Iranian Journal of Educational Sociology 2645-3460 8 Serial Number 8-4 2025 12 01 Comparison of the Effect of Phonological–Visual Approach Training and Working Memory Training on Reading Attitude in Male Second-Grade Elementary Students with Dyslexia in Tehran Comparison of the Effect of Phonological–Visual Approach Training and Working Memory Training on Reading Attitude in Male Second-Grade Elementary Students with Dyslexia in Tehran 1 9 10.61838/wx6k7s26 EN Journal Article 2025 06 01 <p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of phonological–visual approach training and working memory training on improving the reading attitude of male second-grade elementary students with dyslexia in Tehran.</p> <p><strong>Methods and Materials: </strong>This quasi-experimental study employed a pretest–posttest design with an unequal control group. The statistical population consisted of male second-grade elementary students with dyslexia who attended learning disorder centers under the supervision of Tehran’s Special Education Organization between November 5 and December 6, 2024. Using convenience sampling, 45 students were selected and randomly assigned into three equal groups: phonological–visual training, working memory training, and control. The Reading Attitude Scale (McKenna &amp; Kear, 1990) was administered as pretest, posttest, and one-month follow-up. The phonological–visual program included 12 structured sessions focusing on sound-symbol mapping, visual discrimination, and multisensory reading strategies, while the working memory program followed Dan’s (2008) 18-session protocol targeting auditory, visual, and sequential memory processes. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni adjustments after confirming assumptions of covariance homogeneity, sphericity, and equal variances.</p> <p><strong>Findings: </strong>Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of time (F(2, 42) = 412.17, p = .001, η² = .95) and a significant group × time interaction (F(4, 84) = 42.42, p = .001, η² = .67). Pairwise comparisons showed that both phonological–visual and working memory groups improved significantly more than the control group at posttest (mean differences = 9.53 and 12.46, respectively; p = .001). Working memory training produced significantly greater improvements than the phonological–visual approach at posttest and follow-up (mean differences = 2.93 and 2.26; p &lt; .05).</p> <p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both interventions effectively improved reading attitude among students with dyslexia; however, working memory training showed superior and more sustained outcomes, suggesting its greater potential for enhancing motivation and engagement in reading.</p> https://www.qijes.com/index.php/ijes/article/download/1405/1431