Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:56:48.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A small group intervention for older primary school-aged low-progress readers: Further evidence for efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2019

Kevin Wheldall ,
Nicola Bell ,
Robyn Wheldall ,
Alison Madelaine ,
Meree Reynolds  and
Sarah Arakelian
Kevin Wheldall*
Affiliation:
MultiLit Research Unit, MultiLit Pty Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Department of Educational Studies, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Nicola Bell
Affiliation:
MultiLit Research Unit, MultiLit Pty Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Robyn Wheldall
Affiliation:
MultiLit Research Unit, MultiLit Pty Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Department of Educational Studies, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Alison Madelaine
Affiliation:
MultiLit Research Unit, MultiLit Pty Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Meree Reynolds
Affiliation:
MultiLit Research Unit, MultiLit Pty Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Sarah Arakelian
Affiliation:
MultiLit Research Unit, MultiLit Pty Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Kevin Wheldall, Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to determine the efficacy of a small-group reading instruction program that was delivered over two school terms to Australian students in Years 3 through 6. A large cohort (n = 239) of primary school children was assessed on their literacy skills before and after receiving ‘MacqLit’, a phonics-based program designed for older struggling readers. Parametric and nonparametric difference tests were used to compare results at pre- and postintervention time points. Statistically significant improvements with large effect sizes were observed on all raw score measures of word reading, nonword reading, passage reading and spelling. Statistically significant improvements were also observed on standard score measures of nonword reading and passage reading, suggesting the gains were greater than what might be expected to have resulted from typical classroom instruction. The results indicate that older middle primary school-aged students may benefit from phonics-based, small-group reading instruction.

Keywords

readingliteracychildreninstructionTier 2MacqLit
Type
Articles
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , December 2019 , pp. 35 - 40
Copyright
© Australian Psychological Society Ltd 2019 

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

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2011). Guide to understanding ICSEA. Sydney, Australia: Author.Google Scholar
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2019). My School. Retrieved from https://www.myschool.edu.au/.Google Scholar
Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of Response to Intervention practices for elementary school reading. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
Buckingham, J., Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2012). A randomised control trial of a MultiLit small group intervention for older low-progress readers. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 17, 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckingham, J., Beaman-Wheldall, R., & Wheldall, K. (2014). Evaluation of a two-phase experimental study of a small group (‘MultiLit’) reading intervention for older low-progress readers. Cogent Education, 1, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catts, H.W., Hogan, T.P., & Adlof, S.M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In Catts, H.W. & Kahmi, A.G. (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catts, H.W., Herrera, S., Nielsen, D.C., & Bridges, M.S. (2015). Early prediction of reading comprehension within the simple view framework. Reading and Writing, 28, 1407–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Chall, J.S., & Jacobs, V.A. (2003). Poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 27, 14–15.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., & Leahy, J. (1996). Assessment of lexical and nonlexical reading abilities in children: Some normative data. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 136–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Education , Science & Training. (2005).Google Scholar
Fieldhouse, A. E. (1952). Oral word reading test. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Garcia, J.R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84, 74–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, A., Reid, N.A., & Croft, C. (1981). Burt word reading test. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Hjetland, H.N., Lervåg, A., Lyster, S.H., Hagtvet, B.E., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2019). Pathways to reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from 4 to 9 years of age. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 751–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, W.A., & Gough, P.B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). Learning to read: should we keep things simple? Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonigan, C.J., Burgess, S.R., & Schatschneider, C. (2018). Examining the Simple View of Reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 260–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, F., & Pratt, C. (2001). Martin and Pratt nonword reading test. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
MultiLit. (2016a). MacqLit: the Macquarie program for small group instruction. Sydney, Australia: MultiLit Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
MultiLit. (2016b). MacqLit Manual. Sydney, Australia: MultiLit Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
National Reading Panel. (2000). 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). National Institute of Child Health & Development. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf Google Scholar
Neale, M.D. (1999). Neale analysis of reading ability (3rd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Piasta, S.B., & Justice, L.M. (2010). Cohen’s d statistic. In Salkind, N.J. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 181–185). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading. Nottingham, UK: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
Rowe, K. (2005). Teaching reading: National inquiry into the teaching of literacy. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/5/.Google Scholar
Shearer, E., & Apps, R.A. (1975). Restandardization of the Burt-Vernon and Schonell graded word reading tests. Educational Research, 18, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, P.C. (2016). Elizabeth Usher Memorial Lecture: Language is literacy is language – positioning speech-language pathology in education policy, practice, paradigms and polemics. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 216–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snowling, M.J., Stothard, S.E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Nation, K., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2012). York assessment of reading for comprehension – passage reading (Australian ed.). London, UK: GL Assessment.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, S., Hillman, K., Schmid, M., Rodrigues, S., & Fullarton, J. (2017). Reporting Australia’s results: PIRLS 2016. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Westwood, P. (2005). Spelling: Approaches to teaching and assessment (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Westwood, P.S. (2017). Learning disorders: A response-to-intervention perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2000). A curriculum-based passage reading test for monitoring the performance of low-progress readers: The development of the WARP. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47, 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodcock, R.N. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests-revised examiner’s manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
World Literacy Foundation. (2015). WLF final economic report. Retrieved from https://worldliteracyfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/WLF-FINAL-ECONOMIC-REPORT.pdf Google Scholar