Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:33:05.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meeting Initial Needs In Literacy (MINILIT): Why we Need it, How it Works, and the Results of Pilot Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Meree Reynolds ,
Kevin Wheldall  and
Alison Madelaine
Meree Reynolds*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Kevin Wheldall
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Alison Madelaine
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
*
* Corresponding author. Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As students who have difficulty in acquiring the basic processes in reading are significantly disadvantaged in later schooling, there is a need for effective interventions for young at-risk students. Reading Recovery is the most widely known and extensively promoted intervention for young struggling readers. However, serious reservations have been expressed about both its efficacy and its cost-effectiveness. An alternative intervention (MINILIT), that incorporates findings and recommendations of recent reviews of research about effective instruction in early literacy, has been developed. This intervention features small-group instruction by tutors. The results of three pilot studies of MINILIT are presented. These studies were carried out with Year 1 and Year 2 students in a variety of settings. The students, who were identified as struggling readers by teachers in their schools, attended tutoring sessions for one hour a day, four days a week, for 15 weeks. Pre-testing of individual students on standardised and curriculum-based tests was carried out prior to the intervention and testing was repeated after 15 weeks. Data indicate that students who completed the intervention made significant and substantial gains in both reading and spelling. Results suggest that MINILIT may be a viable intervention that may achieve results similar to, or better than, existing programs with greater cost-effectiveness.

Type
Conference Paper
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , September 2007 , pp. 147 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, S., Berninger, V. W., Bruck, M., Chapman, J., Eden, G., Elbaum, B. et al. (2002, May 20). Evidence-based research on Reading Recovery. Letter to members of the US Congress signed by 31 reading researchers. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.educationnews.org/Curriculum/Reading/ReadingRecoveryisnotsuccessful.htm.Google Scholar
Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. (1995). An evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 240–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. W., Tunmer, W. E., & Prochnow, J. E. (2001). Does success in the Reading Recovery program depend on developing proficiency in phonological-processing skills? A longitudinal study in a whole language instructional context. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 141–176.Google Scholar
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. S., & Willows, D. W. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 71, 393–447.Google Scholar
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs for reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605–619.Google Scholar
Gilmore, A., Croft, C., & Reid, N. (1981). Burt word reading test—New Zealand revision. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Hiebert, E. (1994). Reading Recovery in the United States: What difference does it make to an age cohort? Educational Researcher, 23, 15–25.Google Scholar
Institute of Education Sciences. (2007). WWC intervention report: Reading Recovery. US Department of Education. Retrieved April 14, 2007, from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/InterventionReportLinks.asp?iid=209&tid=01&pg=IntRating.asp.Google Scholar
Iverson, S., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112–125.Google Scholar
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: a longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.Google Scholar
Macquarie University Special Education Centre. (1998a). MULTILIT Word Attack Skills: Presentation and instruction booklet. Sydney: Macquarie University Special Education Centre.Google Scholar
Macquarie University Special Education Centre. (1998b). MULTILIT Sight Words: Presentation and instruction booklet. Sydney: Macquarie University Special Education Centre.Google Scholar
Merrett, F., & Wheldall, K. (1990). Positive teaching in the primary school. London: Chapman.Google Scholar
National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. (2005). Teaching reading: Report and recommendations. Retrieved December 21, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/report_recommendations.pdf.Google Scholar
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No.00-4769). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Neilson, R. (2003a). Sutherland Phonological Awareness Test—Revised (SPAT-R). Jamberoo, NSW: Language, Speech and Literacy Services.Google Scholar
Neilson, R. (2003b). Astronaut Invented Spelling Test (AIST). Jamberoo, NSW: Language, Speech and Literacy Services.Google Scholar
Reynolds, M., & Wheldall, K. (2007). Reading Recovery twenty years down the track: Looking forward, looking back. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54, 199–223.Google Scholar
Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2007). Developing a ramp to reading for at-risk year one students: A preliminary pilot study. Special Education Perspectives, 16, 41–72.Google Scholar
Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of reading: Final report. London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 262–268.Google Scholar
Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 958–996.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Torgeson, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency (TOWRE). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
Tunmer, W., & Chapman, J. W. (2003). The Reading Recovery approach to preventative early intervention: As good as it gets? Reading Psychology, 24, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westwood, P. (1999). Spelling: Approaches to teaching and assessment. Camberwell, Vic.: ACER Press.Google Scholar
Wheldall, K., & Beaman, R. (2000). An evaluation of MULTILIT: Making up for lost time in literacy. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar