Abstract
This chapter attempts to investigate the viability of the Reading Comprehension module adopted in some Moroccan higher education institutions in terms of its adherence to providing multiple means of ‘representation, engagement, and expression’, the three Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles. These principles are assessed across the criteria of ‘accessibility’, ‘doability’, and ‘usefulness’. The major objective of the study is to examine the extent to which the content, pedagogy, and assessment of these modules are consonant with students’ learning needs and orientations. These dimensions of the Reading Comprehension module offered in the English departments are assessed based on a survey questionnaire designed for this purpose and from the module’s descriptive guidelines. The research design is quantitative and uses UDL as a theoretical framework. The chapter examines students’ perceptions of several features of the Reading Comprehension modules, with particular attention to how accessible, feasible, and useful the content, pedagogy, and assessments of the RC module are. The results of the study are discussed, and the related pedagogical implications are reported.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abouabdelkader, H. (1999). Metacognitive strategies used by Moroccan University EFL student-writers: A process-oriented discourse analysis of argumentative composition writing. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Faculty of Education.
Abouabdelkader, S. (2018). Moroccan EFL university students’ composing skills in the balance: Assessment procedures and outcomes. In A. M. Ahmed & H. Abouabdelkader (Eds.), Assessing EFL writing in the 21st century Arab world: Revealing the unknown (pp. 79–109). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64104-1_4
Abouabdelkader, S. (2019). The effect of functional vocabulary on engineering students’ proficiency in English: Aligning curricula with employability standards. [Unpublished Doctoral thesis]. Ibn Tofail.
Acim, R. (2018). The Socratic method of instruction: An experience with a reading comprehension course. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 8(1), 4.
Ahmed, A., & Abouabdelkader, H. (2016). Teaching EFL writing in the 21st century Arab world: Realities and challenges. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ahmed, A., & Abouabdelkader, H. (2018). Assessing EFL writing in the 21st century Arab world: Revealing the unknown. Springer.
Alghonaim, A. S. (2018). Explicit ESL/EFL reading-writing connection: An issue to explore in ESL/EFL settings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(4), 385–392.
Altihami, D. (2010). Implementing the LMD system: Experience of the philosophy department in the Cadi Ayyad University in Marakkech. Towards an Arab Higher Education Space: International Challenges and Societal Responsibilities: Proceedings of the Arab Regional Conference on Higher Education, 201–211.
An, S. (2013). Schema theory in reading. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 3(1).
Anderson, N. J. (1999). Improving reading speed: Activities for the classroom. Forum, 37(2), n2.
Ayad, K., Bennani, K. D., & Elhachloufi, M. (2020). Evolution of university governance in Morocco: What is the impact? International Journal of Higher Education, 9(5), 94–104.
Banks, J. A. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 3–29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beerkens, M. (2018). Evidence-based policy and higher education quality assurance: Progress, pitfalls and promise. European Journal of Higher Education, 8(3), 272–287.
Bouziane, A. (1993). Towards an effective use of reading texts: An investigation (pp. 83–97). Proceedings of the XIIIth MATE Annual Conference.
Bouziane, A. (2019). ELT issues in Morocco: A research-based perspective. Moroccan Association of Teachers of English.
Burgstahler, S. (2009). Universal design: Process, principles, and applications. DO-IT.
Carrell, P. L. (1984). Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and applications. The Modern Language Journal, 68(4), 332–343.
Collins, A., & Smith, E. E. (1980). Teaching the process of reading comprehension. BBN Report; No. 4393.
Connell, B. R., & Sanford, J. A. (1999). Research implications of universal design (pp. 35–57). Enabling Environments: Measuring the Impact of Environment on Disability and Rehabilitation.
Courey, S. J., Tappe, P., Siker, J., & LePage, P. (2013). Improved lesson planning with Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 36(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412446178
CSEFRS. (2019). Réforme de l’enseignement supérieur-perspectives stratégique. https://www.csefrs.ma/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/enseignement-supe%CC%81rieur-fr.pdf
Cumming, T. M., & Rose, M. C. (2022). Exploring universal design for learning as an accessibility tool in higher education: A review of the current literature. The Australian Educational Researcher, 49(5), 1025–1043.
Dahir n° 1-00-199 du 15 safar 1421 (19 mai 2000) portant promulgation de la loi n° 01-00 portant organisation de l’enseignement supérieur.
Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41.
Edyburn, D. L. (2021). Universal usability and universal design for learning. Intervention in School and Clinic, 56(5), 310–315.
Evmenova, A. (2018). Preparing teachers to use universal design for learning to support diverse learners. Journal of Online Learning Research, 4(2), 147–171.
Falk-Ross, F. C. (2001). Toward the new literacy: Changes in college students’ reading comprehension strategies following reading/writing projects. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(4), 278–288.
Fathi, J., & Afzali, M. (2020). The effect of second language Reading strategy instruction on young Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 475–488.
Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. (2022). Teaching in today’s inclusive classrooms: A universal design for learning approach. Cengage Learning.
Gilakjani, A. P., & Ahmadi, M. R. (2011). A study of factors affecting EFL learners’ English listening comprehension and the strategies for improvement.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6(4), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388076709556976
Grabe, W. (2009). 24 teaching and testing Reading. The Handbook of Language Teaching, 441.
Grabe, W. (2010). Fluency in reading—Thirty-five years later. Special Issue: In Honor of Paul Nation, 22(1), 71–83.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching reading. Pearson Education.
Hock, M., & Mellard, D. (2005). Reading comprehension strategies for adult literacy outcomes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(3), 192–200.
King-Sears, M. (2009). Universal design for learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 199–201. https://doi.org/10.2307/27740372
King-Sears, P. (2014). Introduction to learning disability quarterly special series on universal design for learning: Part one of two. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 68–70.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394.
Larouz, M., & Abouabdelkader, S. (2020). Teachers’ feedback on EFL students’ dissertation writing in Morocco. In A. M. Ahmed, S. Troudi, & S. Riley (Eds.), Feedback in L2 English writing in the Arab world: Inside the black box (pp. 201–232). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25830-6_8
Laufer, B. (1992). Reading in a foreign language: How does L2 lexical knowledge interact with the reader’s general academic ability’. Journal of Research in Reading, 15(2), 95–103.
Liu, J., Cohen, S. B., & Lapata, M. (2018). Discourse representation structure parsing (pp. 429–439). Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-1040
Maamouri, M. (1998). Language education and human development: Arabic diglossia and its impact on the quality of education in the Arab region. The Mediterranean Development Forum.
Meo, G. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying universal design for learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 21–30.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32(3), 379–394.
Nadori, N. (2020a). An ecological perspective on Reading development: A theoretical framework to guide empirical research. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 5(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v5i2.397
Nadori, N. (2020b). The predictive effects of reading motivation constructs and reading practice on Moroccan fourth graders reading comprehension achievement: An analysis of PIRLS 2011 study. European Journal of Teaching and Education, 2(2), 138–151.
Nathan, R. G., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). The causes and consequences of differences in reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 176–184.
Nouri, N., & Zerhouni, B. (2016). The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension among Moroccan EFL learners. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 21(10), 19–26.
Oublal, F. (1996). Reading in English as a foreign language: The effects of training Moroccan learners in the use of inferencing strategies. [Unpublished D.E.S. Dissertation]. Faculty of Education.
Oublal, F., & El Fatwaki, L. H. (1994). Can we make our learners more interested in reading in the foreign language? pp. 76–87.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Strategies for learning a second or foreign language. Language Teaching, 44(2), 167–180.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1–23.
Putnam, H. (1975). The Meaning of “Meaning.” Language, Mind, and Knowledge, 7(13), 131–193.
Rao, K., & Meo, G. (2016). Using universal design for learning to design standards-based lessons. SAGE Open, 6(4), 2158244016680688.
Robinson, D. E., & Wizer, D. R. (2016). Universal design for learning and the quality matters guidelines for the design and implementation of online learning events. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 17–32.
Rumelhart, D. E. (2017). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Routledge.
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 23–55.
Urquhart, A. H., & Weir, C. J. (2014). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1982). Opinions and attitudes in discourse comprehension. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 35–51). Elsevier.
Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational Psychologist, 32(2), 59–68.
Wordsworth, W. (1802). My heart leaps up when I behold. Poem.
Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (2006). Competence and control beliefs: Distinguishing the means and ends. Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2, 349–367.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Questionnaire
This questionnaire aims at identifying the necessary features of a Reading Comprehension Module. The purpose is to examine some of the teachers’ motivational drives and needs. If you agree with the above purpose, please fill in the questionnaire as requested. Your collaboration is highly appreciated.
How do you value the importance of the following features in a reading comprehension course? Unimportant (1); less important (2); somewhat important (3); important (4); very important (5).
For each of the items below, tick a box to show how important it is for you when (you are presented with):
Statement | Unimportant | Less important | Somewhat important | Important | Very important | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Texts are accessible in electronic copies. | |||||
2. | Texts that require internet access. | |||||
3. | Texts are accessible as hard copies or in a textbook. | |||||
4. | Texts are accompanied with focused instructions. | |||||
5 | Texts are provided with tips and sample answers. | |||||
6. | Resources that require sufficient background knowledge. | |||||
7. | Literary text with images. | |||||
8. | Materials and activities with guidance and explanations. | |||||
9. | Materials in different format, such as cards, pictures, and table. | |||||
10. | Texts with multiple-choice questions. | |||||
11. | Texts that are descriptive. | |||||
12. | Materials with vocabulary-oriented activities. | |||||
13. | Reading material that provides new content. | |||||
14. | Texts and activities that allow for the use of dictionaries. | |||||
15. | Texts and activities that allow for the use of internet resources. | |||||
16. | Texts representing the foreign language culture. | |||||
17. | Texts and activities dealing with social and daily life situations. | |||||
18. | Texts about scientific and technological issues. | |||||
19. | Texts and materials about arts. | |||||
20. | Language-rich reading materials | |||||
21. | Texts about philosophical issues. | |||||
22. | Long texts that provide a lot of information. | |||||
23. | Research analytic texts. | |||||
24. | Reading materials that provide cultural knowledge. | |||||
25. | Texts that contain figures and digits. | |||||
26. | Reading materials to summarize. | |||||
27. | Materials that demand analyzing and evaluating. | |||||
28. | Materials and activities that call for students’ reasoning | |||||
29. | Materials and activities to comment on. | |||||
30. | Materials and activities with the target language jargon. | |||||
31. | Long texts that require attention. | |||||
32. | Texts with challenging language. | |||||
33. | Texts that contain rich vocabulary. | |||||
34. | Materials that use jargon vocabulary used by professionals. | |||||
35. | Short texts that require little time to do. | |||||
36. | Texts that do not exceed a quarter or half a page. | |||||
37. | Texts and activities that rely on personal abilities. | |||||
38. | Texts and activities that demand immediate action. | |||||
39. | Text questions that demand a lot of reflection. | |||||
40. | Materials and activities that involve interaction between students. | |||||
41. | Materials and activities that create discussions between groups. | |||||
42. | Materials and activities that can be done in groups. | |||||
43. | Activities that include charts and diagrams. | |||||
44. | Tasks that assess one’s ability to locate information in the text. |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Abouabdelkader, S. (2023). Representation, Engagement, and Expression in Moroccan Higher Education Curricula: Focus on Reading Comprehension. In: Abouabdelkader, H., Tomalin, B. (eds) Diversity Education in the MENA Region. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42693-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42693-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-42692-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-42693-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)