The Role of Small Group Instruction in Teaching Phonics to Emergent Readers
Jessica Jackson
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to share the results of an action research study that I
carried out in my kindergarten classroom in order to determine the significance of
teaching phonics through small group instruction rather than a whole group approach. I
have read much research regarding small group instruction in guided reading, but I
have not seen as much research in this area with regards to phonemic awareness
instruction. To test my own hypothesis on this matter I gave a pretest to assess my
students’ ability to use endings on words. I then divided them into two groups based on
their performance on the pretest. I taught half of my class phonics (sensitivity to
endings in words during this time of the year) using whole group instruction as I had
been doing all year long. The other half I divided into small groups and taught their
phonics in small groups each day. At the end of two weeks I gave a posttest (the same
assessment as the pretest) and compared the results. I found that across the board
small group instruction is much more effective than large group instruction in teaching
phonics.
Area of Focus Statement
The purpose of this study is to determine if small group instruction in phonics is more
effective than whole group instruction as judged by student achievement. My
hypothesis is that it will be more effective, but it will take a lot of effort and time to adjust
my program to accommodate for this, so I want to make sure that my research data
shows this before blindly stepping out to make changes.
Research Question
Do students taught phonics through small group instruction show increased
achievement in word work skills over those students taught phonics through whole
group instruction?
Review of Literature

Research was conducted in Virginia to prove that a systematic approach to word
study is imperative. A group of first grade teachers were teaching word study in
a whole group manner and were not pleased with the results of their instruction.
They gave each student across the state (68,817 students) a qualitative spelling
assessment and split them into achievement based small groups where they
worked at their instructional level. The groups were designed with flexible
grouping in mind so that students were always working at their level. Students
were given explicit word study instruction that allowed them to focus on
observing patterns in language. At the end of first grade students were assessed
again. Their performance showed much improvement. Correlations between
spelling scores and reading levels were .79. Their conclusion was that
differentiated instruction through small groups and consistent daily instructional
routines in word study are essential. (Hayes & Invernizzi, 2004)

The Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement chose seventy
teachers who teach grades 1-3 from 14 schools in several states to participate in
a study to determine what makes the most effective schools by determining the
traits of an accomplished reading program. Teachers in Virginia, Minnesota,
Colorado, and California made up the participants. Data was collected through
observation of reading instruction in each classroom for an hour a month for five
months, weekly time logs of instructional practices, teacher and parent
questionnaires, and teacher and principal interviews. Four students from each
classroom were assessed on measures of reading and phonemic awareness.
The students were assessed in fall and spring. At the end each school was
judged to be most effective, moderately effective, or least effective based on
noted practices. The results showed that most effective schools were the
schools that spent the most time teaching reading and phonics through small
group instruction while the least effective schools spent small amounts of time in
small groups and large amounts of time in whole group reading lessons. (Taylor
et al, 1999)

According to the National Center on Educational Studies, in the year 2000 thirty
seven percent of fourth graders read at or below “basic” level. This study was
conducted to determine the best practices to use in small group reading lessons
to get the best results. A reading group in a fourth grade class was used for this
research. Date was collected for a week and the students were assessed each
day. During the week different methods of reading instruction were tried out and
assessed, tried out and assessed. The teacher manipulated the components of
the group time each day as graduate students observed and assessed in order to
come up with the most dependable pack age or strategies to increase reading
achievement. The most achievement in reading and phonics was noted using a
package that included a taped preview that allowed the students to preview the
text and listen to the story read on tape, error correction which was a method to
train students to self correct, and choral reading where the teacher and students
read the text in unison. All of these strategies were effective when used in small
group settings. (Bonfiglio et al, 2006)

Eighty-three at risk kindergarteners were targeted for this study out of the
University of Kansas. They were divided into small groups and each taught with
a different small group reading curriculum. Students met in their reading group
for thirty to forty minute sessions three times a week for two years. The study
compared curriculums called Direct Instruction, Programmed Reading, Open
Court, and Guided Reading. The students were observed and assessed each
week to determine progress. In the end it was found that small group instruction
was the most effective way to teach word study. Open Court and Direct
Instruction were the most beneficial curriculums in teaching phonemic awareness
and decoding skills. They were preferred in effectiveness because of their
amount of structure and their focused instruction in the area of phonics. Many
students who were at risk in Kindergarten in the beginning of this study showed
growth enough to catch up to where they needed to be. (Kamps et al, 2008)

The following study was carried out by the Florida Center for Reading Research.
156 preschool students were chosen from a variety of diverse homes to
participate in this study. The study was carried out to determine areas that are
variables in determining vocabulary and literary development in preschoolers.
Students were assessed on phonemic developments at the beginning and end of
the study. Video observations were recorded of students, and teacher
questionnaires were compiled. The results revealed many factors that increase
phonemic awareness in preschoolers. One large factor in mastering letter and
word skill growth was small group instruction. Students who were taught
alphabet and word skills in a small group grew ten times the amount of those
students who were taught the same concepts in whole class settings. These
sessions were not tailored to the students’ ability levels, but still raised
achievement levels because of the extra explicit instruction from the teacher in a
small group setting. (McDonald Connor et al, 2006)
Description of Intervention
My study is a type of True Experimental study. I took the preliminary data that I
received and I divided my class as equally as possible into two groups depending on
their performance on the pretest. For example, I tried to split the students up so that
some of the students who scored highly on the pretest were in the control group and
some were in the experimental group so that I could also attempt to gain data on how
each ability group was affected by my interventions. As intervention I taught half of my
class phonics in whole group setting and I taught half of my class phonics in small
groups that met once a day for 15 minutes as a pullout group. In the small group
phonics lessons that I taught I was able to scaffold and assist students who had trouble
with the concept we were focusing on. We did several word sorts, picture sorts, flash
cards, and developmental writing activities surrounding the four word endings (-s, -ed,
-ing, -e) while we were in small group. We also looked for words with endings in books
and practiced reading them. We did not use the same words that appear on the
pre/post test. We simply focused the on the idea of using endings on words in many
different contexts.
Data Collection Method

Pretest

Posttest
For the pretest and posttest I called out the words appearing in the table below to each
of my students.
rats
flags
rugs
plans
make
handing
jumped
stems
bite
asked
running
grape
flipped
skipping
making
raced
woke
grabbing
cube
passed
They wrote the words that I called on their papers to the best of their ability. Later I
called the students over one at a time and had them read flash cards of the same words
to me and I recorded their responses and how they did reading the words too. At the
end I gave the same assessment as a posttest and compared the results after
intervention.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Writing the words: Whole Group Instruction Group Results
40
40
36
29
30
28
20
Number of Errors 20
17
13
10
Pre Test
Post Test
9
0
S endingsed endings
ing
endings
silent e
endings
Ending Assessed
Writing the Words: Small Group Instruction Group Results
40
37
34
30
Number of Errors 20
21
10
20
19
6
18
Pre Test
Post Test
3
0
s endingsed endings
ing
silent e
endings endings
Ending Assessed
Reading the Words: Whole Group Instruction Group Results
39
40
30
Number of Errors 20
32
26
20
31
24
23
14
10
Pre Test
Post Test
0
s endings
ed endings ing endings
Ending Assessed
silent e
endings
Reading the Words: Small Group Instruction Group
40
30
Number of
20
Errors
10
37
35
28
23
13
15
5
9
0
s endingsed endings
Pre Test
Post Test
ing
silent e
endings endings
Ending Assessed
As indicated by the above graphs small group instruction in word endings was very
helpful. While both groups grew in their phonemic awareness, the group that received
small group phonics instruction grew above and beyond the students who received
whole group instruction in phonics. In the graphs the blue box represents the number of
errors made on the pretest for each specific ending. The red box indicates the number
of errors made on the posttest for those same endings after intervention occurred. The
most progress was noted in the area of students reading the words back to me after
having small group instruction on the content of finding and applying endings to words
in reading and writing. I had hoped to gain information regarding progress in each
ability group. I was unable to draw conclusive evidence across the ability levels. My
higher students naturally showed more progress than my lower achieving students, but
partly because the more I reflected on my study I realized that this activity was probably
too difficult for my lowest students. If I had instructed on their ability level in small
groups then I could have drawn conclusions about the pace of their growth too. If I
were to do this again I would probably select a few different words than what I selected
this time. Some of the words that I selected could have been somewhat confusing to
the kindergarten mind. For example, one of my words was passed. Even though I used
it in a sentence when calling it out, when writing this word many of my students wrote
past. This is a word that I would substitute for something else if I were to administer this
study again. Little things like that kept the students from getting the errors statistics
down to zero for the posttest, but growth was still noted across the board.
Action Plan
The results that I was able to glean from my study are very close to those that I had
expected. This will impact my teaching in several ways. First of all, next year I will
make it a priority to teach phonics/word work instruction through small groups rather
than through a whole group approach. Not only will I teach phonics in small groups, I
will arrange my group participants based on ability. My students will not all work on the
same task in small groups, I will assess them based on the Schlagal Spelling Inventory
and customize the instruction of each group to meet them where they are in the
spectrum of where they are in climbing the ladder to complete phonemic awareness. I
will focus my small group instruction on where each group has weaknesses.
References
Bonfiglio, C, Daly, E, Persampieri, M, & Andersen, M (2006). An experimental analysis
of the effects of reading interventions in a small group reading instruction context.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 93-100.
Hayes, L, & Invernizzi, M (2004). Developmental-spelling research:a systematic
imperative. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 216-228.
Kamps, D, Abbott, M, Greenwood, C, Wills, H, Veerkamp, M, & Kaufman, J (2008).
Effects of small group reading instruction and curriculum differences for students most
at risk in kindergarten. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41.2, 101-114.
McDonald Connor, C, Morrison, F, & Slominski, L (2006). Preschool instruction and
children’s emergent literacy growth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98.4, 665-680
Taylor, B, & Pearson, P, Clark, K, & Walpole, S (1999). Effective schools/accomplished
teachers. Reading Teacher, 53(2), 156-160.