Reading Instruction Grouping for Students with Reading Difficulties

The effects of three grouping formats—1:1 (one teacher with 1 student), 1:3 (one teacher with 3 students), and 1:10 (one teacher with 10 students)—on the reading outcomes of second-grade struggling readers was studied. Students in all groups were given the same supplemental reading intervention for...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Remedial and special education 2003-09, Vol.24 (5), p.301-315
Main Authors: Vaughn, Sharon, Linan-Thompson, Sylvia, Kouzekanani, Kamiar, Pedrotty Bryant, Diane, Dickson, Shirley, Blozis, Shelley A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic Achievement
Class Size
Classrooms
Elementary schools
Grade 2
Group size
Grouping (Instructional Purposes)
Instructional Effectiveness
Intervention
Language Skills
Primary Education
Reading Difficulties
Reading disabled students
Reading Improvement
Reading Instruction
Reading Programs
Remedial Reading
Resource Room Programs
Teaching methods
Tutorial Programs
USA
Vocabulary Development
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The effects of three grouping formats—1:1 (one teacher with 1 student), 1:3 (one teacher with 3 students), and 1:10 (one teacher with 10 students)—on the reading outcomes of second-grade struggling readers was studied. Students in all groups were given the same supplemental reading intervention for the same number of sessions, thus holding intervention type and intensity constant and varying group size. Students made significant gains in phoneme segmentation, fluency, and comprehension following the intervention, and these gains were maintained at follow-up (4—5 weeks after intervention). Based on effect sizes, both 1:1 and 1:3 were highly effective intervention group sizes for supplemental reading instruction. Although the 1:1 grouping format yielded significantly higher scores for phoneme segmentation, fluency, and comprehension than the 1:10, it was not superior to the 1:3 on any outcome measure.
ISSN:0741-9325
1538-4756
DOI:10.1177/07419325030240050501