Read the abstracts of selected articles and reports and download their pdf versions. If you have any queries, please email us at multilit@multilit.com.
Published research report/monograph
Wheldall, K., & Beaman, R. (2000). An evaluation of MULTILIT: 'Making Up Lost Time In Literacy'. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Summary
Acknowledgements and dedication; Explanatory Preface; Key Outcomes; Implications
Section A: Background to MULTILIT
An introduction to MULTILIT; Essential constituents of effective reading instruction for low-progress readers; A description of the MULTILIT Program: predicates, programs and procedures; General research methods; Monitoring the performance of low-progress readers: development of the WARP; Typical rates of progress of low-progress readers
Section B: Evaluations of MULTILIT
Evaluations of MULTILIT Programs and follow-up studies; Evaluations of Schoolwise Programs and follow-up studies; Evaluations of other MULTILIT programs
Section C: Reflections on MULTILIT
Further considerations, discussion and conclusions
Click here to download a PDF of the Executive Summary.
Articles in refereed journals and chapters in edited books
The following articles are reproduced by kind permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd. Readers are reminded that no further copying, storage or distribution of this material is permitted without prior, written permission from Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Address: Taylor & Francis Journals, 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 4RN, UK
Tel: 44 (0) 1235 828600
Fax: 44 (0) 1235 829000
Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/
Wheldall, K. (2009). Effective instruction for socially disadvantaged low-progress readers: The Schoolwise Program. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 14 (2).
Abstract
In this article, I consider social class and reading performance, outline a noncategorical
approach to reading disability, describe the reading intervention program
we have developed for older low-progress readers, and seek to demonstrate how
students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds can, and do, make substantial
progress when offered effective reading instruction based on the available scientific
research evidence.
Click here to download a PDF.
Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2000). Teachers' use of approval and disapproval. Educational Psychology, 20, 431-446.
Abstract
A review and analysis of the research literature on teachers' classroom use of approval/praise and disapproval/reprimand is provided in an attempt to determine the extent to which teachers typically employ praise in their classroom teaching. There is a considerable degree of agreement across the studies reviewed, carried out in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and St Helena, regarding the ways in which teachers typically deploy approval and disapproval, with some interesting variations. There is little evidence to suggest that teachers, universally, systematically deploy contingent praise as positive reinforcement in spite of the considerable literature testifying to its effectiveness. In particular, praise for appropriate classroom social behaviour is only rarely observed.
Click here to download a PDF.
Pogorzelski, S., & Wheldall, K. (2002). Do differences in phonological processing performance predict gains made by older low-progress readers following intensive literacy intervention? Educational Psychology, 22, 413-427.
Abstract
The research study examined the gains in single word recognition and oral reading fluency made by a group of low-progress readers following an intensive, systematic skills based reading program (MULITLIT) (Wheldall & Beaman, 2000). Performance on the Phonological Assessment Battery (PhAB) (Frederickson, Frith & Reason, 1997) was used to identify "dyslexic" students (with poor phonological awareness) from "garden-variety" low progress readers (Stanovich, 1988, 1991, 1994). It was hypothesised that the identified group of "dyslexic" students (N= 16) would make smaller gains in reading outcomes compared to the group of "garden-variety" low-progress readers (N = 6). The results did not support the hypothesis since both groups of low-progress readers made substantial gains on both reading measures. Moreover, PhAB sub test scores did not predict size of gains. The results provide evidence for the usefulness of intensive literacy remediation to increase the reading gains of disabled readers despite their status (dyslexic or garden-variety) as a low-progress reader and lend support to those researchers who advocate a non-categorical approach to addressing reading disability. There is tentative evidence to suggest that the inclusion of a short phonological awareness training component for nine students may have impacted favourably on the reading outcomes of the "dyslexic" group of low-progress readers.
Click here to download a PDF.
Wheldall, K. (2000). Does Rainbow repeated reading add value to an intensive literacy intervention program for low-progress readers? An experimental evaluation. Educational Review, 52, 29-36.
Abstract
Forty low-progress readers in Years 2 to 7 attending an intensive literacy intervention program, conducted on two separate sites, were randomly allocated to two treatment conditions in order to determine the effect of supplementing the program with commercially produced repeated reading materials (the Rainbow Reading Program). The control group experienced the regular form of the literacy program, which includes within it a form of repeated reading, while the experimental group experienced the supplemented literacy program incorporating repeated listening of tape recorded versions of the text the student is required to read. All students were tested on two measures of reading performance immediately prior to and immediately following almost a term (nine weeks) of daily instruction. Analyses of covariance of post-test reading scores, in which pre-test scores were covaried, revealed no differences between the two groups on either of the two reading tests, indicating that the supplementary program did not demonstrate enhanced efficacy.
Click here to download a PDF.
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.
Abstract
Results are presented from two studies (involving 190 primary and high school students (Year 7) and 146 older low-progress readers in the late primary years) that contribute towards the development of five 200 word standardised passages which may be employed interchangeably to monitor the performance of low-progress readers towards achieving functional literacy. The passages are shown to possess both high parallel form reliability (0.94 - 0.96) and internal consistency (0.97 - 0.99), and also good criterion validity (0.78 - 0.80) with reading accuracy. Appropriate growth in performance over the primary years is also demonstrated. These findings suggest that an extrapolated model of curriculum-based measurement (CBM), which incorporates elements of more traditional reading assessments, would overcome some of the problems associated with CBM.
Click here to download a PDF.
Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2002). Further progress towards a standardised curriculum-based measure of reading: Calibrating a new passage reading test against the New South Wales Basic Skills Test. Educational Psychology, 22,.461-470.
Abstract
Results are presented from a pilot study and a larger scale study aligning a curriculum-based passage reading test, the Wheldall Assessment of Reading Passages (WARP), with the literacy components of the New South Wales Basic Skills Test (BST). A strong relationship between the WARP and BST Literacy is demonstrated, particularly for Year Three students. Representative (approximate) norms for students in Years One to Five on the WARP are reported, based on the results from a school with a BST literacy profile that is very similar to that for the state of New South Wales as a whole.
Click here to download a PDF.