# data[].attributes.headline
Using Small Group Instruction to Improve Math Performance for All Learners

# data[].attributes.subject
Using Small Group Instruction to Improve Math Performance for All Learners

# data[].attributes.body
What are the benefits to small group math instruction?

How can the Workshop Model help me to execute small group instruction effectively?

# data[].attributes.body
Classroom Management

Time on Task

Academic Levels of my Students

Prior Knowledge

Technology Usage

# data[].attributes.body
Can students succeed in both whole group and small group settings?

What settings do my students prefer?

Can I provide enrichment and intervention during small group instruction?

What differentiated learning experiences will occur when students are working independently or not with the teacher?

How can I use student interests and abilities to enhance the small group learning setting?

# data[].attributes.body
Summaries are Included.

# data[].attributes.body
Cooperative Groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cite this guide: Brame, C.J. & Biel, R. (2015). Setting up and facilitating group work:
Using cooperative learning groups effectively. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [todaysdate] from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/setting-up-and-facilitating-group-work-using-cooperative-learning-groups-effectively/.

Many instructors from disciplines across the university use group work to enhance their students' learning. Whether the goal is to increase student understanding of content, to build particular transferable skills, or some combination of the two, instructors often turn to small group work to capitalize on the benefits of peer-to-peer instruction. This type of group work is formally termed cooperative learning, and is defined as the instructional use of small groups to promote students working together to maximize their own and each other's learning (Johnson, et al., 2008).

Cooperative learning is characterized by positive interdependence, where students perceive that better performance by individuals produces better performance by the entire group (Johnson, et al., 2014). It can be formal or informal, but often involves specific instructor intervention to maximize student interaction and learning. It is infinitely adaptable, working in small and large classes and across disciplines, and can be one of the most effective teaching approaches available to college instructors.

What can it look like?

Informal cooperative learning groups
In informal cooperative learning, small, temporary, ad-hoc groups of two to four students work together for brief periods in a class, typically up to one class period, to answer questions or respond to prompts posed by the instructor.

Additional examples of ways to structure informal group work
Think-pair-share
The instructor asks a discussion question. Students are instructed to think or write about an answer to the question before turning to a peer to discuss their responses. Groups then share their responses with the class.
Peer Instruction
This modification of the think-pair-share involves personal responses devices (e.g. clickers). The question posted is typically a conceptually based multiple-choice question. Students think about their answer and vote on a response before turning to a neighbor to discuss. Students can change their answers after discussion, and "sharing" is accomplished by the instructor revealing the graph of student response and using this as a stimulus for large class discussion. This approach is particularly well-adapted for large classes.
Jigsaw
In this approach, groups of students work in a team of four to become experts on one segment of new material, while other "expert teams" in the class work on other segments of new material. The class then rearranges, forming new groups that have one member from each expert team. The members of the new team then take turns teaching each other the material on which they are experts.
Formal cooperative learning groups
In formal cooperative learning students work together for one or more class periods to complete a joint task or assignment (Johnson et al., 2014). There are several features that can help these groups work well:

The instructor defines the learning objectives for the activity and assigns students to groups.

The groups are typically heterogeneous, with particular attention to the skills that are needed for success in the task.

Within the groups, students may be assigned specific roles, with the instructor communicating the criteria for success and the types of social skills that will be needed.

Importantly, the instructor continues to play an active role during the groups' work, monitoring the work and evaluating group and individual performance.

Instructors also encourage groups to reflect on their interactions to identify potential improvements for future group work.

This video shows an example of formal cooperative learning groups in David Matthes' class at the University of Minnesota:

There are many more specific types of group work that fall under the general descriptions given here, including team-based learning, problem-based learning, and process-oriented guided inquiry learning.

What's the theoretical underpinning?

The use of cooperative learning groups in instruction is based on the principle of constructivism, with particular attention to the contribution that social interaction can make. In essence, constructivism rests on the idea that individuals learn through building their own knowledge, connecting new ideas and experiences to existing knowledge and experiences to form new or enhanced understanding (Bransford, et al., 1999). The consideration of the role that groups can play in this process is based in social interdependence theory, which grew out of Kurt Koffka's and Kurt Lewin's identification of groups as dynamic entities that could exhibit varied interdependence among members, with group members motivated to achieve common goals. Morton Deutsch conceptualized varied types of interdependence, with positive correlation among group members' goal achievements promoting cooperation.

Lev Vygotsky extended this work by examining the relationship between cognitive processes and social activities, developing the sociocultural theory of development. The sociocultural theory of development suggests that learning takes place when students solve problems beyond their current developmental level with the support of their instructor or their peers. Thus both the idea of a zone of proximal development, supported by positive group interdependence, is the basis of cooperative learning (Davidson and Major, 2014; Johnson, et al., 2014).

Cooperative learning follows this idea as groups work together to learn or solve a problem, with each individual responsible for understanding all aspects. The small groups are essential to this process because students are able to both be heard and to hear their peers, while in a traditional classroom setting students may spend more time listening to what the instructor says.

Cooperative learning uses both goal interdependence and resource interdependence to ensure interaction and communication among group members. Changing the role of the instructor from lecturing to facilitating the groups helps foster this social environment for students to learn through interaction.

Is there evidence that it works?

David Johnson, Roger Johnson, and Karl Smith performed a meta-analysis of 168 studies comparing cooperative learning to competitive learning and individualistic learning in college students (Johnson et al., 2006). They found that cooperative learning produced greater academic achievement than both competitive learning and individualistic learning across the studies, exhibiting a mean weighted effect size of 0.54 when comparing cooperation and competition and 0.51 when comparing cooperation and individualistic learning. In essence, these results indicate that cooperative learning increases student academic performance by approximately one-half of a standard deviation when compared to non-cooperative learning models, an effect that is considered moderate. Importantly, the academic achievement measures were defined in each study, and ranged from lower-level cognitive tasks (e.g., knowledge acquisition and retention) to higher level cognitive activity (e.g., creative problem solving), and from verbal tasks to mathematical tasks to procedural tasks. The meta-analysis also showed substantial effects on other metrics, including self-esteem and positive attitudes about learning. George Kuh and colleagues also conclude that cooperative group learning promotes student engagement and academic performance (Kuh et al., 2007).

Springer, Stanne, and Donovan (1999) confirmed these results in their meta-analysis of 39 studies in university STEM classrooms. They found that students who participated in various types of small-group learning, ranging from extended formal interactions to brief informal interactions, had greater academic achievement, exhibited more favorable attitudes towards learning, and had increased persistence through STEM courses than students who did not participate in STEM small-group learning.

The box below summarizes three individual studies examining the effects of cooperative learning groups.

What are approaches that can help make group work effective?
Preparation Articulate your goals for the group work, including both the academic objectives you want the students to achieve and the social skills you want them to develop. Determine the group conformation that will help meet your goals.
In informal group learning, groups often form ad hoc from near neighbors in a class.

In formal group learning, it is helpful for the instructor to form groups that are heterogeneous with regard to particular skills or abilities relevant to group tasks. For example, groups may be heterogeneous with regard to academic skill in the discipline or with regard to other skills related to the group task (e.g., design capabilities, programming skills, writing skills, organizational skills) (Johnson et al, 2006).

Groups from 2-6 are generally recommended, with groups that consist of three members exhibiting the best performance in some problem-solving tasks (Johnson et al., 2006; Heller and Hollabaugh, 1992).

To avoid common problems in group work, such as dominance by a single student or conflict avoidance, it can be useful to assign roles to group members (e.g., manager, skeptic, educator, conciliator) and to rotate them on a regular basis (Heller and Hollabaugh, 1992). Assigning these roles is not necessary in well-functioning groups, but can be useful for students who are unfamiliar with or unskilled at group work.
Choose an assessment method that will promote positive group interdependence as well as individual accountability.
In team-based learning, two approaches promote positive interdependence and individual accountability. First, students take an individual readiness assessment test, and then immediately take the same test again as a group. Their grade is a composite of the two scores. Second, students complete a group project together, and receive a group score on the project. They also, however, distribute points among their group partners, allowing student assessment of members' contributions to contribute to the final score.

Heller and Hollabaugh (1992) describe an approach in which they incorporated group problem-solving into a class. Students regularly solved problems in small groups, turning in a single solution. In addition, tests were structured such that 25% of the points derived from a group problem, where only those individuals who attended the group problem-solving sessions could participate in the group test problem. This approach can help prevent the "free rider" problem that can plague group work.

The University of New South Wales describes a variety of ways to assess group work, ranging from shared group grades, to grades that are averages of individual grades, to strictly individual grades, to a combination of these. They also suggest ways to assess not only the product of the group work but also the process. Again, having a portion of a grade that derives from individual contribution helps combat the free rider problem.
Helping groups get started Explain the group's task, including your goals for their academic achievement and social interaction. Explain how the task involves both positive interdependence and individual accountability, and how you will be assessing each.
Assign group roles or give groups prompts to help them articulate effective ways for interaction. The University of New South Wales provides a valuable set of tools to help groups establish good practices when first meeting. The site also provides some exercises for building group dynamics; these may be particularly valuable for groups that will be working on larger projects.

Regularly observe group interactions and progress, either by circulating during group work, collecting in-process documents, or both. When you observe problems, intervene to help students move forward on the task and work together effectively. The University of New South Wales provides handouts that instructors can use to promote effective group interactions, such as a handout to help students listen reflectively or give constructive feedback, or to help groups identify particular problems that they may be encountering.

Assessing and reflecting

In addition to providing feedback on group and individual performance (link to preparation section above), it is also useful to provide a structure for groups to reflect on what worked well in their group and what could be improved. Graham Gibbs (1994) suggests using the checklists shown below.

The University of New South Wales provides other reflective activities that may help students identify effective group practices and avoid ineffective practices in future cooperative learning experiences.

References

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cabrera, A. F., Crissman, J. L., Bernal, E. M., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (2002). Collaborative learning: Its impact on college students' development and diversity. Journal of College Student Development, 43(1), 20-34.

Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossing: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25 (3&4), 7-55.

Dees, R. L. (1991). The role of cooperative leaning in increasing problem-solving ability in a college remedial course. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 409-21.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative Learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1).

Heller, P., and Hollabaugh, M. (1992) Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics 60, 637-644.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (2006). Active learning: Cooperation in the university classroom (3 rd edition). Edina, MN: Interaction.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Holubec, E.J. (2008). Cooperation in the classroom (8 th edition). Edina, MN: Interaction.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journl on Excellence in College Teaching 25, 85-118.

Jones, D. J., & Brickner, D. (1996). Implementation of cooperative learning in a large-enrollment basic mechanics course. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference Proceedings.

Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., and Hayek, J.C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations (ASHE Higher Education Report, No. 32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Love, A. G., Dietrich, A., Fitzgerald, J., & Gordon, D. (2014). Integrating collaborative learning inside and outside the classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), 177-196.

Smith, M. E., Hinckley, C. C., & Volk, G. L. (1991). Cooperative learning in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education 68(5), 413-415.

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 96(1), 21-51.

Uribe, D., Klein, J. D., & Sullivan, H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 5-19.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

This teaching guide is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Group work: Using cooperative learning groups effectively

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Cynthia J. Brame and Rachel Biel Print Version Cite this guide: Brame, C.J. & Biel, R. (2015). Setting up and facilitating group work: Using cooperative learning groups effectively. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [todaysdate] from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/setting-up-and-facilitating-group-work-using-cooperative-learning-groups-effectively/. Many instructors from disciplines across the university use group work to enhance their students' learning.

# data[].attributes.body
differentiated classroom

# data[].attributes.body
(2017)

# data[].attributes.headline
Targeting Instruction with Formative Assessment

# data[].attributes.subject
Targeting Instruction with Formative Assessment

# data[].attributes.body
Using Formative Assessment to Establish Groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Targeting Instruction with Formative Assessment Probes - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Start with a strategic process to gather and interpret evidence of students' mathematical understandings and misconceptions; then aim your teaching to address identified needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers can use these instructional strategies during the launching phase of a lesson to prepare students for productive math talk in their small groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
February 2012 | Volume 69 | Number 5
For Each to Excel

Sandra Dean and Michael Zimmerman

Picture a mathematics lesson in a typical 4th grade class, where students' math achievement levels range from 2nd to 9th grade. The teacher, who believes in an egalitarian classroom and differentiated instruction, begins the class with a minilesson on long division. Students then work in three groups, attempting to solve the problem 365 divided by 24. The teacher races from small group to small group providing support.

In five minutes, the most-skilled group has solved the problem, and the students head to the computers for more challenging work; the middle group is still working on the problem; and the students in the least-skilled group begin to clown around, hoping that joking will provide a cover for confusion. The conscientious teacher sits down with the struggling group, simplifies the problem, and leads them to a solution. In the meantime, one of the computers freezes. Some of the students from the middle group begin to work on math centers; a few others argue about their solution, without the benefit of teacher input. Eventually the teacher fixes the computer and begins to check in with the arguing students. Ten minutes remain. The teacher reviews the problem on the board and then assigns homework targeted to the needs of each group.

That night, the teacher will correct the homework from the previous day, directing some students to check in with her in the morning or during a study period so she can review their mistakes and correct misconceptions. She will note areas in which each student struggled so she can adapt the work for the next day. In her spare time, she will plan her language arts and social studies lessons.

Challenges of a Heterogeneous Classroom

If you've spent substantial time in a classroom, you'll recognize this scenario as all too common. Something is clearly wrong with this picture.

We know that students learn best when they experience just the right amount of challenge, not too much or too little. In the classroom we've described, it's almost impossible to provide that kind of challenge for each student, even some of the time. In a heterogeneous class, students who lack facility with mathematics are often inclined to hide and to participate minimally. Ashamed of their struggle with math, they may disengage, preferring not to try rather than be seen (or see themselves) as unsuccessful.

Differentiating with technology is not the whole answer, because we also know that students learn best when they work with someone, preferably a teacher, who can ask the right questions at the right time to help them move to the next level of understanding. A good computer program may lead a student to the next skill level but not as effectively as a person with a social connection who can urge the student to grapple with understanding. The least-skilled group needs a different approach than the more advanced groups. Students in the most challenged group often have subtle working-memory, processing, or attention challenges best recognized by a skilled and experienced teacher.

Probably the most important problem with the heterogeneous classroom is that the students know who's the most talented and who's the most challenged; in fact, they could probably list the students in the class in order of ability. Mixing the gifted with the most mathematically challenged does not create an egalitarian classroom, any more than mixing expert swimmers with non-swimmers (while hoping that no one drowns and that everyone learns something) would create an egalitarian swim lesson. Does such mixing create role models that enhance learning, or does it make self-conscious preadolescents do everything possible to hide their inadequacy?

Tracking, Detracking-or Neither?

A study of tracking and detracking in Massachusetts middle schools conducted by Tom Loveless examines the history, characteristics, and consequences of these practices. Tracking has lost favor in recent years because of concerns about inequity. In tracked classroom settings, the youngest and least experienced teachers were frequently assigned to the lowest achievers, thereby compounding the problem of students falling further and further behind. The stigma of placement in underachieving groups and the feeling of failure stifled motivation for these students.

Detracking, however, has produced mixed results. Loveless found that compared with middle schools that maintained two or three tracks, detracked middle schools had fewer students scoring in the top 10 percent on the mathematics section of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) and had more students scoring at the failing and needs improvement levels. These results suggest that detracking may harm high-achieving students while producing no significant benefits for lower-achieving students.

Despite such evidence, tracking in mathematics at the elementary level continues to be viewed unfavorably. And it's undeniable that assigning students to a lower track can foster continued cycles of low achievement.

A Different Approach

To avoid some of the pitfalls associated with tracking and detracking, we suggest a different strategy, which we call guided choice. We employed guided choice for 12 years in the 4th and 5th grades at the Philadelphia School, an independent school in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, serving approximately 400 students in grades preK-8. We are now introducing guided choice in the upper grades at Friends School Haverford, another independent school in Pennsylvania, which serves 111 students in grades K-6 (soon to be expanding to grade 8).

Guided choice enables our teachers to provide the right level of challenge for each student without demoralizing lower-achieving students. This strategy is also pedagogically efficient and less stressful for the teacher.

Helping Students Choose Their Level

Let's assume that a school has two 4th grades and two 5th grades, for a total of four teachers in these grades. All 4th and 5th grade students, after a week of math review in the beginning of the school year, are given a comprehensive test of skills and comprehension. Teachers not only score the tests but also review them to be sure that a low score was caused by a lack of understanding rather than careless arithmetic.

On the basis of each student's performance on the test, the teacher notes which group she believes to be most appropriate for that student. Copies of the corrected test (but not the teacher's preliminary judgment) are given to the students. Scores within the test are broken down by four areas: whole numbers, fractions, decimals and percents, and pre-algebra.

Students receive a list of available math groups, identified by the topic on which each group will focus (the same topics as those in the test). They review their performance on the test and select the math group where they believe they belong. Students and teachers generally reach the same conclusion. If not, the teacher and the student meet and together decide which group offers the right amount of challenge.

Any student who wants to move to a more advanced group is given the text and assignments of the next group to use at home (ideally, with parents or other mentors) and is offered periodic instruction from the teacher during study periods. From time to time (for example, quarterly) students may move to a more advanced group if they perform well enough on those sections of the test that reflect the extra, more advanced work. With realistic feedback, support, clear goals, and some control over placement, students are more often motivated to achieve, more thoroughly insulated from the sense of being judged and found wanting, and more optimistic about their prospects.

Providing Appropriate Instruction

Each of the four 4th and 5th grade teachers teaches one of the math groups. The lowest-achieving group begins with a focus on whole numbers, the next group with fractions, the next with decimals and percents, and the highest group with pre-algebra. The least-advanced group is often smaller so that students can receive extra time and attention to overcome obstacles to success.

Although the groups are not completely homogeneous, the range is narrowed; and the teacher's preparations, lessons, activities, and discussions can be more focused and thorough. Although the mathematics curriculum spirals (for example, fractions may be touched on in the whole-numbers group and then revisited in greater depth and breadth in the fractions group), the continuity of the curriculum, moving from whole numbers to parts of wholes to algebraic expressions-is preserved.

It is essential that within all the groups, mathematics instruction is constructivist and based on problem solving, with an appropriate measure of factual information and algorithm instruction. For example, a teacher might typically engage students in a lesson on fractions by having them work with manipulatives to complete a puzzle, to answer a provocative questions, or to deploy a successful game strategy. Poor teaching will undermine even the savviest placement strategies, excellent curriculum, and terrific resources.

Results at the Philadelphia School

In our experience at the Philadelphia School, the most advanced group often began with about 17 percent of the class and grew to about 24 percent by the end of each school year. As students moved along through the topics of the curriculum, about 10 percent routinely asked to take extra work home and to meet with teachers during workshop or study periods.

Over 12 years, we found that a significant number of 5th graders went on to middle school prepared for an advanced pre-algebra curriculum, a small number of them were placed in an advanced arithmetic group, and the middle group was comfortable with a standard 6th grade pre-algebra curriculum. Five-year averages from 2000 to 2005 on the Educational Records Bureau exams showed that just .8 percent of our students scored below average, 32 percent scored in the average range, and 67.2 percent scored above average (with 32 percent scoring at the 90th percentile or above). These data confirm that increased time and attention devoted to the group in the needs improvement category did not limit the achievement of the most talented mathematicians.

One Student's Story

The story of one particular student, Jack, illustrates the process and potential benefits of guided choice for a student who finds mathematics challenging.

Although he had experienced a strong, hands-on, constructivist 3rd grade math program, Jack scored quite low on the beginning-of-the-year 4th grade math assessment. He was sure that he was ready for the fractions group: After all, he had studied whole numbers for three years. But as he looked at his test results and reviewed the errors with his teacher, Jack recognized that he had not mastered whole number operations. His teacher discussed his options with him, and together they looked at the material that each math group would study. On the basis of these discussions, Jack placed himself in the whole-number group.

Jack spent his 4th and 5th grade years grouped with other students who found mathematics difficult. In this context, Jack was gradually emboldened to feel himself a leader. He became a frequent participant in class discussions and activities and a helper to his mathematics group peers. He continued his progress in middle school, and he pursued mathematics courses through trigonometry and precalculus in high school.

Guided choice promoted not only Jack's success as a mathematics student, but also his disposition toward mathematics. He knew where he stood. He participated in choosing his group. As he progressed, he preferred to be a stronger member of a math group that felt more manageable. Because his mathematics instruction was the right fit for him, he remained engaged in mathematics. We believe that Jack's experience was the norm rather than the exception.

Opportunity for All Students

At a time when funding for gifted education is being reduced or eliminated but a competitive global economy continues to make higher mathematics performance essential, we must find effective ways to meet the needs of talented students without shortchanging students who require more help to succeed. Differentiated instruction and technology are not replacements for consistent teacher time and attention.

Guided choice can produce the benefits of homogeneous grouping while protecting students who find math challenging from becoming demoralized and disinterested. The beauty of guided choice is the trust placed in students to take greater control of their education. We believe that guided choice gives each student an opportunity to excel.

Endnote

Loveless, T. (2009). Tracking and detracking: High achievers in Massachusetts middle schools. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Sandra Dean is an educational consultant and principal emerita of the Philadelphia School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a member of the school committee of Friends School Haverford in Haverford, Pennsylvania. Michael Zimmerman is head of school at Friends School Haverford.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
February 2012 | Volume 69 | Number 5 For Each to Excel Sandra Dean and Michael Zimmerman Picture a mathematics lesson in a typical 4th grade class, where students' math achievement levels range from 2nd to 9th grade. The teacher, who believes in an egalitarian classroom and differentiated instruction, begins the class with a minilesson on long division.

# data[].attributes.headline
Low-Income Students Benefit from Small Group Instruction

# data[].attributes.subject
Low-Income Students Benefit from Small Group Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ANN ARBOR-Teaching math to small groups of low-income, minority kindergartners has a positive impact on their learning and can help bridge the divide with higher-income peers, say University of Michigan researchers.

Robin Jacob, co-director of the U-M Youth Policy Lab, and Brian Jacob, professor of education and public policy, evaluated kindergarten students in the one-year math enrichment High 5s program in 24 low-income elementary schools in New York City.

They found that kids who participated in the program received 30 percent more time on math instruction with more individualized attention, and were exposed to a wider range of advanced math topics and more interactive activities.

"There is an observed gap in achievement between children living in poverty and their peers from higher-income households at school entry. That gap only continues to grow over time," said Robin Jacob. "By intervening early, the High 5s program narrowed the achievement gap between low-income children and their higher-income peers at the end of kindergarten."

Students enrolled in the High 5s program met in groups of four students with a trained facilitator for 30 minutes three times a week. Activities were delivered in a game-like format and intended to be fun, engaging, interactive and developmentally appropriate.

At the end of kindergarten, student math achievement was analyzed on two different measures-the Woodcock-Johnson applied problems subscale and REMA-K. The students in High 5s scored higher than the control students on the REMA-K.

The effect of the program was equivalent to about two-and-a-half months of learning on the assessment, the researchers said.

The U-M researchers are now working to develop a model for such small-group math instruction that requires fewer resources and could be more easily scaled.

"To date, there has been very little research about the effectiveness of small group math instruction in the early elementary school grades," Robin Jacob said. "This study demonstrates that well implemented, engaging, small group instruction in math has the potential to boost math achievement."

The Youth Policy Lab, a collaboration between the Ford School of Public Policy and the Institute for Social Research, partnered with MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization, for this research.
More information:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Small group math instruction benefits young children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ANN ARBOR-Teaching math to small groups of low-income, minority kindergartners has a positive impact on their learning and can help bridge the divide with higher-income peers, say University of Michigan researchers. Robin Jacob, co-director of the U-M Youth Policy Lab, and Brian Jacob, professor

# data[].attributes.headline
Marygrove Math Textbook: Elementary and Middle School Mathematics

# data[].attributes.subject
Marygrove Math Textbook: Elementary and Middle School Mathematics

# data[].attributes.body
Van De Walle, John A., et al, (2016). Elementary and middle school mathematics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why and How to Differentiate Math Instruction

# data[].attributes.subject
Why and How to Differentiate Math Instruction

# data[].attributes.body
Workshop Model for Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Differentiate Math Instruction With Math Workshop

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fortunately, our students are more engaged and successful than with the former instructional model. Unfortunately, teachers often feel swamped by the prep, coordination, and organization required to maintain quality differentiation. The key to keeping overwhelm at bay is the use of consistent routines and frameworks like math workshop, daily 5, reader's workshop, and writer's workshop throughout the day.