Individual Versus Small Group Intervention 1

Individualized Reading Intervention Versus Small Group Reading Intervention

David Cousins

North Carolina Sate University

Individual Versus Small Group Intervention 2

Individualized Reading Intervention Versus Small Group Reading Intervention

Introduction

The benefits of implementing an intervention strategy for students who have

reading difficulties are apparent. What is not clearly identified is the process by which

teachers and educators should intervene in order to ensure that students not only grow but

also do so in a manageable fashion, suitable to student needs and struggles. The

effectiveness between small group interventions and more individualized or one-to-one

reading intervention strategies are debated among educators and the data suggests similar

findings (Begeny, 2012). An individualized one-on-one intervention plan will allow for

teachers to implement an intervention that is pinpointed towards critical areas of need for

the student, but a more group minded setting amongst peers with critical teacher input

allows for students to interact and receive feedback from peers and teachers. The setting

of small group intervention has proven to be a more effective strategy for teachers to

raise the scores of students who have reading difficulties.

Individual Reading Strategy

Scaffolded Silent Reading (ScSR) is a traditional one to one intervention strategy

that teachers use to allow students to practice individual decoding, word recognition,

fluency, and comprehension skills. Scaffolded Sustained Reading is a process where

“teachers monitor students during practice through individual reading conferences in

which students read aloud, discuss the book, answer questions, and set goals for

completing the reading of the book within a specific time” (Ruetzel et. al., 2008). There
Individual Versus Small Group Intervention 3

is a great deal of evidence and statistical support for implementing Scaffolded Silent

Read. Greenwood argues that individual reading intervention is an evidence-based

practice, where “probabilities of reading behavior were accelerated in the presence of

one-on-one” (Greenwood, 2003). The positive effect of Scaffolded Sustained Reading is

shown in the data when he indicates that, “For silent reading, linear slope was positive”

(Greenwood, 2003). It is identified that providing intervention through an individual

model such as Scaffolded Silent Reading provides measured positive student growth.

However, the rate at which the slope identified increases has its limits. Greenwood goes

on to suggest the “practices that include these instructional arrangements should be used

more frequently by teachers to create greater opportunities for reading behavior

production in the classroom” (Greenwood, 2003). The arrangements that he is referring to

are the use of small groups and reading with a peer. It is the application of having a group

or peer setting that allows students to collaborate and create greater opportunities, as

Greenwood suggests. When students are placed in focused intervention groups the data

presents a different picture.

Group Reading Strategy

Though the data suggest that a more individualized approach, ScSR, does

produced positive growth, but a group setting will produce similar and more lasting

growth. Contrary to ScSR or a one-on-one setting is placing students into pre-assigned

groupings to practice the necessary reading skills. These practices allows for more

communication between the teacher, students, and their peers. One researcher calls it a

Communicative Reading Strategy (CRS). This process “uses contextually supported

Individual Versus Small Group Intervention 4

feedback to help children reconstruct the author’s message . . . how the child reads. The

adult mediates the child’s reading through the use of discussion, prompts, and cues that

help establish the topic . . .” (Crowe, 2006). The Communicative Reading Strategy is a

more group minded where questions and collaboration is at the front of the strategy.

Not only does the use of a small group intervention strategy make classroom

instruction more time efficient, it has the capability to provide greater outcomes for the

students. Begeny et al. (2012) suggests that small group interventions are more effective

towards raising student abilities when compared to base line data. “Only the [small

group] condition revealed differential effectiveness compared with [base line]” (Begeny,

2012). This effective data shows that an intervention plan for students with reading

difficulty should be centered on small group settings. Begeny’s data is further

corroborated when put up against a one to one intervention setting. Ross and Begeny

(2015) compared the effectiveness of an individualized one to one ratio intervention

against small group intervention. Their findings concluded, “The small group

intervention appeared relatively more effective than one to one condition. The fact that

multiple students, but not all students, seem to benefit as much or more from small group

interventions that are structurally similar to one to one interventions is continuing to be a

consistent trend in research that evaluates the effects of small group interventions

targeting reading fluency” (Ross and Begeny, 2015). Though their findings were not

significant enough to make a clear determination that small group is drastically more

effective than a one to one setting, their acknowledgement of the data trend that is being

produced by small group interventions setting is notable. Their interpretation of the data

believes that the trend of increased student growth in comprehension and fluency will
Individual Versus Small Group Intervention 5

continue through greater small group reading intervention strategies.

Trends for Group Reading Strategies

The case for using group intervention strategies is continued when educators are

able to choose from a variety of interventions that support reading instruction through

groups. The goal for teachers when using intervention practices is to grow the students

capabilities in fluency and comprehension. This is solidified when researchers suggest

that, “Results indicated that each of the intervention packages promoted larger reading-

fluency gains compared to baseline conditions, but that the intervention combining all of

the group-based intervention components . . . was most effective” (Begeny and Silber

2006).

This understanding of having various methods in which to implement a multi-

student or small group reading intervention plan is made quantifiable when a study was

completed that showed “only 16% of at-risk readers in our sample who received

enhanced classroom instruction alone remained below average performance levels on

basic reading skills at the end of first grade. Extrapolating to the total school population,

this figure translates to only 3% of all children.” Even with these low numbers for a

control group, the comparison data of the experiment group shows that “regardless of the

nature of the small- group intervention, children who received supplemental small-group

intervention performed significantly better than their at-risk peers who received only

enhanced classroom instruction” (Mathes, Patricia et al. 2005). Their study allowed for

students who were not receiving the control of enhanced instructional practices to receive
Individual Versus Small Group Intervention 6

one of two small group intervention practices.

Conclusion

Though the use of a one to one or more individualized intervention strategies is

effective, it is not the most useful of reading intervention strategies. Through the

interpretation of the results and controlled research, it can be seen that a group based

reading interpretation is required for optimal student growth.

Individual Versus Small Group Intervention 7

References

John C. Begeny, Jennier M. Silber, An Examination of Group-Based Treatment

Packages for Increasing Elementary Aged Students’ Reading Fluency2006

Psychology in Schools

Begeny John C. and Martinez, Rebecca S. Effects of Small-Group and One-on-One

Reading Fluency Interventions with Second Grade, Low-Performing Spanish Readers

Journal of Behavior Education 2012

Crowe, Linda K. Comparison of Two Oral Reading Feedback Strategies in Improving

Reading Comprehension of School-Aged Children with Low Reading Ability

Remedial and Special Education 2005.

Greenwood, Charles R. et al. A Building Based Case Study of Evidence-Based Literacy

Practices: Implementations, Reading Behavior and Growth in Reading Fluency K-4”

Journal of Special Education 2003.

Mathes, Patricia G. et al. “The Effects of Theoretically Different Instructional

Characteristics on the Skills of Struggling Readers. Reading Research Quarterly

2005.
Individual Versus Small Group Intervention 8

Ruetzel, D. Ray, Fawson, Parker C. and Smith John A., Reconsidering Silent Reading:

An Exploratory Study of Scaffolded Silent Reading” The Journal of Educational

Research 2008.

Reutzel, D. Ray Jones, Ciny D. Fawson,Parker C. and Smith, John A.. Scaffolded Silent

Reading: A Complement to Guided Repeated Oral Reading that Works. The Reading

Teacher 2008.

Ross, Sarah G. and Begeny John C. An Examination of Treatment Intensity with an Oral

Reading Fluency Intervention: Do Intervention Duration and Student-Teacher Ratios

Impact Intervention Effectiveness? Springer Science+Business Media New York

2013.