Literature Review
My literature review was driven by my essential question: What do I do with the rest of the class while I’m teaching reading to small groups? Like other teachers of primary aged children, I was tired of the constant battle to keep control of the class and at the same time focus on the individual needs of my students. I found that the bulk of my small group instruction time was spent heading off problems or interrupting little readers in order to answer questions or redirect off task students. I needed to find some answers to this problem.
Through collaboration with fellow teachers from a school in Nevada, I heard about a book called The Daily Five (2006) by Gail Boushey and Joan Moser. In this book, the authors describe a program of literacy instruction designed to teach the children independent learning. The authors outline five key skills: “Reading to self, reading to someone, listening to reading, working on writing, and spelling/word work” (p.20). The authors break down each skill into incremental mini-lessons, that teachers teach from the beginning of the year. The program is designed to take around six weeks to implement. Once implementation is complete, students can work independently on meaning literacy activities while the teacher is involved with small groups or individual learning. The program outlined in The Daily Five seems to be the hallmark answer to my question at this stage in educational history.
A similar program comes from Debbie Diller in her book, Literacy Work Stations (2003). Diller focuses on setting the stage for learning independence by creating “centers” that will be motivating and self explanatory so that students will remain independently engaged in learning. She lists many ideas for creating spaces that are both exciting and meaningful in terms of literacy learning. While the independent learning theme is the same as that of Boushey and Moser, Diller has less focus on direct instruction of independent skills.
Other literature available reviewed these programs or did studies on their efficacy. Carrie L. Kracl, from the University of Nebraska at Kearney did an interesting study entitled, “Managing small group instruction through the implementation of literacy work stations (2012). This study used interviews and observations of four first grade teachers using work stations. Kracl wanted to know the teacher perception of the efficacy. She concluded that although they were successful, that success was dependent on additional factors such as the number of children in groups and the number of outside interruptions.
Liana Heitin, in her work “Creating a menu for reading instruction” (2012), interviewed Boushey and Moser, the authors of The Daily Five (2006). She discusses their system and some of their work that has expanded on the original program. She outlines how the program is evolving.
In the study, “Improving student reading levels through literacy workstations and guided reading” (Eng, 2012), the author groups the efficacy of workstations and guided reading. She uses both elements of a reading program and tests student progress. She concludes that used in tandem these programs have an overall positive impact on student learning.
Roberta Linder, in her work “A difficult choice: Which model of reading instruction for my students?” (n.d.), presents an overview of reading programs and compares and contrasts their elements. She analyzes the work of both Diller and Boushey and Moser along workshop models, and guided reading models. She concludes with the admissions that there is “no one right answer” and that good teachers reflect on their practices and use what is best for their own students and situations.
Work from Michael Opitz and Michael Ford (2002) offer similar reviews and comparisons of meaningful independent learning programs.
Based on this literature review, I have concluded that The Daily Five seems to be the dominant program in the literature right now. It offers a significant answer to my question: What do I do with the rest of the class during reading groups?
My literature review was driven by my essential question: What do I do with the rest of the class while I’m teaching reading to small groups? Like other teachers of primary aged children, I was tired of the constant battle to keep control of the class and at the same time focus on the individual needs of my students. I found that the bulk of my small group instruction time was spent heading off problems or interrupting little readers in order to answer questions or redirect off task students. I needed to find some answers to this problem.
Through collaboration with fellow teachers from a school in Nevada, I heard about a book called The Daily Five (2006) by Gail Boushey and Joan Moser. In this book, the authors describe a program of literacy instruction designed to teach the children independent learning. The authors outline five key skills: “Reading to self, reading to someone, listening to reading, working on writing, and spelling/word work” (p.20). The authors break down each skill into incremental mini-lessons, that teachers teach from the beginning of the year. The program is designed to take around six weeks to implement. Once implementation is complete, students can work independently on meaning literacy activities while the teacher is involved with small groups or individual learning. The program outlined in The Daily Five seems to be the hallmark answer to my question at this stage in educational history.
A similar program comes from Debbie Diller in her book, Literacy Work Stations (2003). Diller focuses on setting the stage for learning independence by creating “centers” that will be motivating and self explanatory so that students will remain independently engaged in learning. She lists many ideas for creating spaces that are both exciting and meaningful in terms of literacy learning. While the independent learning theme is the same as that of Boushey and Moser, Diller has less focus on direct instruction of independent skills.
Other literature available reviewed these programs or did studies on their efficacy. Carrie L. Kracl, from the University of Nebraska at Kearney did an interesting study entitled, “Managing small group instruction through the implementation of literacy work stations (2012). This study used interviews and observations of four first grade teachers using work stations. Kracl wanted to know the teacher perception of the efficacy. She concluded that although they were successful, that success was dependent on additional factors such as the number of children in groups and the number of outside interruptions.
Liana Heitin, in her work “Creating a menu for reading instruction” (2012), interviewed Boushey and Moser, the authors of The Daily Five (2006). She discusses their system and some of their work that has expanded on the original program. She outlines how the program is evolving.
In the study, “Improving student reading levels through literacy workstations and guided reading” (Eng, 2012), the author groups the efficacy of workstations and guided reading. She uses both elements of a reading program and tests student progress. She concludes that used in tandem these programs have an overall positive impact on student learning.
Roberta Linder, in her work “A difficult choice: Which model of reading instruction for my students?” (n.d.), presents an overview of reading programs and compares and contrasts their elements. She analyzes the work of both Diller and Boushey and Moser along workshop models, and guided reading models. She concludes with the admissions that there is “no one right answer” and that good teachers reflect on their practices and use what is best for their own students and situations.
Work from Michael Opitz and Michael Ford (2002) offer similar reviews and comparisons of meaningful independent learning programs.
Based on this literature review, I have concluded that The Daily Five seems to be the dominant program in the literature right now. It offers a significant answer to my question: What do I do with the rest of the class during reading groups?
RSS Feed