Small Group Intervention: Improving Science Proficiency of 5th Grade 'Bubble Kids' on Statewide Assessments

Emmanuel S. Colete^1, , Lejeb T. Colete², Courtney-Leigh Gourley³ and Gadiel Morales⁴

¹Science Department, Renaissance Charter School at Tapestry, Kissimmee, Florida, United States of America

²English Language Arts Department, Renaissance Charter School at Tapestry, Kissimmee, Florida, United States of America

³Administration Department, Renaissance Charter School at Tapestry, Kissimmee, Florida, United States of America

⁴Curriculum Department, Renaissance Charter School at Tapestry, Kissimmee, Florida, United States of America

Cite this paper:
Emmanuel S. Colete, Lejeb T. Colete, Courtney-Leigh Gourley and Gadiel Morales. Small Group Intervention: Improving Science Proficiency of 5th Grade 'Bubble Kids' on Statewide Assessments. American Journal of Educational Research. 2025; 13(8):383-390. doi: 10.12691/education-13-8-1

Abstract

"Bubble Kids" are students identified as performing below the proficiency threshold on standardized assessments. This study investigated the impact of small group intervention on improving the statewide science assessment proficiency level for 5^th grade science. Using criterion-based sampling, 38 participants were identified through use of NWEA MAP Growth science assessment and received the targeted instructional sessions of four-months duration. The pre-test/post-test design was employed in the study and limitedly focused on performance tracking among this subgroup, and did not include students who performed well, below or above proficiency level. Statistically, paired sample t-test results indicated significant gain in statewide science assessment, where 50% of the participants reached proficiency level, while the other 50% remained as below proficient. The mean difference score of 8.11 points indicated that the score on statewide assessment was higher than MAP Growth. However, the computed effect size (Cohen’s d) was small, suggesting that the changes and practical impact may be limited, possibly influenced by the small sample size and lack of a control group. Findings provide primary evidence for the potential effectiveness of small group interventions among transitional performers in science education. The study emphasizes the need for further research with larger samples and more rigorous designs to validate and expand upon these results.

Keywords:
bubble kids small group instruction statewide assessment

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Steenbergen‑Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in small groups. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 405–430.
[2]	Associated Press. (2023, September 19). How a rural Alabama school system outdid the country with gains in math by using data-driven, small-group instruction. The Associated Press. https:// apnews.com/ article/43253afc35621ce80f03dd00ccc160a2.
[3]	No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
[4]	“EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT,” 2016. Available: https:// www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf.
[5]	Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73.
[6]	J. Booher-Jennings, “Below the Bubble: ‘Educational Triage’ and the Texas Accountability System,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 231–268, Jan. 2005.
[7]	S. D. Sparks, “Study Finds ‘Bubble Student’ Triage a Gut Reaction to Rising Standards,” Education Week, Mar. 09, 2012. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/study-finds-bubble-student-triage-a-gut-reaction-to-rising-standards/2012/03 (accessed Jul. 03, 2025).
[8]	“Linking Study Report: Predicting Performance on the Florida Statewide Assessment Program based on NWEA MAP Growth Scores NWEA Psychometric Solutions,” 2020. Available: https:// www.nwea.org/uploads/2020/07/FL-MAP-Growth-Linking-Study-Report-2020-07-23.pdf.
[9]	“Predicting Proficiency on the Florida Assessment of Student Thinking (FAST) Based on NWEA MAP Growth Scores,” 2024. Accessed: Jul. 03, 2025. [Online]. Available: https:// www.nwea.org/ uploads/ FL-MAP-Growth-Linking-Study-Report-2024.pdf.
[10]	Kowalski, S., Peters, S. J., Kuhfeld, M., Robinson, G., & Lewis, K. (2024, September 17). COVID’s impact on science achievement: Trends from 2019 through 2024 [Research report]. NWEA.
[11]	Michigan Department of Education, “MDE - Michigan department of education,” Michigan.gov, 2019. https:// www.michigan. gov/mde.
[12]	2022–23 California Statewide Assessment Results - Year 2023 (CA Dept of Education),” www.cde.ca.gov. https:// www.cde.ca.gov/ nr/ne/ yr23/yr23rel83.asp.
[13]	“Press Releases,” Maryland.gov, 2025. https:// news. maryland.gov/ msde (accessed Jul. 03, 2025).
[14]	Accelerate Learning Inc, “STEMscopes Science Boosts School Science Scores Nationwide | Accelerate Learning,” Acceleratelearning.com, 2024. https:// info. acceleratelearning. com/ news/ stemscopes -science-boosts-student-achievement- and-scores-nationwide-2022-2023 (accessed Jul. 03, 2025).
[15]	Education Week American Education News Site of Record, “Education Week American Education News Site of Record,” Edweek.org, Jan. 21, 2013. https://www.edweek.org.
[16]	“Parents - Pregnancy, Birth, Babies, Parenting,” Parents, 2019. https://www.parents.com.
[17]	Connecticut State Department of Education. (2024). Improved attendance and mathematics and science scores. CT.gov. https://portal.ct.gov/SDE/Press-Room/Press-Releases/ 2024/ Improved- Attendance-and-Mathematics-and-Science-Scores.
[18]	Zucker, A., & Noyce, P. (2020). Lessons from the pandemic about science education. Thinking Classroom, 25(6).
[19]	Reading Rockets. (n.d.). Instructional grouping for reading for students with LD: Implications for practice. Retrieved from https://www.readingrockets.org/topics/learning-disabilities/ articles/ instructional-grouping-reading-students-ld-implications.
[20]	Yeh, S. (2017). Meta-analysis of targeted smallgroup reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(1), 3–15.
[21]	Kalaian, S. A., Kasim, R. M., & Nims, J. K. (2018). Effectiveness of small-group learning pedagogies in engineering and technology education: A metaanalysis. Journal of Technology Education, 29(2), 20–35.
[22]	J. Jennings and H. Sohn, “Measure for Measure,” Sociology of Education, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 125–141, Mar. 2014.
[23]	Elevate K-12, “What Are the Biggest Benefits of Small-Group Instruction?,” www.elevatek12.com, Apr. 29, 2024. https:// www.elevatek12.com/blog/elevate-in-action/benefits-of-small-group-instruction/.
[24]	R. E. Slavin, C. Lake, B. Chambers, A. Cheung, and S. Davis, “Effective Reading Programs for the Elementary Grades: A Best-Evidence Synthesis,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 1391–1466, Dec. 2009.
[25]	L. Ferlazzo, “Small-Group Instruction: Work It for Your Students—and You,” Education Week, Nov. 15, 2021. Available: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-small-group-instruction-work-it-for-your-students-and-you/2021/11.
[26]	D. FUCHS and L. S. FUCHS, “Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?,” Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 93–99, Jan. 2006.
[27]	T. D. Little et al., “The retrospective pretest–posttest design redux: On its validity as an alternative to traditional pretest–posttest measurement,” International Journal of Behavioral Development, vol. 44, no. 2, p. 016502541987797, Oct. 2019.
[28]	F. Nyimbili and L. Nyimbili, “Types of Purposive Sampling Techniques with Their Examples and Application in Qualitative Research Studies,” British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 90–99, Feb. 2024.
[29]	C. N. Akpen, S. Asaolu, S. Atobatele, H. Okagbue, and S. Sampson, “Impact of Online Learning on student’s Performance and engagement: a Systematic Review,” Discover Education, vol. 3, no. 1, Nov. 2024, Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44217-024-00253-0.
[30]	M. B. Tindall, A pilot study on the effects of increased lab experiments and hands-on activities on summative assessments, Doctoral dissertation, University of Dayton, 2023. ProQuest LLC, Publication No. ED645186.
[31]	Victoria Olubola Adeyele, “Relative effectiveness of simulation games, blended learning, and interactive multimedia in basic science achievement of varying ability pupils,” Education and Information Technologies, Jan. 2024.
[32]	M. B. Ouahi, D. Lamri, T. Hassouni, and E. M. Al Ibrahmi, “Science Teachers’ Views on the Use and Effectiveness of Interactive Simulations in Science Teaching and Learning,” International Journal of Instruction, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 277–292, Jan. 2022.
[33]	K. Keane, “Text-based discussion interactions and engagement with three different text types,” The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 185–199, Feb. 2025.
[34]	J. M. Bland and D. G. Altman, “Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading,” The Lancet, vol. 346, no. 8982, pp. 1085–1087, Oct. 1995.
[35]	D.S. Moore, G.P. McCAbe, & B.A. Craig, “WebAssign - Introduction to the Practice of Statistics 9th edition,” 2016, www.webassign.net., https:// www.webassign.net/ features/ textbooks/ mintrostat9/details.html.
[36]	J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 1988.
[37]	C. Howe, “Strategies for supporting the transition from small-group activity to student learning: A possible role for beyond-group sharing,” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, vol. 28, p. 100471, Mar. 2021.
[38]	S. M. Calor, R. Dekker, Jannet, and Monique L.L. Volman, “Improving the quality of mathematical discussions: The impact of small-group scaffolding,” Learning Culture and Social Interaction, vol. 49, pp. 100858–100858, Sep. 2024.
[39]	L. Gasser, D. Preisig, A. Frei, Y. Dammert, S. Egger, and P. K. Murphy, “Effects of a literary intervention on interaction quality in small-group discussions in the upper elementary grades,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 95, p. 101996, Feb. 2025.
[40]	J. Chen, T.-J. Lin, Ian A.G. Wilkinson, Seung Yon Ha, and N. Paul, “Linkages between cognitive and social dialogue patterns during collaborative small-group discussions,” Learning and instruction, vol. 87, pp. 101795–101795, Oct. 2023.
[41]	E. Kraatz et al., “Teacher Scaffolding of Social and Intellectual Collaboration in Small Groups: A Comparative Case Study,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 11, no. 587058, p. 587058, 2020.
[42]	A.Zamecnik et al., “The cohesion of small groups in technology-mediated learning environments: A systematic literature review,” Educational Research Review, vol. 35, p. 100427, Feb. 2022.
[43]	Adrián Carruana Martín, C. Alario-Hoyos, and C. D. Kloos, “Smart Groups: A Tool for Group Orchestration in Synchronous Hybrid Learning Environments,” Lecture notes in computer science, pp. 384–388, Jan. 2021.
[44]	A. Timar, “Timar: Multiplying success: Small-group instructions in an early college high school mathematics class Multiplying Success: Small-Group Instruction in an Early College High School Mathematics Class,” 2023. Available: https:// files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/EJ1413480.pdf.
[45]	M. Rosholm et al., “A tailored small group instruction intervention in mathematics benefits low achievers,” npj Science of Learning, vol. 10, no. 1, Apr. 2025.