A Meta-Analytic Review (Executive Summary)
Background and Purpose
American schools are educating an increasingly diverse student population. This diversity is present in students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds, behavior, and learning abilities. One of the greatest challenges that teachers face is to provide appropriate reading instruction for all students, including students with learning disabilities and behavior disorders.
For decades, schools assigned students with disabilities who needed specialized reading instruction to a part- or full-time special education classroom. The 1997 Reauthorization of IDEA provides support for opportunities to educate students with disabilities in the general education classroom to the extent appropriate and also to ensure these students' access to the general education curriculum. This raises the question of how best to organize the classroom and group students for instruction so as to maximize student achievement.
Traditionally, students in regular classrooms were divided into several groups according to reading ability and were provided reading instruction within these groups. In the last twenty years, there has been considerable criticism of same-ability grouping on the grounds that this practice lowers self-esteem and motivation among students with reading problems and often widens the gap between high and low achievers. At the same time, there has been an increase in the popularity of alternative grouping practices such as cooperative learning and cross-age tutoring that are designed to accommodate individual differences while avoiding social stigmas.
As a result of inclusion and other reform movements in special education, increased collaboration between general and special educators, and the rise of new methods of grouping for reading instruction, educators need a comparison of the effects of different ways of grouping students with disabilities for reading instruction.
Findings
This study, a meta-analysis of 20 studies conducted from 1975 to 1995, examined the relationship between reading outcomes of students with disabilities and the grouping formats (i.e., pairing, small groups, multiple grouping formats) used for reading instruction. Most studies compared students who received instruction through one of these grouping formats with similar students who received "traditional" instruction delivered to the whole class. The researchers found that students who were taught in one of the alternative grouping formats had greater reading outcomes, on average, than students in a comparison group (nearly half a standard deviation higher). Thus, this research supports the use of alternative instructional groupings for teaching reading to students with disabilities.
What are the results of students tutoring each other?
Researchers found clear benefits to tutoring both in cases when the students with disabilities acted as reciprocal tutors-tutees and in cases when they were only tutees. Acting as a reciprocal tutor does not appear to diminish the effect of peer tutoring, and may offer the additional benefit of boosting students' self-esteem through the teaching role.
The average effect of cross-age tutoring was very high for cross-age tutors but negligible for cross-age tutees. In the cross-age tutoring studies, tutors were in some cases students with disabilities and other cases regular education students. Hence, the lack of an effect for tutees cannot be explained entirely by the hypothesis that tutors who are students with disabilities lack the content knowledge or teaching skill to help their tutees.
Outcomes for students with disabilities varied depending on the particular focus of the reading instruction that was provided (for example, whether the focus was on word recognition or reading comprehension), as well as on how these outcomes were measured (for example, whether the test that students were given following the reading intervention was a test of decoding skills, oral reading of passages, reading comprehension, etc.). Future research is needed to clarify these issues.
What are the effects of small group instruction?
The study supports previous research which found that breaking students into smaller teacher-led groups (typically three to ten students) helps students learn significantly more than students who are not instructed in small groups. Other research suggests that small groups (three to four members) produce more positive results than larger groups (five to seven members). Smaller groups typically result in more efficient use of teacher and student time, lower cost, increased instructional time, increased peer interaction, and improved generalization of skills.
The authors suggest that the type of instruction provided in small groups and the materials used will affect the benefits to students with disabilities. Benefits are likely to be greater when instructional materials are tailored to the needs of different students. Students with disabilities may require different materials and more direct instruction than students without disabilities.
The role of the teacher in small group formats requires further research. Small groups can provide teachers with the opportunity to provide intensive, direct instruction, or they can be used as an opportunity for students to work collaboratively with one another. Further studies are needed to address the effects of different types of small group work in reading.
What are the outcomes of multiple grouping formats?
Average results from these studies showed that using combinations of grouping formats for reading instruction produces measurable reading benefits for students with disabilities. This finding is important because increasing numbers of teachers use diverse grouping formats in their classrooms. For example, teachers may use whole-class instruction for a part of each language arts period and have students work two days a week in pairs and another two days in small groups.
Did the length of time during which the alternative format was implemented impact the difference in outcomes between students taught using that grouping format and students in a comparison group?
The analyses revealed that the difference in outcomes between students taught in alternative formats and students in a comparison group was not related to the length of the intervention. Longer interventions were not, overall, associated with a greater difference between students in the alternative format and students in the comparison group.
Recommendations
Peer-mediated instruction in reading represents an effective complement to other instructional practices for students with disabilities. Peer pairing holds promise not only for improving reading outcomes but also for improving social relationships of students with disabilities. Teachers are encouraged to consider using well-documented and researched peer pairing interventions as part of their reading program.
When possible, teachers should engage students with disabilities as reading tutors for younger children. Outcomes should be monitored for tutees as well as tutors, to ensure that all children benefit.
Researchers need to conduct additional intervention studies that directly assess the effects of grouping on outcomes for students with disabilities. For example, an important question that can be addressed by such research is whether an intervention that is successful when conducted one-to-one can be equally successful when implemented in small groups. Further research can provide guidance on how the use of different instructional formats for reading instruction impacts both the academic achievement and social integration of students with disabilities.
This document was prepared for the Keys to Successful Learning Summit held in May 1999 in Washington, D.C. Keys to Successful Learning is an ongoing collaboration sponsored by the National Center for Learning Disabilities in partnership with the Office of Special Education Programs (US Department of Education) and the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (National Institutes of Health).
Authors: Batya Elbaum, University of Miami; Sally Watson Moody, University of Miami; Sharon Vaughn, University of Texas at Austin; Jeanne Shay Schumm, University of Miami; Marie Hughes, University of Miami
The purpose of this initiative is to translate research and policy on learning disabilities into high standards for learning and achievement in the classroom, and to take action at the local, state and federal levels to ensure that all students, including those with learning disabilities, are afforded the highest quality education.
Keys to Successful Learning is supported by a coalition of national and regional funders as well as a broad range of participating education organizations.
