Academic and environmental effects of small group arrangements in classrooms for students with autism and other developmental disabilities.
Students with autism or developmental delays can shift from 1:1 to small-group lessons and keep their academic and behavioral gains.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team moved kids with autism and other delays from one-to-one teaching into small groups of three or four.
They kept the same reading and math goals. Two different teachers ran the groups in two rooms.
The study watched if learning slowed or behavior worsened after the switch.
What they found
Kids kept hitting their academic targets. Problem behavior stayed low.
Skills held up even when a new teacher or room was introduced.
Small groups worked without hurting progress.
How this fits with other research
Croner et al. (2018) saw mixed results when they tried pairs instead of 1:1. Most kids learned less in pairs, yet D et al. found threes and fours still worked. The gap shows pair size may be too small for peer support but trios give enough.
Fullana et al. (2007) watched large groups and saw lower engagement for autism learners. Their data backs the move toward smaller units praised in the 1992 paper.
Frankel et al. (2010) later added parent-led friendship clubs and also kept gains, proving small-group benefits hold across academic and social goals.
Why it matters
You can safely fade from 1:1 to triads once targets are solid. Start with two peers who have strong attending skills. Keep trials short and rotate materials fast. This frees staff time without sacrificing learning.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one learner who has mastered five consecutive targets; run the next lesson with two peer models and track correct responses across 10 trials.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The use of small group instructional formats with children who have autism and developmental disabilities has received mixed results in the research literature (Reid & Favell, 1984). The purpose of the two studies reported herein was to address this controversy by comparing the performance of students in one-to-one instruction to those transitioned to small groups for a variety of teachers, students, settings, and under different training circumstances. In the first study, 41 students, ranging in age from 5 to 21 years old, from six classrooms, participated; and 25 students from six classrooms participated in the second study. Measures of environmental effects included academic gains via pre- and posttests, on-task and self-stimulatory behavior levels, correct responding, and frequencies of teacher behaviors during both one-to-one and small group formats. Results of both experiments indicated that students were able to successfully transition to small group formats across several curriculum areas including language, math, readiness, and shopping. Further, experienced teachers and administrators were able to train a second group of staff to use the small group procedures effectively. The successful application for this number of students and teachers within natural learning environments is unprecedented and provides important documentation for both the utility and practicality of small group instruction with students who have developmental disabilities.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1992 · doi:10.1007/BF01058156