A randomised control trial of a Tier-2 small-group intervention (‘MiniLit’) for young struggling readers1

Buckingham, Jennifer; Wheldall, Kevin; Beaman, Robyn

doi:10.1080/19404158.2012.717537

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results showed that all participants made gains in decoding accuracy, but fewer in rate of decoding-a measure of reading fluency. This finding is consistent with other research (Buckingham et al 2012, Denton et al 2013, National Reading Panel 2000, Torgesen 2001) which has found reading fluency to be relatively resistant to intervention.…”

Section: Questionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Similar to Buckingham et al . (), who found significant gains in an untimed but not in a timed measure of word reading, the participants may have demonstrated gains on an untimed measure of word reading as NW Total significantly improved for all participants, but NW Rate did not.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…This finding is consistent with other research (Buckingham et al . , Denton et al . , National Reading Panel , Torgesen ) which has found reading fluency to be relatively resistant to intervention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), about 25% of students fail to respond (Buckingham et al . ). Fewer studies have examined Tier 3 reading interventions, but significant levels of non‐response (Torgesen ) or highly variable responses (Denton et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The evidence supporting early reading instruction (Tier 1) targeting phonemic awareness combined with letter-sound knowledge is well established (National Reading Panel 2000). Though there is evidence that targeting these skills with greater intensity is effective for most students requiring Tier 2 interventions (e.g., Ritter et al 2013), about 25% of students fail to respond (Buckingham et al 2012). Fewer studies have examined Tier 3 reading interventions, but significant levels of non-response (Torgesen 2001) or highly variable responses (Denton et al 2013) have been reported.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

WordDriver‐1: evaluating the efficacy of an app‐supported decoding intervention for children with reading impairment

Seiler

Leitão

Blosfelds

2018

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This decoding intervention significantly improved non-word decoding skills in all participants who had not responded to previous reading interventions. As such, it may be an efficient adjunct to the first stage of reading interventions for this population. The relative lack of generalization to other word-reading skills may have been due to the nature of the outcome measures, the short intervention time and/or additional delays in participant orthographic processing skills.

show abstract

Section: Questionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

WordDriver‐1: evaluating the efficacy of an app‐supported decoding intervention for children with reading impairment

Seiler

Leitão

Blosfelds

2018

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Between the Lines: Integrating the Science of Reading and the Science of Behavior to Improve Reading Outcomes for Australian Children

Stocker,

Fox,

Swain

et al. 2023

Behav. Soc. Iss.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many Australian students fail to meet an acceptable standard of reading proficiency. This can negatively impact their academic progress, social, and emotional well-being, and increase their risk of developing challenging behaviors. These risks and challenges have been found to compound over the lifetime of the learner. Unfortunately, the proportion of Australian students who fail to meet reading proficiency standards increases as they move through their years of schooling, and reading difficulties disproportionately affect historically marginalized groups. This has raised concerns about the effectiveness of instructional approaches used within the Australian education system, particularly in reading, and prompted discussions of reform. The purpose of this review paper was to examine the contributions of the science of reading and science of behavior to our collective knowledge regarding reading development and effective reading instruction, and how this knowledge is currently being used in the Australian context. We provide a discussion on the current state of reading instruction and achievement in Australia by considering national trends, inequities, and systemic challenges. Implications and recommendations to address inequities in reading outcomes, using both the science of reading and science of behavior, are discussed.

show abstract

Study protocol: “Two Teachers”

Solheim

Rege

McTigue

2017

International Journal of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A randomised control trial of a Tier-2 small-group intervention (‘MiniLit’) for young struggling readers1

Cited by 17 publications

References 27 publications

WordDriver‐1: evaluating the efficacy of an app‐supported decoding intervention for children with reading impairment

WordDriver‐1: evaluating the efficacy of an app‐supported decoding intervention for children with reading impairment

Between the Lines: Integrating the Science of Reading and the Science of Behavior to Improve Reading Outcomes for Australian Children

Study protocol: “Two Teachers”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About