Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T21:30:31.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arabic Spelling and Curriculum Based Measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2013

Bashir Abu-Hamour
Bashir Abu-Hamour*
Affiliation:
Department of Counseling and Special Education, Mutah University, Al-Karak, Jordan
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Bashir Abu-Hamour, Department of Counseling and Special Education, Mutah University, Al-Karak, Jordan. Email: dr.abuhamourwj@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of the Curriculum Based Measurement of Spelling (CBM-S) and direct spelling instruction on students’ achievement in spelling. A total sample of 95 third-grade students participated in the study. This article presents a comparison study of three classrooms: CBM-S and direct spelling instruction, CBM-S with no direct spelling instruction, and a control group that used the traditional way of spelling assessment. The intervention was implemented for 18 weeks. The results indicated that students achieved the greatest gains in spelling when both direct spelling instruction and the CBM-S were applied.

Keywords

Arabic spellingcurriculum based measurementdirect spelling instructionstudents with spelling difficulties

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , December 2013 , pp. 140 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society Ltd 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abu-Hamour, B., Matter, J., & Al-Hmouz, H. (2013). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement Normative Update — Arabic Standardization. Adapted with permission from Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement Normative Update by R.W. Woodcock, K.S. McGrew, & N. Mather, 2007. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
Abu-Hamour, B., Urso, A., & Mather, N. (2012). The relationships among cognitive correlates and irregular word, non-word, and word reading. International Journal of Special Education, 27 (1), 14–159.Google Scholar
Abu-Rabia, S. (1997). Reading in Arabic orthography: The effect of vowels and context on reading accuracy of poor and skilled native Arabic readers. Reading and Writing, 9, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abu-Rabia, S. (2002). Reading in a root-based morphology language: The case of Arabic. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abu-Rabia, S., & Siegel, L.S. (2002). Reading, syntactic, orthographic, and working memory skills of bilingual Arabic-English speaking Canadian children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 661–678.Google Scholar
Abu Rabia, S., & Taha, H. (2006). Phonological errors predominate in Arabic spelling, across Grades 1–9. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35 (2), 167–188.Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2001). 2001 Census of Population and Housing. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
Berninger, V.W., & Wolf, B.J. (2009). Dyslexia and dysgraphia: Lessons from teaching and science. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Brenznitz, Z. (2004). Introduction on regular and impaired reading in sematic languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 645–649.Google Scholar
Brislin, G.J. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In Loner, W.L. & Berry, J.W. (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bryant, D.P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M. (2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabilities in general education middle-school content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 238–252.Google Scholar
Clarke, S., Worcester, J.A., Dunlap, G., Murray, M., & Bradley-Klug, K. (2002). Using multiple measures to evaluate positive behavior support: A case example. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 131–146.Google Scholar
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deno, S.L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.Google Scholar
Elbeheri, G., Everatt, J., Mahfoudhi, A., Abu Al-Diyar, M., & Taibah, N. (2011). Orthographic processing and reading comprehension among Arabic speaking mainstream and LD children. Dyslexia, 17, 123–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuchs, L.S. (1991). Effects of expert system advice within curriculum-based measurement in teacher planning and student achievement in spelling. School Psychology Review, 20, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Walz, L., & German, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.Google Scholar
Fore, C., Burke, M., & Martin, C. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and problem-solving model: An emerging alternative to traditional assessment for African American children and youth. Journal of Negro Education, 75, 16–24.Google Scholar
Hoover, J.J., & Mendez-Barletta, L.M. (2008). Considerations when assessing ELLs for special education. In Klingner, J.K., Hoover, J.J., & Baca, L. (Eds.). Why do English language learners struggle with reading (pp. 93–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
Hosp, M.K., Hosp, J.L., & Howell, K.W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Lyon, G.R. (2001, March). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise student achievement. Hearing before the subcommittee on education reform, committee on education and the workforce, US house of representatives, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Martson, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What is it and why do it. In Shinn, M. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Mather, N., Wendling, B.J., & Roberts, R. (2009). Writing assessment and instruction for students with learning disabilities. New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
McCardle, P., Chhabra, V., & Kapinus, B. (2008). Reading research in action: A teacher's guide for student success. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
Moats, L.C. (2010). Speech to print. Language essentials for teachers (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Moser, L., Fishley, K.M., Konrad, M., & Hessler, T. (2012). Effects of the copy, cover, and compare strategy on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of spelling sight words for elementary students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 34 (2), 93–110.Google Scholar
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI: A closer look at response to intervention. Retrieved from http://www.cldinternational.org/Articles/rtiessentialcomponents.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ramadan, M. (2008). Word spelling errors in Arabic. Journal of the Arab Academy for Special Education, 9, 115–145.Google Scholar
Senechal, M. (2000). Morphological effects in children's spelling of French words. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 76–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shinn, M.R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Snowling, M.J., & Bishop, D.V.M. (2000). Is preschool language impairment a risk factor for dyslexia in adolescence? Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 41, 587–601.Google Scholar
Stecker, P.M., & Fuchs, L.S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 128–134.Google Scholar
Stecker, P.M., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.Google Scholar
Tainturier, M.J., & Rapp, B. (2001). The spelling process. In Rapp, B. (Ed.), The handbook of cognitive neuropsychology: What deficits reveal about the human mind (pp. 263–289). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar