Using Small-Group Interventions

In some classrooms, many students struggle with reading. A key challenge with small-group instruction is how to support all struggling students while the teacher is working directly with one small group. Fortunately, there are various options.

One option is peer partnering. Teachers can partner students (ensuring that one student has the capability to support the other). Ms. Carter provides training for the peer tutors by modeling how to help their partners read difficult words, attend to punctuation, and make sense of the text.

A second option is to bring a teacher with expertise in English learners into the classroom to support a small group. Sometimes, this group can be pulled out to work with a specialist outside the classroom while the other students are in small groups or whole-group instruction during the literacy block. It is best to avoid pulling students out during other content classes since content-area vocabulary and background knowledge are essential to reading (and listening) comprehension.

A third option is to group students based on their reading abilities, regardless of age and grade. The whole school engages in literacy at the same time each day, and all educators with relevant backgrounds (i.e., teachers, librarians, literacy coaches, special education teachers, literacy aides) support the groups. Every six to eight weeks, students are assessed and regrouped as needed. Unfortunately, there is no recent research related to this approach. The most recent study indicated that nongraded organization can positively impact student achievement if cross-age grouping allows teachers to provide more direct instruction to students.¹

A fourth option is providing students who are not in small groups with adaptive technology that supports foundational reading skills, vocabulary, and comprehension. Although there are few experimental studies focused specifically on English learners, studies have found that technology-delivered instruction for students in grades K–5 significantly boosts literacy outcomes.²

Endnotes

1. R. Gutiérrez and R. Slavin, “Achievement Effects of the Nongraded Elementary School: A Best Evidence Synthesis,” Review of Educational Research 62, no. 4 (1992): 333–76; R. Slavin and N. Madden, “What Works for Students at Risk: A Research Synthesis,” Educational Leadership 46, no. 5 (1989): 4–13; and R. Slavin, “Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis,” Review of Educational Research 57, no. 3 (1987): 293–336.

2. A. Kunkel, “The Effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction in Reading: A Meta-Analysis,” doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, May 2015, conservancy.umn.edu/items/da9adaa5-e916-48f8-8ee9-e5c9b42a4272; A. Cheung and R. Slavin, “The Effectiveness of Education Technology for Enhancing Reading Achievement: A Meta-Analysis,” Best Evidence Encyclopedia, Johns Hopkins University School of Education, May 2011, files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527572.pdf; and K. Dahl-Leonard, C. Hall, and D. Peacott, “A Meta-Analysis of Technology-Delivered Literacy Instruction for Elementary Students,” Educational Technology Research and Development 72, no. 3 (2024): 1507–38.

[Illustrations by Edu Fuentes]