An Academic Intervention Program for EFL University Students With Reading Disabilities

© 2004 INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIATION (pp. 102–113) doi:10.1598/JAAL.48.2.2

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 4 8 : 2 O C T O B E R 2 0 0 4102

Rachel Schiff , Sharon Calif

An academic intervention program for EFLuniversity students with reading disabilitiesAn academic intervention program for EFL

university students with reading disabilities

This program focuses on linguistic,

cognitive, and metacognitive strategies to

help English as a foreign language (EFL)

students read academic texts.

Institutions of higher learning world-wide have a foreign-language require-ment. Brod and Huber (1996) statedthat approximately two thirds of allfour-year institutions of higher learn-ing in the United States have such a requirement.If postsecondary, foreign-language courses are re-quired worldwide, even in a country whose domi-nant language is the lingua franca of the world, aneven stronger case can be made for learningEnglish in the Israeli academic context. Israeli uni-versity students need a reasonably high level ofreading comprehension in English for requiredcourse material. Nadel and Fishman (1977) re-ported that 76% of the books and periodicals inIsraeli university libraries were in English. It is afair assumption that the percentage has increasedsince 1977. Thus, all Israeli colleges and universi-ties have an exit-level, English-language require-ment, which is particularly problematic forstudents with reading disabilities.

The problemIn the past, students with reading disabilitieswishing to attend university were not even able to

meet the entry requirements. The few who wereaccepted found university-level studies so diffi-cult that many dropped out (Wolinsky & Whelan,1999). With the progress of research in the diag-

nosis and remediation of reading dis-abilities, many of these students arenow able to attend and complete theiracademic education. Nonetheless,nearly 52% of adults with reading dis-abilites have difficulty learning a for-eign language (Vogel, 1998). Thus, inmany cases the final obstacle in their

pursuit of an undergraduate degree is the institu-tion’s foreign-language requirement.

Many academic institutions have ignoredthe problem; others have waived the foreign-language requirement. Such solutions oftenundermine the purpose of university-level,foreign-language courses, which are designed andsuited to students’ academic reading needs. Otheracademic institutions accommodate students withreading disabilities by allowing them to meet therequirement by passing related substitution cours-es. This is certainly a better solution, but it doesnot provide the maximal benefits of appropriateteaching. Furthermore, such accommodation hasbeen recently challenged. In a lawsuit broughtagainst Boston University, a group of studentshaving difficulty learning claimed that the univer-sity had not provided appropriate accommoda-tion to their needs. Although an isolated example,this case brought the issue to the foreground of

Schiff is the director of theHaddad Center for Dyslexiaand Reading Disorders at

the Bar-Ilan University(Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel).Calif is the coordinator ofthe English as a foreign

language program at theHaddad Center.

political and educational policy (Sparks &

Granschow, 1999; Wolinsky & Whelan, 1999).

An alternative and more affirmative optionis a foreign-language course especially designedto suit the needs of the undergraduate with read-ing disabilities. Such a course could cater to thestudent’s particular needs and the university re-quirements. This article presents an accommoda-tion and remediation program that meets thespecial needs of the reading disabled without un-dermining or compromising the educational pur-pose of university-level, foreign-language courses.

Language, cognitive, andreading difficulties Reading disabilities have been defined as “language-based disabilities involving several types of lan-guage deficits (phonological, syntactic, and se-mantic), inferencing deficits, and metacognitivemonitoring deficits” (Westby, 2002, pp. 73–74).Students with reading disabilities often fail to at-tain appropriate age- and grade-level readingskills (Bruck, 1990; Gough & Tunmer, 1986).

Students with reading disabilities oftenexhibit native language (L1) difficulties, whichinclude subtle to overt phonological, morpho-logical, syntactic, and semantic L1 difficulties(Cziko, 1978; Granschow, Sparks, Javorsky,Pholman, & Bishop-Marberry, 1991; Schwarz,1997; Sparks & Granschow, 1991; Velluntino &Scanlon, 1986). Studies relating L1 proficiency tosecond-language (L2) competence (T.L. Brown &Haynes, 1985; Koda, 1988; Wagner, 1993) indicatea positive correlation between L1 proficiency andL2 reading skills. If this is the case, then learnerswith reading disabilities are operating under adistinct disadvantage because their L1 languageacquisition is impaired.

The language deficits of students with read-ing disabilities are compounded when they readanother language (Miller-Guron & Lundberg,2000). Second-language readers’ difficulties oftenstem from their inability to employ first-language

syntactic, semantic, and discourse constraints(Cziko, 1978). Furthermore, the foreign-languagereader who has difficulties must cope with newL2 linguistic information on a faulty L1 base.Sparks and Granschow (1991) formulated the“linguistic coding deficit hypothesis” to explainthat the difficulties students with reading disabili-ties have with foreign-language learning are theresult of linguistic coding problems in their L1,which subsequently interferes with their L2learning.

In addition to language difficulties, studentswith reading difficulties are often characterizedby their lack of reading-strategy processing(Swanson, 1990; Torgesen, 1977). Swansontermed them “actively inefficient” (p. 51). Thestrategy use of such readers can be categorized bytheir poor implementation of reading strategiesat three appropriate stages.

• Prereading. Students with reading disabili-ties read without (a) considering how toapproach the material, (b) activating priorknowledge, or (c) knowing the purpose oftheir reading (Cook, 1989).

• Reading. Students with reading disabilitiescannot stay focused; they are easily dis-tracted. These readers do not anticipate orpredict and cannot organize or integratenew material when reading (Cook, 1989).They do not make inferences from text orintegrate ideas from different parts of thetext to create accurate representations(Oakhill & Patel, 1991). Furthermore,these readers are often less skilled in seek-ing and using the structure of a particulartext as an organizational framework(Miranda, Villaescusa, & Vidal-Abarca,1997). In addition, they do not use the textstructure or contextual analysis to assist incomprehension. When students with read-ing disabilities do not understand texts,they cannot employ fix-up strategies(Cook, 1989). Such readers frequently ex-hibit difficulty in understanding mainideas and supporting details and in

An academic intervention program for EFL university students with reading disabilities

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 4 8 : 2 O C T O B E R 2 0 0 4 103

making inferences (Bakken, Mastropieri, &Scruggs, 1997). They typically do not relatewhat is being read to previous knowledge(Bos & Vaughn, 1994) and are also lessable to detect and correct text inconsisten-cies (Garner, 1987).

• Postreading. Students with reading disabili-ties cannot summarize major ideas, reflecton their reading, or seek additional infor-mation from outside sources. When theystop reading, they stop thinking about thetext and consider success in reading tasks amatter of luck. Raphael and Pearson(1985) found that such readers often areunaware that different reading assign-ments pose different kinds of questions(e.g., whether the questions are literal, re-quire an integration of the text, or rely onprior knowledge).

Students with reading disabilities often lackthe awareness to monitor reading strategies(Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002), and they seldomindicate their need to overtly monitor their read-ing (Jiménez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1996). Thesereaders are particularly weak in strategy use andknowledge about strategy use. They are less awareof the reading strategies they use and show lessflexibility in adjusting strategy use to text typeand purpose (Olshavsky, 1976/1977; Olson,Duffy, & Mack, 1984). Such readers frequently donot apply appropriate reading strategies or devel-op them by themselves (H.L. Swanson, 1990;Wong, 1986). Even when these students developstrategies, their implementation is often faulty,and thus they have particular difficulty in moni-toring and coordinating strategies (Butler, 1995).They also find the effective metacognitive moni-toring of reading implemented at different read-ing stages (prereading, reading, and postreading)difficult (Baker & Brown, 1984; Barksdale-Ladd &Thomas, 2000; Baumann, Jones, & Seifert-Kessell,1993; Baumann, Seifert-Kessell, & Jones, 1992;Bos & Vaughn, 1994; Flavell, 1979, 1981; Garner,1994; Garner & Reis, 1981; Kucan & Beck, 1996;Schwarz, 1997; Wade, 1990).

Affective and motivationalfactors In addition to problems in basic language defi-ciencies and reading strategy implementation, stu-dents with reading disabilities also suffer fromnegative affective and motivational factors that in-hibit their academic performance. Repeated fail-ure can lead to a feeling of helplessness. Whenstudents give up, they perpetuate failure until theyare in a cycle that is hard to break (Bruce &Robinson, 2000). Links between attitude, motiva-tion, and strategy use also affect foreign-languagelearning (Yang, 1999). Yang correlated learners’beliefs about language learning and their strategyuse. Yang postulated that students’ beliefs abouttheir abilities affect their goals and motivationalpatterns, which in turn affect their emotional re-sponse to the task. Such affective and motivationalproblems are only mitigated when students’ frus-tration levels drop as a result of their more posi-tive attitude toward learning and achievement.

Pedagogical considerationsStudents with learning disabilities cannot acquirereading strategies by themselves (H.L. Swanson,1990; Wong, 1986). Carrell, Pharis, and Liberto(1989) noted that, frequently, learning strategy isflawed by the lack of consideration given to learn-ers’ individual differences. These students wouldbenefit from teachers who understand theirstrengths and weaknesses and who would consid-er their individual differences and learning styles.Such readers need specific strategy instructionand practice to succeed (Sedita, 1997). Studentswho have difficulty comprehending texts need tobe taught explicitly how, where, and when to im-plement strategies to facilitate and improve theirreading (P.N. Swanson & de la Paz, 1998).Relevant metacognitive strategies, includingmonitoring and executive control strategies, canbe taught (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000; A.Brown, Campione, & Day, 1981; Garner, 1994)and must be taught to students with reading dis-



abilities (Vaidya, 1999). Moreover, L2 reading re-search has shown that linguistic and cognitivestrategies can be taught, and that such instructionimproves students’ performance on reading com-prehension (A. Brown & Palincsar, 1989; Carrell,1985; Carrell et al., 1989; Pearson & Fielding,1991).

The intervention program highlighted inthis article was designed to answer the linguisticand cognitive needs of L2-reading-challengedstudents. The program is based on recent “cross-language” transfer research (e.g., Faerch & Kasper,1987; Hancin-Bhatt & Nagy, 1994; Koda, 1998;Muljani, Koda, & Moates, 1998; Sasaki, 1993),which has focused on how linguistic knowledgeand processing skills are transferred across lan-guages and on their effects on L2 learning andreading. The assumption is that L1 linguistic andmetalinguistic knowledge of language-specificfeatures, such as phonology and morphology,may affect its transfer and effect on L2 reading(Bowey & Francis, 1991; Koda, 1987, 2000;Perfetti, Beck, Bell, & Hughes, 1987; Velluntino &Scanlon, 1987). An extrapolation of this assump-tion is that students with weak L1 (Hebrew)awareness of morphological and syntactic sys-tems and cognitive strategies would find under-standing English words, sentences, and textsbased on English-language morphology and syn-tactic systems even more difficult.

The Haddad interventionprogramStudents in the Haddad Center intervention pro-gram were all undergraduates with a long historyof reading difficulties and were diagnosed withreading disabilities prior to or while attendinguniversity. These students had not been placed inthe regular English courses provided by the uni-versity English as a foreign language (EFL) unitbecause their English psychometric scores were atleast 10% below average. The Haddad Center in-tervention program serves two distinct functionsfor these students: diagnostic and pedagogical.

DiagnosticsAfter the administration of a battery of diagnostictests, the staff initiates personalized mediation pro-grams to help the undergraduates with reading dis-abilities in this program reach the university’srequired reading proficiency level. All these tests aregiven one-on-one under the supervision of a diag-nostician, and students are asked to articulate theirthoughts and strategies while doing the tasks as athink-aloud procedure. The battery of tasks enablesprogram individualization for each student, and itconsists of four categories: IQ (including verbal andnonverbal ability tasks), information processing(including long and short memory tasks), language(including phonological, morphological, and syn-tactical awareness tasks), and reading (includingdecoding, speed, and comprehension tasks). Theonly tasks tested exclusively in students’ L1(Hebrew) were in the IQ section.

The diagnostic tools for assessing languageskills, including phonological, morphological,and syntactical awareness tasks, were given inboth their native L1 (Hebrew) and target L2(English). One phonological awareness task (giv-en in both languages) includes a list of 24 homo-phonic word pairs. Twelve of these pairs arewords that sound the same but have different or-thographic representation (heterographic homo-phones). The other 12 are words withphonological or orthographic similarities but arenot homophones. Examples of English word pairsgiven include no/know and car/care; examples ofHebrew word pairs given include ,KARIS, karish (a shark/a blood clot); and

, MXIR, MKIR, mexir, makir (aprice/he recognizes). Students are given oral andwritten instructions and asked to use their judg-ment to identify and explain which word pairsdid and did not sound the same.

Morphological awareness is assessed sepa-rately from Hebrew and English morphologicaljudgments tasks. In both language tasks, all of themorphologically related word pairs are a base anda linear derivational form. In one such task, givenseparately in Hebrew and English, students are



presented with 20 meaningful word pairs. Ten ofthem share a morphologically based word family.The other 10 have shared letters but are not mor-phologically related. Examples of English wordpairs include farm/farmer and corn/corner;Hebrew word pairs include YM/YMAI, yam/yamai (sea/sailor) and ESH/ISHON, esh/ishon(fire/the pupil of the eye). Students are given oraland written instructions and asked to use theirjudgment to identify and explain which pairs theythink are and are not morphologically related.

The reading comprehension test, modeledon the EFL department test, furnished a baselinescore for comparing the postintervention courseresults. These reading tests usually include global(text-level) and close (sentence-level) readingquestions in some or all of the following formats:multiple choice, open ended, and cloze passage.These questions focus on general ideas, infer-ences, conclusions, text organization, and struc-ture as well as specific references, vocabulary, andthe location of specific information. Students’ an-swers to and scores on the reading comprehen-sion task were not the only goals. More importantfor the intervention program was how the taskswere done. While doing them, students wereasked to articulate their thoughts and strategies asa think-aloud. The think-aloud procedure al-lowed the student and diagnostician to assess theextent to which the student had integrated andimplemented language knowledge and readingstrategies at the appropriate reading stages.

The next step in this remediation programis a meeting with the student and diagnostician toanalyze and discuss the individual’s task results.Because many of the students come with anxi-eties and frustrations they bear from the near anddistant past, each student tells his or her personalstory and expresses fears, hopes, feelings, andbeliefs about ability. At this stage, in addition todiscussing the results and think-aloud of thediagnostic tests, students are asked to reflect, con-sider, and tell how they typically perform readingcomprehension tasks. With the help of the diag-nostician, the individual students are made aware

of their strengths, not just their reading deficien-cies. Individual diagnosticians work one-on-onewith the students to construct a profile of theirunique assets and limitations. The diagnosticianresponds to any questions the students mighthave (frequently because they do not understandthe professional terms used in the diagnosis re-port), reassuring them of the legitimacy of anydifficulty they may encounter. The main messageof the program is the acceptance of the individualwith his or her assets and limitations. Thisprocess leads the student to self-awareness andthe ability to adapt effective reading strategiesand behavior to varied learning situations.

RemediationAlthough linguistic factors and cognitive strate-gies that affect foreign-language reading seem tobe two separate areas of student deficiency, theyare not competitive or mutually exclusive butcomplementary (Koda, 1994), and remediationshould incorporate these two factors. TheHaddad program focuses on metacognition tohelp students overcome their linguistic and cog-nitive strategy deficits. Success in reading com-prehension promotes greater self-efficacy, animproved self-image, and the motivation to readforeign-language texts.

After the initial personalized interview ses-sion, which assesses and accommodates individ-ual assets, limitations, and needs, each student isassigned a personalized program, including atwo-hour weekly session with specially trainedEFL reading teachers for the course on an aca-demic year (approximately 25 sessions). The two-hour sessions are divided into one hour ofindividual instruction and a second hour of in-struction in groups of two to three students.

During the sessions, students are presentedwith the texts from which both linguistic andcognitive strategies are taught and processed.Metacognitive awareness training is taught fromexplicit examples within the text as well as fromgeneralized transferable rules using these examples.



Our program focuses on teaching these linguisticand cognitive strategies by implementing twocomplementary aspects of metacognition: knowl-edge about cognition and the regulation of it.Both aspects are important determinants of suc-cessful learning, efficient reading, and effectivestudying. Although very closely related, these as-pects of metacognition have different characteris-tics. Knowledge about cognition concerns aperson’s knowledge about personal cognitive re-sources and the compatibility between that per-son as a learner and the learning situation.

Morphology and syntaxThe Haddad program promotes students’ learn-ing and understanding of the contribution ofstrategy use in general and how particular strate-gies can be suited to their personal deficits andweaknesses. Students are encouraged to experi-ment with them, reflect on their effect, and adaptand adopt those that prove successful for them. Inaddition to metacognitive strategies that helpreaders monitor and enhance their reading com-prehension, our students, with the help of ourspecially trained teachers, develop an awarenessof English-language-specific features such asmorphology and syntax.

Students with reading disabilities are taughtand encouraged to implement and monitor mor-phological knowledge of word-parsing strategiesto facilitate their understanding of word struc-tures and deduce the meaning of words, especial-ly morphologically complex words. Affixation isintroduced and taught when an unfamiliar af-fixed word is encountered in a text. Teaching anawareness of affixed words and affixation rules isinsufficient. An integral element of the metacog-nitive training is monitoring. Without propermonitoring morphological rules may be over-extended and cause misunderstanding. Studentsmust be aware of the caveat that the presence ofprefix or suffix letter combinations in a worddoes not necessarily presuppose that they func-tion as an affix. As an example of affix monitor-

ing, the prefix dis (as in the word disappear) usu-ally represents negation (in this case, of appear).Yet, students with reading disabilities (who are of-ten prone to “overgeneralization”) are warned notto “overgeneralize” the prefix when reading otherwords, such as display, where the dis does not in-dicate the negation of play.

Another important component of this pro-gram is based on the awareness of the English-language-specific syntax. Students must becomeaware of basic syntactic differences betweenEnglish and Hebrew. Many of our student-generated reading errors are attributed to the lackof syntactic awareness that in English the adjectiveprecedes the noun. (In their L1, Hebrew, the nounprecedes the adjective.) This problem is exacerbat-ed by English noun–noun phrases. In English,when a noun is preceded by another one the firstnoun acts as an adjective. Native English readersfind nothing particularly difficult in a phrase like“a defense trial tactic.” Weak foreign-languagereaders, especially Hebrew readers (who are usedto the noun preceding the adjective), find suchphrases particularly enigmatic and incomprehen-sible. An integral element of metacognitive train-ing is monitoring, and in the case of syntax propermonitoring includes the understanding thatlanguage-specific features of English cannot be“backtranslated” into Hebrew. Many studentswith reading disabilities approach English textswith linguistic skills that may well serve them forHebrew texts but are unsuitable for English texts.Thus, when students translate English sentencesword by word into Hebrew, ignoring syntactic dif-ferences, the result is often a completely mistakenunderstanding and translation of the sentence.

Syntax awareness and monitoring also in-clude an awareness of the position or function ofindividual words in context. Another example ofsyntactical monitoring is found in the followingsentence: The man felt sorry for himself. Studentswho misread the verb in this sentence (felt) as thename of a material used in the manufacture ofmen’s hats show a lack of awareness of Englishsentence structure. The position of the word felt



in this sentence is that of the verb in an English

sentence. This specific error may be from looking

up the word in a dictionary without syntactical

monitoring of the multiple entries there.

Another often confusing lexeme unknown

to Hebrew readers that needs inductive teaching

and monitoring is the phrasal verb (verb +

preposition). This two-word verb form often con-

fuses native Hebrew readers for two reasons. First,

many prepositions in Hebrew are affixes and do

not appear as separate words. Furthermore,

Hebrew speakers with reading disabilities often

“translate” these verb forms literally and do not

realize that the two-word combination is an inde-

pendent lexical entity. For example, the phrasal

verb to “look up” is translated by these readers as

to “gaze above,” yet when the phrasal verb is used

for checking a reference source, Hebrew readers

are often stumped.

In addition to English-language-specific

features relevant for reading, text-reading strate-

gies are also taught. Text sessions often start with

prereading strategies. These include reading the

title, skimming and scanning, and reading the

questions, which stimulate the retrieval of infor-

mation available to the reader before a close read-

ing of the text.

Students are taught how to recognize lin-

guistic features within the title, including any

unfamiliar words. They are also taught the im-

portance of the titles for activating prior knowl-

edge and making predictions about text content.

The follow-up of this prereading task includes

constant reexamination of the title and predic-

tion while reading.

Texts are surveyed for genre types such as

newspaper articles, book chapters and reviews,

professional journal articles, and so on. Texts are

also skimmed and scanned for visual information

such as subtitles or topic headings; pictures, dia-

grams, tables, charts, or illustrations; italics, bold-

face, or underscore; and numerals or capital

letters. After skimming and scanning, students are

again encouraged to formulate, verbalize, and

reexamine their predictions.

The functions of uppercase letters in

English need special explanation to Hebrew read-

ers because Hebrew does not have capital letters.

In the intervention program, we specifically em-

phasize their use and function. These markers

should be exploited for better text understanding.

Another prereading strategy is the reading of

questions, which helps readers identify the pur-

pose of their reading. Skimming and scanning

techniques, such as noticing specific visual infor-

mation, are important when prereading and when

surveying text questions. Questions are intrinsi-

cally short and concise; they are less threatening

and easier to manage than whole paragraphs and

sections of the text. For a better understanding of

the questions themselves, students should be

taught and reminded of language-specific features

of English and how these apply to the structure of

questions.

Many test formats include headings that

precede particular sets of questions. These head-

ings often direct readers to specific paragraphs or

sections of the text or indicate specific instruc-

tions for the particular questions. Headings often

precede questions and indicate whether they are

global or close-reading questions. Readers also

learn to differentiate and address these two basic

question types. Students are advised to first ad-

dress the close-reading questions and answer the

global questions later.

Prereading questions are used as a reading

tool to better understand the text, better predict

its content, focus on the main idea, and identify

relevant and unfamiliar lexical items. Reading the

questions before and while reading not only helps

text comprehension but also helps students to an-

swer the text questions correctly. Extended use of

such prereading strategies empowers students to

approach academic English texts with better pre-

diction tools and more confidence, which in turn

lowers their anxiety levels.



After being taught prereading strategies andusing them on the text and questions, readersshould be able to stay focused on the topic orproblem of a text. Paragraph organization is oftenhighlighted by structure; opening topic sentence,restatement and expansion, and summary arestudied and integrated to facilitate comprehen-sion. Awareness of marker words (e.g., however,consequently) and phrases (e.g., “in addition,”“asa result of”) and awareness of markers of chrono-logical order and sequence are integrated asstrategies to help readers focus on particular “intratextual” relationships (e.g., understandingmain ideas and supporting details, inferences,conclusions). These markers should also helpreaders detect and use “fix-up” strategies for tex-tual inconsistencies.

Another strategy used in reading and foranswering close-reading questions is rereading.By reactivating the information furnished by thetext and questions, readers should be able to bet-ter answer the close-reading questions. At thispoint, readers are taught and encouraged to im-plement intratextual strategies such as complexsentence structure, rhetorical structures, andwords used as markers to help integrate new ma-terial while reading. To better understand com-plex sentences, students are taught parsingstrategies and are reminded to use cross-languagemetalinguistic–syntactic monitoring strategies.Rereading often helps readers syntactically parseand chunk phrases and sentences to facilitate un-derstanding.

Parallel to the microtext organization ofparagraphs, the connection between paragraphsand sections facilitates understanding of the textas a whole. Besides the ability to answer specificquestions on global concepts of a text, advancedreaders can compare and contrast the ideas ofother readings and material and use the text toquestion and challenge other beliefs and ideas.Postreading activities reflect higher order readingneeds, such as the ability to summarize the mainideas, to understand the implications and appli-cations of the text for needs other than decontex-

tualized artificial reading (as is required forforeign-language courses), and to seek additionalinformation for these outside needs when useful.Verbalization while learning helps students for-mulate and implement strategies, and their use ofverbalization helps them verify their success atimplementation and fulfillment of the statedgoal. After learning, implementing, and monitor-ing these linguistic and cognitive reading strate-gies, adapted to their individual deficiencies andabilities, students are often empowered to bettermediate their progress toward more effective andefficient reading.

Metacognitive training as remediation isonly part of the Haddad program. Students’awareness of the reading strategies and how touse them ensures success in reading comprehen-sion (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002). However, asDembo (1994) noted, knowledge of a learningstrategy is not enough; students must be motivat-ed to use it. The Haddad program is distin-guished by the consideration given to affectiveand motivational factors, which previously stunt-ed the academic and personal growth of thesestudents. Effectively applying reading strategiesleads to a sense of control that promotes self-efficacy and motivation to apply the strategy(Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). The cognitive recog-nition of the reciprocal and recursive results ofeffective strategy use and positive feedback thatgenerates motivation provide a new experiencefor many of the program’s participants. The mainmessage of the program is one of acceptance ofthe individual with his or her particular assetsand limitations. The program gives students self-awareness and the ability to adapt effective read-ing strategies and behavior to varied learningsituations. Accentuating their positive capabilitiesgives students a sense of control, increases theirmotivation, and thus contributes to more suc-cessful task completion. According to the attribu-tion theory, when individuals perceive theirabilities as the source of their success, they arelikely to attempt similar tasks with the expecta-tion of success. Self-perception is a major deter-minant of behavior (Vaidya, 1999).



One student’s journeyWhen Orli came to the Haddad Center four yearsago as an undergraduate studying special educa-tion at Bar Ilan University, she was 24 years oldand from a financially stable, upper middle classurban family. Orli had never done well in English.She finished her high school matriculation despitea failing grade in English. She was placed in thelowest level EFL course, which she failed beforecoming to the Haddad Center. At the center, shetook the battery of diagnostic tasks and showed anormal level of intelligence on verbal and nonver-bal tasks. In contrast, her scores for short- andlong-term memory were lower than average. Orlialso scored below average in L1 Hebrew phono-logical and morphological skill tasks. Her scoreswere considerably lower for phonological andmorphological skill tasks in English.

In the reading tasks, Orli’s Hebrew readingwas relatively slow. Her English reading was evenslower and with various types of mistakes. An ex-ample of a phonologically based error was Orli’smisreading of the word worship. From her answer,she understood worship as warship. This misread-ing was probably due to her untrained ear. Tomost Israelis, these words are homophonic.Furthermore, the error might have been the prod-uct of her unfamiliarity with the former word andher familiarity with the latter. An example of themorphologically based confusion can be found inOrli’s misreading of the word leadership. Again, onthe basis of her answer to a reading question, weasked Orli what she thought the word leadershipmeant. Her answer indicated that she understoodleadership as the leading ship. Orli understood theroot of lead but did not understand that the shiphere was a noun suffix. In both cases, the context,close and global, did not provide Orli with any in-dication of her misunderstandings.

Orli’s linguistic errors seemed to be causedby the transfer of Hebrew grammar to Englishtexts. For example, when reading a particular texttitled “Culture Shock,” Orli explained her under-standing of the title as a preface to a description of

a “shocking culture.” When we reminded her thatin English (as opposed to her native Hebrew), ad-jectives precede nouns, Orli realized her mistake.Her reading comprehension scores in Hebrewshowed significant signs of difficulty with the or-ganization and structure of longer texts. InEnglish, she had difficulty with texts of all lengths.

In her think-aloud protocols, and in herconversation with the diagnostician, Orli felt rea-sonably comfortable about local questions onHebrew texts. She complained that she foundeven the shortest texts in English difficult, and shewas frustrated and disappointed by her consistentfailure in them. Orli reported that her frustrationwas particularly acute considering the time andeffort she invested in her English homework. Shebelieved that the return on her effort was not acommensurate reward. Most confounding washer feeling of helplessness and that her Englishreading was a lost cause.

Given Orli’s task results and her think-aloudprotocols, the Haddad Center staff constructedher personalized intervention program. This pro-gram focused on language aspects, her seeminglynegative cross-language transfer, her cognitive useof strategies (prereading, reading, and postread-ing), and her metacognitive monitoring of thesecognitive strategies. Targeting her specific weak-nesses and creating her conscious awareness ofthem helped overcome her liabilities and empow-ered her to master reading English academic texts.

Today, Orli is a master’s student. She claimsthat metacognitive awareness of the process, par-ticularly the strategies, helped her reach self-regulation and success in reading. Orli felt thatknowledge and awareness of the differences be-tween Hebrew and English contributed greatly inher ability to master English reading. She claimsshe now uses strategies she learned for readingEnglish texts when reading long and difficultHebrew texts. Although Orli’s success is notunique, each and every success brings personalreward to the student and satisfaction and en-couragement to all the partners involved.



Results and positive feedbackAnother measure of the success of the HaddadCenter academic intervention program is our stu-dents’ success in passing the English as a foreignlanguage department final exam. An examinationof students’ English reading comprehension testscores (for tests of a comparable level) upon enter-ing the program (an average score of 50%), theirscores at the completion of the intervention pro-gram (an average score of 81%), and their scoreson the EFL department exam (an average of 78%)shows considerable progress in students’ ability tosuccessfully comprehend English texts and mastersuch tests. The ability to read academic texts effec-tively can enhance students’ overall academicachievement (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002).

Postintervention course interviews demon-strate that task scores provide more than anacademic profile. After mastering basic text com-prehension, the same students who reported anx-iety and frustration about learning English nowrelate their sense of accomplishment and motiva-tion to continue their academic studies.

Helping students feel good about them-selves and giving positive feedback about aca-demic accomplishments are key components fortheir future positive task performance. By moni-toring their own progress throughout the course,students gain a feeling of accomplishment andsatisfaction. Success breeds success, and after theirfirst experience of success students feel betterequipped to meet future academic challenges.

REFERENCESBaker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills in read-

ing. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P.

Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp.

353–394). New York: Longman.

Bakken, J.P., Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1997).

Reading comprehension of expository science material

and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of

strategies. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 300–324.

Barksdale-Ladd, M.A., & Thomas, K.F. (2000).

Metacognitive processes: Teaching strategies in literacy

education courses. Reading Psychology, 21, 384–397.

Baumann, J.F., Jones, L.A., & Seifert-Kessell, N. (1993).

Using think-alouds to enhance children’s comprehension

monitoring abilities. The Reading Teacher, 47, 184–193.

Baumann, J.F., Seifert-Kessell, N., & Jones, L.A. (1992). Effect

of think-aloud instruction on elementary students’ com-

prehension monitoring abilities. Journal of Reading

Behavior, 24, 143–167.

Bos, C.S., & Vaughn, S. (1994). Strategies for teaching students

with learning and behavior problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bowey, J.A., & Francis, J. (1991). Phonological analysis as a

function of age and exposure to reading instruction.

Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 91–121.

Brod, R., & Huber, B.J. (1996). The MLA survey of foreign

language entrance and degree requirements 1994–1995.

ADFL Bulletin, 28, 35–43.

Brown, A., Campione, J., & Day, J. (1981). Learning to learn:

On training students to learn from texts. Educational

Researcher, 10, 14–21.

Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learn-

ing and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick

(Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of

Robert Glasner (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, T.L., & Haynes, M. (1985). Literacy background and

reading development in second language. In T.H. Carr

(Ed.), The development of reading skills (pp. 19–34). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bruce, M.E., & Robinson, G.L. (2000). Effectiveness of a

metacognitive reading program for poor readers. Issues in

Educational Research, 10, 1–20.

Bruck, M. (1990). Word recognition skills of adults with

childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Developmental

Psychology, 26, 439–454.

Butler, L. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by post-

secondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 28, 170–190.

Carrell, P.L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text

structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727–757.

Carrell, P.L., Pharis, B.G., & Liberto, J.G. (1989).

Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL

Quarterly, 20, 463–494.

Cook, G. (1989). Discourse in language teaching: A scheme for

teacher education. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cziko, G. (1978). Differences in first- and second-language

reading: The use of syntactic, semantic and discourse con-

straints. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 473–489.

Dembo, M.H. (1994). Applying educational psychology (5th

ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1987). Perspectives on language

transfer. Applied Linguistics, 8, 111–136.

Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognition monitor-

ing: A new area of cognitive development inquiry.

American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.



Flavell, J.H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W.P. Dickson

(Ed.), Children’s oral communication skills (pp. 35–60).

New York: Academic Press.

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Garner, R. (1994). Metacognition and executive control. In

R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical

models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 715–732).

Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Garner, R., & Reis, R. (1981). Monitoring and resolving com-

prehension obstacles: An investigation of spontaneous

text lookbacks among upper-grade good and poor com-

prehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 569–582.

Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and

reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

Granschow, L., Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., Pholman, J., &

Bishop-Marberry, A. (1991). A “foreign” language learn-

ing disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 530–541.

Hancin-Bhatt, B., & Nagy, W. (1994). Lexical transfer and

second language morphological development. Applied

Psycholinguistics, 15, 289–310.

Jiménez, R.T., Garcia, G.E., & Pearson, P.D. (1996). The

reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are

successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles.

Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 90–112.

doi:10.1598/RRQ.31.1.5

Koda, K. (1987). Cognitive strategy transfer in second lan-

guage reading. In J. Devine, P.L. Carrell, & D.E. Eskey

(Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language

(pp. 125–144). Washington, DC: Teachers of English to

Speakers of Other Languages.

Koda, K. (1988). Cognitive process in second language read-

ing: Transfer of L1 reading skills and strategies. Second

Language Research, 4, 133–156.

Koda, K. (1994). Second language reading research: Problems

and possibilities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 1–28.

Koda, K. (1998). The role of phonemic awareness in second

language reading. Second Language Research, 14, 194–215.

Koda, K. (2000). Cross-linguistics variations in L2 morpho-

logical awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 297–320.

Kucan, L., & Beck, I. (1996). Thinking aloud and reading

comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social

interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271–299.

Miller-Guron, L., & Lundberg, I. (2000). Dyslexia and second

language reading: A second bite at the apple? Reading and

Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 41–61.

Miranda, A., Villaescusa, M.I., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (1997). Is

attribution retraining necessary? Use of self-regulation

procedures for enhancing the reading comprehension

strategies of children with learning disabilities. Journal of


Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C.A. (2002). Assessing readers’

metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 94, 249–259.

Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’

awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental

Education, 25(3), 2–10.

Muljani, D., Koda, K., & Moates, D.R. (1998). The develop-

ment of word recognition in a second language. Applied

Psycholinguistics, 19, 99–113.

Nadel, E., & Fishman, J. (1977). English in Israel: A socio-

linguistic study. In J. Fishman, R. Cooper, & A. Conrad

(Eds.), The spread of English: The sociology of English as an

additional language (pp. 127–167). Rowley, MA: Newbury

House.

Oakhill, J., & Patel, S. (1991). Can imagery training help chil-

dren with comprehension problems? Journal of Research

in Reading, 14, 106–115.

Olshavsky, J.E. (1976/1977). Reading as problem solving: An

investigation of strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 12,

654–675.

Olson, G.M., Duffy, S.A., & Mack, R.I. (1984). Thinking-out-

loud as a method for studying real-time comprehension

processes. In D. Kieras & M.A. Just (Eds.), New methods

in reading comprehension research (pp. 253–286).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pearson, P.D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruc-

tion. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D.

Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp.

815–860). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Perfetti, C.A., Beck, I., Bell, L., & Hughes, C. (1987).

Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal:

A longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill-

Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283–319.

Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (1996). Motivation in educa-

tion: Theory, research, and application. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Raphael, T., & Pearson, P.D. (1985). Increasing students’

awareness of sources of information for answering ques-

tions. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 217–235.

Sasaki, Y. (1993). Paths of processing strategy transfer in

learning Japanese and English as foreign languages: A

competition model approach. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 16, 43–72.

Schwarz, R.L. (1997). Learning disabilities and foreign lan-

guage learning: A painful collision. Retrieved March 14,

2002, from http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/foreign_

lang/painful_collision.html

Sedita, J. (1997). A call for more study skills instruction. Retrieved

June 9, 2002, from http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/

teaching_techniques/study_skill_instruction.html

Sparks, R., & Granschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learn-

ing difficulties: Affective or native language aptitude dif-

ferences? Modern Language Journal, 75, 3–6.

Sparks, R., & Granschow, L. (1999). The Boston University

lawsuit: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of




Swanson, H.L. (1990). Instruction derived from the strategy

deficit model: Overview of principles and procedures. In

T. Scruggs & B.Y.L. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in

learning disabilities (pp. 34–65). New York: Springer-

Verlag.

Swanson, P.N., & de la Paz, S. (1998). Teaching effective

comprehension strategies to students with learning and

reading disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33,

209–218.

Torgesen, J.K. (1977). The role of nonspecific factors in the

task performance of learning disabled children: A theoret-

ical assessment. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 14–20.

Vaidya, S.R. (1999). Metacognitive learning strategies for stu-

dents with learning disabilities. Education, 120, 186–189.

Velluntino, F., & Scanlon, D. (1986). Linguistic coding and

metalinguistic awareness: Their relationship to verbal and

code acquisition in poor and normal readers. In D. Yaden

& S. Templeton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and be-

ginning literacy (pp. 115–141). Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Velluntino, F.R., & Scanlon, D.M. (1987). Phonological cod-

ing, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence

from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-

Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321–363.

Vogel, S. (1998). Adults with learning disabilities. In S. Vogel

& S. Reder (Eds.), Learning disabilities and adult education

(pp. 5–28). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Wade, S. (1990). Using think-alouds to assess comprehen-

sion. The Reading Teacher, 43, 442–451.

Wagner, D.A. (1993). Literacy, culture, and development:

Becoming literate in Morocco. Boston: Cambridge

University Press.

Westby, C. (2002). Beyond decoding: Critical and dynamic

literacy for students with dyslexia, language learning dis-

abilities (LLD), or attention deficit-hyperactivity

(ADHD). In K.G. Butler & E.R. Silliman (Eds.), Speaking,

reading, and writing in children with language learning dis-

abilities: New paradigms in research and practice (pp.

73–107). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wolinsky, S., & Whelan, A. (1999). Federal law and the ac-

commodation of students with LD: The lawyers’ look at the

BU decision. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 286–291.

Wong, B.Y.L. (1986). Metacognition and special education: A

review of a view. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 9–29.

Yang, N.H. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’

beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515–535.



Documents

An Academic Intervention Program for EFL University Students With Reading Disabilities