THE BENEFITS OF
SMALL GROUP
READING
INSTRUCTION ON ELL
STUDENTS
Ruth Carrion Arias
ED 702.22
Final Presentation
Fall 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Statement of the Problem
Review of Related
Literature
Statement Hypothesis

Methods







Participants
Instruments
Research Design
Threats to Validity
Procedure
Results
 Discussion
 Implications
 References

INTRODUCTION

Reading in small groups is very beneficial for
ELL students. It helps them improve in their
reading as well as in their language abilities.


Early reading intervention is key to see
significant growth in struggling readers.
Time spent reading at home and in school has a
great impact in students reading scores.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In P.S. X, English Language Learners in class
123 work in small reading groups to help them
make significant improvement in their reading
and language abilities.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The single best weapon against reading failure is the
quality of reading instruction given in the primary
grades. The most effective intervention is provided
earlier in education.
Amendum, Creamer, Fitzgerald, Hall, Head-Reeves, Hollingsworth, & Li (2009);
Foorman, Breier, & Fletcher (2003)

There is a direct connection between fluency and
reading comprehension. Through small groups
teachers can build fluency, language skill, and
reading comprehension.
Kuhn, (2004), (2005); Abbott, Greenwood, & Kamps (2008)
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Small group reading allows students to feel more at
ease and gives them more opportunities to speak.
Teachers can give students direct feedback and time
for meaningful dialogue.
Cirino, Linan-Thompson, Prater, & Vaughn (2006); Kendall (2006); Wasik (2008); Cooke,
Helf, & Flowers,(2009)
Small group intervention is beneficial to English
Language Learners. It supports students’ oral
language development and it sets the classroom
environment to be relaxed and comfortable for
students to speak the language, listen, learn to read,
and write without thinking about the everyday
pressures.

Kuhn, (2005), Kendall, (2006)
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The most effective grouping condition for struggling
readers and the condition found to have greater
reading gains for struggling students was
determined as one teacher to three students.
Cooke, Helf, & Flowers, (2009)
Implementing progress monitoring, instructing
students in small groups of 3-6 students, and an
explicit instructional approach in small group
instruction helps prevent reading failure. As a result
of the intervention students met and exceeded grade
level reading expectations by the end of the year.

Abbott, Greenwood, & Kamps (2007), (2008);
Menzies, Mahdavi, & Lewis (2008)
STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS
By integrating 18 twenty minute sessions of
small group instruction to 14 first grade ELL
students over a period of six weeks at P.S X in
Queens, N. Y., students will exceed grade level
reading standards as well as make significant
improvement in language skills as measured by
the literacy assessment Reading 3D.

METHOD
Participants
14 first grade English language learners
(7 girls, 7 boys)
 Dual Language classroom in an early childhood
school located in Queens, N.Y.

METHOD
Instruments

Reading 3D Assessment


A pretest and posttest will be administered.
Progress Monitoring

Student progress will be measured through running
records on the Reading 3D.
METHOD
Research Design: Pre-Experimental Design

One group:

o
o
o
Symbolic Design: O X O
(O) Pre-test, (X) Treatment, (O) Post-test design
A single group of students at risk of reading
failure will be pre-tested, exposed to treatment
(small-group instruction), and post-tested.
Participants are not randomly assigned.
METHOD
 Procedure

September 2010
Post-Test Reading 3D Assessment

October 2010
Student/Parent Survey

October-December 2010
Small Group Treatment/ Progress Monitoring

December 2010
Post-Test Reading 3D Assessment
THREATS TO VALIDITY
Internal Threats
History
 Maturation
 Testing/ Pre-Test
Sensitization
 Instrumentation
 Mortality
 Differential Selection
of Subjects
 Selection-Maturation
Interaction

External Threats
Generalizable
Conditions
 Pre-Test Treatment
 Selection-Treatment
Interaction
 Experimenter Effects
 Reactive
Arrangements/
Participants Effects:
Hawthorne Effect

ANALYSIS
Reading
Level
Scores
Hours Reading At Home
There is a positive correlation between the hours
spent reading with parents at home and reading
level scores.
 Rxy: .769658

ANALYSIS


According to Teachers
College Reading and
Writing Project and
Reading 3D Assessment,
students who have
reached the reading
levels of D (5) and E (6)
by the end of
November have met
and exceeded grade
level expectations.
79% of participants
exceeded grade level
reading standards.
RESULTS

Post and Pre-Test Results
10
9
8
Reading 7
Levels 6
Pre-Test Scores
5
Post-Test Scores
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Student Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores
14
DISCUSSION
14 Participants in class 123 underwent
intervention through small group reading
instruction.
 Results do support hypothesis.
 Pre-Test: Participants’ results indicated most of
them to be struggling readers.
 Post-Test: Nearly 80% of Participants reached
and exceeded reading standards for first grade.

IMPLICATIONS
Small group reading instruction has a significant
impact on the improvement of students reading
levels and language skills.
 The more time students spend reading the higher
the reading levels.
 Implementing intervention for a longer period of
time would increase the percentage of students
exceeding grade level expectations.
 More research on the benefits of small group
reading instruction on ELLs is needed.

REFERENCES













Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Kamps, D. K. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small group reading instruction for
English Language Learners in elementary grades: Secondary-Tier intervention. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 30, 153-168.
Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Kamps, D. K., Kaufman, J., Veerkamp, M., Wills, A. (2008). Effects of small
group reading instruction and curriculum differences for students most at risk in kindergarten: Two-year
results for secondary- and tertiary- level intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 101-114.
Abrami, P. C., Chambers, B., Lou, Y., Poulsen, C., & Spence, J. C. (2000). Why should we group students
within-class for learning? Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(2), 158-179.
Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., & Spence, J. C. (2000). Effects of within-class grouping on student achievement: An
exploratory model. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 101-112.
Amendum, S. J., Creamer, K. H., Fitzgerald, J., Hall, L. A., Head-Reeves, D. M., Hollingsworth, H. L., & Li,
Y. (2009). Which reading lesson instruction characteristics matter for early reading achievement? Reading
Psychology, 30, 119-147. doi: 10.1080/02702710802275173
Andersen, M., Bonfiglio, C. M., Daly III, E. J., & Persampieri, M. (2006). An experimental analysis of the
effects of reading interventions in a small group reading instruction context. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 15(2), 93-109.
Bauer, E. B., Manyak, P. C., Cook, C. (2010). Supporting content learning for English learners. Reading
Teacher, 63(5), 430-432.
Breier, J. I., Fletcher, J. M., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Interventions aimed at improving reading success: An
evidence-based approach. Developmental Neuropsychology, 24(2&3), 613-639.
Chapman, J. W., Iversen, S., Tunmer, W. E. (2005). The effects of varying group size on the reading recovery
approach to preventive early intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 456-472.
Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Prater, K., & Vaughn, S. (2006). The response to intervention of English
language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 390-398.
Collins, B. C., Fickle, K. M., Schuster, J. W. (1998). Teaching different tasks using different stimuli in a
heterogeneous small group. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8(2), 219-244.
Cooke, N. L, Helf, S., Flowers, C. P., (2009). Effects of two grouping conditions on students who are at risk
for reading failure. Preventing school failure, 53(2), 113-126.
Cooke, N. L., Kretlow, A. G., Helf, S. (2010). Supplemental reading help for kindergarten students: How
early should you start? Preventing School Failure, 54(3), 137-144.
REFERENCES CONTINUED




Cooper, J. L., MacGregor, J., Robinson, P., & Smith, K. A. (2000). Implementing small-group instruction:
Insights from successful practitioners. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 81, 63-76.
English, J., Gerber, M., Jimenez, T., Leafstedt, J., Richards, C., & Villaruz, J. (2004). English reading effects
of small-group intervention in Spanish for K-1 English learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
19(4), 239-251.
Foorman, B. R., Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote
reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203-212.
Guastello, E. F., Lenz, C. (2005). Student accountability: guided reading kidstations. International Reading
Association, 59(2), 144-156.

Huebner, T. (2009). Small- group intervention for ELLs. Educational Leadership, 66(7), 90-91.

Kendall, J. (2006). Small group instruction for English language learners. Principal Leadership 6(6), 28-31.








Kuhn, M. (2004). Helping students become accurate, expressive readers: Fluency instruction for small
groups. The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 338-344.
Kuhn, M. R. (2005). A comparative study of small group fluency instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 127146. doi: 10.1080/02702710590930492
Kyle, D. W., McIntyre, E., & Moore, G. H. (2006). A primary-grade teacher’s guidance toward small-group
dialogue. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 36-66
Lewis, J. L., Mahdavi, J. N., & Menzies, H. M. (2008). Early intervention in reading: From research to
practice. Remedial and Special Education, 29(2), 67-77.
MacPhee, K., Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). The effectiveness of a group reading instruction
program with poor readers in multiple grades. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(2), 119-134.
Menzies, H. M., Mahdavi, J. N., & Lewis, J. L. (2008). Early intervention in reading: From research to
practice. Remedial and Special Education, 29 (2), 67-77.
Wasik, B. (2008). When fewer is more: Small group in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 35, 515-521. doi 10.1007/s10643-008-0245-4.
O’Connor-Petruso, S. (2010). Descriptive Statistics & Threats to Internal and External Validity [PowerPoint
slides]. Retrieved from
https://bbhosted.cuny.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexe
cute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_326533_1%26url%3d