Small-group intervention in the educational setting has received considerable attention from scholars regarding its effectiveness in promoting positive learning outcomes in students. Kamps et al. (2008) focused on the effect of small-group reading as a preventive and intervention measure in students at high risk of experiencing reading failure. The authors found that students in the more directed group out-performed students in the control group. However, while that is the case, Hofmann and Mercer (2015) focused their attention on teacher interventions in small-group work in both science and math lessons. They noted that when students proposed a correct solution, teachers saw this as problematic if it happened during early group work. They interpreted this as meaning that the group had nothing to do while other groups remained active. For Hofmann and Mercer (2015) of central concern is that when using small-group intervention, it might not be clear for teachers whether everyone understood why certain ideas are right.
Hall and Burns (2018) noted that small-group interventions are more effective when targeted to a specific skill compared to a comprehensive intervention program that focuses on multiple skills. This particular argument demonstrates the limitation associated with small-group intervention as pertains to improving certain skills in students. Vaughn, Denton, and Fletcher (2010) addressed a concept, response to intervention (RTI), which is a measure that shows whether intervention strategies used in schools are effective or not. Thus, understanding, the differences in cognitive ability alongside other qualities, the authors advised that for some students, more intensive interventions are needed immediately without first moving through successive tiers of interventions” ( Vaughn, Denton & Fletcher, 2010, p. 433 ). In support, Jones, Conradi, and Amendum (2016) noted that teachers should focus on fundamental areas of need when teaching targeted skills in either small-group or individual interventions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Conclusion
Thus, from data gathered, it becomes clear that small-group intervention should be focused on a determined fundamental area of need. Educators should consider using a singular approach when focusing on students’ skills, which need improving.
References
Hall, M. S., & Burns, M. K. (2018). Meta-analysis of targeted small-group reading interventions. Journal of School Psychology,66 , 54-66. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2017.11.002
Hofmann, R., & Mercer, N. (2015). Teacher interventions in small group work in secondary mathematics and science lessons. Language and Education,30 (5), 400-416. doi:10.1080/09500782.2015.1125363
Jones, J. S., Conradi, K., & Amendum, J. S. (2016). Matching interventions to reading needs: A case for differentiation. The Reading Teacher, 70 (3), 3017-316.
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Wills, H., Veerkamp, M., & Kaufman, J. (2008). Effects of Small-Group Reading Instruction and Curriculum Differences for Students Most at Risk in Kindergarten. Journal of Learning Disabilities,41 (2), 101-114. doi:10.1177/0022219407313412
Vaughn, S., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools , 47 (5), 432–444. http://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20481
