S7 E5 - What Does the Research Actually Say About Grouping Students for Phonics?

WEBVTT
00:00:48.609 --> 00:00:55.650
Hello, hello, welcome to this episode of the Structured Literacy Podcast recorded here in Tasmania on the lands of the Palawa people.
00:00:55.650 --> 00:01:03.010
I'm Jocelyn and I want to start today by being upfront about exactly why this episode exists.
00:01:03.010 --> 00:01:20.609
We are told and are being told fairly consistently that grouping students for phonics instruction doesn't get you better outcomes than teaching the whole class and then giving struggling students some additional repetitions or extra sessions to fill their gaps.
00:01:20.609 --> 00:01:29.969
I have another podcast episode called Is Whole Class Instruction Really Equitable that you may be interested in listening to.
00:01:29.969 --> 00:01:38.849
Because the thing is that whole class instruction with a bit extra getting better outcomes has not been my experience.
00:01:38.849 --> 00:01:47.090
Not when I was teaching in my own classroom, not when I was leading a school, and not in the many schools I now support as a coach.
00:01:47.090 --> 00:02:00.530
Consistently, the schools who achieve the greatest gains in their data are those who provide matched and targeted instruction for students at the Tier 1 core level.
00:02:00.930 --> 00:02:12.930
So I want to take a really careful look at what the research actually says, not what people say the research says, but what the studies themselves really show.
00:02:12.930 --> 00:02:18.370
And in diving into this topic, what I found was interesting.
00:02:18.370 --> 00:02:32.449
When you go looking for research that compares grouped instruction with whole class teaching, what you find is that the studies making the comparisons, were done with one of two things.
00:02:32.449 --> 00:02:49.810
Either they were keeping everyone on the same content, just delivering the lessons in small groups instead of to everyone, or the instruction was described as targeted, but the model of instruction being used was balanced literacy.
00:02:49.810 --> 00:03:00.610
So of course the research doesn't show strong benefits from grouping, we wouldn't expect it to in either of those cases.
00:03:01.810 --> 00:03:08.129
So here's the tension that I'm trying to reconcile and support schools to reconcile.
00:03:08.129 --> 00:03:20.689
On one side, we have the current advice: teach every Year 1 student the same content and give the ones who are struggling a bit of extra time on top to have extra repetitions and fill gaps.
00:03:20.689 --> 00:03:28.769
On the other side, we have what we're actually seeing in many schools who are following that advice.
00:03:28.769 --> 00:03:39.170
They are seeing 20, 30, or even 40% of students arriving in Year 3, still needing foundational phonics instruction.
00:03:39.490 --> 00:03:50.530
Now, teachers have always known that different children have different instructional needs, particularly in the areas of nuts and bolts for literacy and numeracy.
00:03:50.530 --> 00:03:53.970
That's why group rotations existed in the first place.
00:03:53.970 --> 00:04:07.089
It wasn't because teachers like to do craft, it was because we knew that that student who is streaks ahead of everybody else has different needs from the one who can barely read four graphemes.
00:04:07.089 --> 00:04:15.649
I've asked myself the uncomfortable questions here, including: is it that teachers don't know how to teach?
00:04:15.649 --> 00:04:18.209
Is it that they're not that committed?
00:04:18.209 --> 00:04:21.569
That they're not following the programs as written?
00:04:21.569 --> 00:04:37.730
Well, those things could be true, but it just doesn't make sense to me that so many schools and so many students are struggling because teachers across the country have decided collectively to go rogue or they can't master their craft.
00:04:37.730 --> 00:04:45.410
We absolutely need more coaching and proper professional development support for teachers, and I will never stop saying that.
00:04:45.410 --> 00:04:55.649
But are large numbers of educators really so underprepared that they can't teach an early years student some phonics and decoding?
00:04:55.649 --> 00:04:57.810
I just don't buy that.
00:04:58.050 --> 00:05:00.209
Because here's what I've seen in practice.
00:05:00.209 --> 00:05:23.089
If content is pitched at the right level for the student, as in, they can access it and it hits them where they need it to, and lessons are clear and well structured, then delivery that sits at about 70 or 80% effectiveness will get the job done for all students who don't have significant additional challenges.
00:05:23.089 --> 00:05:32.769
When that isn't happening for a significant proportion of students, it's worth asking whether the structure is the issue, not the people.
00:05:32.769 --> 00:05:37.170
And I think that what we're looking at is a structural issue.
00:05:37.170 --> 00:05:43.089
So where does that leave us in our quest to be genuinely evidence-informed?
00:05:43.089 --> 00:05:47.089
That's what the rest of this episode is going to unpack.
00:05:48.610 --> 00:05:51.969
Let's firstly clarify the question on the table.
00:05:51.969 --> 00:06:01.969
When people talk about grouping for phonics instruction, they often frame it as a debate between should we be grouping students or teaching whole class?
00:06:01.969 --> 00:06:10.689
And look, I get why the conversation lands there, but I'm not talking about the difference between 6 students and 26 students.
00:06:10.689 --> 00:06:27.409
I think a better question is, what does the research say about what happens when phonics instruction is matched and targeted to students or not matched, not targeted to a student's current point of need?
00:06:27.409 --> 00:06:30.370
And that shift in framing matters.
00:06:30.370 --> 00:06:32.050
Let's see why.
00:06:32.370 --> 00:06:40.849
We can begin with what we can say with real confidence in terms of the research about reading instruction, because there's actually quite a lot.
00:06:40.849 --> 00:06:59.810
Across a significant body of intervention research, one thing is consistent: when students who are behind in reading receive explicit, systematic, code-focused instruction that is targeted to their needs, they make much better progress than if they stay in the regular classroom program alone.
00:06:59.810 --> 00:07:02.209
Let's look at a couple of examples.
00:07:02.449 --> 00:07:14.769
A large national implementation study in New Zealand evaluated an approach that was a Tier 2 structured literacy intervention across 936 schools.
00:07:14.769 --> 00:07:34.289
Five-year-old children who received the Tier 2 intervention, that was explicit phonics, spelling, and word-level work in small groups, scored significantly higher in decoding and spelling than matched peers who had similar pre-intervention reading scores but did not have the Tier 2 support.
00:07:34.289 --> 00:07:43.170
Importantly, following that work, the Tier 2 group scores didn't differ from everybody else who didn't test as needing it.
00:07:43.170 --> 00:08:02.769
A meta-analysis of Tier 2 response to intervention studies found that Foundation to 2 students at risk for reading difficulties consistently improved their decoding when they received structured Tier 2 reading and decoding interventions compared with typical classroom instruction alone.
00:08:02.769 --> 00:08:17.810
So the first thing we can say with confidence is this: when we have targeted, explicit, code-focused instruction that is pitched to where students actually are, struggling students make stronger progress than if we don't.
00:08:17.810 --> 00:08:18.930
Full stop.
00:08:19.889 --> 00:08:24.449
The research is also pretty clear about when and how much matters.
00:08:24.449 --> 00:08:31.409
Students who receive intensive early support make better progress than students who wait.
00:08:31.409 --> 00:08:54.370
A small but interesting experimental study by Bouton and colleagues in 2018 explored what they called an upside-down RTI model, where the most at-risk first graders were immediately placed in intensive one-on-one Tier 3 instruction rather than working through Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction first.
00:08:54.370 --> 00:09:05.649
Students who were fast tracked showed stronger gains in word identification and sight word reading than match students who followed that traditional RTI pathway.
00:09:05.649 --> 00:09:13.570
The authors of this study are careful to note the study's small sample size and call for larger replication work.
00:09:13.570 --> 00:09:19.490
So we should treat this as promising early evidence rather than a definitive finding.
00:09:19.490 --> 00:09:24.610
But the direction it points in is consistent with everything else we know.
00:09:24.610 --> 00:09:26.210
Don't wait.
00:09:26.210 --> 00:09:31.970
Give substantial, well-matched word-level support early and intensively.
00:09:32.450 --> 00:09:35.490
And there's one more finding worth highlighting here.
00:09:35.490 --> 00:09:57.810
Research into the targeted reading instruction model showed that when teachers used student data to tailor their lessons and implemented those targeted strategies with high fidelity, particularly in their second year of using the model, their at-risk students made greater gains in word reading and vocabulary.
00:09:57.810 --> 00:10:04.530
So using assessment to guide what you teach and actually sticking to that plan is linked to better outcomes.
00:10:04.530 --> 00:10:08.610
These teachers didn't just take the Year 1 program and start at lesson one.
00:10:09.170 --> 00:10:12.610
Now, here's what the research does not tell us.
00:10:12.610 --> 00:10:26.210
Most of the intervention studies I've just described are built around a fairly standard model, whole class or core instruction, plus the intervention for students who are identified at risk.
00:10:26.210 --> 00:10:34.530
Usually identification happens through a broad reading screen, and maybe the bottom X percentage of students are included.
00:10:34.530 --> 00:11:03.090
No research has been done looking at the impact of high-quality, explicit instruction in phonics and decoding, comparing a whole-class Tier 1 phonics block business as usual, just everyone in the grade, with some add-on support, with what happens when we fully differentiate every day with content and focus matched to what each group of students is actually ready to learn.
00:11:03.090 --> 00:11:06.690
That specific comparison has not been run yet.
00:11:06.690 --> 00:11:22.210
So I want to be really transparent, we cannot honestly say from the existing research that whole class and a bit extra is proven to be more effective than a differentiated Tier 1 model with high-quality systematic synthetic phonics.
00:11:22.210 --> 00:11:26.930
But we also can't say that the reverse has been directly proven.
00:11:26.930 --> 00:11:32.370
The research just hasn't tested that specific structural question.
00:11:32.930 --> 00:11:36.050
Now I know what some of you are thinking.
00:11:36.050 --> 00:11:37.970
There's no evidence for grouping.
00:11:37.970 --> 00:11:39.410
They told us so.
00:11:39.410 --> 00:11:46.610
And yes, some people have used exactly this gap in the literature to argue that the status quo is fine.
00:11:46.610 --> 00:11:49.009
But that's not quite right either.
00:11:49.009 --> 00:11:57.330
The absence of a direct comparative trial is not the same thing as evidence that one approach is equal to another.
00:11:57.330 --> 00:12:00.370
It means we need to think carefully.
00:12:00.370 --> 00:12:08.370
We have to turn to adjacent research wisely and be really honest about what we do and we don't know.
00:12:09.170 --> 00:12:17.090
The intervention research that I've been discussing shows that additional targeted instruction really can work for struggling students.
00:12:17.090 --> 00:12:22.850
But let's think carefully about what that model actually means in practice.
00:12:22.850 --> 00:12:28.530
That additional instruction happens on top of the regular classroom day.
00:12:28.530 --> 00:12:37.009
So a student will sit in a lesson, being asked to participate and do things that are way out of their reach.
00:12:37.009 --> 00:12:44.770
So that's at best a waste of instructional time, and at worst, a huge load on that student.
00:12:44.770 --> 00:12:56.770
And then after that, those students are being pulled out, they're being pulled out during maths or writing or science or whatever else is happening at the time that the learning support person happens to be available.
00:12:56.770 --> 00:13:01.090
They are absent from that instruction all the time.
00:13:01.090 --> 00:13:11.890
And in many schools, the reality is that the wait list for intervention support is long, much longer than the school has resources to cater for.
00:13:11.890 --> 00:13:19.090
So students sit in classrooms for weeks or months, falling further behind before a spot opens up.
00:13:19.090 --> 00:13:22.210
Nobody should have to wait like that.
00:13:22.210 --> 00:13:44.050
And here's what I want us to consider: the features that make intervention effective, which are high-intensity, explicit teaching, content matched to where the student actually is, with frequent repetition, with immediate feedback, careful progress monitoring, none of those features are exclusive to a pull-out model.
00:13:44.050 --> 00:13:47.170
They're features of good instructional design.
00:13:47.170 --> 00:14:03.730
Instructional grouping at Tier 1 during core phonics time means that students are getting exactly that kind of precise, high-intensity, monitored, targeted work right when it should be happening, which is when they're learning that content.
00:14:03.730 --> 00:14:09.250
Nobody has to miss maths, no one has to miss writing, no one has to sit on a wait list.
00:14:09.250 --> 00:14:18.610
I'm not talking about taking away additional support on top of that for students who have significant difficulties and need that.
00:14:18.610 --> 00:14:29.730
But so many students would not be on the intervention list for the extra if their Tier 1 instruction, their core instruction, gave them what they need.
00:14:29.730 --> 00:14:39.730
So what I'm talking about is actually increasing the dosage of well-matched instruction by building it into the heart of what we already do.
00:14:40.210 --> 00:14:43.090
So what can we reasonably conclude?
00:14:43.090 --> 00:14:50.129
Cognitive load theory becomes really useful to us here as a lens through which to examine this issue.
00:14:50.129 --> 00:14:59.330
We know working memory is limited, and we've known this since the 60s, and the more recent modeling of Sweller and colleagues supports that.
00:14:59.330 --> 00:15:12.210
When a task involves too many unfamiliar, interacting elements, too many unknown graphemes, irregular patterns and unpredictable words, working memory gets overloaded and learning suffers.
00:15:12.210 --> 00:15:26.610
This is particularly significant for students who are already behind because every element of the tasks they are being asked to perform cannot be processed automatically, and that adds to cognitive load.
00:15:27.090 --> 00:15:30.050
In contrast, what do effective interventions do?
00:15:30.050 --> 00:15:32.210
They manage that load carefully.
00:15:32.210 --> 00:15:35.890
They introduce a small number of new patterns at a time.
00:15:35.890 --> 00:15:41.170
They use decodable text where students are actually practicing and applying what they know.
00:15:41.170 --> 00:15:50.690
They give lots of opportunity for repetition and retrieval with the pacing and the dosage adjusted to meet their needs.
00:15:50.690 --> 00:16:03.330
Let's think about what happens when a student who's still consolidating short vowel patterns and basic digraphs sits through a whole class lesson pitched at alternative spellings of long vowels.
00:16:03.330 --> 00:16:09.009
They can't process most of the content because there's too many elements that are unfamiliar.
00:16:09.009 --> 00:16:12.850
Their working memory is at capacity from the start.
00:16:12.850 --> 00:16:24.050
So they're either guessing, switching off, compliantly following direction, or spending all of that cognitive energy on things that bear no relationship to what they actually need to learn.
00:16:24.050 --> 00:16:26.610
That is not effective instruction.
00:16:26.930 --> 00:16:31.490
I want to close this episode by coming back to the reason that I made it.
00:16:31.490 --> 00:16:41.810
My goal, as always, is to help you, teachers and leaders, embrace what I think of as common sense: evidence-informed practice.
00:16:41.810 --> 00:16:57.250
That model where we look honestly at what the research says, bring in what we know from our own proven experience where we know how to get outcomes, and line all of that up with what is actually happening for students.
00:16:57.250 --> 00:17:05.329
The research tells us very clearly that targeted instruction works, particularly for the students who struggle.
00:17:05.329 --> 00:17:08.369
That's the entire premise of intervention programs.
00:17:08.369 --> 00:17:11.730
They look where students are up to and they give them what they need.
00:17:11.730 --> 00:17:15.410
Every good intervention is built on that.
00:17:15.410 --> 00:17:23.809
So my question is this: why can't we make that the experience of every student every day?
00:17:23.809 --> 00:17:29.890
Why can't we optimise working memory for every single one of our children?
00:17:29.890 --> 00:17:51.890
Why are we insisting on attempting to teach a whole class of students the same phonics lesson and then expect that we can magically adjust for a group whose starting point might range anywhere from the basic code to reading chapter books, when we know that's not how learning works.
00:17:51.890 --> 00:18:00.610
If the answer is because the research says so, then I think we need a new conversation about what research actually says.
00:18:01.170 --> 00:18:13.890
As I've discussed today, the studies most often cited to show that this sort of differentiation doesn't work were studies that used balanced literacy and whole language practices.
00:18:13.890 --> 00:18:27.170
The studies that prove that whole class instruction plus a bit extra gets you better outcomes than high-quality targeted instruction at the Tier 1 level doesn't actually exist.
00:18:28.130 --> 00:18:43.650
Schools I've taught in, schools I've led, and now schools that I support as a coach, the ones that have made the shift to grouping for phonics instruction consistently report better growth for students than they saw before they grouped.
00:18:43.650 --> 00:18:50.610
Teachers say they no longer feel guilty because they aren't meeting the needs of their lowest or their highest readers.
00:18:50.610 --> 00:18:57.730
I haven't even gone anywhere near those capable students who don't need what's being offered in that whole class lesson in this episode.
00:18:57.730 --> 00:19:16.130
Teachers who have done the hard work of building consensus with colleagues, aligning timetables and resources, and genuinely treating every student in the school as their students, every piece of data is our data, describe what happens next in one word.
00:19:16.130 --> 00:19:17.890
Relief.
00:19:17.890 --> 00:19:21.490
They talk about fewer behavioural issues almost immediately.
00:19:21.490 --> 00:19:26.049
They talk about finally feeling effective for all students in their lessons.
00:19:26.049 --> 00:19:33.330
They're often surprised about how quickly gaps can be filled when the instruction is actually pitched where the students need it.
00:19:33.330 --> 00:19:40.769
And most importantly, they talk about how proud their students are of their own progress and how much that means to families.
00:19:40.769 --> 00:19:46.769
And before anyone says, that's nice, Jocelyn, but anecdotes are not research, I agree with you.
00:19:46.769 --> 00:19:50.049
Anecdotes do not trump research.
00:19:50.049 --> 00:19:57.250
But I'm going to say this again, in this case, the research to refute what I'm suggesting does not exist.
00:19:57.250 --> 00:20:00.210
I also want to say this clearly.
00:20:00.210 --> 00:20:15.650
If you work in a school where whole class with a little extra support is genuinely working, where your screening data shows very small numbers of students sitting in the at-risk category, and those students are making pleasing appropriate growth.
00:20:15.650 --> 00:20:24.130
If your teachers are working in flow, they're not stressed, kids are happy and they're progressing, then please don't change a thing.
00:20:24.130 --> 00:20:26.370
Keep doing what you're doing.
00:20:26.370 --> 00:20:31.090
Because there is no everyone shall always answer to this question.
00:20:31.090 --> 00:20:36.130
Schools are different, demographics are different, resources and staffing are different.
00:20:36.130 --> 00:20:41.410
What works brilliantly in one context needs adaptation in another.
00:20:41.410 --> 00:21:01.730
But if your school is following the explicit phonics program, whatever it happens to be, implementing the advice, doing the PL, taking action, and you are still seeing 20, 30, 40% of students flagged as at risk in your screening data, it might be time to have a conversation about what comes next.
00:21:01.730 --> 00:21:09.890
Because that situation does not have to be inevitable, regardless of the student's socioeconomic background.
00:21:09.890 --> 00:21:13.009
Those results are not sustainable.
00:21:13.009 --> 00:21:16.210
They're not sustainable for you as the adult.
00:21:16.210 --> 00:21:18.930
They're not sustainable for the children.
00:21:19.730 --> 00:21:29.170
I know that landing on the data is inconclusive and absent is not exactly a comforting place to finish, but I'd like to offer a different way of thinking about it.
00:21:29.170 --> 00:21:34.930
When there isn't a definitive research-based answer, that's not a dead end.
00:21:34.930 --> 00:21:36.529
That's an invitation.
00:21:36.529 --> 00:21:55.730
It's an invitation for us to have high expectations for our students, to think about our professional judgement and what we have proven we can do to meet the needs of students using available evidence where it is robust.
00:21:55.730 --> 00:22:00.690
And sometimes we don't need more smarts, we don't need more PL.
00:22:00.690 --> 00:22:05.569
We need permission to embrace what is largely common sense.
00:22:05.569 --> 00:22:21.890
Always remember that when we're in this murky land of not really having research to guide us fully, as always, the evidence that we've made wise choices is in the well-being of our students.
00:22:21.890 --> 00:22:25.650
It's in the well-being of our teachers, it's in our data.
00:22:25.650 --> 00:22:32.130
If we make adjustments and things get worse or they don't move, then it needs attending to.
00:22:32.130 --> 00:22:38.370
We don't keep on an unrealistic path for years because we're still waiting for it to work.
00:22:38.769 --> 00:22:45.090
Next week, I'm bringing you something really practical as opposed to this kind of murky research conversation.
00:22:45.090 --> 00:22:57.250
We're going to get into the real world lessons that I've learned about grouping from my own classrooms, from my own time leading schools, from working alongside so many of you in yours.
00:22:57.250 --> 00:23:08.529
The things that work, the things that trip schools up, and how to navigate the messy middle of making a structural change like this in amongst the reality of busy schools.
00:23:08.529 --> 00:23:17.170
I can't wait to share all of my top tips with you so that you can take shortcuts if this is a direction that you want to go in.
00:23:17.170 --> 00:23:19.650
Until then, happy teaching, everyone.
00:23:19.650 --> 00:23:20.210
Bye.