The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Early literacy education in Arabic
Abstract
This chapter discusses early literacy education in Arabic for native Arabic-speaking children in four Arabic-speaking groups: the Palestinian Arab citizens in Israel, the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories and native Arabic-speaking children in two Gulf countries: Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It provides a representative portrayal of the theory and practice of early literacy education in these regions. The chapter reveals potential shared conceptions regarding the basic components of early reading development, but also some different challenges. A main challenge that all groups face, however, is the translation of such concepts into teacher training and appropriate materials for the teaching of literacy in Standard Arabic, especially in the light of diglossia. The chapter discusses early Arabic literacy education in each of the country contexts and major challenges for current and future early literacy provision in Arabic.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Moreover, reading instruction in Arabic is agnostic of the linguistic distance between SpA and StA, and it often does not capitalize on children’s metalinguistic and other literacy-related skills in SpA to leverage acquisition of reading in StA (Saiegh-Haddad and Everatt, 2017).”
From Development and relationships between phonological awareness, morphological awareness and word reading in spoken and standard Arabic (2018) · cites this paper as Saiegh-Haddad and Everatt, 2017
In the citing paper
“This diglossia effect has been argued to be a central feature of reading development in Arabic (Saiegh-Haddad and Everatt, 2017).”
From Development and relationships between phonological awareness, morphological awareness and word reading in spoken and standard Arabic (2018) · cites this paper as Saiegh-Haddad and Everatt, 2017
Citations
Cites
Word recognition and basic cognitive processes among reading-disabled and normal readers in Arabic.
Abu-Rabia, S., Share, D., & Mansour, M. S. (2003) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1023/a:1024237415143 · Cited by 208
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schiff, R., & Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00356 · Cited by 118
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Saiegh-Haddad, E., & Everatt, J.
- ORCID
- Everatt, John
- Venue
- The Routledge International Handbook of early Literacy Education
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2017-03-31
- Pages
- 185-199
- OpenAlex
- W4251747440
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 10.29
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Arabic Language Education Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Linguistics, Cultural Analysis
- Keywords
- early literacy instruction, Arabic literacy, early reading development, diglossia, teacher professional development, literacy materials, Modern Standard Arabic, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
