1

Effects of small group instruction with alternating teachers

Francisco Barocio Spanish I and III Pre-AP Teacher

Travis High School

Abstract

In this study, students from different foreign languages teachers are subject to a series of tutoring sessions to find out if the different styles of teaching are beneficial for them. We also tried to develop a system of tutorials that would not need financial support from the campus and would not require additional time from teachers. Furthermore, we wanted to find out if the students were failing because they did not understand the concept being taught of if there was some additional reason. The tutorials were carried out by switching students between teachers during the school day. After the sessions, students who stayed with the same teacher showed tremendous improvement while the students who went to a different teacher received worse scores. It was suggested that the students did not have enough time with the new teacher to adapt to the different teaching style; a new study should be conducted to find out.A second, simpler evaluation showed that students did know the basic concept being taught; sadly, there was no prior assessment to show if this was a result of the tutorial sessions or if the students came to those with that knowledge mastered. This was also a suggestion for a new study.

Background

As a Spanish teacher in a High School setting with nineteen years of experience, I can

speak to the fact that foreign language instruction has always been relegated to a second place

after all the core courses. Therefore, it does not normally participate in the regular pull-outs, after

school tutorials, Saturday school schemes, etc. available for other core courses such as English,

Math, Science and Social Studies. These classes are the ones that are tested by the State, and

there is just not enough money for them so there is no question about setting some apart for the

language classes. However, students also struggle in foreign language classrooms and they need

to pass foreign language class in order to graduate; that is why there is a need to come up with a

plan to help students pass a foreign language course while at the same time doing it without extra

funds.

2

In this study, two high school Spanish teachers are trying to tutor struggling students

during class time to see if they benefit from it. The normal tutoring schedule has not worked for

them because students simply do not show up; that is why we want to tutor them during the

school day: we know they are here. Since as teachers, we know that we are not getting any

money to pay for extra teachers or substitutes; we have to come up with a plan to have some time

to work with those students.

The idea is to divide the classes of two teachers in two groups; one with the struggling

students and another one with those who have a solid grade in the class. After doing that, the

students (from both teachers) who are struggling on a particular topic are combined into one

group and one of the teachers stays with them while the other teacher takes the rest of the

students. Hopefully, the struggling students will be the smaller of the groups with its numbers

very close to ten.

The strugglers then receive accommodated instruction geared to get them back on track.

Since there are fewer students and all of them are lacking in the same topic in the class, lesson

plans can be very specific about what to teach them. Instruction can be very personal and it can

also be differentiated according to each student’s learning style. Having fewer students means

less discipline problems which results in more instructional time during the period.

Another plus is that half of the students will get a different teaching style since they are

going to tutorials with a teacher that is not their regular one. On the next tutoring day, teachers

will alternate so that all the students participate with a different teacher. Having the same

instruction from a different person can lead to understanding concepts that are hard to grasp the

first time around.

What we are trying to find out with this study is:

3

• Will struggling students increase their scores by attending a small group tutorial during

school day with alternating teachers?

• What other factors affect student’s achievement?

It has happened in years past that students who don’t fully understand the concept of

imperfect VS preterite (These are the two different kinds of past tense employed in Spanish:

preterite is generally used with past events that only happened once and imperfect is used for

events that took place on a regular basis) fail to pass Spanish II, with their problems just

compounding with each new unit being taught on top of the problematic one.

Literature review

Tutoring in small classes has been tried frequently across time; the benefits of it are

usually good and it achieves even better results when applied for longer periods of time (Chung,

2009). The benefits are varied between different subjects but showed consistent improvement

along the four yearlong study and they are more helpful to the lower achievers, thus reducing the

achievement gap (Chung, 2009). Chung used the data from project STAR (Student Teacher

Achievement Ratio) to analyze the effects of small classes tutoring on longer periods of time, the

study refers to a fifteen student class size as small compared to a “normal” load of twenty two;

FBISD class sizes now are usually higher than thirty.

It has been proven that a small, homogeneous group rather than a large heterogeneous

one facilitates learning as shown by Davenport (1991). Davenport mentions that dividing

students by their perceived academic skills is a commonly used practice throughout American

schools, with mixed results due in part to the fact that lower performing students are normally

assigned to less qualified teachers, are exposed only to selected sections of the curriculum, and

4

are expected to work less in homework and class assignments. She also brings out a study by

Ekstrom and Villegas (1991) that points out that these differences are present even in the same

classroom, where students perceived as high achievers receive more attention and are asked

better questions from the teacher than those students who had been marked as low performers,

with the result of letting these students go even lower on their expected outcomes.

In order to prevent these students from becoming an even bigger problem, Murawski and

Hughes (2009) suggest the use of the RTI (Response to intervention) model by taking a

proactive approach instead of a reactive one and use intensive instruction designed to fill in small

gaps in students before they become big ones. Their article points out that the expertise and time

needed to successfully implement an RTI model in the classroom is seldom achieved by the

educators of today due to the burden of administrative tasks they are required to complete; that is

why they suggest the cooperation between teachers and other staff members to be able to help

students in need.

This is easier said than done, as another study by Dieker & Murawski (2003) points out

that “Teachers continue to resist sharing their classroom and planning processes with other

teachers, and that resistance may negatively affect its effectiveness” thus making imperative to

change the common attitude of teachers towards cooperation and team work.

Murawski and Hughes mention that the goal of putting students on a remedial program

should always be to get them to the point where they can be returned to the general population

classes; this point is also referred to by Ljusberg (2011) whose study reveals that students on

remedial classes feel isolated and stigmatized. Ljusberg found out that these students know they

have been tagged as low performers and believe that they are in remedial classes mostly because

5

of unjust discipline issues instead of valid academic reasons. They are fully aware of the fact that

they are regarded as difficult, with annoying and problematic behavior (Ljusberg, 2011).

However, Ljusberg also states that most of the students in the study recognized that the

higher ratio of teacher/student helped them to achieve a better understanding of the topic being

taught; although sometimes they felt that the teacher was intruding and was trying to over control

what they were doing by asking too many questions or offering too much help (Ljusberg, 2011).

In general, I found that although there are mixed feelings and results about remedial

classes and small group sizes; the studies generally state that fewer students allow for a better

educational environment and that something needs to be done to help struggling students.

Remedial classes work for the majority of students and even if they feel like they are being

stigmatized, this same feeling helps them to succeed if only to be reinserted in the general

population classes. Teachers need to recognize that they need help from other faculty members

to successfully implement remedial actions to help students and they also need to be aware of all

the different approaches they can use to achieve this goal.

6

Methodology

Spanish II students normally receive instruction on past tense during the school year.

They learn the two different kinds of past tense used in Spanish called preterite and imperfect,

each one separately. Later in the year, they need to learn when to use each one in context and

that’s when the hardest part of Spanish II arrives (This is historically true for most students,

according to our records).In this scheme, after the students take their first evaluation, those who

are failing or with very low scores are set apart to participate in the tutorial session.

Procedure

On the designated tutorial days, students from teacher B were sent (after taking attendance) to

the classroom of teacher A who in turn sent his tutorial-free students to teacher B for a cultural

activity that more often than not is not possible to carry out because of re-teaching. Teacher A

was the one in charge of all the tutorial sessions. The routine for the class included frequent one

on one checking for understanding (at least three times per student per day), re-teaching the

concepts from the beginning, mnemonic artifacts to facilitate recollection, and a constant positive

climate full with reinforcement.

Tutorials took place one day per week for a total of four weeks and had approximately 40

minutes of instruction. After four tutoring sessions with teacher A, the students were evaluated

again using an equivalent assessment tool (see Appendix B). A week after that, they were

evaluated again twice (see Appendix C). The first time checking for understanding without the

need to conjugate verbs and the second one without conjugation and vocabulary; only the

concept of past tense was evaluated. It was hoped that this instrument would help to clarify the

cause of the failure in the event that the students were unsuccessful again.

7

The two participating teachers have Spanish II on their third and fourth period, which is

why these were the selected classes; they were the ones with the lowest logistical requirements.

It also helped that teachers are next door to each other. Furthermore, to enrich the data, Teacher

A’s fifth period was chosen to participate on a special tutoring session to cross check the results.

Participants

The students were distributed like this:

Table 1

Composition of student population for the tutorial sessions

Teacher Third period Fourth period Fifth period Total

Teacher A 9 8 13 30

Teacher B 4 12 N/A 16

Total 13 20 13 46

These numbers left us with 20 and 13 students per class, which compared to the usual

30+ in a class makes for a very manageable number. Teacher A’s fifth period received their

tutorial session in class while the remaining students (21) were working on a different

assignment.

Data sources and analysis

After the tutorial sessions the students took an assessment that checked their knowledge on the

complete subject of past tense: vocabulary, verb conjugation, and past tense usage. This first

evaluation was graded and the data was entered on an excel spreadsheet. Once there, it was used

8

to calculate the averages and make the correlations between grades before and after tutorials.

This allowed us to check the effect that the sessions had on the students.

A week later, students took a second assessment which only covered the past tense

usage. On this evaluation, they did not have to know vocabulary or verb conjugation; only the

pure concept of past tense was checked. We hoped this assessment would help us find out if the

vocabulary and verb conjugations had anything to do with students having problems with this

section of the class. The quiz was also graded and added to the spreadsheet. A copy of the raw

data can be seen in Appendix A.

Discussion of findings

After the first evaluation with their regular teachers and before the tutorial sessions; the

students obtained the following results (averages shown):

Table 2. Tutorial Group Students’ average on their original assessment with their regular teacher.

Number of students shown in parenthesis.

Teacher Third period Fourth period Fifth period Total

Teacher A 38.0 (9) 48.0 (8) 49.0 (13) 45.0 (30)

Teacher B 55.0 (4) 65.41 (12) N/A 60.2 (16)

Total 46.5 (13) 56.7 (20) N/A (13) 52.6 (46)

As the chart shows, teacher B’s students had a better average to begin with than teacher

A’s students by a good margin, and the overall average of the students was 52.5. These are the

results that sent these students to the tutorial sessions.

9

At the end of four weeks (one day per week) students were evaluated again using an

equivalent assessment tool. The new averages were as follows:

Table 3. Students’ averages on the assessment applied after the tutorial sessions

Teacher Third period

(gain/loss)

Fourth period

(gain/loss)

Fifth period

(gain/loss)

Total

(gain/loss)

Teacher A 66.45 (+28.45) 60.13 (+12.13) 62.70 (+13.70) 63.1 (+18.1)

Teacher B 43.25 (-11.25) 45.9 (-19.5) N/A 44.76 (-15.38)

Total 54.85 (17.2) 53.02 (-7.37) N/A 56.91 (+5.43)

To answer the original research question: “Will struggling students increase their scores

by attending a small group tutorial during school day with alternating teachers?” the answer can

be a qualified “yes”. Overall, students improved their scores by 5.43 points which by itself can

be considered a satisfactory result. However, when one looks at the results by teacher, two things

stand out from these results: the recovery for teacher A students is spectacular while teacher B

students not only don’t improve, but they were even lower. Why was there such a big difference

between the students of the two teachers if all received the same instruction?

It seems clear that students from teacher B did not receive teacher A’s instruction

effectively; this can be due to several reasons including lack of time to get used to the new

teaching style, a feeling of being ‘punished’ by being sent to the tutorial session, lack of

motivation from teacher B, the difference in gender of the teachers, and/or a combination of all.

During the actual tutorial sessions the students did not show any symptoms of the

mentioned reasons beyond the normal mindset of a high school student, which led me to believe

that they were taking the program in a good-spirited mood. Not until I looked at the results had I

10

any clue that they were not assimilating the material. The classes were conducted with an

emphasis in checking for understanding and one on one support; which is why I found the poor

results very surprising.

If we look at the data from the standpoint of individual students, we can see that teacher

A had 28 students failing and ended with fifteen, whereas teacher B had eleven failing and

finished with fourteen. It’s interesting to note that the two students passing from teacher B were

failing to begin with; which means that all five students that were passing when they started the

tutorials, failed in the end. This is consistent with the overall averages, teacher B students did not

respond well to the program.

Only two of teacher B students that started the program failing passed in the after-tutorial

evaluation, and one of them started with a 68 average that only turned to 70. Again, the benefits

for teacher B students are nowhere to be seen. Teacher A had thirteen students failing that

managed to pass after the sessions, they were ranging from 20 to a 65 average and ended up with

grades between 70 and 86. The average in points gained was 28.

A week later, nine of the original teacher B students and 26 from teacher A were

evaluated again this time with two simplified assessments; one in which some verb recognition

was needed and another, simpler one, where only the main concept idea was necessary and no

Spanish vocabulary was present. Here are the results:

Table 4

Students’ average on all four assessments for students that attended tutorials

(Results are only for those students present for the post-evaluation)

11

Teacher Original eval. After tutoring Verb recognition Only concept

Teacher A 44.85 62.71 (+40%) 74.77 (+67%) 88.8 (+97%)

Teacher B 64.7 50.3 (-22%) 76 (+17%) 84 (+30%)

Total 54.75 56.51 (+3%) 75.89 (+39%) 86.4(57%)

Sadly, there is no pre-evaluation to assess the concept understanding from before the

tutorial session to compare before and after; because students may have had some knowledge of

the concept from before the tutorial sessions. What can be seen in the chart is that students did

grasp the concept in the end, but they still lacked the verb conjugation and vocabulary skills

needed to pass the evaluation.

Consequently, we are not sure if these last results are a product of the program or if the

students had those skills from their original classes. But still, it gives insight as to what are the

real causes behind the failure of the students and goes directly to answer our second research

question: “What other factors affect student’s achievement?”

It is not lack of knowledge of the main concepts but the non existence of the scaffolding

necessary to learn Spanish, as proven by the fact that out of 35 students that took the last

assessment (the one that only tested for the concept, without any Spanish) a total of 30 passed,

making for an outstanding 86% passing percentage. This percentage is only 66% when some

verb recognition is needed, even when the rules for this particular topic were re-taught at the

tutorial sessions.

The two last evaluations were done at the same time in the same instrument using the

same examples for both assessments; this means that several students correctly identify the

needed tense when only the concept was needed but missed the correct verb conjugation that was

side by side with it. Again, this goes on to prove that students do not know enough Spanish to be

12

successful in Spanish II: they take their Spanish I classes, the first semester of Spanish II doing

the absolutely minimum needed to pass and then forget about everything they learned.

Figure 1. A student with a perfect score on concept recognition but a failing grade on verb conjugation

Figure 2. A perfect correlation between verb and concept recognition, this student knows the conjugations but does not know when to use each tense.

13

Students are used to classes where they learn concepts only to pass the test and then

forget about them. In Spanish this is not possible, every single word that one learns in vocabulary

lessons from day one in Spanish I appears somewhere else the next week or the next year.

Everything is reused, relearned and studied in further detail as one progresses in the learning of

the language. Without this knowledge, they are simply not prepared to succeed as shown with

this study.

Not knowing if the students had the concepts mastered from the beginning was one of the

limitations of the study, another one being the fact that those four days (even spread out in four

weeks) are too short a time for students to get used to the new teacher’s methods and general

way of doing things. This was especially evident when the students that stayed with their original

teacher showed such a fantastic improvement on their assessment, while the students that

changed teacher not only not improved but got worse.

.

14

Conclusions

One of the original reasons to start the program was the possibility of students to

experience different teaching styles and the belief that this would be an advantage for them

(Murawski & Hughes, 2009). However, that was not how it developed in this case. The different

teacher seems to be more of a hindrance than a benefit. When teaching imperfect VS preterite,

Spanish teachers use a variety of mnemonic devices, graphic organizers and activities to help

students master the content; it is my opinion that the difference in those might have caused

confusion between students since each teacher uses different methods.

Looking only at the results of the students from teacher A, I can say that tutoring in small

groups does work as mentioned in the literature (Chung, 2009). All three classes showed

tremendous improvement after the tutorial sessions, including the one that took the lessons in-

class. Even for those students who didn’t pass the test, the improvement by itself allowed them to

take their average to a passing grade when their grade was replaced in the grade book, and the

reaction among the students was very positive; they were grateful for the opportunity and

recognized the effort and time put in by the teachers.

The students going to the cultural session were also thrilled by the opportunity to

experience other people’s way of looking at the word through their food, music, literature, TV

shows and magazines. They were expecting the days in which they will be going to the other

teacher’s classroom and were sorry when they learned that the sessions were over.

There are two main lessons to be learned from this experience for me; first, that small

class tutoring is very effective for your own students and every effort must be done to create

opportunities to do it. Second, a bigger emphasis must be done with student’s assimilation of

15

vocabulary in general and verb structures in particular; without these tools, students just won’t be

able to use higher order Spanish grammatical constructions.

16

Thoughts for future studies

Before starting a new study, a pre-assessment of knowledge of the concept of past tense

should be conducted with the participant students (or perhaps with the whole class, not just the

tutored students). This will help realize if the student is in the tutorial program because he/she

does not understand the concept of past tense or if the student needs major vocabulary and verb

conjugation recovery lessons, which would be a completely different scenario.

There is also a need of some kind of instrument that would allow the researcher to gather

the feelings and opinions of the students regarding the tutorial sessions; did they like them? Did

they learn something? How would they make them better? What did they not like? Such

questions would be beneficial on the planning of consequent sessions and also to get a better

understanding of the results of the program.

In this study, it seems that the different methods used by teacher A did not help the

students from teacher B. But what if those students were given more time to get used to the

different methods? Also, what if teacher B was in charge of some of the tutorial sessions?

Maybe the combination of styles would help students, or maybe the teachers should find out

which methods work best and use those. These questions should be considered on future studies,

as the answers can help develop better strategies to help students.

17

References Chung, S. K. (2009). What Are the Long-term Effects of Small Classes on the Achievement

Gap? American Journal of Education, Vol. 116, No. 1 , 125-154.

Davenport, L. R. (1991). The Effects of Homogeneous Groupings in Mathematics. Clinton, CT.: Morgan School.

Dieker, L. A. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. High School Journal , 1-13.

Ekstrom, R. B. (1991). Ability grouping in middle grade mathematics: Processes and consequences. Research in Middle Level Education , 1-20.

Ljusberg, A. L. (2011). Children's views on attending a remedial class - because of concentration difficulties. Child: Care, Health & Development , 440-445. .

Murawski, W. W., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to Intervention, Collaboration, and Co-Teaching: A Logical Combination for Successful Systemic Change. Preventing School Failure , 267-277.

18

Appendix A -Raw data

Teacher Period Student Original Score

Score after tutorials

Gain (Loss) Pct

Verbs conjugated

Only concept

Difference from beginning PCT

A 3 BC 45 63 18 40% 50 100 55 122% A 3 SS 50 71 21 42% 60 60 10 20% A 3 IG 24 70 46 192% 80 90 66 275% A 3 DN 42 76 34 81% 90 90 48 114% A 3 FM 45 53 8 18%

90 45 100%

A 3 SM 16 41 25 156% 60 100 84 525% A 3 TC 70 90 20 29% 70 90 20 29% A 3 IC 20 70 50 250% 90

A 3 EG 30 64 34 113% 80 100 70 233% B 3 ZO 56 49 -7 -13%

B 3 HI 60 50 -10 -17% B 3 KR 60 53 -7 -12% B 3 JS 44 21 -23 -52% A 4 DD 50 40 -10 -20% 80 80 30 60%

A 4 MS 48 70 22 46% 90 100 52 108% A 4 QJ 58 50 -8 -14% 60 100 42 72% A 4 VK 33 65 32 97%

90 57 173%

A 4 SM 44 51 7 16% 70 60 16 36% A 4 AM 50 86 36 72% 100 100 50 100% A 4 CV 51 49 -2 -4%

60 9 18%

A 4 BG 50 70 20 40% B 4 HS 68 34 -34 -50% B 4 SA 72 58 -14 -19% 100 100 28 39%

B 4 GR 64 62 -2 -3% 90 90 26 41% B 4 NK 56 34 -22 -39% 40 100 44 79% B 4 CF 80 57 -23 -29% 80 80 0 0% B 4 RC 76 6 -70 -92% 50 70 -6 -8% B 4 MM 68 71 3 4% 100 100 32 47% B 4 AB 52 70 18 35% 80 100 48 92% B 4 YH 64 59 -5 -8%

B 4 RS 75 39 -36 -48% 90 90 15 20% B 4 ZR 40 47 7 18% 40 40 0 0% B 4 DN 70 14 -56 -80%

A 5 SF 71 70 -1 -1% 90 100 29 41% A 5 BS 50 70 20 40% 100 100 50 100% A 5 AT 54 74 20 37%

100 46 85%

A 5 NN 49 70 21 43% 50 100 51 104% A 5 LR 64 53 -11 -17% 80 90 26 41% A 5 DH 65 86 21 32% 80 80 15 23% A 5 CL 52 60 8 15% 40 50 -2 -4% A 5 RT 46 77 31 67%

90 44 96%

A 5 JR 21 23 2 10% 60 100 79 376% A 5 DW 13 42 29 223% 90 100 87 669% A 5 LS 58 52 -6 -10%

A 5 AB 51 74 23 45%

100 49 96% A 5 JT 43 64 21 49%

19

Appendix B – Evaluation after tutorial session Quiz Imperfect and Preterite

Nombre_____________________ Periodo_____ Fecha________

Write the conjugated verb using preterite or imperfect. Use the phrases as clues for which tense to use.

1.- yo / comprar / ayer _____________________________________________

2.- él / jugar / todos los días _____________________________________________

3.- nosotros / ver /siempre _____________________________________________

4.- tú / volver / anoche _____________________________________________

5.- ellos / empezar / el lunes _____________________________________________

6.- yo-limpiar / tú-hablar por teléfono / mientras _____________________________________________

7.- él correr / cuando / él tropezar _____________________________________________

Fill in the blanks with the correct conjugated form of the verbs in parentheses, use preterite or imperfect

as needed.

1.- Mi amiga __________ (llorar) esta mañana.

2.- La señora __________ (ver) a los chicos en la escuela.

3.- Tina __________ (estudiar) mientras ella __________ (escuchar) la radio.

4.- Nosotros siempre __________ (hablar) español en la clase.

5.- Cuando yo __________ (tener) cinco años, yo __________ (ser) perfecto.

6.- Nosotros __________ (necesitar) un bolígrafo para el examen.

7.- Sara __________ (querer) ser profesora.

8.- En 1982, nosotros __________ (ir) a Acapulco por 365 días.

¿Imperfecto o preterito? Escribe la respuesta

Anoche, yo 1__________ (estar) en mi casa. Mis padres 2__________(dormer) y 3__________ (hacer)

mucho frío. Mi perro y yo 4__________(comer) cuando de repente yo 5__________(ver) una luz (light)

en el jardín. 6__________(salir) al jardín y 7__________(haber) una roca con humo (smoke). ¡Un

meteorito 8__________ (caer) en mi casa!

20

Appendix C – Evaluation with concept and verb recognition only

Nombre ________________________________

Decide if the following sentences should use the preterite or the imperfect and select the appropriate verb.

1. Ayer [yesterday] _(fui/iba)__

2. Luis

a la escuela. IMP PRET

_(comió/comía)__

3. Nosotros siempre [always]

en el restaurante los lunes [on Mondays]. IMP PRET

_(nos caíamos/nos caímos)_

4. Anoche [last night] mi mamá

en el parque. IMP PRET

_(leyó/leía)__

5. El lunes [on Monday] mis amigos

un libro. IMP PRET

_(corrieron/corrían)__

6. A veces [sometimes] yo

en el estadio. IMP PRET

_(tomaba/tomé)__

7. A la una [at one o’clock] tú

el autobús. IMP PRET

_(viste/veías)__

8. La semana pasada [last week]

la televisión. IMP PRET

_(hablaba/hablé)__

9. El año pasado [last year]

contigo. IMP PRET

_(estaba/estuve)__

10. A menudo [often] Rosa

en México. IMP PRET

_(escribió/escribía)__

la tarea con un lápiz. IMP PRET