View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language among Different Levels of Learners with Dyslexia

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language among Different Levels of Learners with Dyslexia
Language: English
Authors: Abu Rabia, Salim (ORCID 0000-0003-1035-5641), Salfety, Ab (ORCID 0000-0002-9673-9357)
Source: Journal of Educational Research. 2021 114(4):317-331.
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: 15
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 6
Intermediate Grades
Middle Schools
Descriptors: English (Second Language), Second Language Instruction, Intervention, Grade 6, Dyslexia, Students with Disabilities, Semitic Languages, Language Skills, Severity (of Disability), Foreign Countries, Arabs, Program Effectiveness
Geographic Terms: Israel
DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2021.1933883
ISSN: 0022-0671
Abstract: The goal of the present study was to examine improvement in English as a foreign language (EFL) among different levels of readers with dyslexia, after an intervention program over a defined period. A total of 180 sixth-grade pupils from schools for learning disabilities in the Arab sector participated in the study, and 90 of the students who participated in an EFL intervention program had dyslexia. The students were divided into three levels of dyslexia in their Arabic mother tongue: severe, moderate, and light. Findings revealed the skills of the students in the intervention group to be better than those in the control group. The research findings also did not indicate any differences between the groups in the context of skills measured in terms of time, and it is from here that the higher-level skills of the students in the intervention group were reflected in aspects relating to ability (number of correct answers) and not necessarily to processing speed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1309993
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGICEjpOViK9-GmGKxb1lytAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFkD4zmSWJcSNIUYLgIBEICBm6hd6hQ_fJXj3JIdJhCKjYjFwAZfvpeG1aVuncHzYw_dt-7j6L1CO9uWM9m_lCmieKhfkPD7hwRRcfpvmtf1m2pyeVo6qq-3EusHSYGcJ0RKGCzeMfPk5TZci8mvCVw3w0mKfwUVW3eq2RPoj_ukjB6DHfqLWw2HLQdmV7GkeAsRv3XwDgezN4_6FbFTOYcyOCN-axo-IImrEIFG
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0152255164;ere01jul.21;2021Sep06.05:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0152255164-1">The acquisition of English as a foreign language among different levels of learners with dyslexia </title> <p>The goal of the present study was to examine improvement in English as a foreign language (EFL) among different levels of readers with dyslexia, after an intervention program over a defined period. A total of 180 sixth-grade pupils from schools for learning disabilities in the Arab sector participated in the study, and 90 of the students who participated in an EFL intervention program had dyslexia. The students were divided into three levels of dyslexia in their Arabic mother tongue: severe, moderate, and light. Findings revealed the skills of the students in the intervention group to be better than those in the control group. The research findings also did not indicate any differences between the groups in the context of skills measured in terms of time, and it is from here that the higher-level skills of the students in the intervention group were reflected in aspects relating to ability (number of correct answers) and not necessarily to processing speed.</p> <p>Keywords: Dyslexia; levels of dyslexia; English; Arabic; transfer of language skills; Cognitive Retroactive Transfer of Language Skills (CRT)</p> <p>Research in the sphere shows equivocal results that only make the subject less clear (Sparks, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref1">40</reflink>], 2006; Sparks & Ganschow, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref2">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref3">42</reflink>]; Sparks et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref4">46</reflink>]). Researchers have not yet succeeded in pinpointing the variables that can predict success in learning a second language (SL). Most studies conducted in North America concentrated on university students, and some with high school, or used small samples (Sparks, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref5">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Naturally, elementary and junior high school ages are more important, and research must begin during this time, because both mother tongue (MT) and SL skills are still incomplete, making them ideal for studying skill development in each language. Most researchers held that difficulties in learning a foreign language (FL) stemmed from deficiencies in the first language (L1) (Chodkiewicz, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref6">12</reflink>]; Ganschow & Sparks, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]), and the prevalent assumption was that it is easier for good readers to acquire an SL, while far more difficult for poor readers to do so.</p> <p>This study will attempt to overcome some of the methodological deficiencies that have harmed prior research in the field, to provide a clear answer to the question: Which group out of three levels of students with dyslexia will benefit the most, and for which skills?</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-2">Dyslexia and acquisition of a SL or FL</hd> <p>Dyslexia is a specific learning deficiency of neurobiological origin. It is characterized by difficulties in accuracy or fluency in reading, and by problems in spelling and coding ability. These difficulties are the result of damage to the phonological component (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003). 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 Definition, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</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, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003). Accumulated evidence indicates that the difficulty in achieving accuracy in decoding written words originates in failure of phonological processing (Ziegler & Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref9">54</reflink>]). Studies also show difficulties in retrieving and recalling orthographic structures and a slower reading rate than that of age-matched normal readers. 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 & Bower, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref10">52</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 (Abu Rabia, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>]; Breznitz & Lekein, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref12">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present study focuses on two languages, Hebrew and English, which differ in phonological, morphological, and orthographic structures. 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="bib6" id="ref13">6</reflink>]; Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref14">7</reflink>]), orthographic knowledge (Shany & Share, 2011), morphological knowledge (Schiff & Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref15">35</reflink>]) and naming (Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref16">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Bowers and Wolf ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</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, 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="bib51" id="ref18">51</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 (Lovett, Steinbach, & Frijters, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>]; Manis, Doi, & Bhadha, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref20">29</reflink>]). Furthermore, Bruck's (1992, 1998) 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, Shaul, Breznitz, and Wolf (2004) 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="bib20" id="ref21">20</reflink>]) studied students with learning deficits in the FL, and proposed the (foreign) language linguistic coding difference (LCD) hypothesis. This hypothesis postulates that difficulties in the mother tongue are a predictive factor for difficulties in the FL. Sparks and Ganschow ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref22">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref23">42</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 an FL, including reading. Difficulties in acquiring an 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, Oren, and Shaul (2004), 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> <hd id="AN0152255164-3">Dyslexia and learning additional languages</hd> <p>The central questions in this section are: How successful are students with dyslexia in learning an SL? Do students with dyslexia always benefit from another language, or are there those for whom the study of another language is a nightmare, with them barely surviving in L1? Attempts were made in the 1980s to connect difficulties in learning an SL/FL with problems in the MT learning process. It was thought possible that specific weaknesses in the study and acquisition of MT skills would influence ability to learn an FL/SL (Sparks, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref24">40</reflink>]). Thus, variables that stop and torpedo MT learning are the same ones that interfere and cause failure in learning an SL/FL (Sparks, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref25">40</reflink>]; Spolsky, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref26">47</reflink>]). Ganschow and Sparks ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref27">15</reflink>]) presented data in their studies from four university students who encountered great difficulties while learning an FL in the United States. The researchers, without examining the students' MTs, believed that these difficulties originated in lingual obstructions in academic skills in their L1. Chodkiewicz ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>]) suggested that students unsuccessful in surviving in their MT would face a similar fate in an FL. Thus, those with strong skills in their L1 will demonstrate strong skills in an FL. However, the converse is true. Students with difficulty in phonological dismantling and coding, and with basic skills for reading acquisition in any language, will not succeed in executing these actions in the FL either, and will just double their burden (Chodkiewicz, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>]; Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref30">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Sparks is one of the pioneering researchers in reading and FL disabilities. He conducted several studies together with his colleagues during the 1980s (Sparks et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref31">44</reflink>]), with results shedding a little light in the field. In his university courses, Sparks noticed students having difficulty in reading and writing in their L1. He noticed that some of these students displayed similar difficulties in their study of FL at university. These students were defined as either at risk or having dyslexia, without any professional tests to determine whether they had any learning disability at all. In 1989, Sparks et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref32">44</reflink>]) suggested a new theory to explain the difficulties students in America had in learning an FL (Ganschow et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref33">19</reflink>]; Ganschow & Sparks, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>]; Sparks, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref35">40</reflink>]; Sparks & Ganschow, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref37">42</reflink>]). They suggested the linguistic coding deficit hypothesis. The model's main argument was that student difficulties in learning an FL stemmed from deficient linguistic coding, meaning that three spheres of coding for deficiencies exist according to this theory: phonological, syntactical, and semantic. Sparks et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref38">44</reflink>]) model was based on data in the L1 among the pupils with dyslexia of Vellutino and Scanlon ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref39">49</reflink>]), who argued that pupils with reading disabilities suffer from a serious deficiency in phonological and syntactical abilities, accompanied by very poor phonological coding. Thus, strong L1 skills determine the extent of success in learning an FL. Ganschow and Sparks ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref40">17</reflink>]) further succeeded in showing that student difficulties in North American high schools and universities are mostly fixated in the phonological-orthographical processing of their L1, transferred to the FL and delaying the learning process.</p> <p>In 1994, the name of the linguistic coding deficit hypothesis theory was changed to linguistic coding differences hypothesis (Ganschow & Sparks, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref41">17</reflink>]). The researchers explained their motive was that the new name emphasizes interpersonal differences among students, and that linguistic abilities are acquired and examined on a continuum from easy to hard, in addition to the suggestion that there is no such phenomenon as reading difficulty in an FL. These conclusions of Sparks et al. are in total contrast to the then prevailing idea regarding the strong connection between learning disabilities in general in an FL. Sparks and his associates also suggested the existence of such a strong connection (Ganschow & Sparks, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref42">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]; Ganschow et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref44">20</reflink>]; Reed & Stansfield, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]). Thus, the existing confusion in the sphere is great, so that Sparks and his associates pointed to a problem in defining populations who find it difficult to learn an FL; they showed students diagnosed as being reading deficient usually complete their FL requirements (Sparks et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref46">45</reflink>]), and this is in comparison with many "regular" students, who encountered great difficulties in completing their FL requirements and were unsuccessful.</p> <p>It's worth noting that scholars often used adapted teaching for students at risk, especially multisensory teaching. This population also includes pupils with dyslexia, and the results showed that they had succeeded in improving in many linguistic and metalinguistic assignments in an FL (Crombie, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]; Ganschow & Sparks, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref48">17</reflink>]; Sparks et al., 1997; Sparks & Ganschow, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref49">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref50">42</reflink>]), and the prevalent conclusion of the aforementioned researchers was that one must examine every case in its own merit when dealing with children with learning disabilities and the study of an FL. The difficulties in the FL learning process effect not only these pupils, but also other regular students, and this depends on definition, meaning which student population was involved (Crombie, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref51">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-4">Learning English as a FL</hd> <p>The research of Sparks and colleagues attracted the attention of scholars. Ho and Fong ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref52">22</reflink>]) examined Chinese students with dyslexia studying English as an SL in Hong Kong and found the difficulties in phonological processing in Chinese were also transferred to English, hindering the learning process. In a different situation in Norway, Hellan and Kaasa ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref53">21</reflink>]) examined 12-year-old students with dyslexia studying English as an FL (EFL) and compared their achievements with a similar group without dyslexia. The results showed difficulties in learning EFL for those with dyslexia in almost every aspect of the FL: morphology, phonology, syntax, orthography, and semantics.</p> <p>In a series of interventional studies, Author and his associates examined improvement in students having difficulties in learning EFL (Abu Rabia et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref55">4</reflink>]). They examined the theory of cognitive retroactive transfer (CRT) of language skills. The transfer of lingual skills from one language to another, meaning transfer of skills in the "opposite" direction. Abu Rabia ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>]) researched 20 sixth-grade pupils with reading and writing difficulties in Hebrew and in ESL, who participated in an interventional program for improvement of English lingual skills for five months. Before and after the program, the participants' lingual skills were examined in Hebrew in English. At the conclusion of the intervention program, significant improvement was found in all lingual skills in ESL among the participants and a significant improvement in all lingual skills in Hebrew, their L1, except for orthographical knowledge where no significant improvement was found.</p> <p>This transfer of skills from the L2 is the "opposite transfer" of skills found to be transferred from a L1 to L2/L3 in prior studies. The significance of this hypothesis is that should there be an improvement in the linguistic and meta-linguistic skills of an individual in an SL, it can be anticipated that a similar improvement will occur in L1.</p> <p>The studies by Abu Rabia et al., ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>]) examined the CRT theory of lingual skills among bilingual readers of Arabic and English. The study examined the impact of an intervention program for improving EFL reading and writing skills among poor readers, and those skills in Arabic, their L1.</p> <p>These findings confirmed the CRT theory in terms of the transfer of skills of phonological, morphological, syntactic, reading accuracy, and reading comprehension awareness from English to Arabic. One can conclude that CRT occurs from English to Arabic in all skills examined in the study except for transfer or improvement in orthographic awareness, which was found to be language-dependable.</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-5">Research questions and assumptions</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152255164-6">Research questions</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is there a connection between past academic abilities between an L1 and L2 among students with dyslexia at different levels of severity?</item> <p></p> <item> At which level of dyslexia will students benefit most from studying EFL after an intervention program?</item> <p></p> <item> How will learning English influence acquisition of Arabic among students with dyslexia for each of the three levels of severity?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152255164-7">Research assumptions</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Children with dyslexia at different levels of severity who completed an EFL intervention program would demonstrate better language abilities than would those in the control group.</item> <p></p> <item> Students with mild and moderate dyslexia who completed an EFL intervention program would show greater improvement than would those with severe dyslexia in the same program.</item> <p></p> <item> Students with mild to moderate dyslexia who completed an EFL intervention program would show greater improvement than would those with severe dyslexia who completed an EFL intervention program.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152255164-8">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152255164-9">Participants</hd> <p>The study participants were 180 sixth-grade pupils from schools for those with learning disabilities in the Arab sector. Ninety had dyslexia and participated in an EFL intervention program. The pupils were divided into three levels of dyslectic severity in their L1 (Arabic), severe, moderate, and mild, based on test scores for reading words in their L1.</p> <p>Students who gained very low scores up to 20% were considered severe, students who gained 21%–40% were considered moderate level, and students who gained 41% and above were considered mild level.</p> <p>The control group was 90 students with dyslexia and were divided according to dyslectic severity in their L1 (Arabic), severe, moderate, and mild, based on test scores of reading words in their L1. All students were from learning disability schools in the Arab sector in Israel. It's important to confirm that all students and parents approved the participation in the intervention program, including pre- and posttests.</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-10">Tools</hd> <p>Before and after the intervention program, Arabic and English lingual skills were examined in the following spheres among the three reader groups in the two research groups: phonology, morphology, syntax, orthography, deciphering, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and writing. A background questionnaire, especially composed for the study, was distributed to the participants to collect demographic and reading skill data, including personal information (age, sex, country of origin, and language spoken at home) and information about their family (occupation, number of people living at home, spoken and written language and how it is used). There were also questions about exposure to writing and literacy level. The following are the research tools:</p> <p> <emph>General ability and knowledge.</emph> Raven and Court's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref58">31</reflink>]) matrix test was used for controlling nonverbal intelligence level. This test examines morphological perception, analogical thinking ability, and simultaneous processing of different data. The test contains five series, each of 12 items. The participant selects the most appropriate form for completing the matrix within 30 s. Each correct choice is worth 1 point, with a maximum possible score of 60.</p> <p> <emph>Screening tools.</emph> Four screening tests were given at the beginning of the study for determining the participants' levels and categorization for the various groups.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The nonverbal general ability level test, the Raven-R test (Raven et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref59">32</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> The verbal general ability level test–vocabulary (Wechsler, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref60">50</reflink>]) to confirm correlation between the groups of students with dyslexia regarding general abilities.</item> <p></p> <item> The test for reading individual words in Arabic (Assadi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref61">5</reflink>]), which examines word deciphering ability. Words are presented of increasing difficultly, taking word length and frequency into consideration. The test includes 26 vocalized words, and examines levels of accuracy and speed according to which participants were placed in different groups.</item> <p></p> <item> Test for reading pseudowords in Arabic (Assadi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>]). This includes a list of meaningless words, but which meet the rules of the language. The nonsense words increase in difficulty while taking into consideration rules of Arabic phonology and morphology. The students were asked to read a list of 54 pseudowords quickly and accurately.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152255164-11">Arabic tasks</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Reading isolated vocalized Arabic words (Lyon, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref63">28</reflink>]). A list of 40 vocalized words of increasing difficulty based on the participants' Arabic study materials. The list takes into account a word's length, morphological complexity, and frequency.</item> <p></p> <item> Reading isolated nonvocalized Arabic words (Lyon, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref64">28</reflink>]). A list of 40 nonvocalized words of increasing difficulty based on the participants' Arabic study materials. The list takes into account word length, morphological complexity, and frequency.</item> <p></p> <item> Working memory (Abu-Rabia, & Blueistin-Danon, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>]). The test was adapted to Arabic based on the version of Siegel and Ryan ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref66">38</reflink>]). Sequential repetition of completed words—the participant is presented with sentences read out loud with a word missing at the end of the sentence. The test consists of four stages, with the participant required to complete an increasing number of words (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref67">2</reflink>, 3, 4, and 5).</item> <p></p> <item> Orthography (Assadi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref68">5</reflink>]). Words are presented in rows, some written correctly and others not. The child must choose the word that meets Arabic lingual rules in morphological terms. The child marks incorrectly written words with a backslash. There are 17 rows, with 6 words in each row.</item> <p></p> <item> Phonological awareness 1 (Abu-Rabia, & Blueistin-Danon, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>]). Includes pairs of pseudowords where only one sounds real. The test can be read aloud to students, and they must decide which word phonologically sounds like a real word.</item> <p></p> <item> Phonological awareness 2 (Assadi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref70">5</reflink>]). (a) Analysis: breaking down words into phonemes: The test examines ability to separate a word into phonemes. The tester says the target word and participants must repeat the word and then break it down into phonemes. This test includes 18 words. (b) Synthesis: best of synthesizing phonemes into words (Assadi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref71">5</reflink>]): This test examines ability to combine phonemes into a complete word. The tested individual is read phonemes and asked to combine them into words. The test contains 8 items. (c) Deletion of phoneme from word (Assadi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref72">5</reflink>]): the participant must delete the beginning, middle, or end phoneme from a word read to them. The word is read separately, and they must pronounce it and then pronounce the remaining succession.</item> <p></p> <item> Morphology. (a) Derivational morphology on production level (Abu-Rabia, & Blueistin-Danon, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>]): during the test, which includes 40 roots, the person must derive as many words as possible from these roots. The roots are presented in a list from the easiest and most frequent to the most difficult and infrequent. (b) Morphological judgment (Abu-Rabia, & Blueistin-Danon, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>]): the participant is presented with word pairs, and must say "yes" much faster when reacting to words of the same root, or "no" to words with a different root.</item> <p></p> <item> Spelling (Abu-Rabia, & Blueistin-Danon, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>]). Words are written down after being read out loud, from easy to difficult, using words from Arabic textbooks. The list is at the same level as the words meant for reading aloud for accuracy and fluency. The list contains 40 words.</item> <p></p> <item> Reading comprehension test (Assadi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref76">5</reflink>]). Consists of two texts (one fully vocalized and one nonvocalized) and multiple-choice questions on the texts. The texts are taken from the students' study materials. Each text is around a page in length, and contains 14 questions. The text content is taken from the students' immediate surroundings: ("wasps" and "milk and milk products").</item> <p></p> <item> Syntactical judgment (Assadi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref77">5</reflink>]). Contains 31 sentences, only some syntactically correct. The students must indicate which sentences are syntactically correct and which are not.</item> <p></p> <item> Deciphering pseudowords (Abu-Rabia, & Blueistin-Danon, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>]). Examines ability to accurately code and decipher pseudowords. The participant must read the list of pseudowords aloud, as accurately and quickly as possible. This task examines the percentage of correct answers out of all items. The list contains 30 words.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152255164-12">English tasks</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Phonological awareness (Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref79">23</reflink>]). (a) Analysis: breaking down words into phonemes (Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref80">23</reflink>]): The tester says the target word and participants must repeat the word they heard and then break it down into phonemes. This test includes 20 words. (b) Synthesis: synthesizing phonemes into words (tests for diagnosing an FL: Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref81">25</reflink>]). This examines ability to connect phonemes in a complete word. The participant is read phonemes and asked to combine them into words. The test contains eight items. There is an ascending rating of the items in terms of difficulty level, from three to six phonemes. Each level contains two words. This table examines accuracy percentages. (c) Deletion of phoneme from word (Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref82">23</reflink>]): the participant must delete a beginning, middle, or end phoneme from a word read to them. The word is read to the participant separately, and they must pronounce it and then pronounce the remainder. For example, "Say 'gate' without 'g' ('ate'); now say 'gate.'"</item> <p></p> <item> Deciphering pseudowords (Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref83">23</reflink>]). This test examines reading accuracy of pseudowords. The participant is read 34 pseudowords.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Speed and accuracy of reading (Woodcock, [53]). (a) Isolated words_B_: t</bold>he test examines reading quality of individual words as expressed in reading pace and accuracy. The participant must read 73 isolated words at an ascending level of difficulty, without having any help from context. This table measures accuracy and fluency by calculating number of words read per minute. (b) Reading fluency test <bold>(</bold>tests for diagnosing an FL: Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref84">25</reflink>]): the test examines speed and accuracy of reading aloud a text coordinated with writing level. The participant is given a text of 51 words. Reading fluency is examined by calculating number of words read per minute and accuracy ability.</item> <p></p> <item> Morphological attentiveness (tests for diagnosing an FL, Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref85">25</reflink>]). This test examines ability to derive and inflect in words with meaning on the levels of identification and extraction: (a) morphological attentiveness (derivation and inflection ability) on identification level, in which participants must complete 10 sentences read and laid before them using one of the words listed under the sentence. This task measures percentage of accuracy; and (b) morphological attentiveness (derivation and inflection ability) on extraction level, in which participants must complete 10 sentences read and laid before them in a text whose original form is written in parentheses. This task measures percentage of accuracy.</item> <p></p> <item> Syntactical attentiveness (tests for diagnosing an FL: Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref86">25</reflink>]). Participants must change word order to create a proper sentence. The test includes 12 sentences. This task measures percentage of accuracy.</item> <p></p> <item> Orthographic knowledge (tests for diagnosing an FL: Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref87">25</reflink>]). The test examines ability to identify writing structures. The participant is presented with 20 word pairs, one correctly spelled and the other the same word incorrectly spelled. The participant must mark the correctly spelled word. This task measures percentage of accuracy.</item> <p></p> <item> Spelling (Russak & Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref88">34</reflink>]). The test consists of 28 words, first read aloud. They are then read in a sentence and once again aloud. The participant must write the target word. Words range from one to four syllables. This task measures percentage of accuracy.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Reading comprehension test.</emph> The participant must silently read two texts in English and then answer 10 multiple-choice questions on each text. Texts are from the English reader for the Grade 6 published by the Israeli Ministry of Education.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152255164-13">Procedure and intervention program</hd> <p>First, the general abilities test was distributed, followed by the battery of tests for examining metalinguistic skills in Arabic and English. To neutralize possible fatigue effect, the test order was different for each participant by rotating both between the battery of tests in Arabic and English and within each battery among the tests themselves. The results served as the basis for comparison with the results of the tests given after the conclusion of the experimentation process. The tests were given by the researcher and the assisting staff, especially trained for the task, and individually for each group in a quiet room. The tests were held in two sessions, with a battery of tests in one language given in each session. All participants in the experimental and control groups were given all tests in both languages.</p> <p>According to the reading results of the students with L1 Arabic (accuracy of reading words), they were divided into three levels according to the severity of their dyslexia: severe, moderate, and mild. The intervention program was designed after analyzing the results, based on points of strength and weakness among the participants. Because it was anticipated that a weakness in almost all indicators would be revealed in English for everyone, emphasis was placed on four main spheres. Thus, the program included all tested skills and lasted for 4 months for the experimental group. The students were in Grade 7 from different schools, 13–14 years old. All students were native speakers of Arabic.</p> <hd1 id="AN0152255164-14">The English Intervention Program</hd1> <p>The Intervention Program in English.</p> <p>List of subjects in the Intervention Program:</p> <p>Part A: Reinforcement and strengthening mastery of deciphering reading</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Recognizing the letters and connection between letter and sound;</item> <p></p> <item> Recognizing the sound of vowels;</item> <p></p> <item> Recognizing combinations of consonants and common vowels in English;</item> <p></p> <item> Recognizing common suffixes in English;</item> <p></p> <item> For this part navigation, cards were composed that include explanations, examples and exercise pages.</item> </ulist> <p>Part B: Expanding orthographic vocabulary in reading and writing</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Common word lists and their meaning (125 words; some 5 words will be imparted in each lesson).</item> <p></p> <item> The teacher will show around 5 new words, and the students are to learn their meaning. Simultaneously, the words will be drilled by composing a sentence both orally and in writing for each word studied, sentence completion exercises, clues, etc.</item> </ulist> <p>Part C: Instilling grammatical rules (developing morphosyntactic awareness)</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Recognizing the noun—adding a<emph>/an/the</emph> or <emph>some/any</emph>;</item> <p></p> <item> Recognizing the verb—The auxiliary verb <emph>be</emph>: <emph>am/is/are</emph>;</item> <p></p> <item> Where <emph>have</emph>/<emph>has</emph> belong;</item> <p></p> <item> The tenses:</item> </ulist> <p>Past/present/future, declarative/negative sentence/questions;Present simple; present progressive; past simple; future—<emph>will/be + going to</emph></p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Learning grammatical rules will include navigation cards that include detailed explanations of the rules, examples, imparting spelling rules and exercise pages for each subject.</item> </ulist> <p>Part D: Imparting spelling rules (combined with Part C)</p> <p>Changing noun from singular to plural;</p> <p>Spelling rules for different tenses.</p> <p>Part E: Developing reading fluency and reading comprehension strategies</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Reinforcing reading fluency;</item> <p></p> <item> Imparting strategies for coping with a text; strategies before/during and at the end of the reading.</item> <p></p> <item> The students will reinforce reading fluency and reading comprehension skills by reading texts adapted to age levels from textbooks and which respond to questions on reading comprehension.</item> </ulist> <p>Part F: Reinforcement and strengthening mastery of deciphering reading</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-15">Description of intervention program</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152255164-16">Part A: Recognizing letters and consonant combinations and common vowels</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152255164-17">Goals</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To recognize capital and small letters.</item> <p></p> <item> To know how to read words with these combinations.</item> <p></p> <item> To recognized common consonant combinations.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152255164-18">The course of the lesson</hd> <p>The teacher first displays a large poster with all the letters that appear in both forms: small and capital (i.e., "<bold>a</bold>" and "A"). The letters appear in different colors and in typical handwriting form, not print, like "a," as children learn to write the letters like the former form and not the latter print form (estimated time: 10 min).</p> <p>The teacher goes over each letter with full student participation. After the teacher reads the letter several times, each child is asked to read the letters (estimated time: 10 min).</p> <p>Then, the children are asked to copy each letter in its two forms while reading it aloud. This can be done together will all children in unison Besides the drilling and learning the letter itself, reading aloud as a group turns the learning more experiential and enjoyable (estimated time: 10 min).</p> <p>The next step is the use of the cards that contain simple words (one syllable preferable) + pictures of the words that start with the requested letter (estimated time: 8 min).</p> <p>Then the teacher begins combining relevant letters to create in writing, and simultaneously reading aloud, the sounds of the combinations (estimated time: 7 min).</p> <p>It is important that the teacher stress words that begin with the letters.</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-19">Homework and exercises</hd> <p>Work sheets are included in the program itself + a set of cards of letters in both forms.</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-20">Estimated number of lessons</hd> <p>At least two lessons for capital and small letters and their sounds.</p> <p>Two lessons for <emph>ch</emph>, <emph>sh</emph>, <emph>th</emph>, <emph>gh</emph>, <emph>ph</emph>, <emph>ck</emph>...</p> <p>One lesson for <emph>ai</emph>, <emph>au</emph>, <emph>ea</emph>, <emph>ee</emph>, <emph>ou</emph>, <emph>w</emph>...</p> <p>One lesson for "magic <emph>e</emph>."</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-21">Part B: Expanding vocabulary in reading and writing</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152255164-22">Goals</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To know how to properly read words.</item> <p></p> <item> To understand the meaning of words.</item> <p></p> <item> To use words in context, like sentences, both written and spoken.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152255164-23">The course of the lesson</hd> <p>As with the letters, the teacher shows the words to be read on large posters.</p> <p>The teacher reads each word to teach the proper pronunciation, with an emphasis on letter combinations learned in previously lessons. It is likely that the teacher will have to slow the learning pace to help children who find the assignment difficult while maintaining an air of "fun" and lack of pressure during the learning (estimated time: 10 min).</p> <p>When the teacher feels that the children are ready, they will go to the stage of understanding the meaning of words by writing said meanings on the blackboard while distributing the cards with each letter and meaning so that the children can practice both their reading and understanding at home (estimated time: 10 min).</p> <p>The next stage is moving on to sentences, and even short illustrated texts. The teacher tries to bring texts with the previous words and ask questions regarding reading comprehension. They can focus on said words after the children understand the text. And in a similar fashion: the teacher plays with the children and drills them with the help of pictures and work sheets (estimated time: 13 min).</p> <p>At this stage the teacher emphasizes the creation of sentences and the use of the words studied. In other words, now it is the children's turn to express their opinions with the help of said words. The teacher can show pictures or even a succession of pictures constituting a story and ask the students to write a succession of sentences (estimated time: 12 min).</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-24">Homework and exercises</hd> <p>Work sheets included in the program + cards/pictures and other learning aids that were either acquired or prepared by the teacher and children in class. Besides the help itself, preparing cards, pictures and everything by the children and teacher together will motivate the children and ensure their remaining interested in the learning material.</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-25">Estimated number of lesson</hd> <p>Five or six lessons with an average of 20 or 25 words per lesson at most.</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-26">Parts C and D: Grammatical rules</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152255164-27">Goals</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To know the languages' rules of grammar.</item> <p></p> <item> To understand how to use these rules (how to form the rules, when and why).</item> <p></p> <item> To apply the rules properly in both writing and speech.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152255164-28">The course of the lesson</hd> <p>The most acceptable way today to teach a certain topic in grammar is in combination with a text. Therefore, after understand the text, examples are extracted that relate to the topic being studied, they are analyzed, and the students are asked to understand the grammatical rule itself through the text (estimated time: 15 min).</p> <p>It will mandatory to allow each child to well understand the text. Therefore, homework assignments in this sphere will be most meaningful to ensure both learning continuity and meeting the lesson schedule below. The teacher will find the best way for the children to attain this goal.</p> <p>Attention and increased help from parents and other family members capable of helping the children with the exercises and homework in English are important. For other children, the teacher must use outside extra help, like [college] students in the area, because ultimately, continuing to the next stage is not possible until the entire class is ready (estimated time: 15 min).</p> <p>Therefore, the drilling must continue until the students well internalize the subject and use it creatively, by forming their own proper sentences according to the grammatical rules, and apply them fluently in speech. (estimated time: 15 min).</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-29">Homework and exercises</hd> <p>Work sheets included in the program itself + practicing at home with help of parents, siblings and outside help as mentioned above.</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-30">Estimated number of lessons</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The noun—<emph>a</emph>, <emph>an</emph>, <emph>some</emph>—One lesson.</item> <p></p> <item> Singular and plural—Two lessons.</item> <p></p> <item> Verb <emph>to be</emph>—One lesson.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Have</emph>/<emph>has</emph>—One lesson.</item> <p></p> <item> Present simple—Three lessons.</item> <p></p> <item> Present progressive—Three lessons.</item> <p></p> <item> Past simple—Four lessons.</item> <p></p> <item> Future simple—Two lessons.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152255164-31">Part E: Developing reading fluency and reading comprehension strategies</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152255164-32">Goals</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To know how to read the text fluently.</item> <p></p> <item> To know and use reading comprehension strategies (like type of text, title, identifying names, places, numbers...).</item> <p></p> <item> To connect information from all parts of the text and come to a conclusion.</item> <p></p> <item> To express an opinion on the subject.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152255164-33">The course of the lesson</hd> <p>First, an attempt is made to teach the children how to extract information from the title or pictures before the reading stage. Next is the importance of the first sentence of each paragraph, following by identification of names, numbers, and all of this while reading. To attain all of this, there will again be a need for constant practice by each individual's learning method, meaning assigning a teacher or counselor to small groups (up to three children per group), who will work more intensively with each group (estimated time: 20 min).</p> <p>At first, low order thinking skills are developed, followed by a higher level whereby the students are asked to draw conclusions, or a stage of analyzing information from various parts of the tex. Today there is greater emphasis on the "hots"—higher-order thinking skills, and they should be stressed (estimated time: 15 min).</p> <p>The activities allowed here are many, according to the teacher's discretion. It is highly recommended to link the subject being studied with writing an essay and expression opinions in an orderly fashion (estimated time: 10 min).</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-34">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152255164-35">Students' skills before the intervention program</hd> <p>The pretests revealed no a priori differences between the control and research groups.</p> <p>Table 1 collates the comparison between student abilities and skills from both groups in Arabic. Table 1 reveals no significant statistical differences between the two groups.</p> <p>Table 1. Comparison of ability and skills in language.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Arabic Skills</td><td>Entire Sample</td><td>Dyslexia</td></tr><tr><td>(50-60%) Mild</td><td>(35-45%) Moderate</td><td>(0-30%) Severe</td></tr><tr><td>CG <italic>n =</italic> 88</td><td>IG <italic>n =</italic> 88</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td><td>CG <italic>n =</italic> 28</td><td>IG <italic>n =</italic> 28</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td><td>CG <italic>n =</italic> 30</td><td>IG <italic>n =</italic> 30</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td><td>CG <italic>n =</italic> 30</td><td>IG <italic>n =</italic> 30</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Reading vocalized words (correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">22.8%</td><td char=".">21.4%</td><td char=".">1.309</td><td char=".">29.6%</td><td char=".">25.2%</td><td char=".">1.985</td><td char=".">21.5%</td><td char=".">22.2%</td><td char=".">0.985</td><td char=".">17.7%</td><td char=".">17.1%</td><td char=".">0.502</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(8.4%)</td><td>(5.4%)</td><td>(.192)</td><td char=".">10.2%</td><td char=".">5.7%</td><td>(.052)</td><td char=".">3.3%</td><td char=".">1.9%</td><td>(.330)</td><td char=".">5.3%</td><td char=".">4.2%</td><td>(.618)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading vocalized words (s)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">224.73</td><td char=".">224.73</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">170.18</td><td char=".">170.18</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">253.47</td><td char=".">253.47</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">246.90</td><td char=".">246.90</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(54.27)</td><td>(54.27)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(54.89)</td><td>(54.89)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(28.05)</td><td>(28.05)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(31.74)</td><td>(31.74)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading nonvocalized words (correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">38.4%</td><td char=".">37.7%</td><td char=".">0.368</td><td char=".">49.6%</td><td char=".">48.6%</td><td char=".">0.487</td><td char=".">35.4%</td><td char=".">35.3%</td><td char=".">0.138</td><td char=".">30.7%</td><td char=".">30.0%</td><td char=".">0.250</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(12.1%)</td><td>(11.0%)</td><td>(.713)</td><td char=".">9.5%</td><td char=".">6.0%</td><td>(.628)</td><td char=".">6.1%</td><td char=".">3.9%</td><td>(.891)</td><td char=".">11.3%</td><td char=".">11.4%</td><td>(.803)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading vocalized words (s)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">165.83</td><td char=".">165.83</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">176.89</td><td char=".">176.89</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">156.70</td><td char=".">156.70</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">164.63</td><td char=".">164.63</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(35.97)</td><td>(35.97)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(47.32)</td><td>(47.32)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(29.36)</td><td>(29.36)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(26.98)</td><td>(26.98)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Active memory (number of correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">15.1%</td><td char=".">14.6%</td><td char=".">0.379</td><td char=".">13.2%</td><td char=".">12.9%</td><td char=".">0.088</td><td char=".">17.1%</td><td char=".">17.1%</td><td char=".">0.008</td><td char=".">14.9%</td><td char=".">13.5%</td><td char=".">0.582</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(10.4%)</td><td>(8.0%)</td><td>(.705)</td><td char=".">13.0%</td><td char=".">9.6%</td><td>(.930)</td><td char=".">6.7%</td><td char=".">6.3%</td><td>(.993)</td><td char=".">10.7%</td><td char=".">7.5%</td><td>(.563)</td></tr><tr><td>Orthography (number of correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">68.1%</td><td char=".">69.2%</td><td char=".">1.186</td><td char=".">70.9%</td><td char=".">71.5%</td><td char=".">0.492</td><td char=".">68.6%</td><td char=".">70.1%</td><td char=".">1.120</td><td char=".">64.9%</td><td char=".">66.1%</td><td char=".">0.640</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(7.1%)</td><td>(4.8%)</td><td>(.237)</td><td char=".">4.7%</td><td char=".">3.4%</td><td>(.625)</td><td char=".">6.2%</td><td char=".">3.9%</td><td>(.268)</td><td char=".">8.7%</td><td char=".">5.3%</td><td>(.525)</td></tr><tr><td>Orthography (s)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">255.58</td><td char=".">255.58</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">221.50</td><td char=".">221.50</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">399.00</td><td char=".">399.00</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">143.97</td><td char=".">143.97</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(115.66)</td><td>(115.66)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(44.98)</td><td>(44.98)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(51.94)</td><td>(51.94)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(16.19)</td><td>(16.19)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness (correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">69.7%</td><td char=".">71.3%</td><td char=".">0.561</td><td char=".">77.5%</td><td char=".">82.7%</td><td char=".">1.630</td><td char=".">75.2%</td><td char=".">75.2%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">57.0%</td><td char=".">56.7%</td><td char=".">0.046</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(18.6%)</td><td>(18.4%)</td><td>(.576)</td><td char=".">14.7%</td><td char=".">8.2%</td><td>(.109)</td><td char=".">11.3%</td><td char=".">11.3%</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">21.3%</td><td char=".">21.5%</td><td>(.964)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness 2 (correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">36.1%</td><td char=".">35.5%</td><td char=".">0.250</td><td char=".">58.4%</td><td char=".">56.3%</td><td char=".">0.523</td><td char=".">31.0%</td><td char=".">31.0%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">20.5%</td><td char=".">20.5%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(18.4%)</td><td>(17.7%)</td><td>(.803)</td><td char=".">15.1%</td><td char=".">15.5%</td><td>(.603)</td><td char=".">4.4%</td><td char=".">4.4%</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">5.3%</td><td char=".">5.3%</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness 2 (s)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">219.50</td><td char=".">219.50</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">216.79</td><td char=".">216.79</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">250.93</td><td char=".">250.93</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">190.60</td><td char=".">190.60</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(46.38)</td><td>(46.38)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(47.37)</td><td>(47.37)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(33.52)</td><td>(33.52)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(36.70)</td><td>(36.70)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness (correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">40.5%</td><td char=".">40.3%</td><td char=".">0.112</td><td char=".">42.0%</td><td char=".">41.3%</td><td char=".">0.242</td><td char=".">35.7%</td><td char=".">35.7%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">44.0%</td><td char=".">44.0%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(13.2%)</td><td>(13.2%)</td><td>(.911)</td><td char=".">10.6%</td><td char=".">10.9%</td><td>(.810)</td><td char=".">11.8%</td><td char=".">11.8%</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">15.4%</td><td char=".">15.4%</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Development of pseudo-words (correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">20.4%</td><td char=".">20.1%</td><td char=".">0.198</td><td char=".">24.9%</td><td char=".">23.9%</td><td char=".">0.408</td><td char=".">24.1%</td><td char=".">24.1%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">12.4%</td><td char=".">12.4%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(10.8%)</td><td>(10.5%)</td><td>(.843)</td><td char=".">9.6%</td><td char=".">8.7%</td><td>(.685)</td><td char=".">11.7%</td><td char=".">11.7%</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">5.5%</td><td char=".">5.5%</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Identifying root (correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">21.8%</td><td char=".">22.0%</td><td char=".">0.105</td><td char=".">9.7%</td><td char=".">10.3%</td><td char=".">0.454</td><td char=".">30.8%</td><td char=".">30.8%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">24.5%</td><td char=".">24.6%</td><td char=".">0.022</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(12.3%)</td><td>(12.3%)</td><td>(.916)</td><td char=".">4.0%</td><td char=".">5.1%</td><td>(.652)</td><td char=".">11.7%</td><td char=".">11.7%</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">8.8%</td><td char=".">8.8%</td><td>(.983)</td></tr><tr><td>Morphological judgment (correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">40.8%</td><td char=".">40.8%</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td char=".">44.7%</td><td char=".">44.7%</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td char=".">41.4%</td><td char=".">41.4%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">36.6%</td><td char=".">36.6%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(13.8%)</td><td>(13.7%)</td><td>(.999)</td><td char=".">17.6%</td><td char=".">17.3%</td><td>(.999)</td><td char=".">5.3%</td><td char=".">5.3%</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">14.9%</td><td char=".">14.9%</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Writing test (correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">15.4%</td><td char=".">15.2%</td><td char=".">0.101</td><td char=".">19.5%</td><td char=".">19.0%</td><td char=".">0.302</td><td char=".">18.8%</td><td char=".">18.8%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">8.2%</td><td char=".">8.2%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(10.2%)</td><td>(9.9%)</td><td>(.919)</td><td char=".">6.5%</td><td char=".">5.5%</td><td>(.764)</td><td char=".">4.9%</td><td char=".">4.9%</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">12.8%</td><td char=".">12.8%</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading comprehension test (correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">42.5%</td><td char=".">42.5%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">42.1%</td><td char=".">42.1%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">49.1%</td><td char=".">49.1%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">36.3%</td><td char=".">36.3%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(10.6%)</td><td>(10.6%)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">13.7%</td><td char=".">13.7%</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">3.4%</td><td char=".">3.4%</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">8.2%</td><td char=".">8.2%</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Syntactical judgment (correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">59.5%</td><td char=".">59.5%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">67.2%</td><td char=".">67.2%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">64.6%</td><td char=".">64.6%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">47.1%</td><td char=".">47.1%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(14.3%)</td><td>(14.3%)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">7.8%</td><td char=".">7.8%</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">5.2%</td><td char=".">5.2%</td><td>(1.000)</td><td char=".">17.0%</td><td char=".">17.0%</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: CG = control group; IG = intervention group.</p> <p>Table 2 reveals no significant differences between the two groups, except for one difference among students with moderate dyslexia. There is a higher percentage, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref89">58</reflink>) = 3.01, <emph>p</emph> <.01, of correct answers among students in the control group in the analytical context of phonological awareness compared with those in the intervention group.</p> <p>Table 2. Comparison of ability and skills in English (research group, preintervention program).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Skills in English</td><td>Entire Sample</td><td>Dyslexia</td></tr><tr><td>(50-60%) Mild</td><td>(35-45%)Moderate</td><td>(0-30%) Severe</td></tr><tr><td>CG <italic>n</italic> = 88</td><td>IG <italic>n</italic> = 88</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td><td>CG <italic>n</italic> = 28</td><td>IG <italic>n</italic> = 28</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td><td>CG <italic>n</italic> = 30</td><td>IG <italic>n</italic> = 30</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td><td>CG <italic>n</italic> = 30</td><td>IG <italic>n</italic> = 30</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Phonological awareness (English) (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">22.7%</td><td char=".">21.5%</td><td char=".">0.612</td><td char=".">31.3%</td><td char=".">31.3%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">10.2%</td><td char=".">7.8%</td><td char=".">3.011</td><td char=".">27.1%</td><td char=".">26.2%</td><td char=".">0.370</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(12.2%)</td><td>(12.7%)</td><td>(.541)</td><td>(9.9%)</td><td>(9.6%)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(3.2%)</td><td>(2.8%)</td><td>(.004)</td><td>(9.7%)</td><td>(8.8%)</td><td>(.713)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness (Synthesis) (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">18.7%</td><td char=".">15.9%</td><td char=".">1.127</td><td char=".">25.4%</td><td char=".">23.7%</td><td char=".">0.340</td><td char=".">9.9%</td><td char=".">6.5%</td><td char=".">1.314</td><td char=".">21.3%</td><td char=".">17.9%</td><td char=".">0.939</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(16.1%)</td><td>(16.3%)</td><td>(.261)</td><td>(19.4%)</td><td>(19.4%)</td><td>(.735)</td><td>(11.1%)</td><td>(8.6%)</td><td>(.194)</td><td>(13.0%)</td><td>(14.6%)</td><td>(.352)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness (deletion of phoneme from word) (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">42.3%</td><td char=".">40.2%</td><td char=".">1.171</td><td char=".">49.1%</td><td char=".">47.5%</td><td char=".">0.498</td><td char=".">44.5%</td><td char=".">41.3%</td><td char=".">2.199</td><td char=".">33.8%</td><td char=".">32.4%</td><td char=".">0.493</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(12.4%)</td><td>(11.3%)</td><td>(.243)</td><td>(12.6%)</td><td>(11.8%)</td><td>(.621)</td><td>(6.7%)</td><td>(4.1%)</td><td>(.032)</td><td>(11.8%)</td><td>(10.9%)</td><td>(.624)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness (reading nonsense words) (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">20.5%</td><td char=".">20.4%</td><td char=".">0.028</td><td char=".">38.3%</td><td char=".">38.3%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">13.2%</td><td char=".">13.4%</td><td char=".">0.346</td><td char=".">11.1%</td><td char=".">10.8%</td><td char=".">0.264</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(13.4%)</td><td>(13.5%)</td><td>(.977)</td><td>(7.9%)</td><td>(7.9%)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(2.6%)</td><td>(1.3%)</td><td>(.731)</td><td>(4.9%)</td><td>(5.4%)</td><td>(.792)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">28.4%</td><td char=".">26.6%</td><td char=".">0.558</td><td char=".">52.3%</td><td char=".">50.6%</td><td char=".">0.275</td><td char=".">19.7%</td><td char=".">19.3%</td><td char=".">0.320</td><td char=".">14.8%</td><td char=".">11.4%</td><td char=".">1.439</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(22.0%)</td><td>(21.0%)</td><td>(.578)</td><td>(22.1%)</td><td>(21.7%)</td><td>(.784)</td><td>(4.6%)</td><td>(4.2%)</td><td>(.750)</td><td>(12.4%)</td><td>(4.1%)</td><td>(.156)</td></tr><tr><td>Morphological alertness (identifying) (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">25.0%</td><td char=".">22.5%</td><td char=".">1.390</td><td char=".">18.0%</td><td char=".">16.1%</td><td char=".">0.845</td><td char=".">33.9%</td><td char=".">30.3%</td><td char=".">1.073</td><td char=".">22.6%</td><td char=".">20.7%</td><td char=".">0.917</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(12.3%)</td><td>(11.3%)</td><td>(.166)</td><td>(8.4%)</td><td>(8.3%)</td><td>(.402)</td><td>(13.5%)</td><td>(12.2%)</td><td>(.288)</td><td>(8.5%)</td><td>(7.8%)</td><td>(.363)</td></tr><tr><td>Morphological alertness (extracting) (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">9.1%</td><td char=".">8.8%</td><td char=".">0.233</td><td char=".">20.4%</td><td char=".">20.4%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">4.1%</td><td char=".">3.0%</td><td char=".">0.983</td><td char=".">3.7%</td><td char=".">3.7%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(10.5%)</td><td>(10.8%)</td><td>(.816)</td><td>(10.0%)</td><td>(10.0%)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(4.0%)</td><td>(4.7%)</td><td>(.330)</td><td>(6.7%)</td><td>(6.7%)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Syntactic alertness Morphological alertness (identifying) (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">10.9%</td><td char=".">11.2%</td><td char=".">0.121</td><td char=".">18.3%</td><td char=".">19.0%</td><td char=".">0.176</td><td char=".">7.2%</td><td char=".">7.2%</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td char=".">7.8%</td><td char=".">7.8%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(12.4%)</td><td>(12.8%)</td><td>(.904)</td><td>(15.2%)</td><td>(15.5%)</td><td>(.861)</td><td>(4.9%)</td><td>(5.7%)</td><td>(.999)</td><td>(12.2%)</td><td>(12.2%)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Syntactic alertness (CA) Syntactic alertness (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">24.5%</td><td char=".">24.0%</td><td char=".">0.370</td><td char=".">19.8%</td><td char=".">19.8%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">24.1%</td><td char=".">22.5%</td><td char=".">1.104</td><td char=".">29.3%</td><td char=".">29.3%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(9.8%)</td><td>(9.1%)</td><td>(.711)</td><td>(11.5%)</td><td>(11.5%)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(7.1%)</td><td>(2.9%)</td><td>(.274)</td><td>(8.3%)</td><td>(8.3%)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Meaning of words (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">29.3%</td><td char=".">27.5%</td><td char=".">0.773</td><td char=".">44.1%</td><td char=".">41.6%</td><td char=".">0.774</td><td char=".">32.2%</td><td char=".">29.3%</td><td char=".">1.882</td><td char=".">12.5%</td><td char=".">12.5%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(15.6%)</td><td>(14.3%)</td><td>(.440)</td><td>(11.7%)</td><td>(11.9%)</td><td>(.442)</td><td>(7.2%)</td><td>(4.1%)</td><td>(.065)</td><td>(6.1%)</td><td>(6.1%)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Meaning of words for Hebrew (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">7.6%</td><td char=".">7.6%</td><td char=".">0.048</td><td char=".">20.4%</td><td char=".">20.4%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">1.6%</td><td char=".">1.3%</td><td char=".">0.435</td><td char=".">1.8%</td><td char=".">1.8%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(10.9%)</td><td>(11.0%)</td><td>(.962)</td><td>(11.1%)</td><td>(11.1%)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(1.9%)</td><td>(2.2%)</td><td>(.665)</td><td>(3.1%)</td><td>(3.1%)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Orthographic knowledge (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">51.0%</td><td char=".">50.5%</td><td char=".">0.297</td><td char=".">57.0%</td><td char=".">57.0%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">54.2%</td><td char=".">52.7%</td><td char=".">0.596</td><td char=".">42.2%</td><td char=".">42.2%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(11.5%)</td><td>(11.4%)</td><td>(.767)</td><td>(10.2%)</td><td>(10.2%)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(9.8%)</td><td>(9.7%)</td><td>(.553)</td><td>(8.9%)</td><td>(8.9%)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Dictation (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">15.4%</td><td char=".">15.1%</td><td char=".">0.120</td><td char=".">34.0%</td><td char=".">34.0%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">8.6%</td><td char=".">7.9%</td><td char=".">1.117</td><td char=".">4.8%</td><td char=".">4.8%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(14.1%)</td><td>(14.2%)</td><td>(.905)</td><td>(8.6%)</td><td>(8.6%)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(2.5%)</td><td>(2.7%)</td><td>(.269)</td><td>(4.5%)</td><td>(4.5%)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Writing (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">6.3%</td><td char=".">6.2%</td><td char=".">0.011</td><td char=".">13.9%</td><td char=".">13.9%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">2.7%</td><td char=".">2.7%</td><td char=".">0.049</td><td char=".">2.7%</td><td char=".">2.7%</td><td char=".">0.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(7.1%)</td><td>(7.2%)</td><td>(.992)</td><td>(7.8%)</td><td>(7.8%)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(2.4%)</td><td>(2.8%)</td><td>(.961)</td><td>(2.8%)</td><td>(2.8%)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading comprehension (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">24.7%</td><td char=".">23.7%</td><td char=".">0.493</td><td char=".">37.9%</td><td char=".">37.9%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">17.7%</td><td char=".">17.7%</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">19.4%</td><td char=".">16.6%</td><td char=".">1.056</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(12.5%)</td><td>(13.3%)</td><td>(.622)</td><td>(10.0%)</td><td>(10.0%)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(5.9%)</td><td>(6.1%)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(9.8%)</td><td>(10.9%)</td><td>(.295)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Note: CA = correct answers; CG = control group; IG = intervention group.</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-36">Students' skills in English after the intervention program</hd> <p>As seen in Table 3, after the intervention program, skills are significantly higher than those of the control group, in terms of all skills examined.</p> <p>Table 3. Comparison of ability and skills in English (research group, preintervention program).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Skills in English After Intervention Program</td><td>Entire Sample</td><td>Dyslexia</td></tr><tr><td>(50-60%) Mild</td><td>(35-45%)Moderate</td><td>(0-30%) Severe</td></tr><tr><td>CG <italic>n =</italic> 88</td><td>IG <italic>n =</italic> 88</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td><td>CG <italic>n =</italic> 28</td><td>IG <italic>n =</italic> 28</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td><td>CG <italic>n =</italic> 30</td><td>IG <italic>n =</italic> 30</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td><td>CG <italic>n =</italic> 30</td><td>IG <italic>n =</italic> 30</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Phonological awareness (Analysis)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">23.2%</td><td char=".">34.4%</td><td char=".">5.63</td><td char=".">31.8%</td><td char=".">51.3%</td><td char=".">7.53</td><td char=".">11.1%</td><td char=".">23.3%</td><td char=".">11.84</td><td char=".">27.2%</td><td char=".">29.7%</td><td char=".">1.02</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(11.9%)</td><td>(14.3%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(9.8%)</td><td>(9.5%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(3.3%)</td><td>(4.6%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(9.4%)</td><td>(9.4%)</td><td>(.314)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness (Synthesis)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">19.6%</td><td char=".">32.2%</td><td char=".">4.64</td><td char=".">26.3%</td><td char=".">49.1%</td><td char=".">4.19</td><td char=".">10.9%</td><td char=".">25.8%</td><td char=".">5.28</td><td char=".">21.9%</td><td char=".">22.7%</td><td char=".">0.20</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(16.1%)</td><td>(19.7%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(19.4%)</td><td>(21.2%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(11.1%)</td><td>(10.9%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(13.2%)</td><td>(14.8%)</td><td>(.840)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness (Deletion of phoneme from word)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">43.1%</td><td char=".">50.1%</td><td char=".">3.24</td><td char=".">50.2%</td><td char=".">65.2%</td><td char=".">4.81</td><td char=".">45.4%</td><td char=".">52.3%</td><td char=".">4.45</td><td char=".">34.2%</td><td char=".">33.8%</td><td char=".">0.11</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(12.6%)</td><td>(16.0%)</td><td>(.001)</td><td>(12.5%)</td><td>(10.7%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(6.8%)</td><td>(5.2%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(12.1%)</td><td>(11.5%)</td><td>(.913)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness Reading pseudowords)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">21.3%</td><td char=".">30.8%</td><td char=".">3.61</td><td char=".">39.4%</td><td char=".">56.8%</td><td char=".">6.47</td><td char=".">14.1%</td><td char=".">26.2%</td><td char=".">17.69</td><td char=".">11.7%</td><td char=".">10.5%</td><td char=".">1.02</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(13.7%)</td><td>(20.3%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(8.3%)</td><td>(11.5%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(2.6%)</td><td>(2.6%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(4.9%)</td><td>(3.7%)</td><td>(.313)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">28.6%</td><td char=".">39.5%</td><td char=".">2.86</td><td char=".">53.1%</td><td char=".">65.4%</td><td char=".">2.15</td><td char=".">19.4%</td><td char=".">41.6%</td><td char=".">5.48</td><td char=".">15.0%</td><td char=".">13.2%</td><td char=".">0.66</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(22.3%)</td><td>(27.8%)</td><td>(.005)</td><td>(22.0%)</td><td>(20.9%)</td><td>(.036)</td><td>(4.8%)</td><td>(21.6%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(12.8%)</td><td>(8.4%)</td><td>(.511)</td></tr><tr><td>Morphological awareness (Identification)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">25.1%</td><td char=".">32.0%</td><td char=".">3.33</td><td char=".">18.4%</td><td char=".">28.9%</td><td char=".">4.11</td><td char=".">34.2%</td><td char=".">46.3%</td><td char=".">3.60</td><td char=".">22.3%</td><td char=".">20.7%</td><td char=".">0.78</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(12.5%)</td><td>(15.0%)</td><td>(.001)</td><td>(8.5%)</td><td>(10.7%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(13.6%)</td><td>(12.5%)</td><td>(.001)</td><td>(8.7%)</td><td>(7.8%)</td><td>(.440)</td></tr><tr><td>Morphological awareness (Extraction)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">9.5%</td><td char=".">17.4%</td><td char=".">4.12</td><td char=".">20.9%</td><td char=".">32.5%</td><td char=".">4.52</td><td char=".">4.7%</td><td char=".">16.6%</td><td char=".">7.04</td><td char=".">3.8%</td><td char=".">4.1%</td><td char=".">0.16</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(10.6%)</td><td>(14.2%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(9.9%)</td><td>(9.3%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(4.1%)</td><td>(8.1%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(6.9%)</td><td>(7.2%)</td><td>(.877)</td></tr><tr><td>Syntactical alertness</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">9.6%</td><td char=".">23.7%</td><td char=".">6.22</td><td char=".">18.3%</td><td char=".">41.7%</td><td char=".">5.61</td><td char=".">7.2%</td><td char=".">25.4%</td><td char=".">11.34</td><td char=".">4.0%</td><td char=".">5.3%</td><td char=".">1.04</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(11.0%)</td><td>(18.2%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(15.2%)</td><td>(16.0%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(4.9%)</td><td>(7.3%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(3.8%)</td><td>(5.6%)</td><td>(.302)</td></tr><tr><td>Semantic awareness</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">24.6%</td><td char=".">32.4%</td><td char=".">5.49</td><td char=".">19.8%</td><td char=".">36.3%</td><td char=".">5.22</td><td char=".">24.1%</td><td char=".">31.8%</td><td char=".">5.48</td><td char=".">29.7%</td><td char=".">29.3%</td><td char=".">0.16</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(9.8%)</td><td>(8.9%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(11.5%)</td><td>(12.0%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(7.1%)</td><td>(3.1%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(8.2%)</td><td>(8.3%)</td><td>(.876)</td></tr><tr><td>Meaning of words</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">29.4%</td><td char=".">36.3%</td><td char=".">2.44</td><td char=".">44.1%</td><td char=".">58.9%</td><td char=".">4.40</td><td char=".">32.2%</td><td char=".">39.8%</td><td char=".">4.81</td><td char=".">12.9%</td><td char=".">11.6%</td><td char=".">0.78</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(15.4%)</td><td>(21.5%)</td><td>(.016)</td><td>(11.7%)</td><td>(13.5%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(7.2%)</td><td>(5.0%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(6.2%)</td><td>(7.0%)</td><td>(.439)</td></tr><tr><td>Meaning of Hebrew words</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">7.7%</td><td char=".">18.3%</td><td char=".">4.59</td><td char=".">20.4%</td><td char=".">41.3%</td><td char=".">6.33</td><td char=".">1.6%</td><td char=".">12.9%</td><td char=".">8.97</td><td char=".">2.1%</td><td char=".">2.1%</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(10.8%)</td><td>(18.6%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(11.1%)</td><td>(13.4%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(1.9%)</td><td>(6.6%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(2.5%)</td><td>(3.2%)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Orthographic knowledge</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">51.2%</td><td char=".">60.2%</td><td char=".">4.24</td><td char=".">57.0%</td><td char=".">74.8%</td><td char=".">6.99</td><td char=".">54.2%</td><td char=".">64.0%</td><td char=".">3.77</td><td char=".">42.9%</td><td char=".">42.7%</td><td char=".">0.09</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(11.3%)</td><td>(16.3%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(10.2%)</td><td>(8.9%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(9.8%)</td><td>(10.5%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(8.8%)</td><td>(8.6%)</td><td>(.929)</td></tr><tr><td>Dictation</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">15.7%</td><td char=".">21.8%</td><td char=".">2.44</td><td char=".">34.2%</td><td char=".">46.6%</td><td char=".">5.63</td><td char=".">8.6%</td><td char=".">15.2%</td><td char=".">7.35</td><td char=".">5.5%</td><td char=".">4.5%</td><td char=".">0.79</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(14.0%)</td><td>(18.6%)</td><td>(.016)</td><td>(8.7%)</td><td>(7.8%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(2.5%)</td><td>(4.2%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(4.7%)</td><td>(4.4%)</td><td>(.433)</td></tr><tr><td>Writing</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">6.5%</td><td char=".">19.5%</td><td char=".">6.25</td><td char=".">14.2%</td><td char=".">37.8%</td><td char=".">6.27</td><td char=".">2.7%</td><td char=".">14.1%</td><td char=".">14.08</td><td char=".">3.2%</td><td char=".">7.9%</td><td char=".">1.93</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(7.2%)</td><td>(18.2%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(7.7%)</td><td>(18.4%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(2.4%)</td><td>(3.7%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(3.0%)</td><td>(12.9%)</td><td>(.062)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading comprehension</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">25.3%</td><td char=".">34.9%</td><td char=".">3.71</td><td char=".">38.4%</td><td char=".">59.5%</td><td char=".">5.80</td><td char=".">18.5%</td><td char=".">29.8%</td><td char=".">6.82</td><td char=".">19.8%</td><td char=".">17.0%</td><td char=".">1.22</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(12.5%)</td><td>(20.9%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(9.8%)</td><td>(16.6%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(5.8%)</td><td>(7.0%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(9.9%)</td><td>(8.0%)</td><td>(.227)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>: CG = control group; IG = intervention group. *Highlighted boxes note a difference between the control and research groups on the level of significance. <emph>p</emph> <.05.</p> <p>The findings in Table 3 indicate that skills of students with mild dyslexia who underwent the intervention program in English were significantly better after intervention than those in the control group. The gap between the intervention and control groups was found to be significant in all skills examined.</p> <p>Similarly, analysis indicates that the skills of the students with moderate dyslexia who underwent the intervention program in English were significantly better after intervention compared with those in the control group. In this instance as well, the gap between the intervention and control groups was found to be significant in all skills examined.</p> <p>However, there were no significant differences between the English skills of students with severe dyslexia who underwent intervention and those in the control group.</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-37">Students' skills in Arabic after the intervention program</hd> <p>It was assumed the English intervention program would lead to an improvement in Arabic when it was L1. To examine this, Arabic skills were first compared between students of both groups, as detailed in Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4. Comparing abilities and skills in Arabic among research groups (postintervention program).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Arabic Skills After Intervention</td><td>Entire Sample</td><td>Dyslexia</td></tr><tr><td>Mild (50-60%)</td><td>Moderate (35-45%)</td><td>Severe (0-30%)</td></tr><tr><td>CG <italic>n =</italic> 88</td><td>IG <italic>n</italic> = 88</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td><td>CG <italic>n =</italic> 28</td><td>IG <italic>n =</italic> 28</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td><td>CG <italic>n =</italic> 30</td><td>IG <italic>n =</italic> 30</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td><td>CG <italic>n =</italic> 30</td><td>IG <italic>n =</italic> 30</td><td><italic>t</italic> (<italic>p</italic> Value)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Reading vocalized words (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">23.1%</td><td char=".">28.2%</td><td char=".">3.09</td><td char=".">30.2%</td><td char=".">42.9%</td><td char=".">6.16</td><td char=".">21.7%</td><td char=".">24.4%</td><td char=".">1.18</td><td char=".">17.8%</td><td char=".">18.3%</td><td char=".">0.34</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(8.4%)</td><td>(13.0%)</td><td>(.002)</td><td>(10.2%)</td><td>(3.8%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(3.2%)</td><td>(12.1%)</td><td>(.244)</td><td>(5.2%)</td><td>(4.4%)</td><td>(.737)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading vocalized words (s)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">224.73</td><td char=".">224.73</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">170.18</td><td char=".">170.18</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">253.47</td><td char=".">253.47</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">246.90</td><td char=".">246.90</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(54.27)</td><td>(54.27)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(54.89)</td><td>(54.89)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(28.05)</td><td>(28.05)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(31.74)</td><td>(31.74)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading nonvocalized words (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">37.9%</td><td char=".">44.6%</td><td char=".">2.91</td><td char=".">48.2%</td><td char=".">65.5%</td><td char=".">5.94</td><td char=".">35.4%</td><td char=".">36.3%</td><td char=".">0.62</td><td char=".">30.7%</td><td char=".">33.3%</td><td char=".">0.78</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(12.6%)</td><td>(17.7%)</td><td>(.004)</td><td>(12.7%)</td><td>(8.8%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(6.1%)</td><td>(5.1%)</td><td>(.538)</td><td>(11.4%)</td><td>(14.6%)</td><td>(.439)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading nonvocalized words (s)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">165.83</td><td char=".">166.07</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">176.89</td><td char=".">176.89</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">156.70</td><td char=".">156.70</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">164.63</td><td char=".">165.33</td><td char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(35.97)</td><td>(36.09)</td><td>(.965)</td><td>(47.32)</td><td>(47.32)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(29.36)</td><td>(29.36)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(26.98)</td><td>(27.50)</td><td>(.921)</td></tr><tr><td>Active memory (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">15.7%</td><td char=".">20.0%</td><td char=".">2.74</td><td char=".">13.9%</td><td char=".">27.2%</td><td char=".">4.20</td><td char=".">17.7%</td><td char=".">19.2%</td><td char=".">0.71</td><td char=".">15.4%</td><td char=".">14.0%</td><td char=".">0.64</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(10.5%)</td><td>(10.1%)</td><td>(.007)</td><td>(13.4%)</td><td>(10.1%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(6.8%)</td><td>(8.8%)</td><td>(.484)</td><td>(10.3%)</td><td>(6.5%)</td><td>(.522)</td></tr><tr><td>Orthography (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">69.2%</td><td char=".">73.1%</td><td char=".">2.33</td><td char=".">71.4%</td><td char=".">87.7%</td><td char=".">12.244</td><td char=".">70.8%</td><td char=".">70.8%</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">65.4%</td><td char=".">61.9%</td><td char=".">1.12</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(7.4%)</td><td>(14.2%)</td><td>(.021)</td><td>(4.7%)</td><td>(5.2%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(7.1%)</td><td>(3.4%)</td><td>(.984)</td><td>(8.4%)</td><td>(15.1%)</td><td>(.270)</td></tr><tr><td>Orthography (s)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">255.58</td><td char=".">255.58</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">221.50</td><td char=".">221.50</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">399.00</td><td char=".">399.00</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">143.97</td><td char=".">143.97</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(115.66)</td><td>(115.66)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(44.98)</td><td>(44.98)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(51.94)</td><td>(51.94)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(16.19)</td><td>(16.19)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness 1 (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">69.4%</td><td char=".">73.9%</td><td char=".">1.51</td><td char=".">78.0%</td><td char=".">94.9%</td><td char=".">5.63</td><td char=".">76.4%</td><td char=".">75.2%</td><td char=".">0.42</td><td char=".">54.2%</td><td char=".">53.1%</td><td char=".">0.22</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(18.7%)</td><td>(21.6%)</td><td>(.133)</td><td>(14.9%)</td><td>(5.6%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(10.8%)</td><td>(11.2%)</td><td>(.676)</td><td>(19.1%)</td><td>(19.1%)</td><td>(.827)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness 2 (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">36.5%</td><td char=".">39.0%</td><td char=".">0.82</td><td char=".">58.7%</td><td char=".">67.3%</td><td char=".">2.00</td><td char=".">31.6%</td><td char=".">30.8%</td><td char=".">0.62</td><td char=".">20.7%</td><td char=".">20.8%</td><td char=".">0.09</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(18.5%)</td><td>(22.4%)</td><td>(.414)</td><td>(15.2%)</td><td>(17.0%)</td><td>(.050)</td><td>(4.4%)</td><td>(4.7%)</td><td>(.538)</td><td>(5.3%)</td><td>(5.7%)</td><td>(.926)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness 2 (s)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">219.50</td><td char=".">219.50</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">216.79</td><td char=".">216.79</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">250.93</td><td char=".">250.93</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">190.60</td><td char=".">190.60</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(46.38)</td><td>(46.38)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(47.37)</td><td>(47.37)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(33.52)</td><td>(33.52)</td><td>(1.000)</td><td>(36.70)</td><td>(36.70)</td><td>(1.000)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">41.2%</td><td char=".">45.9%</td><td char=".">1.95</td><td char=".">42.5%</td><td char=".">60.5%</td><td char=".">5.12</td><td char=".">36.8%</td><td char=".">33.3%</td><td char=".">1.40</td><td char=".">44.3%</td><td char=".">44.7%</td><td char=".">0.08</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(13.0%)</td><td>(18.3%)</td><td>(.053)</td><td>(10.6%)</td><td>(15.3%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(11.7%)</td><td>(6.8%)</td><td>(.166)</td><td>(15.4%)</td><td>(19.3%)</td><td>(.932)</td></tr><tr><td>Development of pseudowords (CA)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">21.6%</td><td char=".">28.1%</td><td char=".">3.22</td><td char=".">25.3%</td><td char=".">43.4%</td><td char=".">8.12</td><td char=".">24.9%</td><td char=".">21.0%</td><td char=".">1.65</td><td char=".">14.8%</td><td char=".">20.7%</td><td char=".">1.71</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(11.0%)</td><td>(15.2%)</td><td>(.002)</td><td>(9.9%)</td><td>(6.5%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(12.2%)</td><td>(4.1%)</td><td>(.108)</td><td>(7.1%)</td><td>(17.4%)</td><td>(.095)</td></tr><tr><td>Root identification</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">22.2%</td><td char=".">24.4%</td><td char=".">1.36</td><td char=".">10.5%</td><td char=".">30.9%</td><td char=".">13.33</td><td char=".">30.9%</td><td char=".">17.9%</td><td char=".">6.14</td><td char=".">24.5%</td><td char=".">24.9%</td><td char=".">0.16</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(12.0%)</td><td>(9.1%)</td><td>(.175)</td><td>(4.0%)</td><td>(7.0%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(11.0%)</td><td>(3.7%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(8.8%)</td><td>(10.3%)</td><td>(.872)</td></tr><tr><td>Morphological judgment</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">41.6%</td><td char=".">44.4%</td><td char=".">1.15</td><td char=".">45.7%</td><td char=".">64.6%</td><td char=".">4.02</td><td char=".">42.3%</td><td char=".">41.5%</td><td char=".">0.58</td><td char=".">37.0%</td><td char=".">28.4%</td><td char=".">3.09</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(13.8%)</td><td>(18.2%)</td><td>(.251)</td><td>(17.6%)</td><td>(17.5%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(5.2%)</td><td>(5.3%)</td><td>(.566)</td><td>(14.8%)</td><td>(3.6%)</td><td>(.004)</td></tr><tr><td>Writing</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">15.9%</td><td char=".">21.4%</td><td char=".">2.63</td><td char=".">20.4%</td><td char=".">40.9%</td><td char=".">7.23</td><td char=".">19.2%</td><td char=".">18.4%</td><td char=".">0.52</td><td char=".">8.5%</td><td char=".">6.1%</td><td char=".">1.01</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(10.3%)</td><td>(16.6%)</td><td>(.009)</td><td>(6.3%)</td><td>(13.6%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(5.5%)</td><td>(5.1%)</td><td>(.604)</td><td>(12.8%)</td><td>(2.3%)</td><td>(.316)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading comprehension</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">42.5%</td><td char=".">50.8%</td><td char=".">4.19</td><td char=".">40.9%</td><td char=".">63.2%</td><td char=".">5.63</td><td char=".">49.7%</td><td char=".">50.9%</td><td char=".">0.70</td><td char=".">36.7%</td><td char=".">39.0%</td><td char=".">1.02</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(11.3%)</td><td>(14.7%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(15.2%)</td><td>(14.3%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(3.7%)</td><td>(8.7%)</td><td>(.484)</td><td>(8.1%)</td><td>(9.7%)</td><td>(.311)</td></tr><tr><td>Syntactical judgment</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td char=".">60.2%</td><td char=".">64.3%</td><td char=".">1.49</td><td char=".">67.9%</td><td char=".">84.3%</td><td char=".">4.87</td><td char=".">66.7%</td><td char=".">64.0%</td><td char=".">1.71</td><td char=".">46.6%</td><td char=".">45.9%</td><td char=".">0.14</td></tr><tr><td><italic>(SD)</italic></td><td>(14.9%)</td><td>(20.9%)</td><td>(.137)</td><td>(7.6%)</td><td>(16.1%)</td><td>(.000)</td><td>(7.0%)</td><td>(5.0%)</td><td>(.093)</td><td>(16.5%)</td><td>(17.7%)</td><td>(.887)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note</emph>: CA = correct answers; CG = control group; IG = intervention group.</item> <item>5 *Highlighted boxes note a difference between the control and research groups on the level of significance. <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> </ulist> <p>The findings indicate a number of significant differences in student skills from both research groups in Arabic after intervention. However, processing speed did not improve.</p> <p>Likewise, findings regarding the students with mild dyslexia (Table 4) indicate significant differences in student skills between the two groups in Arabic after intervention. The results of analyzing differences compared with those with moderate dyslexia did not yield any significant differences between the two groups, except for higher ability among the control group (31%) in the context of identifying roots, compared with this ability among students in the intervention group (18%).</p> <p>Similarly, the results of the students with severe dyslexia did not yield any significant differences between the two groups, except for morphological judgment.</p> <p>These findings therefore indicate that intervention did not influence L1 skills of students with moderate to severe dyslexia, and in certain cases (identifying roots in the context of students with moderate dyslexia, and morphological improvement in the context of students with severe dyslexia), intervention was probably inferior for the regular curriculum.</p> <p>Another question emerging from these findings touches on the progress of students with different levels of dyslexia. This was examined via a test for analysis of single-directional diversity (analysis of variance), the results of which are presented in Table 5, first in English.</p> <p>Table 5. Improvement in abilities and skills in English in terms of research groups and degree of dyslexia.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Control Group</td><td>Intervention Group</td></tr><tr><td>Mild (1) (50-60%)</td><td>Moderate (2) (35-45%)</td><td>Severe (3) (0-30%)</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2,85)</td><td>Post Hoc</td><td>Mild (1) (50-60%)</td><td>Moderate (2) (35-45%)</td><td>Severe (3) (0-30%)</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2,85)</td><td>Post Hoc</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Phonemic analysis</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.5%</td><td>1.0%</td><td>0.1%</td><td>3.848</td><td>2,3</td><td>20.0%</td><td>15.5%</td><td>2.9%</td><td>62.851</td><td>3,1 3,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(0.4%)</td><td>(2.0%)</td><td>(6.4%)</td><td>(3.8%)</td><td>(7.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness (synthesis)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.9%</td><td>1.0%</td><td>0.7%</td><td>8.456</td><td>2,3</td><td>25.4%</td><td>19.4%</td><td>4.8%</td><td>14.704</td><td>3,1 3,2 1,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.3%)</td><td>(0.2%)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(22.0%)</td><td>(9.8%)</td><td>(10.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness (deleting phoneme from word)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>1.1%</td><td>0.9%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>24.923</td><td>1,3 2,3</td><td>17.7%</td><td>11.0%</td><td>1.5%</td><td>86.355</td><td>3,1 3,2 1,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.3%)</td><td>(0.3%)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(4.0%)</td><td>(4.2%)</td><td>(5.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>(reading pseudowords)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>1.1%</td><td>0.9%</td><td>0.6%</td><td>1.669</td><td /><td>18.5%</td><td>12.7%</td><td>−0.2%</td><td>54.740</td><td>3,1 3,2 1,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(2.0%)</td><td>(0.3%)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(11.1%)</td><td>(2.4%)</td><td>(4.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading fluency</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.8%</td><td>−0.2%</td><td>0.2%</td><td>2.829</td><td /><td>14.8%</td><td>22.3%</td><td>1.8%</td><td>16.861</td><td>3,1 3,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.4%)</td><td>(2.3%)</td><td>(1.8%)</td><td>(11.2%)</td><td>(19.6%)</td><td>(8.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Morphological alertness (identifying)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.4%</td><td>0.3%</td><td>−0.3%</td><td>1.198</td><td /><td>12.9%</td><td>16.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>49.396</td><td /></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(3.0%)</td><td>(7.1%)</td><td>(8.9%)</td><td>(0.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Morphological awareness (extracting)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.5%</td><td>0.6%</td><td>0.1%</td><td>1.631</td><td /><td>12.1%</td><td>13.4%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>49.333</td><td>3,1 3,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.7%)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(1.8%)</td><td>(4.2%)</td><td>(7.7%)</td><td>(4.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Syntactical alertness</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>−3.8%</td><td>3.099</td><td /><td>22.7%</td><td>18.2%</td><td>−2.5%</td><td>69.257</td><td>3,1 3,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(11.6%)</td><td>(10.0%)</td><td>(7.0%)</td><td>(9.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Semantic alertness</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.3%</td><td>14.006</td><td>1,3 2,3</td><td>16.4%</td><td>9.3%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>109.356</td><td>3,1 3,2 1,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(6.9%)</td><td>(2.9%)</td><td>(0.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Meaning of words</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>16.847</td><td>1,3 2,3</td><td>17.3%</td><td>10.5%</td><td>−0.9%</td><td>73.375</td><td>3,1 3,2 1,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(9.0%)</td><td>(4.0%)</td><td>(2.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Meaning of Hebrew words</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.2%</td><td>0.229</td><td /><td>20.9%</td><td>11.6%</td><td>0.2%</td><td>71.235</td><td>3,1 3,2 1,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(2.6%)</td><td>(8.1%)</td><td>(7.1%)</td><td>(4.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Orthographic knowledge</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.7%</td><td>39.977</td><td>1,3 2,3</td><td>17.9%</td><td>11.3%</td><td>0.5%</td><td>148.179</td><td>3,1 3,2 1,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(4.2%)</td><td>(4.5%)</td><td>(2.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Dictation</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.1%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.7%</td><td>12.296</td><td>1,3 2,3</td><td>12.6%</td><td>7.4%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>95.639</td><td>3,1 3,2 1,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.9%)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(4.9%)</td><td>(3.5%)</td><td>(0.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Writing</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.3%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.5%</td><td>10.457</td><td>2,3 2,1</td><td>23.9%</td><td>11.5%</td><td>5.2%</td><td>14.074</td><td>1,2 1,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(19.7%)</td><td>(4.5%)</td><td>(12.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading comprehension</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.5%</td><td>0.7%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>3.049</td><td /><td>21.7%</td><td>12.1%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>26.395</td><td>3,1 3,2 1,2</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(0.4%)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(17.1%)</td><td>(6.2%)</td><td>(7.6%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The results of the analysis of improvement in student abilities and skills in the control group indicate differences between students with different degrees of dyslexia. However, it should be also noted that such changes are of a relatively small scale.</p> <p>There was a difference between degrees of dyslexia stemming from differences among students with severe dyslexia and moderate dyslexia in the context of phonological awareness: analysis, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref90">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref91">85</reflink>) = 3.85, <emph>p</emph> <.01; and synthesis, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref92">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref93">85</reflink>) = 24.92, <emph>p</emph> <.01.</p> <p>Furthermore, there was a difference among the different degrees of dyslexia stemming from differences between those with mild, severe, and moderate dyslexia in the context of phonological awareness in deleting a phoneme from a word, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref94">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref95">85</reflink>) = 24.92, <emph>p</emph> <.01; semantic alertness, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref97">85</reflink>) = 14.01, <emph>p</emph> <.01; meaning of words, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref98">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref99">85</reflink>) = 16.85, <emph>p</emph> <.01; orthographic knowledge, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref100">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref101">85</reflink>) = 39.98, <emph>p</emph> <.01; and writing, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref102">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref103">85</reflink>) = 12.30.</p> <p>Likewise, there was a difference between different levels of dyslexia stemming from differences between students with moderate and mild or severe dyslexia regarding writing, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref104">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref105">85</reflink>) = 10.46, <emph>p</emph> <.01, as well as between different degrees of dyslexia that cannot be attributed to natural gaps in the context of syntactical alertness, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref106">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref107">85</reflink>) = 3.1, <emph>p</emph> <.05.</p> <p>In contrast, the results of analyzing improvement in student abilities and skills in the intervention group indicated significant differences between the various levels of dyslexia, first and foremost a noticeable difference among students with mild dyslexia—for these students, improvement exceeded 10%, and in many instances 20%, compared with the moderate level, which except for writing (an improvement of 7%) and semantic awareness (improvement of 9%), showed improvement greater than 10%.</p> <p>Post hoc analysis showed significant difference between all degrees of dyslexia and themselves in the following aspects: phonological awareness of synthesis, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref108">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref109">84</reflink>) = 14.70, <emph>p</emph> <.01; phonological awareness of deletion of phoneme from a word, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref110">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref111">85</reflink>) = 86.36, <emph>p</emph> <.01; phonological deciphering, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref112">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref113">84</reflink>) = 54.74, <emph>p</emph> <.01; semantic alertness, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref114">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref115">85</reflink>) = 109.36, <emph>p</emph> <.01; meaning of words, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref116">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref117">85</reflink>) = 73.38, <emph>p</emph> <.01, meaning of words in Hebrew, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref118">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref119">85</reflink>) = 71.24, <emph>p</emph> <.01; orthographic knowledge, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref120">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref121">85</reflink>) = 148.18, <emph>p</emph> <.01; writing, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref122">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref123">84</reflink>) = 95.64, <emph>p</emph> <.01; and reading comprehension, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref124">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref125">85</reflink>) = 26.4, <emph>p</emph> <.01.</p> <p>There were differences in improvement among students with severe versus mild or moderate dyslexia for phonological awareness connected with analysis, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref126">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref127">85</reflink>) = 62.85, <emph>p</emph> <.01; reading fluency, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref128">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref129">85</reflink>) = 16.86, <emph>p</emph> <.01; morphological alertness extraction, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref130">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref131">84</reflink>) = 49.33, <emph>p</emph> <.01; and syntactic alertness, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref132">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref133">85</reflink>) = 69.26, <emph>p</emph> <.01.</p> <p>There was a difference between students with mild versus moderate and severe dyslexia in the context of writing, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref134">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref135">85</reflink>) = 14.07, <emph>p</emph> <.01. Likewise, differences in the context of morphological alertness for identification, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref136">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref137">85</reflink>) = 49.4, <emph>p</emph> <.01, which could not be attributed to significant differences between the different degrees of dyslexia.</p> <p>Comparing the change in student abilities and skills in the control group, as against their degree of dyslexia, indicates a gap in the change in reading vocalized words, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref138">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref139">83</reflink>) = 3.16, <emph>p</emph> <.05, but according to post hoc analysis (according to Scheffé) these gaps were not significant among the groups.</p> <p>There were additional gaps regarding phonological awareness. Regarding phonological awareness 1, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref140">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref141">85</reflink>) = 4.78, <emph>p</emph> <.01, most noticeable improvement was among students with moderate dyslexia, and mainly when compared with those with severe dyslexia. Similar findings were revealed regarding phonological awareness 2, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref142">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref143">85</reflink>) = 3.38, <emph>p</emph> <.01, in which the greatest improvement was noticed among those with moderate dyslexia, especially when compared with those with severe dyslexia, as well as regarding phonological awareness, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref144">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref145">85</reflink>) = 9.25, <emph>p</emph> <.01, in which the greatest improvement was among those with moderate dyslexia (1%), compared with students with both mild and severe dyslexia.</p> <p>Regarding remaining skills, no significant difference was noted in degree of improvement among students in the control group, regarding different degrees of dyslexia.</p> <p>There were additional gaps regarding morphological judgment, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref146">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref147">85</reflink>) = 5.59, <emph>p</emph> <.05, in which the greatest improvement was noted among students with mild (1%) and moderate (1%) dyslexia, but the greatest gap was between those with mild and severe dyslexia.</p> <p>For the remaining skills, no significant difference was noted in degree of improvement among students in the control group regarding the different degrees of dyslexia.</p> <p>In contrast, the post hoc analysis according to Scheffé, detailed in Table 6, revealed that among the intervention group, there is significant difference in degree of improvement of the different levels of dyslexia for all skills. It is notable that improvement among students with mild dyslexia is apparent in all dimensions examined, being above 10%, and in some cases (identifying roots, writing tests, reading comprehension tests) over 20%.</p> <p>Table 6. Improvement in abilities and skills in Arabic in terms of the research groups and degree of dyslexia.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Control Group</td><td>Intervention Group</td></tr><tr><td>Mild (1) (50-60%)</td><td>Moderate (2) (35-45%)</td><td>Severe (3) (0-30%)</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2,85)</td><td>Post Hoc</td><td>Mild (1) (50-60%)</td><td>Moderate (2) (35-45%)</td><td>Severe (3) (0-30%)</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2,85)</td><td>Post Hoc</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Reading vocalized words</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.6%</td><td>0.2%</td><td>0.1%</td><td>3.161</td><td /><td>17.7%</td><td>2.3%</td><td>1.2%</td><td>39.611</td><td>1,2 1,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(1.2%)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(4.1%)</td><td>(12.6%)</td><td>(2.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading nonvocalized words</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−1.5%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.859</td><td /><td>16.9%</td><td>1.1%</td><td>3.3%</td><td>49.919</td><td>1,2 1,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(8.6%)</td><td>(0.0%)</td><td>(0.4%)</td><td>(6.6%)</td><td>(4.9%)</td><td>(7.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Active memory</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.7%</td><td>0.3%</td><td>0.5%</td><td>0.682</td><td /><td>14.3%</td><td>2.1%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>43.511</td><td>1,2 1,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(1.2%)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(1.9%)</td><td>(6.3%)</td><td>(6.2%)</td><td>(5.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Orthography</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.5%</td><td>2.2%</td><td>0.5%</td><td>2.514</td><td /><td>16.2%</td><td>0.7%</td><td>−4.2%</td><td>39.008</td><td>1,2 1,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.7%)</td><td>(5.6%)</td><td>(1.9%)</td><td>(3.8%)</td><td>(2.1%)</td><td>(15.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness 1</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.5%</td><td>1.2%</td><td>−2.8%</td><td>4.776</td><td>2,3</td><td>12.2%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>−3.6%</td><td>16.162</td><td>1,2 1,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.9%)</td><td>(2.2%)</td><td>(8.6%)</td><td>(4.9%)</td><td>(0.2%)</td><td>(18.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness 2</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.3%</td><td>0.6%</td><td>0.2%</td><td>3.380</td><td> 2,3</td><td>11.1%</td><td>−0.2%</td><td>0.3%</td><td>9.537</td><td>1,2 1,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.7%)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(0.4%)</td><td>(19.4%)</td><td>(0.9%)</td><td>(1.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>Phonological awareness</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.5%</td><td>1.1%</td><td>0.3%</td><td>9.249</td><td>1,2 2,3</td><td>19.2%</td><td>−2.4%</td><td>0.9%</td><td>25.740</td><td>1,2 1,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.8%)</td><td>(0.8%)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(10.9%)</td><td>(12.8%)</td><td>(12.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Development of pseudowords</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.4%</td><td>0.8%</td><td>2.4%</td><td>1.328</td><td /><td>19.5%</td><td>−3.0%</td><td>8.3%</td><td>21.402</td><td>1,2 1,3 2,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(2.0%)</td><td>(1.9%)</td><td>(7.9%)</td><td>(7.9%)</td><td>(9.2%)</td><td>(19.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Identifying root</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.8%</td><td>0.6%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>2.766</td><td /><td>20.6%</td><td>−12.9%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>108.903</td><td>1,2 1,3 2,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(1.1%)</td><td>(1.8%)</td><td>(8.0%)</td><td>(11.5%)</td><td>(5.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Morphological judgment</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>1.0%</td><td>0.9%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>5.586</td><td>1,3 </td><td>19.9%</td><td>0.1%</td><td>−8.2%</td><td>50.348</td><td>1,2 1,3 2,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(0.9%)</td><td>(0.6%)</td><td>(14.3%)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(12.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Writing test</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.9%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>0.3%</td><td>1.700</td><td /><td>21.9%</td><td>−0.4%</td><td>−2.1%</td><td>47.611</td><td>1,2 1,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(1.9%)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(12.5%)</td><td>(2.8%)</td><td>(12.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Reading comprehension test</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−1.2%</td><td>0.6%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>0.855</td><td /><td>21.1%</td><td>1.8%</td><td>2.8%</td><td>35.005</td><td>1,2 1,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(10.1%)</td><td>(0.7%)</td><td>(0.5%)</td><td>(12.7%)</td><td>(7.9%)</td><td>(8.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Syntactical judgment</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>0.7%</td><td>2.0%</td><td>−0.5%</td><td>2.003</td><td /><td>17.1%</td><td>−0.6%</td><td>−1.2%</td><td>35.223</td><td>1,2 1,3</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>(0.8%)</td><td>(6.5%)</td><td>(5.4%)</td><td>(13.7%)</td><td>(1.6%)</td><td>(8.9%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 *Highlighted boxes note a difference between the control and research groups on the level of significance. <emph>p</emph> <.05.</p> <p>Analysis of the findings shows that improvement in this group is significantly higher than the other two. Furthermore, except for certain cases, as detailed subsequently, one cannot point to any significant difference in statistical terms between improvement in achievement levels between students with moderate and severe dyslexia.</p> <p>After intervention, performance of students with moderate dyslexia was poorer for developing pseudowords (a decline of −3%), despite an improvement in performance levels of 8% among those with severe dyslexia. Similarly, it was found that performance of students with moderate dyslexia was lower after intervention when identifying roots (decline of −13%), despite a 0.4% improvement in performance levels of students with severe dyslexia.</p> <p>In contrast, performance levels among students with severe dyslexia were lower after the intervention program in the morphological judgment test (decline of −8%), despite a 0.1% improvement in performance levels among students with moderate dyslexia.</p> <p>In conclusion, the findings indicate the students in the intervention group had superior skills to those in the control group as a result of the intervention program.</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-38">Discussion</hd> <p>The findings of the present study indicate significant improvement in skills among readers with varying degrees of dyslexia, who participated in a focused EFL intervention program. They indicated that a proper intervention program contributes to a significant improvement in EFL among students with dyslexia as compared with students with dyslexia who did not participate in the program. These findings correlate with earlier studies pointing to the potential of suitable teaching for students with dyslexia to improve achievements in linguistic and metalinguistic assignments in an FL (Crombie, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref148">13</reflink>]; Ganschow & Sparkes, 1995; Sparks & Ganschow, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref149">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref150">42</reflink>]; Sparks et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref151">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>The achievements of the students with dyslexia who participated in the intervention program in the present study indicate improvements in an FL in terms of level of syntactic alertness, writing, level of phonological awareness, reading fluency, meanings of words in Hebrew, reading comprehension and phonological deciphering, though in a more detailed manner in terms of the three degrees of dyslexia. This study showed students with mild and moderate dyslexia who participated in the intervention program for improving their English showed greater improvement than those with severe dyslexia who attended the EFL intervention program, in all skills examined.</p> <p>The findings also indicated that the EFL intervention leads to improvements in L1 (Arabic) among readers with dyslexia in terms of reading vocalized words, nonvocalized words, active memory level, orthographic level, open pseudoword test, and writing and reading comprehension tests but not in other skills. This improvement did not occur in the control group that did not receive the focused EFL help. This trend is similar to that shown in earlier studies that indicated skills like reading comprehension and reading can be transferred from one language to another (Kieffer & Lesaux, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref152">26</reflink>]; Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref153">30</reflink>]). These findings also indicate a certain confirmation of the CRT theory, that transfer of linguistic and metalinguistic skills can even occur in the opposite direction from an FL to L1 despite differences in the writing system, as seen in earlier studies (Author 2012, 2013).</p> <p>The present study's findings support an approach whereby dyslexia appears over a certain spectrum, in varying degrees. Marginal dyslexia can be reflected, for example, in correlation between writing and meaning. More significant dyslexia is related to processing of texts. Different types of dyslexia appear in children, such as lexical, phonological and visual dyslexia, each reflecting different difficulties, more and less severe, in reading and lingual skills.</p> <p>The present study findings show the importance of perceiving a group of readers with dyslexia as heterogeneous with mild, moderate, and severe difficulties. Relating to dyslexia in this way offers hope for relating separately to each subgroup and better ensures that each student diagnosed with dyslexia will receive the most appropriate treatment, rather than trying to provide one solution for everyone.</p> <p>It is therefore important to increase awareness among parents, educators, teachers, principals, and guidance counselors regarding the contribution of suitable intervention programs for students with mild and moderate dyslexia in improving foreign language skills but not only those skills. Because lingual and metalingual skills can be transferred from one language to another, even within different languages in terms of orthography and bilingual and trilingual readers (Abu-Rabia & Sanitsky, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref154">3</reflink>]), improvements in an FL thanks to the correct help can contribute to better results among students with dyslexia (especially mild).</p> <hd id="AN0152255164-39">Limitations of the study</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The sample of the present study was from one region. A more representative sample is needed in order to be able to generalize the results of the study.</item> <p></p> <item> Different ages of dyslexic students are needed for such intervention programs: Elementary students, high school students and college students. This may teach us more about the learning process of dyslexic students.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152255164-40">Future research</hd> <p>The future research plan is derived from the limitations of the study.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> It is recommended to conduct similar studies using samples that are more representative: young students, high school students, and college students.</item> <p></p> <item> Representative sample must include villages and towns and consider the socioeconomic status of the participants.</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0152255164-41"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref11" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S., & Abu-Rahmoun, N. (2012). The role of phonology and morphology in the development of basic reading skills of dyslexic and normal native Arabic readers. Creative Education, 3, 1259 – 1268. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.37185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref54" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S., & Blueistin-Danon, D. (2012). A study into the results of intervention program of linguistic skills in English (L2) and its effect on Hebrew (L1) among poor readers: An examination of the cognitive-retro 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="bib3" idref="ref154" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S., & Sanitsky, I. (2010). Advantages of bilingualism over monolinguals in learning a third language. Bilingual Research Journal, 33 (2), 173 – 199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref55" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia, S., Shakkour, W., & Siegel, L. S. (2013) Cognitive retroactive transfer (CRT) of language skills among bilingual Arabic-English readers. Bilingual Research Journal, 36, 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref61" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Assadi, A. (2012). Hashpa'atam shel tifkudim cognetivi'im u-sefati'im al hitpatkhut hakri'ah besafah ha'aravit bein kitot 1-6 [The influence of cognitive and lingual functioning on the development of reading in Arabic during grades 1-6] [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Haifa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref13" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bentin, S., & Leshem, H. (1993). On the interaction between phonological awareness and reading acquisition: It's a two-way Street. Annals of Dyslexia, 43 (1), 125 – 148.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref14" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Breznitz, Z. (2006). Fluency in reading: Synchronization of processes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref12" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Breznitz, T., & Liekin, M. (2000). Syntactic processing of Hebrew sentences in normal and dyslexic readers: Electrophysiological evidence. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 161 (3), 359 – 380.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <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: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17 (7–8), 707 – 737.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> British Psychological Society. (2014). BPS code of human research ethics (2nd ed.). https://<ulink href="http://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/bps-code-human-research-ethics-2nd-edition-2014">www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/bps-code-human-research-ethics-2nd-edition-2014</ulink>.</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: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5 (1), 69 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chodkiewicz, H. (1986). O sprawności czytania w nauczaniu języka obcego [A reading skill in foreign language teaching]. Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crombie, M. A. (2000). Dyslexia and the learning of a foreign language in school: Where are we going? Dyslexia, 6 (2), 112 – 123. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0909(200004/06)6:2<112::AID-DYS151>3.0.CO;2-D</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R., Deutsch, A., Gilboa, O., Tannenbaum, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). Morphological priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic, and morphological factors. Memory and Cognition, 28 (8), 1277 – 1288.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. L. (1986). Learning disabilities and foreign-language difficulties: Deficit in listening skills? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 2, 305 – 319. https://doi.org.10.1080/0748763860020409.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. L. (1987). The foreign language requirement. Learning Disabilities Focus, 2, 116 – 123.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. L. (1995). Effects of direct instruction in Spanish phonology on the native-language skills and foreign-language aptitude of at-risk foreign-language learners. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 107 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949502800205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. L. (2000). Reflections on foreign language study for students with language learning problems: Research, issues, and challenges. Dyslexia, 6 (2), 87 – 100. https://doi.org.10.1002/(SICI)1099-0909(200004/06:2)<87::AID-DYS153>3.0.CO;2-H</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganschow, L., Sparks, R. L., & Javorsky, J. (1998). Foreign language learning difficulties: An historical perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 248 – 258. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100304</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, 530 – 541. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949102400905</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hellan, T., & Kaasa, R. (2005). Dyslexia in English as a second language. Dyslexia, 11 (1), 41 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.286</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ho, C. S., & Fong, K. (2005). Do Chinese dyslexic children have difficulties learning English as a second language? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34 (6), 603 – 618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-9166-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn-Horwitz, J., Schwartz, M., & Share, D. (2011). Acquiring the complex English orthography: A triliteracy advantage? Journal of Research in Reading, 34 (1), 136 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01485.x</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., Shimron, J., & Sparks, R. L. (2006). Weak and strong novice readers of English as a foreign language: Effects of first language and socioeconomic status. Annals of Dyslexia, 56 (1), 161 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-006-0007-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The role of derivational morphology in the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking English language learners. Reading and Writing, 21 (8), 783 – 804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9092-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovett, M, Steinbach, K. & Frijters, J. (2000). Remediating the core deficits of developmental reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (4), 334 – 358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyon, G., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2003). Annals of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manis, F. R., Doi, L. M., & Bhadha, B. (2000). Naming speed, phonological awareness, and orthographic knowledge in second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (4), 325 – 333, 374. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300405</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. E. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 159 – 169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raven, J., & Court, J. H. (1976). Raven's progressive matrices. Oxford Psychologists Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2000). Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales – Revised. Oxford Psychologists Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reed, D. J., & Stansfield, C. W. (2004). Using the modern language aptitude test to identify a foreign language learning disability: Is it ethical? Language Assessment Quarterly, 1 (2-3), 161 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2004.9671783</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russak, S., & Kahn-Horwitz, J. (2015). English as 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> Schiff, R., & Calif, S. (2007). Role of phonological and morphological awareness in l2 oral word reading. Language Learning, 57 (2), 271 – 298.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scif, R., & Ravid, D. (2007). Morphological analogies in Hebrew-speaking university students with dyslexia compared with typically developing gradeschoolers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 237 – 253.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglo-centricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an 'outlier' orthography, Psychological Bulletin, 134 (4), 584 – 615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1989). The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child Development, 60 (4), 973 – 980. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131037</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snowling, M. J., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2016). Oral language deficits in familial dyslexia: A meta-analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 142 (5), 498 – 545.</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, 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 Modern Language Journal, 77 (1), 58 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01946.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Patton, J. (1995). Prediction of performance in first-year foreign language courses: Connections between native and foreign language learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (2), 638 – 655. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.4.638</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Pohlman, J. (1989). Linguistic coding deficits in foreign language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 177 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02656908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparks, R. L., Ganschow, L., & Thomas, A. (1996). Role of intelligence tests in speech/language referrals. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83 (1), 195 – 204. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1996.83.1.195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2008). Early first-language reading and spelling skills predict later second-language reading and spelling skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (1), 162 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.162</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning: Introduction to a general theory. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tibi, S., & Kirby, J. R. (2017). Investigating phonological awareness and naming speed as predictors of reading in Arabic. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22 (1), 1 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1982). Verbal processing in poor and normal readers. In C. J. Brainerd & M. Pressley (Eds.), Verbal processes in children. Springer series in cognitive development (pp. 40–50). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children - Revised edition. The Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, M., & Bowers, H. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (3), 415 – 438.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, M., & Bower, P. (2000). Naming-speed processes and developmental reading. Journal of Learning disabilities, 33 (4), 387 – 407.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. W. (1973). Woodcock reading mastery tests - Revised. American Guidance Service.</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 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Salim Abu Rabia and Abed Salfety</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref153"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1309993
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language among Different Levels of Learners with Dyslexia
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Abu+Rabia%2C+Salim%22">Abu Rabia, Salim</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1035-5641">0000-0003-1035-5641</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Salfety%2C+Ab%22">Salfety, Ab</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9673-9357">0000-0002-9673-9357</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Educational+Research%22"><i>Journal of Educational Research</i></searchLink>. 2021 114(4):317-331.
– 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: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– 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="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Instruction%22">Second Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dyslexia%22">Dyslexia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semitic+Languages%22">Semitic Languages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Skills%22">Language Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Severity+%28of+Disability%29%22">Severity (of Disability)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Arabs%22">Arabs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Israel%22">Israel</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00220671.2021.1933883
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0671
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The goal of the present study was to examine improvement in English as a foreign language (EFL) among different levels of readers with dyslexia, after an intervention program over a defined period. A total of 180 sixth-grade pupils from schools for learning disabilities in the Arab sector participated in the study, and 90 of the students who participated in an EFL intervention program had dyslexia. The students were divided into three levels of dyslexia in their Arabic mother tongue: severe, moderate, and light. Findings revealed the skills of the students in the intervention group to be better than those in the control group. The research findings also did not indicate any differences between the groups in the context of skills measured in terms of time, and it is from here that the higher-level skills of the students in the intervention group were reflected in aspects relating to ability (number of correct answers) and not necessarily to processing speed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1309993
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1309993
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00220671.2021.1933883
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 317
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 6
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Dyslexia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Semitic Languages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Severity (of Disability)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Arabs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Israel
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language among Different Levels of Learners with Dyslexia
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Abu Rabia, Salim
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Salfety, Ab
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0671
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 114
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Educational Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1