Why I’m Not a Big Fan of Small Group Reading Work: Opinion
In my experience small group reading work is often used to address one of two challenges. The first is the perception that really young students (pre-k to grade 1), have a low attention span. The belief is that due to their short attention spans, explicit whole-class instruction is not feasible. Instead, a 'centers' model is often adopted, with several mini discovery-based lessons set up around the room. In this model, I often observe one group reading with the teacher while others engage in activities like spelling with letter blocks, listening to books at ear-reading stations, or 'fishing' for letters with magnetic rods, etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with centres and indeed there may even be a place for this model within the primary class. My main objection is that this model sometimes replaces explicit whole-class instruction. Research suggests that students are less likely to learn to read effectively through a discovery model compared to direct instruction. A 2011 meta-analysis by Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, and Tenenbaum found that discovery-based learning typically lowers academic achievement, while several other meta-analyses show that explicit instruction improves academic outcomes (Engelmann, 1996; Watkins, 1997; Stockard, 2018).
The second use of small groups instruction that I typically see, is clearly meant to address the need for differentiated instruction in the classroom. In this approach, the model often used is 'guided reading groups. In this model, a teacher typically divides students into groups based on reading level assessments, like the BAS and then does reading fluency work. This model aims to provide explicit small group instruction, additional fluency practice, and address the individual needs of students. However, I think this model is problematic for three reasons. Firstly, reading level assessments are not accurate (Burns, 2015). Which means the whole idea of putting kids at the right reading level, is based on deeply flawed research. Secondly, this model seems to assume what all students need most is reading fluency work. This means that students with underlying, non-fluency-related weaknesses may benefit very little from this approach. Moreover, meta-analyses on reading interventions show that they work best when teachers target the instruction to the specific assessed needs of the student (Hall and Burns, 2018). Lastly, this model assumes that all students need the same degree of instructional intensity. But research into RTI, shows that students benefit from a tiered model. In a tiered model, the strongest students would not require additional instruction, struggling students would receive extra explicit instruction from the classroom teacher, and those with the most severe needs would receive intensive intervention from another teacher (Tran, 2011).
Is There Ever a Place for Small Group Work?
I definitely think there is a time and place for small group work. However, it is the typical implementation of small group work that I find problematic, not the concept itself. That said, in order, for small group work to be benneificial I think it needs to adhere to a few core principles:
-
It cannot replace explicit whole class instruction. Even kindergarten students can benefit from explicit instruction, as shown by the (NRP, 2000) meta-analysis. That instruction just needs to be shorter, in my opinion, between 5-15 minutes per block. Explicit phonics instruction can be followed with phonics games, like this free one: LINK or by centres or by decodable reader practice. But in my opinion it’s crucial not to skip the direct instruction.
-
Small group instruction should be largely a tier 2 intervention strategy. Not every student requires 10 minutes a day of guided reading with their teacher. But the lowest readers in the class definitely should be getting targetted reading instruction from their teacher. Sometimes this instruction should be in small groups, and other times it should be one-on-one, depending on the similarity of needs within your class.
-
Lastly it needs to be based on actionable assessment data. Start by screening students with a tool like DIBELS or Acadience. Identify the struggling readers and then dig deeper with other assessments. In my experience most struggling readers benefit from additional phonics and phonemic awareness instruction. But this is not true for all students and the level of need varies between students. You might have two students who know all their non-digraph letter sound correlations and you might have another who does not know any phonics at all.
Smallgroup work can be a powerful tool for engagement and for providing tier 2 instruction. However, I think it needs to be used in a logical way that does not contradict what research tells us about reading instruction. Additionally, I believe some reading instruction influencers have created a myth around small group reading work, leading it to be viewed as an end goal rather than a means to an end. Not all students need small group work and neither does every lesson. Use it as a tool to address the specific deficits of your struggling readers, and you will likely see significant benefits.
Have questions about this article? Email us at: evidenced.based.teaching@gmail.com
Or follow us on twitter @Natejoseph19 or on facebook @pedagogy non grata.
References:
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P., Aldrich, N & Tenenbaum, H. (2011). Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning?. Journal of Educational Psychology. 103. 1-18. 10.1037/a0021017.
Burns, M., Pulles, S., & Maki, K & Kanives, R., Hodgson, J., Helman, L., McCOmas, J & Preast, J. (2015). Accuracy of student performance while reading leveled books rated at their instructional level by a reading inventory. Journal of School Psychology. 53. 10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.003.
Engelmann, A. (1996). Research on Direct Instruction: 25 Years beyond DISTAR. ERIC Number: ED413575.
Hall, Matthew & Burns, Matthew. (2017). Meta-analysis of targeted small-group reading interventions. Journal of School Psychology. 66. 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.11.002.
NRP. (2001). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence Based Assessment of the Scientific Literature on Reading Instruction. United States Government. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919
Tran, L., Sanchez, T., Arellano, B., & Lee Swanson, H. (2011). A meta-analysis of the RTI literature for children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 44(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410378447
Watkins, C. (1997). Project follow through. Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies. https://www.behavior.org/resources/901.pdf