Shaw, K.E., Badri, A.A.M.A. & Hukul, A. (1995). Management concerns in the United
Arab Emirates state schools. International Journal of Educational Management, Volume 9,
No. 4.
Sheldon, L.E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. English Language
Teaching Journal 42/4, pp. 237-246.
76
Shen, M (2008).EFL learners’ responses to extensive reading: survey and pedagogical
applications. The Reading Matrix, Vol 8,No 2.
Shimoda, T. (1989). The effects of interesting examples and topic familiarity on text
comprehension, attention, and reading speed. Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2),
93-103.
Shouby, E. (1951). The influence of the Arabic language on the psychology of the Arabs.
Middle East Journal, 5, p. 284-302.
Singhal (1998). A Comparison of L1 & L2 reading. Cultural differences and schema.

Internet Tesl Journal, Vol IV No 10. http://www.aitech.ac.jp/niteslj/Articles/Singhal-
ReadingL1L2.html. Accessed August 2009.
Street, B. (2003). Alternative Approaches to Literacy Development. Paper to Unesco Brazil

Teleconference on ‘Literacy and Diversity’.
Street, B. (1993). Cross-Cultural Approaches to Literacy. Cambridge UK. Cambridge

University Press.
Strickland, G. (1936). The Reading Mother in Best Loved Poems of the American People.
New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell.
Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge: CUP
The problem with Arabic Literature. (2009). The Khaleej Times. Retrieved February 2009.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?
section=weekend&xfile=data/weekend/2009/february/weekend_february53.xml.
The Kids’ and Family Reading Report™ (2008). Conducted by Yankelovich & Scholastic.
Retrieved July 2009.http://www.scholastic.com/aboutscholastic/news/readingreport.htm.
Taylor, M. (2008). Orthographic and phonological awareness among L1 Arabic ESL

learners: A quasi-experimental study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Phoenix, Arizona.
77
Thompson-Panos & Thomas-Ruzic (1983). The least you should know about Arabic:
implications for the ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 17(4), p. 609-623.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W. Gudykunst, L.

Stewart & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture and organizational processes.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
UNESCO (2008). Literacy report. Retrieved July 2009.

http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/Literacy/LiteracyReport2008.pdf.
Wallace, C. (1997). IELTS: global implications of curriculum and materials design. ELT
Journal, Volume 51/4
Wallace, C. (1995). Reading with a suspicious eye: Critical reading in the foreign language
classroom. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds), Principle and practice in applied linguistics
(pp.335-347), Oxford, England. OUP.
Wallace, C. (1992). Reading. Oxford. OUP.
Weinstein-Shr, G. (1992). Family and Intergenerational Literacy in Multilingual Families.

ERIC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378 848).
Widdowson, H.G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Williams, J. (2006). Reading habits in Arabic and English: A case study in the United
Arab Emirates. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Dundee, UK.
Williams, M. & Burden, R.L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social
Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wrigley, H.S. and G.J.A. Guth. (1992). Adult ESL Literacy: Programs and Practices. San
Mateo, CA
Yegen, V. (2007). Research Paper, Western English Language School, Australia website
http://www.esl-wels.vic.edu.au/content.cfm?content=184.
78
Young, C. (2002). First language first: literacy education for the future in a multilingual
Philippine society. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 5: 221-
232.
Yu, V. (1993). ER Programs: How can they best benefit the teaching and learning of
English? TESL Reporter,26,p. 1-9.
Zughoul, M.R. (2003). Globalization and the EFL/ESL pedagogy in the Arab World.
Journal of Language and Learning, Volume 1, Number 2.
79
Appendices
Appendix 1.1: IELTS Results 2008
Mean band score for most frequent countries of origin (General Training)
Listening Reading Writing Speaking Overall
80
81
Mean band scores for most common first languages (General Training)
Data retrieved from IELTS Website, April 2009,

http://www.ielts.org/researchers/analysis_of_test_data.aspx
82
Appendix 3.1: Clock Face
(retrieved in April 2009 from Lancaster Literacy Study:
www.lancs.ac.uk/.../Resources%20for%20your%20own%20research.doc).
Please write on the clock where you use English during the day.
There is an example of this on the screen in front of you.
Please ask the teacher if you need help.
This is for research and is not part of your course record.
Do you need English for anything else? Yes No
If yes please write here –
83
AM
84
PM
85
Appendix 3.2: Learner Questionnaire
Dear Participant,
I am gathering information about what you read and write in English and Arabic outside
the classroom. Please complete these charts by ticking (√) the appropriate box.
Thank you in advance for you cooperation.
In English
Every Every Every Once a Never
day week month year
How often do you write at home?
1. Lists e.g. shopping, things to do

2. Text messages
3. Calendar notes
4. Letters/postcards to friends(informal)
5. E-mails to friends
6. Cards for special days e.g. birthdays,Eid
7. Diaries
8. Poetry
9. Short stories
10. Thank you letters
11. Invitations
12. Forms
13. Letters to bank(formal)
14. Job Application
15. Instructions/directions
How often do you write any of the below at

work?
1. Notes( for self)

2. Letters(formal)
3. Emails
4. Reports
5. Complaints
6. Minutes of Meetings
7. Instructions
86
In Arabic
day week month year
How often do you write at home?

2. Text messages
3. Calendar notes
4. Letters/postcards to friends(informal)
5. E-mails to friends
6. Cards for special days e.g. birthdays,Eid
7. Diaries
8. Poetry
9. Short stories
10. Thank you letters
11. Invitations
12. Forms
13. Letters to bank(formal)
14. Job Application
15. Instructions/directions
How often do you write any of the below at

work?
1. Notes( for self)

2. Letters(formal)
3. Emails
4. Reports
5. Complaints
7. Instructions
87
In English
day week month year
How often do you read at home?

2. Text messages
3. Bills/bank statements
4. Letters/postcards from friends(informal)
5. E-mails from friends
6. Menus at restaurants
7. Newspaper
Which ones?______________________
8. Poetry
9. Novels/non-fiction
10. Magazines
Which ones?______________________
11. Song lyrics
12. Forms
13. Letters from school
14. Phone numbers /addresses
15. Instructions/directions/maps
How often do you read any of the below at work?
1. To do list
2. Letters(formal)
3. Emails
4. Reports
5. Complaints
7. Legal documents
88
In Arabic
day week month year
How often do you read at home?
1 Lists e.g. shopping, things to do

2 Text messages
3 Bills/bank statements
4 Letters/postcards from friends(informal)
5 E-mails from friends
6 Menus at restaurants
7 Newspaper
8 Poetry
9 Novels/non-fiction
10 Magazines
11 Song lyrics
12 Forms
13 Letters from school
14 Phone numbers /addresses
15 Instructions/directions/maps
How often do you read any of the below at work?
8. To do list
9. Letters(formal)
10. Emails
11. Reports
12. Complaints
14. Legal documents
89
Appendix 3.3: IELTS Teacher Questionnaire
Please review the attached sample IELTS texts and rate the following statements
(5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Undecided; 2=Disagree and 1=Strongly Disagree)
Teacher Questionnaire 5 4 3 2 1
Reading
1. The Text is a genre the Students are familiar with.
2. The language is the right level for the Students.
3. The Students are familiar with the story.
4. The Students would find the vocabulary difficult.
5. The Students would often (at least every week) read this type of Text.
Thank you for your cooperation. Your participation is very much appreciated. Results of the
research will be made available at a later date for your perusal.
Sandra
90
Appendix 3.4: IELTS Student Questionnaire
Please review the attached sample IELTS texts and rate the following statements
(5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Undecided; 2=Disagree and 1=Strongly Disagree)
Students Questionnaire 5 4 3 2 1
1. I am familiar with this type of text
2. The language is the right level for me.
3. I am familiar with the topic/story(if applicable)
4. I find the vocabulary difficult
5. I often(at least once a week) read this type of text
Thank you for your co operation. Your participation is very much appreciated. Results of the
research will be made available at a later date for your perusal.
91
Appendix 3.5: IELTS reading Task
(From Hallow, R., Lisboa, M., Unwin, M. (2006). IELTS express
Intermediate Coursebook. p. 42)
92
Appendix 3.6: Focus Forum Group Agenda
Overview of literacy background
- What reading and writing in Arabic and English did you do in school and after
school ?(growing up)
- Did your parents read stories to you as a small child? If so were they in
Arabic/English/both?
- Did you write stories as a child? In Arabic or English?
Overview of Context
- Why do you think you need to read/write in English?

- Where would you use English to read and write
- Would you ever use English to read or write in the UAE? If yes, where and when?
Overview of Texts
- What do you most commonly read in English?

- What do you most commonly write in English?
- What type of text do you find most difficult to read and why?(to assist show copies
of authentic text and text from the course-book)
- What type of text do you find most difficult to write and why?(to assist show
copies of authentic text and text from the course-book)
Perception
- Do you think what is in the IELTS course is similar to what you read/write outside
the classroom?
- How do you think the teachers can teach reading and writing better?
- What types of texts would you like to be reading/writing in class?
93
Appendix 3.7: Teacher Interview Questions
1. How long have you taught this group?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
2. What are your priorities for this group?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
3. How often do your students write in the classroom? What do they write?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
4. Why do you think they need to write?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
5. What types of texts do you think they should write and for what purpose?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
6. How often do your students read in class? What types of texts do they read?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
94
7. What types of text do they need to read and in what contexts?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
8. Do you think the reading and writing content of the course will meet the goals
specific to your learners? Please clarify your answer:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
9. In your opinion, are the reading and writing tasks and the contexts used in the
IELTS course book authentic and relevant? Please clarify your answer:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
10. Do your learners appear interested in any the reading and writing tasks? Can you
please give an example:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
And Finally,
11. What helpful ways of learning would be helpful to encourage good reading and
writing practices?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
95
Westminster School of Education
Appendix 3.8: Ethics Review Checklist
Project Title: An investigation of out of classroom literacy practices of Emirati ESL
students .
Researcher: Sandra West
Supervisor (in the case of student projects): Jane Spiro
Part One
YES NO
1. Could the research induce psychological stress or anxiety, cause harm  √

or have negative consequences for the participants (beyond the risks
encountered in their normal lifestyles)?
2. Will deception of participants be necessary during the study?  √
3. Will the study involve prolonged or repetitive testing?  √
4. Will the research involve medical procedures?  √
5. Will financial inducements (other than reasonable expenses or  √

compensation for time) be offered to participants?
6. Will you be unable to obtain permission to involve children under sixteen  √

from the school or parents?
7. Are there problems with the participants’ right to remain anonymous, or  √

to have the information they give not identifiable as theirs?
8. Is the right to withdraw from the study at any time withheld, or not made  √
explicit?
9. Does the study involve participants who are particularly vulnerable (e.g.  √
people with leaning difficulties or emotional problems, people with
difficulty with understanding and/or communication)?
96
If you have answered NO to all of questions 1-9 you do not need to apply for ethics approval,
though you should keep a copy of this checklist, and you are reminded of your responsibility to
maintain vigilance regarding ethics. When any doubt arises about any aspect of the ethics of your
study you discuss this with your supervisor; and should apply for ethics approval.
If you have answered YES to any of questions 1-9 please complete PART TWO of this form below
and submit the form to the Institute of Education Research Ethics Officer.
Part Two
Project Title
Researcher
Supervisor
Summary of issue and action to be taken to address the ethics problem
Signed: Date:
(Researcher)
To be completed by Institute of Education Research Ethics Officer
 Appropriate action taken to maintain ethical standards – no further

action necessary
 Please submit application for ethics approval (Form EE2)
Signed:
Date:
97
98
Appendix 4.1: Reading Frequencies Collated from the Questionnaire
Reading
English Arabic
Every day Every week Every month Once a year Never Mean Mode SD Every day Every week Every month Once a year Never Mean Mode SD
Home
Lists 2 2 5 1 3 2.92 3.00 1.25 3 7 1 1 1 3.77 4.00 1.17
Text messages 3 1 3 2 4 2.77 1.00 1.59 9 4 0 0 0 4.69 5.00 0.48
Bills/Bank statements 2 2 6 1 2 3.08 3.00 1.26 4 0 5 1 3 3.08 3.00 1.55
Letters/postcards 1 2 2 1 7 2.15 1.00 1.46 2 0 5 4 2 2.69 3.00 1.25
Emails 3 1 4 2 3 2.92 3.00 1.50 5 2 3 0 2 3.38 5.00 1.50
Menus 3 5 2 2 1 3.54 4.00 1.27 2 3 6 0 2 3.23 3.00 1.24
forms 0 0 5 3 5 2.00 3.00 0.91 0 3 6 1 3 2.69 3.00 1.11
Letters formal 1 1 1 1 9 1.77 1.00 1.36 1 3 2 3 5 2.62 1.00 1.40
Phone numbers/address 4 4 3 1 1 3.69 1.25 4 3 3 1 2 3.46 5.00 1.45
Instructions/directions 1 0 4 1 7 2.00 1.00 1.35 1 1 5 2 4 2.46 3.00 1.27
Subtotal 1 20 18 35 15 42 2.68 31 26 36 13 24 3.21
Newspaper 2 0 3 4 4 2.38 2.00 1.39 8 0 4 1 0 4.15 5.00 1.14

Poetry 1 0 0 1 11 1.38 1.00 1.12 0 1 5 2 5 2.15 3.00 1.07
Novels/non-fiction 1 1 0 0 11 1.54 1.00 1.33 1 2 5 1 4 2.62 3.00 1.33
magazines 1 2 4 3 3 2.62 3.00 1.26 0 8 3 1 1 3.38 4.00 0.96
lyrics 1 2 0 3 7 2.00 1.00 1.41 0 3 3 1 6 2.23 1.00 1.30
Subtotal 2 6 5 7 11 36 1.98 9 14 20 6 16 2.91
Reading
English Arabic
Every day Every week Every month Once a year Never Mean Mode SD Every day Every week Every month Once a year Never Mean Mode SD
Work
To do list 1 1 4 0 7 2.15 1.00 1.41 7 4 1 0 1 4.23 5.00 1.17
Formal letters 2 1 1 2 7 2.15 1.00 1.57 8 1 2 2 0 4.15 5.00 1.21
Emails 1 1 3 1 7 2.08 1.00 1.38 4 2 4 0 3 3.31 5.00 1.55
Complaints 0 1 1 4 7 1.69 1.00 0.95 3 2 3 4 1 3.15 2.00 1.34
Legal documents 0 2 2 2 7 1.92 1.00 1.19 7 1 0 1 4 3.46 5.00 1.90
Subtotal 3 4 6 11 9 35 2.00 29 10 10 7 9 3.66
Reports 0 3 2 1 7 2.08 1.00 1.37 5 3 3 1 1 3.77 5.00 1.30

Minutes of Meetings 1 1 1 4 6 2.00 1.00 1.29 4 2 3 2 2 3.31 5.00 1.49
Subtotal 4 1 4 3 5 13 2.04 9 5 6 3 3 3.54
99
Appendix 4.2: Writing Frequencies Collated from the Questionnaire
Writing English Arabic

frequency Every day Every week Every month Once a year Never Mean Mode SD Every day Every week Every month Once a year Never Mean Mode SD
5 4 3 2 1
Home
Lists 1 4 2 2 4 2.69 4.00 1.44 3 5 3 1 1 3.62 4.00 1.24
Text messages 4 1 3 2 3 3.08 5.00 1.61 11 1 0 0 1 4.62 5.00 1.12
Calendar notes 2 2 3 2 4 2.69 1.00 1.49 2 4 3 1 3 3.08 4.00 1.44
Letters/postcards (informal) 1 1 2 4 5 2.15 1.00 1.28 1 2 3 3 4 2.46 1.00 1.33
Emails 3 3 1 1 5 2.85 1.00 1.72 4 3 2 2 2 3.38 5.00 1.50
Birthday/Eid cards 0 0 3 5 5 1.85 1.00 0.80 1 0 3 6 3 2.23 2.00 1.09
Thank you letters 0 0 4 2 7 1.77 1.00 0.93 0 0 5 3 5 2.00 3.00 0.91
Invitations 1 0 0 1 11 1.38 1.00 1.12 1 2 5 3 2 2.77 3.00 1.17
Forms 0 1 3 8 1 2.31 2.00 0.75 0 0 3 7 3 2.00 2.00 0.71
Letters to Bank/school (formal) 0 1 2 2 8 1.69 1.00 0.75 0 0 4 7 2 2.15 2.00 0.69
Job Applications 0 0 1 6 6 1.62 2.00 0.65 0 0 2 6 5 1.77 2.00 0.73
Instructions/directions 0 1 2 5 5 1.92 2.00 0.95 0 3 2 4 4 2.31 2.00 1.18
Subtotal 1 12 14 26 40 64 2.17 23 20 35 43 35 2.70
Diaries 0 0 1 1 11 1.23 1.00 0.60 0 0 0 6 7 1.46 1.00 0.52

Poetry 1 0 1 1 10 1.54 1.00 1.20 0 1 3 2 7 1.85 1.00 1.07
Stories 0 2 2 2 7 1.92 1.00 1.19 1 1 2 1 8 1.92 1.00 1.38
Subtotal 2 1 2 4 4 28 1.56 1 2 5 9 22 1.74

Writing English Arabic
frequency Every day Every week Every month Once a year Never Mean Mode SD Every day Every week Every month Once a year Never Mean Mode SD
Work
Notes for self 3 3 3 0 4 3.08 1.00 1.61 6 4 0 0 3 3.77 5.00 1.64
Formal letters 2 1 1 1 7 2.00 1.00 1.64 6 2 3 0 2 3.77 5.00 1.48
Emails 1 1 0 3 9 1.85 1.00 1.27 2 3 2 1 5 2.69 1.00 1.60
Complaints 0 1 0 0 12 1.23 1.00 0.80 0 1 2 4 6 1.85 1.00 0.99
Instructions 0 1 0 2 10 1.38 1.00 0.87 1 2 5 1 4 2.62 3.00 1.33
Subtotal 3 6 7 4 6 42 1.91 15 12 12 6 20 2.94
Reports 0 1 1 3 8 1.62 1.00 0.96 1 2 4 3 3 2.62 3.00 1.26

Minutes of Meetings 1 1 0 1 10 1.62 1.00 1.33 2 1 3 1 6 2.38 1.00 1.56
Subtotal 4 1 2 1 4 18 1.62 3 3 7 4 9 2.50
100
101
Appendix 4.3: Reading Frequency by Genre Type
Home In In English(L2)
Arabic(L1)
Mean Mode SD Mean Mode SD
Functional
Lists 1.1 2.92
3.77 4.00 7 3.00 1.36
Text messages 0.4 2.77
4.69 5.00 8 1.00 1.59
Bills/Bank statements 1.5 3.08
3.08 3.00 5 3.00 1.26
Letters/postcards 1.2 2.15
2.69 3.00 5 1.00 1.46
Emails 1.5 2.92
3.38 5.00 0 3.00 1.50
Menus 1.2 3.54
3.23 3.00 4 4.00 1.27
forms 1.1 2.00
2.69 3.00 1 3.00 0.91
Letters formal 1.4 1.77
2.62 1.00 0 1.00 1.36
Phone numbers/address 1.4 3.69
3.46 5.00 5 5.00 1.25
Instructions/directions 1.2 2.00
2.46 3.00 7 1.00 1.35
3.21 2.68
Pleasure
Newspaper 1.1 2.38
4.15 5.00 4 2.00 1.39
Poetry 1.0 1.38
2.15 3.00 7 1.00 1.12
Novels/non-fiction 1.3 1.54
2.62 3.00 3 1.00 1.33
magazines 0.9 2.62
3.38 4.00 6 3.00 1.26
lyrics 1.3 2.00
2.23 1.00 0 1.00 1.41
2.91 1.98

Work

102
Functional
To do list 4.23 5.00 1.17 2.15 1.00 1.41
Formal letters 4.15 5.00 1.21 2.15 1.00 1.57
Emails 3.31 5.00 1.55 2.08 1.00 1.38
Complaints 3.15 2.00 1.34 1.69 1.00 0.95
Legal documents 3.46 5.00 1.90 1.92 1.00 1.19

3.66 2.00
General
understanding
Reports 3.77 5.00 1.30 2.08 1.00 1.37
Minutes of Meetings 3.31 5.00 1.49 2.00 1.00 1.29
3.54 2.04
103
Appendix 4.4: Writing Frequency by Genre Type
Home In Arabic(L1) In English(L2)

Mean Mode SD Mean Mode SD

Functional
Lists 3.62 4.00 1.24 2.69 4.00 1.44
Text messages 4.62 5.00 1.12 3.08 5.00 1.61
Calendar notes 3.08 4.00 1.44 2.69 1.00 1.49
Letters/postcards 2.46 1.00 1.33 2.15 1.00 1.28
Emails 3.38 5.00 1.50 2.85 1.00 1.72
Birthday/Eid cards 2.23 2.00 1.09 1.85 2.00 0.80
Thank you letters 2.00 3.00 0.91 1.77 1.00 0.93
Invitations 2.77 3.00 1.17 1.38 1.00 1.12
Forms 2.00 2.00 0.71 2.31 2.00 0.75
Letters to
Bank/school 2.15 2.00 0.69 1.69 1.00 0.75
Job Applications 1.77 2.00 0.73 1.62 2.00 0.65
Instructions/directions 2.31 2.00 1.18 1.92 2.00 0.95

2.70 2.17
Pleasure
Diaries 1.46 1.00 0.52 1.23 1.00 0.60
Poetry 1.85 1.00 1.07 1.54 1.00 1.20
Stories 1.92 1.00 1.38 1.92 1.00 1.19

1.74 1.56
Work
Functional
Notes for self 3.77 5.00 1.64 3.08 1.00 1.61
Formal letters 3.77 5.00 1.48 2.00 1.00 1.64
Emails 2.69 1.00 1.60 1.85 1.00 1.27
Complaints 1.85 5.00 0.99 1.23 1.00 0.80
Instructions 2.62 3.00 1.33 1.38 1.00 0.87

2.94 1.91
Gain understanding
Reports 2.62 3.00 1.26 1.62 1.00 0.96
Minutes of Meetings 2.38 5.00 1.56 1.62 1.00 1.33

2.50 1.62
104
105
Appendix 4.5: Focus Forum Group Results
Overview of literacy
background - RESULTS
- What reading and - Reading

writing in Arabic and - Arabic:
English did you do in - We read moral stories and poetry
school and after - English:
school? (growing up) - We read set conversations from a textbook/graded
readers.
- Writing
- Arabic:
- Compositions, reports, letters ,poetry, stories
- English:
- Letters, copy from books(script rather than
language).Grammar exercises
- Did your parents read - If literate, Parents would read the Newspaper and
stories to you as a the Holy Koran in Arabic. In English parents read
small child? If so the advertisement billboards or cookery books
were they in - Stories were never read in either language “Of
Arabic/English/both? course not”
- Do you read to your - No, only if I am not tired. I employ a tutor to study
children? If so, what? English with them.
- I will read Holy Koran/newspapers/schoolwork
- Did you write stories - Arabic essays for school only. Nothing in English
as a child? In Arabic
or English?
Overview of Context
-
- Why do you think - To improve English;important in life for the

you need to future(both at work and in family)To pass IELTS
read/write in English? and improve vocabulary
106
- Where would you use - Important to get information
English to read and
write
- Would you ever use - Reading

English to read or - restaurants, hospitals, airports, movies, internet,
write in the UAE? If reading prescriptions, texts, emails
yes, where and when? - Writing
- Shopping, hotels, text messages, MSN messenger,
emails, grocery lists
107
Overview of Texts
- -
- What do you most commonly write in - Text message

English?
- What do you most commonly read in English? - Newspaper(sports),

magazines (picture
captions)
- What type of text do you find most difficult to - Historical, facts ,non-
read and why?(to assist show copies of fiction
authentic text and text from the course-book)
- What type of text do you find most difficult to - Essays giving opinion as
write and why?(to assist show copies of don’t know the topic
authentic text and text from the course-book)
- What makes a text “easy” to read - Pictures ,interesting topic,

small number of
paragraphs, easy
vocabulary
- Perception -
- Do you think what is in the course-book is - Some not appropriate,

similar to what you read/write outside the some topics not relevant
classroom? (eg birthdays) list of
pictures not famous in
UAE maybe in UK
Reading:
- How do you think the teachers can teach Good books, give strategies,
reading and writing better? vocabulary, summarise texts, give
clear instructions, appropriate
level, practise
Writing
“Free” writing, grammar,
vocabulary lists, styles, practice,
correct all mistakes, techniques
108
- What types of texts would you like to be
reading in class( provide examples of
readers/newspapers/magazines/menus/etc)Can
you explain why?
- What types of texts would you like to be

writing in class( provide examples of
letters/reports/emails/birthday cards/etc)Can
you explain why?
109
Appendix 4.6 Findings from Teacher Interviews
Perceptions of:
1) Educational background
 Aware of local geography, curriculum is weighted towards science and math, no
liberal arts in senior school
 Memorization (not use to application)
 Discriminate against vocational education(nurse is frowned on as they don’t want
to serve others!)
 Ss don’t read
 Read sports pages in the newspaper
 IELTS is difficult because they don’t have global awareness
 NNS said topics are not interesting- should relate more to UAE/Arab world
 Interests of students limited to cars and gadgets
2) Course-book
 Historical figures-some culturally provocative-Marilyn Monroe/Elvis Presley
 Wouldn’t recognize Shakespeare/Van Gogh/Beethoven/Elvis
 Course-books should use more contemporary personalities
 Art/museums are boring “why old things”. SS are proud of their past but don’t want
to explore (rather superficial id)
 Oral culture e.g. maps not used/directions given (NNS same)
 Fed up with “UK” based course-book…cultural imperialism
 Presentation is good(glossy..MTV generation where images change every 3
seconds)”Eat with your eyes not only with your mouth”
 In order to have dynamic interaction you need relevant material to forge attraction
 Exam testing kills creativity (and externally set by examinations centre)
 Needs analysis should be performed but time is rarely available. Orientation pack
should be provided with relevant vocabulary/colourful presentation linked to
technology with “interesting things”
 Mix and match activities
 We use book because we are a service industry (it would look unprofessional
without glossy text)
 Some culturally inappropriate references(beer/wine/piercings)
110
3) Perception of what is read/written outside class.
English Arabic
Clock Newspaper(sports)/car magazines/Islamic(religious
books/Holy Qu’ran
Movies/TV/MSN/Net Stock
exchange
 Reading/Writing is slow even in Arabic (according to NNS). Most students find it

easier to write in English than in Arabic due to lack of rules.
4) Growth of nation
 “Camel to the Cadillac”
5) Attitude
 Ss see their world/not interested in seeing the outside world
 Football(tribe/team) vs individual(can’t lose)
 Don’t like competition/defeat/failure
 Education is a business/client has to be served
 Who you are is important
 Want IELTS+ money
 NNS perception of education is that educated people approach things
differently/have a future/socially recognized/stability/snobbery
 No education means difficulty in getting a job(
 Vocational training is not revered
6) What to do
 Textbook is just a resource and each course has to tailored
 Get away from Eurocentric material
 Incorporate local stories/personalities (Al Fahim) so that SS an see/live and feel it.
 Select relevant readings
 Writing is the most difficult write about people they know about things they know.
Use “keep on Writing”( a UAE publication with local flavor) but only to integrate
with lesson
 Need structure
 Need phonics /pronunciation/read aloud dirge but ss like it
 But writing reading entirely social literacy nothing related to the workplace(eg
reports/emails/vocabulary)
111
Appendix 4.7: IELTS Reading Questionnaire Results
Teacher Questionnaire 5 4 3 2 1
Reading
1 The Text is a genre the Students are familiar with 3
.
2 The language is the right level for the Students 1 1 1
.
3 The Students are familiar with the story 1 2
.
4 The Students would find the vocabulary difficult 1 2
.
5 The Students would often(at least every week)read this type of 3
. Text
Student Questionnaire 5 4 3 2 1
Reading
1 I am familiar with this type of text. 8 5
.
2 The language is the right level for me. 4 4 5
.
3 I am familiar with the topic/story. 1 1
. 2
4 I find the vocabulary difficult. 5 5 1 2
.
5 I often( at least once a week) read this type of text. 1 1 9 2
.
112

You Are What You Read: A Study of Literacy Practices of Emirati ESL Students

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

You Are What You Read: A Study of Literacy Practices of Emirati ESL Students

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

You are what you read: A study of literacy practices of

Emirati ESL students.

This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements

Sandra Emily West

The Westminster Institute of Education

Oxford Brookes University.

Statement of Originality ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2

Figure 1 An excerpt from published IELTS 2008 results..............................................................9

APU Arabian Publishers Union

CERT Centre of Excellence for Applied Research and Training

DEET Department of Employment, Education and Training

ESL English as a Second Language

ELT English Language Teaching

GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education

HCT Higher Colleges of Technology

IELTS International English Language Testing System

UAE United Arab Emirates

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

Gillian Strickland (1936)

Although extensive reading is now recognised as an important element of language

IELTS Mean Bands (Rankings)

Nuttall (1982, p.168, cited in Yu, 1993)

Kharma and Hajjaj (1989, p.2)

In recent years educators involved in foreign language instruction have become

As we have established, reading plays a central role in the development of L2 literacy

2.2 Definition of Literacy

Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate,

UNESCO 2003, p.26. cited in

Another application of literacy is in the field of educational assessment. In a given country

2.2.1 Functional literacy

2.2.2 Ideological literacy

There is a growing consensus amongst researchers regarding the limitations of autonomous

As defined by the ideological perspective, literacy is constructed socially as part of the

‘Reading culture’ at home, in school and in the wider community

According to Britten (2008), The UK Institute of Education’s 2008 study found a

L1 reading standards and methods of teaching

Learner motivation, interest and attitude

2.3.1 L1 literacy and Arab literature

For a course to help a learner to acquire a language, it needs to be perceived as relevant to

2.5 Culture and Schema in L1 and L2 Reading

3.3 Data Collection

Participants then completed a questionnaire soliciting the following information

 the questionnaires being initially filled out anonymously by the learner - I

Finally, class teachers provided summary averages of performance grades in various

3.4 Student and Teacher Interviews

(i) what their literacy practices are outside the classroom

(ii) how they could improve their reading/writing and;

Due to numbers, all sampled students participated.

Extrapolation of data is only as reliable as the data used. As previously mentioned,

Additionally, because the sample is selected from a homogeneous population, in order to

4.2 General Analysis of Skills

Figure 2 L2 skills practiced in a 24 period

4.3 Genre Analysis of Literacy

Figure 3 Genre analysis of regular functional reading practices at home

Figure 4 Genre analysis of regular functional reading practices at work

Figure 5 Genre analysis of regular non-functional reading practices at home

Figure 6 Genre analysis of regular non-functional reading practices at work

Figure 7 Distribution of L1 reading genres

Figure 8 Distribution of L2 reading genres

4.4 Literacy in L1 and L2

4.4.1 Literacy practices in L1

4.4.2 Literacy practices in L2

4.4.3 The impact of L1 on L2 acquisition