Reading and Memory Skills of Children with and without Dyslexia in Greek (L1) and English (L2) as a Second Language: Preliminary Results from a Cross-Linguistic Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

congratulations for your work! It is really innovative.

I have made few comments for improvements within the text. I hope that they are visible to you. Please make these small changes so that the paper will be perfect.

I hope you continue your research in L1 and L2 differences in dyslexic and typical readers.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think that there is no problew with the quality of your Engish in the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We highly value and appreciate the thoughtful comments and valuable suggestions you have provided. Your input has been incredibly helpful in reviewing our manuscript, and we sincerely thank you for the time and effort you have dedicated to this process. We have carefully addressed all the points raised and highlighted all changes in yellow within the manuscript. Below, we delineate our point-by-point responses to the comments and describe the accompanying changes in the revised manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Comment 1: Check carefully the manuscript if a term appears in full for the first time eg. Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and afterwards put only the abbreviation. Please check all the terms because we have many in the main text. Another idea is to have a short table with the abbreviations of the tools, so the reader who is not familiar with the names, can easily look them on it.

Response 1: We would like to thank you for this suggestion, which was fully addressed in the revised manuscript. We have made a table with the list of abbreviations and their names and inserted it in the manuscript in the appendix. Please see the attachment, pp. 21-22.

Comment 2: Add a short sentence of the implications of the study

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We totally agree with this suggestion. We added the following sentences to the text: “Future implications of this study include a combination of reading and cognitive activities into the teaching methods of English teachers to improve DYS children’s overall performance in learning English as L2.” (page 1, lines 25-27)

Comment 3: “This is commonly attributed to the fact that dyslexia is a persistent, lifelong language disorder”: condition instead of disorder

Response 3: Thank you for this important change. We replaced “disorder” with “condition” in the following sentence: “This is commonly attributed to the fact that dyslexia is a persistent, lifelong language condition” (page 2, lines 44-45).  

Comment 4: Τhe tools are administered in the same order in both L1 and L2 in all children? Or they are given in a random order? Please add this information.

Response 4: This is a very significant detail that we intended to add, but unfortunately, we forgot it. Thank you very much for adding it. We also included information from the next comment in the following paragraph (page 6, lines 267-273): “Each assessment was conducted orally by the same examiner, who was also responsible for scoring. The evaluation process lasted approximately 2 hours (1 hour for the Greek tests and 1 for the English tests) and was divided into 4 sessions (30 minutes each). The assessment tools were administered in the same order for all children in L1 and L2, respectively. However, measuring consecutive similar tasks was avoided due to being too demanding for each participant (e.g. performing two cognitive tasks in a row)”.

Comment 5: Just a thought. All tests are administered and scored by the same person or there were more than one researchers?

Response 5: Thank you again for this information. Indeed, the same person employed and scored each test. We added this information together with the previous comment. See above.

Comment 6: “When considering dyslexic profiles in both languages, we should also take into account factors beyond the transition from L1 to L2. However, children with dyslexia should not be discouraged from learning English. It is critical to implement tailored interventions as early as possible, including both linguistic and cognitive training”. This point is crucial. Does this study have any implications for the teaching of L2 in Greek dyslexic pupils? The authors may have any suggestions on that.

Response 6: We appreciate the opportunity to provide suggestions for teaching English to DYS children in response to your comment. We have included the following paragraph: “Therefore, in addition to individual intervention programs, in the English L2 classroom, DYS children should follow methods and techniques that combine linguistic and cognitive skills to increase their self-confidence in English lessons. It is common, especially in the English language, to encounter many learning strategies based solely on phonological skills, as they represent the core causes of dyslexia. We thus recommend incorporating activities that help develop reading and memory skills (such as language and memory games), allowing DYS learners to improve in both areas, which are critical for learning an L2. The interdependence of language and memory predicts that improvement in both domains may determine DYS children’s future performance in L2. Further, alternative methods, such as the multi-sensory approach, which engages all senses with multiple practices, can also be included in similar curriculums and become effective for DYS students’ performance in SLA” (pp. 20-21, lines 878-889).

Comment 7: In the end of the conclusion, the authors must make a synthesis of the results of the 4 research questions they answered. For instance, a comment about so many robust differences between and within groups may be the result of any other factors which are not mentioned so far?

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the following paragraph (page 21, lines 904-909): “Overall, we conclude that DYS children struggle with reading in both Greek (L1) and English (L2), despite the different orthographic systems, while they also exhibit significant memory deficits in both languages. However, it is important to acknowledge that additional factors could have contributed to substantial differences both between and within groups’ performance, such as socioeconomic status (SES), exposure to English (L2), and individual cognitive differences.

Your contribution is greatly appreciated.

Thank you so much for your valuable input.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Since it is a well researched area, hypotheses should be formed and not research questions. The ones formed, esp. the third one are not clear, they are vague. Therefore, clear hypotheses should be formed, based on previous research

2. The statistical analysis conducted shouls be transferred from the Results sections to the Methodology section

3. The Discussion should rewritten and constructed around the hypotheses formed. There should be a clear statement whether the results confirm the hypotheses or not and if the second is the case, why

4. The authors should write what is the contribution of this study to the already existing knowledge concerning dyslexia in L1 and L2 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions and are truly grateful for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your commitment to our work is truly commendable. We have thoroughly considered all the raised points and have made sure to mark all changes in yellow within the manuscript. Below, we have detailed our responses to each comment and outlined the accompanying changes in the revised manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Comment 1: Since it is a well researched area, hypotheses should be formed and not research questions. The ones formed, esp. the third one are not clear, they are vague. Therefore, clear hypotheses should be formed, based on previous research.

Response 1: Thank you for this crucial change. We have turned all of the four research questions into the following hypothesis (page 5, lines 211-220):

1. DYS children’s performance in English (L2) is expected to be lower than in Greek (L1) in reading, PA, and RAN, as well as in WM and STM.
2. TD children are expected to perform better in Greek (L1) than in English (L2) in reading and PA and similarly in L1 and L2 in RAN, WM, and STM.
3. The DYS group's performance in L1 is expected to be lower in reading, PA, RAN, WM, and STM compared to that of the TD group.
4. DYS children are expected to obtain lower scores in L2 on reading, PA, RAN, WM, and STM compared to TD children.

Comment 2: The statistical analysis conducted should be transferred from the Results section to the Methodology section.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We transferred statistical analysis to a new subsection in the Materials and Methods section (page 11, lines 502-521): 2.4. Statistical analysis.

Comment 3: The Discussion should rewritten and constructed around the hypotheses formed. There should be a clear statement whether the results confirm the hypotheses or not and if the second is the case, why

Response 3: Thank you for this comment. Based on the hypotheses, the discussion has been rewritten and constructed. See Discussion, pp. 16-20, lines 625-853.

Comment 4: The authors should write what is the contribution of this study to the already existing knowledge concerning dyslexia in L1 and L2

Response 4: Thank you very much for this important comment. The study's contribution is included before the hypotheses (page 5, lines 208-211) and in the discussion (page 20, lines 843-853).

We are immensely grateful for your invaluable contribution.

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my comments and suggestions on the previous version have been followed, thefore I recommend acceptance of the paper.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your contribution.