Small group instruction is associated with significantly larger effect sizes than CAI and incentive components in targeted secondary interventions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 In meta-regressions including all instructional methods and moderators, small group instruction was associated with significantly larger effect sizes than CAI and incentive components. → Dietrichson J 2020

Evidence¶

Dietrichson J 2020¶

Dietrichson J, Filges T, Klokker RH, Viinholt BCA, Bøg M, Jensen UH. (2020). Targeted school‐based interventions for improving reading and mathematics for students with, or at risk of, academic difficulties in Grades 7–12: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1081

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-regression including all instructional methods and moderators without missing observations, from the review's comparative effectiveness analysis. Small group instruction (ES = 0.38) beat CAI (ES = 0.17) and incentives (ES = 0.05, not significant); unexplained heterogeneity remained substantial.

"Small group instruction was associated with significantly larger effect sizes than CAI and incentive components. The unexplained heterogeneity remained substantial throughout the comparative effectiveness analysis."

Studies bearing on this claim¶

Does targeted instruction by an adult in a small group raise struggling learners' achievement more than whole-class delivery or other intervention components, and how small does the group need to be? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 5 narrower claims that bear on it: 6 distinct studies (3 quant-synthesis, 2 review, 1 causal), q1–q3, 2 of 6 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In adjusted meta-regressions, peer-assisted and small-group instruction outperform computer-assisted instruction, coaching, incentives, and progress monitoring — a broader claim this one bears on
• Substantial unexplained heterogeneity characterises short-term effects of targeted K-6 interventions — related
• Peer-assisted instruction and small-group instruction by adults have statistically significant, robust short-term effects (ES about 0.35–0.45) for K-6 struggling students — related
• Saga tutoring impacts were larger in schools with fewer staffing challenges and in tutoring groups of two students or fewer — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Among language-only interventions, instructional practices and one-on-one or small-group delivery produced significantly larger language gains than curricula and large-group or whole-class delivery — related
• A later review reports that a 1997 New York City report found lower reading achievement after resource room group sizes rose from 5 to at most 8 students per teacher — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Common strategies across reviewed Tier 2 interventions include structured curriculum, small group instruction, and progress-monitoring assessment tools — related