Impact of Small Group Instruction on
Struggling Readers in a Second Grade Class
Buffy Holbrook
Valdosta State University
An action research project submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the Education Specialist Degree
in Exemplary Teaching at Valdosta State University.
ABSTRACT: This study examined the effects of small-group reading instruction
on student achievement and participation in a second grade class and on students’
attitudes toward the intervention. The class of 23 students participating in the 6
weeks study was taught the same content but in different delivery methods. The
intervention group received small-group instruction while the control group was
taught in a whole-group instructional method. The intervention group completed
activities for 45 minutes each day in a small-group setting. Results were
determined using the pre and post scores from the Benchmark Test, DIBELS,
attitudinal surveys, and journal entries. Results indicated there was no significant
difference in student achievement however an Attitudes Survey indicated that
students using small-group instruction believed that the use of the intervention
increased participation in lessons.
Research Problem
As an educator, the researcher has seen a decrease in reading achievement in primaryaged children in the last 6 years based on mastery of standards established by the Georgia
Department of Education. The purpose of this study was to examine the academic and
behavioral effects of small-group instruction on struggling readers, based on results from
progress monitoring of DIBELS testing, questionnaires, and interviews for students in a second
grade class.
Review of Literature
Much research has validated practices that have the potential to prevent reading
difficulties (Ehri, Nunes, & Stahl, 2001). According to Helf, Cooke, and Flowers (2009),
providing instruction to students in small-groups is more effective than other strategies
implemented in reading instruction. In the past, whole-group instruction was the norm, but now
small-group instruction has proven to provide an environment in which students have more
opportunities to practice skills and receive feedback from teachers (Anderson, 2006).
The following research questions were addressed in this study: What is the impact of
small-group instruction on struggling readers in a second grade reading class (a) based on
academic performance? (b) student participation? and (c) student perception?
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
Methods
Setting and Participants
Students. Participants were 23 second-grade students in a primary school in a rural area
of Southern Georgia. Fifteen of the students were male and eight were female. The ethnic
background of the group was diverse, consisting of 15 Caucasian students representing 65% of
the class, seven African-American students (31%), and one Hispanic student (4%). At the
beginning of the intervention, the mean age of the participants was 7 years 2 months.
Teachers. One second grade teacher and the school’s principal participated in the study.
Both held a Master’s degree with a combined 22 years of experience.
Intervention
Students in the intervention group met for 45 minutes each day for 6 weeks with the
reading teacher. For 20 to 30 minutes of each class, the students engaged in a cycle of activities
related to phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondence, word recognition, spelling, fluency,
and comprehension. During the first 4 weeks of the intervention, students read books from one
of the instructional reading levels assigned (based on DIBELS score). Choral reading and
partner reading were initially stressed, followed by independent reading. During the last 2 weeks
of the intervention, students read Easy Reader books independently followed by partner reading.
The teacher monitored and engaged in student discussions as she circulated through the group of
students. She provided coaching on reading for meaning, decoding strategies, and selfmonitoring strategies.
In addition to these reading activities, students engaged in teacher-prompted writing
activities to help students with comprehension, phonemic awareness, and word analysis skills.
Students shared their writing with the teacher and then feedback was provided on incorrect
spelling based on missing vowels or blends and digraphs, refining their phonemic awareness.
For the last 20 minutes of the intervention block, the small group would engage in other
activities that involved language development and reading skills. The control group worked on
the same skills as the intervention group, but all instruction was whole group.
Data Collection Techniques
Data collection included Reading Benchmark Test, The Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), Literacy Skills Survey, Literacy Center Interviews, and
Learning Journals. The data obtained in these collection techniques were used to determine the
impact small-group instruction played on academic performance, student perception, and student
participation through t-tests and analyzed for patterns and themes.
Results
To determine the effectiveness of small-group instruction on student achievement, a
Reading Benchmark pretest was administered to both the control and intervention groups at the
beginning of the study. This test also served as the posttest given at the end of the study for
comparison. During the study, both groups received the same content instruction, but delivery for
the control group was whole-group instruction, while the intervention group received smallgroup instruction.
Means and standard deviations on the pretest and posttest for the two Reading groups are
given in Table 1. The gain in the means between the pretest and posttest scores for whole group
instruction students (M = 12.71) was not significantly different (t(21) = 0.35, p = 0.73) than the
students receiving small group instruction (M = 9.55).
Table 1
Reading Benchmark Achievement Comparison Results
Pretest
2
Posttest
Gain/Loss
Comparison of Means
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
Gain/Loss
Group
Whole Group
Instruction
Small Group
Instruction
*p < .05;**p < .01
M
SD
M
SD
M
66.25
17.37
78.96
12.18
12.71
67.5
19.49
77.05
14.05
9.55
t
p
.35
0.73
The DIBELS was used to measure oral reading fluency for students in both groups.
DIBELS ORF scores from the control group were compared to those in the intervention group to
determine if students’ oral reading fluency increased. Mean and standard deviation results are
shown in Table 2. The last DIBELS mean score for students receiving whole group instruction
(M = 84) was not significantly different (t(21) = -0.29, p = 0.77) from those receiving small
group instruction (M = 88.45).
Table 2
DIBELS ORF Scores
Whole Group
Instruction
Small Group
Instruction
*p < .05, **p < .01
1st DIBELS
Mean
SD
57
27.95
(N =12)
60.91
35.56
(N =11 )
Mean Increase
t-value
p
Mean
84
Last DIBELS
SD
31.2
27
-0.29
0.77
88.45
40
27.54
Cohen’s d was used to calculate the effect size of the implementation of small-group
instructional strategies on the student performance compared to traditional whole-group
instructional strategies. For the first DIBELS screening, small group instructional strategies had
no effect on oral reading fluency (d = -0.12). However, after the last DIBELS screening, small
group instruction had a medium effect on oral reading fluency (d = 0.77). An average student in
the intervention group would be expected to outscore about 76% of the students receiving only
whole- group instruction.
The researcher obtained data concerning student attitudes from the surveys and
interviews that were administered to the intervention group before and after the study. Table 3
shows the results from the six Likert statements that were included in the final survey.
Table 3
Literacy Skills Attitude Survey Results
Question
Always
Sometimes
Never
1. Are the activities during literacy centers fun?
91%
9%
0%
2. Do you have enough time to do your work?
82%
18%
0%
3. Do the activities help you learn?
73%
27%
0%
4. Do you like to work with the teacher?
55%
45%
0%
5. Do you like to work by yourself?
0%
64%
36%
6. Do you like to work with a buddy or friend?
55%
36%
9%
The results of the Literacy Skills Survey showed that more than 50% of students always
or sometimes agreed that the activities completed during reading instruction were fun. The
results also showed that over half (55%) of the students liked working with the teacher during
reading. All of the students agreed that the activities completed during small group reading
always or sometimes helped them learn.
3
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
To determine if using small-group instruction had an effect on students’ participation in
daily reading center activities, all students completed learning journals. The learning journals
were assessed using a rubric, which consisted of three areas measuring the following: followed
directions; used content appropriate language; and completed all activities (time on task). The
rating scale used 3 to represent always, 2 to represent somewhat, 1 to represent little or no
evidence. Each participant’s total number of points was reported as a percent of possible points
earned. The mean scores for the control group (M = 80) and the treatment group (M = 96) are
shown in Table 4. The treatment group receiving small group instruction had 16% higher
participation than the whole group students. Small group instruction had a huge effect on student
participation (d = 1.24). It is expected that average students receiving small group instruction
participate more than 88% of those receiving whole- group instruction.
Table 4
Student Participation Results
Group Contrasts
N
M
SD
t-value
p
Whole Group Participation
12
80%
1.73
0.32
0.77
Small Group Participation
11
96%
0.58
*p < .05; **p < .01
Discussion
Conclusions
What is the impact of small-group instruction on struggling readers in a second grade
reading class based on academic performance? According to the results from the study, small
group instruction was not a worthwhile intervention. The students receiving small group
instruction did not make significant gains (M = 77.05, p < .01) on the final Reading Benchmark
Test compared to students receiving whole group instruction (M = 78.96, p < .01). In the group
of students that received small group instruction, 8 of the 11 showed a slight increase in scores
while two students showed a decrease in their post Reading Benchmark test. One student’s score
remained the same on the posttest as on the pretest. In the control group of students receiving
whole group instruction, 10 students showed an increase in scores on the posttest while two
students showed a decrease in scores from the pretest to posttest. These results were not
consistent with previous research by Helf, Cooke, & Flowers (2009) and Kamps and Greenwood
(2005) who found that small group intervention improved academic performance in reading
skills.
What is the impact of small-group instruction on struggling readers in a second grade
reading class based on student perception? The students in the intervention group improved their
attitudes towards reading activities. These results were consistent with the research by
Greenwood, Tapia, Abbott, & Walton (2003) who found that small group instruction promoted
more positive reading behaviors than whole group instruction.
What is the impact of small-group instruction on struggling readers in a second grade
reading class based on student participation? The use of small group instruction had a huge
impact (d =12.4) on student participation. Students receiving small group instruction were
engaged 16% more than those receiving whole group instruction showed this. Off- task behavior
was not a common issue with small group participants. These results were consistent with
research by Anderson (2006) who proved that small group instruction provided a more positive
and engaging learning environment than whole group instruction.
Significance/Impact on Student Learning
4
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
As a result of implementing small group instruction, students’ attitudes and participation
in reading activities increased. While small group instruction had no significant impact of
academic performance, small group instructional strategies are needed to meet the diverse needs
of all students so they can become proficient readers.
Factors that Influenced Implementation
During the course of the intervention, several factors influenced implementation. Near
the middle of implementation, students participated in the Renaissance Pep Rally. This caused
the students to get excited and the daily schedule was modified. Less time was devoted to
reading on that day in order to allow students to attend the academic pep rally. Also, the daily
impact of following curriculum maps, pacing guides, and common assessments made instruction
difficult to implement and stressful to follow through with all activities in the intervention.
Implications & Limitations
There is an abundance of literature to support using small group instruction to increase
reading skills. While this method did not show an impact on student achievement, other methods
such as buddy reading, literature circles, or one on one may have more success for students at
this level. The researcher will continue to use small group instructional strategies in her
classroom and will encourage others to use it as well.
There are several limitations that must be brought to attention. This action research was
conducted in the school in which the researcher was employed using a convenience sample.
Other factors, such as phonics instruction or participation in the school’s Accelerated Reader
program, could have influenced the results. Also, the short length of the intervention (six weeks)
and the inexperience of the researcher limited the study. More time might have allowed for more
reliable results. A longitudinal study could have been more appropriate.
5
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
References
Anderson, D. (2006). Sharon Vaughn: The state of reading research and instruction for
struggling readers. Intervention in School & Clinic, 41(3), 169-174.
Begeny, J., & Silber, J. (2006). An examination of group-based treatment packages for
increasing elementary-aged students' reading fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 43(2),
183-195.
Bonfiglio, C., Daly III, 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(2), 92-108.
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., & Stahl, S. (2001). Sytematic phonics instruction helps students learn to
read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 71, 393-447.
Foorman, B., Breier, J., & Fletcher, J. (2003). Interventions aimed at improving reading success:
An evidence-based approach. Developmental Neuropsychology, 24(2/3), 613.
Greenwood, C., Tapia, Y., Abbott, M., & Walton, C. (2003). A building-based case study of
evidence-based literacy practices: Implementation, reading behavior, and growth in
reading fluency, K-4. Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 95.
Helf, S., Cooke, N., & Flowers, C. (2009). Effects of two grouping conditions on students who
are at risk for reading failure. Preventing School Failure, 53(2), 113-128.
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.
Kamps, D., & Greenwood, C. (2005). Formulating secondary-level reading interventions.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 500-509.
Kuhn, M. (2005). A comparative study of small group fluency instruction. Reading Psychology,
26(2), 127-146.
Lanier County Primary School (2009). School Improvement Plan. (Available from the Lanier
County Board of Education, Hwy 221 South, Lakeland, GA 31635).
Menzies, H., Mahdavi, J., & Lewis, J. (2008). Early intervention in reading: From research to
practice. Remedial & Special Education, 29(2), 67-77.
National Center for Education Statistics (2001). The nation’s report card: Fourth grade reading
2000. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/
O'Connor, R., Fulmer, D., Harty, K., & Bell, K. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in
kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 440-455.
Taylor, B., Hanson, B., Justice-Swanson, K., & Watts, S. (1997). Helping struggling readers:
Linking small-group intervention with cross-age tutoring. Reading Teacher, 51(3), 196.
6
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
Appendix A
Literacy Skills Attitude Survey
Think about the Literacy Centers activities.
1. Rank the activities we do during Literacy Centers from most favorite to least
favorite. 4= most favorite; 1= least favorite
________writing time
________teacher-direct instruction time
________buddy-reading time ________computer time
2. Age: _______
3. Gender: Check the box next to your gender.
Boy
Girl
Respond to each question by coloring in the face that goes with your question.
LITERACY CENTER ACTIVITIES
Always Sometimes
Never
4. Are the activities during literacy centers fun?
5. Do you have enough time to do the work?
6. Do the activities help you learn?
7. Do you like to work with the teacher?
8. Do you like to work by yourself?
7
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
9. Do you like to work with a buddy or friend?
8
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
Appendix B
Literacy Center Interview
Project:
Literacy Center Activities Attitudes
Time of interview:
Date
Place
Classroom
Interviewer
Buffy Holbrook
Interviewee
Student A
Position of Interviewee
Student
I am going to ask you several questions about the literacy center activities. This interview is for
me to gain information about the literacy center activities and your opinion about the activities
you complete during literacy centers. This interview should take about 10-15 minutes to
complete. I will read each question to you and write down your response to the question. Your
name and responses will not be shared with anyone. If you do not want to participate, that is
okay.
Questions
1.
What do you like the most about literacy centers? Why do you like that the most?
2.
What do you dislike the most about the literacy center activities? Why?
3.
What can be done to improve the literacy center activities? Give details.
4.
Do you like to work independently or complete the literacy center activities? What is the
difference in these two types of learning?
Appendix C
9
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
Learning Journal
Name: ________________________ Date: __________________
Today I worked with:
SG Reading
SG Literacy
Whole Group
The skills I worked on today:
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
The thing I remembered the most about my learning was:
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
10
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2