The effect of language typology on the students’ writing skills: A case of the undergraduate students of Arabic language and literature at Arak University

Introduction Research suggests that most students learning Arabic in Iran face difficulties in applying Arabic writing skills. In teaching a second language, it can be said that language-learning is nothing but recognizing the differing parameters of the two languages. Therefore, the learners’ mother tongue plays a key role in the process of learning a second or foreign language. This study aims to evaluate the effect of a writing model on the writing skills of the undergraduate students majoring in Arabic language and literature. The model was designed based on the typological comparison of Arabic and Persian grammars. The ultimate goal of the project is to use the results of this typological analysis to facilitate and speed up the process of the development of Arabic writing skills. To date, no previous research has been found that addresses this specific topic. Therefore, the present study is new in its focus and significant in terms of its research contribution. Nonetheless, some related studies are worth mentioning. Zamani Behbahani (2017) investigated 60 morphological-syntactic components based on a typological model and explained the similarities and differences of these components between Arabic and Persian languages. Rahmah (2020) identified the similarities and differences of these components between the two languages based on typology and linguistic universals. Dabir Moghadam et al. (2021), focusing on the typological components of word order, identified similarities and differences between Persian and Arabic for the purpose of teaching Persian grammar to the Arabic-speaking learners of Persian. Materials and methods This study is a quasi-experimental research employing a descriptive-analytical method. Based on typological studies between Persian and Arabic, a model for teaching writing skills in Arabic was developed. This model was taught for one academic semester in the “writing 1” course for undergraduate students majoring in Arabic language and literature at Arak University. Based on the students pre-test scores, they were homogeneously divided into experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, differences and similarities of the grammatical components of Persian and Arabic were taught. In contrast, the control group received the same components, and to some extent the same content, were taught, but without referring to the similarities and differences of the intended components. At the end of the semester, a post-test was administered to both groups. In both the pre-test post-test, students' knowledge and skills were evaluated across three categories: components common to both Persian and Arabic, components that differ between the two languages, and Arabic-specific components. Results and discussion The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess the normality of the collected data. All the variables under study had significance levels greater than 0.05. Therefore, the data were normally distributed and the use of parametric tests was appropriate. To analyze the test results, analysis of covariance and Levene's test were conducted using SPSS. The following presents part of the analysis of the pre-test and post-test scores of all language learners. Table 1. Descriptive indicators of the total scores of language learners stage Group mean variance pre-test control experimental 4.7917 4.5625 1.328 1.126 post-test control experimental 11.6875 15.5208 2.240 3.767 The mean pre-test scores of the language learners in the control and experimental groups were 4.79 and 4.56, respectively, while the mean post-test scores were 11.69 and 15.52, respectively. Table 2. Covariance analysis of the total scores in the post-test source of changes sum of squares degrees of freedom average of squares F value level of significance Eta squared Post-test effect 1.664 1 1.664 0.543 0.469 0.025 Group 89.756 1 89.756 29.264 0.000 0.582 Error 64.408 21 3.067 The significance level for the groups is 0.000, which is below the acceptable threshold of 0.05. Therefore, regarding the three components examined, a significant difference was observed between the control and experimental groups at the post-test stage. Figure 1. The total scores of the language learners in the pre-test and in the post-test Conclusion The results showed the effectiveness of the mentioned model. This effect was higher in specific components with the obtained value of 76.7% than in different components with the value of 48.3%. As for the common components, with the obtained value of 4.6%, and based on covariance analysis, the mentioned teaching method was not effective in improving the students' progress in understanding and applying this component. Moreover, in the analysis of the data related to the knowledge performance and the skill performance of the language learners in the mentioned components, it was found that the mentioned teaching method was effective in improving the knowledge and skill performance of Arabic writing in the undergraduate students of Arabic Language and Literature at Arak University. However, this effect was higher in the skill performance of the language learners with 53.1% than the knowledge performance of them with 39.7%. According to the results of the analysis, it was found that the mentioned teaching method generally had a greater effect on the skill performance of the learners than on their knowledge performance. This effect on the knowledge performance of the learners was 19% in different components and 42.5% on their skill performance in the said component. Moreover, the knowledge performance of the learners in specific components was equal to 44.9% and 64.5% for their skill performance. In order to make this model more effective, it is suggested that the necessary language rules be used in this model on the basis of the priority of teaching so that the principle of simple to complex teaching is observed.