THINKING THROUGH SMALL-GROUP STRUCTURES AND ROUTINES
Carefully considering classroom structure and routines can help teachers get the most out of differentiated small-group instruction. Shifting to the use of small-group instruction requires teachers to consider classroom management to a greater extent (Wyatt & Chapman-DeSousa, 2017). Research suggests that incorporating positive behavioral support (e.g., group expectations, token economies to reinforce individual and group positive behaviors, self-regulation instruction and support, behavior-specific praise) into small-group reading instruction can support learning (Roberts et al., 2023). It is important that rules and expectations regarding child-managed work during small- group instruction be established—a teacher can only work with a single small group at a time, so student on-task behavior during child-managed work is critical. To increase buy-in, teachers can co-create with students the rules and expectations for student behavior during teacher-managed and child-managed small-group instruction (Gibbs, 1995; Weiss, 2013).
Figure 4. Small Group Size — What Makes a Small Group Small?
While there is a robust body of research on small groups and instruction, there are few studies focused specifically on testing the impact of group size. Many of the studies that are available have been done in the context of special education, math, or science instruction and include a range of students, from early elementary through college-level (Corrégé & Michinov, 2021; Laughlin et al., 2006; Vaughn et al., 2001). Definitions also impact the literature on small-group size, with some researchers separating out the concepts of 1:1 instruction, dyads or partners, and small groups (starting at three or more students), while others consider groups of two or more students all falling under the umbrella of a small group. Based on observation studies, the most common elementary and middle school grouping arrangements range between two to seven students (Baker et al., 2014). When considering experimental studies with elementary reading teachers, there is evidence that supports keeping small groups in this size range. In a 1996 meta-analysis, optimal learning occurred in groups with less than five students (Lou at al., 1996). Results from a study on teacher-student ratios for students with reading difficulties revealed that instruction was equally effective when provided 1:1 or with a small group of three students, but less effective when provided to groups of 10 students (Vaughn at al., 2003). Similarly, when comparing a range of group sizes (e.g., 1:1, 1:3, 1:6, 1:9, 1:12), Thurlow et al. (1993) found that qualitative and quantitative measures of instruction quality favored teacher-led groups with lower teacher-to-student ratios. Simple logistics, like the number of books in a classroom text set and the number of chairs that fit around the teacher table, are also important and may be reason enough to cap small-group size within a specific classroom setting. With this in mind, we recommend groups of three to six students as the default, while also emphasizing that this should be considered a somewhat flexible range that can be expanded based on classroom resources or student needs.
ALIGNING PRACTICE WITH RESEARCH TOPIC PAPER 24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs