S7 E03: When not to differentiate: A guide to small-group instruction with Jamey Peavler
May 03, 2023
Amplify Education
This season is all about tackling the hard stuff, and there is no harder pill to swallow than being told by a student that you don't know how to teach reading—especially when you realize they're right! After this happened to Jamey Peavler, Co-Director in the Reading Science Graduate Program at Mount St. Joseph University, she leaned in and took the opportunity to completely rethink her approach to literacy instruction. Now, her research focuses on maximizing small-group instruction. In this episode, she'll share her findings and her advice, as well as some best practices for small-group instruction and balancing small- and whole-group work.
“We have this mindset of that small-group differentiated golden standard, but there's a certain amount of instruction, again, [that] all kids need and there isn't a lot of difference between those things.” —Jamey Peavler
“There's a certain amount of proactive, preventative foundation-building work that should be done for all kids. We can do that more efficiently in a whole-group setting and then reserve that small-group setting for what truly needs to be differentiated, because not everything has to be differentiated.” —Jamey Peavler
“If we can set aside the idea of introducing a new program, and instead focus our core instruction on how that language and how those routines could actually be intensified in that small-group setting, we're going to minimize that cognitive overload.” —Jamey Peavler
“What we know about overlearning is when you get that fluency down and that generalization down, you are more likely to accurately reach adaptation sooner. So it's not causing harm for the kids who have already learned that skill.” —Jamey Peavler
“When you mess up, it's okay. Just mess up again tomorrow in a different way.” —Jamey Peavler
This season is all about tackling the hard stuff, and there is no harder pill to swallow than being told by a student that you don't know how to teach reading—especially when you realize they're right! After this happened to Jamey Peavler, Co-Director in the Reading Science Graduate Program at Mount St. Joseph University, she leaned in and took the opportunity to completely rethink her approach to literacy instruction. Now, her research focuses on maximizing small-group instruction. In this episode, she'll share her findings and her advice, as well as some best practices for small-group instruction and balancing small- and whole-group work.
“We have this mindset of that small-group differentiated golden standard, but there's a certain amount of instruction, again, [that] all kids need and there isn't a lot of difference between those things.” —Jamey Peavler
“There's a certain amount of proactive, preventative foundation-building work that should be done for all kids. We can do that more efficiently in a whole-group setting and then reserve that small-group setting for what truly needs to be differentiated, because not everything has to be differentiated.” —Jamey Peavler
“If we can set aside the idea of introducing a new program, and instead focus our core instruction on how that language and how those routines could actually be intensified in that small-group setting, we're going to minimize that cognitive overload.” —Jamey Peavler
“What we know about overlearning is when you get that fluency down and that generalization down, you are more likely to accurately reach adaptation sooner. So it's not causing harm for the kids who have already learned that skill.” —Jamey Peavler
“When you mess up, it's okay. Just mess up again tomorrow in a different way.” —Jamey Peavler
Jamey Peavler:
Just because a skill is not mastered doesn't always mean it has to be addressed in a small-group setting.
Susan Lambert:
This is Susan Lambert, and welcome to Science of Reading: The Podcast, brought to you by Amplify. On this episode, we're continuing our Season 7 theme of Tackling the Hard Stuff by taking on another topic that listeners have asked about: how to best use small-group instruction. So on this episode, we're going deep into the research on whole- and small-group instruction. We'll explore some common misconceptions and spend plenty of time on best practices. Our expert guide for this topic is Jamey Peavler, co-director and full-time instructor in the Reading Science graduate program at Mount St. Joseph University. After seeing Jamey present about small-group instruction, I knew she'd be the perfect guest to discuss the research on this topic and share tips for using group instruction more effectively. Here's my conversation with Jamey Peavler. Well, Jamey, thank you so much for joining us on today's episode.
Jamey Peavler:
Happy to be here.
Susan Lambert:
We would love if you'd start out by telling our listeners just a little bit about yourself. How did you manage to get on a Science of Reading journey—all those things about you?
Jamey Peavler:
Well, my Science of Reading journey actually started in 2002, and it's not the same as what a lot of other teachers experienced, where they had this awakening that they didn't know how to teach reading. I actually had a STUDENT tell me I didn't know how to teach reading.
Susan Lambert:
Oh my goodness!
Jamey Peavler:
<laugh> It was—yeah, it was kind of a slap in the face that was...well, it was needed, and probably long overdue, even at that point in my career. But I was teaching third grade in an inner-city school in Indianapolis. And first year ever teaching third grade. But I thought I knew what I was doing. So there's that, you know, confidence that was failing me<laugh>. But I had this student—and I, by the way, was their fourth teacher that school year, and it was October. So it was, you know, it was a tough class.
Susan Lambert:
Oh, yeah.
Jamey Peavler:
But Roy was a student who I think of now as a gentle giant. And he was my biggest behavior problem. And I, you know, kind of chalked it up to he didn't want to learn how to read. That was our topic that we were having the most issues with. He was a stellar student in math, but when it came to reading, chairs flew. You know, he would get put out of the classroom, those kinds of things. And one day on the playground, I noticed that he was one of the kindest students. Because he took it upon himself to help other kids find a friend group in a really tough environment.
Susan Lambert:
Hmm.
Jamey Peavler:
And a couple days later, you know, watching him, and realizing I didn't know him the way I thought I knew him. I talked to him and asked why he had acted up in reading. And his best buddy Demetrius, who was a really smart student, came over and said,"Because you don't know how to teach him!" So that was my awakening<laugh>. So it took a while before I found the resources that I needed, but that was definitely the moment that put me on the right course.
Susan Lambert:
That is crazy. And listeners can't see my face, but my face just like communicated,"Oh my goodness." That's such a... I mean, that speaks volumes. To have students, first of all, feel empowered to be able to communicate that, but then, come on, Jamey, for you to take that and really be reflective about that? Not everybody would do that.
Jamey Peavler:
It wasn't easy. I can't tell you that happened immediately. But I did a lot of reflecting on: you know what? They're right. I don't know how to teach reading. And whatever it is I'm trying to do is not working.
Susan Lambert:
So, just a little bit of a tangent: Do you remember the first thing that you did after you got that message from your student that you don't know how to teach reading?
Jamey Peavler:
Yes. I went and talked to the first-grade teachers, because I thought it was their job to teach reading. And many of them who were experienced knew that what I was doing was ineffective. Some of them had experience with phonics programs from many, many years ago. That was actually when a teacher handed me the infamous plaid book for phonics<laugh>. So I took that plaid book and tried to teach Roy how to read that way. And then the following year I stumbled onto my first Orton-Gillingham course, which was quite accidental. I knew it had something to do with phonics, but that's all I knew. And that really was the big game-changer for me.
Susan Lambert:
Wow, that's incredible. I have not heard that story from you before. So thank you for sharing that. That's really great. And shout out to Roy. And Demetrius—is that right?
Jamey Peavler:
Correct.
Susan Lambert:
For advocating for his friend too. And setting you off on a journey. Well, this particular episode kind of relates to that, actually. Because when we think about helping kids individually, we really often see small-group instruction as critical, essential, particularly in these early grades. I'm thinking about as a building administrator, and seeing other building administrators, often those instructional observation protocols specifically say,"Is there small-group instruction happening?" And, you know, whole-group instruction s ort o f gets a bad r ap out of that. Why do you think—let's start there—why do you think whole-group instruction really gets a bad r ap?
Jamey Peavler:
Well, I think it's because many of us aren't doing it as effectively as possible. And I think intuitively people know that. So it's not favored. But I think it gets a bad rap because the ways that we're delivering it now, again, are not as effective as they could be. For example, in whole-group instruction, typically it's an interaction between the teacher and maybe one student at a time that's being called on. It oftentimes is the teacher standing in front of the classroom, delivering the instruction and trying to do it at a fast enough pace that kids don't have an opportunity to get off-task. So I think the way it's delivered does tend to feel less engaging, less interactive. Less opportunity to really have those meaningful interactions with students. So I think that's where it begins. But again, I really think that's a misconception. I think that's really our inability to envision whole-group instruction as engaging and interactive and meaningful. And that's probably where I look to Anita Archer for guidance. If you've ever had the pleasure of seeing her—which, I believe, you've seen her many times,<laugh>—when she is in a large-group setting, you would never think of using the word"boring" or"slow-paced" or" isolated." What you experience is lots of choral responses. And so everybody in the classroom is participating. And it feels very much like you're working in a small-group setting, because of the amount of engagement that's happening. So through choral responses, through increasing opportunities to get feedback from your students about their level of understanding, whether that's writing on a whiteboard and holding it up, whether that's using technology and different modalities for showing responses, there are ways that you can increase that engagement. But again, I think the general reaction is,"Ooh, whole-group, not very engaging, limited interaction, boring."
Susan Lambert:
Isn't there also this sense that,"Well, if I'm delivering the same thing to every student, not every student needs to have the same thing"? So isn't that part two of this bad rap for whole-group instruction?
Jamey Peavler:
Absolutely. And I think we have this mindset that small-group, differentiated: golden standard. But there's a certain amount of instruction, again, all kids need. And there isn't a lot of difference between those things. And the way I think about it is just general health. So we are all well-off getting exercise and good sleep and a pretty balanced nutrition-type framework to feed ourselves off of. But that's what whole-group instruction should be doing too. There is no need that everyone in the classroom has, to have a different comprehension focus in a lesson. We don't all have to have different syntactic awareness. There's a certain amount of proactive, preventative foundation building work that should be done for all kids. And we can do that more efficiently in a whole-group setting, and then reserve that small-group setting for what truly needs to be differentiated, because not everything has to be differentiated.
Susan Lambert:
Hmm. That's a pretty powerful statement, and probably gets a little bit of pushback. And I hope by the end of this podcast episode, we can convince our listeners that there really is something critical and important about this idea of delivering whole-group instruction, and the kind of instruction that all students need. But before we get there... so what I hear you NOT saying, you're NOT saying that small-group instruction is bad. But there must be an optimal balance between whole- and small-group instruction. How do you think about that?
Jamey Peavler:
Oh, that's great. So I like that you said,"We've gotta really be intentional about how we're structuring whole-group and small-group." Because yes, there is a need for small-group. Even when your core instruction is working fabulously, you will still have kids who need something different. So it's really that question that I think we need to have as our guide for balancing out our instructional time. So if we are in a grade level or in an environment where we have a lot of kids that need very specific skills worked on, then we may have to have more small-group time. But ideally, that whole-group time should be the bulk of our instructional block. And whether you break it down into a certain number of minutes, again, I think is a hard concept to wrap your brain around, because it's really gonna be data-driven. So let's say that you're in a classroom setting, maybe second grade. And your universal screening data says less than 60% of your kids are meeting benchmark on a specific skill. Maybe they're really struggling with blending. Do they all need blending in a small-group setting? Probably not. What I need to do is focus on that skill for everyone, and then the kids who probably are at a very different level than the rest of my group may need that done in a small-group setting, because their skill is very different than the rest of my group. So it's hard to quantify that. It's more a matter of"What does my data say?" And again, just because a skill is not mastered doesn't always mean it has to be addressed in a small-group setting.
Susan Lambert:
Hmm. You have a little...oh, I don't know how to say this: When you talk about the word mastery, you have a very specific focus and definition of what that should look like. And— I think this is right, based on watching your webinars and seeing you talk about this in big-group situations— we are not completely understanding the concept of mastery and often aren't allowing our students to get there. Do I have that right?
Jamey Peavler:
You have that right. So it really is based on... the definition that I use is based on Haring and Eaton's work in 1978. And so they define mastery as a four-step process. And when we think about that process as it relates to our instruction and our assessment, I think it really helps guide our decision-making on supporting kids. And those four steps are first, acquisition. So do they even understand the skill that we're teaching? And obviously in the beginning that's gonna be bumpy. There'll be more errors initially. So the way we would judge acquisition is amount of accuracy on the skill. So when accuracy is low, they haven't acquired it yet; we'll probably need more practice. Once we've reached that level of accuracy, then we think about stage two, which is acquisition—is NOT acquisition; that was stage one! Fluency!< Laugh>. And so fluency is where we take that skill and we become more accurate and more automatic. And oftentimes our assessments stop there. So we assess to fluency, and then we think the students have mastered the skill, and we move on. And then not surprisingly, two, three weeks later, they land on our radar again as not having that skill. And that's because we didn't push them to the final level. So level three would be generalization, and then we'll get to adaptation. So generalization is really where they can take that skill that we taught them, in the environment that we taught it in, and then apply it more broadly. And so that again, is probably something we never assessed to. An example of assessing that might be oral-reading fluency, because we'll take concepts that we did in our lesson that we know that they can do accurately and automatically, but now we're interweaving them into content that interrupts their train of thought about that skill. So that's an important layer to assess mastery on. But that final one of adaptation is really key. And that is,"Can they take that skill and encounter it in an unexpected situation and modify it? Somehow realize that it doesn't apply, or bring additional information from prior lessons to the table to get it to fit correctly?" So that's how we know students have truly mastered a skill.
Susan Lambert:
Hmm. How do you assess at that very last level of adaptation?
Jamey Peavler:
Well, you know, it's funny. I think a lot of times teachers are assessing that and they're assessing it through indirect observations, and they just don't realize that that's helpful data. And what that would look like is, you know, we've been doing some spelling concepts and the students have done well on their weekly assessment, but I'm noticing in their writing, they're not actually applying any of those skills. That's your ability to assess adaptation. So seeing that skill in a real, live context and judging whether or not they were able to use it correctly is probably the most effective way that I know of to assess adaptation.
Susan Lambert:
That's great. And to bring us back to small-group instruction, it feels like there is, during that progression, data points that we can gather along the way to understand: Do I need to help my whole class with this? Do I need to pull a small-group together just to ensure that they have the depth of mastery—I love that word—with a new understanding that they need to have to move forward? But it feels like it's challenging. So like what are some of those challenges, then, to figure out small groups? How do I use them? How are they effective? What's your suggestion on that?
Jamey Peavler:
Yeah, so if we think about, again, most of the assessments teachers are currently using assess fluency, any child that is not performing at an expected level on fluency, they're probably still at the adaptation<laugh>— I'm gonna keep confusing those two!< laugh>— at the ACQUISITION stage. So they haven't acquired the skill yet. So that means I probably do need to work with them in a small-group setting, because they are not as far along as their peers are. So where in whole-group I can move to beyond fluency; I can move to generalization for my whole-group; my kiddos that have not yet acquired the skill are not benefiting from that work. So I need to work with them in a small-group setting and make that instruction more intense for them so that they can actually acquire the skill. Otherwise we've left them behind. So one way to again use that decision-making process to decide whole-group versus small-group is back to that model of what stage of mastery are they in? And just again, focusing on that one skill and the stage that they're in, with my goal as what do I need to do to get them to that next stage of mastery with this specific skill? And we're talking a matter of a few minutes, sometimes a couple days a week.
Susan Lambert:
Yeah. And when you're thinking about what's happening within those small groups, so let's say we've identified the skill that this small group needs to have, and I pull those kids together, what does that instruction look like? Do we have to have a separate program to do that? Or like what's the most effective way to use that time?
Jamey Peavler:
So a lot of our students that are having difficulty are experiencing cognitive overload. And so the first thing we need to think about is how are we gonna minimize that for them? And so introducing a new program is just adding to the cognitive overload. And that's because there's usually a different scope and sequence. There's usually different instructional routines. Sometimes even the language of the skill is different. So if we can set aside the idea of introducing a new program, and instead focus our core instruction on how that language and how those routines could actually be intensified in that small-group setting, we're going to minimize that cognitive overload. So the way that we wanna approach that small group is I'm just focusing very specifically on what it is that brought this child to the teacher table at this moment. And is it a prerequisite skill that I need to go back and firm up that's standing in their way? Is it more feedback and structured practice that they need that's standing in their way? And again, if I can pinpoint what's holding them up, that becomes my lesson that I'm working on with that student or that group of students. So I don't actually need more materials. I can use what I used initially and just modify it.
Susan Lambert:
So I think that you just gave us a really good definition of an intensification. And I think that idea of being intentional first, but also, more intensity in instruction, sometimes gets lost on teachers when they're doing that. How would you describe being really intense in that small-group instruction?
Jamey Peavler:
Well, it's funny because I think most people by design think small-group naturally is more intense. And it's not. It's not just being in a reduced setting that makes something more intense. It's doing something different that makes it more intense. So intensity can be increased by more practice. And not all practice is equal. So oftentimes when we pull kids over to a teacher table, we give them what we call masked or blocked practice where they work on that one skill kind of in almost a pattern-based word list, whether it's reading or spelling. But they really just work on that one thing, which is good, but we don't wanna do it in a blocked way. Which if I give you an example, let's say they're struggling with short-vowel sounds, and they're having difficulty with short E. So giving them a pattern-based word list that is just short-E words is masked practice. So they're just, again, working on that one skill. It feels like they're making progress, and they'll feel like they're making progress too, but that's not intensity. Intensity would be interweaving those short-E words with things that they already know, that they somewhat have already mastered. Because when your brain works on something, and then it intentionally has an opportunity to forget, which in a small-group environment—and it's already just a few minutes of time—we can force forgetting, by putting other content in between our targeted content. And so then every time I see that shorty word again, my brain has to work harder to retrieve"what is that sound?" and sound that word out, that increases intensity. So increased effort is increased intensity. So again, one way is modifying the type of practice. Another way is increasing the amount of feedback. And so feedback doesn't mean you have to verbalize"Correct! Correct! Incorrect!"<Laugh> Feedback could be, you know, just being present and giving validation through silence, or through nodding, that that was a correct response. When they have an incorrect response, immediately providing the information that they need so that they can correct that mistake is another form of feedback. So those are the two most common and easiest ways to increase intensity.
Susan Lambert:
It's interesting that you talk about that, because it does feel like probably for a teacher and a student by practicing that short E in a whole list of words over and over and over and over and over again, that you're getting someplace, when in reality we're kind of going slow to build the foundation so that we can go fast later. Does that resonate?
Jamey Peavler:
That's a great way to describe it. And that is that blocked practice and masked practice is really important in the acquisition stage. You know, because it's new. And I do need lots of opportunity. It's kind of in a sport too, when you've got your drills that you're doing just to get that muscle memory going. So that's great. And it's good in that stage only, but it's not going to get us to that later adaptation stage, if we stay there. So, yes, in order to get where we need to go, we have to force some difficulty, which means break that up once kids have gotten a level of accuracy and do your interweaving, and then take those words and put them at a connected text passage that's been controlled so that they have to really think and retrieve it every time they encounter it.
Susan Lambert:
So we've been talking about the small group, and I think one of the misconceptions people have is small groups equals centers. Can you talk a little bit about the differences between small-group instruction and center-based?
Jamey Peavler:
Yes. And part of that can be, I think, enhanced by just looking at the terms that you chose to use. So small-group instruction is instructional, it's interactive, it's the teacher interacting, modeling, prompting, giving feedback to students. So typically there's only one adult in the classroom at a time during this small-group block. So that means the group at the teacher table is receiving small-group instruction. Everybody else is at a center. So a center is independent; it is not instructional. What you're able to do at a center is typically practice concepts that you've already learned. So you would never wanna put a student at a center activity and expect them to do their own learning, because you've increased the chances that they're going to mis-learn information and make errors, or that they're just gonna fake learning so that you don't interrupt them for behavior problems<laugh>. But centers are not active learning opportunities. They, again, are typically practicing fluency of a previously learned skill. So that's okay, but that's actually not going to have the return on investment that a teacher-led instruction opportunity is going to have.
Susan Lambert:
Mm-hmm. That's a great description there. Thank y ou for doing that. And I think we probably understand and get this small-group instruction concept. The way that you talked about being really intentional about the delivery of that has been great. But you also sometimes talk about interventions delivered in the whole-group instruction. That is a concept that can be mind-blowing to people. So, you a lluded to it at the beginning. I said we were gonna come back to it; we're going to come back to it now. How is it possible you can give an intervention to a whole group?
Jamey Peavler:
Right. Well, first I think we have to define what an intervention is. So an intervention is something that's very targeted. It is very specific. And it's really data-driven. So in order for us to identify something that needs intervened on, we have data, whether it's formal data or informal observational data. We know something isn't working. So then our goal is to think about, well, what is it that we need to do to support that, to move to the next level? Oftentimes it's an activity that involves an explicit instruction model. I'm gonna revisit through modeling. I'm going to make sure we do some guided practice together. I'm going to watch and give feedback. So that doesn't have to be done in only small-group. In fact, our whole-group instruction should be following that model anyway. But in order to make that instruction more productive than it was the first time that we taught it, we again have to think about other modifications. So increasing feedback, maybe we introduce an instructional routine that requires more verbal prompts to remind students of the task that we're trying to ask them to do. Maybe we introduce visual prompts, but those are the types of things that we do in an intervention setting. Doing them only in small-group isn't always something that we have to restrict ourselves to. It can be done in whole-group. In fact, it's best to do it in whole-group if lots of students need it anyway. And again, that's where looking to people like Anita Archer at how do you increase the opportunities to practice for kids in a large-group setting? Well, you do choral responses. How do you increase feedback? You immediately give them validation on their correct responses and you correct incorrect responses. Those can all be done whole-group just as well as they can be done small-group. And the reason we should be open to that model has to do with the amount of resources that we have available in our classroom. So let's say half of my kids need support on a specific skill. If I choose to address it in a small-group setting, I'm probably going to have to repeat that same lesson three or four times. And if I do that same lesson three or four times in my small-group block, I can't do much of anything else. And so the kids who have deficits that need to be addressed are going to get further and further behind because I no longer have an opportunity to work on what they specifically need. So anytime a skill is, you know, really needed by a large group, I should consider doing it as a larger group intervention.
Susan Lambert:
And some would say— just to push back— well, what about the kids that already know it and don't need it? Isn't that unfair for them to have to sit through that instruction?
Jamey Peavler:
Oh, that's a good point. So, interestingly enough, there is a lot of research out there about the concept of"overlearning." And what we know about overlearning is when you get that fluency down and that generalization down, you are more likely to accurately reach adaptation sooner. So it's not causing harm for the kids who have already learned that skill. Typically, when I'm intervening, I'm intervening at acquisition and fluency anyway. And so, getting them to the point of overlearning is just going to allow them to get to those later stages of development. If you do have behavior problems, which is always something to consider from a student who doesn't feel like the instruction is worth their time, then they can absolutely move over into a small-group environment and do something different, while you still intervene for the whole-group. But again, overlearning is actually not causing any students harm.
Susan Lambert:
Hmm. I love that description. And this makes me think that in a future episode we should really unpack these four stages of mastery, because I think there's something to this, in some ways, that we can help teachers really understand the process you have to go through to really then be cemented in these skills and processes such that you can use them in any environment that you're in. We might have to do a follow-up episode. What do you think about that?
Jamey Peavler:
<Laugh> Learning science is fascinating!
Susan Lambert:
<Laugh> It sure is. And you don't actually know this, but some of the things that you're sharing now, we just released an episode with the author of Make It Stick, where we're talking about these learning science things in general. And so this is gonna be a great follow-up episode to sort of, yes.
Jamey Peavler:
Oh my gosh, how cool is that?
Susan Lambert:
I know! And it was all really inspired by you! And one thing I wanna tell our listeners... well, a couple things. First of all, you've been alluding a lot to— not alluding to explicitly—saying Anita Archer's name, and we have l inked our listeners i n show notes to Explicit Instruction, her book, right? And so all you're talking about here is really all that she outlines in her concept of explicit instruction. Is that right?
Jamey Peavler:
Correct. Yeah. She is the go-to for what does explicit instruction look like and what does engagement look like.
Susan Lambert:
Yeah, I think it's great. And there are YouTube videos out there too, that folks can find on that. But again, listeners, if you have not picked up that book yet, it is well worth your time to do that. I think we misunderstand what we mean by explicit instruction and it's fairly comprehensive. The other thing I wanna shout out is you have recently done several webinars on this very same topic, including one for Mount St. Joseph University's Reading Science Center. And what we'll do is link listeners in the show notes to that as well, so that they can actually see you and, you know, see some visuals as we go through this process. Because I think it's really, really important. I do wanna ask you one more question, and that is, I know you work a lot with teachers in the classroom, and that you've done a lot of work coaching teachers to help understand how this process works. Any stories come to mind of a before or after where it was a real"aha" for somebody?
Jamey Peavler:
Oh, that's a really good point. Yes. So it really relates to one of the first questions you asked around observations and accountability and what principal expectations are. So I was working with a school where part of their teacher observation was a dedicated 60-minute small-group instruction block, and the principal did the walkthroughs and I was debriefing with the principal, and the principal said,"So I'm not really sure why what I saw today has to be done in a small-group setting." And in telling me more, what I heard was each lesson looked pretty much the same. There was a warmup; there was a preview of the text that the kids were reading; they read the story; the comprehension questions were almost exactly the same. The only thing different was the title of the book. And he said,"Yes, that's exactly right. That's what the small-group instruction typically looks like in in many schools. But what did you see in this classroom?" And it was the classroom that the teacher had been open to the idea of refining small-groups. And what he said was,"I didn't actually see small-group instruction. I saw the teacher pulling kids over and giving them a crash course in something that they needed. And then they moved on, and then she called other people over, and I don't really know what it was. It kind of felt like triage. It kind of felt like therapy. It kind of looked like madness, and productive madness." And he said,"And that's really what small-group instruction should look like." So it was just funny that the description that he used was,"It was a busy environment. Everybody was getting what they needed." Versus the other one, where there was quiet compliance, but everybody was still pretty much getting the same thing. It truly wasn't differentiated. And yet that's what we think is happening in small-group, is just because they're coming over, they're reading a different book, they're getting something different. And they're not.
Susan Lambert:
Hmm, that's a great example. And I love the word"triage," because that's really what we need to be doing in order to get our kids the skills that they need to have and close those gaps. It's, it's important. It's intense. And it should be priority work. So that's a great story. I love that. Thank you for sharing that. Anything that you wanna add that we haven't talked about? I'd love to give you the space for that.
Jamey Peavler:
Gosh, just encouraging to take little steps. I think when it comes down to defining what whole-group and small-group instructions should look like, giving yourself grace to just try one little thing at a time, but not to be afraid to challenge yourself. And when you mess up, it's OK. Just mess up again tomorrow in a different way.
Susan Lambert:
<laugh>. Oh, that's encouraging. Are there any resources you would throw out there? Any advice for teachers, coaches, building administrators, anything that we haven't mentioned?
Jamey Peavler:
In addition to Anita Archer's text? I would say perhaps look at, Susan Hall's text about interventions and the top 10 suggestions or steps, something like that. It does a really good job of helping to support that conversation around how to use data.
Susan Lambert:
Great. We will also find that for our listeners and link that in the show notes. Well, Jamey Peavler, it's such an honor to talk to you. Thank you for taking time out of your busy day, because I know you're very busy and we appreciate your time.
Jamey Peavler:
Well, thanks for having me.
Susan Lambert:
Thanks so much for listening to my conversation with Jamey Peavler. Check out the show notes for links to more resources, including Jamey's recent webinar on maximizing the benefits of small-group instruction. Science of Reading: The Podcast is brought to you by Amplify. For more information on how Amplify leverages the Science of Reading, go to amplify.com/ ckla. Next time on the show, we're bringing you something special, our first-ever episode recorded in front of a live audience. I guess all of you listen to the podcast, right?<Audience claps and cheers> Featuring the return of an all-time favorite guest, Kareem Weaver.
Kareem Weaver:
The only sector that's thrived is the prison industry. They don't have enough beds. They gotta outsource it now. Because business is booming, and the root cause of it is illiteracy. Whether we want to avert our eyes or not, i t's t here.
Susan Lambert:
That's next time on Science of Reading: The Podcast. Thanks so much for listening.
