View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Examination of Differences in Linguistic and Meta-Linguistic Skills in English (FL) and Hebrew (L1): English Intervention Program for Dyslexic, Poor and Normal Readers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Examination of Differences in Linguistic and Meta-Linguistic Skills in English (FL) and Hebrew (L1): English Intervention Program for Dyslexic, Poor and Normal Readers
Language: English
Authors: Feder, Liat, Abu-Rabia, Salim
Source: Journal of Educational Research. 2020 113(3):226-243.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 6
Intermediate Grades
Middle Schools
Descriptors: Dyslexia, Reading Difficulties, Reading Skills, Semitic Languages, English (Second Language), Intervention, Linguistics, Metalinguistics, Grade 6, Phonology, Morphology (Languages), Syntax, Semantics, Written Language, Decoding (Reading), Word Recognition, Reading Fluency, Spelling, Reading Comprehension, Verbal Communication, Program Effectiveness, Foreign Countries, Phonological Awareness, Reading Rate, Accuracy
Geographic Terms: Israel
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2020.1782812
ISSN: 0022-0671
Abstract: This research examined differences between dyslexic, poor and normal readers who learn in the same educational framework, across various linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew as the first language (L1) and English as a foreign language (FL), following an intervention program focusing on English linguistic skills. The participants included 124 sixth graders divided into an experimental and a control group, where each group was divided into dyslexic, poor and normal readers. The experimental group participated in an intervention program in English, constructed to the requirements of this research, in addition to the regular sixth-grade English curriculum. All participants were administered a battery of tests in English and Hebrew: phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, orthography, decoding, word recognition, reading fluency, dictation, spelling and reading comprehension before and after the intervention program. More significant differences in most linguistic and meta-linguistic skills improvement in English and in Hebrew were found in the experimental group compared to the control group, with the most significant improvement exhibited by the dyslexic readers. The findings indicate the contribution of the intervention program in English for improving linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in both languages among all readers, and especially among dyslexic readers. Enlargement of the curriculum in English appears to expand their potential, and their improvement is better than that of the poor and normal readers.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1262141
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGPUbQmoxoh_IuRqR2U3hcHAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBuqsJgel2qBMlULhQIBEICBm6APfKIXyEx7lEYvobpf4p1APYSCM8yifJVYsEyU5f4l9en3PDrBJBcwP0MiYdZfx9UdtcIyDr_SE9dHjTiw9aLogUEn2GfurYFcT4ubWommVCJI0tb48_UAYnUKZ6FbxhFiQ9vBWYMKZcdH_MyTL2KvSCEVRtFrC1VVw4yOjGi4QhbEl3JQH-pP6raTNA6r3l1P95hwNMfxwxwW
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0144655287;ere01may.20;2020Jul21.02:44;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0144655287-1">An examination of differences in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English (FL) and Hebrew (L1): English intervention program for dyslexic, poor and normal readers </title> <p>This research examined differences between dyslexic, poor and normal readers who learn in the same educational framework, across various linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew as the first language (L1) and English as a foreign language (FL), following an intervention program focusing on English linguistic skills. The participants included 124 sixth graders divided into an experimental and a control group, where each group was divided into dyslexic, poor and normal readers. The experimental group participated in an intervention program in English, constructed to the requirements of this research, in addition to the regular sixth-grade English curriculum. All participants were administered a battery of tests in English and Hebrew: phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, orthography, decoding, word recognition, reading fluency, dictation, spelling and reading comprehension before and after the intervention program. More significant differences in most linguistic and meta-linguistic skills improvement in English and in Hebrew were found in the experimental group compared to the control group, with the most significant improvement exhibited by the dyslexic readers. The findings indicate the contribution of the intervention program in English for improving linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in both languages among all readers, and especially among dyslexic readers. Enlargement of the curriculum in English appears to expand their potential, and their improvement is better than that of the poor and normal readers.</p> <p>Keywords: Dyslexics; English as Foreign Language; English Language Intervention program; poor readers; Hebrew as the First Language; linguistic and meta-linguistic skills; transfer of linguistic skills/cross-linguistics transfer</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Acquiring reading in a second (L2)/foreign language (FL) is commonly assumed to be easier for normal readers than for poor readers. Basic linguistic skills that predict success in reading in the L1 will do likewise in L2/FL. Readers with poor reading skills in their L1 will therefore also have poor skills in their L2/FL (Abu-Rabia & Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]; Geva et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref2">42</reflink>]). Leading theories in bilingualism maintain that first-language skills, including the phonology, orthography, syntax and semantics components, are common to all languages. They support the learning of L2 and FL, including reading. Difficulties in the language code (especially in phonology, orthography, syntax and semantics) will undergo transfer from the L1 to an additional (L2/FL) language that is being learned and will constitute the basis for individual differences. Thus, deficits in the L2/FL language arise from deficits in one or more of these components in the reader's L1. Linguistic skills involved in reading and writing are transferred across languages according to Cummins' Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummins, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref4">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref5">27</reflink>]). Many studies demonstrated transference of linguistic and meta-linguistic skills from the L1 to other languages (L2/FL). This study included dyslexic, poor and normal readers who study in the same educational framework. Differences between these readers were examined regarding improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew and English in connection with reading and writing. The effect of an intervention program for improving skills in English (FL) on skills in Hebrew (L1) was also examined in the three reader groups.</p> <p>The linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew and English tested among the dyslexic, poor and normal readers included phonology, morphology, syntax, orthography, decoding, word recognition, reading fluency, reading comprehension and spelling. Thirteen tests were administered in each language. Reading accuracy (% mistakes) and/or fluency (words/min) were tested. All participants completed a background questionnaire for demographic and literacy data.</p> <p>The research results will contribute to increase understanding of cross-linguistic transfer of linguistic skills between the two examined languages (English and Hebrew) in dyslexic, poor and normal readers and will reflect on how the FL is taught and on the design of suitable intervention programs.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-3">Theoretical background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0144655287-4">Second-language learning theories</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0144655287-5">The Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis</hd> <p>The Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis proposed by Cummins ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref6">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref7">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref8">27</reflink>]) posits that the different languages acquired in a person's lifetime develop on the basis of linguistic mechanisms common to all of them, i.e. skills undergo transference from the L1 to the L2. Children who have achieved a certain level of mastery in one language will therefore tend to advance further in acquiring the L2, and to do so via transfer of linguistic skills from one language to the other. An important measure underlying cross-lingual transfer is Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), which holds that the level of cognitive and academic skills in the mother tongue effectuates an efficient transfer of linguistic skills from one language to another.</p> <p>Cummins assumed that linguistic skills in reading are transferred from one language to another. There is ample evidence that supports the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis and confirms the cross-lingual transfer of skills. This evidence includes awareness of phonology (Durgunoğlu et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref9">32</reflink>]; Geva et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref10">41</reflink>]; Wade-Woolley & Geva, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref11">42</reflink>]), morphology (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref12">93</reflink>]), syntax (Geva & Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref13">43</reflink>]) and word recognition (Geva et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref14">41</reflink>]) as well as fluency (Domínguez De Ramírez & Shapiro, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref15">28</reflink>]), spelling (Russak & Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref16">65</reflink>]) and reading comprehension (Abu-Rabia, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>]; Durgunoglu, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>]; Quiroga et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref19">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-6">The Script-Dependent Hypothesis</hd> <p>The Script-Dependent Hypothesis claims that reading development is influenced by the language's orthographic features. When an orthographic difference exists between the L1 and the L2, it will affect acquisition of reading skills in the L2. This hypothesis holds that efficient reading in that language is a function of the orthography of the L1, and orthographic differences play a major role in acquiring reading in the L2. For example, difficulties in reading in one language will influence the graphemic-phonemic coding in that language, but will not necessarily affect the development of reading in the L2 with its different orthography (Liberman et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref20">58</reflink>]; Lindgren et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref21">59</reflink>]). According to this hypothesis, reading problems and their characterization are directly influenced by differences in letter-sound presentations in different orthographies (Geva, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref22">40</reflink>]; Gholamain & Geva, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref23">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Support for this view was provided by Abu-Rabia ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref24">1</reflink>]), who examined the connection between reading, syntax, orthography and working memory skills in two different orthographies: Russian (L1) and English (L2). Significant correlations were found within each language, but not across languages. It was argued that specific orthographic skills in different languages (with different scripts) are language-dependent, and only intensive exposure to the orthographic features of the given language will ensure the development of these skills. Geva and Siegel ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref25">43</reflink>]) examined first- to fifth-graders' learning to read simultaneously in English as the L1 and in Hebrew as the L2. Their findings that children read more accurately in Hebrew which presents a shallow orthography than in English which presents a deep orthography support this view. Mistakes in decoding were also orthography-dependent.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-7">The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis</hd> <p>The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis refers to the effect of a language's orthography on recognition of the written word. The reading-acquisition process and the perception of words in different languages are influenced by the unique features of the writing system of each orthography. In shallow orthographies, a monovalent link joins the language sound and the written graphic parallel. That is, for every language sound there is a graphic equivalent in writing. In contradistinction, in deep orthographies there is a haze and a distinct match between the words, the sounds and their graphic equivalents is missing. The language sounds are only partially represented, and a certain word can therefore be read in different ways (Frost, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref26">33</reflink>]; Katz & Frost, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref27">54</reflink>]). According to this hypothesis, readers adapt their reading strategy to the language's orthographic features. Languages with a shallow orthography display high consistency, and the reader relies on sub-lexical phonological units to decode words, whereas a deep orthography presents low consistency and the reader relies on whole lexical units to identify words (Frost, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref28">33</reflink>]; Katz & Frost, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref29">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Frost et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref30">38</reflink>]) compared word recognition in Hebrew, English and Serbo-Croatian. Their findings supported the argument that in deep orthographies such as Hebrew (non-vocalized) and English, the phonology derives from the lexicon, that is, the path is lexical, or global. However, in shallow orthographies such as Serbo-Croatian, deriving the phonology from the written text does not necessitate lexical intervention. It occurs in a process of replacing written symbols with phonemes, by way of a connective phonology.</p> <p>Numerous studies indicate differences in orthography depth and their effect on learning to read and write in different orthographies (Cossu et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref31">24</reflink>]; Geva & Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref32">43</reflink>]; Goswami et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref33">47</reflink>]). For example, readers in shallow orthographies exhibit better phonological awareness than readers in deep orthographies (Cossu et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref34">24</reflink>]). Children reading less clear orthographies were better supported by processing large orthographic units such as syllables and rhymes than children learning to read in very clear orthographies (Goswami et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref35">47</reflink>]). Furthermore, studies indicate that this hypothesis should be extended to non-alphabetic writing systems such as Chinese, which is deemed a logographic writing system (Wang & Geva, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref36">92</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-8">The Central Processing Hypothesis</hd> <p>The Central Processing Hypothesis (Geva & Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref37">43</reflink>]) posits that there exist common cognitive and linguistic bases such as short-term verbal memory, naming and phonological awareness, which predict the development of reading in the L1 and the L2 independently of the nature of the orthography and which occur through the process of reading between languages. People with cognitive or linguistic difficulty will find it hard to acquire basic reading skills regardless of the language or writing system, and regardless of whether it is their L1 or L2. Support for this argument is presented in studies that found correlations between reading words, verbal memory and phonological awareness in the L1 and the L2, and which indicated that cognitive and linguistic predictors are common to both languages despite the orthographic and structural dissimilarity between them (Geva et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref38">41</reflink>]; Geva & Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref39">43</reflink>]; Jayusy, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref40">49</reflink>]; Saiegh-Haddad & Geva, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref41">67</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-9">Psycholinguistic Grain Size Theory</hd> <p>According to the Psycholinguistic Grain Size Theory (Ziegler & Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref42">99</reflink>]), differences in reading accuracy and fluency are connected to the orthographic system of the language, which influences phonological processing and reading strategies. For example, reading acquisition will be easier and faster in shallow orthographies, such as Greek, German and Spanish, where there is a direct match between the letter and the sound, and readers rely on grapheme-phoneme decoding strategies. In contradistinction, readers are liable to encounter great difficulties in acquiring reading in deep orthographies, such as English, where the letter-sound correspondence is not always direct, because there is lower match between the letter and the sound, the graphic units have several forms of expression and some phonological units have several spelling possibilities. English-speaking children have to simultaneously develop graphic-phonemic decoding skills and recognition skills for larger structural units (such as syllables and rhymes) and whole-word recognition.</p> <p>Research on the Hebrew language supports this theory and shows that Hebrew reading involves two processes with mutual influences. These processes are defined according to the size of the units involved: One entails conversion of isolated letters into consonants, and the other encompasses the use of morphological information on the morphemes' structures that provide the missing vocalic information (Frost, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref43">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref44">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>The orthographic differences affect the acquisition of reading among dyslexics. According to the theory, although phonological deficit characterizes dyslexia in all languages, this deficiency is expected to be more overarching and inclusive in dyslexics learning to read and write in languages in which the letter-sound correspondence is less direct. The assumption is that inconsistency in these orthographies slows the reading process. This may therefore be one of the reasons for differences in reading development between languages (Ziegler & Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref45">99</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-10">The Linguistic Coding Difference Hypothesis</hd> <p>According to the Linguistic Difference Hypothesis (LCDH) (Sparks, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref46">83</reflink>]; Sparks & Ganschow, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref47">84</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref48">85</reflink>]), skills in the L1 underlie learning a L2 and FL. The skills in the L1, which include the phonology, orthography, syntax and semantics components, will affect the same skills in the additional languages. Difficulties in the linguistic code (especially the phonological, orthographic, syntactic or semantic) will be transferred when learning a FL and constitute the basis for individual differences. Kahn-Horwitz et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref49">51</reflink>]) study supports this hypothesis. They found that the variables in Hebrew as the L1 (phonological and morphological awareness, orthographic knowledge and accuracy and fluency in reading words) predicted the aptitude for recognition and naming of letters, reading pseudowords and reading comprehension in English as a FL among fourth graders.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-11">Dyslexia and acquisition of an second/foreign language</hd> <p>Dyslexia is a specific learning deficiency of neurobiological origin. It is characterized by difficulties in accuracy and/or fluency in reading, and by problems in spelling and coding ability. These difficulties are the result of damage to the phonological component (Lyon et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref50">61</reflink>]). A common definition of dyslexia is that it is expressed in evident difficulty or inadequate development of accuracy and fluency in reading words and/or in spelling (British Psychology Society, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref51">21</reflink>]). The International Dyslexia Association sanctions this definition. Other definitions in the literature emphasize the level of reading isolated words, and that the problem is serious and ongoing despite appropriate educational and cultural opportunities (Lyon et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref52">61</reflink>]). Accumulated evidence indicates that the difficulty in achieving accuracy in decoding written words originates in failure of phonological processing (Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref53">45</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref54">46</reflink>]; Snowling, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref55">80</reflink>]; Ziegler & Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref56">99</reflink>]). Studies also show difficulties in retrieving and recalling orthographic structures and a slower reading rate than that of age-matched normal readers (Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref57">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref58">18</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref59">6</reflink>]). Research findings indicate that tasks of rapid naming constitute a measure that predicts reading fluency and that struggling readers perform very slowly on these tasks compared with normal readers (Wolf & Bowers, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref60">96</reflink>]).</p> <p>Failure in reading accuracy and rate in dyslexic readers depends on the type of orthography. One of the explanations for this lies in the Orthographic Depth Hypothesis, which reflects the degree of clarity of the grapheme-phoneme correspondence. Studies indicate differences in reading accuracy and rapid automatized naming with different orthographies (Arabic – Abu-Rabia, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>]; German – Wimmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref62">94</reflink>]; Hebrew – Breznitz & Lekein, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref63">19</reflink>]; Italian – Tressoldi et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref64">86</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study focuses on two languages, Hebrew and English, which differ in phonological, morphological and orthographic structures (Ben-Dror et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref65">10</reflink>]; Frost, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref66">35</reflink>]). Agreement is found in the literature on variables that distinguish normal Hebrew readers from struggling readers of various ages, in that readers struggling with Hebrew, like readers struggling with English, exhibit failure in rate and accuracy of reading isolated words. These studies point to difficulties in phonological processing (Bentin & Leshem, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref67">11</reflink>]; Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref68">18</reflink>]), orthographic knowledge (Shany & Share, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref69">73</reflink>]), morphological knowledge (Ben-Dror et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref70">10</reflink>]; Schiff & Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref71">68</reflink>]) and naming (Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref72">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Bowers and Wolf ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref73">16</reflink>]) proposed an approach for classifying struggling readers based on features of the difficulties in reading, aiming to connect them to the cognitive mechanism explanation that underlies them. This approach supports the Double Deficit Hypothesis (DDH), which holds that four groups of readers can be identified: normal readers; readers struggling with phonological deficit only; readers struggling with naming deficit only and readers struggling with a double deficit: accuracy and naming (Wolf & Bowers, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref74">95</reflink>]). Research evidence indicates differences between the groups of readers on measures of reading and orthographic knowledge. Readers who struggle with a double deficit perform on the lowest level in most measures (Katzir et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref75">55</reflink>]; Lovett et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref76">60</reflink>]; Manis et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref77">62</reflink>]). Furthermore, Bruck's ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref78">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref79">23</reflink>]) studies, conducted among English speakers, indicated that dyslexics do not achieve matching levels of phonological awareness regardless of their age or reading level. When dyslexics acquire skills in word recognition, they find it difficult to do so through interaction between the phonological and the orthographical code, and as a result, their ability to perform phonemic manipulations is poor.</p> <p>Katzir et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref80">56</reflink>]) tested the universal and exclusive aspects of reading deficit in English and Hebrew orthographies. Readers who were dyslexic in Hebrew and English presented an identical level of functioning in a series of cognitive tasks. No significant differences were found in the phonological tasks. At the same time, the dyslexic group was faster in the naming task in Hebrew.</p> <p>Many studies concentrated on the connection between difficulties in acquiring the L1 and the L2. Ganschow et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref81">39</reflink>]) studied students with learning deficits in the FL and proposed the (Foreign) Language Linguistic Coding Difference Hypothesis (LCD). This hypothesis postulates that difficulties in the mother tongue are a predictive factor for difficulties in the FL. Sparks and Ganschow ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref82">84</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref83">85</reflink>]) confirmed the LCD Hypothesis and proposed that the basic linguistic skills that promote success in reading in the L1 will show a similar effect on the acquisition of the L2/FL. Linguistic skills that include phonology, orthography, syntax and semantics constitute the "core" that influences the learning of a FL, including reading. Difficulties in acquiring a FL arise from deficits in one or more of these skills in the L1.</p> <p>Support for this hypothesis was presented in the research of Breznitz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref84">20</reflink>]), who compared bilingual normal and dyslexic third- and fourth-grade readers on a series of reading tasks in Hebrew (L1) and English (L2). They also tested brain activity differences during the course of reading. No differences were found between the groups in an array of cognitive skills and hearing comprehension. Consistent differences were found between normal and dyslexic readers in all tasks tested in the two languages. The dyslexic readers were less accurate and slower in all Hebrew- and English-reading tasks.</p> <p>This study focuses on two types of orthographies, Hebrew and English, which differ in their phonological, morphological and orthographic structures.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-12">Orthographic and morphological features of Hebrew and English</hd> <p>The Hebrew and English languages are alphabetical orthographies based on the grapho-phonemic principle and map the presentation of the sound (phoneme) on a writing symbol (grapheme).</p> <p>Hebrew is a Semitic language read and written from right to left. It has 22 letters, five of which appear in a unique form at the end of words. The vowels are represented by diacritics and by the letters <emph>alef, he, vav</emph> and <emph>yod</emph>, known as reading signs. In addition to signifying vowels, the diacritics provide phonological information about the consonants: They differentiate <emph>sh</emph> (ש <emph>shin</emph>) from <emph>s</emph> (ש <emph>sin</emph>) and plosives from fricatives in the letters <emph>bet, kaf</emph> and <emph>pe</emph> (Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref85">64</reflink>]; Shimron, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref86">76</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref87">77</reflink>]). A unique and outstanding feature of the Hebrew-writing system is that it has two versions: a vocalized writing system (with diacritics) and a non-vocalized writing system (without diacritics). The vocalized <emph>Hebrew script</emph> represents a shallow orthography, whereas the non-vocalized <emph>Hebrew script</emph> represents a deep orthography (Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref88">64</reflink>]; Share & Levin, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref89">75</reflink>]; Shimron, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref90">78</reflink>]).</p> <p>The derivational morphology is an outstanding Semitic characteristic of the Hebrew language. Almost all content words in Hebrew consist of a consonantal root and a voweled pattern. The root is the semantic basis of the word and usually consists of three consonants (sometimes four). Words are produced only when the root is inserted into the pattern, in addition to prefixes and suffixes, usually syllables. Semitic forms are derived through the same principle of a root and pattern combination. Various derivations or inflections of the same root sometimes change the word's phonemic pattern by changing the attached vowels without changing the consonants. Finally, some pairs of consonants have become allophonic: In the past, various letters had different sounds and today their sounds are identical for most speakers (e.g., <emph>taf</emph> - <emph>tet</emph>; <emph>kaf</emph> - <emph>qof</emph> and the like) (Bar-On & Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref91">9</reflink>]; Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref92">64</reflink>]; Schwarzwald, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref93">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>English has 26 letters (5 vowels and 21 consonants) which represent over 40 phonemes (Venezky, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref94">89</reflink>]). This language, which is read and written from left to right, exemplifies a deep orthography, in which a certain sound may be written in different ways (in the framework of different words), and the same letter can represent different sounds in writing (Abu-Rabia & Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref95">6</reflink>]; Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref96">52</reflink>]). The main source of complexity in the English language is the vowel system, namely 15 vowels represented by several graphemes. The grapho-phonemic connection is not always direct and easy to decode, such that learning to decode and write words takes more time. Words in English may be regular but inconsistent, or inconsistent but regular. The regularity factor means words whose way of reading and writing does not obey the grapheme-phoneme. The consistency factor means uniform sounding of orthographic units (combinations of letters and words). In English, some words are written alike but are pronounced differently, and some letter combinations are pronounced in various ways and are considered inconsistent. Thus, in the English-reading process, the reader must dwell longer on the orthographic representation of the word, regardless of its context in the text, and less on the phonological processor (Frost, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref97">35</reflink>]; Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref98">53</reflink>]; Seymour et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref99">70</reflink>]).</p> <p>English differs from Hebrew in its morphological system. The morphological structure, as it appears in Hebrew, is inconsistent. Many words in English are built of a semantic stem which allows recognition of the basic meaning of the word. The word's stem is usually retained and helps in decoding the semantic meaning. Although many words in English are not morpho-phonologically transparent, the stem's morpheme is retained as an integral unit since this morpheme consists of both consonants and vowels that belong to the stem. In English, most of the morphemes of the stem can be "heard." English morphology has a serial/sequential character. Prefixes and suffixes are "stuck" onto the stem word before and behind linearly. The morphological structure is represented in writing by preservation of the spelling of the stem word and through consistency in writing the linguistic affixes (Frost & Bentin, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref100">37</reflink>]; Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref101">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-13">The research question</hd> <p>The research question was: Will differences be found between dyslexic, poor and normal readers studying in the same educational framework, across various linguistic and meta-linguistic English and Hebrew skills, following an English intervention program?</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-14">The research hypotheses</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The dyslexic, poor and normal readers in the experimental group will exhibit significantly more gains in English compared to the dyslexic, poor and normal readers in the control group.</item> <p></p> <item> Greater significant improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills will be found among the dyslexic and poor readers compared to the normal readers.</item> </ulist> <p>Normal readers already enjoy high English and Hebrew linguistic and meta-linguistic skills, and the improvement space for them is very narrow. However, the improvement space for the dyslexic and poor readers is wide enough. Thus, the dyslexic and poor readers may exhibit significantly greater improvement than the normal readers.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-15">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0144655287-16">Participants</hd> <p>The study included 124 sixth graders (60 [48%] boys and 64 [52%] girls), from five schools in northern Israel. All participants were born in Israel, and their mother tongue is Hebrew. They are from a middle socioeconomic status and attend national elementary education schools.</p> <p> <emph>The experimental group</emph> included 64 students. Of these, 22 are dyslexic readers, 21 are poor readers and 21 are normal readers. <emph>The control group</emph> included 60 students. Of these, 20 are dyslexic readers, 19 are poor readers and 21 are normal readers. All participants learn English as a FL. The experimental group participated in an intervention program for improving linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English. The control group did not participate in the intervention program and learned according to the regular sixth-grade English curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-17">Stages of locating and screening participants</hd> <p>Initial information on the achievements of sixth graders in Hebrew and in English was collected from the class teachers and/or the English teachers, in order to locate the research population. Ten suitable sixth-grade classes were selected. Each of these classes included dyslexic, poor and normal readers. Parents of the selected students were sent a letter with a detailed explanation of the research plan. Only students whose parents gave their consent for their children's participation were included in the study.</p> <p>The students were then assigned to a reader group. All students who were included in the dyslexics group had passed a psychological or didactic test by the school psychologist or another qualified professional. Most of the dyslexic students had been appraised by a school integration committee and were found fit to receive integration hours. Poor readers were those classified by their class teachers and the English teachers, according to screening tests conducted at the beginning of the school year in both languages, where their average score was around 60 out of 100. The Hebrew and the English tests examined reading comprehension. The students had to read a text in Hebrew and one in English and to answer 10 multiple comprehension questions about each language text.</p> <p>In addition to collecting information from the school teachers, screening tests were conducted to assign the participants to the appropriate reader group (dyslexic/poor/normal). A Hebrew test on word recognition and spelling was administered in order to locate dyslexic readers, and a test of reading fluency and reading comprehension in Hebrew and English to locate poor readers.</p> <p> <emph>Students were defined as poor readers</emph> if they scored below 60 in the reading comprehension tests in the two languages, and if they read less than 50 words per minute in the English and less than 100 words per minute in the Hebrew fluency test (Abu-Rabia & Bluestien-Danon, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>]; Abu-Rabia et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref103">7</reflink>]). Forty poor readers were located. Of these, 21 were included in the experimental group and 19 in the control group.</p> <p> <emph>Dyslexic</emph> readers were defined as readers with scores lower than 1.5 SD or more than the age norm in the Hebrew word recognition and spelling tests (Shany & Share, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref104">73</reflink>]; Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref105">79</reflink>]; Vukovic & Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref106">90</reflink>]). Forty-two dyslexic readers were found. Of these, 22 were included in the experimental group and 20 in the control group.</p> <p> <emph>Normal readers</emph> were located in accordance with the number of poor and dyslexic readers located in the school as a whole. Forty-two normal readers were located. Of these, 21 were included in the experimental group and 21 in the control group.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-18">Tools</hd> <p>Linguistic skills in Hebrew and English were tested among all participants in the experimental and control groups (dyslexic, poor and normal readers) before and after implementation of the intervention program. These skills included phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, orthography, decoding, reading fluency, reading comprehension, dictation and spelling. In all, 13 tests were administered in each language, English and Hebrew (total of 26 tests). All participants were given a background questionnaire constructed for the purpose of this study. Demographic and literacy data were collected for the participants (age, sex, country of birth, language spoken at home) and their families (occupation, number of household members, spoken and written language, their usage).</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-19">Research tools</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Background data</emph> (Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref107">71</reflink>]). The questionnaire yielded demographic and literacy data about the participants: Age, sex, country of birth, language/s spoken at home; <emph>family</emph>: Occupation, education, number of household members, language/s spoken and written at home and level of language mastery.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Hebrew language tests</emph> </item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0144655287-20">Phonological awareness</hd> <p> <emph>Phonemes analysis</emph> ("Alef Ad Taf," Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref108">72</reflink>]). Eight Hebrew words were read out loud to the participants, who were asked to break them down into phonemes. This task measured percent accuracy (% mistakes).</p> <p> <emph>In</emph> the Hebrew and English language tests, percent accuracy refers to the percent of mistakes in the task.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-21">Phonological decoding</hd> <p> <emph>Pseudowords decoding</emph> ("Alef Ad Taf," Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref109">72</reflink>]). In tests for the ability to code and decode pseudowords accurately, the participants were asked to read a list of 33 pseudowords out loud. Percent accuracy and fluency (words/min) were tested.</p> <p>In the Hebrew and English tests, fluency refers to the number of words per minute.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-22">Reading rate and accuracy</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Word recognition</emph> ("Alef Ad Taf," Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref110">72</reflink>]). The quality of reading isolated words as expressed in rate and accuracy of reading was tested. The participants were asked to read 38 words, representing different levels of morphological structures. Percent accuracy and fluency were measured.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Reading fluency</emph> ("Alef Ad Taf," Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref111">72</reflink>]). The rate and accuracy of reading were tested using vocalized and non-vocalized texts. The participants were asked to read a vocalized text ("Twenty Students") that contains 100 words, and a non-vocalized text ("A Special Story") that contains 308 words. Reading accuracy and fluency were measured.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0144655287-23">Morphological awareness</hd> <p>The ability to distinguish type and inflection of meaningful words on the recognition and production level were tested.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Morphological awareness</emph> (ability to distinguish word type and inflection) <emph>at the recognition level</emph> ("Alef Ad Taf," Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref112">72</reflink>]). Nine sentences were read aloud to the participants, and they were asked to complete the sentences orally with one word out of a list of words presented under each sentence.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Morphological awareness</emph> (ability to distinguish word type and inflection) <emph>at the production level</emph> ("Alef Ad Taf," Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref113">72</reflink>]). The participants were asked to complete nine sentences with a word whose root is shown in parentheses. Percent accuracy was measured in both tasks.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0144655287-24">Syntactical awareness</hd> <p> <emph>Syntactic judgment</emph> (Abu-Rabia & Sanitsky, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref114">4</reflink>]; Sanitsky, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref115">66</reflink>]). The participants were presented with 20 sentences and were asked to decide whether the sentence's syntax was correct or incorrect. If it was incorrect, they were asked to correct it. Percent accuracy was measured.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-25">Semantic awareness</hd> <p> <emph>The Peabody Test</emph> (Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref116">30</reflink>]; Hebrew version Solberg & Nevo, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref117">81</reflink>]). This task tests vocabulary, comprehension and analysis of terms on various levels of complexity. The participants were exposed to a succession of pages, each with four pictures, each with a number. They were asked to state the number of the picture that best explains the meaning of the word spoken to them by the tester. Percent accuracy was measured.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-26">Orthographic knowledge</hd> <p> <emph>Orthographic knowledge test</emph> ("Alef Ad Taf," Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref118">72</reflink>]). This task tests the ability to recognize writing structures. The participants were shown pairs of words. Each pair included a word spelled correctly and incorrectly. The participants were asked to mark the correctly spelled word. Percent accuracy and fluency were measured.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-27">Dictation</hd> <p> <emph>Dictation</emph> (<emph>"</emph>Alef Ad Taf," Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref119">72</reflink>]). A short text of 55 words was read out loud to the participants. Percent accuracy and fluency were measured.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-28">Spelling</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Spelling – function words</emph> ("Alef Ad Taf," Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref120">72</reflink>]). This test consisted of 20 function words, varying in length from one to four syllables.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Spelling – content words</emph> ("Alef Ad Taf," Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref121">72</reflink>]). This test consisted of 20 content words, varying in length from one to four syllables.</item> </ulist> <p>In both tests, percent accuracy was measured.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-29">Reading comprehension</hd> <p>A text at the appropriate age level that serves to test reading and writing of first to ninth graders was used (Tov-Lee, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref122">87</reflink>]). The participants were asked to read the text and answer 10 multiple-choice comprehension questions (Abu-Rabia & Sanitsky, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref123">4</reflink>]; Sanitsky, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref124">66</reflink>]). Percent accuracy was checked (total correct answers out of all items).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 3. English language tests</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0144655287-30">Phonological awareness</hd> <p> <emph>Phonemes analysis</emph> (Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref125">52</reflink>]) (reliability coefficient, α =.87). The ability to break a word down into phonemes was tested. The tester read the target word aloud from a list of 20 words. The participants were asked to repeat the heard word and then break it down into phonemes. Percent accuracy was measured.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-31">Phonological decoding</hd> <p> <emph>Pseudoword decoding</emph> (Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref126">52</reflink>]) (reliability coefficient, α =.87). The ability to code and decode pseudowords was tested. The participants were presented with a list of 34 pseudowords that they were asked to read out loud. Percent accuracy and fluency were measured.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-32">Rate and accuracy in reading</hd> <p> <emph>Two</emph> tasks were chosen from Kahn-Horwitz ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref127">50</reflink>]) testing English as a foreign language. These tasks were previously applied in the study of Abu-Rabia and Bluestien-Danon ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref128">3</reflink>]).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Word recognition:</emph> This test is based on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (Woodcock, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref129">97</reflink>]) and tests the quality of reading isolated words as expressed in the reading rate and accuracy. The participants were asked to read 100 isolated words in an ascending level of difficulty. The task was halted when six successive mistakes were made. Percent accuracy and fluency were measured.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Reading fluency</emph>. Rate and accuracy of reading aloud were tested on a 50-word text matched to the class level. Percent accuracy and reading fluency were measured.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0144655287-33">Morphological awareness</hd> <p>Two tasks were chosen from Kahn-Horwitz ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref130">50</reflink>]) testing English as a foreign language. These tasks were previously applied in the study of Abu-Rabia and Bluestein-Danon ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref131">3</reflink>]). The tasks test the ability of differentiation and inflection of meaningful words at the recognition and production levels.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Morphological awareness</emph> (tests the ability to distinguish word type and inflection) <emph>at the recognition level</emph>: The participants heard ten spoken sentences which they were asked to complete with one of the words from a list set beneath the sentence.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph> Morphological awareness</emph> (tests the ability to distinguish word type and inflection) <emph>at the production level</emph>: The participants were asked to complete 10 sentences, which they heard and which were also presented to them in writing, with a word whose original shape was set in parentheses. Percent accuracy was measured in both tasks.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0144655287-34">Syntactical awareness</hd> <p> <emph>Syntactic judgment</emph> (Abu-Rabia & Sanitsky, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref132">4</reflink>]; Santisky, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref133">7</reflink>]). The participants were presented with 20 sentences and were asked to decide whether the sentence's syntax was correct or incorrect. If it was incorrect, they were asked to correct it. Percent accuracy was measured.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-35">Semantic awareness</hd> <p> <emph>The Peabody Test</emph> (Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref134">30</reflink>]). See the description of this test in the Hebrew section above.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-36">Orthographic knowledge</hd> <p>This task was chosen from Kahn-Horwitz ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref135">50</reflink>]) testing English as a foreign language. It was previously applied in the study of Abu-Rabia and Bluestein-Danon ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref136">3</reflink>]). This task tests the ability to recognize language writing structures. Twenty pairs of words were presented to the participants, each pair containing the same word spelled correctly and incorrectly. The participants were asked to choose the correctly spelled word. Percent accuracy and fluency were measured.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-37">Dictation</hd> <p>This task was chosen from Kahn-Horwitz ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref137">50</reflink>]) testing English as a foreign language. It was previously applied in the study of Abu-Rabia and Bluestein-Danon ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref138">3</reflink>]). Three sentences were dictated to the participants, and they were asked to write them correctly. Percent accuracy was measured.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-38">Spelling</hd> <p> <emph>Spelling</emph> (Abu-Rabia & Sanitsky, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref139">4</reflink>]; Sanitsky, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref140">6</reflink>]). The English spelling test was based on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (Woodcock, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref141">98</reflink>]). The participants were asked to write 45 words in ascending order of difficulty. Words were read to them out loud and then again in sentences. The length of the word varied from one to four syllables. Percent accuracy was measured.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-39">Reading comprehension</hd> <p> <emph>Reading comprehension</emph> (Abu-Rabia & Sanitsky, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref142">4</reflink>]; Sanitsky, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref143">66</reflink>]). The participants were asked to read a text silently and then answer 10 multiple-choice comprehension questions. Percent accuracy was measured (total correct answers out of all items).</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-40">Procedure</hd> <p>In the first stage, preliminary information was collected from class teachers and/or subject teachers about sixth graders' achievements in Hebrew and English in order to locate poor/dyslexic readers. Parents' written consent for their children's participation in the research was obtained.</p> <p>In the second stage, the students were divided into three reader groups: dyslexic, poor and normal readers. All participants (experimental and control groups) took the above-described test battery to assess their linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew and English (26 tests, 13 in each language). The test battery was given in groups and individually during several meetings.</p> <p>In the third stage, the experimental group participated in an intervention program in English. The intervention program was based on research findings regarding the language fields that need to be strengthened. The program was administered for three to four months, within the school framework, and included 20–25 biweekly classes that lasted about 45 minutes each. English teachers gave the lessons in small groups during the school day. The teachers were given an explanation and guidance by the researcher prior to implementation of the intervention program. The intervention program consisted of five areas which in earlier studies were found useful for transfer of language skills from one language to another. They covered linguistic and meta-linguistic skills, on which the participants were tested, as detailed below. The test results yielded the issues in need of attention. Accordingly, and after consultation with the English teaching staff, the areas on which emphasis should be placed, and to what degree, were decided. The researcher prepared navigation cards with rules, examples and practice pages for each topic included in the program.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-41">The English intervention program</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Establishing and strengthening control over reading decoding:</emph> Recognition of letters and letter-sound correspondence (recognition of upper- and lower-case letters, sounds of letters); recognition of the sounds of vocalic letters (long and short sound, reading and writing words and sentences with vocalic letters); recognition of common letter and vowel combinations in English. The combinations appeared in a list of frequent combinations published by Solity and Vousden ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref144">82</reflink>]); recognition of frequent suffixes chosen from primers for acquiring literacy in English (Aharoni-Bousso et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref145">8</reflink>]; Birger, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref146">15</reflink>]; Dray et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref147">29</reflink>]) reading and writing words and sentences with combinations and suffixes. Navigation cards were attached to each topic in this part, with explanations, examples and practice pages.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Expansion of orthographic vocabulary in reading and writing:</emph> Recognition of a list of common words in English and their meaning, drawn from a list of 1,200 common words (Foundation Level: lexis) in the Revised English curriculum (State of Israel Ministry of Education English Inspectorate, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref148">7</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> The list included 125 new words, most of them carrying combinations of the letters and vowels to which the children were exposed in Part A. In every lesson, the teacher highlighted about five new words, whose meaning the participants were asked to learn. The words were concomitantly absorbed through composition of a sentence orally and in writing for every learned word, by sentence completion exercises.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Acquisition of grammatical rules (development of morpho-syntactic awareness):</emph> Methodical step-by-step acquisition of grammatical rules which included acquaintance with the noun: addition of <emph>the; any/some; a/an</emph>; acquaintance with the verb: auxiliary verb <emph>to be</emph> in present and past; possession: <emph>have/has</emph>; acquaintance with and mastery of tenses, simple and progressive, past and future (present simple); present progressive; past simple; future simple: will, be going to. The structure of indicative, negative and question was highlighted. Navigation cards for this study gave a detailed explanation of rules, examples and spelling, and practice sheets for every topic. The materials were adapted from sixth-grade grammar books.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Acquisition of spelling rules:</emph> Concurrent with acquiring the grammatical topics noted above, spelling rules were added to the relevant topics, for example, changing a noun from singular to plural, spelling rules for different tenses.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Development of reading fluency and comprehension strategies:</emph> The participants' reading fluency and reading comprehension skills were reinforced by reading texts adapted from primers matched for their age and resolving problems in reading comprehension. They also practiced preliminary strategies during and after the reading.</item> <p></p> <item> At the end of the intervention program, all participants (experimental and control groups) were reexamined by the same test battery for linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English and Hebrew that was administered before implementation of the program. First, the test battery in English was given, to determine whether an improvement in the skills for which intervention was applied took place among the dyslexic, poor and normal readers. The test battery in Hebrew was then administered, in order to determine whether these skills improved in Hebrew as a consequence of the improvement in English. Differences between the three groups of readers across various linguistic and meta-linguistic skills were tested in the two languages in accordance with the research question.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0144655287-42">Results</hd> <p>In the first stage, the mixed model underwent a preliminary analysis including an ANOVA and a three-way repeated measures analysis. This tested the interaction between the dimensions of time (pre-/post-intervention), research groups (experimental/control) and readers (normal/poor/dyslexic). Significant differences appeared in most variables, but the analysis did not show precisely which readers made a significant improvement and precisely which groups exhibited differences. The performance of the reader groups in the various skills were therefore analyzed at two time points (pre- and post-intervention).</p> <p>In the following stage, a paired <emph>t</emph>-test was conducted to test which linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew and English displayed a significant difference in pre- and post-intervention test scores. The analysis was conducted separately for the two research groups (experimental/control) and with reference to the dyslexic, poor and normal readers.</p> <p>The results of the analysis for the experimental group (see Table 1) indicate that the abilities of all readers (dyslexic, poor, normal) improved significantly in most of the linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English and in Hebrew after participating in the intervention program. Exceptions were a few tasks for which no significant differences were found. In the English orthographic knowledge and dictation tasks, the fluency component (words/min) did not reveal significant differences between the two time points for all three reader groups. No significant differences were found in the fluency component of the Hebrew dictation task and in the tasks of reading fluency from non-vocalized text and semantic awareness in the accuracy component (% mistakes) among the normal readers.</p> <p>Table 1. Comparison of the performance of readers in the experimental group in various linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English and Hebrew pre and post the intervention program.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Language skills</td><td>Variables</td><td>Reader group</td></tr><tr><td>Dyslexic (<italic>n</italic> = 21)</td><td>Poor (<italic>n</italic> = 20)</td><td>Normal (<italic>n</italic> = 20)</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td><italic>t</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Phonological awareness – analysis (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">58.182</td><td char=".">8.528</td><td char=".">21.253<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">46.429</td><td char=".">12.762</td><td char=".">5.915<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">37.381</td><td char=".">9.030</td><td char=".">7.843<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">30.455</td><td char=".">9.501</td><td char=".">30.714</td><td char=".">11.323</td><td char=".">24.524</td><td char=".">9.070</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">80.682</td><td char=".">6.371</td><td char=".">26.951<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">76.190</td><td char=".">11.114</td><td char=".">9.028<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">55.357</td><td char=".">12.229</td><td char=".">7.029<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">32.955</td><td char=".">11.277</td><td char=".">48.214</td><td char=".">15.952</td><td char=".">30.357</td><td char=".">19.594</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudowords (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">68.316</td><td char=".">8.216</td><td char=".">12.792<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">56.443</td><td char=".">7.926</td><td char=".">8.365<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">45.518</td><td char=".">11.146</td><td char=".">4.88<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">46.658</td><td char=".">11.492</td><td char=".">43.978</td><td char=".">8.798</td><td char=".">33.613</td><td char=".">18.120</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">64.876</td><td char=".">8.502</td><td char=".">17.259<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">55.411</td><td char=".">11.663</td><td char=".">5.423<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">31.602</td><td char=".">6.609</td><td char=".">5.395<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">46.143</td><td char=".">11.258</td><td char=".">45.310</td><td char=".">12.063</td><td char=".">23.377</td><td char=".">285.945</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudowords (words/min)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">29.265</td><td char=".">9.122</td><td>−2.785<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">28.609</td><td char=".">6.108</td><td>−4.656<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">36.154</td><td char=".">9.748</td><td>−5.125<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">32.741</td><td char=".">8.585</td><td char=".">37.901</td><td char=".">9.373</td><td char=".">44.722</td><td char=".">11.812</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">20.500</td><td char=".">2.620</td><td>−6.877<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">25.529</td><td char=".">5.850</td><td>–4.36<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">27.352</td><td char=".">7.375</td><td>–2.082<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">25.732</td><td char=".">5.224</td><td char=".">29.910</td><td char=".">7.190</td><td char=".">29.981</td><td char=".">9.480</td></tr><tr><td>Word recognition (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">42.203</td><td char=".">8.895</td><td char=".">9.496<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">36.462</td><td char=".">9.900</td><td char=".">5.005<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">27.060</td><td char=".">7.559</td><td char=".">4.54<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">31.659</td><td char=".">8.980</td><td char=".">28.820</td><td char=".">6.834</td><td char=".">20.556</td><td char=".">5.322</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">31.459</td><td char=".">7.977</td><td char=".">18.542<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">15.163</td><td char=".">1.843</td><td char=".">9.22<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">8.396</td><td char=".">1.973</td><td char=".">3.833<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">17.225</td><td char=".">5.953</td><td char=".">10.902</td><td char=".">2.395</td><td char=".">6.767</td><td char=".">2.436</td></tr><tr><td>Word recognition (words/min)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">34.732</td><td char=".">17.644</td><td>–7.331<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">37.077</td><td char=".">13.050</td><td>–6.417<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">53.094</td><td char=".">16.981</td><td>–3.188<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">47.841</td><td char=".">14.769</td><td char=".">53.535</td><td char=".">15.011</td><td char=".">70.219</td><td char=".">27.706</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">38.614</td><td char=".">9.090</td><td>–6.613<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">43.420</td><td char=".">5.217</td><td>–9.053<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">64.543</td><td char=".">10.837</td><td>–6.364<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">50.877</td><td char=".">10.960</td><td char=".">56.740</td><td char=".">9.975</td><td char=".">75.538</td><td char=".">12.125</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">46.909</td><td char=".">12.294</td><td char=".">16.266<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">33.524</td><td char=".">11.591</td><td char=".">6.475<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">21.333</td><td char=".">8.206</td><td char=".">3.67<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">32.364</td><td char=".">12.308</td><td char=".">26.190</td><td char=".">10.879</td><td char=".">16.381</td><td char=".">9.373</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency – vocalized (% mistakes)</td><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">12.636</td><td char=".">5.242</td><td char=".">24.612<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">4.810</td><td char=".">0.512</td><td char=".">6.606<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">3.476</td><td char=".">0.750</td><td char=".">2.552<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">7.091</td><td char=".">4.576</td><td char=".">3.667</td><td char=".">0.966</td><td char=".">2.810</td><td char=".">1.327</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency (words/min)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">41.042</td><td char=".">13.294</td><td>–3.267<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td><td char=".">52.076</td><td char=".">16.153</td><td>–4.582<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">63.004</td><td char=".">20.793</td><td>–5.323<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">49.191</td><td char=".">16.760</td><td char=".">60.366</td><td char=".">16.652</td><td char=".">78.125</td><td char=".">27.792</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency – vocalized (words/min)</td><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">72.455</td><td char=".">13.613</td><td>–3.349<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td><td char=".">76.905</td><td char=".">8.372</td><td>–7.041<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">102.381</td><td char=".">18.784</td><td>–5.312<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">82.364</td><td char=".">16.760</td><td char=".">101.143</td><td char=".">21.423</td><td char=".">114.857</td><td char=".">18.396</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency – non-vocalized (% mistakes)</td><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">9.967</td><td char=".">4.280</td><td char=".">9.442<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">3.221</td><td char=".">0.822</td><td char=".">2.248<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">2.279</td><td char=".">0.868</td><td>–0.018</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">4.933</td><td char=".">2.726</td><td char=".">2.760</td><td char=".">0.816</td><td char=".">2.284</td><td char=".">0.684</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency – non-vocalized (words/min)</td><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">89.245</td><td char=".">16.410</td><td>–8.59<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">90.238</td><td char=".">11.211</td><td>–11.263<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">116.176</td><td char=".">12.995</td><td>–2.596<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">107.632</td><td char=".">18.284</td><td char=".">113.571</td><td char=".">15.279</td><td char=".">125.762</td><td char=".">18.772</td></tr><tr><td>Morphology recognition (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">71.364</td><td char=".">14.241</td><td char=".">19.323<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">70.000</td><td char=".">7.746</td><td char=".">9.168<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">54.762</td><td char=".">18.873</td><td char=".">6.403<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">34.545</td><td char=".">11.010</td><td char=".">49.524</td><td char=".">11.170</td><td char=".">34.286</td><td char=".">19.124</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">18.687</td><td char=".">9.930</td><td char=".">11.196<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">6.878</td><td char=".">7.434</td><td char=".">4.382<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">4.233</td><td char=".">5.529</td><td char=".">3.508<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">3.030</td><td char=".">6.116</td><td char=".">0.529</td><td char=".">2.425</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Morphology production (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">88.182</td><td char=".">9.580</td><td char=".">21.15<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">85.238</td><td char=".">7.496</td><td char=".">8.038<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">74.762</td><td char=".">11.670</td><td char=".">11.504<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">52.273</td><td char=".">7.516</td><td char=".">65.238</td><td char=".">10.779</td><td char=".">53.333</td><td char=".">15.916</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">40.404</td><td char=".">20.443</td><td char=".">7.926<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">22.222</td><td char=".">11.111</td><td char=".">6.706<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">16.931</td><td char=".">12.967</td><td char=".">4.583<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">14.141</td><td char=".">9.808</td><td char=".">8.995</td><td char=".">9.040</td><td char=".">5.820</td><td char=".">7.552</td></tr><tr><td>Syntactic judgment (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">57.727</td><td char=".">7.977</td><td char=".">12.458<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">59.762</td><td char=".">10.663</td><td char=".">7.698<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">55.714</td><td char=".">16.224</td><td char=".">8.58<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">41.136</td><td char=".">9.503</td><td char=".">45.238</td><td char=".">10.305</td><td char=".">41.429</td><td char=".">11.952</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">24.773</td><td char=".">11.389</td><td char=".">11.466<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">10.000</td><td char=".">7.071</td><td char=".">5.246<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">8.571</td><td char=".">6.353</td><td char=".">5.215<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">5.000</td><td char=".">9.386</td><td char=".">2.857</td><td char=".">4.053</td><td char=".">3.333</td><td char=".">4.830</td></tr><tr><td>Semantics-Peabody (% correct answers)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">44.520</td><td char=".">11.596</td><td>–7.329<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">50.300</td><td char=".">8.696</td><td>–2.636<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">55.661</td><td char=".">8.126</td><td>–4.527<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">55.569</td><td char=".">9.932</td><td char=".">54.787</td><td char=".">9.627</td><td char=".">62.289</td><td char=".">9.138</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">72.916</td><td char=".">7.850</td><td>–5.714<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">75.567</td><td char=".">7.624</td><td>–3.433<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td><td char=".">79.303</td><td char=".">6.489</td><td>–1.286</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">79.852</td><td char=".">5.555</td><td char=".">79.675</td><td char=".">4.637</td><td char=".">81.412</td><td char=".">4.979</td></tr><tr><td>Orthographic knowledge (words/min)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">15.1729</td><td char=".">3.687</td><td>–5.099<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">14.391</td><td char=".">4.182</td><td>–5.061<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">18.023</td><td char=".">5.324</td><td>–3.813<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">18.891</td><td char=".">4.802</td><td char=".">19.952</td><td char=".">5.871</td><td char=".">22.888</td><td char=".">6.725</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">17.628</td><td char=".">4.574</td><td>–5.541<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">20.248</td><td char=".">5.291</td><td>–5.033<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">21.415</td><td char=".">7.459</td><td>–3.569<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">20.316</td><td char=".">4.398</td><td char=".">24.458</td><td char=".">7.293</td><td char=".">26.859</td><td char=".">10.788</td></tr><tr><td>Orthographic knowledge (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">29.772</td><td char=".">11.283</td><td char=".">11.560<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">19.047</td><td char=".">14.196</td><td char=".">5.605<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">8.095</td><td char=".">9.010</td><td char=".">2.828<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">12.045</td><td char=".">13.478</td><td char=".">9.285</td><td char=".">10.402</td><td char=".">3.809</td><td char=".">5.221</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">12.727</td><td char=".">7.827</td><td char=".">7.768<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">7.143</td><td char=".">6.437</td><td char=".">4.69<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">3.810</td><td char=".">4.445</td><td char=".">3.081<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">3.409</td><td char=".">3.899</td><td char=".">1.905</td><td char=".">2.948</td><td char=".">0.714</td><td char=".">1.793</td></tr><tr><td>Dictation (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">70.455</td><td char=".">12.432</td><td char=".">13.619<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">62.619</td><td char=".">11.578</td><td char=".">9.024<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">45.714</td><td char=".">19.576</td><td char=".">7.108<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">50.682</td><td char=".">13.478</td><td char=".">47.857</td><td char=".">9.946</td><td char=".">28.095</td><td char=".">17.355</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">47.107</td><td char=".">14.326</td><td char=".">14.572<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">11.602</td><td char=".">6.440</td><td char=".">5.031<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">9.351</td><td char=".">4.464</td><td char=".">6.241<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">1.234</td><td char=".">2.329</td><td char=".">3.317</td><td char=".">2.444</td><td char=".">3.474</td><td char=".">3.185</td></tr><tr><td>Dictation (words/min)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">10.484</td><td char=".">2.491</td><td>–1.343</td><td char=".">10.291</td><td char=".">2.592</td><td>–1.799</td><td char=".">11.491</td><td char=".">2.830</td><td>–0.394</td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">11.018</td><td char=".">2.045</td><td char=".">11.058</td><td char=".">1.557</td><td char=".">11.679</td><td char=".">2.327</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">23.387</td><td char=".">4.112</td><td>–3.912<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td><td char=".">25.117</td><td char=".">3.535</td><td>–3.115<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td><td char=".">24.873</td><td char=".">3.281</td><td>–0.704</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">25.532</td><td char=".">4.781</td><td char=".">27.619</td><td char=".">3.320</td><td char=".">25.386</td><td char=".">4.515</td></tr><tr><td>Spelling (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">89.394</td><td char=".">4.441</td><td char=".">15.931<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">86.667</td><td char=".">5.963</td><td char=".">10.458<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">74.921</td><td char=".">13.150</td><td char=".">3.804<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">76.364</td><td char=".">5.719</td><td char=".">75.556</td><td char=".">5.709</td><td char=".">65.079</td><td char=".">17.752</td></tr><tr><td>Spelling (function words) (% mistakes)</td><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">46.818</td><td char=".">13.143</td><td char=".">14.343<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">33.810</td><td char=".">11.609</td><td char=".">8.512<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">20.000</td><td char=".">10.000</td><td char=".">3.508<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">25.909</td><td char=".">10.424</td><td char=".">22.381</td><td char=".">12.209</td><td char=".">14.286</td><td char=".">11.323</td></tr><tr><td>Spelling (content words) (% mistakes)</td><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">37.955</td><td char=".">20.567</td><td char=".">13.588<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">18.333</td><td char=".">11.867</td><td char=".">6.858<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">10.238</td><td char=".">6.796</td><td char=".">3.873<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">20.227</td><td char=".">16.365</td><td char=".">9.286</td><td char=".">9.655</td><td char=".">6.667</td><td char=".">7.130</td></tr><tr><td>Reading comprehension</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">26.818</td><td char=".">15.549</td><td>–15.588<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">29.524</td><td char=".">13.593</td><td>–12.021<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">53.333</td><td char=".">25.166</td><td>–4.83<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">59.545</td><td char=".">15.880</td><td char=".">53.810</td><td char=".">15.961</td><td char=".">73.333</td><td char=".">19.061</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">52.273</td><td char=".">14.452</td><td>–18.630<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">43.3333</td><td char=".">14.605</td><td>–8.971<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td char=".">79.523</td><td char=".">10.235</td><td>–6.25<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">84.546</td><td char=".">13.355</td><td char=".">68.5714</td><td char=".">13.147</td><td char=".">91.428</td><td char=".">10.141</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Notes</emph>:</p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>p</emph> <.05,</item> <item>3 <emph>p</emph> <.01,</item> <item>4 <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>In the control group (see Table 2), a significant improvement of the poor and normal readers was found from pre- to post-intervention in most linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew and English. This was found despite the improvement in fewer tasks for the dyslexic readers. A significant improvement occurred in all three reader groups between the two time points in semantic awareness in English and dictation in Hebrew (rate and accuracy).</p> <p>Table 2. Comparison of the performance of readers in the control group in various linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English and Hebrew pre and post the intervention program.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Language skills</td><td>Variables</td><td>Reader group</td></tr><tr><td>Dyslexic (<italic>n</italic> = 20)</td><td>Poor (<italic>n</italic> = 19)</td><td>Normal (<italic>n</italic> = 21)</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td><italic>t</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Phonological awareness – analysis (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">50.750</td><td char=".">8.315</td><td char=".">0.384</td><td char=".">40.263</td><td char=".">8.412</td><td char=".">3.98<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">20.000</td><td char=".">6.708</td><td char=".">1.671</td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">50.250</td><td char=".">7.159</td><td char=".">36.842</td><td char=".">9.008</td><td char=".">18.571</td><td char=".">5.946</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">79.375</td><td char=".">6.117</td><td char=".">1.453</td><td char=".">62.500</td><td char=".">11.785</td><td char=".">1.714</td><td char=".">46.429</td><td char=".">13.195</td><td char=".">3.627<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">76.875</td><td char=".">6.117</td><td char=".">59.868</td><td char=".">12.204</td><td char=".">40.476</td><td char=".">15.261</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudowords (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">66.471</td><td char=".">5.085</td><td char=".">0.721</td><td char=".">51.703</td><td char=".">4.080</td><td char=".">2.689<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">40.476</td><td char=".">9.435</td><td char=".">1.793</td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">65.882</td><td char=".">3.360</td><td char=".">50.619</td><td char=".">4.659</td><td char=".">39.356</td><td char=".">9.323</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">59.394</td><td char=".">9.900</td><td char=".">2.932<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">54.864</td><td char=".">4.617</td><td char=".">2.731<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">33.189</td><td char=".">8.325</td><td char=".">1.671</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">58.030</td><td char=".">10.418</td><td char=".">52.313</td><td char=".">3.326</td><td char=".">32.323</td><td char=".">8.093</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudowords (words/min)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">28.438</td><td char=".">6.445</td><td char=".">0.613</td><td char=".">39.081</td><td char=".">7.422</td><td>–3.888<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">38.136</td><td char=".">8.930</td><td>–4.88<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">27.663</td><td char=".">4.985</td><td char=".">41.374</td><td char=".">7.344</td><td char=".">40.376</td><td char=".">10.550</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">20.895</td><td char=".">2.750</td><td char=".">0.264</td><td char=".">26.911</td><td char=".">3.586</td><td>–4.245<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">***</xref></td><td char=".">28.767</td><td char=".">3.985</td><td>–6.027<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">20.775</td><td char=".">2.477</td><td char=".">29.116</td><td char=".">4.311</td><td char=".">30.567</td><td char=".">4.242</td></tr><tr><td>Word recognition (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">49.873</td><td char=".">9.693</td><td char=".">4.244<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">***</xref></td><td char=".">43.088</td><td char=".">7.000</td><td char=".">3.461<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">27.163</td><td char=".">8.741</td><td char=".">1.128</td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">47.674</td><td char=".">9.200</td><td char=".">41.042</td><td char=".">7.332</td><td char=".">26.486</td><td char=".">7.745</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">27.895</td><td char=".">6.905</td><td>–0.49</td><td char=".">16.759</td><td char=".">1.800</td><td char=".">7.32<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">***</xref></td><td char=".">9.398</td><td char=".">2.436</td><td char=".">1.671</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">28.684</td><td char=".">6.771</td><td char=".">14.543</td><td char=".">1.350</td><td char=".">8.647</td><td char=".">1.694</td></tr><tr><td>Word recognition (words/min)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">37.446</td><td char=".">11.698</td><td char=".">0.785</td><td char=".">44.211</td><td char=".">12.581</td><td>–3.439<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">51.684</td><td char=".">12.781</td><td>–3.688<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">35.337</td><td char=".">7.576</td><td char=".">47.811</td><td char=".">12.335</td><td char=".">63.132</td><td char=".">12.762</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">44.280</td><td char=".">7.365</td><td>–1.467</td><td char=".">45.026</td><td char=".">2.548</td><td>–3.334<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">65.910</td><td char=".">8.020</td><td>–3.55<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">44.895</td><td char=".">7.272</td><td char=".">46.921</td><td char=".">3.023</td><td char=".">69.067</td><td char=".">8.578</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">41.300</td><td char=".">11.055</td><td>–0.4</td><td char=".">23.053</td><td char=".">9.784</td><td char=".">2.041</td><td char=".">17.810</td><td char=".">7.846</td><td char=".">2.335<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">41.500</td><td char=".">10.029</td><td char=".">22.526</td><td char=".">9.401</td><td char=".">17.238</td><td char=".">7.962</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency – vocalized (% mistakes)</td><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">9.850</td><td char=".">2.159</td><td>–0.364</td><td char=".">4.789</td><td char=".">0.419</td><td char=".">1.714</td><td char=".">3.095</td><td char=".">0.700</td><td char=".">3.627<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">10.000</td><td char=".">1.376</td><td char=".">4.579</td><td char=".">0.692</td><td char=".">2.619</td><td char=".">0.740</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency (words/min)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">35.397</td><td char=".">10.787</td><td char=".">0.658</td><td char=".">64.045</td><td char=".">17.793</td><td>–3.9<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">69.685</td><td char=".">16.319</td><td>–4.369<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">34.532</td><td char=".">8.503</td><td char=".">65.393</td><td char=".">17.086</td><td char=".">73.918</td><td char=".">19.234</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency – vocalized (words/min)</td><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">78.400</td><td char=".">7.755</td><td>–2.923<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">78.789</td><td char=".">2.507</td><td>–3.004<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">117.429</td><td char=".">7.560</td><td>–1.839</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">80.600</td><td char=".">10.369</td><td char=".">81.421</td><td char=".">4.741</td><td char=".">121.619</td><td char=".">10.466</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency – non-vocalized (% mistakes)</td><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">8.243</td><td char=".">1.653</td><td char=".">0.047</td><td char=".">3.441</td><td char=".">0.671</td><td char=".">4.656<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">***</xref></td><td char=".">1.898</td><td char=".">0.972</td><td char=".">2.101<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">8.225</td><td char=".">0.676</td><td char=".">2.888</td><td char=".">0.757</td><td char=".">1.347</td><td char=".">0.777</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency – non-vocalized (words/min)</td><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">94.900</td><td char=".">4.909</td><td char=".">0.35</td><td char=".">94.800</td><td char=".">7.652</td><td>–3.831<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">119.371</td><td char=".">14.422</td><td>–1.504</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">94.730</td><td char=".">4.319</td><td char=".">96.526</td><td char=".">7.160</td><td char=".">121.114</td><td char=".">14.903</td></tr><tr><td>Morphology recognition (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">58.500</td><td char=".">7.452</td><td char=".">2.042</td><td char=".">54.211</td><td char=".">9.612</td><td char=".">3.618<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">41.905</td><td char=".">10.305</td><td char=".">1.793</td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">55.500</td><td char=".">10.501</td><td char=".">50.000</td><td char=".">11.547</td><td char=".">38.095</td><td char=".">17.210</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">20.000</td><td char=".">11.169</td><td char=".">3.249<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">7.603</td><td char=".">5.306</td><td char=".">3.240<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">2.646</td><td char=".">4.849</td><td char=".">1.826</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">14.444</td><td char=".">10.259</td><td char=".">3.509</td><td char=".">5.306</td><td char=".">1.058 </td><td char=".">3.342 </td></tr><tr><td>Morphology production (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">82.500</td><td char=".">9.105</td><td char=".">2.179<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">76.316</td><td char=".">5.973</td><td>–1</td><td char=".">65.714</td><td char=".">8.701</td><td char=".">3.873<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">80.500</td><td char=".">8.870</td><td char=".">76.842</td><td char=".">5.824</td><td char=".">61.429</td><td char=".">11.084</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">27.778</td><td char=".">16.322</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">19.298</td><td char=".">5.027</td><td char=".">2.535<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">8.995</td><td char=".">7.552</td><td char=".">2.169<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">26.667</td><td char=".">16.282</td><td char=".">16.374</td><td char=".">5.700</td><td char=".">6.878</td><td char=".">6.551</td></tr><tr><td>Syntactic judgment (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">52.500</td><td char=".">6.177</td><td char=".">1.751</td><td char=".">50.526</td><td char=".">4.683</td><td char=".">2.364<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">38.810</td><td char=".">3.842</td><td char=".">5.701<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">51.250</td><td char=".">5.590</td><td char=".">48.947</td><td char=".">5.421</td><td char=".">35.714</td><td char=".">3.635</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">21.500</td><td char=".">9.473</td><td>–0.525</td><td char=".">13.421</td><td char=".">5.284</td><td char=".">2.97<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">4.286</td><td char=".">6.381</td><td char=".">3.286<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">22.500</td><td char=".">11.297</td><td char=".">10.789</td><td char=".">6.721</td><td char=".">2.143</td><td char=".">4.629</td></tr><tr><td>Semantics-Peabody (% correct answers)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">43.561</td><td char=".">8.859</td><td>–2.556<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">47.815</td><td char=".">7.929</td><td>–3.062<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">53.515</td><td char=".">8.835</td><td>–3.325<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">47.663</td><td char=".">9.865</td><td char=".">48.944</td><td char=".">7.401</td><td char=".">54.841</td><td char=".">7.872</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">71.750</td><td char=".">5.078</td><td>–1.027</td><td char=".">75.367</td><td char=".">6.736</td><td>–4.183<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">81.406</td><td char=".">4.462</td><td char=".">1.089</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">72.064</td><td char=".">5.272</td><td char=".">76.415</td><td char=".">6.725</td><td char=".">80.689</td><td char=".">4.356</td></tr><tr><td>Orthographic knowledge (words/min)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">15.639</td><td char=".">2.116</td><td>–0.884</td><td char=".">18.145</td><td char=".">1.836</td><td>–2.191<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">18.775</td><td char=".">1.448</td><td>–2.883<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">16.040</td><td char=".">3.071</td><td char=".">18.746</td><td char=".">1.879</td><td char=".">19.481</td><td char=".">0.991</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">17.209</td><td char=".">0.295</td><td>–1</td><td char=".">17.143</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td>–1.356</td><td char=".">17.959</td><td char=".">1.323</td><td>–3.142<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">17.275</td><td char=".">0.406</td><td char=".">17.363</td><td char=".">0.706</td><td char=".">18.608</td><td char=".">1.238</td></tr><tr><td>Orthographic knowledge (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">33.000</td><td char=".">9.651</td><td>–0.389</td><td char=".">17.631</td><td char=".">7.521</td><td char=".">1.564</td><td char=".">6.904</td><td char=".">6.977</td><td char=".">2.169<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">33.750</td><td char=".">7.587</td><td char=".">16.315</td><td char=".">8.794</td><td char=".">5.952</td><td char=".">6.045</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">14.000</td><td char=".">5.758</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">8.421</td><td char=".">5.284</td><td char=".">3.618<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">0.714</td><td char=".">1.793</td><td char=".">1.451</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">14.000</td><td char=".">6.407</td><td char=".">6.316</td><td char=".">5.488</td><td char=".">0.238</td><td char=".">1.091</td></tr><tr><td>Dictation (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">64.250</td><td char=".">11.840</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">41.579</td><td char=".">8.174</td><td char=".">2.191<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">34.524</td><td char=".">14.992</td><td char=".">2.646<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">64.250</td><td char=".">8.926</td><td char=".">40.526</td><td char=".">8.147</td><td char=".">32.857</td><td char=".">14.193</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">37.727</td><td char=".">10.955</td><td char=".">15.335<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">***</xref></td><td char=".">11.962</td><td char=".">4.508</td><td char=".">4.403<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">***</xref></td><td char=".">3.810</td><td char=".">2.982</td><td char=".">5.292<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">0.388</td><td char=".">0.082</td><td char=".">4.276</td><td char=".">3.857</td><td char=".">2.597</td><td char=".">2.544</td></tr><tr><td>Dictation (words/min)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">10.056</td><td char=".">0.248</td><td>–1.729</td><td char=".">10.392</td><td char=".">0.579</td><td>–1.829</td><td char=".">10.848</td><td char=".">0.963</td><td char=".">1.149</td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">10.300</td><td char=".">0.733</td><td char=".">10.555</td><td char=".">0.878</td><td char=".">10.765</td><td char=".">1.010</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">24.447</td><td char=".">1.871</td><td>–2.243<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">24.628</td><td char=".">2.390</td><td>–3.945<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td><td char=".">24.954</td><td char=".">1.060</td><td>–6.447<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">25.119</td><td char=".">2.082</td><td char=".">26.409</td><td char=".">2.260</td><td char=".">26.518</td><td char=".">1.346</td></tr><tr><td>Spelling (% mistakes)</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">88.667</td><td char=".">3.134</td><td char=".">2.179<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">82.807</td><td char=".">8.976</td><td char=".">1.455</td><td char=".">74.921</td><td char=".">11.908</td><td char=".">3.162<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">87.333</td><td char=".">3.683</td><td char=".">82.105</td><td char=".">8.622</td><td char=".">72.698</td><td char=".">12.093</td></tr><tr><td>Spelling (function words) (% mistakes)</td><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">32.500</td><td char=".">9.801</td><td char=".">0.698</td><td char=".">23.947</td><td char=".">7.375</td><td char=".">1.287</td><td char=".">12.143</td><td char=".">7.996</td><td char=".">3.508<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">32.000</td><td char=".">9.515</td><td char=".">22.895</td><td char=".">7.133</td><td char=".">10.238</td><td char=".">7.661</td></tr><tr><td>Spelling (content words) (% mistakes)</td><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">25.750</td><td char=".">7.482</td><td>–0.438</td><td char=".">15.526</td><td char=".">7.799</td><td char=".">2.535<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">7.143</td><td char=".">5.141</td><td char=".">1.826</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">26.000</td><td char=".">7.539</td><td char=".">14.211</td><td char=".">7.864</td><td char=".">6.429</td><td char=".">5.732</td></tr><tr><td>Reading comprehension</td><td>English Pre</td><td char=".">44.000</td><td char=".">15.694</td><td>–2.604<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">44.737</td><td char=".">10.203</td><td>–1</td><td char=".">67.143</td><td char=".">13.093</td><td>–2.961<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>English Post</td><td char=".">49.500</td><td char=".">16.051</td><td char=".">45.263</td><td char=".">10.203</td><td char=".">70.952</td><td char=".">14.458</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Pre</td><td char=".">54.000</td><td char=".">14.290</td><td>–2.853<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">*</xref></td><td char=".">54.210</td><td char=".">8.377</td><td>–2.041</td><td char=".">79.524</td><td char=".">9.734</td><td>–1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Hebrew Post</td><td char=".">57.000</td><td char=".">12.607</td><td char=".">56.842</td><td char=".">8.200</td><td char=".">80.000</td><td char=".">9.487</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 <emph>Notes</emph>:</item> <item>6 <emph>p</emph> <.05,</item> <item>7 <emph>p</emph> <.01,</item> <item>8 <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>Among the dyslexic readers, a significant improvement was found in a small number of tasks. In Hebrew, in accuracy of reading pseudowords, in rate of reading a vocalized text and in the accuracy and rate components of the dictation task. In English, a significant improvement was found in accuracy of word recognition, in morphological production awareness, in semantic awareness, spelling and reading comprehension. Among the poor and normal readers, a significant improvement between the two time points was found in most of the linguistic and meta-linguistic tasks in Hebrew and in English.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-43">Differences in improvement in skills between the three reader groups</hd> <p>Differences in the improvement of the dyslexic, poor and normal readers in both research groups (experimental, control) in performance of linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English and Hebrew were found using a one-way ANOVA for each group separately, and regarding improvement in either language – first in English.</p> <p>The ANOVA and the <emph>post hoc</emph> test (see Table 3) show that in the <emph>experimental group,</emph> significant differences in improvement in the <emph>English language</emph> were found between the dyslexic, poor and normal readers. Improvement (the difference between the two time points) was the highest among the dyslexic readers, who improved by 15%–40% relative to their initial performance. In some of the variables, improvement meant a decrease (accuracy: % mistakes) and in some improvement meant an increase (fluency, words/min). Attention must therefore be paid to the meaning of the change in each variable.</p> <p>Table 3. Improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English of readers in the experimental and control groups.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Language Skills</td><td>Experimental Group</td><td>Control Group</td></tr><tr><td>Dyslexic</td><td>Poor</td><td>Normal</td><td>F(2,62)</td><td>Post hoc</td><td>Dyslexic</td><td>Poor</td><td>Normal</td><td>F(2,57)</td><td><italic>post hoc</italic></td></tr><tr><td><italic>D</italic></td><td><italic>P</italic></td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td><italic>D</italic></td><td><italic>P</italic></td><td><italic>N</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Phonological awareness – analysis (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td>–27.727</td><td>–15.714</td><td>–12.857</td><td char=".">16.842<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td>–.500</td><td>–3.421</td><td>–1.429</td><td char=".">2.046</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">6.119</td><td char=".">12.174</td><td char=".">7.512</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">5.826</td><td char=".">3.746</td><td char=".">3.919</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Pseudowords (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td>–21.658</td><td>–12.465</td><td>–11.905</td><td char=".">8.329<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">**</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td>–.588</td><td>–1.084</td><td>–1.120</td><td char=".">0.214</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">7.941</td><td char=".">6.829</td><td char=".">11.179</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">3.646</td><td char=".">1.757</td><td char=".">2.863</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Pseudowords (words/min)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">3.476</td><td char=".">9.292</td><td char=".">8.568</td><td char=".">3.719<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn10">*</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td>–.775</td><td char=".">2.293</td><td char=".">2.241</td><td char=".">4.316<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn10">*</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">5.854</td><td char=".">9.146</td><td char=".">7.662</td><td /><td char=".">5.650</td><td char=".">2.571</td><td char=".">2.104</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Word recognition (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td>–10.544</td><td>–7.643</td><td>–6.504</td><td char=".">2.372</td><td /><td>–2.199</td><td>–2.046</td><td>–.677</td><td char=".">2.206</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">5.208</td><td char=".">6.997</td><td char=".">6.564</td><td /><td char=".">2.317</td><td char=".">2.577</td><td char=".">2.749</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Word recognition (words/min)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">13.109</td><td char=".">16.458</td><td char=".">17.125</td><td char=".">0.374</td><td /><td>–2.110</td><td char=".">3.601</td><td char=".">11.448</td><td char=".">7.563<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">**</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">8.387</td><td char=".">11.753</td><td char=".">24.619</td><td /><td char=".">12.026</td><td char=".">4.564</td><td char=".">14.226</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td>–14.545</td><td>–7.333</td><td>–4.952</td><td char=".">19.668<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td char=".">.200</td><td>–.526</td><td>–.571</td><td char=".">1.498</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">4.194</td><td char=".">5.190</td><td char=".">6.184</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">2.238</td><td char=".">1.124</td><td char=".">1.121</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency (words/min)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">8.149</td><td char=".">8.290</td><td char=".">15.121</td><td char=".">2.686</td><td /><td>–.865</td><td char=".">1.348</td><td char=".">4.233</td><td char=".">7.003<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">**</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">11.697</td><td char=".">8.290</td><td char=".">13.017</td><td /><td char=".">5.880</td><td char=".">1.507</td><td char=".">4.440</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Morphology recognition (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td>–36.818</td><td>–20.476</td><td>–20.476</td><td char=".">14.576<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td>–3.000</td><td>–4.211</td><td>–3.810</td><td char=".">0.134</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">8.937</td><td char=".">10.235</td><td char=".">14.655</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">6.569</td><td char=".">5.073</td><td char=".">9.735</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Morphology production (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td>–35.909</td><td>–20.000</td><td>–21.429</td><td char=".">18.987<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td>–2.000</td><td char=".">.526</td><td>–4.286</td><td char=".">7.086<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">**</xref></td><td><italic>P</italic>><italic>N</italic></td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">7.964</td><td char=".">11.402</td><td char=".">8.536</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">4.104</td><td char=".">2.294</td><td char=".">5.071</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Syntactic judgment (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td>–16.591</td><td>–14.524</td><td>–14.286</td><td char=".">0.61</td><td /><td>–1.250</td><td>–1.579</td><td>–3.095</td><td char=".">2.413</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">6.246</td><td char=".">8.646</td><td char=".">7.630</td><td /><td char=".">3.193</td><td char=".">2.912</td><td char=".">2.488</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Semantics-Peabody (% correct answers)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">11.049</td><td char=".">4.487</td><td char=".">6.628</td><td char=".">4.656<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn10">*</xref></td><td /><td char=".">4.102</td><td char=".">1.130</td><td char=".">1.326</td><td char=".">2.875</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">7.071</td><td char=".">7.800</td><td char=".">6.710</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">7.177</td><td char=".">1.608</td><td char=".">1.827</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Orthographic knowledge (words/min)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">3.719</td><td char=".">5.560</td><td char=".">4.865</td><td char=".">0.792</td><td /><td char=".">0.400</td><td char=".">0.601</td><td char=".">0.706</td><td char=".">0.215</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">3.421</td><td char=".">5.035</td><td char=".">5.846</td><td /><td char=".">2.027</td><td char=".">1.196</td><td char=".">1.142</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Orthographic knowledge (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td>–17.727</td><td>–9.761</td><td>–4.285</td><td char=".">18.064<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn12">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">0.750</td><td>–0.952</td><td>–1.667</td><td char=".">0.791</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">7.192</td><td char=".">7.980</td><td char=".">6.943</td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>N</italic></td><td char=".">8.626</td><td char=".">2.011</td><td char=".">2.887</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Dictation (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td>–19.773</td><td>–14.762</td><td>–17.619</td><td char=".">1.767</td><td /><td char=".">.000</td><td>–1.053</td><td>–1.667</td><td char=".">0.637</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">6.810</td><td char=".">7.496</td><td char=".">11.360</td><td /><td char=".">7.434</td><td char=".">2.094</td><td char=".">2.887</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Dictation (words/min)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">.534</td><td char=".">.767</td><td char=".">.187</td><td char=".">0.446</td><td /><td char=".">.244</td><td char=".">.162</td><td>–.083</td><td char=".">2.727</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">1.866</td><td char=".">1.954</td><td char=".">2.180</td><td /><td char=".">.632</td><td char=".">.387</td><td char=".">.332</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Spelling (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td>–13.030</td><td>–11.111</td><td>–9.841</td><td char=".">0.943</td><td /><td>–1.333</td><td>–.702</td><td>–2.222</td><td char=".">1.556</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">3.836</td><td char=".">4.869</td><td char=".">11.854</td><td /><td char=".">2.736</td><td char=".">2.102</td><td char=".">3.220</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Reading comprehension</td><td>M</td><td char=".">32.727</td><td char=".">24.286</td><td char=".">20.000</td><td char=".">5.042<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">**</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>N</italic></td><td char=".">5.500</td><td char=".">.526</td><td char=".">3.810</td><td char=".">2.848</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">9.847</td><td char=".">9.258</td><td char=".">18.974</td><td /><td char=".">9.445</td><td char=".">2.294</td><td char=".">5.896</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>9 <emph>Notes</emph>:</item> <item>10 <emph>p</emph> <.05,</item> <item>11 <emph>p</emph> <.01,</item> <item>12 <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>Significant differences in the performance of linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English were found between dyslexic readers compared to the normal and poor readers regarding phonological analysis, accuracy in reading pseudowords, accuracy in reading a text, morphological awareness – recognition and production. Significant differences in performance were also found between dyslexic and normal readers in semantic awareness and reading comprehension. Significant differences between the performance of the dyslexic and the poor readers were found in semantic awareness and in rate of reading pseudowords. In all variables, the improvement was the greatest among the dyslexic readers. Only in the rate component did the poor readers exhibit the greatest improvement.</p> <p>In the <emph>control group</emph>, the results for linguistic and meta-linguistic improvement in English skills indicate some differences among the reader groups. The normal readers' performance was higher post-intervention. Significant performance differences were found between dyslexic readers and poor and normal readers in reading fluency of pseudowords. Significant performance differences were found between dyslexic and normal readers in fluency of word recognition and text, and poor and normal readers differed in accuracy in morphological awareness – production.</p> <p>Marked differences were found in improvement in the <emph>Hebrew language</emph> between the dyslexic, poor and normal readers in the <emph>experimental group</emph> (see Table 4). Particularly, evident is the improvement among the dyslexic readers, which is the highest relative to the initial skills performance, as detailed below.</p> <p>Table 4. Improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew of readers in the experimental and control groups.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Language skills</td><td /><td>Experimental group</td><td>Control group</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Dyslexic</td><td>Poor</td><td>Normal</td><td>F(2,61)</td><td><italic>post hoc</italic></td><td>Dyslexic</td><td>Poor</td><td>Normal</td><td>F(2,57)</td><td><italic>post hoc</italic></td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>D</italic></td><td><italic>P</italic></td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td><italic>D</italic></td><td><italic>P</italic></td><td><italic>N</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Phonological awareness – analysis (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">–47.727</td><td char=".">–27.976</td><td char=".">–25.000</td><td char=".">18.665<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn16">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>N</italic></td><td>–2.500</td><td>–2.632</td><td>–5.952</td><td char=".">1.46</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">8.306</td><td char=".">14.200</td><td char=".">16.298</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">7.695</td><td>6.691</td><td char=".">7.520</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Pseudowords (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">–18.733</td><td char=".">–10.101</td><td char=".">–8.225</td><td char=".">13.923<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn16">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td>–1.364</td><td>–2.552</td><td>–.866</td><td char=".">1.708</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">5.091</td><td char=".">8.535</td><td char=".">6.986</td><td /><td char=".">2.080</td><td>4.073</td><td char=".">2.375</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Pseudowords (words/min)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">5.232</td><td char=".">4.381</td><td char=".">2.629</td><td char=".">1.687</td><td /><td>–.120</td><td char=".">2.205</td><td char=".">1.800</td><td char=".">8.361<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn15">**</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">3.568</td><td char=".">4.605</td><td char=".">5.786</td><td /><td char=".">2.035</td><td>2.264</td><td char=".">1.369</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Word recognition (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">–14.234</td><td char=".">–4.261</td><td char=".">–1.629</td><td char=".">133.251<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn16">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N N</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td>.789</td><td>–2.216</td><td>–.752</td><td char=".">2.28</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">3.601</td><td char=".">2.118</td><td char=".">1.947</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">7.199</td><td>1.320</td><td char=".">2.063</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Word recognition (words/min)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">12.264</td><td char=".">13.320</td><td char=".">10.995</td><td char=".">0.455</td><td /><td>.615</td><td char=".">1.895</td><td char=".">3.157</td><td char=".">3.704<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn14">*</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">8.698</td><td char=".">6.580</td><td char=".">7.918</td><td /><td char=".">1.874</td><td>2.478</td><td char=".">4.076</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency – vocalized (% mistakes) Heb</td><td>M</td><td char=".">–5.545</td><td char=".">–1.143</td><td char=".">–.667</td><td char=".">147.712<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn16">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td>.150</td><td>–.211</td><td>–.476</td><td char=".">1.495</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">1.057</td><td char=".">.793</td><td char=".">1.197</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">1.843</td><td>.535</td><td char=".">.602</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency – vocalized (words/min)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">9.909</td><td char=".">24.238</td><td char=".">12.476</td><td char=".">6.679<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn15">**</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td>2.200</td><td char=".">2.632</td><td char=".">4.190</td><td char=".">0.483</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">13.877</td><td char=".">15.776</td><td char=".">10.764</td><td><italic>N</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">3.365</td><td>3.818</td><td char=".">10.443</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency – non-vocalized (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">–5.034</td><td char=".">–.460</td><td char=".">.004</td><td char=".">59.039<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn16">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td>–.018</td><td>–.554</td><td>–.550</td><td char=".">1.189</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">2.501</td><td char=".">.938</td><td char=".">1.107</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">1.737</td><td>.518</td><td char=".">1.200</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency – non-vocalized (words/min)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">18.386</td><td char=".">23.333</td><td char=".">9.586</td><td char=".">6.443<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn15">**</xref></td><td><italic>N</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td>–.170</td><td char=".">1.726</td><td char=".">1.743</td><td char=".">1.906</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">10.039</td><td char=".">9.494</td><td char=".">16.924</td><td /><td char=".">2.174</td><td>1.964</td><td char=".">5.311</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Morphology recognition (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">–15.657</td><td char=".">–6.349</td><td char=".">–4.233</td><td char=".">20.339<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn16">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td>–5.555</td><td>–4.093</td><td>–1.587</td><td char=".">2.390</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">6.559</td><td char=".">6.640</td><td char=".">5.529</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">7.647</td><td>5.506</td><td char=".">3.984</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Morphology production (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">–26.263</td><td char=".">–13.228</td><td char=".">–11.111</td><td char=".">9.687<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn16">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td>–1.111</td><td>–2.924</td><td>–2.116</td><td char=".">0.694</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">15.542</td><td char=".">9.040</td><td char=".">11.111</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">4.969</td><td>5.027</td><td char=".">4.471</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Syntactic judgment (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">–19.773</td><td char=".">–7.143</td><td char=".">–5.238</td><td char=".">31.983<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn16">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td>1.000</td><td>–2.632</td><td>–2.143</td><td char=".">2.406</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">8.088</td><td char=".">6.239</td><td char=".">4.603</td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">8.522</td><td>3.862</td><td char=".">2.988</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Semantics-Peabody (% correct answers)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">6.935</td><td char=".">4.108</td><td char=".">2.109</td><td char=".">3.207<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn14">*</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>N</italic></td><td>.314</td><td char=".">1.048</td><td>–.717</td><td char=".">3.764<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn14">*</xref></td><td><italic>N</italic><<italic>P</italic></td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">5.693</td><td char=".">5.483</td><td char=".">7.512</td><td /><td char=".">1.369</td><td>1.092</td><td char=".">3.017</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Orthographic knowledge (words/min)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">2.689</td><td char=".">4.210</td><td char=".">5.444</td><td char=".">1.813</td><td /><td>.066</td><td char=".">.220</td><td char=".">.649</td><td char=".">3.746<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn14">*</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>N</italic></td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">2.276</td><td char=".">3.833</td><td char=".">6.990</td><td /><td char=".">.295</td><td>.706</td><td char=".">.947</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Orthographic knowledge (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">–9.318</td><td char=".">–5.238</td><td char=".">–3.095</td><td char=".">8.16<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn15">**</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td>.000</td><td>–2.105</td><td>–.476</td><td char=".">2.638</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">5.626</td><td char=".">5.118</td><td char=".">4.603</td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">4.292</td><td>2.536</td><td char=".">1.504</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Dictation (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">–21.901</td><td char=".">–5.628</td><td char=".">–4.848</td><td char=".">48.268<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn16">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>N</italic></td><td>1.091</td><td>–1.244</td><td>–1.212</td><td char=".">2.362</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">9.839</td><td char=".">3.810</td><td char=".">3.269</td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">6.553</td><td>1.220</td><td char=".">1.050</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Dictation (words/min)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">2.144</td><td char=".">2.502</td><td char=".">.513</td><td char=".">2.286</td><td /><td>.673</td><td char=".">1.781</td><td char=".">1.565</td><td char=".">3.027</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">2.571</td><td char=".">3.680</td><td char=".">3.338</td><td /><td char=".">1.341</td><td>1.968</td><td char=".">1.112</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Spelling (function words) (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">–20.909</td><td char=".">–11.429</td><td char=".">–5.714</td><td char=".">27.157<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn16">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>N N</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td>–.500</td><td>–1.053</td><td>–1.905</td><td char=".">1.071</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">6.838</td><td char=".">6.153</td><td char=".">7.464</td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">3.204</td><td>3.566</td><td char=".">2.488</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Spelling (content words) (% mistakes)</td><td>M</td><td char=".">–17.727</td><td char=".">–9.048</td><td char=".">–3.571</td><td char=".">35.749<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn16">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>N N</italic>><italic>P</italic></td><td>.250</td><td>–1.316</td><td>–.714</td><td char=".">2.487</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">6.119</td><td char=".">6.045</td><td char=".">4.226</td><td><italic>D</italic><<italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">2.552</td><td>2.262</td><td char=".">1.793</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Reading comprehension</td><td>M</td><td char=".">32.273</td><td char=".">25.238</td><td char=".">11.905</td><td char=".">22.393<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn16">***</xref></td><td><italic>D</italic>><italic>N</italic></td><td>3.000</td><td char=".">2.632</td><td char=".">.476</td><td char=".">2.008</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td char=".">8.125</td><td char=".">12.891</td><td char=".">8.729</td><td><italic>N</italic><<italic>P</italic></td><td char=".">4.702</td><td>5.620</td><td char=".">2.182</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>13 <emph>Notes</emph>:</item> <item>14 <emph>p</emph> <.05,</item> <item>15 <emph>p</emph> <.01,</item> <item>16 <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>Significant differences were found in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills performance in Hebrew between the dyslexic, poor and normal readers with regard to accuracy in word recognition and spelling of function and content words. Significant differences were found in skills performance in Hebrew between dyslexic readers and normal and poor readers in accuracy in phonological awareness – analysis, reading vocalized and non-vocalized text, morphological awareness – recognition and production, syntactic awareness, orthographic knowledge and reading comprehension. In all the above skills, the improvement of the dyslexic readers was the highest relative to their initial performance.</p> <p>Significant differences in performance between the dyslexic and the normal readers were found in accuracy in reading pseudowords and in semantic awareness, where improvement was highest for the dyslexic readers. Only in one variable, rate of reading vocalized text, were differences found between the poor readers and the dyslexic readers, and between the poor and the normal readers. Here, improvement was greatest among the poor readers.</p> <p>In the <emph>control group</emph>, the results of the analysis indicate few differences in the improvement of linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew between the dyslexic, poor and normal readers. Improvement in skills was higher among the normal and poor readers. Significant performance differences were found between the dyslexic readers and the poor and normal readers in rate of reading pseudowords. Significant performance differences were found between poor and normal readers in semantic awareness, where greater improvement was found among the poor readers. Significant performance differences were also found between dyslexic readers and normal readers in rate of word recognition and orthographic knowledge test. Improvement among the normal readers was higher on both measures.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-44">Discussion</hd> <p>The goal of this study was to test differences between dyslexic, poor and normal readers studying in the same educational frameworks, in various linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew and in English associated with reading and writing following an intervention program. The findings confirm the research hypothesis that we would find a more significant improvement (from pre- to post-intervention) in most linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English and in Hebrew in the experimental group among the dyslexic, poor and normal readers, compared to improvement in these skills among the dyslexic, poor and normal readers included in the control group.</p> <p>Skills tested in English and Hebrew indicated significant improvement among all readers in the experimental group: in phonological awareness (analysis); reading pseudowords (accuracy and fluency); word recognition (accuracy and fluency); reading vocalized and non-vocalized text (accuracy and fluency); morphological awareness (recognition and production); syntactical awareness; semantic awareness; orthographic knowledge (accuracy); dictation (accuracy); spelling and reading comprehension (accuracy). No significant differences in fluency of the orthographic knowledge and English dictation tests were found between the two time points among the dyslexic, poor and normal readers. Furthermore, only the normal readers did not exhibit any significant differences in Hebrew fluency in the dictation test, or in the accuracy in tests for fluency, reading a non-vocalized text and semantic awareness. These results are in line with similar studies that tested differences in linguistic skills among groups of readers in various languages following an intervention program in English.</p> <p>Abu-Rabia and Bluestein-Danon ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref149">3</reflink>]) examined differences in the linguistic skills of poor readers in Hebrew and English. They found significant improvement in all skills in English as a L2, and in all skills in Hebrew as a L1, following an intervention program in English. An improvement was found in both languages in phonological awareness (analysis and synthesis), reading pseudowords, morphological awareness (recognition and production), semantic awareness, syntactic awareness, word recognition, reading fluency, spelling and reading comprehension. Only the orthographic knowledge task in Hebrew showed no significant improvement following the intervention program.</p> <p>Furthermore, in the study by Abu-Rabia et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref150">7</reflink>]), a significant improvement was found among poor readers in the experimental group in all linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English as a FL and in Arabic as the L1, after an intervention program in English. The skills in which improvement was found in both languages were phonological, morphological and syntactical awareness, accuracy in reading, and reading comprehension. There was no significant difference in orthographic knowledge in Arabic, following an intervention program.</p> <p>The influence of bilingualism on meta-linguistic development was studied within the framework of a <emph>Theory of Bilingual Facilitation</emph> (Ben-Zeev, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref151">12</reflink>]). This theory posits that cognitive flexibility (Hakuta & Diaz, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref152">48</reflink>]) develops differently in bilingual and monolingual children, and that cognitive ability advances more in bilinguals. The mutual disturbance created in children between the two languages to which they are exposed obligates them to develop coping strategies, which accelerate cognitive development.</p> <p>Bialystok et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref153">13</reflink>]) and Bialystok et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref154">14</reflink>]) studied the contribution of bilingualism to cognitive development. Bilingual children have a cognitive advantage in executive mechanisms – an ability to navigate attention and inhibition. Bilingual children's need to handle two language systems operating cooperatively leads to improvement of the attentional control mechanisms and a gift of flexibility which develop their cognitive ability. The perception of transfer was conceptualized in Ben-Zeev's <emph>Theory of Bilingual Facilitation</emph>, which proposes that bilingual children have separate systems for processing language, between which there is interaction and inter-lingual transfer of skills. Cummins ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref155">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref156">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref157">27</reflink>]), in the Interdependence Hypothesis, regarded bilingual children as the transmitters of literacy skills acquired in their L1 to their L2. Many studies on bilingualism support the Interdependence Hypothesis identified across language transfer as a foremost mechanism in the development of meta-linguistic skills and biliteracy.</p> <p>Aspects of meta-linguistic awareness that have developed in one language facilitate the task of learning to read in an additional language. People acquire linguistic insights on language components and their graphic representation in the writing system. When transfer occurs, they form the basis for grasping the exchange relations in the L2, which foster the development of meta-lingual awareness and the ability to decode in that language (Koda, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref158">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results of this study indicate that bilingualism is effective and positive for meta-linguistic and cognitive development. Improvement was found in most linguistic and meta-linguistic skills tested in the research in both English as the L2/FL and Hebrew as the L1 between the two tested time points (pre- and post-intervention).</p> <p>The findings support three central theories: the Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummins, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref159">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref160">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref161">27</reflink>]), the Linguistic Coding Difference Hypothesis (Sparks & Ganschow, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref162">84</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref163">85</reflink>]; Sparks, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref164">83</reflink>]) and the Central Processing Hypothesis (Geva & Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref165">43</reflink>]). These theories argue for the existence of common cognitive linguistic bases that predict the development of reading in bilingual and trilingual children's experience in the bilingual and/or trilingual reading process.</p> <p>Differences between the experimental and the control groups were examined in all linguistics skills. The same examination was conducted within research groups to test differences in skills improvement among the dyslexic, poor and normal readers. The results indicated that the improvement of the dyslexic readers in the <emph>experimental group</emph> that occurred in most skills both in English and in Hebrew was greater than the improvement among the poor and/or normal readers. However, only few differences between the dyslexic, poor and normal readers were found in the <emph>control group</emph>. Likewise, when differences in skills were found, the greatest improvement in English was among the normal readers, while in Hebrew it was among the poor readers. The dyslexic readers in the control group exhibited the poorest results in English compared to the other readers. This finding strengthens this study's second hypothesis regarding skill improvement among readers in favor of the dyslexics in the experimental group, compared to the skill improvement differences between the readers in the control group.</p> <p>In the <emph>experimental group</emph>, significant improvement differences were found in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English and Hebrew, between the dyslexic readers and the poor and normal readers in phonological awareness (analysis), morphological awareness (recognition and production), accuracy in reading pseudowords and reading accuracy (in Hebrew, accuracy of reading vocalized and non-vocalized text). The dyslexic readers exhibited the greatest improvement in all the above skills, whereas a smaller improvement in these skills was found among the poor and normal readers. The former showed medium improvement in skills, while the latter exhibited the least improvement.</p> <p>Significant differences were found in improvement to the advantage of the dyslexic readers in semantic awareness, compared with the poor readers in English and with the normal readers in Hebrew. Significant differences were also found between the dyslexic readers and the normal readers in reading comprehension in both languages. Significant differences in skills improvement, with an advantage for the dyslexic readers, were found only in Hebrew with regard to the accuracy component in word recognition, syntactic awareness, orthographic knowledge, dictation and spelling in the content and function words. There were also differences in improvement in English in these components, but they were not significant. This finding may stem from the sample size and from the magnitude of the gap between the groups. It may also be due to other factors, such as differences in the teaching quality.</p> <p>In contradistinction, in the <emph>control group,</emph> differences were found in a limited number of skills in English and/or Hebrew, mostly in the rate component. The improvement among the dyslexic readers was lower than among the poor and normal readers in all tested skills. Significant differences in performance were found between the dyslexic readers and the poor and normal readers, to the advantage of the poor readers, in the rate of reading pseudowords in Hebrew and English.</p> <p>Significant performance differences were found between the dyslexic readers and the normal readers in rate of word recognition in both languages, in English-reading text and in Hebrew recognition of orthographic structures. The normal readers showed the greatest improvement in above three tasks. Furthermore, significant differences were found in performance between the poor and normal readers in English morphological awareness – production, with an advantage for the normal readers, and in Hebrew semantic awareness with an advantage for the poor readers.</p> <p>These findings on differences in improvement among dyslexic, poor and normal readers in the experimental group, compared to minor differences in the control group, shed light on the contribution of the intervention program, which was directed to improving the linguistic and meta-linguistic skills of readers. The intervention program in English worked well for the dyslexic, poor and normal readers and encouraged them to "race ahead." Expansion of the regular curriculum worked especially well for the dyslexic readers, and the program expanded their potential. They thus benefited from the program more than the poor and normal readers.</p> <p>According to the LCD Hypothesis (Ganschow et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref166">39</reflink>]), difficulties in the mother tongue are the main factors that predict difficulties in acquiring the L2/FL. The basic linguistic skills, which include the components phonology, orthography, syntax and semantics, constitute the "core" and foster success in reading the L1, and exert the same effect on the acquisition of a L2/FL. Research studies on variables that distinguish normal readers from those who find Hebrew difficult, at various ages, concurs that the latter readers, like those who have problems with English, demonstrate weaknesses in rate and accuracy of reading words. These studies indicate difficulties in phonological processing (Bentin & Leshem, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref167">11</reflink>]; Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref168">18</reflink>]), orthographic knowledge (Shany & Share, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref169">73</reflink>]), morphological knowledge (Ben-Dror et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref170">10</reflink>]; Schiff & Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref171">68</reflink>]) and naming (Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref172">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>The dyslexic readers improved significantly in English in the deficit areas, namely phonological awareness, phonological decoding, morphological awareness, as well as semantic awareness and reading comprehension. The initial performance of the dyslexic readers in all linguistic and meta-linguistic skills was evaluated below the performance of the poor and normal readers. Part of the improvement in the above skills in English can certainly be ascribed to the contribution of the intervention program. The improvement in the Hebrew language, the students' L1, was a result of cross-language transfer of linguistic skills (Abu-Rabia & Bluestein-Danon, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref173">3</reflink>]; Abu-Rabia et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref174">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-45">Contribution and practical implications of this study</hd> <p>The innovation of this research lies in the differences between the dyslexic, poor and normal readers on a range of linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English and in Hebrew. This study used an experimental research design to examine experimental and control groups at two time points (pre- and post-intervention). This research format differs from earlier studies that tested transfer by means of analysis of correlations, which does not allow controlling intervention variables.</p> <p>The intervention program constructed for the present research was based on the findings of studies and on deficit areas that emerged from the results of a test battery given to the participants. The results indicate the necessity for introducing practical measures in educational work with dyslexic students. These are hard pressed with both the manner of teaching the FL/L2 and with constructing suitable intervention programs.</p> <p>The research results indicate that if we teach the reading-deficient student a FL by appropriate teaching, centered on the student's needs (deficit areas), and develop the necessary reading and writing skills in the FL, there is a good probability for inter-lingual transfer, and the improved skills in the FL will transfer to improve the same skills in the L1. It is therefore recommended that L1 and L2/FL language teachers cooperate in constructing intervention programs matched to develop linguistic and meta-linguistic skills. Language teachers are encouraged to work together and arrange their units across languages, with special focus on contrastive analysis between these languages. This also applies to teaching strategies, especially for dyslexic and poor readers, in order to maximize effective language acquisition.</p> <hd id="AN0144655287-46">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0144655287-47"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref17" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S. (2001). Testing the independence hypothesis among native adult bilingual Russian-English students. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 435 – 453.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref61" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S. (2004). Dyslexia in Arabic. In I. Smyth, J. Everatt & R. Salter (Eds.), International book of dyslexia: A cross-language comparison and practice guide (pp. 31 – 38) England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref102" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S., & Bluestien-Danon, D. (2012). A study into the results of an intervention program of linguistic skills in English (L2) and its effect on Hebrew (L1) among poor readers: An examination of the Cognitive Retroactive Transfer (CRT) hypothesis. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 2, 131 – 139. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2012.24017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref114" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S., & Sanitsky, E. (2010). Advantages of bilinguals over monolinguals in learning a third language. Bilingual Research Journal, 33, 173 – 199. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2010.502797</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S., & Siegel, L.S. (2002). Reading, writing, orthographic, phonological, syntactic and memory skills of bilingual Arabic-English speaking Arab children in Canada. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 661 - 678.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref59" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S., & Siegel, L.S. (2003). Reading skills in three orthographies: The case of trilingual Arabic- Hebrew- English- speaking Arab children. Reading and Writing : An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 611 – 634.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref103" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S., Shakkour, W., & Siegel, L. (2013). Cognitive Retroactive Transfer (CRT) of language skills among bilingual Arabic-English Readers. Bilingual Research Journal, 36, 61 – 81. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2013.775975</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref145" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Aharoni-Bousso, M., Susman, N., & Yosefyan, J. (2006). Panorama. Eric Cohen Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref91" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bar-On, A., & Ravid, D. (2011). Morphological analysis in learning to read pseudowords in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32 (3), 553 – 581. [ 10.1017/S014271641100021X ] InsertedFromOnline</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ben-Dror, I., Bentin, S., & Frost, R. (1995). Semantic, phonologic, and morphologic skills in reading disabled and normal children: Evidence from perception and production of spoken Hebrew. Reading Research Quarterly, 30 (4), 876 – 893. https://doi.org/10.2307/748202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bentin, S., & Leshem, H. (1993). On the interaction of phonological awareness and reading acquisition: It's a two way street. Annals of Dyslexia, 43 (1), 125 – 148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02928178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ben-Zeev, S. (1977). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child Development, 48 (3), 1009 – 1018. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128353</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16 (4), 240 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bialystok, E., Peets, K. F., & Moreno, S. (2014). Producing bilinguals through immersion education: Development of metalinguistic awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35 (1), 177 – 191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000288</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Birger, A. L. (2002). Entry Point 1,2.3. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Project.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowers, P. G., & Wolf, M. (1993). Theoretical links among naming speed, precise timing mechanisms and orthographic skill in dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 5 (1), 69 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01026919</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breznitz, Z. (2001). The determinants of reading fluency: A comparison of dyslexic and average readers. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency and brain (pp. 245 – 276). York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breznitz, Z. (2006). Fluency in reading: Synchronization of processes. Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breznitz, Z., & Leikin, M. (2000). Syntactic processing of Hebrew sentences in normal and dyslexic readers: Electrophysiological evidence. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 161 (3), 359 – 380. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221320009596718</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breznitz, Z., Oren, R., & Shaul, S. (2004). Brain activity of regular and dyslexic readers while reading Hebrew as compared to English sentences. Reading and Writing, 17 (7–8), 707 – 737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-004-2654-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> British Psychology Society. (1999). Dyslexia, literacy and psychological assessment. British Psychology Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics' phonological awareness deficits. Developmental Psychology, 28 (5), 874 – 886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.874</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bruck, M. (1998). Outcomes of adults with childhood histories of dyslexia‏. In C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorders (pp. 179 – 200). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cossu, G., Shankweiler, D., Liberman, I. Y., Katz, L., & Tola, G. (1988). Awareness of phonological segments and reading ability in Italian children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9 (1), 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400000424</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49 (2), 222 – 251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domínguez De Ramírez, R., & Shapiro, E. S. (2007). Cross-language relationship between Spanish and English oral reading fluency among Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms. Psychology in the Schools, 44 (8), 795 – 806. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dray, M., Greenberg, L., & Yochanna, M. (2000). Highlight. Eric Cohen Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L. M. (1965). Peabody picture vocabulary test. American Guidance Service (Hebrew Edition, 1979).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durgunoglu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 189 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-002-0012-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durgunoğlu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (3), 453 – 465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.453</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R. (1994). Prelexical and postlexical strategies in reading: Evidence from a deep and a shallow orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20 (1), 116 – 129. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.1.116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R. (1995). Phonological computation and missing vowels: Mapping lexical involvement in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21 (2), 398 – 408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.398</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R. (2005). Orthographic system and skilled words recognition processes in reading. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 272 – 295). Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R. (2006). Becoming literate in Hebrew: The grain size hypothesis and semitic orthographic systems. Developmental Science, 9 (5), 439 – 440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00523.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R., & Bentin, S. (1992). Reading consonants and guessing vowels: Visual word recognition in Hebrew orthography. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Phonology, morphology, orthography and meaning (pp. 27 – 44). Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 13 (1), 104 – 115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.13.1.104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganschow, L., Sparks, R. L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Bishop-Marbury, A. (1991). Identifying native language difficulties among foreign language learners in college: A "foreign" language learning disability? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24 (9), 530 – 541. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949102400905</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geva, E. (1995). Orthography and cognitive processing in learning to read English and Hebrew. In I. Taylor & D. R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and literacy (pp. 277 – 291). Kluwer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geva, E., Wade-Woolley, L., & Shany, M. (1997). Development of reading efficiency in first and second language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1 (2), 119 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0102_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geva, E., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Schuster, B. (2000). Understanding individual differences in word recognition skills of ESL children. Annals of Dyslexia, 50 (1), 121 – 154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-000-0020-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geva, E., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing, 12 (1/2), 1 – 30. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008017710115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gholamain, M., & Geva, E. (1999). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in English and Persian. Language Learning, 49 (2), 183 – 217. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological representation, reading development and dyslexia: Towards a cross-linguistic theoretical framework. Dyslexia, 6 (2), 133 – 151. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0909(200004/06)6:2<133::AID-DYS160>3.0.CO;2-A</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goswami, U. (2004). Developmental dyslexia in English. In I. Smythe, J. Everatt & R. Salter (Eds.), International book of dyslexia (pp. 63 – 72). Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goswami, U., Gombert, J., & Barrera, L. (1998). Children's orthographic representations and linguistic transparency: Nonsense word reading in English, French and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19 (1), 19 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010560</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hakuta, K., & Diaz, R. (1985). The relationship between degree of bilingualism and cognitive ability: A critical discussion and some new longitudinal data. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children's language (Vol. 5, pp. 319 – 344). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jayusy, A. (2012). Developing early triliteracy: The effect of metalinguistic awareness on reading within and across three languages [Doctoral dissertation]. Bar Ilan University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn-Horwitz, J. (2006). English as a foreign language: A non formal test battery. Yozma.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn-Horwitz, J., Shimron, J., & Sparks, R. L. (2005). Predicting foreign language reading achievement in elementary school students. Reading and Writing, 18 (6), 527 – 558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-3179-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn-Horwitz, J., Schwartz, M., & Share, D. L. (2011). Acquiring the complex English orthography: A tri-literacy advantage? Journal of Research in Reading, 34 (1), 136 – 156.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn-Horwitz, J., Sparks, R. L., & Goldstein, Z. (2012a). Relevance of the linguistic coding difference hypothesis to English as an additional language literacy in Israel. In M. Leikin, M. Schwartz & Y. Tobin (Eds.), Current issues in bilingualism: Cognitive and socio-linguistic perspectives (pp. 21 – 42). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katz, L., & Frost, L. (1992). Reading in different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology morphology, and meaning (pp. 67 – 84). Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katzir, T., Kim, Y. S., Wolf, M., Morris, R., & Lovett, M. (2008). The varieties of pathways to dysfluent reading. Comparing subtypes of children with dyslexia at letter, word, and connected text levels of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41 (1), 47 – 66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407311325</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katzir, T., Shaul, S., Breznitz, Z., & Wolf, M. (2004). The universal and unique in dyslexia: A cross-linguistic investigation of reading and reading fluency in Hebrew and English speaking children with reading disorders. Reading and Writing, 17 (7–8), 739 – 768.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross linguistic approach. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18 (2), 201 – 210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(74)90101-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindgren, S. D., De Renzi, E., & Richman, L. C. (1985). Cross-national comparison of developmental dyslexia in Italy and the United States. Child Development, 56 (6), 1404 – 1417. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovett, M. W., Steinbach, K. A., & Frijters, J. C. (2000). Remediating the core deficits of developmental reading disability: A double-deficit perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (4), 334 – 358. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53 (1), 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manis, F. R., Seidenberg, M. S., & Doi, L. M. (1999). See Dick RAN: Rapid naming and the longitudinal prediction of reading subskills in first and second graders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3 (2), 129 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0302_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quiroda, T., Lemos-Britton, Z., Mostafapour, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2002). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40 (1), 85 – 111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00095-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravid, D. (2005). Hebrew orthography and literacy. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 339 – 364). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russak, S., & Kahn‐Horwitz, J. (2015). English as a foreign language spelling: Comparisons between good and poor spellers. Journal of Research in Reading, 38 (3), 307 – 330. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1111/jrir.12009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanitsky, E. (2013). Unique characteristics of dyslexia in different orthographies: A study of the profile of dyslexia in Russian, Hebrew and English orthography [A thesis submitted for the degree Doctor of Philosophy]. Faculty of Education, University of Haifa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E., & Geva, E. (2008). Morphological awareness, phonological awareness, and reading in English-Arabic bilingual children. Reading and Writing, 21 (5), 481 – 504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9074-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., & Ravid, D. (2007). Morphological analogies in Hebrew-speaking university students with dyslexia compared with typically developing grade-schoolers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36 (3), 237 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-006-9043-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwarzwald, O. R. (2002). Modern Hebrew morphology (in Hebrew). Open University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology (London, England : 1953), 94 (Pt 2), 143 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661859</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shany, M., Geva, E., & Melech-Feder, L. (2010). Emergent literacy in children of immigrants coming from a primarily oral literacy culture. Written Language & Literacy, 13 (1), 24 – 60. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.13.1.02sha</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shany, M., Lachman, D., Shalem, Z., Bahat, A., & Zeiger, T. (2006). Aleph-Taph" – A test for the diagnosis of reading and writing disabilities, based on national Israeli norms. Yesod Publishing (in Hebrew).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shany, M., & Share, D. L. (2011). Subtypes of reading disability in a shallow orthograpy: A double dissociation between accuracy-disabled and rate-disabled readers of Hebrew. Annals of Dyslexia, 61 (1), 64 – 68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. (2003). Dyslexia in Hebrew. In N. Goulandris (Ed.), Dyslexia in different languages: Cross-linguistic comparison (pp. 208 – 234). Whurr.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D., & Levin, I. (1999). Learning to read and write in Hebrew. In M. Harris & G. Hatano (Eds.) Learning to read and write: A cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimron, J. (1993). The role of vowels in reading: A review of studies of English and Hebrew. Psychological Bulletin, 114 (1), 52 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.52</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimron, J. (1999). The role of vowel signs in Hebrew: Beyond word recognition. Reading and Writing, 11 (4), 301 – 319. ‏‏ https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008045316692</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimron, J. (2006). Reading Hebrew: The language and the psychology of reading it. Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegel, L. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disability, 32 (4), 304 – 319. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200405</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snowling, M. J. (2000). Dyslexia (2nd ed., pp. 29 – 61). Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solberg, S. & Baruch N. (1979). Preliminary steps towards an Israeli standardization of the Peabody Test. Megamoth, 3, 407 – 413.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solity, J., & Vousden, J. (2009). Real books vs reading schemes: A new perspective from instructional psychology. Educational Psychology, 29 (4), 469 – 511. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903103657</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparks, R. L. (1995). Examining the linguistic coding differences hypothesis to explain individual differences in foreign language learning. Annals of Dyslexia, 45 (1), 187 – 214. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1993a). Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign language learning difficulties: Linking first and second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 77 (3), 289 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01974.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1993b). The impact of native language learning problems on foreign language learning: Case study illustrations of the linguistic coding deficit hypothesis. The Language Journal, 77 (1), 58 – 74. https://doi.org/10.2307/329559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> State of Israel Ministry of Education English Inspectorate. (2013). Revised English Curriculum: Principles and standards for learning English as an international language for all grades. Retrieved from: <ulink href="http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/23A35389-BD87-4469-B8E0-2D1FC55539B3/182677/Englishcurriculum1.pdf">http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/23A35389-BD87-4469-B8E0-2D1FC55539B3/182677/Englishcurriculum1.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tov-Lee, E. (2000). Reading and writing assessment grades 1 to 9. From "T" Zevulun Asher, published by "Ach".</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tressoldi, P. E., Stella, G., & Faggella, M. (2004). The development of reading speed in Italians with dyslexia: A longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34 (5), 414 – 417. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Venezky, R. L. (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English orthography. Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vukovic, R. K., & Siegel, L. (2006). The double-deficit hypothesis: A comprehensive analysis of the evidence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39 (1), 25 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390010401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wade-Woolley, L., & Geva, E. (2000). Processing novel phonemic contrasts in the acquisition of L2 word reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4 (4), 295 – 311. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0404_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003). Spelling performance of Chinese children using English as a second language: Lexical and visual-orthographic processes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24 (1), 1 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M., Cheng, C., & Chen, S. (2006). Contribution of morphological awareness to Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (3), 542 – 553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.542</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Poor reading: A deficit in skill-automatization or a phonological deficit? Scientific Studies of Reading, 2 (4), 321 – 340. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0204_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (1999). The "double-deficit hypothesis" for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (3), 415 – 424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.415</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (2000). Naming-speed processes and developmental reading disabilities: An introduction to the special issue on the double-deficit hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (4), 322 – 324. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300404</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery test-revised. MN: Circle Pines, MN : American Guidance.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. (1973). Woodcock reading mastery test: Revised. American Guidance.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131 (1), 3 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Liat Feder and Salim Abu-Rabia</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref158"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1262141
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Examination of Differences in Linguistic and Meta-Linguistic Skills in English (FL) and Hebrew (L1): English Intervention Program for Dyslexic, Poor and Normal Readers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Feder%2C+Liat%22">Feder, Liat</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Abu-Rabia%2C+Salim%22">Abu-Rabia, Salim</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Educational+Research%22"><i>Journal of Educational Research</i></searchLink>. 2020 113(3):226-243.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dyslexia%22">Dyslexia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Difficulties%22">Reading Difficulties</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semitic+Languages%22">Semitic Languages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Linguistics%22">Linguistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Metalinguistics%22">Metalinguistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonology%22">Phonology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Morphology+%28Languages%29%22">Morphology (Languages)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Syntax%22">Syntax</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semantics%22">Semantics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Written+Language%22">Written Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decoding+%28Reading%29%22">Decoding (Reading)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Word+Recognition%22">Word Recognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Fluency%22">Reading Fluency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spelling%22">Spelling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Verbal+Communication%22">Verbal Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonological+Awareness%22">Phonological Awareness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Rate%22">Reading Rate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accuracy%22">Accuracy</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Israel%22">Israel</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Peabody+Picture+Vocabulary+Test%22">Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00220671.2020.1782812
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0671
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This research examined differences between dyslexic, poor and normal readers who learn in the same educational framework, across various linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew as the first language (L1) and English as a foreign language (FL), following an intervention program focusing on English linguistic skills. The participants included 124 sixth graders divided into an experimental and a control group, where each group was divided into dyslexic, poor and normal readers. The experimental group participated in an intervention program in English, constructed to the requirements of this research, in addition to the regular sixth-grade English curriculum. All participants were administered a battery of tests in English and Hebrew: phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, orthography, decoding, word recognition, reading fluency, dictation, spelling and reading comprehension before and after the intervention program. More significant differences in most linguistic and meta-linguistic skills improvement in English and in Hebrew were found in the experimental group compared to the control group, with the most significant improvement exhibited by the dyslexic readers. The findings indicate the contribution of the intervention program in English for improving linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in both languages among all readers, and especially among dyslexic readers. Enlargement of the curriculum in English appears to expand their potential, and their improvement is better than that of the poor and normal readers.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1262141
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1262141
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00220671.2020.1782812
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 226
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Dyslexia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Difficulties
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Semitic Languages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Linguistics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Metalinguistics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 6
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Morphology (Languages)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Syntax
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Semantics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Written Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decoding (Reading)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Word Recognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Fluency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spelling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Verbal Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonological Awareness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Rate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accuracy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Israel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Examination of Differences in Linguistic and Meta-Linguistic Skills in English (FL) and Hebrew (L1): English Intervention Program for Dyslexic, Poor and Normal Readers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Feder, Liat
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Abu-Rabia, Salim
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0671
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 113
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Educational Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1