View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Cognitive Retroactive Transfer of Language Skills from English as a Foreign Language to Hebrew as the First Language

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Cognitive Retroactive Transfer of Language Skills from English as a Foreign Language to Hebrew as the First Language
Language: English
Authors: Feder, Liat, Abu-Rabia, Salim
Source: Journal of Learning Disabilities. May-Jun 2022 55(3):213-228.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 6
Intermediate Grades
Middle Schools
Junior High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Cognitive Processes, Transfer of Training, Language Skills, English (Second Language), Semitic Languages, Second Language Learning, Native Language, Grade 6, Middle School Students, Reading Improvement, Writing Improvement, Intervention, Reading Difficulties, Dyslexia, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Israel
DOI: 10.1177/00222194211003820
ISSN: 0022-2194
Abstract: The study tested whether cognitive retroactive transfer (CRT) of language skills from English to Hebrew takes place; specifically, whether an improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English as a foreign language (FL) would lead to an improvement in these skills in Hebrew as the first language (L1). The participants consisted of 124 students in Grade 6 who were randomly assigned to an experimental group or a control group. Each group was further divided into readers with dyslexia, poor readers, and typical readers groups. The experimental group participated in an English intervention program designed for this study. All participants were administered a battery of pre- and post-treatment tests in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew and in English. The findings supported the existence of CRT from skills in English to skills in Hebrew with reference to most of the variables in the domains of reading, writing, and language skills. The improvement in most of the linguistic and meta-linguistic tasks in both English and Hebrew was significantly higher in the experimental group compared with the control group. The innovation of this study was in testing CRT of linguistic and meta-linguistic skills from English to Hebrew. Limitations and direction for future research are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1335284
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFJEGHfsW4cUqEWUxbkouKQAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKPX3ymMzDj4hUYkUwIBEICBmjHo72Fbp6c3isXEt7NSSV6KCJcUgJBL9B1M8UWYNDL-I9gLZYU3XnHshFIuYVHED8nenUv2D3pPG9az4613eDRNCagPIOlW53bLsO0iy0VwapVLm_cirDJckha0ensyvCdpX0a3LyzrrzsVMW7bTplJ2-hzfWAg3q9DTRUByxTm8Sqj1hAmqqtwx7BIkJ67y9a5KGa1rm61GJo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0156217200;led01may.22;2022Apr12.03:20;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0156217200-1">Cognitive Retroactive Transfer of Language Skills From English as a Foreign Language to Hebrew as the First Language </title> <p>The study tested whether cognitive retroactive transfer (CRT) of language skills from English to Hebrew takes place; specifically, whether an improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English as a foreign language (FL) would lead to an improvement in these skills in Hebrew as the first language (L1). The participants consisted of 124 students in Grade 6 who were randomly assigned to an experimental group or a control group. Each group was further divided into readers with dyslexia, poor readers, and typical readers groups. The experimental group participated in an English intervention program designed for this study. All participants were administered a battery of pre- and post-treatment tests in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew and in English. The findings supported the existence of CRT from skills in English to skills in Hebrew with reference to most of the variables in the domains of reading, writing, and language skills. The improvement in most of the linguistic and meta-linguistic tasks in both English and Hebrew was significantly higher in the experimental group compared with the control group. The innovation of this study was in testing CRT of linguistic and meta-linguistic skills from English to Hebrew. Limitations and direction for future research are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: cognitive retroactive transfer (CRT); linguistic and meta-linguistic skills; English as a foreign language; Hebrew as the first language; foreign language intervention program</p> <p>The different languages a person acquires over their lifetime develop based on common linguistic mechanisms. According to [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref1">17</reflink>] Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis, linguistic skills involved in reading transfer between languages. A learner who exhibits mastery and efficiency in linguistic skills in the first language (L1) develops literacy skills via these skills when acquiring the second language (L2). The research literature presents extensive evidence for transfer of linguistic skills from the first language to the second and third languages.</p> <p>Transfer of linguistic skills in the opposite direction, from the second or foreign language (FL) to the first language, called cognitive retroactive transfer (CRT) of linguistic skills, has only recently begun to be studied in the bilingual research literature ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref2">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>]). The CRT hypothesis claims that if an improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills occurs in the additional language, a similar improvement in these skills is also expected in the first language.</p> <p>One aim of the present study was to test whether improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English as a FL will lead to an improvement in these skills in Hebrew as the L1 (i.e., to test the existence of CRT of linguistic skills). Another aim was to test whether a greater improvement in Hebrew would be found following an intervention program that led to greater improvement in English in the experimental group. This research design takes the field of transfer of language skills a step further, from correlational studies to experimental causality studies.</p> <p>The study's results will contribute to expansion of knowledge on CRT of linguistic skills between the two studied languages (English and Hebrew) among groups of readers (i.e., readers with dyslexia, poor readers, or typical readers). They will also influence the manner of teaching a FL and on the construction of adapted intervention programs.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-2">Theoretical Background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0156217200-3">Predictors of Reading and Cross-Language Transfer</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0156217200-4">Phonological awareness</hd> <p>Phonological awareness was found to be the main component that significantly predicts reading in L1 and L2, regardless of the nature of the mother tongue ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref4">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref5">45</reflink>]). Segmenting a word into its sounds is not specific to a particular language, and when this awareness develops in one language, it will also develop in the L2 and will serve as the basis for decoding skills in this language ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref6">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Evidence for cross-language transfer of phonological skills was found in many studies, for many language pairs: English and Hebrew ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref7">70</reflink>]), Arabic and English ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref8">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>]), German and English ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref10">41</reflink>]), Russian and English ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref11">54</reflink>]), French and English ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>]), Italian and English ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref13">18</reflink>]), Spanish and English ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref15">63</reflink>]), Korean and English ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>]), and Chinese and English ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref17">30</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-5">Morphological awareness</hd> <p>Morphological awareness is awareness of the morphemic structure of words and the ability to pronounce and manipulate them ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]). There is ample evidence for the contribution of morphological knowledge to language development, which helps in the acquisition of new words and in construction of sentences. Morphological awareness also comprises an important infrastructure for reading and spelling abilities ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref19">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref20">40</reflink>]). It includes several dimensions: inflection, derivation, and composition, where each of these dimensions has a different developmental path and role in word reading ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref21">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref22">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>Transfer of morphological skills and context to reading words was tested in several studies ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref24">53</reflink>]). Other studies noted transfer of morphological skills from a language with a deep morphology (such as Arabic, Hebrew, Spanish, Finnish, and Korean) to English, which has a transparent morphology, but not in the opposite direction ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref25">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref26">51</reflink>]). These studies indicated that the direction of transfer may be influenced by the participants' mastery of both languages, by the specific tested morphological components (inflection vs. derivation), and by the morphological complexity of the languages.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-6">Syntactic awareness</hd> <p>Syntactic awareness helps the reader to (a) acquire the role of each word in the sentence and its meaning and (b) understand the context of the ideas in the sentence ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref27">31</reflink>]). Transfer of syntactic awareness was found in several studies: between Hebrew and English ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]), Spanish and English ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref29">25</reflink>]), Arabic and English ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref31">7</reflink>]), Russian and English ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]), Italian and English ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>]), and Swedish and English ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref34">16</reflink>]). Research findings indicated cross-language transfer of syntactic awareness, regardless of the type of orthography, which support [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref35">17</reflink>], 1984, 2000) Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-7">Semantic knowledge</hd> <p>Vocabulary is a component of language skills and a strong predictor of reading comprehension in L1 and L2 ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref36">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref37">37</reflink>]). In the research literature, a distinction has been made between vocabulary <emph>breadth</emph> and <emph>depth</emph> (i.e., reference to the number of words a person knows and the quality/depth of understanding). <emph>Depth</emph> refers to understanding multiple meanings and how they can be used in different contexts ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>A correlation between the two measures of vocabulary knowledge (breadth and depth) was found in a study on monolingual and bilingual kindergartners and school children ages 4 to 7 years who spoke Dutch and Arabic. The researcher claimed that (a) there was no conceptual difference between the measures and (b) they were influenced by the same factors among the monolinguals and the bilinguals, and should therefore not be separated ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref39">68</reflink>]). Similar results were found in another study ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref40">64</reflink>]) on 203 third graders from English-speaking environments in which a high correlation was found between the two measures of vocabulary knowledge. The correlation of each measure to reading comprehension was also studied. It was found that the breadth dimension predicted most of the variance in reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-8">Orthographic knowledge</hd> <p>Orthographic knowledge refers to knowledge of a specific language's writing system and to visual-orthographic cues ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref41">43</reflink>]) that help in word recognition and in understanding the written text ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>]). Many studies have tested transfer of orthographic skills; however, the findings have been inconsistent. Some researchers reported cross-language transfer, whereas others claimed that this skill is language-dependent.</p> <p>Cross-language transfer of orthographic skills between alphabetic languages and English was found in many studies ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref43">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref44">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref45">43</reflink>]). However, researchers of many other studies reported that orthographic skills are language-specific and cannot transfer between alphabetic languages and English ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref47">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref50">63</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref51">71</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-9">Decoding</hd> <p>Reading words (decoding) requires knowledge that includes phonological awareness, letter-sound matching, and recognition of orthographic patterns ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref52">59</reflink>]). A growing body of research indicates that the skills necessary for reading words in the L1 are strongly correlated with skills necessary for reading words in the L2 ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref54">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref55">61</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref56">73</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-10">Reading fluency</hd> <p>An important component of knowing how to read and write is the effectiveness of oral reading (i.e., the ability to read a text accurately and fluently). Reading effectiveness (accuracy and fluency) in English (L1) and Hebrew (L2) was tested among a group of children learning to read in parallel ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref57">29</reflink>]). Accuracy and fluency were compared in first and second grades in diverse identical tasks that included naming letters, reading single words, and reading words in context. A significant correlation was found between accuracy and fluency in reading single words in English as the L1 and in Hebrew as the L2. Additional research evidence was found in a study that investigated the effectiveness of oral reading in English and in Spanish ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref58">22</reflink>]). A significant positive correlation was found between reading fluency in Spanish (L1) and reading fluency in English (L2). The effectiveness of oral reading in the L1 was found to be a strong predictor of reading fluency in the L2.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-11">Reading comprehension</hd> <p>Research findings have indicated that different linguistic components in the L1, including phonological, morphological, and syntactic awareness; orthographic knowledge; vocabulary; and meta-cognitive knowledge, contribute to reading comprehension in the L2 ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref59">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref60">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref61">75</reflink>]). Reading comprehension in the L2 involves application of meta-cognitive skills in reading and the ability to use strategies to regulate the reading process. The manner in which readers adapt reading strategies to the reading goals reflect meta-cognitive skills. Such skills are considered as being learned in the L1, and only afterward are transferred to the L2 ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref62">66</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-12">Spelling</hd> <p>Accurate spelling is based on a level of linguistic knowledge that includes phonological, orthographic, morphological, and semantic knowledge for that specific word. Correct spelling is essential for the development of written expression abilities and for the development of linguistic skills. The linguistic elements essential for accurate reading are at the foundation of accurate spelling abilities ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref63">50</reflink>]). In a longitudinal study that tested the development of spelling acquisition in English as a FL among Hebrew speakers at the beginning, middle, and end of learning English as a FL in school, researchers found that mastery of reading pseudowords (phonological coding) and spelling in Hebrew tested at the end of fourth grade (represents phonological strategy) explained most of the variance in spelling in English as a FL 6 years later ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref64">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-13">CRT of Language Skills</hd> <p>Language transfer from the L2 to the L1 (i.e., transfer of skills in the "opposite" direction [L2→L1] is called "Cognitive Retroactive Transfer " [CRT]). CRT of language skills means that if an improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills occurs in the individual's L2, a similar improvement in these skills is expected in this person's L1 ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref66">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref67">3</reflink>] tested the CRT hypothesis using a small pre–post design study with no control group. Twenty students in Grade 6 who had difficulties in reading and writing in both Hebrew as the L1 and English as the L2 participated in a 5-month intervention program for improving English language skills. Language skills in Hebrew and English were tested pre- and post-intervention in the following domains: phonology, morphology, syntax, orthography, word recognition, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and spelling. At the end of the intervention program, a significant improvement in all skills in English as the L2 was found among the participants, as well as a significant improvement in all language skills in Hebrew as the L1, except for orthographic knowledge. This finding supports the CRT hypothesis regarding the transfer of skills in phonology, morphology, syntax, word recognition, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and spelling from the L2 to the L1 among students with difficulties.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref68">5</reflink>] also tested the CRT hypothesis among bilingual Arabic-Hebrew readers. The results were similar to those reported by [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>]. It may be concluded that CRT occurred from English to Arabic in all tested skills, except for transfer of orthographical knowledge, which was found to be language-dependent. Thus, learning a FL can lead to improvement in the L1.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-14">Orthographic and Morphological Features of Hebrew and English</hd> <p>Both Hebrew and English have alphabetic orthographies that are based on the grapho-phonemic principle and map the sound (phoneme) represented by a writing symbol (grapheme). The Hebrew writing system is unique in that it has two versions: a vocalized writing system (with diacritics) and a nonvocalized writing system (without diacritics). The <emph>vocalized Hebrew script</emph> represents a shallow orthography, whereas the <emph>nonvocalized Hebrew script</emph> represents a deep orthography ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref70">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref71">48</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref72">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>English and Hebrew differ in their morphological system. The Hebrew morphological structure is inconsistent, whereas many words in English are built on a semantic stem, which enables recognition of the basic meaning of the word. The word's stem is usually retained and helps decode the semantic meaning. Many words in English are not morpho-phonologically transparent, while the stem's morpheme is retained as an integral unit, as this morpheme consists of both consonants and vowels that belong to the stem. Most morphemes of the English stem can be "heard." English morphology has a serial/sequential nature. Prefixes and suffixes are attached to the stem word linearly. In writing, the morphological structure is represented by preservation of the spelling of the stem word and by consistency in writing the linguistic affixes ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref73">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref74">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-15">Research Questions and Hypotheses</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Research Question 1: </bold> Does CRT of skills from English to Hebrew occur? In other words, will an improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English as a FL lead to an improvement in Hebrew as the L1?</item> </ulist> <p>We had two hypotheses. First, improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English will contribute to the same skills in Hebrew (i.e., support for the existence of CRT). Second, improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew in the experimental group will be higher following participation in an intervention program in English compared with the control group.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Research Question 2: </bold> Which type of readers (with dyslexia, poor, typical) will benefit more from the English intervention program? Our hypothesis was that all readers in the experimental group (with dyslexia, poor, typical) would benefit from the English intervention program compared with the same types of readers in the control group.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0156217200-16">Method</hd> <p>Permission for carrying out the study was obtained from the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education, the chief English language superintendent, superintendents, principals, and English teachers. Initial information on English and Hebrew language achievements of sixth graders was collected from class teachers and/or English teachers. Ten Grade 6 classes were selected. All classes included readers with dyslexia, poor readers, and typical readers. The parents of the selected students were sent a letter with a detailed explanation of the research plan. Students whose parents did not give their consent for their children's participation were not included.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-17">Participants</hd> <p>The study participants consisted of 124 sixth graders, of whom 60 (48%) were boys and 64 (52%) were girls, who were recruited from five schools in northern Israel. All participants were born in Israel, and their mother tongue was Hebrew. All attended national elementary education schools and were from middle socioeconomic status families. The students were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups and then to reader type.</p> <p>The experimental group consisted of 64 students. Of these, 22 were readers with dyslexia, 21 were poor readers, and 21 were typical readers. The control group contained 60 students. Of these, 20 were readers with dyslexia, 19 were poor readers, and 21 were typical readers.</p> <p>All participants were studying English as a FL for 4 hr a week according to the regular Grade 6 English curriculum. The experimental group participated in an intervention program for improving linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English. The control group did not participate in this program and learned according to the regular Grade 6 English curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-18">Screening participants</hd> <p>The students included in the dyslexia group had passed a psychological or didactic test administered by the school psychologist or other qualified professional. Most students with dyslexia had been evaluated by a school integration committee and were found qualified to receive remedial teaching. Poor readers were students whose average score was around 60 on both languages in screening tests performed by the English and Hebrew schools' teachers at the beginning of the school year. The Hebrew and English tests examined reading comprehension. In addition to collecting information from the school teachers, screening tests for assigning the participants to the appropriate reader type (dyslexia/poor/typical) included a Hebrew word recognition and spelling test for locating readers with dyslexia, and a reading fluency and reading comprehension test in Hebrew and English for locating poor readers.</p> <p> <emph>Readers with dyslexia</emph> were defined as readers with scores lower than 1.5 <emph>SD</emph> or more than the age norm on the Hebrew word recognition and spelling tests ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref75">56</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref76">58</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref77">69</reflink>]). Forty-two readers with dyslexia were found: 22 were assigned to the experimental group and 20 to the control group.</p> <p> <emph>Students were defined as poor readers</emph> if they (a) scored below 60 in the reading comprehension tests in both languages and (b) read less than 50 words per minute in English and less than 100 words per minute in the Hebrew fluency test ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref79">5</reflink>]). Forty poor readers were located: 21 were assigned to the experimental group and 19 to the control group.</p> <p> <emph>Typical readers</emph> were located to match the number of poor readers and readers with dyslexia. Forty-two typical readers were located: 21 were assigned to the experimental group and 21 to the control group.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-19">Measures</hd> <p>Hebrew and English linguistic skills of all participants in the experimental and control groups (readers with dyslexia, poor readers, and typical readers) were tested individually or in small groups before and after implementation of the intervention program by the research team in a quiet school setting. These skills included phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, orthography, decoding, reading fluency, reading comprehension, dictation, and spelling. Twenty-six tests were administered: 13 in English and 13 in Hebrew. Percentage accuracy (percentage of mistakes in the task) was measured in all tests. Fluency (number of words per min) was also measured in the reading (pseudowords, word recognition, and tests) and writing (orthographic knowledge and dictation) tests in both languages.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-20">Hebrew language tests</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0156217200-21">Phonological awareness</hd> <p>We used subtests of the Aleph-Taph test ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref80">55</reflink>]). Eight Hebrew words were read out loud to the participants, and they were asked to break them down into phonemes. Percentage accuracy (% mistakes) was measured. Cronbach's α was reported as.86 ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref81">55</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-22">Phonological decoding</hd> <p>Phonological decoding was assessed by pseudoword reading ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref82">55</reflink>]). Participants were asked to read 33 pseudowords aloud. Percentage accuracy and fluency (words/min) were measured. The reported α is.89 ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref83">55</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-23">Reading rate and accuracy</hd> <p>Reading fluency and accuracy were assessed using a single word test. The quality of reading single words as expressed in reading rate and accuracy was tested. The participants were asked to read 38 words with different levels of morphological structures. The reported α is.75 ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref84">55</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-24">Reading fluency</hd> <p>The rate and accuracy of reading were tested using pointed (with diacritics) and unpointed (without diacritics) texts adapted to the class level. The participants were asked to read a pointed text ("Twenty Students") containing 100 words. The reliability coefficient for accuracy is α =.80 and for rate is α =.79. The participants were also asked to read unpointed text ("A Special Story") containing 308 words. The reliability coefficient for accuracy is α =.82, and for rate is α =.77 ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref85">55</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-25">Morphological awareness</hd> <p>We used two additional subtests of the Aleph-Taph test ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref86">55</reflink>]). These subtests assessed the derivation and inflection of meaningful words at the recognition and production levels. The reported α is.75 ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref87">55</reflink>]). Morphological awareness (derivation and inflection ability) at the recognition level was tested by asking the participants to read nine sentences aloud and complete them orally with one word out of a list of words presented under each sentence. Morphological awareness at the production level was tested by asking the participants to complete nine sentences with a word whose root was shown in parentheses.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-26">Syntactic awareness</hd> <p>The Syntactic Judgment Test ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref88">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref89">52</reflink>]) was used to assess syntactic awareness. The participants were presented with 20 sentences and were asked whether each sentence's syntax was correct. If the sentence was incorrect, they were asked to correct it. The reported α is.76 ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref90">4</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-27">Semantic awareness</hd> <p>The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref91">24</reflink>]; Hebrew version, 1979) was used to assess semantic awareness. This task tests vocabulary, comprehension, and analysis of terms at various levels of abstraction. The participants were exposed to pages, each with four pictures, where each picture has a number. They were asked to state the number of the picture that best described the meaning of the word spoken by the tester. A correct answer was awarded 1 point. The reported α for the Hebrew version is.90.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-28">Orthographic knowledge</hd> <p>This was assessed through a subtest of the Aleph-Taph test. This task tests the ability to recognize spelling structures. The participants were shown word pairs. Each pair contained a correctly and an incorrectly spelled word. The participants were asked to mark the correctly spelled word. The reported α is.77 ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref92">55</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-29">Dictation</hd> <p>Assessment of dictation was performed with a subtest of the Aleph-Taph test. A short text containing 55 words was read out loud to the participants. The reported α is.77 ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref93">55</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-30">Spelling</hd> <p>We used two additional subtests of the Aleph-Taph test. The spelling-function words test consisted of 20 function words that varied in length from one to four syllables. The reported α is.77 ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref94">55</reflink>]). The spelling-content words test consisted of 20 content words that varied in length from one to four syllables. The reported α is.83 ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref95">55</reflink>]). Percentage accuracy was measured in both tasks.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-31">Reading comprehension</hd> <p>A text suitable for testing reading and writing of students in Grades 1 to 9 was used for testing reading comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref96">65</reflink>]). The participants were asked to read the text and answer 10 multiple-choice questions. The reported α is.77 ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref97">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref98">52</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-32">English language tests</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0156217200-33">Phonological awareness</hd> <p>We used the phonemes analysis test ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref99">33</reflink>]), which tests the ability to break a word down into phonemes. The participants were asked to repeat the heard word (total of 20 words) and then break it down into phonemes. The reported reliability coefficient is α =.87.</p> <p> <emph>Phonological decoding</emph>. This was assessed using a pseudoword reading test ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref100">33</reflink>]) that assesses the ability to accurately code and decode pseudowords. The participants were presented with a list of 34 pseudowords that they were asked to read out loud. The reliability coefficient is α =.80.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-34">Reading rate and accuracy</hd> <p>Two tasks that were previously applied in the study of [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref101">3</reflink>] were chosen from [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref102">32</reflink>]<emph>English as a FL.</emph></p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The single word test, which is based on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref103">72</reflink>]), tests the quality of reading single words as expressed in reading rate and accuracy. The participants were asked to read 100 single words in an ascending level of difficulty. The task was halted after six successive mistakes. The test manual reports split-half reliability coefficients ranging between.81 and.99.</item> <p></p> <item> The reading fluency test measures the rate and accuracy of reading aloud on a 50-word text matched to the class level.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0156217200-35">Morphological awareness</hd> <p>Two tasks previously applied in the study of [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref104">3</reflink>] were taken from [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref105">32</reflink>]. The reported α is.87. The tasks test the derivation and inflection of meaningful words at the recognition and production levels. Morphological awareness (derivation and inflection ability) at the recognition level was tested by asking the participants to complete 10 spoken sentences with one of the words from a list set beneath the sentence. Morphological awareness at the production level was tested by asking the participants to complete 10 spoken sentences with a word whose original shape was set in parentheses.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-36">Syntactic awareness</hd> <p>The Syntactic Judgment Test ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref106">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref107">52</reflink>]) was used to assess syntactic awareness. The participants were presented with 20 sentences and were asked to decide whether the sentence's syntax was correct. If the syntax was incorrect, they were asked to correct it. The reported α is.80.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-37">Semantic awareness</hd> <p>The English version of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref108">24</reflink>]) was used to test semantic awareness (see the description of this test in the Hebrew section above). The reported α is.86.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-38">Orthographic knowledge</hd> <p>This task was previously applied in the study of [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref109">3</reflink>] and was chosen from [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref110">32</reflink>]. This task tests the ability to recognize language writing structures. Twenty pairs of words were presented to the participants, with each pair containing the same word spelled correctly and incorrectly, and the participants were asked to choose the correctly spelled word.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-39">Dictation</hd> <p>This task was also previously applied in the study of [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref111">3</reflink>] and was chosen from [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref112">32</reflink>]. Three sentences were dictated to the participants, and they were asked to write them correctly.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-40">Spelling</hd> <p>The English spelling test was based on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised. The participants were asked to write 45 words that were read to them out loud in ascending order of difficulty and again in sentences. The words contained between one and four syllables. The reported α is.78.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-41">Reading comprehension</hd> <p>The participants were asked to read a text silently. They were then asked to answer 10 multiple-choice questions on the text. The text was adapted from reading comprehension texts for elementary schools ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref113">4</reflink>]; Sanitsky, 2013). The reported α is.78 (total number of correct answers).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-42">Procedure</hd> <p>The test results indicated the issues in need of attention. The areas and scope on which emphasis should be placed were decided after consultation with the English teaching staff. The researcher prepared teaching cards with rules, examples, and practice pages for each topic included in the program.</p> <p>The experimental group then participated in an intervention program in English. The program was administered for 3 to 4 months, within the school framework, and included 20 to 25 bi-weekly lessons, with each lesson lasting about 45 min. The researcher provided an explanation and guidance, then the school's English teachers gave the lessons to small groups during the school day. The intervention program consisted of five areas that covered linguistic and meta-linguistic skills on which the participants were tested, and which in earlier studies were found to support transfer of language skills.</p> <p>At the end of the intervention program, all participants were administered the same test battery for linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English and Hebrew as administered prior to implementation of the program. The test battery in English was used to determine whether an improvement occurred in the skills for which the intervention was applied. The test battery in Hebrew was then administered to determine whether improvement in these skills in Hebrew occurred as a consequence of the improvement in English (i.e., testing CRT of linguistic skills from English to Hebrew).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-43">The English Intervention Program</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0156217200-44">Establishing and strengthening reading decoding</hd> <p>The topics included for strengthening reading decoding were recognition of letters and letter-sound correspondence (recognition of upper and lower case letters, letter sounds); recognition of the sounds of vocalic letters (long and short sounds, reading and writing words and sentences with vocalic letters); recognition of common letter and vowel combinations (the combinations appeared in a list of frequent combinations published by [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref114">60</reflink>]; recognition of frequent suffixes chosen from primers for acquiring literacy in English ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref115">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref116">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref117">23</reflink>]); and reading and writing words and sentences with combinations and suffixes. Teaching cards that included explanations, examples, and practice pages were attached to all topics in this part.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-45">Expansion of orthographic vocabulary in reading and writing</hd> <p>Expansion of the orthographic vocabulary was supported by practicing reading a word recognition list of common words in English and their meaning, drawn from a list of 1,200 common words (Foundation Level: lexis) appearing in the revised English curriculum ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref118">62</reflink>]). The list included 125 new words, most of which carry combinations of letters and vowels to which the children were exposed in Part A. In each lesson, the teacher highlighted about five new words whose meaning the participants were asked to learn. The words were concomitantly absorbed through composition of a sentence orally and in writing for every learned word, via sentence completion exercises.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-46">Acquisition of grammatical rules (development of morpho-syntactic awareness)</hd> <p>Systematic acquisition of grammar rules included acquaintance with nouns by addition of <emph>the, any/some, a/an</emph>; the auxiliary verb <emph>to be</emph> in the present and past tenses; possession–<emph>have/has</emph>; and acquaintance with and mastery of tenses (present simple, present progressive, past simple, future simple: <emph>will, be going to</emph>). The structure of indicative, negative, and interrogative sentences was highlighted. Teaching cards contained a detailed explanation of rules, examples, and spelling, and practice sheets for every topic. The materials were adapted from Grade 6 grammar books.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-47">Acquisition of spelling rules</hd> <p>Spelling rules for the relevant topics were added concomitantly to teaching the abovementioned grammar topics (e.g., changing a noun from singular to plural, spelling rules for different tenses).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-48">Development of reading fluency and comprehension strategies</hd> <p>The participants' reading fluency and reading comprehension skills were supported by reading texts adapted from age-matched primers and by resolving problems in reading comprehension. They also practiced strategies before, during, and after the reading. (For more information about the intervention program please contact the first author.)</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-49">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0156217200-50">Testing the Existence of CRT of Language Skills</hd> <p>Linear regression analysis was performed to test the existence of transfer from skills in English to skills in Hebrew. The regression model predicts the final score in Hebrew as dependent on the improvement in English while controlling for the initial score in Hebrew, the reader type, and the research group. Supplemental Table 1 presents the results of regression analysis of the different skills. The dependent variable in each table is the final score in Hebrew after the intervention program. The independent variables entered in each model, which serve as predictor variables, are improvement in English (pre–post difference in English), the initial score in Hebrew (pre-Heb), the reader type (with dyslexia or poor, omitted group = typical readers), and belonging to the experimental group.</p> <p>In most of the skills, improvement in English in the accuracy and/or fluency component influenced the final score in Hebrew when controlling for the initial score, the reader type, and the research group. This finding supports the existence of CRT from skills in English to skills in Hebrew. Support for the existence of transfer from English skills to Hebrew skills by the results of the regression model is also given for the following variables: phonological awareness (β =.341**, <emph>SE</emph> =.137); accuracy in reading pseudowords (β =.285**; <emph>SE</emph> =.071); accuracy in reading a pointed (with diacritics) text (β =.158***; <emph>SE</emph> =.027); accuracy (β =.135***; <emph>SE</emph> =.028) and fluency (β =.321***; <emph>SE</emph> =.103) in reading an unpointed (without diacritics) text; morphological awareness–production (β =.212*; <emph>SE</emph> =.084); orthography–fluency (β =.071**; <emph>SE</emph> =.210) and accuracy (β =.105**; <emph>SE</emph> =.045); dictation–fluency (β =.219 *; <emph>SE</emph> =.084) and accuracy (β =.614 ***; <emph>SE</emph> =.146); spelling–accuracy in content words (β =.237***; <emph>SE</emph> =.068).</p> <p>No significant effect of the improvement in fluency and/or accuracy in English on the final score in Hebrew was found in reading pseudowords (fluency), reading isolated words (accuracy and fluency), reading a pointed (with diacritics) text (fluency), morphology (recognition), syntax, semantics, reading comprehension and spelling-function words. Thus, the hypothesis of the existence of transfer from these skills in English to the skills in Hebrew was not supported by the regression model results. It may be assumed that differences were not found due to the small sample size relative to the effect size.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-51">Difference in Improvement in Skills Between the Experimental and Control Groups</hd> <p>Confirmation of the transfer hypothesis that claims that improvement in English will also influence the level of Hebrew raised the question of whether a greater improvement will also be exhibited in Hebrew following the intervention program during which the students in the experimental group achieved a greater improvement in English. An independent samples <emph>t</emph> test was therefore performed to determine whether the difference in the improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English and in Hebrew between the experimental and the control groups was significant.</p> <p>The results of the analysis presented in Supplemental Table 2 show that the pre–posttreatment improvement in all linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English and in Hebrew, except for the dictation task, was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group. No significant differences in improvement between the research groups were found in the dictation task in Hebrew in accuracy and fluency, and in English in fluency only.</p> <p>Improvements in the accuracy and/or fluency of the different skills in English and in Hebrew were significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group. In accuracy, improvement (the difference between the two time points) meant a decrease (% mistakes) and in fluency it meant an increase (words/min). For example, accuracy in reading pseudowords in English improved by 15% in the experimental group compared with an improvement of approximately 1% in the control group, and fluency improved by seven words per minute in the experimental group compared with one word per minute in the control group.</p> <p>In light of the existence of a CRT mechanism from skills in English to skills in Hebrew, some of the improvement in the accuracy and fluency measures in all variables assessed in Hebrew can be attributed to a contribution of the intervention program in English. Thus, the group that received support in all measures assessed in English (FL) improved more in these components in Hebrew (L1). This finding affords additional support for the CRT hypothesis in that increased transfer of skills from the FL (English) to the first language (Hebrew) was observed among the experimental group.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-52">Differences in Improvement in Skills Among the Three Reader Types</hd> <p>A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine whether differences existed in the improvement of the readers with dyslexia, the poor readers, and the typical reader types in both research groups (experimental, control) in performance of linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English and Hebrew for each reader type separately and for improvement in either language. The ANOVA and the post hoc test (see Table 1) showed significant differences in improvement in the English language of the experimental group among the readers with dyslexia, the poor readers, and the typical readers. Improvement (the difference between the two time points) was highest among the readers with dyslexia, who improved by 15% to 40% relative to their initial performance.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Differences in English Skills Improvement Among Readers With Dyslexia, Poor Readers, and Typical Readers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Language skills</th><th /><th align="center" colspan="6">Experimental group</th><th align="center" colspan="6">Control group</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M/SD</italic></th><th align="center">Dyslexia<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref> (D)</th><th align="center">Poor<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">b</xref> (P)</th><th align="center">Typical<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">b</xref> (T)</th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic>(2, 62)</th><th align="center">η<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center">Post hoc</th><th align="center">Dyslexia<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">c</xref> (D)</th><th align="center">Poor<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">d</xref> (P)</th><th align="center">Typical<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">b</xref> (T)</th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic>(2, 57)</th><th align="center">η<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center">Post hoc</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Phonological awareness–analysis (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−27.727</td><td>−15.714</td><td>−12.857</td><td rowspan="2">16.842<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.356</td><td>D<T</td><td>−.500</td><td>−3.421</td><td>−1.429</td><td rowspan="2">2.046</td><td rowspan="2">0.067</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>6.119</td><td>12.174</td><td>7.512</td><td>D<P</td><td>5.826</td><td>3.746</td><td>3.919</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Pseudowords (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−21.658</td><td>−12.465</td><td>−11.905</td><td rowspan="2">8.329<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.214</td><td>D<T</td><td>−.588</td><td>−1.084</td><td>−1.120</td><td rowspan="2">0.214</td><td rowspan="2">0.007</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>7.941</td><td>6.829</td><td>11.179</td><td>D<P</td><td>3.646</td><td>1.757</td><td>2.863</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Pseudowords (words/min)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>3.476</td><td>9.292</td><td>8.568</td><td rowspan="2">3.719<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.109</td><td rowspan="2">D<P</td><td>−.775</td><td>2.293</td><td>2.241</td><td rowspan="2">4.316<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.132</td><td>D<T</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>5.854</td><td>9.146</td><td>7.662</td><td>5.650</td><td>2.571</td><td>2.104</td><td>D<P</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Word recognition (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−10.544</td><td>−7.643</td><td>−6.504</td><td rowspan="2">2.372</td><td rowspan="2">0.072</td><td /><td>−2.199</td><td>−2.046</td><td>−.677</td><td rowspan="2">2.206</td><td rowspan="2">0.072</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>5.208</td><td>6.997</td><td>6.564</td><td /><td>2.317</td><td>2.577</td><td>2.749</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Word recognition (words/min)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>13.109</td><td>16.458</td><td>17.125</td><td rowspan="2">0.374</td><td rowspan="2">0.012</td><td /><td>−2.110</td><td>3.601</td><td>11.448</td><td rowspan="2">7.563<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.210</td><td rowspan="2">D<T</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>8.387</td><td>11.753</td><td>24.619</td><td /><td>12.026</td><td>4.564</td><td>14.226</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Reading fluency (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−14.545</td><td>−7.333</td><td>−4.952</td><td>19.668<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td><td>0.392</td><td>D<T</td><td>.200</td><td>−.526</td><td>−.571</td><td>1.498</td><td>0.050</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>4.194</td><td>5.190</td><td>6.184</td><td /><td /><td>D<P</td><td>2.238</td><td>1.124</td><td>1.121</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Reading fluency (words/min)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>8.149</td><td>8.290</td><td>15.121</td><td rowspan="2">2.686</td><td rowspan="2">0.081</td><td /><td>−.865</td><td>1.348</td><td>4.233</td><td rowspan="2">7.003<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.197</td><td rowspan="2">D<T</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>11.697</td><td>8.290</td><td>13.017</td><td /><td>5.880</td><td>1.507</td><td>4.440</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Morphology recognition (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−36.818</td><td>−20.476</td><td>−20.476</td><td rowspan="2">14.576<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.323</td><td>D<T</td><td>−3.000</td><td>−4.211</td><td>−3.810</td><td rowspan="2">0.134</td><td rowspan="2">0.005</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>8.937</td><td>10.235</td><td>14.655</td><td>D<P</td><td>6.569</td><td>5.073</td><td>9.735</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Morphology production (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−35.909</td><td>−20.000</td><td>−21.429</td><td rowspan="2">18.987<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.384</td><td>D<T</td><td>−2.000</td><td>.526</td><td>−4.286</td><td rowspan="2">7.086<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.199</td><td rowspan="2"><italic>p</italic><T</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>7.964</td><td>11.402</td><td>8.536</td><td>D<P</td><td>4.104</td><td>2.294</td><td>5.071</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Syntactic judgment (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−16.591</td><td>−14.524</td><td>−14.286</td><td rowspan="2">0.610</td><td rowspan="2">0.020</td><td /><td>−1.250</td><td>−1.579</td><td>−3.095</td><td rowspan="2">2.413</td><td rowspan="2">0.078</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>6.246</td><td>8.646</td><td>7.630</td><td /><td>3.193</td><td>2.912</td><td>2.488</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Semantics: Peabody (% correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>11.049</td><td>4.487</td><td>6.628</td><td rowspan="2">4.656<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.132</td><td rowspan="2">D>P</td><td>4.102</td><td>1.130</td><td>1.326</td><td rowspan="2">2.875</td><td rowspan="2">0.092</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>7.071</td><td>7.800</td><td>6.710</td><td>7.177</td><td>1.608</td><td>1.827</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Orthographic knowledge (words/min)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>3.719</td><td>5.560</td><td>4.865</td><td rowspan="2">0.792</td><td rowspan="2">0.025</td><td /><td>0.400</td><td>0.601</td><td>0.706</td><td rowspan="2">0.215</td><td rowspan="2">0.007</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>3.421</td><td>5.035</td><td>5.846</td><td /><td>2.027</td><td>1.196</td><td>1.142</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Orthographic knowledge (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−17.727</td><td>−9.761</td><td>−4.285</td><td rowspan="2">18.064<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.372</td><td>D<P</td><td>−0.750</td><td>−0.952</td><td>−1.667</td><td rowspan="2">0.791</td><td rowspan="2">0.027</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>7.192</td><td>7.980</td><td>6.943</td><td>D<T</td><td>8.626</td><td>2.011</td><td>2.887</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Dictation (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−19.773</td><td>−14.762</td><td>−17.619</td><td rowspan="2">1.767</td><td rowspan="2">0.055</td><td /><td>.000</td><td>−1.053</td><td>−1.667</td><td rowspan="2">0.637</td><td rowspan="2">0.022</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>6.810</td><td>7.496</td><td>11.360</td><td /><td>7.434</td><td>2.094</td><td>2.887</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Dictation (words/min)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>.534</td><td>.767</td><td>.187</td><td rowspan="2">0.446</td><td rowspan="2">0.014</td><td /><td>.244</td><td>.162</td><td>−.083</td><td rowspan="2">2.727</td><td rowspan="2">0.087</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>1.866</td><td>1.954</td><td>2.180</td><td /><td>.632</td><td>.387</td><td>.332</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Spelling (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−13.030</td><td>−11.111</td><td>−9.841</td><td rowspan="2">0.943</td><td rowspan="2">0.030</td><td /><td>−1.333</td><td>−.702</td><td>−2.222</td><td rowspan="2">1.556</td><td>0.052</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>3.836</td><td>4.869</td><td>11.854</td><td /><td>2.736</td><td>2.102</td><td>3.220</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Reading comprehension</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>32.727</td><td>24.286</td><td>20.000</td><td>5.042<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td><td>0.142</td><td>D>T</td><td>5.500</td><td>.526</td><td>3.810</td><td>2.848</td><td>0.091</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>9.847</td><td>9.258</td><td>18.974</td><td /><td /><td /><td>9.445</td><td>2.294</td><td>5.896</td><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>n</emph> = 22. <sups>b</sups><emph>n</emph> = 21. <sups>c</sups><emph>n</emph> = 20. <sups>d</sups><emph>n</emph> = 19.</p> <p>2 <emph>p</emph> <.05. **<emph>p</emph> <.01. ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <p>Significant differences in the performance of linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English were found between readers with dyslexia compared with typical and poor readers regarding phonological analysis, accuracy in reading pseudowords, accuracy in text reading, morphological awareness (recognition and production), and orthographic knowledge accuracy. In all these measures, the effect size was very large, η<sups>2</sups> >.139, according to [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref119">14</reflink>] guidelines ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref120">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Significant differences in performance were also found between readers with dyslexia and typical readers in semantic awareness and reading comprehension; between readers with dyslexia and poor readers in semantic awareness and in the rate of reading pseudowords. In all variables, improvement was greatest among the readers with dyslexia. Only in the rate component did the poor readers exhibit the greatest improvement.</p> <p>In the control group, the results for linguistic and meta-linguistic improvement in English skills indicate some differences between the reader types. The typical readers' performance was higher postintervention. Significant performance differences were found between readers with dyslexia, poor readers, and typical readers in reading fluency of pseudowords; between readers with dyslexia and typical readers in fluency of word recognition and text; and between poor and typical readers in accuracy in morphological awareness–production.</p> <p>Marked differences were found in improvement in the Hebrew language between the readers with dyslexia, poor readers, and typical readers in the experimental group (see Table 2). The improvement among the readers with dyslexia was the highest relative to the initial skills performance, as detailed below. Significant differences were found in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills performance in Hebrew between the readers with dyslexia, poor readers, and typical readers in accuracy of word recognition and spelling of function and content words; between readers with dyslexia and typical and poor readers in skills performance in Hebrew in accuracy in phonological awareness–analysis, reading pointed (with diacritics) and unpointed (without diacritics) text, morphological awareness–recognition and production, syntactic awareness, orthographic knowledge, and reading comprehension. In all these measures, the effect size is very large, η<sups>2</sups> >.139, according to [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref121">14</reflink>] guidelines ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref122">49</reflink>]). The improvement of the readers with dyslexia group was the highest relative to their initial performance in all abovementioned skills.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Differences in Hebrew Skills Improvement Among Readers With Dyslexia, Poor Readers, and Typical Readers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Language skills</th><th /><th align="center" colspan="6">Experimental group</th><th align="center" colspan="6">Control group</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M/SD</italic></th><th align="center">Dyslexia<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">a</xref> (D)</th><th align="center">Poor<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">b</xref> (P)</th><th align="center">Typical<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">b</xref> (T)</th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic>(2, 61)</th><th align="center">η<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center">Post hoc</th><th align="center">Dyslexia<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">c</xref> (D)</th><th align="center">Poor<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">d</xref> (P)</th><th align="center">Typical<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">b</xref> (T)</th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic>(2, 57)</th><th align="center">η<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center">Post hoc</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Phonological awareness analysis (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−47.727</td><td>−27.976</td><td>−25.000</td><td>18.665<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>0.380</td><td>D<T</td><td>−2.500</td><td>−2.632</td><td>−5.952</td><td>1.460</td><td>0.049</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>8.306</td><td>14.200</td><td>16.298</td><td /><td /><td>D<P</td><td>7.695</td><td>6.691</td><td>7.520</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Pseudowords (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−18.733</td><td>−10.101</td><td>−8.225</td><td>13.923<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>0.313</td><td>D<T</td><td>−1.364</td><td>−2.552</td><td>−0.866</td><td>1.708</td><td>0.057</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>5.091</td><td>8.535</td><td>6.986</td><td /><td /><td /><td>2.080</td><td>4.073</td><td>2.375</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Pseudowords (words/min)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>5.232</td><td>4.381</td><td>2.629</td><td>1.687</td><td>0.052</td><td /><td>−0.120</td><td>2.205</td><td>1.800</td><td>8.361<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td>0.227</td><td>D<T</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>3.568</td><td>4.605</td><td>5.786</td><td /><td /><td /><td>2.035</td><td>2.264</td><td>1.369</td><td /><td /><td>D<P</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Word recognition (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−14.234</td><td>−4.261</td><td>−1.629</td><td>133.251<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>0.814</td><td>D<TT<P</td><td>0.789</td><td>−2.216</td><td>−0.752</td><td>2.280</td><td>0.074</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>3.601</td><td>2.118</td><td>1.947</td><td /><td /><td>D<P</td><td>7.199</td><td>1.320</td><td>2.063</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Word recognition (words/min)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>12.264</td><td>13.320</td><td>10.995</td><td>0.455</td><td>0.015</td><td /><td>0.615</td><td>1.895</td><td>3.157</td><td>3.704<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td>0.115</td><td>D<T</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>8.698</td><td>6.580</td><td>7.918</td><td /><td /><td /><td>1.874</td><td>2.478</td><td>4.076</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Reading fluency–pointed (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−5.545</td><td>−1.143</td><td>−0.667</td><td>147.712<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.829</td><td>D<T</td><td>0.150</td><td>−0.211</td><td>−0.476</td><td rowspan="2">1.495</td><td rowspan="2">0.050</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>1.057</td><td>0.793</td><td>1.197</td><td /><td>D<P</td><td>1.843</td><td>0.535</td><td>0.602</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Reading fluency–pointed (words/min)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>9.909</td><td>24.238</td><td>12.476</td><td rowspan="2">6.679<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.180</td><td>D<P</td><td>2.200</td><td>2.632</td><td>4.190</td><td rowspan="2">0.483</td><td rowspan="2">0.017</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>13.877</td><td>15.776</td><td>10.764</td><td>T<P</td><td>3.365</td><td>3.818</td><td>10.443</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Reading fluency–unpointed (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−5.034</td><td>−0.460</td><td>0.004</td><td rowspan="2">59.039<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.659</td><td>D<T</td><td>−0.018</td><td>−0.554</td><td>−0.550</td><td rowspan="2">1.189</td><td rowspan="2">0.040</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>2.501</td><td>0.938</td><td>1.107</td><td>D<P</td><td>1.737</td><td>0.518</td><td>1.200</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Reading fluency–unpointed (words/min)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>18.386</td><td>23.333</td><td>9.586</td><td rowspan="2">6.443<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.174</td><td rowspan="2">T<P</td><td>−0.170</td><td>1.726</td><td>1.743</td><td rowspan="2">1.906</td><td rowspan="2">0.063</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>10.039</td><td>9.494</td><td>16.924</td><td>2.174</td><td>1.964</td><td>5.311</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Morphology recognition (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−15.657</td><td>−6.349</td><td>−4.233</td><td rowspan="2">20.339<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.400</td><td>D<T</td><td>−5.555</td><td>−4.093</td><td>−1.587</td><td rowspan="2">2.390</td><td rowspan="2">0.097</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>6.559</td><td>6.640</td><td>5.529</td><td>D<P</td><td>7.647</td><td>5.506</td><td>3.984</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Morphology production (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−26.263</td><td>13.228</td><td>−11.111</td><td rowspan="2">9.687<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.241</td><td>D<T</td><td>−1.111</td><td>−2.924</td><td>−2.116</td><td rowspan="2">0.694</td><td rowspan="2">0.024</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>15.542</td><td>9.040</td><td>11.111</td><td>D<P</td><td>4.969</td><td>5.027</td><td>4.471</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Syntactic judgment (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−19.773</td><td>−7.143</td><td>−5.238</td><td rowspan="2">31.983<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.512</td><td>D<T</td><td>1.000</td><td>−2.632</td><td>−2.143</td><td rowspan="2">2.406</td><td rowspan="2">0.078</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>8.088</td><td>6.239</td><td>4.603</td><td>D<P</td><td>8.522</td><td>3.862</td><td>2.988</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Semantics: Peabody (% correct answers)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>6.935</td><td>4.108</td><td>2.109</td><td rowspan="2">3.207<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.095</td><td rowspan="2">D>T</td><td>0.314</td><td>1.048</td><td>−0.717</td><td rowspan="2">3.764<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.117</td><td rowspan="2">T<P</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>5.693</td><td>5.483</td><td>7.512</td><td>1.369</td><td>1.092</td><td>3.017</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Orthographic knowledge (words/min)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>2.689</td><td>4.210</td><td>5.444</td><td rowspan="2">1.813</td><td rowspan="2">0.056</td><td /><td>0.066</td><td>0.220</td><td>0.649</td><td rowspan="2">3.746<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.116</td><td rowspan="2">D<T</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>2.276</td><td>3.833</td><td>6.990</td><td /><td>0.295</td><td>0.706</td><td>0.947</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Orthographic knowledge (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−9.318</td><td>−5.238</td><td>−3.095</td><td rowspan="2">8.160<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.211</td><td>D<T</td><td>0.000</td><td>−2.105</td><td>−0.476</td><td rowspan="2">2.638</td><td rowspan="2">0.085</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>5.626</td><td>5.118</td><td>4.603</td><td>D<P</td><td>4.292</td><td>2.536</td><td>1.504</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Dictation (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−21.901</td><td>−5.628</td><td>−4.848</td><td rowspan="2">48.268<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.613</td><td>D<T</td><td>−1.091</td><td>−1.244</td><td>−1.212</td><td rowspan="2">2.362</td><td rowspan="2">0.077</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>9.839</td><td>3.810</td><td>3.269</td><td>D<P</td><td>6.553</td><td>1.220</td><td>1.050</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Dictation (words/min)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>2.144</td><td>2.502</td><td>0.513</td><td rowspan="2">2.286</td><td rowspan="2">0.070</td><td /><td>0.673</td><td>1.781</td><td>1.565</td><td rowspan="2">3.027</td><td rowspan="2">0.096</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>2.571</td><td>3.680</td><td>3.338</td><td /><td>1.341</td><td>1.968</td><td>1.112</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Spelling (function words) (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−20.909</td><td>−11.429</td><td>−5.714</td><td rowspan="2">27.157<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.471</td><td>D<TT>P</td><td>−0.500</td><td>−1.053</td><td>−1.905</td><td rowspan="2">1.071</td><td rowspan="2">0.036</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>6.838</td><td>6.153</td><td>7.464</td><td>D<P</td><td>3.204</td><td>3.566</td><td>2.488</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Spelling (content words) (% mistakes)</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>−17.727</td><td>−9.048</td><td>−3.571</td><td rowspan="2">35.749<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td rowspan="2">0.540</td><td>D<TT>P</td><td>0.250</td><td>−1.316</td><td>−0.714</td><td rowspan="2">2.487</td><td rowspan="2">0.080</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>6.119</td><td>6.045</td><td>4.226</td><td>D<P</td><td>2.552</td><td>2.262</td><td>1.793</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Reading comprehension</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>32.273</td><td>25.238</td><td>11.905</td><td rowspan="2">22.393<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>0.423</td><td>D>T</td><td>3.000</td><td>2.632</td><td>0.476</td><td rowspan="2">2.008</td><td rowspan="2">0.066</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>8.125</td><td>12.891</td><td>8.729</td><td /><td>T<P</td><td>4.702</td><td>5.620</td><td>2.182</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>n</emph> = 22. <sups>b</sups><emph>n</emph> = 21. <sups>c</sups><emph>n</emph> = 20. <sups>d</sups><emph>n</emph> = 19.</item> <item>4 <emph>p</emph> <.05. **<emph>p</emph> <.01. ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>Significant differences in performance between the readers with dyslexia and the typical readers were found in accuracy in reading pseudowords and in semantic awareness, with a greater improvement for the readers with dyslexia. Only in one variable, rate of reading pointed (with diacritics) text, were differences found between the poor readers and the readers with dyslexia, and between the poor readers and the typical readers. Here improvement was greatest among the poor readers.</p> <p>In the control group, the results of the analysis indicated few differences in improvement of linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew between the readers with dyslexia, poor readers, and typical readers. Improvement in skills was higher among the typical and poor readers. Significant performance differences were found between the readers with dyslexia and the poor and typical readers in rate of reading pseudowords; between poor and typical readers in semantic awareness, where greater improvement was found among the poor readers; and between readers with dyslexia and typical readers in rate of word recognition and orthographic knowledge test, with typical readers exhibiting greater improvement in both measures.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-53">Discussion</hd> <p>The goal of this study was to test whether CRT of skills from English to Hebrew occurs (i.e., whether an improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English as a FL would lead to an improvement in Hebrew as the L1). The hypothesis regarding the existence of CRT of skills in English to skills in Hebrew was supported by the results of the regression model with reference to most of the variables in the domains of reading, writing, and language skills. In most of the tested skills, improvement in English in accuracy and/or fluency influenced the final score in Hebrew when controlling for the initial score, the reader type, and the research group. The detailed linguistic and meta-linguistic skills tested in this research with reference to the findings and studies on cross-language transfer of skills are presented below.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-54">Cross-Language Transfer of Phonological Skills</hd> <p>Support for the existence of CRT from English (L2) to Hebrew (L1) was afforded by results of the regression model for phonological awareness. Furthermore, larger differences were found in improvement in the accuracy component of phonological awareness (analysis) in English and in Hebrew in the experimental group compared with the control group.</p> <p>The findings indicate transfer of phonological skills from English as the L2 to Hebrew as the L1, similar to studies that found cross-language transfer of phonological skills from the L2 to the L1 ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref123">5</reflink>]) and in line with many studies that reported cross-transfer of phonological skills from the L1 to the L2 in different languages ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref124">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref125">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref126">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref127">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref128">51</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref129">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref130">61</reflink>]). The findings of the present study support the extensive research literature on the cross-language transfer of phonological skills that claims that this skill is universal and is not language-dependent, and that cross-language transfer of phonological skills exists regardless of the direction of the transfer.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-55">Cross-Language Transfer of Morphological Skills</hd> <p>The findings also show a transfer of morphological-skills production, from English to Hebrew. Thus, the hypothesis of the existence of a transfer of morphological-skills production in English to morphological-skills production in Hebrew was supported by the regression model results. Furthermore, a significantly greater improvement was observed in the experimental group in accuracy of morphological-awareness production, both in English and in Hebrew, as opposed to a small improvement in morphological-awareness production in English and Hebrew in the control group. In both languages, this finding reinforces the contribution of the intervention program and affords additional support to the existence of transfer, as increased transfer of morphological skills from the L2 to the L1 was observed in the experimental group.</p> <p>The findings that indicate the existence of CRT in morphological awareness in the production components from English (FL) to Hebrew (L1) are in line with results of the studies that indicated cross-language transfer of specific morphological skills ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref131">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref132">53</reflink>]). However, the results from other studies have shown transfer of morphological skills from a deep and complex morphological system that characterizes languages with a deep orthography, such as Arabic, Hebrew, Spanish, Finnish, and Korean, to English, which has a deep orthography but a transparent and simpler morphological system, but not in the opposite direction ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref133">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref134">51</reflink>]). The researchers claimed that the direction of transfer depends on the participants' skills level in the languages, on the specific tested morphological elements (inflection vs. derivation), and on the morphological complexity of the languages.</p> <p>The existence of CRT of morphological-skills recognition from English to Hebrew was not supported in the present study. However, it is important to note that a large improvement in morphological-awareness recognition in English and in Hebrew was found in the experimental group compared with a small improvement in the control group.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-56">Cross-Language Transfer of Orthographic Skills</hd> <p>The results of the regression model indicate cross-language transfer of orthographic skills in the accuracy and fluency components from English to Hebrew. A significant improvement in the accuracy and fluency components of orthographic knowledge in English and in Hebrew was found in the experimental group, compared with a smaller improvement in the control group, in both languages.</p> <p>The findings reported in the literature regarding cross-language transfer of orthographic skills have not been consistent. An extensive body of knowledge has claimed that orthographic knowledge is language-dependent due to unique conventions of each language ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref135">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref136">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref137">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref138">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref139">63</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref140">71</reflink>]). Other studies reported cross-language transfer of orthographic skills between different languages ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref141">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref142">34</reflink>]). In the present study, CRT of orthographic skills in the accuracy and fluency components from English to Hebrew was found. This finding is compatible with the results of the abovementioned studies that indicated cross-language transfer of orthographic skills.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-57">Cross-Language Transfer of Spelling Skills</hd> <p>This domain was assessed by two tasks: a dictation task and a spelling task. The results of the regression model indicate cross-language transfer from English to Hebrew with reference to accuracy and fluency on the dictation task. However, in the dictation task, a significant improvement was found only in the accuracy component in English in the experimental group, whereas no significant improvement was found in fluency. No significant improvement in Hebrew was found in the accuracy and fluency components.</p> <p>Spelling skills in Hebrew were assessed by a content words and function words task compared with a single parallel list in English. The findings indicate transfer of spelling skills/content words from English to Hebrew, and the hypothesis of the existence of a transfer of spelling skills in English to spelling skills in Hebrew was supported. A significant improvement was also found in the experimental group in accuracy on the spelling task in English and in spelling-content words in Hebrew.</p> <p>CRT from English to Hebrew for the spelling of function words was not supported, even though a significant improvement was found in Hebrew in the experimental group. This improvement may stem from factors unrelated to the transfer process.</p> <p>Transfer of spelling from L1 to L2 has been reported ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref143">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref144">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref145">61</reflink>]). Spelling in Hebrew was one of the strong predictors for spelling meaningful words and pseudowords in English in Grades 5 and 8 ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref146">50</reflink>]). Spelling in L1 (English) and phonological awareness were the best predictors of spelling in L2–Spanish, French, or German ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref147">61</reflink>]). According to [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref148">67</reflink>], the basic components necessary for spelling in L1 and the L2 are similar.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-58">Cross-Language Transfer of Decoding Skills</hd> <p>Support for the existence of a transfer of skills in English (FL) to skills in Hebrew (L1) was afforded by the results of the regression model for accuracy in reading pseudowords. A greater improvement was observed in the experimental group in accuracy and fluency in English and in accuracy and fluency in Hebrew, compared with the control group. This finding is in line with the research literature that has indicated transfer of decoding skills from the first to the second, and even to a third, language ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref149">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref150">61</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref151">73</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-59">Cross-Language Transfer of Reading Fluency Skills</hd> <p>Support for the existence of transfer from the skills in English (FL) to the skills in Hebrew (L1) was afforded by the results of the regression model for accuracy in reading a pointed (with diacritics) text and for accuracy and fluency of reading an unpointed (without diacritics) text. Improvement was found in the experimental group in oral reading in English and in fluency, as well as in Hebrew in accuracy in oral reading of a pointed (with diacritics) and unpointed (without diacritics) text and in the fluency. However, only a minor improvement was found for the control group in fluency and accuracy in both languages.</p> <p>No significant influence was found for the improvement of fluency in English on the final score in Hebrew when reading a pointed text (in fluency). It is possible that the sample size caused a limited power of the regression test and led to a nonsignificant transfer effect in this component. This finding is in line with studies that indicated transfer of vocal reading skills in the accuracy and fluency components from L1 to L2 ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref152">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-60">Variables for Which No Cross-Language Transfer of Skills Was Found</hd> <p>The CRT hypothesis of a transfer of skills from English to Hebrew was not supported by the regression model results in the fluency of reading pseudowords and a pointed text and in fluency and accuracy of reading single words in the reading comprehension task; in the linguistic and meta-linguistic domain in morphological-awareness recognition, syntactic awareness, and semantic awareness tasks; and in the writing domain in spelling-function words. It is possible that the sample size resulted in a limited power of the regression test ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref153">2</reflink>]). In conclusion, CRT of English skills to Hebrew was found in 11 of the 20 tested variables. In the tested skills, the improvement in English in the accuracy and/or fluency components influenced the final score in Hebrew when controlling for the initial score, the reader type, and the research group.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-61">Difference in Improvement in Skills Between Research Groups and Within Reader Types</hd> <p>Due to the fact that the CRT mechanism transfers skills from English to Hebrew, greater improvement was expected in Hebrew skills in the experimental group, who learned more skills in English. Indeed, improvement in all linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in both English and Hebrew was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group, except for the dictation task. This finding affords additional support for the CRT hypothesis in that increased transfer of skills can be seen from the FL (English) to L1 (Hebrew) in the experimental group.</p> <p>The results indicated greater improvement of the readers with dyslexia in the experimental group in most English and Hebrew skills compared with the improvement found among the poor and/or typical readers. However, only few differences between the readers with dyslexia, poor readers, and typical readers were found in the control group: The greatest improvement in English was among the typical readers, whereas in Hebrew it was among the poor readers. The readers with dyslexia in the control group exhibited the poorest results in English compared with the other readers.</p> <p>The readers with dyslexia improved significantly in English in the deficit areas—namely, phonological awareness, phonological decoding, and morphological awareness—as well as in semantic awareness and reading comprehension. The initial performance of the readers with dyslexia in all linguistic and meta-linguistic skills was evaluated as falling below the performance of the poor and typical readers. Part of the improvement in the above skills in English can certainly be ascribed to the contribution of the intervention program. The improvement in the Hebrew language, the students' L1, was a result of CRT of linguistic skills ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref154">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref155">5</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-62">The Innovation of This Study</hd> <p>The present study was based on an experimental research design that tested an experimental group and a control group at two time points (before and after participation in an intervention program). This research design enabled reaching strong conclusions and greater credibility regarding cross-language transfer of skills. This is in contrast to prior studies that tested transference via correlational studies, which does not enable isolating different variables and is therefore less suitable for testing causal relations. In the present study, the hypothesis was tested via regression, which enables separating and isolating the influence of different factors, such as influence of the transfer, initial level in Hebrew, and belonging to a reader type.</p> <p>The innovation of this study is in testing CRT of linguistic and meta-linguistic skills from English to Hebrew. The findings contribute to a theoretical understanding of the CRT of language skills from English to Hebrew. The findings further indicate the contribution of the intervention program constructed in English to improving linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English (FL) as well as in Hebrew (L1) among the reader types.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-63">Research Limitations and Empirical Implications</hd> <p>We acknowledge that the sample size is one limitation, because a larger sample size could have a stronger power for the statistical tests; thus, future replication is needed. Suggestions for further research include testing whether there is a difference in the intensity of transfer among different reader types or testing for differences within the dyslexia group (i.e., between mild, moderate, and severe dyslexia). Another possibility would be to conduct a longitudinal study that examines whether the contribution of the intervention program exists for a long period or regression takes place. It is also suggested that future studies test differences in improvement among the three reader types.</p> <p>These research results have implications for working with readers with dyslexia and poor readers when learning a FL, with a focus on the deficit areas and the development of reading and writing skills that may help these readers in both languages due to CRT. Collaboration of teachers involving language, mother tongue, and other languages is recommended to build appropriate intervention programs and to maximize language acquisition.</p> <hd id="AN0156217200-64">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>sj-docx-1-ldx-10.1177_00222194211003820.docx</p> <p>sj-docx-1-ldx-10.1177_00222194211003820 – Supplemental material for Cognitive Retroactive Transfer of Language Skills From English as a Foreign Language to Hebrew as the First Language</p> <p></p> <p>Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ldx-10.1177_00222194211003820 for Cognitive Retroactive Transfer of Language Skills From English as a Foreign Language to Hebrew as the First Language by Liat Feder and Salim Abu-Rabia in Journal of Learning Disabilities</p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0156217200-65">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>sj-docx-2-ldx-10.1177_00222194211003820.docx</p> <p>sj-docx-2-ldx-10.1177_00222194211003820 – Supplemental material for Cognitive Retroactive Transfer of Language Skills From English as a Foreign Language to Hebrew as the First Language</p> <p></p> <p>Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-ldx-10.1177_00222194211003820 for Cognitive Retroactive Transfer of Language Skills From English as a Foreign Language to Hebrew as the First Language by Liat Feder and Salim Abu-Rabia in Journal of Learning Disabilities</p> <p></p> <ref id="AN0156217200-66"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref46" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia S. (2001). Testing the independence hypothesis among native adult bilingual Russian-English students. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(4), 435–453. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010425825251</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref153" type="bt">2</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(7), 1259–1268. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.37185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref2" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia S., Bluestien-Danon D. (2012). A study into the results of an intervention program of linguistic skills in English (L2) and its effect on Hebrew (L1) among poor readers: An examination of the Cognitive Retroactive Transfer (CRT) hypothesis. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2(4), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2012.2401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref32" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia S., Sanitsky E. (2010). Advantages of bilinguals over monolinguals in learning a third language. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2010.502797</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref3" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia S., Shakkour W., Siegel L. (2013). Cognitive Retroactive Transfer (CRT) of language skills among bilingual Arabic-English readers. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2013.775975</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref8" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia S., Siegel L. S. (2002). Reading, writing, orthographic, phonological, syntactic and memory skills of bilingual Arabic-English speaking Arab children in Canada. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(6), 661–678. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021221206119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref9" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia S., Siegel L. S. (2003). Reading skills in three orthographies: The case of trilingual Arabic-Hebrew-English–speaking Arab children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16(7), 611–634. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025838029204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref115" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Aharoni-Bousso M., Susman N., Yosefyan J. (2006). Panorama. Eric Cohen Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref38" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson R. C., Freebody P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In Guthrie J. (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). International Reading.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bialystok E., Luk G., Kwan E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read. Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0901_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Birger A. L. (2002). Entry point 1, 2, 3 (Keynan R., Ed.). University Publishing Project.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castles A., Rastle K., Nation K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho J.-R., McBride-Chang C. (2005). Levels of phonological awareness in Korean and English: A 1-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 564–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.564</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Comeau L., Cormier P., Grandmaison E., Lacroix D. (1999). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.29</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cromdal J. (1999). Childhood bilingualism and metalinguistic skills: Analysis and control in young Swedish–English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716499001010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummins J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 221–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> D'Angiulli A., Siegel L. S., Serra E. (2001). The development of reading in English and Italian in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716401004015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon S. H., Kirby J. R. (2004). Morphological awareness: Just "more phonological"? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(2), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1017.S0124716404001117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon S. H., Wade-Woolley L., Kirby J. R. (2007). Crossover: The role of morphological awareness in French immersion children's reading. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 732–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.732</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon S. H., Wade-Woolley L., Kirby J. R. (2009). Flexibility in young second-language learners: Examining the language specificity of orthographic processing. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01392.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domínguez De Ramírez R., Shapiro E. S. (2007). Cross-language relationship between Spanish and English oral reading fluency among Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms. Psychology in the School, 44(8), 795–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dray M., Greenberg L., Yochanna M. (2000). Highlight. Eric Cohen Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn L. M. (1965). Peabody picture vocabulary test. American Guidance Service. (Hebrew Edition, 1979).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durgunoglu A. Y., Mir M., Ariño-Martí S. (2002). The relationship between bilingual children's reading and writing in their two languages. In Randsdell S., Barbier M. L. (Eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to understanding second language writing (pp. 81–100). Kluwer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farnia F., Geva E. (2013). Growth and predictors of change in English language learners' reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(4), 389–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrir.12003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost R., Bentin S. (1992). Reading consonants and guessing vowels: Visual word recognition in Hebrew orthography. In Frost R., Katz L. (Eds.), Phonology, morphology, orthography and meaning (pp. 27–44). Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geva E., Siegel L. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12(1–2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008017710115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geva E., Wade-Woolley L., Shany M. (1997). The development of reading efficiency in first and second language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0102_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gottardo A., Chiappe P., Yan B., Siegel L., Gu Y. (2006). Relationships between first and second language phonological processing skills and reading in Chinese-English speakers living in English-speaking contexts. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 367–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500341098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Just M. A., Carpenter P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Allyn & Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn-Horwitz J. (2006). English as a foreign language: A non formal test battery. Yozma.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn-Horwitz J., Schwartz M., Share D. L. (2011). Acquiring the complex English orthography: A tri-literacy 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., Sparks R. L., Goldstein Z. (2012). English as a Foreign Language spelling development: A longitudinal study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(2), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716411000397</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> Koda K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross linguistic approach. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koda K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Cross linguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57(S1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.101997010-i1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuo L., Anderson R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levin I., Ravid D., Rapaport S. (2001). Morphology and spelling among Hebrew-speaking children: From kindergarten to first grade. Journal of Child Language, 28(3), 741–772. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000901004834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mann V. A., Wimmer H. (2002). Phoneme awareness and pathways into literacy: A comparison of German and American children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15(7–8), 653–682. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102098470</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muter V., Diethelm K. (2001). The contribution of phonological skills and letter knowledge to early reading development in a multilingual population. Language Learning, 51(2), 187–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nassaji H., Geva E. (1999). The contribution of phonological and orthographic processing skills to adult ESL reading: Evidence from native speakers of Farsi. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(2), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716499002040</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> Quiroda T., Lemos-Britton Z., Mostafapour E., Abbott R. D., Berninger V. W. (2002). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 85–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4405(01)00095-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramirez G., Chen X. I., Geva E., Kiefer H. (2010). Morphological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners: Within and cross-language effects on word reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(3–4), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9203-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramirez G., Chen X. I., Geva E., Lou Y. (2011). Morphological awareness and word reading in English language learners: Evidence from Spanish- and Chinese-speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(3), 601–618. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716411000233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravid D. (2005). Hebrew orthography and literacy. In Joshi R. M., Aaron P. G. (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 339–364). Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russak S., Kahn-Horwitz J. (2013). English as foreign language spelling: Comparisons between good and poor spellers. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrir.12009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad E., Geva E. (2008). Morphological awareness, phonological awareness, and reading in English-Arabic bilingual children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(5), 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9074-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanitsky E. (2013). Unique characteristics of dyslexia in different orthographies: A study of the profile of dyslexia in Russian, Hebrew and English orthography [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Haifa.</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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00409.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz M., Geva E., Share D. L., Leikin M. (2007). Learning to read in English as third language: The cross-linguistic transfer of phonological processing skills. Written Language and Literacy, 10(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.10.1.03sch</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shany M., Lachman D., Shalem Z., Bahat A., Zeiger T. (2006). "Aleph-Taph"—A test for the diagnosis of reading and writing disabilities, based on national Israeli norms. Yesod. (in Hebrew).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shany M., Share D. L. (2011). Subtypes of reading disability in a shallow orthography: A double dissociation between accuracy-disabled and rate disabled readers of Hebrew. Annals of Dyslexia, 61(1), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-010-0047-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimron J. (2006). Reading Hebrew: The language and the psychology of reading it. Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegel L. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger vs. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(4), 304–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200405</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow C., Burn M., Griffin P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solity J., Vousden J. (2009). Real books vs. reading schemes: A new perspective from instructional psychology. Educational Psychology, 29(4), 469–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903103657</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparks R. L., 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> State of Israel Ministry of Education English Inspectorate. (2013). Revised English curriculum: Principles and standards for learning English as an international language for all grades. <ulink href="http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/23A35389-BD87-4469-B8E0-2D1FC55539B3/182677/Englishcurriculum1.pdf">http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/23A35389-BD87-4469-B8E0-2D1FC55539B3/182677/Englishcurriculum1.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun-Alperin M. K., Wang M. (2009). Cross-language transfer of phonological and orthographic processing skills from Spanish L1 to English L2. Reading and Writing, 24(5), 591–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9221-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tannenbaum K. R., Torgesen J. K., Wagner R. K. (2006). Relationships between word knowledge and reading comprehension in third-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1004_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tov-Lee E. (2000). Reading and writing assessment grades 1 to 9. Matthew Zevulun Asher. "Ach" Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Gelderen A., Schoonen R., de Glopper K., Hulstijn J., Simis A., Snellings P., Stevenson M. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(4), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0404_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vermeer A. (2001). Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716401002041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vukovic R. K., Siegel L. (2006). The double-deficit hypothesis: A comprehensive analysis of the evidence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390010401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wade-Woolley L., Geva E. (2000). Processing novel phonemic contrasts in the acquisition of L2 word reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(4), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0404_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang M., Perfetti C. A., Liu Y. (2005). Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock R. (1973). Woodcock reading mastery test—revised. American Guidance.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang M., Cooc N., Sheng L. (2017). An investigation of cross-linguistic transfer between Chinese and English: A meta-analysis. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0036-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaretsky E. (2017). Cross-linguistic transfer: The role of L1 grammatical morphology in L2 reading comprehension among ELLs from low SES. In LaMendola M., Scott J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston university conference on language development (pp. 794–805). Cascadilla Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang D., Koda K. (2008). Contributions of L1 reading sub-skills to L2 development in English as a foreign language among reading school-aged learners. Indonesian Journal of English Teaching, 4(1), 1–17.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0156217200-67"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supplemental material for this article is available on the <emph>Journal of Learning Disabilities</emph> website with the online version of this article.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Liat Feder and Salim Abu-Rabia</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref148"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1335284
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Cognitive Retroactive Transfer of Language Skills from English as a Foreign Language to Hebrew as the First Language
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Feder%2C+Liat%22">Feder, Liat</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Abu-Rabia%2C+Salim%22">Abu-Rabia, Salim</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Learning+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Learning Disabilities</i></searchLink>. May-Jun 2022 55(3):213-228.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– 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><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Processes%22">Cognitive Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Transfer+of+Training%22">Transfer of Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Skills%22">Language Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semitic+Languages%22">Semitic Languages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Native+Language%22">Native Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Improvement%22">Reading Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Improvement%22">Writing Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Difficulties%22">Reading Difficulties</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dyslexia%22">Dyslexia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Israel%22">Israel</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/00222194211003820
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-2194
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The study tested whether cognitive retroactive transfer (CRT) of language skills from English to Hebrew takes place; specifically, whether an improvement in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in English as a foreign language (FL) would lead to an improvement in these skills in Hebrew as the first language (L1). The participants consisted of 124 students in Grade 6 who were randomly assigned to an experimental group or a control group. Each group was further divided into readers with dyslexia, poor readers, and typical readers groups. The experimental group participated in an English intervention program designed for this study. All participants were administered a battery of pre- and post-treatment tests in linguistic and meta-linguistic skills in Hebrew and in English. The findings supported the existence of CRT from skills in English to skills in Hebrew with reference to most of the variables in the domains of reading, writing, and language skills. The improvement in most of the linguistic and meta-linguistic tasks in both English and Hebrew was significantly higher in the experimental group compared with the control group. The innovation of this study was in testing CRT of linguistic and meta-linguistic skills from English to Hebrew. Limitations and direction for future research are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1335284
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1335284
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/00222194211003820
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 213
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Transfer of Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Semitic Languages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Native Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 6
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Difficulties
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Dyslexia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Israel
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Cognitive Retroactive Transfer of Language Skills from English as a Foreign Language to Hebrew as the First Language
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Feder, Liat
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Abu-Rabia, Salim
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-2194
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 55
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Learning Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1