黑料不打烊

Internationally validated literacy assessments, like the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), are widely administered around the world for their flexibility to be translated into other languages including the Arabic language. This blog post summarises our , which nonetheless identified a transparency gap in reporting multilingual Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) learners’ literacy achievement in similar assessments (Bin Rashed et al., 2025). This is primarily due to the diglossic nature of Arabic, having two varieties for different purposes and contexts: Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and Spoken Arabic Vernacular (SAV).

To explain, the GCC is a regional alliance established in 1981, comprising six countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. Arabic is the official language of all GCC countries, serving as a unifying cultural and linguistic thread across the region. However, within the GCC, there is a rich diversity of spoken Arabic varieties in everyday life, varying not only from country to country but also among regions within the same country. Despite these differences, MSA remains the ‘formal’ or ‘high’ version of the language used in official documents, media, education and religious contexts, and SAV the ‘informal’ or ‘low’ variety of Arabic used in quotidian interactions (Eviatar & Ibrahim, 2000; Ferguson, 1959; García, 2009; Romaine, 2000; Ryding, 1995; Saiegh-Haddad, 2011).

The heart of the issue here is that while monolingual young readers sit literacy assessments in their non-diglossic First Language (L1), taking similar literacy assessments in the GCC region often results in inequitably assessing learners’ reading skills in a Second Language (L2) as opposed to their first. For instance, Kuwaiti Arabic speakers typically acquire Kuwaiti Arabic (SAV) in their home environments and learn MSA at school as a second language variety. Notably, fourth-grade learners in Arabic-speaking schools take the PIRLS assessment in its translated MSA version, which problematically renders the Arabic language as ‘a single, unified construct and a neutral medium of reading, with diglossia rarely mentioned’ (Bin Rashed et al., 2025, p. 4). As a result, the noted research gap stems from not considering the diverse multilingual resources that learners now bring to literacy, beyond using standard varieties (see Choi et al., 2022).

‘Overlooking the diglossic nature of the language has created a gap in reporting multilingual Arab learners’ literacy achievement results.’

Evidently, the results of our study have implications for literacy research in the GCC region and other relevant Arab countries. Overlooking the diglossic nature of the language has created a gap in reporting multilingual Arab learners’ literacy achievement results, evident in the varying perspectives on diglossia in research conducted in GCC countries. One strategy for addressing this is considering learners’ cultural and linguistic profiles when comparing results with other monolingual test takers. Our study also recommends that policymaking stakeholders adopt more adaptable language policies that consider the linguistic and social realities of bilingual Arab learners and their impact on their literacy achievement.

One way to achieve this is by incorporating multilingual approaches that include SAV in assessing Arab learners’ literacy achievement, while addressing diglossia in assessment reporting. This could provide a balanced reporting of proficiency in either communicative setting. Transparency comes with its own complexities with respect to assessing bilingual learners’ literacy achievement, and not taking the diglossic nature of Arabic into consideration could lead to (un)intended academic and social consequences (see Messick, 1990). Our study substantiates the need to address the lack of transparent reporting of literacy test results, especially considering recent global shifts in education.

References

Bin Rashed, F. M., Al Qenai, R. M., Westaway, L., & Takriti, R. (2025). The impact of varying diglossia conceptualizations on transparency in reporting literacy achievement in the GCC region. Review of Education, 13, Article e70122.

Choi, J., Cross, R., Davies, L. M., Ollerhead, S., & Barnes, M. (2022). Looking towards plurilingual futures for literacy assessment. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 45(3), 325–340.

Eviatar, Z. & Ibrahim, R. (2000). Bilingual is as bilingual does: Metalinguistic abilities of Arabic–speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(4), 451–471.

Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15(2), 325–340.

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.

Messick, S. (1990). Validity of test interpretation and use. Educational Testing Service.

Ryding, K. C. (1995). Discourse competence in TAFL: Skill levels and choice of language variety in the Arabic classroom. In M. Al-Batal (Ed.), The teaching of Arabic as a foreign language: Issues and directions (pp. 223–231). American Association of Teachers of Arabic.

Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2011). Literacy reflexes of Arabic diglossia. In M. Leikin, M. Schwartz, & Y. Tobin (Eds.), Current issues in bilingualism: Cognitive and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 43–56). Springer.