Should Reading Be Taught Whole Class or Small Group?

beginning reading
28 April, 2018
64 Comments

Blast from the Past: This entry first posted on April 28, 2018 and re-posted on November 23, 2019. I thought it a good idea to re-issue this posting now because of MIke Schmoker's recent column in Education Week (https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/11/20/how-to-make-reading-instruction-much-much.html). I know lots of educators love the idea of working with small groups in reading, but that is not always best practice (though under the right circumstances it can be useful). This blog explores the ins and outs (and ups and downs) of small group instruction in reading. Hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving).

Teacher question:

I was curious what your thoughts are regarding small group instruction in Elementary school during the ELA block. I’m unaware of any definitive research on the effect size of small group instruction or the impact it has regarding student achievement in reading. There seems to be a few different schools of thought: direct whole group instruction for all components of reading, shortened whole group reading followed by differentiated small group instruction, whole group instruction followed by student work groups facilitated by teacher walking around. It seems all three could be effective depending on the students, the teacher and rigor of text or content being used. However, I’m curious if there is a research-based recommendation?

Shanahan’s response:

What a smart question.

Small group teaching is ubiquitous in elementary reading. Sixty-years ago (when I was being taught to read) the same was true—though since our classes then were so large, “small group” usually meant groups about the size of today’s typical classroom enrollment!

A hundred years ago there was a great deal of within-class grouping, but that was due to the pervasive one-room schoolhouse. The “groups” were the “grades” that the kids were in (my dad, for years, bragged that he “graduated at the top of his class”—meaning that the other kid flunked).

When I was first exploring the idea of becoming a teacher myself, the lore of the time was that reading teachers always had three reading groups: the Robins, Blue Jays, and Crows. As a teacher’s aide it looked that way to me, and I certainly wasn’t surprised during student teaching when Mr. Krentzin had me take over his reading groups one at a time, so I could ease into it.

As a primary grade teacher, I always grouped my kids for reading instruction. (Studies since the 1960s usually report that more than 90% of primary grade teachers group for reading instruction, and the numbers are still high in grades 4 and 5, as well).

Nevertheless, I’ve been surprised recently by the odd practice of organizing instruction specifically around the idea of “small group” teaching. In the past, the grouping was to match book levels to the kids’ reading levels (let’s face it, the Crows just can’t keep up).

But this is different: by organizing the schedule around “small group time” these schools are promoting the idea that small group teaching is valuable—no matter what the teacher may be teaching or what the kids’ levels may be or what the materials are that they are using.

That makes your question especially timely. Does small group teaching advantage kids in learning to read?

John Hattie identified three meta-analyses on small group instruction and reported it to have a medium-to-large effect (.49) on learning. However, few of the studies in those meta-analyses focused on reading, they weren’t always comparing small group teaching to whole class instruction, and some of the reading studies were from back in the day when 45-60 kids in a class was common practice. Several of the studies were based on secondary school and college teaching, too.

Robert Slavin also conducted a best-evidence synthesis of research on grouping back in the 1980s (effect size of .32). But at that time, he found no reading studies that compared grouping for reading instruction with whole class teaching.

Not exactly the evidence base I’d want to use for recommendations about elementary reading instruction.

However, even if we were to rely on those meta-analyses, the payoff of grouping for reading instruction had lower effects than was found for the other subjects (only .13), and it mattered a great deal how large the groups were—groups of 5 or larger received little or no learning benefit from within-class grouping (Lou, et al., 1996).

There are a couple of sizable individual studies I think we need to consider, however.

For example, Kamil and Rausher (1990) conducted a study in which they compared whole class reading instruction with small group teaching in a large suburban school district. Surprisingly, they found that small groups “were not superior to whole class” teaching in terms of learning. There was just “too much variance within classrooms for the grouping patterns to have much of an impact.”

Even more sobering is a large study of grouping in reading conducted by Sørensen & Hallinan (1986). They found small group teaching more effective than whole class instruction—that is, if one compares 30 minutes of small group teaching versus 30 minutes of whole class teaching, the kids in the small group tend to make larger learning gains.

However, they also found small group teaching provides kids with fewer learning opportunities. Basically, teachers teach more when teaching whole class.

Comparing equal amounts of small group teaching with whole class teaching might make sense to researchers, but it has little to do with the actual circumstances of classrooms. If a teacher has three groups who each receive 20 minutes of teaching, this should not be compared with 20 minutes of whole class instruction… but with 60 minutes—the time it takes to teach the three groups (in fact, it might even be fairer to compare it with 65-75 minutes because it takes transition time to switch out these groups).

When one compares small group and whole class instruction in this more meaningful way, small group teaching loses its advantage; that is, no differences in average achievement.

But, that doesn’t mean there’s no impact. What Sørensen & Hallinan (1986) concluded was that the high groups tended to get more learning opportunities in small group instruction than the low groups. And, since race and SES are correlated with reading, Black kids and poor kids (and I imagine ELLs) are more likely to find themselves in the low groups. Thus, there is no overall or average learning benefit for small group teaching, but there is a bit of rotation that ensures that minority kids make the least progress.

My conclusion from this is that small group teaching is beneficial in that it improves the impact of a lesson on the kids who are taught the lesson. But amount of instruction matters, too, and when kids are grouped they are necessarily going to get less teaching. It’s a tradeoff at best. But we also need to be concerned about the lower readers who tend to be somewhat disadvantaged by this approach.

I’m not willing to give up altogether on small group instruction (or even individual teaching)—because there can be useful learning advantages from it. But I’d never organize classrooms so as to ensure that they specifically deliver small group teaching. And, I’d always try to minimize small group teaching whenever possible for the sake of efficiency.

Never do with a small group, what you could be done as well with the whole class. I’ve observed the identical lesson being delivered repeatedly to groups of three, for instance. That is foolish—even if the curriculum director mandated small group teaching. Similarly, the idea that conferencing one-on-one about a book (for 2-5 minutes) is going to take kids to the same depth of interpretation with a text that a group or whole class discussion (for 30-60 minutes) is strikingly unconvincing.

Districts would be wise to provide teachers with professional development in the most effective ways to teach whole classes--including how to use grouping within those classrooms when it is sensible. Seatwork is necessary in both small group and whole class instruction. In the former, the assignments are aimed at keeping the kids busy while the teacher works with other groups, while in the latter the teacher is usually able to circulate among the kids while they work on the assignment (giving support and additional guidance as needed). Perhaps teachers would be better off teaching a whole class lesson, that was followed by individual work done in ability groups (in other words, three or four different follow up assignments based upon the lesson depending on the students’ levels). Then the teacher could circulate, helping kids at all levels.

Last week I watched my friend, Catlin Tucker, showing teachers how she organizes her classrooms by task. If kids are working on research projects, she groups them based on what part of the project they are focused on at a given time. That allows her to maximize the power of her instruction, without the inefficiencies of unnecessary grouping.

In other schemes, teachers deliver whole class lessons, monitoring kids' success and then small group work is reserved for re-teaching as needed.

Of course, there are approaches like cooperative grouping that have good research records, but that allow for a mix of whole class, small group, and individual work without the large losses of time evident in most small group centered classrooms. Cooperative grouping, project based learning, and other similar approaches may be beneficial in part because they don’t lock kids into reading levels--but encourage work with grade level texts or with a range of text difficulties.

Maximize the amount of learning opportunity that you provide to students. Use groups to focus on different learning tasks or to follow up whole class lessons as needed. Don’t group for the sake of grouping and minimize grouping on the basis of reading level—at least beyond grade one.

Comments

See what others have to say about this topic.

Julia Becker Jul 26, 2021 06:20 PM

Is there any research to support whole class/independent work in MATH versus an emphasis on small groups? I am having more trouble finding research based information on that.

Margaret Connolly Apr 28, 2018 08:57 PM

So wouldn’t the best of both worlds be Reading Workshop where there’s a strong whole group mini lesson and then guided reading groups based on need? As you indicate in this article,classrooms have a wide range of reading abilities and it’s been my experience that readers who come into a grade level strong have no problem engaging in and progressing with mainly whole group instruction because they have strong skills and they can access the curriculum. But the students who have wide gaps to fill in academic language, literary language and reading behaviors and word study, don’t engage as fully in whole group, and never get their gaps addressed. Their deficits grow and they become less and less able to access the curriculum and they get frustrated. The reading rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Annarita Howell Apr 28, 2018 09:09 PM

This is very helpful in supporting the planning and professional learning we are taking a look at to strengthen out MTSS at our site. But now I have even more questions! Ugh!

Karina Flores Apr 28, 2018 11:24 PM

Annarita, thats exactly how I'm feeling right now as I think about how to run my 6th ELA classroom next year and think about our MTSS goals

Kim Entzminger Apr 29, 2018 01:45 PM

Like with most things in life, I believe moderation and necessity are key. As a kindergarten teacher, I found great benefit to whole and small group instruction. My "small groups" however were flexible and students frequently moved between groups. Sometimes they were based on reading level, sometimes on skills that students needed additional instruction in to grasp the concept. As a reading interventionist, my time was spent completely in small group or individual instruction because that was how I pulled them. As a Literacy Coach today, I believe that teachers need to do what is in the best interest of students. Having students grouped in small groups all day I believe often limits them because we have a tendency to teach to where students are within their small group. Without exposure to grade level standards or above grade level standards, we rob them of the opportunity to grasp concepts and advance above where they currently are. However, having time to work with students on what they need help with is also beneficial. My rule of thumb is that we let the needs of the students in the classroom dictate our teaching. I hate "time mandates" that say we spend this many minutes doing a mini-lesson, then this many minutes on guided practice, etc. We pull small groups to help students master what they need to master, but we work to ensure that we are hitting the "sweet spot" to move students along the continuum to higher learning. We take advantage of whole group time to teach grade level standards and things that ALL students need to learn. We pull small groups to help ensure that students are moving toward and beyond grade level standards and that we are meeting individual needs. We work with individuals when needed to ensure that they are learning and we are meeting their needs. My personal experience has shown that the blend of both works best, IF and WHEN teachers understand why they are doing what they are doing and not simply following some mandate.

Sam Bommarito Apr 30, 2018 04:51 PM

Some comments on small gp vs. large group instruction. All small group instruction all the time runs completely contrary to both workshop and guided reading instruction. Properly done, both these systems of instruction require whole group instruction based on some form of a unit of study. Units of study provide the scope and sequence of the curriculum. Small group instruction is intended to provide the teacher with chances to zero in on the particular needs of the students in the group. When I was pushing in to do help teachers work learn either system, I used a little "not exactly according to the rules" trick. simply reference the whole group lesson or to build their mini lesson around the whole group lesson for that week then continue with the small group reading encouraging and supporting the students in whatever strategy/topic that group needed help with. On the question of why a mini lesson? From my perspective, partly it was because it was follow up teaching, and partly because the proof for me that the teacher knew their teaching point was that that they could get it across concisely. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of text decodability vs text difficulty. Two examples: E=MC2 and "I'm my own grandpa". Both phrases are very simple to decode. Both take a lot of thought to unpack (the implications of the former are still taking some scientists full lifetimes to explore, and the later is an old song from the 40's- not as complicated but it is lots of fun to see how it all plays out). The point here is that if one uses leveled text for instruction, one should keep in mind the main purpose is to give the students text they are able to decode and then proceed with teaching the content/strategy you want them to acquire. There is no such thing as a first grade book. There is such a thing as a book containing content often taught at first grade. There is such a thing as a book first graders can decode on their own. I also encourage the use of "ad hoc" strategy groups. Strategy groups are a Calkin's invention. These are groups formed for a short period of time (2-4 wks usually) and formed around a strategy that students from various groups are having difficulty with Teachers often pushed back when I recommended the text for the book be at a decodability appropriate for the groups lowest performing member. TOO EASY for the other kids! Yes easy to decode, but properly chosen books can and should give ALL the students a chance to work with the problem skill/strategy. Once they understood the challenge teachers were usually able to find appropriate books (and yes there are limits to how wide a gap there can be in the levels at which group members were performing). Both F& P and Calkins have repeatedly said leveled text should only be PART of what students read. You provided a link to F&P latest thinking on leveled text to a parent who had a problem with a teacher who was taking leveling too literally. You pointed out these categories are not hard and fast (they aren't!). I especially like your speculation that high interest might result in students having a more developed schema in that particular area making it more likely the could READ the book. I have seen student perform multiple levels above their guided reading level when the text is right and had adults talk of times they read high schools texts in grade school and just did what it took to understand the text because they were so interested in the content. So your point that interest can mean the reader is bringing a more fully developed schema to the reading is well taken. Bottom line for me- Leveled text provide a possible tool for teachers to teaching students in a "target rich" environment for scaffolding their decoding skills. Picking by books level is not sufficient. The CONTENT of the books and the TEXT STRUCTURE of the books also must be factored in. I think an examination of the commercial Units by F&P and Calkins would demonstrate that book recommendations do take all that into account. Thanks for taking the time to listen. Hope to hear what you think, especially what you think about my making a distinction between decoding and reading.

Dr Bonnie Houck Nov 25, 2019 04:07 PM

I have several thoughts about this blog. 1. In my experience as a consulting coach in over 50 school districts over ten years as well as professor for eight, I find that teachers do not always utilize the gradual release properly. They need ongoing, job embedded professional development and coaching in explicitly teaching and modeling efficiently, so that small group provides differentiation of that lesson to meet the needs of learners. 2. We need to have small groups to focus on the re-teaching, to target the needs of learners as they meet challenges, and to do so with texts they can access. The teacher’s coaching around the application of the skills and strategies modeled in whole group is critical, as it is part of the scaffolding. 3. I agree that teachers value small group above the other instructional components because they may be doing mini whole group and are not effective at doing whole group. 4. We are not using the third component of the Gradual Release of Responsibility well. Whole group and guided reading dominate most schedules, leaving little time for collaboration among peers and independent reading with conferring. Collaborative groups, where teachers structure the conversations, support them with well designed text dependent open ended questions while they facilitate, prompt and guide is AS important as guided reading. Yet, we do not effectively utilize this opportunity 5. We still rarely see effective independent reading OR conferring OR use of that data, if teachers even have decent data, to identify the small group structures. Teaches are in great need of ongoing professional development in all of these areas. Assuming they can transfer leanring form a BA they earned a decade ago without any support from district is inappropriate. Most professions offer ongoing learning. I generally see a lot of one-day, drive by workshops without any guidance to full implementation. We need to change how we do this! These meta-analyses do not always study the degree to which teachers are trained and how that affects implementation with any sort of fidelity ot intention to develop common practices and collect common data for reflection and growth.