Should Reading Be Taught Whole Class or Small Group?

Thank you for your response.

Just to clarify, would you support a model where all students follow the same phonics curriculum but work at different points based on their assessed level (with support staff ect). This would mean that some students aren't receiving grade level phonics instruction.

The comprehension component would still be taught whole-class and at the grade level for the reasons you mentioned regarding the limitations of leveled texts and lower-level activities.

I'm asking because the approach I mentioned is being strongly advocated by some consultants. It seems promising if implemented with the right staffing, so I was interested to hear your thoughts.

Matt-
The devil is in the details on that. I know of no reliable way to make fine distinctions among different decoding levels. There is evidence that if kids can decode reasonably well, that it is beneficial to exempt them from unnecessary phonics instruction -- but the notion that we can identify which skills a student has or hasn't accomplished (beyond the grossest kinds of distinctions) is questionable -- mainly because you would have to do a lot of testing to make those determinations for reliability purposes. Given that research has not been able to discern differences in effectiveness of various sequences of phonics, I would not be sanguine about the value of trying to get everyone to their phonics level (whatever that might mean).

tim

Thanks for sharing this thinking, Timothy.

It would be interesting to see if there is any research that analyses the actual pedagogies used, rather than the lesson structures per se (i.e. whole class or small group). For example, a whole class lesson that lacks engagement may not be time well served. I am wondering here if it is the classroom structure or the pedagogies implemented that have the biggest effect regarding learning. This is a genuine think aloud :).

I am a strong advocate for dialogic pedagogies that foster collaborative thinking. There are some evidence-based approaches for whole class dialogic instruction as well as strong research on the effectiveness of small group dialogic instructional routines, for example, reciprocal teaching (also, Wilkinson, Soter & Murphy's research that analysed small group dialogic approaches that facilitated aesthetic, efferent and/or critical responses).

My concern is when schools generalise statements that one particular structure of classroom organisation is "best" for teaching reading, across all reading lessons, purposes and contexts, as I believe it depends on the instructional purpose, kids being taught, pedagogies implemented etc.

My research focus is on comprehension, in particular, and I acknowledge that your article focuses mainly on structures for initial reading acquisition, however, I have found that within the umbrella of the "Science of Reading" when schools are reviewing and renewing their approaches to the teaching of reading within this context of change, recommendations regarding initial reading instruction are then applied to all forms of reading instruction for all kids, that is, that whole class instruction is cited as preferred overall for all reading instruction, regardless of the students, their age/year level, the instructional focus/purpose of the reading lesson and so forth.

I am also keen to learn more about effective ways that teachers are catering for differing learning needs within a whole class structure, that is, how they differentiate their instruction. This may be more of a concern for those of us who teach in the middle and upper primary years when the scope of learning needs is more apparent.

Many thanks, Kylie (Australia).

When I was getting my master's, I did a brief placement in an ICT class in a public school with an extremely strong reputation locally. At one point, I wound up working with a girl who did not have an IEP but was in the special ed teacher's math group on a decimals worksheet. She could do the problems that could be solved by following the steps in the available example, but really fell apart at the final problem, which was the only one that required real mathematical thinking - in the course of trying to work with her on it, I came to the realization that her whole foundational conception of decimals was missing some key components. I shared this with her teacher, thinking it would be useful information she would want to follow up on. Instead she laughed and said, "Oh, when one of my kids really doesn't get it, I just move on."

I obviously have no way of testing how
prevalent that attitude is. But ever since then I've wondered how much that kind of thinking might contribute to the lack of reported benefit of small group teaching for those who struggle, especially since ultimately I would not describe it as an anomalous attitude in both public and private settings I've worked in, although I never did encounter another teacher who expressed it so blatantly - which among other things would make this pretty difficult if not impossible to turn into a research question. But I guess if anyone were to ask about my non evidence based advice about small group teaching I would emphasize that the goal of the small group should be to provide needed support in mastering grade level material, not giving students who struggle something easier to do.

Small group size effectiveness generate low effect sizes because teachers tend to reproduce the same teaching techniques that they use in whole group instruction.

Dear Tim,

I was interested to read your comments about the difficulty in assessing discrete phonics skills; I was under the impression this was quite straightforward given the prevalence of assessments like the 'core phonics survey' in classrooms.

However, I did come across one such assessment that at least has some evidence of reliability and validity. I'm not sure if this is what you would deam an accurate tool, so I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

McKenna, M. C., Walpole, S., & Jang, B. G. (2017). Validation of the Informal Decoding Inventory. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42(2), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508416640747

It has always been my experience that the most effective instruction is individualized, whether circulating among the whole class or working one on one with each child in a group as the rest of the group pairs up or works on their own. The less kids in a group, the more individual attention each kid gets. Now that I am retired and tutoring privately I have been utterly astonished by the incredible results I am getting. Especially since I typically see a student for a total of only 1 1/2-2 hours weekly! Did retirement suddenly transform me into a way better teacher? That seems doubtful. More likely the frredom to directly meet the needs of the individual in the way I determine best, is the answer.

Those of us training in and used DI for years, similarly Success for All, use small groups at least for word recognition, grouped by skill not level. Our programs have built in placement as well. This has consistently resulted in the following: more frequent response opportunities, immediate corrective feedback, better ability to see and hear articulation. But to work we us grouping across the school with all adults so no teacher has more than 2 groups and many have 1. The data from Steubenville for example and DI programs has always shown the positive results.

I have been a literacy specialist for some time. I have been trained in Direct Instruction and studying the largest reading study called Project Follow Through. Small groups are skilled- based. DI provides instruction in all 5 reading areas, not just PA and phonics. Training for this cuticle curricula comes through NIFDI, the National Institute for Direct Instruction. Have you read studies on this and what do you think of this? It has been proven to be highly effective for proficient and struggling readers. I would appreciate your thoughts.

I'm very interested in reading your new book. My district--based on your work--is considering having student only read grade level text. I'm interested in exploring at what grade this should begin. I read in an earlier piece of yours that leveled books can be an effective part of a K-2 program. So, when you suggest that all students should be reading grade-level books, do you mean for content? That certainly makes a lot of sense as any students who are still struggling with the basic reading skills in third grade should be receiving RTI support with their grade level work. My school has been very successful using Words Their Way and leveled books in small reading groups for teaching early reading. (Comprehension should always be whole group.) We have a large leveled book closet that is shared by all primary teachers. A misconception I read in your work is that students in guided reading groups are reading books that do not challenge them to improve their reading skills. Our philosophy is that we are always pushing the child to the next challenging level. It is certainly a mistake to let children get stuck in a level that they can read. All our K-1 students read the same books throughout the year. The secret sauce we have found is pacing. This allows the strugglers to catch up and the high achievers to move on. We see the strugglers every day and meet much less frequently with the high achievers who don't need to read to us but discuss the books based on the whole group lessons we've modeled for the whole class.

Last year the district adopted a whole group phonics program and this year we are seeing more 2nd graders in our Response to Intervention program who are still sounding out CVC words. The small group work that used to happen in the classroom is now happening only in RTI. I'm hoping that you're advocating for whole group instruction is meant for content after students have been given the skills to attack multi-syllabic words. I look forward to your book. Thanks for you work in early literacy. Kathleen Mikulka, BS, MS RTI Intervention Tutor.

PS There already is PLENTY of testing happening (in Maine) way too many times per year. We have found that the DRA (I know, I know--that pesky 3 cueing thing--just ignore that part.) is a quick and very effective way to test students when we have a new student during the year.

Kim--
The issue isn't whether kids can learn to read when taught in small groups -- indeed, there are approaches that have been proved successful that delivered the instruction in that manner. However, those studies can tell you nothing about whether the small group configuration is particularly beneficial or immaterial.

tim

Kathleen --
By second grade, kids should be working in grade level texts (if they have the basic decoding skills that one would expect of first grader). They should be doing this both for content (science, social studies), but also for reading instruction. I know the theory behind guided reading is that kids are placed at their "instructional level" which provides the necessary challenge. There are serious problems with this approach, however. First, research shows that kids make better progress when they are taught with grade level materials. Second, our ability to measure text challenge levels that make any real distinction in learning are simply not reliable enough to allow for an accurate identification of the appropriate texts. Third, the same problem is inherent in our ability to test students' reading levels. And, fourth, the reliance on small group instruction typically reduces the amount of reading instruction the kids get.

tim

Matt-

There are many phonics tests that are reliable -- meaning that they can consistently identify the degree to which kids have mastered the ability to decode (in other words, separating out good decoders from poor decoders).. But that isn't the issue. These reliable tests are not reliable when it comes to identifying the specific skills that students have and have not acquired -- the tests would need to be much too long to accomplish this. They just wouldn't be practical. The issue here is whether it makes sense to have multiple groups targeted on a variety of decoding skills in each classroom. The answer to that would be no.

tim

The key with struggling readers is that they need more repetition. They need a lot more repetition. So, if you teach a skill to the whole class, many of the students will master it, but the struggling readers probably will not. They will need the skill to be presented and practiced in many different ways before they achieve mastery. I have many students in my intervention groups who have been taught the silent e skill (for example) in their classroom, but when they come to me they have absolutely no idea how it works. This is not because the teacher has not done a good job teaching the skill. These students just need repetition and explanation and practice over and over again before they start to utilize the skill in reading. It is about language/reading processing time. The question is how to utilize classroom management and extra support staff to give these primary students the extra practice that they need literally developing neural pathways to support language/reading development.

Hello Dr. Shanahan,

I really appreciated this updated post. Your writing always helps me think more clearly about what really matters for kids.

One part that stood out to me was your comment: “Of course, there are no such studies focused on foundational skills instruction.” That got me thinking about a recent study in Reading Research Quarterly: Effect of an Instructional Program in Foundational Reading Skills on Early Literacy Development of Students in Kindergarten and First Grade (Lane et al., 2025). It looked at a whole-class foundational skills program called UFLI Foundations, used in kindergarten and first grade. The study found pretty large gains in early literacy when the program was taught whole-group and with strong teacher fidelity. The effect sizes were over 1.0, even higher in first grade.

The instruction was delivered in a whole-group setting, with teachers using small groups only as needed based on student data. Last year our kindergarten team piloted the program; core instruction was taught whole-class, and small groups were used flexibly for follow-up or intervention. We were very pleased with the gains we saw across our classrooms, so much so that our district is implementing the program across all K-2 classrooms this fall. I anticipate this topic of whole group vs small group instructional delivery will come up with teachers, and I want to be prepared to share what research is telling us.

I’d love to hear your take on this study, especially in light of your blog’s discussion on this subject. Does this kind of research change the conversation?

Thanks again for your time and all the work you do to help teachers navigate the research.

Dani--
No, that research doesn't really change anything. You might have noticed comments here from serious educators pointing out that certain programs that teach phonics in small groups have been effective or that they teach it that way and like the results. Such studies, because they haven't manipulated the instructional organization, can't answer the question of which way is best. However, such studies could end up in a meta-analysis of decoding instruction and, perhaps, they could show a correlation between how kids were grouped for instruction in various studies. Those kinds of correlations provide a clue but not direct proof (which can only come from manipulating the variable in question). You quite rightly point out a study that didn't use small groups and yet had a strong effect (which suggests that such a meta-analysis would not be likely to find a strong correlation between grouping and success. Thanks for this.

tim

Thanks for your response. At grade 1 and 2 the books at the end of the year are significantly different in terms of difficulty. What is used to determine grade level books in these grades?

When Nicole said about 'Just move them on ' as applied to a child who just doesn't get it , I was very shocked.

My mother taught 100 remedial reading students per week , privately and her patience in teaching really ' thick 'kids was legend . She never accepted that a child couldn't ' get ' it unless they were extremely retarded with perhaps an IQ below 75 and with other handicaps. In one case she had a child who couldn't hear the difference between /m/ and /p/ but she persevered for a number of weeks until finally the parents took the child to an audiologist who diagnosed the child was quite death but an excellent lip reader .
Anyway my mothers method was to stick at it until the child succeeded. This was achieved by preparing many alternate pieces of equipment , often home made out of cardboard and it was hands on , and /or also magnetic , with chants and some little rules .There were also a variety of drills to go over or selected work book pages and different spelling exercises as well as games featuring specific phonemes.
My son who was dyslexic and dysgraphic filled in six different elementary workbooks directed specifically at just reinforcing the 40 plus phonemes and 80-100 common spelling patterns. He was given stamps or stickers stuck into his well completed page and learned to be compliant and have perseverence . Different quality workbooks like Heilman 's and Curriculum Phonics from America were used, not those produced commercially. Among the particularly fun workbooks was a 1970s 'Programmed Reading ' by Cynthia Buchanan of Behavioural Research Laboratories , which has hundreds of pages in comic cartoon form covering just the consonants and short vowels. You guys in America did produce amazing materials last century . possibly all trashed with the dastardly Whole Language takeover ? Anyway, some children do need an unbelievable amount of repetition of concepts and as another contributor above observed you can achieve this best results with individual tuition . My mother gave only one half -hour lesson a week , in which she mostly taught the parent or other care giver instruction on how to teach the child. Many parents were quite reluctant to do the teaching but since there was nobody else to do it , had no choice but that. They could ring up, during the week if they had problems. One of the main problems to face with these children is resistance and reluctance especially if they are many years behind. Tantrums , screaming , sullen stubbornness and other forms of rebellion have to be overcome . Modern child -rearing practices ,like gentle child rearing, constructivism and play-way doesn't sit well with practices of disciplining a child and insisting they persist with challenging work . My own dyslexic son , one day threw all his books in the swimming pool and stormed off down the street declaring he was leaving home. Forming his letters , which for other children his age was relatively easy was for him very difficult . In the long term he became a very able high achieving student with tremendous perseverance and no signs of dyslexia.

Kathleen--

I find the estimates (ranges) established by the Common Core make the greatest sense -- they use Lexiles or 4-5 other readability estimates.

tim

One major hurdle is the sheer time commitment for lesson preparation. Teaching in small groups necessitates mastering the content of four or five different texts, including vocabulary and comprehension, rather than just one. In reality, this often leads to teachers improvising or solely relying on pre-published materials, if they even have the time to review them. Whole-class instruction, conversely, allows teachers to deeply engage with and effectively teach a single text to the entire class. It seems small group reading often prioritizes reading strategies over the texts themselves (e.g., summarizing skills), but I believe the content of the texts truly matters.

Another significant issue is the difficulty of managing student behavior. A persistent question for me was: what are the other students doing while I'm working with a small group? The common response, "You need to train your children to work independently," proved highly unrealistic. As soon as I'd begin reading with one group, I'd inevitably have multiple students from other groups interrupting, needing assistance with their "independent" tasks. Whole-class teaching, however, ensures all students have consistent access to the teacher. When independent work is assigned later in the lesson, most children understand their tasks, allowing me to focus on those who need support.

Do some kids that are striving, struggling or dyslexic need more doses? Can they get them in small group after the whole group dosage? Do they need an interventionist, special ed teacher, well trained other teacher to support them?

Debbie--
That is a very reasonable way to use small group instruction -- you deliver a lesson or lessons to a class of students, and if some students need a follow up dose or doses you provide it as necessary. The size of the group will depend upon the success of the initial lessons.

tim

Hi Tim! I enjoyed this post and have read a similar recommendation from Nathaniel Swain's "The Science of Learning." This is a big shift for me and I'm curious if you have any resources of what this looks like? Do you know of any classroom teachers that have adopted this approach of whole-group instruction? I'd love to see what it looks like in action. I am a reading specialist and so my entire job is whole groups--it is just a big shift for me to wrap my head around. Thanks for compiling all of the research. I had fun reading through the evidence!

Dr. Shanahan, I am so excited for your book! As a middle school interventionist, I have finally finagled from my principal a sole block of Grade 6 ELA to teach. This leaves me in the unique position of delivering the whole-class direct instruction of my choice (in a district that has been lost in the woods of workshop for well over a decade with no clear exit route) that I know makes for the best Tier 1 instruction; AND the flexibility to pull any small groups I want during dedicated intervention time throughout the week. I have wanted to try this for years now, so I am very excited. I'm happy that your book will be coming out in September at the same time. It seems fortuitous since I have been reading your blog for years as I dreamed all this up. Thank you so much for everything you do!

Dr. Shanahan,
Thank you for revising your article, I found it very meaningful. One part of interest I would like to know a little more about would be on, "Instead of encouraging more and more small group teaching, districts should provide professional development in the most effective ways to deliver whole class instruction. This should include attention to the nature and use of seatwork." Are you able to provide professional books, journal articles, etc. to focus on for PD with a staff? I am interesting in learning more in this area for educators. Thank you for taking the time on this question.

Mark--

The literature is pretty diffuse and gets into issues like managing classroom attention, facilitating multiple responses, maximizing participation and feedback etc. Most of what I know comes from a disparate set of research studies (see below). If you have access to these and the time needed to comb through them, you can find some useful information. There are books, like Doug Lemov's Teach Like a Champion (which isn't specifically about that topic, but which includes some wise advice that may help you to address some of those issues). The same can be said of the Visible Learning books. There are also a number of books on classroom management, too.

Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. S. (2002). Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. The Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 2-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669020360010101

Rupley, W. H., & Blair, T. R. (1986). Primary teachers' assignment and supervision of students' reading seatwork. Reading Psychology, 7(4), 279-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271860070406

Hart, K. C., Massetti, G. M., Fabiano, G. A., Pariseau, M. E., & Pelham, W. E., Jr. (2011). Impact of group size on classroom on-task behavior and work productivity in children with ADHD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 19(1), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426609353762

Adams, A., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1982). Instructional strategies for studying content area texts in the intermediate grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(1), 27-55. https://doi.org/10.2307/747537

Brooks, R., Warmington, M., & Thomson, J. (2024). Evaluating the impact of vocabulary instruction on oral vocabulary, phonemic awareness and nonword reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10564-1

Amendum, S. J., Li, Y., Hall, L. A., Fitzgerald, J., Creamer, K. H., Head-Reeves, D., & Hollingsworth, H. L. (2009). Which reading lesson instruction characteristics matter for early reading achievement? Reading Psychology, 30(2), 119-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802275173

Packard, R. G. (1970). The control of "classroom attention": A group contingency for complex behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3(1), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1970.3-13

Kotik, J. D., McCurdy, M., Skinner, C. H., Wilson, C. S., Hogan?Sandi, V. E., Smith, C., & Wilhoit, B. E. (2025). Using response cards to increase active responding during zoom instruction in students with disability in a postsecondary classroom. Psychology in the Schools, https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23530

D'Intino, J. (2022). Evaluating the rationale and evidence supporting executive functions skills instruction in the classroom: A critical review. Psychology in the Schools, https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22825

Wagner, S., & Park, I. (2022). Whole?class co?construction in a high school spanish classroom: A conversation analytic perspective. Language Learning, 72, 203-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12472

tim

Angela--
Thanks so much. I hope you enjoy (and benefit from) my book. It is supposed to reach the warehouse soon (sometime in July) and I believe they plan to start shipping immediately to early orders. If that is correct, you won't have to wait for its official release date. Fingers crossed.

tim

Grace--
I'm not in schools at this time (I'm not even in the U.S.). The information shared here is based on research studies. I do receive emails from teachers telling me of their success with this approach, but I'm in no position to evaluate those claims. Sorry.

tim