Small-group instruction has been a popular component of K-3 literacy education for many years. However, there are inevitable trade-offs. Too much reliance on small-group instruction means that students get significantly less direct instructional time with their teacher and can result in a loss of student learning opportunities. Based on research and our experience, we’ve seen ways teachers use small groups that can help literacy advancement. But there are also times when whole-class instruction is the more effective approach. So when is it best to use small-group over whole-class instruction?
When you think of small-group instruction in K-3, you may think of ability or level-based grouping, but there are in fact many forms. Grouping children based on specific instructional needs has been found to be an effective practice for improving literacy outcomes. Grouping students based on their interests, such as through idea circles, has been part of approaches shown to help increase reading comprehension and motivation. Grouping children into dyads (pairing a stronger reader with a weaker reader) has been shown to have positive effects for strengthening reading for both members. Forming small groups across grade levels has also been found to improve reading, as does forming small groups for cooperative learning (although this is typically tested only as part of a multicomponent initiative).
There is also research that supports the benefits of small-group instruction in the context of Tier II (targeted intervention) or Tier III (intensive intervention) for all learners, particularly multilingual learners. A What Works Clearinghouse panel recommends utilizing small-group instruction for students struggling in literacy and English-language development. A National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee has also called for small-group instruction for multilingual learners.
We advocate daily whole-group contexts for read aloud, systematic phonics, spelling instruction, and many other practices. But educators should complement whole-group instruction with strategic use of small-group instruction.
Teachers should consider prescribing small groups in K-3 if they need to provide:
- Instruction specific to children who need it most. The instruction children most need often differs by subsets of children. For example, at a given point, one subset of children may need reinforcement of specific orthographic patterns (such as, consonant-vowel-consonant-e, -oi/-oy, -dge ) that have been taught. Another subset may benefit most from instruction on vocabulary that is prerequisite for the forthcoming unit. Yet another may need instruction focused on comprehension monitoring. Small-group instructional time in this situation will enable educators to address each group’s most pressing needs.
- More opportunities for children to talk. Small-group instruction also provides an opportunity for children to talk more. In a traditional whole-group setting, opportunities to speak are often divided across the entire size of the class. Techniques such as “think-pair-share” (in which students independently think on the question before sharing their thoughts with a partner) can certainly help, but small-group instruction is best for sustained, deep conversation. Children learning a new language can particularly benefit from such opportunities, which allow them to build and construct linguistic knowledge through “collaborative dialogue.”
- A time for Tier II and III intervention. Small-group intervention can also be especially helpful for students at risk of developing serious learning difficulties without targeted support. Teachers are often advised that all children should have the opportunity to experience whole-group or “core” instruction, even those who need Tier II or III intervention. But if the entire school day is whole-group instruction, when can interventionists pull groups? Pulling children from special classes, science, or social studies has obvious disadvantages. Yet, instituting a separate block in the day only for intervention reduces time left for other core instruction and doesn’t adequately meet the needs of children who require intervention in multiple areas like literacy and math. Creating a well-designed small-group portion of the literacy block in which all children receive instruction targeted at advancing their skills seems a better approach.
Researchers also offer a range of possibilities for what children should do when they are not with a teacher or reading interventionist during small-group time. Research supports having children engage in play, participate in paired or dyad reading, or practice writing. Increasingly, artificial intelligence tools offer beneficial experiences for children while the teacher is working with other children in small groups. Some opportunities for children to regulate their own learning without a teacher leading each activity can also foster the development of autonomy, which is associated with a range of developmental benefits.
A recurring finding of research on the practices of exemplary teachers of literacy (including research reviewed by Nell K. Duke) as compared with less effective teachers is that they make considerable use of whole-group, small-group, and individual instruction. Our hope is that young children experience this range of instructional structures used purposefully and thoughtfully by teachers who are mindful of the affordances and pitfalls of each approach.
