Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research

Volume 18 Issue 1 Article 5

6-1-2016

The Effect of Flexible Small Groups on Math Achievement in First

Grade
David Benders
Union College, dbenders@unionky.edu

Tracy Craft

Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/networks

Part of the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons

Recommended Citation
Benders, David and Craft, Tracy (2016) "The Effect of Flexible Small Groups on Math Achievement in First
Grade," Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research: Vol. 18: Iss. 1. https://doi.org/10.4148/
2470-6353.1022

This Full Article is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more
information, please contact cads@k-state.edu.
Networks: Vol. 18, Issue 1 ISSN 2470-6353 Spring 2016

An On-line Journal for

Teacher Research

The Effect of Flexible Small Groups on

Math Achievement in First Grade
David S. Benders, Ph.D. – Union College
Tracy Craft - Union College

Abstract
This action research study explores the Guided Math Approach to improving math scores
for first grade students. Previous MAP (Measure of Academic Progress) scores were used to
measure proficiency and students were placed in separate categories for appropriate instruction.
This study reviewed math achievement scores on MAP test from a First grade classroom in a rural
area of southern Kentucky. The results from this study reflect an improvement in student
mathematical knowledge and achievement of eleven below level students in the Math concept
“Telling Time to the Hour and Half-hour” as required by Common Core Standard. All students
received instruction within flexible grouping rotation of one hour and fifteen minute blocks. Below
level students were extracted during instruction time and grouped to provide small group
instruction in cooperation and individual work. The smaller group instruction is guided by the
teachers to address deficiency areas identified within the pre-test assessment. The analysis
revealed one hundred percent proficiency in the instructional lesson used for this study. The
finding support the potential benefits and continuous need to explore the benefits of Guided math
approach for student achievement in math.

Introduction
Education is an inspiring field that can help students achieve great things. David Benders, a
professor of education at Union College provided the research guidance and worked with Tracy
Craft, a first grade classroom teacher, during this research study. This Action Research project is a
demonstration of Tracy Craft’s self-reported approach to become a better teacher. Its results
influenced instructional modification within Tracy Craft’s approach to learning and assessment of
student learning and instruction practices. Tracy Craft served as the primary researcher and
writer for this project.

Benders & Craft 1

Networks: Vol. 18, Issue 1 ISSN 2470-6353 Spring 2016

Background
Children may require different degrees and types of intervention at different times in their
school career, or for different aspects of the mathematics curriculum. Interventions should be
guided by data to identify a student’s strengths and weaknesses. Flexible small grouping in
mathematics, also known as Guided Math, is a data-driven intervention that matches a student’s
readiness level for learning with the appropriate instructional strategy, delivering the right
content at the right pace. Flexible grouping is an ongoing intervention process where a student’s
assignment to a particular ability group can change based on performance of improved
competency and skill development.
One difficulty facing educators today is meeting the needs of individual learners. The
traditional classroom now encompasses a range of mixed abilities among students - some
struggling to meet grade level standards to those performing above grade level. According to
research, differentiated instruction is the most effective teaching strategy to improve student
achievement (Slavin, Lake, & Groff, 2010). As Slavin et al. reported, for the United States
Department of Education research entitled, Educator’s Guide: What Works in Teaching Math?,
programs designed to change daily teaching practices – particularly through the use of
cooperative learning, classroom management, and motivation programs – have larger impacts on
student achievement than programs that emphasize textbooks or technology alone.” (2010, p. 3).
Literature Review
Greater importance has been placed on students to make measureable academic gains in
key academic areas, “The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 requires states to ensure that
all students make adequate yearly progress in achieving proficiency in English, language arts, and
math,” (Louie, Bratt, Yang, & Tan 2008; Sammons, 2010).” Research conducted by Clements and
Sarama suggested that “too many children not only start behind their more advantaged peers, but
also begin a negative trajectory in mathematic (2011, p. 968).” Early intervention programs
designed to target early mathematical skills in the primary grades can have positive effect on
children’s achievement throughout their educational career. Barnett states that “early education
intervention has been proposed to partially offset the impacts of poverty and inadequate learning
environments on child development and school success” (2011, p. 975).
Significant efforts are being made to improve reading through research-based instructional
strategies, resources, and professional development; however, there is limited number of
designated resources dedicated toward mathematical instructional initiatives (Crowe, Connor, &
Mazzocco 2011). Many math educators are still delivering math instruction in a one-size fit all
models. Classrooms are filled with mixed abilities ranging from learning styles to academic
readiness. Differentiated mathematic instruction is a powerful way to potentially increase student
learning is a strategy supported by several researchers (Huebner 2010; Murray 2007; Newton
2013; Sammons, 2010; Taylor-Cox 2013). Unfortunately, most teachers today have limited
resources and support to help them in the development and delivery of differentiated math
instruction.
Guided Math framework claim that it “offers teachers an alternative to the whole-class
instructional model so frequently used for mathematics instruction,” (Newton 2013, p. 41). It is
very hard to meet the needs of all students at their level during whole-class instruction, but
flexible groups allow time for students to get needed instruction. Guided Math offers a flexible
grouping framework based on students’ academic needs as determined by formative, summative,

Benders & Craft 2

Networks: Vol. 18, Issue 1 ISSN 2470-6353 Spring 2016

and/or diagnostic testing. Flexible groups are more effective than ability grouping because
“students are assessed frequently for growth and reassigned to different groups based on
assessment” (Tieso, 2002, p. 5). Flexible grouping provides students an opportunity to learn at
their level and proceed to higher levels of achievement. Student achievement growth should
improve by getting the support they need.
Methods
The research began with meaningful reflection on my instruction and on the needs of my
students, as I articulated the purpose of my research. Through classroom observations,
summative assessments, and MAP test data, I discovered a deficiency in mathematical
understanding in a large number of my students. I knew there was a need for math intervention,
but was uncertain how to implement an effective program within my classroom. This inquiry led
me to this action research on flexible small grouping as a math intervention.
Setting and Participants
The school was a P-6 school located in a rural area of southern Kentucky. Total school
population was 271, 100% white (Non-Hispanic). Free/reduced lunch rates averaged 65% of
total school population. The focus of this study was to explore the academic performance of
flexible small grouping on Math achievement of below level students in First grade. The class was
a mixed-ability class of 25 students. According to the winter 2013 MAP test, 11 of the 25 students
were below level in Mathematics. This below level group consists of seven boys and four girls.
Intervention Strategy
Flexible grouping provided an opportunity to efficiently manage instructional time and
focus on smaller group needs. A flexible grouping rotation of one hour and fifteen-minute math
block was organized with student separated in three groups based on the winter’s MAP test. The
table below details the rotation schedule and instruction focus for the three groups.
Table 1: Sample of daily flexible small group rotation schedule
Below Level On Level Above Level
(7 students) (10 students) (8 students)
Introduction to skill
10 - 15 minutes
(use online resource, Whole Group Whole Group Whole Group
white board, student
book, etc.)

Benders & Craft 3

Networks: Vol. 18, Issue 1 ISSN 2470-6353 Spring 2016

Meet with
Teacher
review past skills
through daily skill Independent Work
Cooperative Work
review, reteach practice workbook pages
15 minutes Games/Computer
daily skill focus, math journal challenge
review skills
begin working on
independent work
to correct
misconceptions
Meet with Teacher
review past skills
Independent
through daily skill
Work Cooperative Work
review, fluency
practice workbook Games/Computer
practice addition &
15 minutes pages review skills
subtraction, begin
apply skills from new skills
working on
small group
independent work to
instruction
correct
misconceptions
Meet with Teacher
review daily completed
Independent Work independent work, review
Cooperative Work past skills through daily
practice workbook
15 minutes Games/Computer skill review, enrichment
pages
review skills activity increased to 2nd
apply skill for the day
grade level common core
standards
Review Session
10 - 15 minutes Whole Group Whole Group Whole Group
(math journal)

Data Collection
MAP Test
MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) is a computerized adaptive assessment that
students in grades one through six are tested three times per year in math, reading, and language
arts. Students are required to show progress among the three MAP tests: Fall test in
August/September; Winter test in December/January; and Spring test in April/May. The MAP test
generates test questions based on student responses and measures growth over a period of time.
First grade students are tested in four critical mathematical areas: algebraic reasoning;
number and operations; geometry; and measurement and data. A student’s test performance is
measured and reported in RIT scores. A RIT score is an estimation of a student’s instructional

Benders & Craft 4

Networks: Vol. 18, Issue 1 ISSN 2470-6353 Spring 2016

level and measures student progress in school. This score can be used by teachers to pinpoint
what students have learned and what students are ready to learn.
Students’ test data is then transferred to a Decile Report. The Decile Report places students
into percentile rankings in relation to their RIT scores.
Student Work Samples
On the first and last day of the unit of study, students completed a pre-test and post-test.
This provided evidence of achievement as the MAP test were not offered until later in the term.
Throughout the two-week unit, students completed daily individual practice sheets and exit slips.
By collecting and analyzing student work samples, I was able to assess both the quality of their
work and their acquired knowledge of the focused math concept. This served as an indicator to
move students within the three flexible small groups according to their performance.
The pre-test was a set of questions given to students before the instructional unit began to
determine their knowledge level of the math content. After the completion of the unit, students
were given the post-test to answer the same set of questions. Comparing students’ post-test
scores to their pre-test scores determined whether the flexible small group was successful in
increasing the student’s knowledge of the math content.
Daily practice sheets were completed by the students, either independently or with a
partner, depending upon the skill task. The practice sheets consisted of a set of two to four
worksheets that target the daily skill. Skill demonstration varied from simple identification of
time to the hour or half-hour, drawing hands on an analog clock to show correct time, and/or
calculating elapsed time. Reviewing student’s daily practice worksheets provided an opportunity
to assess students’ weaknesses and strengths.
The Exit Slip was another type of formative assessment that was used to informally
measure how well students have understood a topic or lesson. Exit slips were used the first 2-3
days after a new math concept was introduced. Students were given an Exit Slip during the last
five minutes of the math block. It consisted of questions relating to the daily focus skill. By
assessing the responses on the Exit Slips, I could adjust the instruction to accommodate students’
needs for the next class.
Results
Before administering the flexible small group intervention, I tested the students’ current
knowledge of how to tell time to the hour and half-hour using an analog and digital clock. A pre-
test and post-test was given which focused on three skills: identifying digital and analog time;
writing digital time from an analog clock; and drawing minute and hour hands on analog clock to
show corresponding digital time. Although the pre-test was given to all 25 students, this action
research focused on the academic improvement of 11 below level students. The pre-test results
showed that five students scored below 20%, and one student scored the highest of 50%. The
average pre-test score for the participating students was just below 25%.
During the first “Work with the Teacher” intervention session, I asked the students to
complete a practice page which required them to identify the hour and minute hand on an analog
clock by coloring the hour hand red and minute hand blue. I noticed that 3 students incorrectly
identified the clock hands. I conducted a quick reteach session from the earlier whole group
lesson using a large demonstration clock, pointing out the size and name of each hand. I asked the
students to set their student demonstration clock to various times as I called them out (1 o’clock, 4

Benders & Craft 5

Networks: Vol. 18, Issue 1 ISSN 2470-6353 Spring 2016

o’clock, 7 o’clock), while saying the name of each clock hand as they touched it. This effectively
allowed them to correctly identify the minute and hour hands.
In each “Work with the Teacher” intervention session, I began with a 3-5 minute past skill
review and followed with a reteach worksheet of the day’s whole group instruction. Afterwards,
students began working on their practice worksheets. This group consistently relied upon their
student demonstration clocks to complete the assigned worksheets, especially in completing
practice pages requiring them to draw the hour and minute hands to show time on an analog
clock.
On days two and five of the instructional unit, students completed an Exit Slip. Each Exit
Slip consisted of six questions. The first required students to identify time to the hour on an
analog clock and write the time in a digital format. The second required students to identify time
to the half-hour on an analog clock and write the time in digital format.
Data Interpretation
The pre-test and post-test results suggest tremendous growth in student achievement. The
data from the pre-test shows that all 11 students scored below mastery level with a mean average
of 24.5% and median score of 30%. The post-test results indicated an increase in student growth
to an average score of 90.9% and mode score of 100%. According to the post-test, 6 students
reached “Mastered” level while 5 are considered to be in the “In Progress” level.
Teacher observation and review of student work indicated students’ progress of
mathematical understanding of telling time to the hour and half-hour concept. Daily completed
practice sheets by students proved to show 85%-90% accuracy within the below-level group.
Informal teacher directed re-teaching instruction and worksheet practice provided students
additional support in completing daily assignments. Daily assignments were reviewed by teacher
and presented to the students with verbal or written feedback of student performance. Students
were asked to identify any mistakes and explain their reasoning for their answer choice and ways
to correct the mistake.
The students’ performance on the exit slips showed an increase in conceptual
understanding of the math concept. All 11 students completed the first Exit Slip with a mean
average of 100%. Only 9 of the 11 students accurately completed the second Exit Slip. Two
students missed two questions each with a mean average of 66.7%. It appeared that these two
students misread the hour hand as it was set at half-past the hour and they wrote the hour ahead.
The following day, I asked these two students to take another look at their incorrect answers, each
student was able to tell me their mistake and correctly identify the time.
Conclusions
Results from the pre-test and post-test suggest that student achievement and growth may
depend on the types and amount of instruction. These relations draw attention to the fact that not
all students respond in the same way to instruction and that the growth experience may depend
on the amounts and types of mathematics instruction their teacher provides. No two children
with difficulties in math are the same. It is important to find out their strengths, weaknesses,
misconceptions, and incorrect strategies. The flexible small group intervention allowed me to
identify and target individual student’s particular difficulties. The below-level group benefited far
more from small group instruction than from whole-class teaching.

Benders & Craft 6

Networks: Vol. 18, Issue 1 ISSN 2470-6353 Spring 2016

When the quality core instruction is not sufficient to meet the needs of all students, smaller
groups and more individualized instruction are needed to remediate (National Center on
Response to Intervention, 2010). Overall, it appears that average students perform similarly
whether they are provided with predominately whole-class instruction or small student/peer
group instruction. However, for students who begin first grade with below grade level scores, the
small student/peer group instruction seems to facilitate an increase in mathematical
understanding and achievement.
Further research is necessary to explicate whether these small group interactions will
increase student’s overall mathematic achievement to specific math skills by the end of first grade.
Overall mathematic achievement data will be available upon the completion of the Spring MAP
test in late May 2014.
Students do not begin first grade on a leveled academic playing field. Under my former
whole-class instruction, I noticed very little growth of mathematic achievement in below level
students, thus widening the gap in student math achievement levels. I tried to differentiate
instruction within the whole-class instructional environment, but I was unable to effectively meet
the needs of every student. Research suggested that flexible small group instruction and
workstations for children with similar needs was an effective and workable solution to my
problem (Huebner 2010; Murray 2007; Newton 2013; Sammons, 2010; Taylor-Cox 2013). This
approach had already been embraced within my school with great success in our literacy
instruction.
Flexible small group instruction reaches all students at their level of development and
takes them to the next level (Sammons, 2010). The use of flexible small groups has allowed me to
differentiate instruction from the struggling students to the students having difficulty with just
one skill or concept, to those who are advancing quickly through the material and need new
challenges.
Schools, more importantly teachers, are held accountable for student achievement. Though
reading instruction has been the primary push for the last several years at my school, I foresee
mathematics achievement gaining momentum as a problem area. I recognized that changes
needed to be made to my mathematics instruction to address the differences in students’
strengths and weaknesses in regards to their learning needs.
Collecting mathematic data on my students has helped me to make solid, data-based
decisions. The use of data from the MAP test helped guide my flexible small grouping and
mathematics instruction. Additional data collection through formative and summative
assessments allowed me to measure student growth and adjust small group instruction to meet
students’ needs.
Changing my practice was a challenge. I needed a lot of guidance before I could embark on
this project, but the result was worth the effort. Implementing flexible small grouping during
math instruction has helped to alleviate the problem I had in effectively managing time with
students to meet their individual needs and increasing student achievement as prompted by the
former whole-class instruction I was so accustomed to executing.

Benders & Craft 7

Networks: Vol. 18, Issue 1 ISSN 2470-6353 Spring 2016

References
Barnett, W.S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333 (6045), 975-
978. doi: 10.1126/science.1024534 or
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/975.full.pdf
Clements, D. H. & Sarama, J. (2011). Early Childhood Mathematics Intervention. Science, 333,
(6045), 968-970. doi: 10.1126/science.1204537 or
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/968.full.pdf
Crowe, E. C., Connor, C. M, & Mazzocco, M. M. (2011). Examining the impact of child x instruction
interaction in first grade. Research report for the Society for Research on Educational
Effectiveness. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED528685)
Huebner, T. A. (February 2010). Meeting students where they are: What research says about
differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 67 (5), 79-81. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/feb10/vol67/num05/Differentiated-Learning.aspx
Louie, J., Brodesky, A., Brett, J., Yang, I.M., and Tan, Y (2008). Math education practices for students
with disabilities and other struggling learners: Case studies of six schools in two northeast and
islands region states (Issues and Answers Report, REL 2008-No.053). Washington, DC:
Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands. Retrieved from
http://secc.sedl.org/orc/resources/REL_2008053a.pdf
Murray, M. (2007). The differentiated math classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010, March). Essential Components of RTI – A
Closer Look at Response to Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.
Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/resource/essential-components-rti-closer-
look-response-intervention
Newton, N. (2013). Guided math in action: building each student’s mathematical proficiency with
small-group instruction. New York, NY: Routledge [Kindle version].
Ottmar, E. R., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Larsen, Ross, & Merritt, E. G. (2011). Relations between
Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching, Mathematics Instructional Quality, and Student
Achievement in the Context of the Responsive Classroom (RC) Approach. Society for
Research on Educational Effectiveness. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 528798)
Sammons, L. (2010). Guided math: A framework for mathematics instruction. Huntington Beach,
CA: Shell Education Publishers. [Kindle version].
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., & Groff, C. (2010). Educator’s guide: What works in teaching math? Best
Evidence Encyclopedia. United States Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.bestevidence.org/word/math_jan_05_2010_guide.pdf
Taylor-Cox, J. (2013). Differentiating mathematics instruction so everyone learns. In Glencoe
Math White Pages. Retrieved from Glencoe Math database
https://www.mheonline.com/glencoemath/pdf/diffentiating_math.pdf

Benders & Craft 8

Networks: Vol. 18, Issue 1 ISSN 2470-6353 Spring 2016

Tieso, C. (2002). The effects of grouping and curricular practices on intermediate students’ math
achievement. Research report for the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED505443)

Benders & Craft 9