What we have learned: implementing MiniLit as an intervention with young struggling readers

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of studies and evaluations investigating the efficacy of MiniLit

Study	Type	Setting	n students	Grade	Frequency	Duration of intervention*
Reynolds et al. (2007a)	Cohort study (Pilot #1)	Tutorial centre	5 (1 cohort)	1–2	1 hr/day, 4 days/wk	15 weeks (60 hrs)
Reynolds et al. (2007b)	Cohort study (Pilot #2)	Tutorial centre	8 (1 cohort)	1–2	1 hr/day, 4 days/wk	15 weeks (60 hrs)
Reynolds et al. (2007c)	Cohort study (Pilot #3)	Tutorial centre	8 (1 cohort)	1–2	1 hr/day, 4 days/wk	15 weeks (60 hrs)
Reynolds et al. (2010a)	RCT with experimental and waitlist-control groups	Independent school with high SES	16 (2 groups)	1	¾ hr/day, 5 days/wk	10 weeks/group (37.5 hrs)
Buckingham et al. (2012; 2013)	RCT with experimental and waitlist-control groups	State school with low SES	22 (2 groups)	K, 2	1 hr/day, 4 days/wk	27 weeks/group (108 hrs)
Wheldall and Wheldall (2014)	Aggregated data from cohort studies conducted from mid-2010 to 2013	Tutorial centres	104–161 (7 cohorts)	1–3	1 hr/day, 4 days/wk	Av. 16 weeks (av. 64 hrs)
Wheldall et al. (2017)	Aggregated data from cohort studies conducted from 2005 to 2011	Tutorial centres	63–194 (14 cohorts)	1–3	1 hr/day, 4 days/wk	Av. 15 weeks (av. 60 hrs)
Wheldall et al. (2019)	Aggregated data from cohort studies conducted from 2008 to 2010	Schools with high Indigenous student population	71–103 (6 cohorts)	1–4	1 hr/day, 5 days/wk	Av. 18 weeks (av. 90 hrs)
Quach et al. (2019)	RCT with experimental and control (business-as-usual) groups	Schools	217 (9 schools)	1	1 hr/day, 5 days/wk	20 weeks (av. 79 hrs)

Note. RCT = Randomized control trial; SES = socio-economic status. *Duration of intervention (in weeks) also represents the approximate number of weeks between pre- and post-test time points.

Table 2. Dimensions measured in studies and associated Effect Sizes (ES)

Study	Dimension/s	n	Assessment Tool/s	ES
Reynolds et al. (2007a)	Word reading	5	BWRT	1.80
		5	TOWRE: Sight Words	1.55
	Phonemic decoding	5	TOWRE: Phonemic decoding	2.26
	Phonemic awareness	5	SPAT-R	3.10
		5	AIST	1.38
	Spelling	5	SAST	1.72
Reynolds et al. (2007b)	Word reading	8	BWRT	1.13
		8	TOWRE: Sight Words	0.63
	Phonemic decoding	8	TOWRE: Phonemic Decoding	5.90
	Phonemic awareness	8	SPAT-R	2.35
		8	AIST	1.58
	Spelling	8	SAST	1.34
Reynolds et al. (2007c)	Word reading	8	BWRT	1.06
		8	TOWRE: Sight Words	0.66
	Phonemic decoding	8	TOWRE: Phonemic Decoding	3.06
	Phonemic awareness	8	SPAT-R	1.55
		8	AIST	0.64
	Spelling	8	SAST	0.99
Reynolds et al. (2010a) Phase 1 only	Word reading	16	WIAT-II: Word Reading	0.74
	Phonemic decoding	16	WIAT-II: Pseudoword Decoding	0.62
	Spelling	16	WIAT-II: Spelling	1.67
	Comprehension	16	WIAT-II: Reading Comprehension	0.67
	Word reading fluency	16	WARL	1.03
Buckingham et al. (2012; 2013) (after 3 terms)	Word reading	22	BWRT	0.359*
	Phonemic decoding	22	Martin & Pratt	0.587*
	Spelling	22	SAST	0.204*
	Word reading fluency	22	WARL	0.900*
Wheldall and Wheldall (2014)	Word reading	161	BWRT	1.68
	Phonemic decoding	105	Martin & Pratt	1.53
	Phonemic awareness	159	SPAT-R	1.53
	Spelling	161	SAST	1.76
	Vocabulary	105	PPVT-IV	0.91
	Word reading fluency	160	WARL	1.83
Wheldall et al. (2017)	Word reading	186	BWRT	1.62
	Phonemic decoding	63	Martin & Pratt	1.32
	Phonemic awareness	185	SPAT-R	1.46
		123	AIST	1.07
	Spelling	194	SAST	1.56
	Word reading fluency	163	WARL	1.30
Wheldall et al. (2019)	Word reading	103	BWRT	1.63
	Phonemic decoding	103	Martin & Pratt	1.21
	Spelling	103	SAST	1.39
	Phonemic awareness	102	SPAT-R	1.39
		71	AIST	1.15
	Vocabulary	102	PPVT-IV	0.91
	Word reading fluency	102	WARL	1.22
Quach et al. (2019)**	Letter-sound knowledge	130	YARC-ER Letter-sound Knowledge	1.44
	Phonemic awareness Word reading	130 130	YARC-ER Phonemic Awareness YARC-ER Early Word Recognition	0.65 0.08
	Regular word reading	130	Castles and Coltheart −2	0.59
	Phonemic decoding Irregular word reading	130 130	Castles and Coltheart −2 Castles and Coltheart −2	0.43 –0.16

Note. ES = Effect size; BWRT = Burt Word Reading Test (Gilmore, Croft, & Reid, 1981); TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Efficiency (Torgeson, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999); SPAT-R = Sutherland Phonological Awareness Test – Revised (Neilson, 2003a); AIST = Astronaut Invented Spelling Test (Neilson, 2003b); SAST = South Australian Spelling Test (Westwood, 1999); WIAT-II = Weschler Individual Achievement Test 2^nd ed. (Wechsler, 2007); WARL = Wheldall Assessment of Reading Lists (Wheldall, Reynolds, & Madelaine, 2015); Martin & Pratt = Martin and Pratt Nonword Reading Test (Martin & Pratt, 2001); PPVT-IV = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4^th ed. (Dunn & Dunn, 2007); YARC-ER = York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension – Early Reading (Hulme et al., 2010).

* In this study ES = partial eta squared. A large ES is evident when partial eta squared is greater than or equal to .138.

** These are the Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE) analysis effect sizes (collected 6 months from pre-test) for the children who met the attendance criteria of at least 80% of lessons.

Table 3. Components of MiniLit and MiniLit Sage lessons

MiniLit (60 minutes, 4–5 times per week) 80 lessons	MiniLit Sage (45 mins, 4–5 times per week) 100 lessons
Sounds and words activities (30–40 minutes, daily) Learning grapheme-phoneme correspondences and how to blend them to decode words	Working with sounds and words (30 minutes, daily) Learning grapheme-phoneme correspondences and how to apply them to spelling. The scope and sequence has been changed to align with InitiaLit and the InitiaLit readers. Additional phonemic awareness and handwriting/letter formation activities. An updated approach to “tricky words”
Text reading (7–10 minutes, daily) Developing automaticity in word reading.	Practice and application (15 minutes, daily) Reading sounds and words, fluency practice, “Putting it all together” (reading sentences, paragraphs and stories), and connected text reading (accuracy and fluency with decodable readers) More time and focus on automaticity at the sounds and word level (e.g. sound sprints, word relay) and oral reading fluency (e.g. echo reading) More time to practice reading using decodable text and books
Storybook reading (7–10 minutes, daily)

Note. More information about MiniLit and MiniLit Sage is available at https://multilit.com/programs/minilitsage/

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2007a). Developing a ramp to reading for at-risk year one students: A preliminary pilot study. Special Education Perspectives, 16(1), 39–69.

 Google Scholar

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2007b). ‘Meeting Initial Needs In Literacy’ (MINILIT): A ramp to MULTILIT for younger low-progress readers. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(2), 67–72.

 Google Scholar

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2007c). ‘Meeting Initial Needs In Literacy’ (MINILIT): Why we need it, how it works and the results of pilot studies. Australian Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 147–158.

 Google Scholar

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2010a). An experimental evaluation of the efficacy of an intervention for young struggling readers in year one. Special Education Perspectives, 19(2), 35–57.

 Google Scholar

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(2), 79–99.

 Google Scholar

Buckingham, J., Wheldall, K., & Beaman-Wheldall, R. (2013). Evaluation of a two-phase implementation of a tier 2 (small group) reading intervention for young low-progress readers. Australian Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 169–185.

 Google Scholar

Wheldall, K., & Wheldall, R. (2014). Report on the efficacy of the tutorial centres provided by the Exodus Foundation, mid-2010-2013 [Unpublished research report].

 Google Scholar

Wheldall, K., Wheldall, R., Madelaine, A., Reynolds, M., & Arakelian, S. (2017). Further evidence for the efficacy of an evidence based, small group, literacy intervention program for young struggling readers. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 22(1), 3–13.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wheldall, K., Wheldall, R., Madelaine, A., Reynolds, M., Arakelian, S., & Kohnen, S. (2019). ‘Just teach our kids to read’: Efficacy of intensive reading interventions for both younger and older low-progress readers in schools serving mainly remote Indigenous communities. In J. Rennie, and H. Harper (Eds.), Literacy education and Indigenous Australians. Singapore: Springer 221–246 . doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8629-9_13

 Google Scholar

Quach, J., Goldfeld, S., Clinton, J., Serry, T., Smith, L., & Grobler, A. (2019). MiniLit: Learning impact fund evaluation report. Evidence for Learning. Accessed 30 November 2020. https://evidenceforlearning.org.au/lif/our-projects/minilit

 Google Scholar

Gilmore, A., Croft, C., & Reid, N. (1981). Burt word reading test – New Zealand revision. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

 Google Scholar

Torgeson, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency (TOWRE). (Austin, TX: PRO-ED) .

 Google Scholar

Neilson, R. (2003a). Astronaut Invented Spelling Test (AIST). Jamberoo, NSW: Language, Speech and Literacy Services.

 Google Scholar

Neilson, R. (2003b). Sutherland phonological awareness test – revised (SPAT-R). Jamberoo, NSW: Language, Speech and Literacy Services.

 Google Scholar

Westwood, P. (1999). Spelling: Approaches to teaching and assessment. Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press.

 Google Scholar

Wechsler, D. (2007). Wechsler individual achievement test – 2nd ed, Australian standardised version (WIAT-II Australian). Marrickville, NSW: Pearson.

 Google Scholar

Wheldall, K., Reynolds, M., & Madelaine, A. (2015). The Wheldall assessment of reading lists. Sydney, NSW: MultiLit Pty Ltd.

 Google Scholar

Martin, F., & Pratt, C. (2001). Martin and Pratt nonword reading test. Melbourne, VIC: ACER.

 Google Scholar

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Education.

 Google Scholar

Hulme, C., Stothard, S. E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Truelove, E., & Snowling, M. J. (2010). York assessment of reading for comprehension: Early reading. London, UK: GL Assessment.

 Google Scholar