Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T12:55:30.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Researching the efficacy of a reading intervention: An object lesson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2020

Kevin Wheldall ,
Robyn Wheldall ,
Nicola Bell Open the ORCID record for Nicola Bell [Opens in a new window]  and
Jennifer Buckingham
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
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
Nicola Bell
Affiliation:
MultiLit Research Unit, MultiLit Pty Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Jennifer Buckingham
Affiliation:
MultiLit Research Unit, MultiLit Pty Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Kevin Wheldall, Email: kevin.wheldall@pecas.com.au
Get access

Abstract

Conducting classroom-based educational research trials is important for establishing the efficacy and effectiveness of specific instructional interventions. Such endeavours, however, are challenging to implement. This was made evident during a recent independent evaluation of the efficacy of the MiniLit program, wherein various difficulties emerged relating to the dosage and fidelity of instruction, and the measures and analyses employed by the research team. As such, this served as an object lesson in what can, and frequently does, go wrong in even the best planned intervention research enterprises conducted in schools. The present article is intended to capture the authors’ experiences in implementing research trials in school contexts, with specific examples drawn from the independent evaluation of MiniLit. In particular, this study has reinforced the need to select assessment measures carefully, according to how well they represent targeted skills in the specific population of interest. In addition, it has highlighted the importance of planning program efficacy trials such that participants can receive enough exposure of the intervention to progress to a realistic extent.

Keywords

literacyreadingprimary schoolMiniLitintervention
Type
Articles
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , December 2020 , pp. 147 - 151
Copyright
© Australian Psychological Society Ltd, 2020

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

Buckingham, J., Wheldall, K., & Beaman-Wheldall, R. (2012). A randomized control trial of a tier two small group intervention (‘MiniLit’) for young struggling readers. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 17, 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Larsen, L., Jones, P., Saunders, S., & McArthur, G. (2009). Assessing the basic components of reading: A revision of the Castles and Coltheart Test with new norms. Australian Journal of Reading Difficulties, 14, 67–88.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., Herrera, S., Nielson, D.C., & Bridges, M.S. (2015). Early predictors of reading comprehension within the simple view framework. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 1407–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, N., Lendrum, A., Ashworth, E., Frearson, K., Buck, R., & Kerr, K. (2016). Implementation and process evaluations (IPE) for interventions in education settings: An introductory handbook. Manchester, UK: Education Endowment Foundation.Google Scholar
Language and Reading 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
MultiLit. (2011). MiniLit Early Literacy Intervention Program. Sydney, Australia: Author.Google Scholar
Nation, K. (2019). Children’s reading difficulties, language, and reflections on the simple view of reading. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 24, 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B.A., Ebersole, C.R., DeHaven, A.C., & Mellor, D.T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, 2600–2606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quach, J., Goldfeld, S., & Clinton, J. (2016, December 15). Evaluation protocol: MiniLit — Building Better Readers: A literacy program for Year 1 students with low reading ability. Melbourne, Australia: Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and the University of Melbourne for Evidence for Learning. https://evidenceforlearning.org.au/assets/LIF-Protocols-SAP/Final-Evaluation-Protocol-Minilit.pdf Google Scholar
Quach, J., Goldfeld, S., Clinton, J., Serry, T., Smith, L., & Grobler, A. (2019). MiniLit: Learning Impact Fund evaluation report. Melbourne, Australia: Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and the University of Melbourne for Evidence for Learning. https://evidenceforlearning.org.au/assets/MiniLit/E4L-MiniLit-Evaluation-Report-FINAL-revised.pdf Google Scholar
Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2010). Components of effective early reading interventions for young struggling readers. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 15, 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2011).What recent reviews tell us about the efficacy of reading interventions for struggling readers in the early years of schooling. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58, 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singal, A.G., Higgins, P.D.R., & Waljee, A.K. (2014). A primer on effectiveness and efficacy trials. Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology, 5, e45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snowling, M., Stothard, S.E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2012a). York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension — Early reading (Australian ed.). GL Assessment.Google Scholar
Snowling, M.J., Stothard, S.E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2012b). York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension — Passage reading (Australian ed.). GL Assessment.Google Scholar
Stockard, J. (2020). The impact of administrative decisions on implementation fidelity of direct instruction and student achievement. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 43, 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunmer, W.E., & Hoover, W.A. (2018). The cognitive foundations of learning to read: A framework for preventing and remediating reading difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 24, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheldall, K., Reynolds, M., & Madelaine, A. (2015). The Wheldall Assessment of Reading Lists (WARL). Sydney, Australia: MultiLit Pty Ltd.Google Scholar