c Cambridge University Press 2010

Lang. Teach. (2010), 43:3, 297–319 !

doi:10.1017/S0261444810000042

A Country in Focus

Research in English language teaching and learning in Israel

(2004–2009)

Larissa Aronin Oranim Academic College of Education, University of Haifa, Israel

larisa@research.haifa.ac.il

Bernard Spolsky Bar-Ilan University, Israel

bspolsky@gmail.com

The goal of this article is to make research on English language teaching and learning
published locally in Israel more widely available. Given that so many Israeli researchers are
internationally trained and maintain wide connections, it necessarily omits much important
work that appears in European and US journals. It focuses on shorter studies, commonly
unfunded, that university teachers in EFL programs or in teacher training programs at smaller
colleges conduct in their own time. It represents a wide range of good quality research,
‘glocal’ in that its local production does not compromise potential contributions to global
concerns. The main themes treated are the early start of teaching English, the development of
an integrated methodology, detailed studies of the teaching of lexicon and writing,
specialized studies of dyslexia, computer-assisted instruction, English for academic purposes,
and teaching Israeli students who already know some English from home or visits abroad. The
overall quality of the research is high, matching all but a few top international journals.

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
298 A COUNTRY IN FOCUS

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 2001), 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
 LARISSA ARONIN & BERNARD SPOLSKY: ISRAEL 299

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 1999: 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 2008; Teferra 2008).
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,
300 A COUNTRY IN FOCUS

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 1995).
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 1997: 3; Cook 2008:2). Spolsky & Shohamy’s (1999: 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-literature1 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 1973: 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

1 Horowitz (1986) cited an English inspector in the 1950s who said we teach English literature because there is no Hebrew
literature!
 LARISSA ARONIN & BERNARD SPOLSKY: ISRAEL 301

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 2008). 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
302 A COUNTRY IN FOCUS

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 2004, 2009; 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 intro-
duction of this internationally important language. The controversy swirling around this topic
has stimulated both theoretical analysis and experimental research among disputing parties.
 LARISSA ARONIN & BERNARD SPOLSKY: ISRAEL 303

At one end of the discussion are those who advocate teaching English to young learners.
Bejarano (2004, 2005) 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 (2005) 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 (2005) 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 (2008) 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).
304 A COUNTRY IN FOCUS

On a more practical level, Ur (2005), 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 (2006: 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 (2008), 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 1997, 2005, 2009). It has resulted in many local and international
 LARISSA ARONIN & BERNARD SPOLSKY: ISRAEL 305

publications which treat various aspects of teaching English vocabulary items. In her
presentation at the Annual Northern ETAI conference, Laufer (2005) 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 (1997) 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 (2004) and Laufer & Girsai (2008) 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 (2004) 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 (2006, 2009). Schur (2004) 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 2006: 9).
Magal-Lehavy’s (2004) 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
306 A COUNTRY IN FOCUS

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 (2008).
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
(2004) 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 2009). Holzman (2005) 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 (2008), which
 LARISSA ARONIN & BERNARD SPOLSKY: ISRAEL 307

involves understanding the idea of genre, rather than studying templates of documents to
find standardized formats.
Zuckermann (2006: 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 2006, 2007). 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 (2004a, b) 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 (2006) 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
308 A COUNTRY IN FOCUS

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 (2009) focuses on the need, and methods of
identification, of students with particular learning difficulties within mainstream English
classrooms.
Kahn-Horwitz (2009), 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 (2009), 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 (2007) 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
 LARISSA ARONIN & BERNARD SPOLSKY: ISRAEL 309

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 2008), 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 2005) 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 2005; Strekalovsky, Bensoussan, Ben-
Israel, Davidson, Dolgopolov & Yizraeli 2007) and language teaching and the internet (Ben-
Israel, Bensoussan, Bogdanov & Miller 2005). Another team of researchers studied teaching
English via the internet with specific reference to Arab students (Haim, Idan & Zahar 2006).
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 (2009) 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 (2007, 2008) 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
310 A COUNTRY IN FOCUS

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 2004) and therefore should be taught with the help of
special teaching methods.
Broido & Shiloh (2009) 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 (2009) 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 (2009) 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
 LARISSA ARONIN & BERNARD SPOLSKY: ISRAEL 311

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 (2005, 2006) 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 (2004) 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 (2005), 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
312 A COUNTRY IN FOCUS

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 (2007).
The authors undertook a theoretical approach to multiple language learning on the basis of
a number of their previous studies in Israel. Aronin & Singleton (2008) drew on the concept
of AFFORDANCES (perceived opportunities for action, cf. Gibson 1977) 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
(2005) 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 (2008) 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
 LARISSA ARONIN & BERNARD SPOLSKY: ISRAEL 313

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 (2004, 2005) 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 (2004) 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 (2004) 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 (2004a, b) 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
314 A COUNTRY IN FOCUS

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 (2008), 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
2008). Another example might be written work presented as research but in reality consists
only of a narrative containing research vocabulary (Klein-Wohl, Gordon & Busso 2005).
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
 LARISSA ARONIN & BERNARD SPOLSKY: ISRAEL 315

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 2004).
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.

References

Abu-Rabia, S. (2005). Superiority of bilingualism over monolingualism in learning a third language.

Presented at the SCRIPT conference, July, Nir–Ezion, Israel.
316 A COUNTRY IN FOCUS

Abu Rass, R. (2009). The influence of Arab culture on Arab students reading academic texts in English.
Presented at the UTELI Annual Conference, February, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
Adari, S. (2009). Computer assisted courses for learning disabled students at the Max Stern Academic
College of Emek Yezreel. Presented at the UTELI Annual Conference, February, Tel-Aviv University,
Israel.
Aronin, L. (2005). Theoretical perspectives of trilingual education. The International Journal of the Sociology
of Language 171, 7–22.
Aronin, L. & D. Singleton (2008). Multilingualism as a new linguistic dispensation. International Journal
of Multilingualism 5.1, 1–16.
Barkon, E. (2006). Coding, chunking and comprehension: Three priorities in second language reading.
ETAI Forum XVII.2, 8–11.
Barkon, E. (2009). Bark on about fluency. Presented at ETAI Summer Conference, July, Jerusalem,
Israel.
Bejarano, Y. (2004). Considerations for teaching and assessing young learners. Part I. ETAI Forum
XV.1, 86–87.
Bejarano, Y. (2005). Considerations for teaching and assessing young learners. Part II. ETAI Forum
XV.2, 61–64.
Bejarano, Y. & C. Gordon (no date). Considerations for teaching and assessing
young learners learning English as a foreign language. www.eadventure.co.il/FileServer/
960a23fd7034f55fd048fb990df027a2.doc.
Ben-Israel, B., E. Avinor & M. Bensoussan (2009). Can we tell in advance? Criteria for the identification
of remedial students. Presented at UTELI Annual Conference, February, Tel-Aviv University,
Israel.
Ben-Israel, B., M. Bensoussan, O. Bogdanov & L. Miller (2005). Language teaching and the Internet:
Computer-mediated EFL academic reading comprehension courses. Presented at UTELI Annual
Conference, February, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Ben-Israel, B., M. Bensoussan, S. Strekalovsky, N. Davidson & Y. Dolgopolov (2005). Talking
computers: Speech recognition software and learning disabled or weak university students. Presented
at UTELI Annual Conference, February, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Broido, M. & I. Shiloh (2009). An Ethiopian narrative journey into the expository text. Presented at
UTELI Annual Conference, February, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Hodder Education.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gefen, R. (1973). Implementing the new syllabus: Action and reaction. English Teachers Journal (Israel)
11, 9–11.
Genser, L. (2007). Learning disabilities and second language learning. Presented at UTELI Annual
Conference, February, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
Gibson, J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (eds.), Perceiving, acting, and
knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 67–82.
Girsai, N. (2004). [The
use of mother tongue for improving foreign language vocabulary]. Presented at the IALS conference,
June, Beit Berl College, Kfar-Saba, Israel.
Haim, O. (2005). Exploring teachers’ subject matter knowledge: A pragmatic approach. TRENDS: The
Yearbook of CONTACT 11, 1–17.
Haim, O., O. Idan & R. Zahar (2006). Teaching English via the internet to Arab students: Integration
of the GBI and edugaming methods. ETAI Forum XVII.3, 38–41.
Heimann, D. (2004). Ethiopian students and English for Academic Purposes: Special teaching methods
for special needs. Presented at the IALS conference, June, Beit Berl College, Kfar-Saba, Israel.
www.tau.ac.il/∼ials/TakzirimBerel2004.html.
Hirsh, S. (2009). Bilinguals studying English as L3: A cognitive advantage? Presented at UTELI Annual
Conference, February, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
Hoffmann-Schwarz, R. (2004). Literacy, literacies or multiliteracy? ETAI Forum XV.3, 30–33.
Holzman, S. (2005). Writing tasks: Mind the gap and bridge the gap. ETAI Forum XV.2,
48–51.
Holzman, S. (2008). A genre-based approach to L2 writing. Presented at UTELI Annual Conference,
February, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
 LARISSA ARONIN & BERNARD SPOLSKY: ISRAEL 317

Holzman, S. (2009). Writing accuracy. Presented at the ETAI Summer Conference, July, Jerusalem,
Israel.
Horovitz, N. (1986). Policy and planning in the teaching of English in Israel. MA thesis, Bar-Ilan
University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Hufeisen, B. & G. Neuner (2004). The Plurilingualism Project: Tertiary Language Learning – German after
English. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Kahn-Horwitz, J. (2009). Dyslexia and other learning difficulties. Presented at the ETAI Spring
Conference, April, Haifa, Israel.
Kalekin-Fishman, D. (2005). Multiculturalism in teacher education: Who, What, Where, When, Why,
and some Hows. TRENDS: The Yearbook of CONTACT 11, 51–61.
Klein-Wohl, E., C. Gordon & N. Busso (2005). Meeting the needs of low-level readers of English as a
foreign language in on-line courses. Annual report of Ch@is: Research Center for the Integration
of Technology in Education. Ra’anana: The Open University, 21–22.
Kol, S. & M. Schcolnik (2005). Online forums: Evaluating student contributions and attitudes. Presented
at the ACROLT Conference, June, Maale Hachamisha, Israel.
Kotik-Friedgut, B. (2008). Enhancement of autonomy in language learners. In Stavans & Kupferberg
(eds.), 243–260.
Kreindler, I., M. Bensoussan, E. Avinor & C. Bram (1995). Circassian Israelis: Multilingualism as a
way of life. Language, Culture and Curriculum 8.2, 149–162.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you don’t know, words you
think you know and words you can’t guess. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (eds.), Second language vocabulary
acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20–34.
Laufer, B. (2005). Learning vocabulary in a second language: Insights from research. ETAI Forum
XVII.1, 8–12.
Laufer, B. (2009). Second language vocabulary acquisition from language input and from form-focused
activities. Language Teaching 42.3, 341–354.
Laufer, B. & N. Girsai (2008). Vocabulary acquisition through text-based translation tasks. In Stavans
& Kupferberg (eds.), 261–275.
Leshem, S. & R. Bar-Hama (2008). Evaluating teaching practice. ELT Journal 62.3, 257–265.
Magal-Lehavy, A. (2004). Changing vocabulary teaching strategies: Text profiling, dictoglossing and
recycling. ETAI Forum XV.3, 39–41.
Ministry of Education (1988). English curriculum for state schools and state religious schools, grades 5–12.
Jerusalem: Pedagogical Secretariat, Israel Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (1995). Policy for language education in Israel. Jerusalem: Pedagogical Secretariat,
Israel Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (1996). Policy for language education in Israel. Jerusalem: Pedagogical Secretariat,
Israel Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (2001). English curriculum for all grades: Principles and standards for learning English as
a foreign language in Israeli schools. Jerusalem: Pedagogical Secretariat, Israel Ministry of Education.
www.education.gov.il/tochniyot_limudim/eng1.htm
Narkiss, D. (2004a). Non-native English-speaking teachers and the use of L1 in the English language
classroom revisited. ETAI Forum XV.1, 72–73.
Narkiss, D. (2004b). Non-native teachers, citizenship, and literature in the English language
classroom. Presented at the IALS conference, June, Beit Berl College, Kfar-Saba, Israel.
www.tau.ac.il/∼ials/TakzirimBerel2004.html.
Perpignan, H., B. Rubin & H. Katznelson (2004). English in the classroom: Are we aware of the
‘by-products’? ETAI Forum XV.1, 76–78.
Rajuan, M. (2004). Inner circle – outer circle: Expectations of student teachers and cooperating
teachers. ETAI Forum XV.1, 81–82.
Rubin, B. & T. Zuckermann (2008). Academic writing in Israel: Birth and development www.zeitschrift-
schreiben.eu/Beitraege/rubin_AcaWritingIsrael.pdf.
Russak, S. & J. Kahn-Horwitz (2008). The use of a developmental stage model in the assessment of
spelling in a foreign language. Presented at the ACROLT conference, September, Open University,
Ra’anana, Israel.
Sanitsky, I. (2004). The effect of bilingualism on the third language: Comparing the effect on
learners of two different spelling systems with learners of one orthography on the learning of a
318 A COUNTRY IN FOCUS

third orthography. Presented at the IALS conference, June, Beit Berl College, Kfar–Saba, Israel.
www.tau.ac.il/∼ials/TakzirimBerel2004.html.
Schcolnik, M. (2008). Webpage projects in EAP: Technology enables alternative assessment. Presented
at the ACROLT conference. September, Open University, Ra’anana, Israel.
Schur, E. (2004). Bits and/or chunks? Implications for teaching and learning vocabulary. ETAI Forum
XV.1, 51–52.
Schwartz, M. (2005). Reading acquisition in Hebrew (L2) and in English (L3) among Russian-speaking
(L1) children: Bi-literate bilingualism versus mono-literate bilingualism. Presented at the SCRIPT
conference, July, Nir-Ezion, Israel.
Schwartz, M. (2006). The impact of literacy acquisition in L1 Russian on literacy acquisition in L2
Hebrew and in L3 English among Russian-speaking (L1) children: Bi-literate bilingualism versus
mono-literate bilingualism. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Haifa.
Segev-Miller, R. (2004a). The National Programme for the Teaching of English for Academic Purposes
in the colleges in Israel: A critique [in Hebrew]. Mahalachim: Levinsky College of Education Journal for
Education, Society, and Culture, 39–53.
Segev-Miller, R. (2004b). The effect of explicit instruction on college English majors’ writing-from-
sources. ETAI Forum XV.1, 60–61.
Shaul, M. (2008). Teaching new immigrants their mother tongue as a way to ease the problem of
immigration and adolescence. Presented at the conference Language Policy in Israel: The State of
the Art, May, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
Singleton, D. &. L. Aronin (2007). Multiple language learning in the light of the theory of affordances.
Innovation in Language Teaching and Learning 1, 83–96.
Spector-Cohen, E. (2007). Pilot study: Assessment beliefs and practices of EAP instructors. Presented
at the ACROLT conference, May, Open University, Ra’anana, Israel.
Spector-Cohen, E. (2008). Beliefs and practices of EAP instructors: Revisited. Presented at the UTELI
conference, March, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. & E. Shohamy (1999). The languages of Israel: Policy, ideology and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Spolsky, B. & E. Shohamy (2001). The penetration of English as language of science and technology
into the Israeli linguistic repertoire: A preliminary enquiry. In U. Ammon (ed.), The dominance of
English as language of science: Effects on other languages and language communities. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
167–176.
Stavans, A. & I. Kupferberg (eds.) (2008). Studies in language and language education: Essays in honor of Elite
Olshtain. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Strekalovsky, S., M. Bensoussan, B. Ben-Israel, N. Davidson, Y. Dolgopolov & B. Yizraeli (2007).
Learning-disabled students and the Audio-Visual Language Laboratory: Results of three years’
experience with speech-to-text software at the University of Haifa. Presented at UTELI Annual
Conference, February, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
Teferra, A. (2008). An overview of Amharic instruction in Israeli schools. Presented at the conference
Language Policy in Israel: The State of the Art, May, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
Timor, T. (2006). The inclusion of learning-disabled students: Major surgery or cosmetic face-lift?
ETAI Forum XVII.3, 8–11.
Timor, T. (2009). Identification of the special needs within mainstream English classrooms. ETAI Forum
Spring 2009. www.etni.org/etai/forum.html.
Ur, P. (2005). How far can the research help us with our aspirations? Plenary at ETAI Winter
Conference, December, Haifa, Israel. www.etni.org.il/etai/handouts.htm.
Ur, P. (2006). Wheels of change. Plenary at the ETAI Winter Conference, December, Beer Sheva,
Israel. www.etai.org.il/oldhandouts.html.
Ur, P. (2008). English as a Lingua Franca and some implications for English teachers. Presented at the
ETAI Summer Conference, July, Jerusalem, Israel.
Verspoor, M. & M. Cremer (2008). Research on foreign-language teaching and learning in the
Netherlands (2002–2008). Language Teaching 41.2, 183–211.
Yogev, S. & N. Waldman (2004). Professional development of teacher trainers through collaborative
action research. ETAI Forum XV.1, 79–80.
 LARISSA ARONIN & BERNARD SPOLSKY: ISRAEL 319

Yogev, S. & N. Waldman (2005). Generating knowledge about teacher educators’ practice through
collaborative action research. TRENDS: The Yearbook of CONTACT 11, 35–49.
Zuckermann, T. (2006). ‘Messy’ academic writing: A reflection on reflective journals in teacher
education. Ma’of u-Ma’aseh, the Journal of Theory and Research of Achva College of Education [M. P. Shikmim,
Israel: Achva College of Education] 12, VIII–XXIX.
Zuckermann, T. (2007). A reflection on reflective journals in teacher education. Presented at the
MOFET conference, June, Kaye College, Israel.
(2009) www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=
954208&contrassID=2&subContrassID=2&sbSubContrassID=0 [‘Aramaic now’ Yoav Shatran].

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: www.biu.ac.il/faculty/spolsb/.