1. Introduction
This article continues the Language Teaching series which aims to make local, country-specific, research on language learning and teaching available to a wider international readership. In addition to the official languages, Hebrew and Arabic, there are many others learned and spoken in Israel. However, since English is the major second and foreign language in this country, we have decided to limit this review to English only.
Our first problem was to answer the question, ‘What exactly is Israeli research?’ or, to phrase it differently, ‘What is local research?’ This question is, we shall argue, particularly difficult in Israel for reasons we will outline, but is one also asked to a greater or lesser degree by authors who review local research in other countries.
Putting existent research into a strict framework and classifying it in discrete boxes is not only next to impossible but also irrelevant under the changed global circumstances. Sociologists call the reality in which we teach and learn languages ‘glocalization’. The use of this term emphasizes the unbreakable connection between local and global. In other words, one can no longer refer to notions of global and local only in the geographical sense. In a purely geographical sense, ‘local–global’ might refer to the place of publication where ‘local’ is research that is published or presented in national and not in international journals, and especially to research published in languages other than English – such as Spanish, French or German.
The distinction between ‘global’ and ‘local’ might also refer to the quality, scope and relevance of the research to issues and topics which are under discussion internationally. From this point of view Israel, like other countries, has many ‘global’ scholars who occasionally publish in local outlets and many ‘local’ researchers who succeed in having their work published in international journals.
Perhaps the work and experience of one of the authors of this piece will illustrate the issue. Since his arrival in Israel in 1980, Spolsky has been a founding editor of three journals. The first (Applied Linguistics) was published by Oxford University Press (did that make it locally English?) with three editors, one in London (having just moved from Edinburgh), one in Toronto (also a move from Edinburgh) and one in Jerusalem (a move from Albuquerque). The journal was soon recognized as the official publication of two separate national associations (British and US), and finally adopted by a global association. One of the concerns of publishers and editors was to obtain as many local papers from as many different countries as possible. The second (Language Policy) was published in the Netherlands by a publisher later taken over by a German firm. The two editors were both located in Israel and the journal does its best to obtain a broad international (and so also local) coverage of contributors. The third (Journal of Asia TEFL) has a managing editor in Korea working with a regional team of editors; its papers usually come from six or seven different countries, and the journal deals with locally conducted studies.
What is important perhaps is not so much the place of the publication but the fact that the researchers often write for an international audience when dealing with local data and issues. When, for example, Laufer writes about lexicon, her research may be conducted in Israel but the implications apply to all countries. Educators may, of course, find research based in a different country relevant to their own teaching practices.
Israel's unique history and geography, as well as its cultural and political situation, make it a recognized centre of multilingualism and multiculturalism. As a result of this, the research and the topics originating in this country frequently emerge and spread further afield. It is true that the research of scholars such as Spolsky, Ur, Shohamy, Laufer, Aronin, and others belongs more to the global scene, but excluding their research would lead to a distorted view of Israel's research picture.
Two other factors are critical. One is demographic: many Israeli researchers were not only trained abroad (in the US, UK, Australia, and South Africa) but commonly spend some years teaching abroad and make regular visits to conferences and on sabbaticals. Their academic networks are thus global rather than local. The second is institutional: Israeli universities (and, increasingly, teachers’ colleges) expect their staff to publish internationally, and preferably in English (Spolsky & Shohamy Reference Spolsky, Shohamy and Ammon2001), so that there is little support for purely national journals in the field of English linguistics and language teaching. Thus, the typical pattern is an internationally trained and experienced scholar publishing locally conducted research in international journals. Excluding this work from consideration because it is not ‘local’ in a strict sense would again produce a highly distorted view.
Bearing this situation in mind, we will attempt to deal with the intersection of global and local issues; this will be done by emphasizing locally focused research carried out by international Israeli scholars and, at the same time, by placing the main accent on the research work carried out by local researchers that is not widely accessible.
1.1 Background
Israel is a multilingual country which has two official languages, Hebrew and Arabic, and about forty other languages in everyday use. These include French, German, Spanish, Russian, Amharic, Armenian, Bukharic, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Portuguese, and Hungarian, as well as Yiddish and many other Jewish languages. English occupies an exceptional position in the country. Visible and vibrant, English in Israel is often used de facto as an official language, but it is also a language spoken at home by a section of the immigrant population and heard, like other immigrant languages, in neighbourhoods where there is demographic density. In addition to serving as a means of international communication and for tourism to and from Israel, English in Israel is indispensable for academic advancement and is generally accepted as ‘everyone's second language’ (Spolsky & Shohamy Reference Spolsky and Shohamy1999: 156).
In addition to the variety of English L2 learners and users, we cannot disregard the very active multilingualism in the country. Israel is a multilingual country in which English is not the only language taught as a second language in schools and universities although the number of learners and their aims vary. There are also considerable differences in the frequency of lessons and methods of teaching, availability and existence of materials, enthusiasm of those organizing the learning and the attitude of the establishment as well as the need for and attitudes to the target language on the part of the learners and teachers. The diversity of languages and the methods of their teaching are remarkable. L2 Arabic and Hebrew, together with French as a foreign language, have been taught for several decades, whereas teaching Russian or Amharic as a second or heritage language is a relatively new undertaking (and we should note that, for some Ethiopians who grow up speaking Hebrew, Amharic is the L2). Teaching English in Arabic-speaking schools is actually teaching a fourth language due to Arabic diglossia. The real role of English for the learners is very much dependent on the particular town, village, school, and even the personal approach of the English teacher involved.
There are attempts to teach Amharic, but this is not common (Shaul Reference Shaul2008; Teferra Reference Teferra2008). Russian, on the other hand, has enjoyed many years of enthusiastic care on the part of dedicated native speakers of the language now living in Israel. This enthusiasm includes attempts to design programmes for teaching Russian and to give the language itself official status.
With regard to teaching languages in Israel, the situation is in a state of constant flux. One can see this in the attitude towards some of the second or third languages or heritage languages, some of which unexpectedly surface and achieve a more active status. An example of this is Aramaic, a language generally considered extinct, as very few, and not fluent, Aramaic-speakers are left. According to a national weekly culture magazine (
[Culture and society], 28 May 2009), some sixty pupils study this language in the Maronite Christian village of Gush Halav. There are also two villages where Circassian is taught in schools (Kreindler, Bensoussan, Avinor & Bram Reference Kreindler, Bensoussan, Avinor and Bram1995).
Thus, for the purposes of this article it seems more appropriate to see English as an additional or second language in the widest sense of this term rather than as a foreign language, that is, any language other than the first, learned ‘inside or outside of a classroom’ (Ellis Reference Ellis1997: 3; Cook Reference Cook2008:2). Spolsky & Shohamy's (Reference Spolsky and Shohamy1999: 156) claim that ‘English is everyone's second language’ is being used here to describe a variety of roles for English as being ‘second’ in different ways for the diverse populations of the country.
In the years following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, English teaching, following the traditional approach used by the British Mandate authorities, was mostly culture-and-literatureFootnote 1 biased. Since the 1960s, the goals and principles of teaching English at school have undergone a slow but crucial shift towards functional and communicative aims as well as an emphasis on developing oral skills. The policy of promoting ‘communicative competence’ necessitated that the choice of lexical items and didactic techniques was to be determined by whether they ‘help to provide the pupils with a means of communication’ (Gefen Reference Gefen1973: 9).
The continuous attuning of approach, methodology and strategies of teaching English in elementary and junior high school to a constantly changing sociolinguistic reality can be traced in the most recent curricula. The 1988 English curriculum (Ministry of Education 1988) placed equal emphasis on the four skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking. It included detailed guidelines on grammatical and lexical items to be covered at various levels. In the 2001 curriculum, the traditional four-skill division was replaced by what was believed to be more appropriate in the changing circumstances. The four domains of English language learning were now considered to be social interaction, access to information, presentation, and appreciation of literature, culture, and language (Ministry of Education 2001). On the way to a more open multilingual policy, the 2001 curriculum advanced from the goal of developing sensitivity to differences between English and the student's mother tongue (in the 1988 curriculum) to fuller recognition of the diversity in the sociolinguistic ecology of Israel. Catering for the specific needs of the Israeli pupils, the 2001 curriculum specifies that it ‘does not take on the goal of producing near-native speakers of English, but rather speakers of Hebrew, Arabic or other languages who can function comfortably in English whenever it is appropriate’ (Ministry of Education 2001). The curriculum is standards-based, with the emphasis on what students are able to do with the language.
2. Organization of research on English teaching and learning
The research on English teaching and learning is carried out in a number of education and linguistic departments of colleges and universities. With some colleges recently receiving permission to set up M.Ed. programs for teachers of English (e.g. at Oranim Academic College in Tivon, a small town near Haifa or the Levinsky Teacher Training College in Tel-Aviv), the potential for research in teaching and learning English has expanded. There is also research organized and sponsored by MOFET, an independent umbrella organization operating under the Ministry of Education to encourage ongoing learning and research among the staff of the teacher training institutes. This organization provides a national forum for the exchange of information and ideas, research, and advanced studies in teacher education. Every so often research studies originate from local initiative and enthusiasm on the part of practicing teachers, some teaching at schools and others teaching English for academic purposes at colleges. It is often the case that research is performed by teams of researchers, who either unite spontaneously, sharing their professional interests, or teach in the same unit, and the research is coordinated to meet the needs of the department.
In order to reflect the overall picture, current lines and emerging trends of research on English teaching and learning in Israel, we will review some of the books and articles published in local and national journals in Israel, including online journals, as well as conference proceedings and research project reports. There is research presented at conferences or published by Israeli researchers abroad, but they will not be discussed in the present review. It will include the studies undertaken by the researchers of Israeli universities (Tel-Aviv University, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Bar-Ilan University, The University of Haifa, The Open University, Ben-Gurion University and The Technion) as well as numerous colleges (such as Beit Berl College, Ruppin Academic Centre, Ahva College, Michlala Jerusalem College for Women, Talpiot Teachers College, Oranim Academic College, Kaye Academic College in Beersheba), and teachers at schools throughout the country.
There are professional publications in Israel which attempt to reach out to a wide audience of English teachers across the country. The longest established of these is ETAI Forum, the journal of the English Teachers’ Association of Israel. Under the aegis of the Ministry of Education, it provides professional practical advice and sharing of experiences, interspersed with research reports and articles. Another publication, also published by the Ministry of Education's English inspectorate, is The English Teachers’ Journal (Israel). These two publications are more professional than academic.
Although Israel can boast a large number of active researchers, there is no tightly-knit network of research on language learning and teaching as, for example, that described in the ‘Country in Focus’ review on the Netherlands (Verspoor & Cremer Reference Verspoor and Cremer2008). Indeed, the publication outlets themselves are patchy and diverse, and sometimes random in terms of their organization and dedication to the topic of interest. In addition, publication of some may stop for some years and then resume again.
Unlike some of the publications, conferences and workshops on linguistic topics are better organized and systematic. This review includes presentations at conferences held by organizations that meet at regular intervals. These are:
ILASH – the Israel Association for Applied Linguistics (the Israeli affiliate of the International Association for Applied Linguistics)
IALS – the Israeli Association for the Study of Language and Society
ACROLT – the Academic Committee for Research on Language Testing. One of the first regional associations of language testers and supported for many years by the British Council, it is now an affiliate of International Language Testing Association and has held annual meetings since the 1980s
UTELI – University Teachers of English Language in Israel (teachers of English for academic purposes in universities)
ETAI – English Teachers’ Association of Israel (Ministry-sponsored association for secondary school teachers)
There are other conferences, typically organized and funded by a college or university, or under the auspices of the Ministry of Education and the British Council. These may not be specifically dedicated to English teaching but may be relevant to researchers interested in applied linguistics. Examples of such conferences would be the Fifth International Conference on Teacher Education, held at the Kaye College of Education and The MOFET Institute in June 2007, or the English teacher-trainer conference held annually at MOFET, as well as annual research conferences at the Oranim Academic College in Tivon through its Division for Graduate Studies. Finally, we should mention the research carried out within the framework of an ongoing project known as MEITAL, a Hebrew acronym for an inter-university development project sponsored by an organization dedicated to promoting the use of computers in higher education in Israel.
3. Language policy
L2 English teaching at the level of the primary and junior high school is defined by the theoretical visions researched and implemented by a group of designers of the school programme at the Ministry of Education (2001– see the description above). At the level of colleges and universities, language policy regarding English is determined by global tendencies and the corresponding local needs. In the formal educational framework, therefore, reading comprehension for academic purposes is dominant as a research topic. On the more theoretical and sociolinguistic level of conceptualization, Spolsky's writings are internationally acknowledged (see, most recently, Spolsky Reference Spolsky2004, Reference Spolsky2009; and the journal Language Policy). Research on language policy influences language teaching via the justification and negotiation of the number of teaching hours at schools, colleges and universities devoted to teaching English. Its influence can also be seen in the reconsideration of language policy regarding English, especially in education and the consequent modification or changing of teaching methods.
3.1 The early teaching of English
As in some other countries, there has been great debate over the past few years in Israel over the value of an early start in learning and teaching English. The teaching of English early in a pupil's school life is very common in Israel as parents are very much in favour of the early introduction of this internationally important language. The controversy swirling around this topic has stimulated both theoretical analysis and experimental research among disputing parties.
At one end of the discussion are those who advocate teaching English to young learners. Bejarano (Reference Bejarano2004, Reference Bejarano2005) and Bejarano & Gordon (no date) carried out research with young learners ranging from four to ten years into the advantages and disadvantages of an early start to teaching English. Bejarano's research led to her view that ‘the earlier the better’ and to the conclusion that the disadvantages mentioned in the literature can be overcome by fulfilling certain conditions. Bejarano stresses the importance of the appropriate connection between the ‘what’ i.e. what goes into the language teaching programme for the youngest learners and the ‘how’ – the methods by which it should be taught. Among the elements vital for successful language learning, she emphasizes the young learners’ cognitive and affective needs and syllabus content appropriate to the age of the pupils. She also highlights the importance of engaging them physically and intellectually as well as using enjoyable activities which make learning tangible. Bejarano's research is notable for its clarity of description and directness of argumentation. On some points her position may differ from that of other researchers in the same field, but it is scientifically well-grounded and sound.
4. Teaching approaches and methodologies
In her article in Trends, Kalekin-Fishman (Reference Kalekin-Fishman2005) asserts that teacher education for multiculturalism promotes and refines a politics of difference – a politics of wide-ranging democratic participation; therefore, she sees multiculturalism as a basis for teacher education. The diversified composition of Israel's population today, and the presence of so many different cultures, encourages the teachers and educators to look at classrooms and to promote education for literacy as an emancipatory practice. Kalekin-Fishman writes: ‘For Israeli students, English is often the foreign language in which the politics of difference are experienced’ (p. 53).
A multilingual approach is taken up by Aronin in the following two theoretical articles. Aronin (Reference Aronin2005) highlights the importance of multilingualism in modern society and emphasizes the distinctive features of trilingual as opposed to bilingual acquisition. She argues that trilingual education nowadays must be expected to play a dominant role in our society and that it is essential to recognize the central role of trilingual and multilingual education in determining the future of all citizens. Aronin & Singleton (Reference Aronin and Singleton2008) situate multilingualism in its relationship with the most dramatic social changes currently occurring in the world and demonstrate that multilingualism is an ineluctable concomitant of all dimensions of globalization. The paper makes the claim that although multilingual individuals and societies have existed throughout history, the present stage of global multilingualism is in fact a novel development with its own special characteristics and tendencies. These theoretical considerations have practical implications in recognizing and implementing multilingualism in education and, in particular, in matching the teaching of English as a global language with the diversity of other languages which are significant and useful for each individual speaker and for groups of speakers. The country, in fact, has been declared to be heading for more open multilingualism since 1995 (Ministry of Education 1995, 1996). Indeed, the English curriculum of 2001 relates practically to the reality of linguistic diversity in Israel (Ministry of Education Curriculum 2001).
On a more practical level, Ur (Reference Ur2005), in her plenary address at the ETAI conference, reflected upon the two main approaches to teaching languages – the communicative approach and the traditional approach, the latter aiming primarily for accuracy in grammar, pronunciation, spelling and vocabulary. Ur suggested that, rather than decide on any one particular ideology as a starting point, the most appropriate methodology in her view would encompass each of four distinct teaching processes to be chosen according to whichever learning context was appropriate at a particular point of time:
(i) communicative task-based work (using listening, speaking, reading and writing to achieve a meaningful objective); a leading element is focus on form;
(ii) explicit language accuracy-based components (including explanation and practice); a leading element is communicative practice;
(iii) a communicative task on its own;
(iv) language study on its own.
Ur (Reference Ur2006: 5) formulated her stand as follows: ‘What we want is an integrated teaching–learning model, combining worthwhile old ideas with useful and productive new ones’. This seems to be a balanced approach advantageously combining what research has told us with teaching experience.
5. Teaching aspects of language skills
5.1 Teaching orthography
Spelling was studied in an ACROLT presentation by Russak & Kahn-Horwitz (Reference Russak and Kahn-Horwitz2008), who reported on whether a stage model of spelling progress that has been developed for use in L1 English can be used as the basis for assessing spelling development in EFL. The findings obtained after analysing seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth graders’ spelling quantitatively and qualitatively suggest that such a stage model can be used in the assessment of EFL spelling. Further, assessing spelling development according to a developmental model can lead to more effective instruction in spelling based on skills analysis at each stage of development. Results show errors representing semi-phonetic, phonetic and transitional stages in each grade with students in the earlier grades having to deal with within-word orthographic challenges while students in the later grades had to handle syllabic and derivative spelling challenges. This study is valuable in that it clarifies future research agendas: the authors rightly remark that there is potential for replication and further studies with expanded analyses on more extensive writing samples and on different EFL populations in Israel and other countries.
5.2 Teaching vocabulary
Research interest in learning vocabulary in a second or additional language is well-established in Israel (see Laufer Reference Laufer, Coady and Huckin1997, Reference Laufer2005, Reference Laufer2009). It has resulted in many local and international publications which treat various aspects of teaching English vocabulary items. In her presentation at the Annual Northern ETAI conference, Laufer (Reference Laufer2005) summarized the research on some key issues in five areas of L2 vocabulary: (i) the nature of vocabulary; (ii) the nature of vocabulary knowledge; (iii) learning L2 vocabulary; (iv) teaching L2 vocabulary; and (v) testing L2 vocabulary. The research suggests the answers to some questions arising from the practical teaching of vocabulary: How many words in English do native speakers and L2 learners know? Is active vocabulary similar to passive vocabulary? Can good guessing strategies really compensate for lexical deficiencies and improve learning? What is the most effective kind of task for vocabulary learning? Should all the words receive the same amount of time and attention? Should words be tested in context and in original sentences? Some of the most interesting, often paradoxical, answers to these questions are that even good guessing strategies cannot always compensate for lexical deficiencies and that guessing does not always enhance learning. Moreover, L1 reading strategies will not transfer to the L2 if L2 lexical knowledge is below the threshold suggested by Laufer (Reference Laufer, Coady and Huckin1997) of a vocabulary size of 3000 word families. Laufer claims that words that are easy to guess are quickly forgotten, that words that are moderately difficult to guess – even if guessed correctly – may not be retained over time, and that guessing improves with increased vocabulary knowledge – not vice versa! These findings can be instrumental in overturning still widely spread practices where teaching reading is based on guessing to an unreasonably great extent.
Girsai (Reference Girsai2004) and Laufer & Girsai (Reference Laufer and Girsai2008) focused on translation as an effective means of improving L2 proficiency. Using high school learners, native speakers of Hebrew, as subjects of their study, Laufer & Girsai explored the effects of contrastive analysis and translation activities on the incidental acquisition of individual words and collocations. The study found that contrastive focus on form resulted in better acquisition of words and collocations than reading texts.
Schur (Reference Schur2004) is concerned with what it means to know a word and whether words should be taught as individual items or in chunks. Chunks (synonymous with ‘lexical phrases’, ‘formulaic sequences’, or ‘lexicalized items’, ‘fixed expressions’, ‘idioms’ or ‘multi-word units’) rather than single words are important for improving reading fluency, as shown in the research work of Barkon (Reference Barkon2006, Reference Barkon2009). Schur (Reference Schur2004) calls for greater emphasis on the teaching of lexical items, both individual words as well as multi-word units, in order to increase the vocabulary size of EFL students and to facilitate their learning processes. In both her studies, Barkon makes full use of a synthesis of international findings on formulaic expressions research, reading fluency and reading comprehension research in teaching reading in English; she concludes that chunking makes for more efficient processing and provides the link between coding and comprehension. She singles out teaching segmentation into meaningful syntactic or semantic units as a frequently neglected link in the reading process. Barkon argues that ‘to guarantee extensive reading in quality and quantity learners must learn how to segment text correctly’ (Barkon Reference Barkon2006: 9).
Magal-Lehavy's (Reference Magal-Lehavy2004) particular interest is vocabulary instruction. Her paper deals with the interdependence between vocabulary knowledge and comprehension. The study has direct practical value because it stresses the usefulness of teaching high frequency words rather than arbitrarily chosen vocabulary. The teachers’ task is seen as pushing their learners to the first and second lexical thresholds (3000–5000 word families) as early as possible.
5.3 Teaching writing
The researchers who engage in the investigation of literacy and academic writing do not constitute one team, but are connected not only through their common professional and research interest but also within the framework of a professional and research organization – the Israel Forum for Academic Writing, supported by the MOFET Institute. In their research the members of the organization, currently numbering over 140, mostly from Israel but also from abroad, have addressed issues such as assessing student writing and the use of technology in the teaching of writing. The forthcoming International Conference on Academic Writing – Academic Writing and Beyond in Multicultural Societies, to be held in Israel in July 2010, will address some of the issues relevant to the multilingual nature of contemporary society and will include a panel of English, Arabic and Hebrew speakers. They will address the question of what it means to write in various languages – this, to our mind, is a timely initiative which will situate the teaching of English in today's sociolinguistic and educational context. For a more detailed description of the development of academic writing in Israel and the current trends, see Rubin & Zuckermann (Reference Rubin and Zuckermann2008).
As seems to be typical of research on language teaching and learning in Israel, the range of interests in, and viewpoints on, research into teaching writing is wide. Hoffmann-Schwarz (Reference Hoffmann-Schwarz2004) traces the development of the concept of literacy from the eighteenth century, when it meant only the ability to read and write, to the present day when the new terms ‘literacies’ or ‘multi-literacy’ have been coined to refer to the abilities that an individual needs in order to function properly in today's world as well as to the tools required to be ready to cope with tomorrow's developments. Hoffmann-Schwarz refers to visual literacy, information and/or media literacy and information technology literacy, all of which are now, of course, unthinkable without involving the English language. She argues that in order to become literate in English, students must acquire linguistic competence in all four language skills as well as develop cognitive and sociocultural skills (p. 32). She concludes by stating that it is crucial to realize that ‘being literate’ today means having a capacity for further learning in a multi-layered culture where learning is a life-long process.
Holzman has been carrying out research into writing for many years. She deals with a range of specific topics, including writing accuracy (Holzman Reference Holzman2009). Holzman (Reference Holzman2005) argued that there is a vast gap to be bridged between the controlled composition of behaviorism and the freedom of the cognitive approach. While the exercises of the audio-lingual approach are automatic and monotonous, those of the cognitive approach often leave the students lost, not knowing where and how to begin their writing task. The conclusion Holzman reaches is that scaffolding would be helpful in teaching writing and that writing ought to be one of the primary goals in teaching English. In order to avoid any criticism of them, Holzman deliberately did not refer to local textbooks, but the implications of her presentation are important for the country's approach to the teaching of writing. We would also recommend readers study her genre-based approach to L2 writing presented in Holzman (Reference Holzman2008), which involves understanding the idea of genre, rather than studying templates of documents to find standardized formats.
Zuckermann (Reference Zuckermann2006: xxii) emphasizes that ‘a clear distinction should be made between different kinds and purposes of academic writing’. She raises the issue of writing reflective journals, which are required from future teachers of English in many teacher training colleges (Zuckermann Reference Zuckermann2006, Reference Zuckermann2007). The aim of writing reflective pedagogical journals following observation and student teaching practice is to encourage critical reflection by the students on their own teaching development. Zuckermann defines the task of reflective writing as particularly difficult for Israeli students due to their possible unfamiliarity with the conventions of academic writing in Western society, the requirements of academic writing, and the requirements of reflective writing. The 2006 study involved pedagogical advisers and other instructors in the English departments of a number of teachers’ colleges in Israel as well as fifty students in the English department of the Achva Academic College of Education. Her findings show, inter alia, what kind of writing is expected in reflective journals, and what difficulties students encounter in moving from one kind of academic writing to another. The value of Zuckermann's research also lies in the integration of theory on the topic with the urgent practical issues involving teacher training in Israel.
Segev-Miller (Reference Segev-Miller2004a, Reference Segev-Millerb) investigates the most difficult act of literacy – writing-from-source, or ‘discourse synthesis’. This involves the selection, organization, and incorporation of the content from multiple source texts into writers’ own new texts. She notes the serious difficulties that college students encounter when faced with the task of intertextual processing or transforming; this can be attributed to the lack of relevant knowledge by the students and their lack of experience in performing such cognitively demanding reading-writing tasks. Segev-Miller conducted several studies exploring the effect of explicit instructions on the college students' L2 discourse synthesis processes and products. The researcher reported significant improvements in the students' ability to deal with these difficult cognitive tasks after such instructions. Segev-Miller points out the importance of explaining and giving explicit instruction.
6. Issues in teaching English
6.1 Dyslexia and other learning difficulties
Concern about teaching English to those with particular learning difficulties occupies an important place in Israeli discourse on language teaching. The most recent research covers a wide spectrum of possible reasons for poor learning outcomes as well as various target groups of students whose success in learning English is unsatisfactory.
Timor (Reference Timor2006) traced from 1970 onwards the attitudes to, and methods of teaching, students with learning disabilities and with special educational needs. The ‘medical’ model of 1970–1980 regarding disabled students as those ‘having things wrong with them’ has been abandoned in favour of inclusion. Timor presents the factors to be taken into consideration when judging the quality of the process of inclusion. Among them are (i) perceptions and attitudes of the school staff, which should recognize the diverse needs of the special education students as an integral part of school life; and (ii) inclusion should be regarded as a process rather than a simple change of state, and it should be understood that such a process takes time. In a later study, Timor (Reference Timor2009) focuses on the need, and methods of identification, of students with particular learning difficulties within mainstream English classrooms.
Kahn-Horwitz (Reference Kahn-Horwitz2009), in examining the learning difficulties of English L2 learners, has made a distinction between pupils with ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder), low achievers (LA) and the learning disabled (LD). She also includes in her purview those students of English who were diagnosed and those who were undiagnosed as learning disabled, i.e. any student who for whatever reason fails to succeed in mastering English. Students with L2 learning problems may have had difficulties in acquiring their L1 skills in the past and only by paying attention to this possibility can educators apply the optimal method of teaching the skills needed for learning an L2. An important insight is that there exists a continuum of students with learning difficulties and that there is a need to attend to those in the weak to average range of the continuum. Kahn-Horwitz highlights two important problems in her paper: the opaque orthography of English, which frequently presents obstacles to students attempting to acquire English literacy, and the fact that this language is taught in the multilingual country of Israel. Kahn-Horwitz emphasizes the need to examine connections between L1 (Hebrew or Arabic) and additional language learning (in this case, English), together with the phonological, orthographic, semantic, morphological codes of the languages involved. The researcher states that specific language difficulties which are encountered in the L1 express themselves in any new language acquired. She describes the numerous settings and optimal policy in which EAP (English for Academic Purposes) instruction for students with medium to severe learning difficulties can be implemented.
The same focus of interest, and with similar questions, is treated from a different point of view in a parallel study by Ben-Israel, Avinor & Bensoussan (Reference Ben-Israel, Avinor and Bensoussan2009), who identify potential difficulties in L3 acquisition among weak learners. The participants are non-dyslexic multilingual adult learners of Haifa University, whose L1 is Arabic, Russian, Amharic, Spanish, Circassian, French, Georgian or Portuguese. For these students, Hebrew is a second language and English is their L3 or L4; they failed their English EFL course and were currently enrolled in specialized classes. The researchers were eager to learn whether there are readily identifiable and quantifiable characteristics which typify those who experience difficulty in additional language learning, characteristics which distinguish them from their multilingual classmates who succeeded in the same classroom. They found a positive relation between age and the probability of needing a remedial course. On the other hand, an inverse relation was found between the probability of needing a remedial course and the number of English credit units undertaken in high school, the grades obtained on the English matriculation examination at the end of high school, and those obtained in previous tertiary level English courses. It is hoped that these findings might be used to help in the creation of a predictive tool for early intervention.
From the perspective of a psychologist who tests students and diagnoses learning difficulties, Genser (Reference Genser2007) considers the question of why some otherwise able students have undue difficulty with foreign language learning. She notes that ‘not all learning disabled students experience difficulty in foreign language learning, and conversely, there are otherwise competent students who experience undue difficulty and even total failure, in their efforts to acquire a second language’ (p. 9).
6.2 CALL and the use of other multimedia
Schcolnik has been writing on computer-technology-enabled learning for many years. Her research involves seeing technology as a tool for language learning and points to the shift over the last decade from student consumption of ready-made content towards autonomous student creation of technology-enabled content. Schcolnik's research is always connected with the practice of teaching English to the students of EAP. In an ACROLT presentation (Schcolnik Reference Schcolnik2008), she described a pilot project with advanced EAP engineering students carried out to determine the feasibility of website assessment in EAP courses. With Kol (Kol & Schcolnik Reference Kol and Schcolnik2005) she investigated the evaluation of students' contributions and their attitudes on online forums. Some of the outcomes of these studies are helpful for further explorations in this area. Among them are the development of a taxonomy of the signs of reflection and interaction in forums, a compilation of a list of the language markers used, and a list of features that ideally characterize academic forum communication.
The research output at the Foreign Languages department of the University of Haifa has yielded a number of studies on computer-assisted language learning. These include work on speech recognition software for teaching disabled or weak university students (Ben-Israel, Bensoussan, Strekalovsky, Davidson & Dolgopolov Reference Ben-Israel, Bensoussan, Bogdanov and Miller2005; Strekalovsky, Bensoussan, Ben-Israel, Davidson, Dolgopolov & Yizraeli Reference Strekalovsky, Bensoussan, Ben-Israel, Davidson, Dolgopolov and Yizraeli2007) and language teaching and the internet (Ben-Israel, Bensoussan, Bogdanov & Miller Reference Ben-Israel, Bensoussan, Strekalovsky, Davidson and Dolgopolov2005). Another team of researchers studied teaching English via the internet with specific reference to Arab students (Haim, Idan & Zahar Reference Haim, Idan and Zahar2006). Results were encouraging: enhancing learning by using internet facilities and a content-based instruction method were shown to empower the students, boost their motivation, and promote positive attitudes toward the English language.
Adari (Reference Adari2009) focused on the advantages and disadvantages of the two forms of computer-assisted courses piloted at the Jezreel Valley College. One form combined computer-assisted technology with mainstream studies while the other was the dedicated computer-assisted course. The first results of the study – which is still continuing – suggest the clear benefits of an individualized computer-assisted approach for teaching EFL to learning-disabled college students.
6.3 Teaching English for Academic Purposes
The attempts to re-evaluate EAP course goals and teaching practices are described in the research of Spector-Cohen. Spector-Cohen (Reference Spector-Cohen2007, Reference Spector-Cohen2008) analysed the beliefs and practices of EFL instructors pertaining to the assessment of their students' learning while studying two groups of EAP instructors at Tel-Aviv University and at a college teaching primarily reading-based programmes. Results demonstrated that the beliefs of more experienced university staff were divided between those who advocated a purely traditional approach and those who felt more inclined to integrate both traditional (i.e. performance) and alternative (i.e. task-based) approaches. In contrast, the less experienced college instructors were almost unanimously receptive to integrating alternative approaches. In general, Spector-Cohen concludes, many instructors felt that both content-based and task-based language instruction provide valuable insights into students' abilities to use English in an academic setting.
Since there are students from a variety of language backgrounds studying at the universities and colleges in Israel, singling out their particular/specific problems and challenges constitute the subject of several investigations. For example, it is argued that Ethiopian students with Amharic and Tigrinya as their mother tongue have special needs when learning English for academic purposes (cf. Heimann Reference Heimann2004) and therefore should be taught with the help of special teaching methods.
Broido & Shiloh (Reference Broido and Shiloh2009) investigated the challenges that Ethiopian immigrants and their English teachers encounter in reading lessons. The authors attribute the difficulties of this student population to the shift of culture and time frames. They claim ‘those who came as children, scarred by their barefoot journey through the Sudan, are now entering Israeli universities where they are now required to master cognitive patterns that are foreign to them, as well as academic reading in yet another language: English’ (p. 24). The authors explain that the academic requirements of EAP courses have become an insurmountable barrier for many Ethiopian immigrants largely because the Ethiopian conceptual paradigms of text organization, purpose and function are radically different from the rhetorical conventions of the academic expository texts. The study describes the course – ‘a culturally sensitive, humanistic English academic reading comprehension course’ p. 24) – designed with the aim of reducing the wide gap between the Ethiopian students' conceptual paradigms and the required academic cognitive and rhetorical skills.
Turning to students from an Arab-speaking milieu, Abu Rass (Reference Abu Rass2009) explains that due to their religious and cultural traditions, which prescribe only authoritative teaching styles and which ‘do not contrast their truth or their beliefs’ (p. 9), memorization is a dominant strategy in the educational culture in the Arab world. Copying the right answers from the texts is de rigueur for Arab students, who prefer having the material transmitted by a person with authority rather than constructing their own material. Abu Rass believes that to help Arab students cope with academic demands for reading academic texts, such students have to be taught language-learning strategies.
6.4 Multilingualism
Hirsh (Reference Hirsh2009) describes the increase in bilingual and trilingual students; these are the native speakers of Russian, Arabic and Amharic and others of South American or European origin who study English as an L3 for academic purposes at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Starting from the premise that L3 acquisition is different from L2 acquisition, Hirsh felt the need to explain the language learning deficits that the language instructors at the university find among many of their students in their EFL courses. She identified a range of possible causes of a social and educational nature for those learning a third language in Israel. The most significant conclusion of Hirsh's study is that it is important to make the students explicitly aware of the differences that exist between acquiring a third language and the acquisition of their first and second languages.
The interest of Schwartz (Reference Schwartz2005, Reference Schwartz2006) is biliterate bilingualism as against monoliterate bilingualism. She studied reading acquisition in L2 Hebrew and in L3 English among L1 Russian-speaking children. Her work is significant in that she went beyond previous studies on the transfer of reading-related skills carried out on two languages sharing Roman orthography, such as English and Spanish, or English and French. Schwartz examined the cross-linguistic transfer of phonological and word-identification skills in the context of three different orthographies – Cyrillic, Semitic and Roman – and three different linguistic families (Slavic, Semitic and Germanic). The results of this investigation carried out among 129 six-year-old and 107 eleven-year-old children in Haifa – some of whom were Russian–Hebrew bilinguals and others Hebrew-speaking monolinguals – testify to the advantages of bilingualism and, specifically, bilingual learners of L3 English over the monolingual Hebrew speakers learning English as an L2 and monoliterate (Russian–Hebrew) bilinguals as measured in reading fluency and phonological awareness tasks. This led Schwartz to suggest that the actual mechanism of cross-linguistic transfer was formed by the learner's insight into the alphabetic principle common to all alphabetic writing systems, rather than merely the knowledge of a specific alphabetic code such as Roman orthography. Schwartz concludes that early L1 literacy acquisition can greatly enhance L2 literacy development. Applying her evidence to the current knowledge about literacy acquisition in multilingual contexts, she reported on the substantial contribution of the L1 (Russian) literacy to the acquisition of the L3 (English) in three basic literacy skills: phonemic analysis, non-word decoding, and spelling.
The studies which entail a more detailed investigation into the effects of bilingualism on learning the L3 report on the spelling systems of multilinguals and their reading acquisition. Sanitsky (Reference Sanitsky2004) compared the effect of two different spelling systems (Russian and Hebrew) with learners of one orthography (Hebrew) on the learning of a third, i.e. English orthography. The subjects were two groups of sixth grade pupils in Israeli schools who were studying English as a foreign (second or third) language: one group was composed of Israeli children for whom Russian was their native language and Hebrew was their second language, and the second (the control group) was made up of native Hebrew speakers. The results of the study are important for teaching practice and further research. Sanitsky found that orthographic skills may not transfer from one orthography to another and that L2 and L3 orthographies may each demand specific attention and experience. It was also found that overall transfer of skills occurs across languages with different orthographies both in bilinguals and trilinguals. The efficiency of transfer was found to be higher in trilinguals than in bilinguals.
Abu-Rabia (Reference Abu-Rabia2005), writing on the same issue, emphasized the superiority of bilingualism over monolingualism in learning a third language. The transfer of skills occurring across languages with different orthographies is found to be more efficient in trilingual than in bilingual students. In particular, the results of the studies by Abu-Rabia and Sanitsky support the interdependence hypothesis, which suggests that knowledge of a number of languages with different orthographies of varying depths is helpful in the acquisition of additional languages. It was also found that the phonological ability of the trilingual readers was stronger than that of the bilinguals; this was explained by the researchers as the result of experience with a number of spelling systems. In their view, this experience enhances the phonological awareness of readers and ultimately their reading accuracy in alphabetic orthographies, regardless of orthographic depth. The study also showed that orthographic skills may not be transferred from one orthography to another because of the different nature of the specific orthographies.
The findings reported above can be attributed to the special nature of multilingual learners and users who have to deal with specific demands made on them. At the same time, however, they have more opportunities made available to them by their language learning/language using environment. This was the subject of the article published by Singleton & Aronin (Reference Singleton and Aronin2007). The authors undertook a theoretical approach to multiple language learning on the basis of a number of their previous studies in Israel. Aronin & Singleton (Reference Aronin and Singleton2008) drew on the concept of affordances (perceived opportunities for action, cf. Gibson Reference Gibson, Shaw and Bransford1977) and the evidence of the learning process of diverse groups and individual multilingual learners in Israel, Germany and Ireland to argue that the multilinguals’ perception of affordances is of a higher order. The findings provide further support for the notion that multilinguals tend to use all the languages of their language constellation even while directly working with only two of them. The data from Israel-based studies suggest that the participants, whose L1 was Russian, and who were studying Hebrew and English as their second or third languages were – as a group – quite adept in making good use of their affordances in the English classroom. Furthermore, it appears very likely that such capitalization was due to their enhanced language awareness. This, in turn, was at least in part the result of their multilingualism. The findings of this study are particularly relevant to the English classroom where the multilingual learners show an apparent capacity to perceive and to make use of linguistic affordances available to them, for example, via exploitation of cross-linguistic comparisons, the enhancement of their own motivation via goal-setting, and the development of the learner's autonomy.
7. Teacher education
Investigation of EFL teacher education has been carried out from a variety of angles. Haim (Reference Haim2005) explored teachers’ subject matter knowledge (SMK) with regard to teaching EFL. This research is a thorough study of what the subject matter of English as a foreign/second language should be. SMK consists of language and linguistic knowledge as well as of content areas relevant to EFL teaching. The author lays out a framework for helping teachers think about subject matter that highlights the relationship between the amount and depth of the teachers’ SMK and its potential impact on teaching activities.
Leshem & Bar-Hama (Reference Leshem and Bar-Hama2008) are concerned with evaluating teaching practice. One may see a lesson as an entity which cannot be broken into separate components and, therefore, one that should be assessed impressionistically, as a whole. Alternatively, one might try to assess lessons analytically, i.e. by evaluating observable behaviours and measurable components. Both forms of assessment present challenges. Leshem & Bar-Hama describe the problems that hinder analytical assessment of a trainee's language lesson. The role of pedagogical counsellors who observe their trainee's lessons is contradictory and confusing due to the counsellor's task, which includes the functions of both coach and assessor. This duality of mission brings with it problems both for the trainee and the observer. Another problem involves the criteria for assessment. The researchers point out that, even when using similar criteria with which to assess the lesson, each assessor interprets them in their own way. The most glaring problem is seen in the gap that the researchers revealed – the gap that often occurs between the results of the impressionistic value judgment and the grade given from the criteria assessment. The study investigated the preferences of the 58 trainees studying for a Bachelor of Education degree and those on a re-training course for a teaching certificate in English programme in an academic teacher training college in Israel. The findings highlighted the differences in the choice of holistic or analytical approaches by the teachers-in-training, with the majority of students choosing the holistic approach. This study also explains the dynamics of the trainees’ perceptions of their own teaching from their initial attempts to more skilled performances.
Yogev & Waldman (Reference Yogev and Waldman2004, Reference Yogev and Waldman2005) carried out a two-year collaborative action research study to assess how a teacher's knowledge promotes better practice. The researchers examined their own weekly conversations and then subjected them to content analysis. The findings revealed the close connection between teachers’ values and perceptions and other criteria of good practice. According to Yogev & Waldman, the systematic collection and analysis of data – as opposed to random and sporadic impressions – provides a basis for a reliable examination and understanding of one's practice.
Perpignan, Rubin & Katznelson (Reference Perpignan, Rubin and Katznelson2004) studied students' and teachers’ perceptions of learning outcomes from an EAP course focusing on academic writing. In a nationwide study of EFL courses in diverse programs of higher education (210 students, 11 teachers and 20 groups representing a science institute, teacher's training colleges, and universities throughout Israel), the researchers identified and categorized nine classes of perceived ‘by-products’, that is, perceived positive learning outcomes of writing courses. These gains were related to personal, interpersonal, and cognitive growth include thinking skills, affective outcomes, awareness of the meaning of writing, broadening of knowledge base, behaviour in a professional context, learning the meaning of learning, social interaction, and creativity. Perpignan et al. conclude that acknowledging the ‘by-products’ rather than measuring only writing outcomes would allow one to take advantage of a rich source of experience that learners might take from their classrooms into other areas of their lives.
Rajuan (Reference Rajuan2004) provided a comparison between the expectations of supervising teachers and student-teachers on a teacher training programme. It was found that the experienced teachers were oriented towards pedagogical content knowledge, i.e. knowledge that teachers accumulate in order to communicate the subject matter, including knowledge about children, teaching and the classroom context. The study revealed that while the practical orientation of the more experienced teacher-supervisor saw the teacher as a craftsperson and the student as an apprentice, the preferences of students were based on interpersonal relationships and personal orientation. Rajuan concluded that there is a significant connection between personal and professional development and that professional knowledge and supportive relationships can be seen as complementary, rather than competing, approaches.
Linking the debate on non-native teachers with the issue of the use of the L1 in the English language classroom, Narkiss (Reference Narkiss2004a, Reference Narkissb) argues that it is time to re-examine the discussion on native versus non-native English-speaking teachers. Narkiss focuses on the advantages of non-native teachers teaching English, pointing out that they can serve as successful models of an L2 learner, they can teach more effectively due to the more systematic arrangement of their knowledge of a language than that of many native speakers, and, finally, that they have a better knowledge of ‘what works in the L2 situation’ and the consequent ability to teach language-learning strategies more effectively. These benefits, for Narkiss, compensate for any deficiency in the realm of native competence. Ur (Reference Ur2008), however, claims that the argument about whether native or non-native teachers are better is rapidly becoming irrelevant and that competence in accurate and fluent English and teaching ability are what should count.
8. Conclusions and a future research agenda
Even restricting our attention to locally published material, the palette of research on teaching and learning English in Israel is rich and diverse. As might be expected, in many ways the research is aimed at this country's needs and interests, but it is also in line with international research – in terms of issues, methodology, topicality and trends. Among its characteristics is a close connection with the practice of teaching English and constant feedback from that practice, resulting from the fact that many researchers are also directly involved in teaching English as an additional language and are rarely employed in academic departments of English language and literature. Indeed, one of the greatest weaknesses of research in teaching English in Israel has been the virtual abdication of responsibility for research in this field by university English departments. The latter divide their attention between domains of literature and theoretical linguistics, less relevant to language learning and teaching. This means that the task of carrying out vital research into language teaching and learning has moved to some education departments, but mainly to the Foreign Languages divisions and to colleges of education.
In Israel the most worrying weakness of the research into language learning, teaching, and applied linguistics lies in the way local research is produced and popularized. Research is largely compartmentalized, that is, produced in educational establishments by individuals or groups of researchers and published within these establishments where the publications are neither advertised nor easily detectable. This is an obvious disadvantage both for those involved in research and for their potential readers. Thorough peer reviews along with openness and availability of local research might lead to improving the quality of local research and a speedier use of the results for practice.
As everywhere, of course, there exists differing quality in research. To be fair, we can cite here rare but existing instances of when a local Israeli publication or presentation cannot be classed as research per se but rather contains obvious truths and little more (cf. Kotik-Freidgut Reference Kotik-Friedgut2008). Another example might be written work presented as research but in reality consists only of a narrative containing research vocabulary (Klein-Wohl, Gordon & Busso Reference Klein-Wohl, Gordon and Busso2005). While increasing the number of reported studies, such publications do little if anything to really advance or contribute to the field of applied linguistics.
These do not diminish the overall quality and variety of Israel research on language learning and teaching and in the area of applied linguistics; however, a solid body of academic research in applied English linguistics could support even better professional development in the field.
In terms of topics and populations, there is a wealth of research on the student population and an acceptable amount on school pupils, but there is more to be done on the adult population in this country, as well as on other diverse situations such as teaching L2 and L3 to adult Amharic speakers who are not fully literate in their L1. Another direction of research might be the development of tertiary didactics for the speakers of various languages (cf. Hufeisen & Neuner Reference Hufeisen and Neuner2004).
There is one specific issue in teaching/learning English in Israel, which, to the best of our knowledge, has yet to be researched. The issue in question is teaching English to dovrei anglit, the phrase used to describe native speakers of English. Dovrei anglit speak Hebrew as a first language, but have had some non-school exposure to English, whether English-speaking parents or an extended visit abroad. Despite this exposure to English which their Hebrew-speaking peers do not have, they do not function in a sociolinguistic environment which is exactly the same as that of an English-speaking country. It is clear that the English native speakers should not be denied instruction in English appropriate to their level and needs even if the general level of their knowledge of English is somewhat higher than that of the average learners of English in a country where English is not an official language. From this point of view, the absence of research on this group of learners is regrettable and should be remedied as soon as possible. It appears that serious research is necessary to develop the most appropriate approach to teaching English to dovrei anglit, perhaps one which combines methods used in L1 and L2 instruction. It would be useful to explore the specificity of vocabulary and orthography acquisition by native speakers because those speaking English as their L1 acquire this language in a different way. It could also be fruitful to trace the transfer processes between L1, L2 and L3 involved in learning English by native speakers who are not fully exposed to their native languages.
In Israel (as in other countries) we have noticed the prevalence of research on opinions and preferences of language learners. This is, of course, a very important aspect of language teaching and learning which secures feedback on those activities, provides insights into learning processes, and urges one to look at the problem from an unexpected or unconventional angle. Without denying the importance of such research, we also believe it would be beneficial to increase the amount of research on less subjective aspects of language teaching, such as oral communication, literacy, and proficiency components – in particular grammar and phonology.
Acknowledgements
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful observations and Dr Graeme Porte for his constructive feedback and enduring support during the production of this article. We also thank those colleagues in Israel who were instrumental in providing us with manuscripts and offprints of their publications which were not readily available, and for their advice.
Larissa Aronin is a Senior Lecturer at the Oranim Academic College of Education, and is affiliated to the University of Haifa, Israel. She has published in a range of international journals on a wide array of topics connected with multilingualism and co-edited The exploration of multilingualism: Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition (John Benjamins, 2009). She serves as a secretary of the International Association of Multilingualism, and is an Advisory Board Member of Language Teaching (Cambridge University Press).
Bernard Spolsky is Professor Emeritus in the English Department at Bar-Ilan University, where he started teaching in 1980. Since his retirement, he has published two monographs, Language policy (2004) and Language management (2009), both with Cambridge University Press, for whom he is editing the Handbook of language policy. He has also published one edited collection, The Blackwell handbook of educational linguistics (Blackwell, 2008), and edited the 2009 volume of Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. URL: http://www.biu.ac.il/faculty/spolsb/.
