• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Teachers' Responses to Using a Small-Group Delivery Method during Reading Instruction: A Qualitative Approach

Dissertation
Author: Dorothy M. Valentine Reynolds
Abstract:
The purpose of this research was to examine teachers' perspectives on transitioning from a predominately whole to small-group delivery method during reading instruction. This study used a qualitative approach and nested itself in an epistemology of constructivism. The research operated under the umbrella of practice ethnography as it closely examined a reading framework that incorporated small-group instruction. Research was conducted in a large urban school district. There were four teachers who participated in the study. All four teachers were implementing a small-group delivery method. Pre-observational surveys, classroom observations and post-observational interviews were used to gain insight into their practice. Using a theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism, the researcher presented case studies to reveal each teacher's reaction as she transitioned from a whole to small-group delivery method. A cross-case analysis was conducted to capture their responses regarding the challenges and benefits of implementing this type of delivery method. The researcher found that although teachers felt that the theory of using a small-group delivery method is pedagogically sound, the process of implementation may be overwhelming. The study found that this delivery method promoted students' discourse, social skill development, student-teacher relationships and increased the opportunities for students to respond and actively engage in the learning process. The study also found that one key benefit to using a small-group delivery method is that teachers are able to provide differentiated and individualized instruction according to students' academic needs. A list of clearly-identified patterns of effective classroom management strategies and behaviors that are needed when utilizing this delivery method emerged from the study. A primary conclusion from the study is that using a small-group delivery method is not only an academically sound practice for urban schools, but students enjoy and benefit from this pedagogy. Another conclusion is that support and training are critical factors in sustaining teachers in their transition from a predominately whole to small-group delivery method. Specific implications for the field of education include teacher training, coaching support throughout the transitional phase, and identifying additional effective classroom management strategies. Training of preservice teachers at the university level is also recommended. An appeal for further research on the process of small-group implementation is discussed. There are three areas that are in need of further exploration: (1) the instruction that is delivered at the teaching station, (2) identification of additional effective classroom management strategies using this delivery method and (3) sociological and psychological effect on students.

Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………. i

Copyright Notice…………………………………………………………………………... iv

Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………. v

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….............. vii

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………….. xii

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………....... xiii

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………… xiv . CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION/LITERATURE REVIEW……………………… 1

Statement of the Problem……………………………………….………..……………. 2

Context………………………………………………………………………….…….. 3

Background……………………………………………………………………............ 6

Research Questions…………………………………………………………………… 13

Operational Definitions……………………………………………………………….. 15

Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………… 18

Summary……………………………………………………………………………….. 22

Literature Review……………………………………………………………………… 23

Small-Group Versus Whole-Group Instruction……………………………………. 23

Epistemological Beliefs…………………………………………………………….. 30

Processes of Change………………………………………………………………… 34

Summary………………………………………………………………………………… 36

CHAPTER TWO – METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………… 37

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….. 37 Framework …………………………………………………………………………….. 37

x

Practice Ethnography ………………………………………………………………….. 38 Reflexivity ……………………………………………………………………………... 40 Summary………………………………………………………………………………... 42 Previous Methodologies and Methods ……………………………………………........ 43 Research Methods ……………………………………………………………………… 47 Setting …………………………………………………………………………………. 47 Participants ……………………………………………………………………………. 56 Gaining Entry …………………………………………………………………………. 56 Data Sources …………………………………………………………………………... 57 Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………….. 60 Rationale ………………………………………………………………………………. 65 Summary……………………………………………………………………………….. 69 CHAPTER THREE-RESULTS………………………………………………………….. 70 Introduction - …………………………………………………………………………. 70 Framework Implementation ………………………………………………………….. 71 Ms. Bouvier………………………………………………………………………... 72 Ms. Robinson ……………………………………………………………………… 77 Ms. Scott ………………………………………………………………………….. 82 Ms. Ross …………………………………………………………………………… 84 Summary……………………………………………………………………………….. 88 Emerging Themes……………………………………………………………………… 91 Positive Benefits …………………………………………………………………… 91 Effect on Instruction ……………………………………………………………….. 96 Effect on Classroom Management …………………………………………………. 98

xi

Challenges ………………………………………………………………………… 103 Summary……………………………………………………………………………… 104 CHAPTER FOUR – SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS………… 107 Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 107 Summary of the Study ……………………………………………………………… 107 Discussion of findings ……………………………………………………………… 110 Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………… 117 Implications for the field of education ……………………………………………… 119 Implications for future research …………………………………………………….. 121 Limitations of the study …………………………………………………………….. 124 References…………………………………………………………………………………. 126 Appendices………………………………………………………………………………… 131 Appendix A – Survey…………………………………………………………………. 132 Appendix B – Classroom Observation Checklist……………………………………... 138 Appendix C – Semi-Structured Interview Template………………………………….. 140

xii

APPENDICES Appendix A: Survey…………………………………………………………………....... 132 Appendix B: Classroom Observation Checklist…………………………………………. 138 Appendix C: Semi-Structured Interview Template ……………………………………… 140

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Percentage of students passing Ohio Achievement Test ……………………. 8 Figure 1.2: Reading Framework…………………………………………………………. 11 Figure 2.1: Classroom at Barack Elementary School……………………………………. 50 Figure 2.2: Classroom at John F. Kennedy Elementary School…………………………. 52 Figure 2.3: Classroom at George Washington Elementary School………………………. 53 Figure 2.4: Classroom at Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School…………………… 55 Figure 2.5: Themes/Categories……………………………………………………………. 62 Figure 2.6: Comparison of Survey and Observation Data (Positive Benefits)…………… 64 Figure 2.7: Coding Matrix ……………………………………………………………….. 66 Figure 3.1: Number of Times Students Respond…………………………………………. 94

xiv

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Comparison Chart ………………………………………………………………. 90

1

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION/LITERATURE REVIEW Where Do We Go From Here? Coach: Hello, how are you today? Teacher: Well, you know: A million things to do and not enough time to do it. Coach: I understand that. How are you doing with the Reading Framework? Teacher: [pauses and takes a deep sigh] I kind of started. I mean, [slows down] I read the materials but I am not sure if my students are ready for that. I mean I have students with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Severe Emotionally Disturbed (SED), Autism and those that are two to three grade levels behind in their reading. My students are not able to work in groups. I have to watch them every second to keep a fight from breaking out. To be quite honest, I haven’t started it at all. [Tears well up in teacher’s eyes] Coach: It’s okay. I know that it is difficult to do something new with all the other things that you have to do. I also know that you have a wide range of abilities in your class and that it must be very hard for you to teach to all of those different levels plus social skills at the same time. Teacher: You bet. I am beat by the time that I go home every day. Coach: Have you considered working with one group while the other group is working on something that they are able to do independently? Teacher: Their skills are so low. [Pauses and looks as though she is thinking.] Well, they do like to work on the computers and they can stay on there forever if I let them. Coach: How about having one group work on the computer on a reading program for a period of time while you work with another group on another reading skill. Then you can have them switch after twenty minutes or so. That would allow you to work with a smaller group of students. This way you are not trying to control the entire class while you are teaching. This is slowly implementing the framework but at least it is a start. Are you willing to try?

2

Teacher: You don’t know my kids. They can’t work together. Coach: Remember, I worked here for two years and I do know your kids. I know that it will take a lot of practice and working on social skills. They can do it. How about if you start out teaching them how to work in small groups while you rotate from one group to another? Then, once they are comfortable with that we will move into starting a teaching station. Again, this is slowly implementing the framework but it’s a start. Are you willing to try? Teacher: I never thought of that. [Reluctantly] I guess I’ll try. Statement of the Problem My interest in the pedagogical practice of using small groups during reading instruction began when I was a literacy coach in a large urban public school district. As a district coach, my primary duties were to train, monitor, and assist teachers with their implementation of small groups during the reading block. The above stated vignette is typical of the many meetings that I have had with teachers who were required to implement a new Reading Framework. The framework required a large majority of teachers to change their primary delivery method from whole group to small group during their reading period. In many cases, teachers were not adequately trained or did not feel comfortable in implementing a small-group structure within their classrooms and this teacher was no exception. She felt she had to use a whole-group delivery method in order to control her classroom. She struggled with having a variety of reading levels in her class and felt overwhelmed by the academic gaps and wide range of abilities. Using a whole-group delivery method seemed most comfortable for her and she was reluctant to try small groups without coaxing, encouragement and support. School districts across the country continue to look for ways to make small-group instruction more effective and manageable for teachers. Florida’s Reading program trained teachers on

3

using small groups in their Reading First Schools. This framework provided teachers with a structure to use small groups incorporating differentiated instruction. In the summary report from the Florida Center for Reading Research, Crawford and Torgesen (2006) stated that “We must increase the quality, consistency, and reach [author’s emphasis] of classroom instruction by providing systematic and explicit initial instruction, and by providing differentiated instruction delivered individually or in small groups” (p. 1). Differentiating instruction allows teachers to provide instruction to students needing reteaching, practice or enrichment. The Alabama Reading Initiative is another example of a district encouraging teachers to adopt an alternative lesson structure and utilize a small-group delivery method. In her 2005 evaluation of the Alabama Reading Initiative, Moscovitch (2006) stated “The same model of frequent assessment, differentiated, small-group instruction, and research based interventions that has served so well in primary grades will clearly improve instruction in fourth and fifth grades as well” ( p. 12). Using a small-group delivery method during reading is a resourceful tool that many educators have found to be helpful when used effectively. However, successfully using small groups during reading, particularly in urban environments, is an area where many teachers continue to struggle. This was the springboard for the focus area of this dissertation. The research was guided by two questions: 1) How do teachers adapt their instruction when transitioning from a whole- to small-group delivery method during reading instruction? and 2) What are the benefits and challenges encountered by teachers when using a small-group delivery method within a reading framework? Context There is a national trend of low reading scores and Reis et al. (2007) reported “The 2002 Nation’s Report Card on Reading, issued by the National Assessment of Educational Progress

4

(NAEP, 2002), indicated that 36% of U.S. fourth graders and 25% of U.S. eighth graders read below a basic level…” (p. 4). Reis et al. (2007) also reported research conducted by Education Trust and stated “…only 12% of fourth-grade African American students read at a proficient or advanced level, and 61% read below a basic level” (p. 5). The National Reading Panel (NRP) also indicates that there are dismal scores in reading achievement across the nation. These statistics sound an alarm that improving reading scores across the nation is critical. One of the many factors of students’ success in reading is the way that they are taught and the delivery method used during reading instruction. There are numerous reading programs that use small-group instruction as a primary delivery method. Reading programs such as Success for All, Harcourt Trophies, Voyager Universal Literacy and Voyager Passport programs all boast of having success in their programs. A common denominator in these programs, in particular those used for intervention, is the use of a small-group delivery method of instruction. Rashotte, MacPhee and Torgesen (2001) conducted a research study on the effectiveness of a group reading instruction program and reported “The results of the present study indicate that a phonologically based reading instruction program delivered in small groups (3-5) can significantly impact the phonetic and word-level reading skills as well as the reading comprehension skills of deficient readers in first through sixth grade” (p.130). Working with students in close proximity allows teachers to assess students’ understanding and provide corrective feedback. It also provides an opportunity for increased student response. Lou, Abrami and Spence (2000) listed five distinct advantages for using small groups: There are several reasons for using small-group instruction. First, the emphasis on peer learning means that the teacher may have more time to provide either remedial assistance to

5

students experiencing difficulties or enrichment activities to students who have already mastered prescribed content. Second, using within-class grouping means that teachers may have greater flexibility in adjusting the learning objectives and the pace of instruction to meet individual learning needs. Third, students in small groups may rehearse material orally, explain it to others, discover solutions, debate, and discuss content and procedural issues, and so forth. Fourth, students who learn together in small groups may be motivated by cooperative, as opposed to competitive, incentive structures. Fifth, small-group instruction means that students may have the opportunity to develop social and communication skills because of the need and opportunity to work with others to learn. (p. 102) Many of these advantages are limited or absent in a whole-group structure. Although there are many debates on the effectiveness of whole-group versus small-group instruction, there is substantial research and support for using a small-group delivery method. Lou et al. (1996) conducted a meta-analysis on within-class groupings and reported “On average, students learning in small groups within classrooms achieved significantly more than students not learning in small groups” (p. 439). Small-group instruction is beneficial for students in urban schools. In a study conducted by Rashotte, MacPhee, and Torgesen (2001) they reported “One of the implications of the results of the present study is that a group-delivered instructional program can be successful in a low economic school environment with many reading impaired students” (p. 132). More importantly, teachers are able to provide individual instruction on explicit skills within small-group instruction.

Slavin (1987) used a best-evidence synthesis when he extrapolated and compared features from meta-analytic and narrative reviews to examine ability grouping in elementary schools. He reported:

6

…analysis of effects of alternative grouping methods suggests that ability grouping is maximally effective when done for only one or two subjects, with students remaining in heterogeneous classes most of the day; when it greatly reduces student heterogeneity in a specific skill; when group assignments are frequently reassessed; and when teachers vary the level and pace of instruction according to students’ needs. (p. 293) The reading framework discussed in this study supported these findings. One of the strengths of the framework is that it allowed teachers to provide differentiated instruction. Furthermore, this framework afforded teachers the opportunities of eclecticism in order to offer a more balanced literacy approach (Stahl, 1999). Another study by Nelson and Manset-Williamson (2006) compared explicit comprehension instruction to guided reading instruction and reported “ The Manset-Williamson and Nelson study showed that students in the explicit comprehension intervention made significantly larger gains in their reading comprehension skills than did participating in the guided reading intervention” (p. 223). Lou et al. (1996) meta-analysis also revealed that “On average, students placed in small groups achieved more, held more positive attitudes and reported higher general self-concept than students in nongrouped classes” (p. 446). Using a small-group structure renders the same effects in all discipline areas. This study focused on the effect it has during reading instruction. Background The district used in this research was a large, urban district. According to the rating on the Department of Education State Report Card, this district was in its fifth consecutive year of Continuous Improvement. The district had not met the required percentage of state indicators for reading, 75% passage rate, during this period in grades four, five and six. As shown by Figure

7

1.1, the scores of fourth-grade students remained steady with slight increases each year. Fifth- grade had a significant drop from the 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 school year from 58.9% to 48.6% respectively. Their scores continued on a declining slope and in 2008-2009 only 47.2% of the students scored proficient or above on the state test. The sixth-grade reading scores in 2005- 2006 were the closest to meeting the indicator and they continued to fluctuate in the high fifties to low sixties. These scores were dismal and had an impact on all other academic areas. Moats (2004) reported that, “An inability to read well contributes to a lack of growth in all language skills that support the development of literacy” (p. 145). Reading scores were of great concern to the district and this study examined the use of a small-group delivery method used during reading instruction at grades four, five and six. Through the district’s Instructional Support Team (IST) formal and informal observations of reading classes, and reading audits conducted by an external agency, it became apparent that teachers were primarily using whole-group instruction and a very static style of delivery and instruction during the reading periods. Under the umbrella of a Reading Framework initiative, reading teachers at grade levels four, five and six were required to implement small-group instruction within the reading period. This initiative was designed to address the problem of low scores in reading and to provide teachers with a structure that supported small-group instruction. The district charged a group of teachers who were district-wide literacy coaches to create a framework that would provide teachers with a structure to implement small-group instruction.

This framework was created in a way that did not limit teachers to a scripted program, but allowed for autonomy in lesson plans according to students’ needs. Furthermore, the district did

8

Percentage Passing

Ohio Department of Education Achievement Tests Data (Percentage of Students Passing)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 4th-Grade 5th-Grade 6th-Grade 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Figure 1.1 Percentage of students passing the reading part of the Ohio Achievement Test.

Data retrieved from the Ohio Department of Education, website Dec., 2008

9

not want to purchase a new reading program, but wanted to utilize the current adopted materials to the fullest potential so these materials were taken into consideration. For instance, leveled readers were a literature rich resource available in the current textbook series. However, many teachers were not using these materials because they were not aware of its correlation to the anthology or that it used the same vocabulary words that were introduced in the story. Along with the framework, teachers were given suggestions on opportune times to utilize their resource materials within this format. The goal of the framework was to help teachers utilize a structure to incorporate small groups, navigate through the different components in the adopted reading materials and to implement it during a 90-minute reading block. This framework provided teachers with opportunities to work with small groups of students to deliver explicit instruction on reading indicators that are identified in the curriculum. The framework consisted of 90-minute blocks and teachers were expected to use a small-group delivery method for 60 of those 90 minutes. There were three components to the framework: 1) whole-group instruction to begin the lesson, 2) small-group instruction for explicitly teaching groups of students at a teacher’s station, and 3) whole-group instruction as a closure to the reading block The reading period began with the teacher teaching a focus lesson to the whole group for 20 minutes. Teachers had the autonomy to provide a variety of instruction such as teaching a reading indicator as a focus lesson or conducting a mini lesson on a writing piece. This time was also used to review the materials, instructions, procedures or activities used in stations. The next 60 minutes was devoted to small-group instruction where the teacher was able to work with small groups of students in another area in the room referred to as the teaching station.

10

The framework suggests that teachers rotated three groups to the teaching station within this time period. Each group received approximately 20 minutes with the teacher at the teaching station. The final ten minutes consisted of whole-group instruction and was used as a closure where the teacher reviewed the lesson or had students reflect on their learning for the day (See Figure 1.2). The first objective was to train the district leaders on this framework. A PowerPoint of the framework, which included opportunities for explicit instruction in small group, was created and presented to the district’s elementary administrators. There were two presentations, one in each month, to train principals. The second presentation included strategies to address the challenges that many of the schools were voicing. Another dimension of the implementation of this framework was to work with the literacy coaches in the district. When implementing a new program it is critical to provide on-going coaching support to teachers during the implementation process. It was critical that coaches were well versed on the framework. Coaches were trained in weekly sessions. These training sessions were structured much like the framework. This provided the coaches with a concrete understanding of the details involved in implementing the framework. Finally, it was critical to provide support to teachers in the field and to differentiate the support provided to the teacher according to their need. Substitute coverage was provided so that teachers were able to have individualized coaching sessions on their implementation. If needed, coaches were able to escort teachers to other classrooms where the teacher had the framework in

place. This provided them with a better understanding of the framework and a variety of

11

Figure 1.2. Reading Framework (90-minute reading block to indicate whole- and small-group instruction).

Whole Group (Focus/Mini Lesson) 20 minutes

Whole Group (closure) 10 minutes

Teaching Station (Small-Group Instruction) 60 minutes (Approximately 20 minutes for three groups) Group A 20 minutes Group B 20 minutes Group C 20 minutes

12

organizational structures to use within the framework. Coaches were able to plan and co-teach with teachers to assist with the implementation of small-group instruction. Teachers started using this framework, incorporating small groups, in the fall of the 2008- 2009 school year. During the first year of the initiative, it became evident to administration and literacy coaches that many teachers were using this delivery method for the first time or they were experiencing a major transformational shift from a predominate delivery method of whole- group to small-group during reading instruction. In the 2009-2010 school year the requirement to use small groups expanded to include other subject areas. Teachers continued to struggle with their implementation of small groups across all disciplines. When studying schools incorporating peer learning within small groups, Blumenfeld, Marx, Soloway and Krajcik (1996) reported “…it is not so easy to transform the culture of schools to incorporate extensive use of small group learning” (p. 37). They indicated that because there are a variety of ways that small- group instruction may take place, that many teachers are reluctant to select a method with confidence. Changing a school’s culture is often very difficult and requiring teachers to shift from one delivery method to another is even more challenging. Blumenfeld, Marx, Soloway and Krajcik (1996) also reported “Teachers need to have clear purposes when using group work, and they need to be aware of some of the many limitations and considerations to be successful” (p. 38). They listed the following key areas needed when implementing a small-group delivery method: 1) group norms, 2) tasks, 3) giving and seeking help, 4) group collaboration,

13

5) accountability, and 6) group composition (p. 38). Reading teachers in this district have had one year of experience using this delivery method, so they had their actual experiences as a reference. However, many teachers continued to struggle in the areas listed above and with implementing a small-group delivery method. On the other hand, there were teachers who had mastered different components of this framework and were able to successfully implement small groups within their classes. Thus, examining the phenomena of utilizing a small-group delivery method became the impetus of this research study. This research examined teachers’ responses to changing their primary instructional delivery method from whole- to small-group instruction during reading. I wanted to understand teacher’s responses throughout this transition and to gain additional knowledge that may be helpful to other teachers who are also experiencing this type of transition. Research Questions Although there are a plethora of studies on the effectiveness of a small-group delivery method, most of them are quantitative in nature and very few studies looked at this topic through the lens of the teacher. Furthermore, most of the research used a positivistic stance where data was the primary factor used in the interpretation of the findings. This study used a qualitative approach to explore this topic. The research solicited the perspectives of four teachers in a large urban district as they revealed their reactions, challenges, and benefits to using small- and whole- group delivery methods. More specifically, this study explored two research questions: 1) How do teachers adapt their instruction when transitioning from a whole- to small-group delivery method during reading instruction? and 2) What are the benefits and challenges encountered by teachers when using a small-group delivery method within the reading framework?

14

First, teachers undergo several adaptations when transitioning from a whole- to small-group delivery method. Classroom and time management are foundational components when using a small-group delivery method. This was an area of particular interest throughout this research study. There are numerous studies and training programs that discuss classroom and time management strategies used by teachers during the reading period (Cunningham, Hall, & Sigmon, 1999). However, teachers in urban settings are working under unique circumstances that are much different from their suburban counterparts and would approach these areas differently. For instance, student mobility is a major factor that influences the effectiveness of small groups and the building of a class community early in the school year. Having a low mobility rate allows a teacher to teach routines, procedures and build a positive classroom community needed for small-group instruction at the beginning of the school year. Students are able to internalize and routinize the expectations for small-group instruction. By contrast, when there is a constant revolving door of students, teachers must develop strategies to incorporate new students as well as fill in the gaps left by students who have withdrawn from the school. Many suburban teachers work with more stable classroom populations from the beginning to the end of the school year, whereas urban teachers face a high mobility rate throughout the year. Teachers in both settings, urban and suburban, adapt and use different strategies according to their environment. Synthesizing urban teachers’ reported beliefs, understandings and strategies regarding effective classroom and time management provided opportunities to examine patterns or outliers in this area and thus give insight into utilizing a small-group delivery method in urban schools. Furthermore, reported beliefs that are in alignment with classroom practice and are factors to successful implementation will lend insight into teachers’ thought processes in these areas.

Full document contains 157 pages
Abstract: The purpose of this research was to examine teachers' perspectives on transitioning from a predominately whole to small-group delivery method during reading instruction. This study used a qualitative approach and nested itself in an epistemology of constructivism. The research operated under the umbrella of practice ethnography as it closely examined a reading framework that incorporated small-group instruction. Research was conducted in a large urban school district. There were four teachers who participated in the study. All four teachers were implementing a small-group delivery method. Pre-observational surveys, classroom observations and post-observational interviews were used to gain insight into their practice. Using a theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism, the researcher presented case studies to reveal each teacher's reaction as she transitioned from a whole to small-group delivery method. A cross-case analysis was conducted to capture their responses regarding the challenges and benefits of implementing this type of delivery method. The researcher found that although teachers felt that the theory of using a small-group delivery method is pedagogically sound, the process of implementation may be overwhelming. The study found that this delivery method promoted students' discourse, social skill development, student-teacher relationships and increased the opportunities for students to respond and actively engage in the learning process. The study also found that one key benefit to using a small-group delivery method is that teachers are able to provide differentiated and individualized instruction according to students' academic needs. A list of clearly-identified patterns of effective classroom management strategies and behaviors that are needed when utilizing this delivery method emerged from the study. A primary conclusion from the study is that using a small-group delivery method is not only an academically sound practice for urban schools, but students enjoy and benefit from this pedagogy. Another conclusion is that support and training are critical factors in sustaining teachers in their transition from a predominately whole to small-group delivery method. Specific implications for the field of education include teacher training, coaching support throughout the transitional phase, and identifying additional effective classroom management strategies. Training of preservice teachers at the university level is also recommended. An appeal for further research on the process of small-group implementation is discussed. There are three areas that are in need of further exploration: (1) the instruction that is delivered at the teaching station, (2) identification of additional effective classroom management strategies using this delivery method and (3) sociological and psychological effect on students.