Chapter Two:

Why Is Guided Reading Still Important? What Is the Purpose of Guided Reading?

picture

Differentiation champions an atmosphere in which teachers strive to do whatever it takes to ensure that [all students] grow as much as they possibly can each day, each week, and throughout the year.

Tomlinson, 1999

Having looked at where we have been and where we are at with guided reading, it is important to make sure guided reading is clearly defined as we discuss its purpose and why it is still important. Let’s remember that Fountas and Pinnell (1996) defined guided reading as “an instructional context for supporting each reader’s development of effective strategies for processing novel texts at increasingly challenging levels of difficulty” (p. 25). As previously stated, most experts describe guided reading as planned, intentional, focused instruction where the teacher helps diverse students, usually in small group settings, learn more about the reading process (Ford & Opitz, 2011). Knowing this, I want to help clarify this description by looking closely at what guided reading is and what guided reading is not. (See Figure 2A.) In doing so, the purpose and value of guided reading will become even more apparent. Similarly, others have identified the misunderstandings and new understandings of guided reading (Burkins & Croft, 2010) as well as the romance and reality of decades of guided reading (Fountas & Pinnell, 2012). My list begins with an important reminder that guided reading is not the same as the traditional use of ability-based small groups of the past. If you need to convince yourself or others that guided reading is distinguishable from traditional reading groups, see detailed comparisons others have made (e.g., Schulman & daCruz Payne, 2000; Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; and The Wright Group, 1996). My list ends with another important reminder that guided reading is not an end in and of itself. Guided reading is a means toward an end defined by the ultimate goal of moving learners toward independence (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996).

Figure 2A: What Guided Reading IS and IS NOT

What Are the Purposes of Guided Reading?

Richardson (2009) argued that the extra time, energy, and effort that implementing guided reading requires is worth it. “Students differ in their reading development. Because students differ, teachers must use a variety of assessments to discover what their students need to learn. They must also provide differentiated small group instruction that targets those specific needs” (p. 267). Fountas and Pinnell (1996) echoed that message when stating guided reading “gives children the opportunity to develop as individual readers while participating in a socially supportive activity” (p. 1). For me, that is why guided reading matters.

When used effectively, guided reading:

  • Targets similar specific needs across learners in small groups;
  • Targets specific needs for individual learners within small groups;
  • Scaffolds learning to accelerate the growth of similar learners in small groups;
  • Scaffolds learning to accelerate the growth of individual learners within small groups;
  • Provides opportunities for teachers to observe similar learners in small groups and provide responsive teaching;
  • Provides opportunities for teachers to observe individual learners within small groups and provide responsive teaching;
  • Can be positioned for greater intensity and impact by adjusting frequency, duration, focus, and monitoring;
  • Can be restructured as an intervention when added as an additional layer beyond universal instruction;
  • Supports and enhances other aspects of the comprehensive literacy program (read-alouds, shared reading, and independent reading);
  • Encourages learners to use inherent text-based supports and face new manageable challenges through the use of a variety of texts that are carefully matched to learners and needs (Hornsby, 2000);
  • Allows the teacher to focus attention on the learners’ application of strategic behaviors at both the word and text level to lead learners toward independence in problem-solving and meaning making as readers and writers; and
  • Sends a message to all learners that they are capable of becoming proficient readers while acknowledging the varying rates of development of different learners (Schulman & daCruz Payne, 2000).

Why Is Guided Reading Still Important?

For me, the rationale for guided reading is grounded in the need for differentiated instruction. P. David Pearson (2009) observed: “Kids are who they are. They bring what they bring. And we need to stop seeing this as an instructional inconvenience.” It would be nice if all kids showed up at the classroom perfect, but they don’t. Students arrive with different instructional needs and as soon as they cross into the classroom space, it becomes our responsibility to meet those specific needs. All teachers need tools, structures, and resources to help them meet those needs. Guided reading remains one of the most important means for bringing differentiated instruction into the classroom.

In her book, The Differentiated Classroom, Tomlinson (1999) initially theorized that differentiated instruction (DI) could be accomplished by thinking about three elements of instruction: the content, the process, and the product. This model suggests DI is mainly about doing different things for different learners. In the end, it leads to an unwieldy vision of DI with teachers juggling a variety of different activities for all kids but doing very little meaningful instruction for any (Schmoker, 2010). DI is not just about teachers doing different things for different learners. DI is about teachers doing the right different things for different students.

The problem with the Tomlinson model for literacy instruction is when content is critical for becoming a more proficient reader and writer, the content is probably needed by all learners. Unlike some subject areas where a teacher can differentiate content by asking some students to learn about one country and other students to learn about another country, it is harder to do that in literacy. You can’t tell some students to learn about these sounds and others to learn about other sounds since knowing all sounds is critical for all readers. The critical literacy content needs to be accessible for all. Differentiation is not just about switching content for different learners. Differentiation is about knowing what critical content some students know and others don’t, so you can target the content individuals need most in your instruction.

Similarly, it is not as easy to differentiate processes for learning during reading and writing. Readers and writers get better at reading and writing by reading and writing. In some subject areas, students’ processes for learning could be differentiated. For example, in studying countries, some students might read about them, others might view video excerpts to learn about them, and some might even visit those countries (actually or virtually). But we need to be careful about varying the processes for learning in literacy programs. For example, if some students are asked to make meaning by reading the text independently and others are allowed to listen to the text on an audio source, one needs to acknowledge that these are two entirely different experiences. One leads to a greater impact in moving learners toward greater proficiency in reading. The other outsources the reading (Hiebert, 2014). The audio allows the learner to make meaning, but it falls short of teaching him or her how to make meaning. Likewise, if one writer makes meaning by orally dictating a story recorded by the teacher, it will lead to a different impact than a child who makes meaning as he or she records his or her own story. While we may use these different techniques for children at different points of development, eventually all learners need to do their own reading and writing.

Finally, differentiating products—what the students are expected to produce during reading and writing—allows for some variation for different learners. Products that involve responding with reading and writing provide more opportunities to practice reading and writing. Other products might involve less reading and writing. They might involve more art, music, or performance. These alternatives can create excitement about what has been read or written. That excitement can lead to more reading and writing as well. But producing products that consume significant amounts of instructional time without providing too many opportunities for using reading and writing—even when those products can be differentiated—might need to be re-examined. Is that the best way to differentiate when instructional time always seems to be so limited?

A different way to look at differentiation within a literacy block is to switch from looking at content, process, and products and to look more closely at texts, grouping patterns, and levels of support. These are three critical things to consider when making decisions to target literacy instruction for different learners. Decisions about texts, grouping arrangements, and levels of support are usually within the control of the classroom teacher. In considering these three factors, differentiation can become less daunting and more do-able (Opitz & Ford, 2008).

In exploring these factors, four basic models emerge. (See Figure 2B.) If the teacher uses a common text for all learners for whatever reason—practicality, community, universal instruction—then differentiation can take place, but it requires adjusting the grouping formats and the levels of support given to different students. One model that addresses differentiation within whole class models is the Grouping without Tracking model (Paratore, 1990). The lesson starts together during the pre-reading phase. When the gradual release model moves closer to the independent takeover by the learners, the teacher asks a critical question: “Which of my students are now ready to take over the reading on their own, and which of my students will need additional support to take over the reading?” This allows for an adjustment in the grouping pattern. The whole class divides into two groups. One group will begin working independently, indirectly guided by the teacher. This group will use the structures put in place during the pre-reading phase, where the focus, process, tools, and expectations were laid out and modeled for the students. The other group, which hopefully will be smaller, could flow into a guided reading group led directly by the teacher with the possibility of additional needed support through targeted, scaffolded instruction.

A second model is the Jigsaw model (Aronson, 1979). This too often involves a common text but one that can be easily divided into parts. Consider a nonfiction text that might be about a specific topic (rain forest animals) and then presents descriptions of specific examples (different rain forest animals). The text does not have to be read in a linear fashion. Different students can read about different animals and report out to synthesize the entire text. Again, the lesson can start in the pre-reading stage with common instruction about the topic and text. After a good foundation has been built, the teacher can develop a jigsaw plan, asking a slightly different question: “Which students should work together and on which part of the text?” Once groups are formed, the teacher will guide some indirectly by the focus, process, tools, and structures put in place and modeled during the common instruction. This allows the teacher to guide other groups more directly. One or two guided reading groups can flow out of the common instruction. Groups of students in need of some additional support get a piece of the text that is more manageable and have access to support from the teacher to help meet the expectations given to other groups. Every group has a piece of the text and their own information to share when the class comes back together to share what they’ve learned, with the goal of going more deeply into the topic.

A third model is what is usually seen in Guided Reading components of literacy programs. What if you have access to multiple copies of the same texts at different difficulty levels? The best way to differentiate instruction would be to give different titles to different groups of readers. This allows for even more targeted instruction to be provided. By intentionally varying the text, the grouping assignment, and the level of support (how long and how often the group meets with the teacher), differentiation becomes more do-able than daunting. This clearly positions guided reading as a critical component in providing differentiated instruction within the classroom literacy program. It is one of the important purposes of guided reading and a strong reason why guided reading is still important. Other small group models like Literature Circles (Daniels, 2002) and Comprehension Focus Groups (Dorn & Soffos, 2011) can be used in this manner.

A final model would be created by having unlimited texts. This way, teachers could vary the text assignments even more effectively in matching a reader and a book. The teacher can consider level, interest, and other individual reader factors. Common instruction can be provided to all readers, especially when topics, procedures, skills, and strategies seem to apply across a wide variety of texts and readers. Application of what was taught during the common instruction can happen during time set aside for independent reading of the individual texts. This approach is popularized in the Reader’s Workshop model. In this model, the teacher can bring together students with similar needs in a small guided reading group to provide additional support. The instruction and support can be similar because application is possible, even with different readers reading different texts. Targeted instruction could be even further differentiated by conferring with students individually as they show ability to use what was learned during the common instruction.

Each of these models—varying texts, grouping patterns, and levels of support—makes more sense as a way to provide differentiated instruction than differentiating content, process, and products. These four models already exist in many classrooms or are easily adaptable to structures that already exist. They present do-able ways to think about differentiated instruction. Interestingly, each model has the potential for small group instruction guided directly by the teacher to provide targeted, scaffolded instruction with a whole class text, part of a whole class text, a small group text, or an individual text. While the third model clearly reflects what many consider to be guided reading, all the models provide an expanded vision of what the purpose of guided reading could be and additional reasons why it is so important.

Figure 2B: Models of Differentiation

  • Grouping without Tracking
    • Vary Texts: One common text
    • Vary Grouping Arrangements: Whole class to start but divided into two groups for independent phase of gradual release
    • Vary Levels of Support: One group receives indirect support as they work independently; the other group receives more direct support as they are guided by the teacher
    • Role of Guided Reading: Guided reading flows out of the whole class lesson for those students in need of greater support as they work to complete the instruction directly guided by the teacher
  • Jigsawing
    • Vary Texts: One common text but easily divided into parts
    • Vary Grouping Arrangements: Whole class to start but divided into small groups (one per part of the divided text) for the independent phase of the gradual release
    • Vary Levels of Support: Most groups receive indirect support as they work independently; one or more groups receive more direct support as needed with guidance from the teacher
    • Role of Guided Reading: Guided reading flows from the whole class lesson for any group that needs more direct teacher support to process their assigned part of the text
  • Guided Reading / Literature Circle / Comprehension Focus Groups
    • Vary Texts: Different groups of texts for different groups of readers
    • Vary Grouping Arrangements: Class divided into small groups of similar abilities to receive similar instruction through direct support of the teacher
    • Vary Levels of Support: Support can vary in length and frequency, but all groups receive some direct support from the teacher specific to their needs using the intentionally selected text
    • Role of Guided Reading: Guided reading is structured so that all groups receive at least some direct support from the teacher, though some groups may receive support for longer periods or with greater frequency
  • Reader’s Workshop
    • Vary Texts: Different texts for individual readers
    • Vary Grouping Arrangements: Readers work independently; however, the teacher can bring small groups of readers with similar needs together
    • Vary Levels of Support: Support can be given by conferring with any reader who has needs or by bringing small groups of readers with similar needs together for specific targeted instruction
    • Role of Guided Reading: Guided reading can be used to provide targeted instruction to a small group of students with similar needs that can be applied across levels of texts and readers

(Modified from Opitz & Ford, 2008)

What Are Other Purposes of Guided Reading?

Differentiated instruction doesn’t end once decisions about the texts, grouping, and level of support are made. Differentiation is also about what happens at the table with the readers. In Chapter One, I stressed that guided reading is more than teaching texts in small groups. Guided reading is at its core the teaching of readers—finding and addressing those differences that Pearson observed every student brings through the door. If we are teaching readers, then even after we have selected the texts, made the grouping assignments, and decided how much support the readers need, we need to listen carefully to the readers so that we can respond appropriately. We must remember that it is the individual children—not the group—who learn to read (Lose, 2007). Clay (1998) pointed out that even when learners are headed toward similar outcomes, they may reach those points by different pathways. Teachers must be ready to acknowledge this by setting up observations of and interactions with readers at the table. When planning for a guided reading session, the teacher must always be very intentional about the general focus of the lesson (i.e., the similar outcomes the learners need) but also about planning activities that allow the observing of readers as they interact with texts. Those observations may reveal the individual pathways the learners take in trying to achieve those outcomes. It’s at this point that the teacher’s intentional planning detours a bit to be responsive to the individual needs.

Let’s look at three readers. All are reading the same text, I Go Up by Jay Dale (Capstone Classroom, 2012). The students are all at the A level. The teacher completes a formative assessment to guide instruction during the session. The teacher uses a running record to record the oral reading of each student. She times the reading to capture a sense of the reading rate and asks for a retelling of the story with a holistic measure of understanding (none, limited, somewhat acceptable). In looking at the three readers’ results, it is clear responsive teaching means not only knowing their levels, but also their needs. (See Figure 2C.)

Figure 2C: Profiles of Readers

  • Text:
    I go up. I go up the stairs. I go up the ladder. I go up the rope. I go up the hill. I go up the tree. I go up the mountain. I go up… up, up, up.
  • Charli:
    I go up. I go up the steps. I go up the ladder. I go up the rope. I go up the grass. I go up the tree. I go up the snow. I go up… up, up, up.
    • Rate: 34 seconds
    • Errors: 3 (92 percent)
    • Miscues: stairs, hill, mountain
    • Retelling: General understanding
  • Elle:
    I go up. I go up the stars. I go up the ladder. I go up the rope. I go up the heel. I go up the tree. I go up the mont. I go up… up, up, up.
    • Rate: 40 seconds
    • Errors: 3 (92 percent)
    • Miscues: stairs, hill, mountain
    • Retelling: Limited understanding
  • Whit:
    I go up. I go up the (omitted). I go up the ladder. I go up the rope. I go up the (omitted). I go up the tree. I go up the (omitted). I go up… up, up, up.
    • Rate: 44 seconds
    • Errors: 3 (92 percent)
    • Miscues: stairs, hill, mountain
    • Retelling: General understanding

Let’s look Charli. She read with fluency and understanding but had three uncorrected miscues. Each miscue made sense in the story, and each miscue sounded right syntactically in the grammatical structure of the sentence (“steps” for “stairs,” “grass” for “hill,” and “snow” for “mountain”), but two miscues showed little visual similarity to the words in the text (“grass” for “hill” and “snow” for “mountain”). The remaining miscue (“steps” for “stairs”) shared a visual similarity to the word in the text, especially in the beginning.

If we look more closely at Elle, she read with less fluency and understanding. She had three uncorrected miscues. Like Charli, all were substitutions. She substituted “stars” for “stairs,” “heel” for “hill,” and “mont” for “mountain.” In all three cases, the substitutions did not make sense. With “stars” and “heel,” she did substitute nouns for nouns, so syntactically the miscues were grammatically acceptable. In all three cases, the miscues had a visual similarity (“stars” for “stairs,” “heel” for “hill,” “mont” for “mountain”).

Finally in Whit’s case, he read with understanding but with less fluency. He too had three uncorrected miscues, but in all cases, they were omissions, not substitutions. He made enough meaning from the pictures and the words he knew that he could satisfy retelling requirements.

One way to start responsive teaching is to consider broadly what the reader did. Eight key observations can guide thinking about the readers:

  1. The reader read the text correctly with understanding.
  2. The reader read the text with corrections and understanding.
  3. The reader read the text with corrections but not complete understanding.
  4. The reader read the text with understanding but not complete accuracy.
  5. The reader read the text with accuracy but not complete understanding.
  6. The reader attempted to read the text but without complete accuracy or understanding.
  7. The reader stalled in attempting to read.
  8. The reader resisted the attempt to read.

If we use the general framework to think about the three students, what we observe with Charli is profile 4. She read with understanding but not complete accuracy. Elle is more like profile 6. She attempted the reading but without accuracy or understanding. Like Charli, Whit is also profile 4. He read with understanding but not complete accuracy. All are reading at the same level, but they have variations that must be responded to differently by the teacher. The guided reading instruction needs to lead each individual student forward. If the three students are all taught the same lesson about I Go Up without any attention to their individual needs, the lesson may help some but will probably fall short of helping all.

It is interesting to look closely at the data collected by the teacher in three quick assessments of accuracy, fluency rate, and general understanding. (See Figure 2D.) If the teacher focuses exclusively on accuracy levels by reporting percentages of words right, these three readers look the same. Accuracy levels alone failed to detect a critical variation between these students. One might assume they are the same, and instruction that follows may not truly respond to their needs. If the teacher only focuses on the number of errors the readers made or the actual words missed, again no critical variations are detected. Instruction could focus on teaching those three words in isolation, but it falls short of teaching the strategies each student needs to be able to figure out words like these independently. It is only when the teacher observes closely what each student is doing, strategically revealed by their miscues, that critical information is obtained. This information can be used to inform subsequent responsive instruction.

Figure 2D: Assessment Results for Students

  • Accuracy Level
    • Result: Same for all readers
    • Importance: Measuring accuracy did not detect critical variations.
  • Number of Errors
    • Result: Same for all readers
    • Importance: Measuring number of errors did not detect critical variations.
  • The Actual Errors
    • Result: stairs, hill, mountain
    • Importance: Noting the errors did not detect critical variations.
  • Miscues
    • Result: Different for all readers
    • Importance: Noting miscues detects critical variations.
  • Rate
    • Result: Different for all readers
    • Importance: Noting rate detects a variation that may be critical or not.
  • Comprehension Check
    • Result: Different for all readers
    • Importance: Noting general understanding detects variation that may be critical.

If I take Elle to the first page, point to the word “stairs,” and ask her if “stars” makes sense, she might rethink her miscue and work toward a word that makes sense. If I do the same thing with Charli, she would tell me that “steps” does make sense. It will require a different type of responsive interaction to help Charli. We might have to stretch out the word “steps” and get her to realize it has a /p/ sound in it, and the word on the page does not have the letter that makes that sound. It’s a much different interaction. I might even ask if that is the best miscue to target with Charli. Charli might be better helped by looking at the word “hill” and discovering that it is not “grass.”

Whit presents a different challenge. He also missed “stairs,” but an omission reveals less about his ability. His rate seems to suggest that he slowed down to look at those tough words. Perhaps he was over-relying on picture clues without success. His strategy was to basically skip the word and not worry about going back. Perhaps he got enough from what he saw and read that he was able to make sense of the text. In his case, I might take him back to the first page and if he stops on the word “stairs” again, I might guide him through some questions to see what he is trying to do strategically:

  1. Tell me what you are trying to do.
  2. Show me the part you are working on.
  3. Is there a tricky sentence?
  4. Is there a tricky word?
  5. Is there a tricky part of a word?
  6. Is there a tricky sound or letter?
  7. (Once the tricky part is identified) Let’s see if we can use what you know to figure this out.

Guided reading is important because it provides that significant opportunity to closely listen to and observe readers in a small group and then provide targeted, scaffolded instruction at that critical moment to move the readers forward (Schwartz, 2005). The key is being able to surface critical variations and address those during the guided reading session. You’ll notice that some measures may reveal variations between readers like measuring their rate, but differences in rates may not be that critical unless they reveal a strategic difference with a practical implication. With these three readers, the difference may not be that important, even though Charli read at a greater pace than Elle and Whit. In the end, what is the practical implication if one child reads it in 34 seconds and another reads it 40 seconds? If Elle and Whit were slowing down to try to sound out a word or use another strategy, that might be more important to note and think about. Yes, big differences in rate may have more meaning than small differences, but caution must be used in sorting children based on rate data alone, especially where variation is slight.

Finally, the check for understanding also showed differences between the readers. While Elle’s limited ability to make meaning does raise a red flag, Charli’s and Whit’s ability to understand may be for different reasons. If Charli is making meaning from reading the words on the page and Whit is making sense by looking closely at the pictures, they are at different places strategically. To move each forward requires a different interaction. Children like Charli, Elle, and Whit are sitting at guided reading tables every day. In her study of second graders, Halladay (2012) described three readers all reading at the same level: Ben, Sarah, and Dante. Ben made a number of miscues that interfered with his comprehension. Sarah made a number of miscues, but her lack of accuracy did not interfere with her comprehension. Finally, Dante read the text accurately, but his accuracy did not lead him to comprehension. Halladay’s research shows again that while students at one level may have “predictable patterns,” they also have “individual pathways” (Hornsby, 2000, p. 15). The purpose of guided reading is to provide close-up observation of students, the ability to assess for critical variations, and opportunities to respond with targeted teaching. All of this is possible when effective guided reading is a part of a comprehensive literacy program. A guide to assist responsive teaching is contained in Figure 2E.

Figure 2E: A Guide to Responsive Teaching

  • The Reader Reads the Text Correctly with Understanding.
    • What pattern would be observed: No errors
    • What is working? Praise the reader as needed specifically for…: Confidence, competence, and/or comfort level with this text
    • What needs work? Instruction for the learner…: Let’s look closely at your instructional goals. What do you feel you need to work on next?
    • What should be considered for future instruction?: Should the difficulty level of the material being read be increased? Should the instructional goals for the reader be adjusted?
  • The Reader Reads the Text with Corrections and Understanding.
    • What pattern would be observed: All errors self-corrected while meaning was maintained
    • What is working? Praise the reader as needed specifically for…: Monitoring meaning while reading
    • What needs work? Instruction for the learner…: Let’s look closely at a few of your self-corrections. What was the word on the page? What was the word you said? How did you make the decision to self-correct? Did you need to self-correct to keep the meaning clear?
    • What should be considered for future instruction?: Would stronger, more automatic word strategies reduce the need for self-corrections to focus more attention on meaning making? Does the student focus too much on accuracy with potential to eventually interfere with fluency or comprehension?
  • The Reader Reads the Text with Corrections but Not Complete Understanding.
    • What pattern would be observed: All errors self-corrected but meaning was compromised
    • What is working? Praise the reader as needed specifically for…: Monitoring accuracy while reading
    • What needs work? Instruction for the learner…: Let’s look closely at a few of your self-corrections. What was the word on the page? What was the word you said? How did you make the decision to self-correct? Did you need to self-correct to keep the meaning clear?
    • What should be considered for future instruction?: Would stronger, more automatic word strategies reduce the need for self-corrections to focus more attention on meaning making? Does the student’s focus on accuracy interfere with fluency and/or comprehension?
  • The Reader Reads the Text with Understanding but Not Complete Accuracy.
    • What pattern would be observed: Meaning-based miscues
    • What is working? Praise the reader as needed specifically for…: Making meaning while reading
    • What needs work? Instruction for the learner…: Let’s look closely at a few of your miscues. You said…. Does the word on the page look like the word you said? Can you use what you know about sound and letter clues to figure out the word on the page that would also make sense?
    • What should be considered for future instruction?: Is the reader over-relying on syntactic and semantic cues? Does the reader need to be more accurate as he/she makes meaning? (Be careful about overemphasizing accuracy, which could interfere with making meaning.)
  • The Reader Reads the Text with Accuracy but Not Complete Understanding.
    • What pattern would be observed: No errors, but meaning was compromised—often seen in “word callers.” These students are often very good oral readers, reading with few mistakes but demonstrating little understanding of what they have read.
    • What is working? Praise the reader as needed specifically for…: Reading accurately
    • What needs work? Instruction for the learner…: Let’s reread, and we will stop along the way and check for understanding. You read to the end of page __. Think about what you are reading, and I will ask you a question to see if you understand.
    • What should be considered for future instruction?: Is the reader over-relying on decoding to the detriment of fluency and comprehension? Would “stop and process” strategies help the student build meaning as he or she reads?
  • The Reader Attempts to Read the Text Without Accuracy or Understanding.
    • What pattern would be observed: Non-meaning-based miscues
    • What is working? Praise the reader as needed specifically for…: Making attempts and maintaining stamina
    • What needs work? Instruction for the learner…: Let’s look closely at a few of your miscues. You said…. Does that make sense? Can you use what you know about sound and letter clues to figure out the word on the page that would also make sense?
    • What should be considered for future instruction?: Is the reader over-relying on graphophonemic cues to the detriment of fluency and comprehension? How do we help the reader improve accuracy as he or she makes meaning?
  • The Reader Stalls in Attempting to Read.
    • What pattern would be observed: Reading falters in progress
    • What is working? Praise the reader as needed specifically for…: Making an attempt
    • What needs work? Instruction for the learner…: Can you tell me what you are working out? Show me where the problem is? Is it…? (Keep focusing the child until he or she can articulate the problem, and then scaffold support at that level.)
    • What should be considered for future instruction?: Should the material being read be rethought? Should the instructional goals for the reader be adjusted?
  • The Reader Resists the Attempt to Read.
    • What pattern would be observed: Reading not attempted
    • What is working? Praise the reader as needed specifically for…: The last successful attempt
    • What needs work? Instruction for the learner…: Let's work on this together. I will start the reading and when you see a part where you can take over, let me know
    • What should be considered for future instruction?: Should the material being read be rethought? Should the instructional goals for the reader be adjusted? Should the level of support be readjusted?

I want to make sure that I haven’t made this seem simple and easy. In my example, we looked at three different readers reading the same Level A text with 39 words. We collected just a little data on each and looked at what we learned to inform our instruction about how to target subsequent instruction. Each time I work with children like these, I am stunned by the complexity of what is revealed about what readers can and cannot do. Schwartz (2005) describes the complexity of these teaching decisions even more comprehensively in assisting teachers to respond to primary students during guided reading.

Schwartz demonstrates this complexity by looking at a single miscue. Think about a child who substitutes the word “home” for “house.” If a teacher focuses primarily on accuracy, the miscue is treated as something that needs to be corrected. If a teacher focuses primarily on meaning, the miscue might be ignored. Schwartz recommends that the decision also needs to consider “previous observations of the student and an assessment of his or her literacy” (p. 436). Schwartz borrows from a framework by Brown (1982) to explain four factors that need to be considered when providing responsive instruction to individuals during guided reading:

  1. Response history of the learner: As you have observed the reader over time, what is the typical strategy on which the reader relies? Does the reader have a shifting pattern of response that would indicate the development of an effective processing system? Or does the reader have a more static pattern of response that would indicate the need for support in applying additional strategies to improve the effectiveness of the processing system?
  2. Cues: What cues did the reader use, notice, or neglect? What does the reader do with print cues (visual and phonological)? Sentence structure cues (oral language and book language)? Meaning cues (picture and context)? What cues lead the reader to create sound-letter expectations?
  3. Strategies: How does the reader use monitoring strategies? Searching strategies? And cross-checking strategies? Remember, an effective system equips the reader with the ability to know when something is not right, to search for cues to make something right, and to cross-check to verify something is right.
  4. Prompts: Does the reader need a low level of support (struggled but succeeded) or high level of support (struggled without success) from the teacher to move forward? Can the reader be prompted toward independence? (“Were you right? What else can you try?”) Or should you prompt to extend strategic behaviors? (“Does that look right, sound right, or make sense? Get your mouth ready, think about what would sound right, or think about what would make sense.”)

Schwartz (2005) reminds us of the complexity of responsive teaching. He provides important things to consider in targeting instruction during guided reading. An appropriate response may need to consider the history of the learner, the cues he or she uses, and the strategies he or she knows. We can begin to achieve a vision of very effective differentiation as the teacher grows in the ability to provide this type of instruction. He concluded: “The guided reading lesson format provides a rich opportunity for teachers to observe and investigate early literacy. Listening to a student read a text that is only partially familiar allows us to apply and refine our theories of literacy learning and instruction” (p. 442).

Can Guided Reading Help Accelerate Growth of Learners?

It is clear that guided reading is still important because it addresses the need for critical small group instruction in an overall comprehensive literacy program. The use of guided reading provides a vehicle for adjusting texts, grouping arrangements, and levels of support to differentiate instruction for different groups of readers. Guided reading also provides one of the best opportunities to closely observe readers in small groups so developmental patterns and individual pathways can be addressed through responsive teaching. This targeted instruction can even further differentiate instruction for individual students. In many classrooms, however, differentiation needs to carry one more responsibility.

For some students, making an academic year’s worth of progress in an academic year’s worth of time will not help close the gap between them and their classmates. They need to receive instruction that accelerates their growth to make more than an academic year’s worth of growth in an academic year’s worth of time. What we do with different readers needs to be carefully considered so that a more challenging outcome is also achieved. Acceleration is often overlooked as an important dimension of differentiation. Sometimes we are too focused on differentiation as merely doing different things for different students. Other times, we are too focused on helping readers make progress but lose sight of helping them achieve proficiency (Opitz & Ford, 2014).

So how can schools focus on acceleration in a comprehensive literacy program? Dorn and Soffos (2011) recommend that teachers, schools, and districts clearly indicate expected entry and exit levels for readers at each grade level. The identification of those levels allows the teacher to clearly project a path of expected growth needed for proficiency by the end of the year. That path influences how guided reading and other supports are structured and paced. Periodic embedded benchmark assessments will allow teachers to monitor the progress of their students along the way to make sure they are on the trajectory toward proficiency. That defined path, however, only really works for the students coming in at expected entry levels.

What happens if a student, for whatever reason, enters below expected entry levels? If that student is placed on a path of linear growth that parallels the typical grade-level trajectory, the student will make progress, but the gap between that student and classmates will not narrow. A gap between the student’s performance and expected proficiency levels will still exist. This student’s trajectory needs to be plotted differently. The linear path needs to be a much steeper incline to make sure the learner is on a path that will lead to grade-level proficiency. Just setting a path, however, will not accelerate the growth of a learner. Instructional decisions have to be made to support the learner along that journey to accelerate growth.

Differentiated instruction that supports accelerated growth begins with effective regular classroom instruction. High-quality guided reading plays a critical role in building that foundation. I hope that the recommendations provided in this book will help us look at current practices in guided reading and tighten them up so that we can get more bang for our buck from the time and energy we set aside for guided reading. Remember, that might begin with greater fidelity to proposed guided reading instruction principles and practices, but sometimes fidelity to a practice can limit teachers from using their expertise to make it even more powerful (McMaster, et al, 2014). Fidelity should always be to the students with whom the teacher is working—not just a program. With my colleague Kathryn Glasswell (2010), we reminded teachers to get more power out of guided reading by rethinking some aspects instead of just rigidly adhering to perceived essential aspects of guided reading. For example, a teacher could move toward organizing small groups around instructional needs rather than exclusively by levels, especially for those who have the most critical instructional needs. Select texts that provide more reading mileage (greater word counts) for those who need the most practice, and scaffold the movement from easier texts by intentionally selecting multilevel text sets that share connected content, formats, and language. This can help learners move more quickly to more complex texts. (We will look more closely at text selection issues in Chapter Four.)

Differentiation that accelerates growth goes beyond tightening up guided reading. Acceleration also means paying particular attention to the pacing of guided reading sessions. Historically, there has always been a tendency to slow down instruction for those with the greatest needs (Allington, 1991), but the exact opposite is probably necessary. If a student’s need for growth is greater, guided reading sessions may have to be intentionally modified to provide more time for needed instruction. Longer sessions, more frequent sessions in the class rotation, and additional sessions at other times (“double dosing,” as some schools now call it) may be needed. Acceleration also means considering the need for something beyond classroom-provided guided reading. Models such as Guided Reading Plus (Dorn & Soffos, 2011) and Leveled Literacy Instruction (Fountas & Pinnell, 2014) may be added as additional layers of support. Careful monitoring would be done to make sure this layer of instruction is contributing to the acceleration of growth in the student. (We will look more closely at intervention issues in Chapter Seven.)

While acceleration means looking at practices that would deliver more bang for our buck, I would offer one caution in light of current discussions. Recently, there has been a lot of attention on the analysis of effect sizes across studies of certain practices documented in research. These are called meta-analyses, and so many meta-analyses exist now that some have also looked across those to determine effect sizes of certain instructional practices (Hattie, 2013). Effect sizes are quantitative measures of the strength of a certain practice—the larger the effect size, the stronger the potential impact from the practice. A popular interpretation of this research is to use those instructional techniques that have the greatest effect sizes in our instruction. Given a choice between two practices—one with a strong effect size and one with a weak effect size—why not choose the one that has a track record of getting better results? While this work can certainly inform our thinking, educators need to remember that a meta-analysis averages data across many studies. Studies are given different weights when averages are being computed, but, in the end, these averages can mask outlier studies. A meta-analysis of a practice with a high average size effect may include studies of that practice that had smaller effect sizes. The reverse can also be true. A meta-analysis of a practice with a low effect size average may include some studies of that practice that had higher effect sizes. It is very important to remember that variations exist and the contexts in which the studies were conducted matter. For example, schools with significant professional development and ample access to resources may have large effect sizes from the implementation of reader’s/writer’s workshop approaches, but others without those supports may not. What might work in one school setting may not work the same way in another.

Research suggests that there is one important element that can transcend different schools, and that is whether the instruction is delivered by an expert teacher. Teachers with expertise often have instructional practices that impact positively on the learners in their classrooms. Acceleration is not just about picking the right practice, but using practices that can accelerate the growth of the individual learner. Lose (2007) recommended that it is teachers with the most expertise that will accelerate the growth of students who may be struggling the most. “The child who is challenged by literacy learning requires a knowledgeable teacher who can make moment-by-moment teaching decisions in response to his or her idiosyncratic literacy competencies” (p. 277).

What Does the Research Say about Guided Reading?

The final question I want to address in making the case for guided reading is: What does the research say about guided reading? Guided reading practices are based on research. The research base for guided reading as an instructional approach has been articulated by Pinnell and Fountas (2010) as it relates to eight key principles. Research supports guided reading sessions that:

  1. Have the ultimate goal of teaching comprehension
  2. Support individual progress on a sequence of high-quality, engaging texts with increasing text difficulty
  3. Increase the quantity of independent reading
  4. Provide explicit instruction in fluency
  5. Provide daily opportunities to expand vocabulary
  6. Expand students’ ability to apply phonemic awareness and phonics understanding to process print
  7. Provide the opportunity to write about reading
  8. Create engagement in motivation for reading

There is a difference, however, between a research-based practice and a research-tested practice (Duke & Martin, 2011). It is clear that the development of guided reading is based on theory, research, and expert opinion. But what does the research say about the efficacy of guided reading? Does it work? Denton and colleagues (2014) contend that there has been limited experimental research on guided reading. Results are mixed at best and limited, often by the lack of description on how the guided reading practices were implemented. After searching, two studies surfaced. Tobin and Calhoon (2009) compared a guided reading approach with a more explicit instruction program with first-grade students from two different schools. Guided reading students showed significant increases across time in three narrowly assessed areas: phoneme segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency, and oral reading fluency. Guided reading had greater gains than explicit instruction in the area of phoneme segmentation fluency, though explicit instruction had stronger results on the oral reading fluency measure. Nayak and Sylva (2013) looked at young learners in Hong Kong. They compared guided reading groups, e-book groups, and no-treatment groups. Only guided reading groups showed a significant gain in both accuracy and comprehension compared to the no-treatment group.

Other studies have focused on adding elements to guided reading to see if that increased its power. Kamps and others (2007) looked at both first- and second-grade English language learners and English-only students. A balanced literacy approach that included guided reading combined with explicit instruction in decoding and fluency resulted in better outcomes than the balanced literacy program without the explicit instruction component. Hall, Sabey, and McClellan (2005) looked at focusing attention on text structures with second graders within guided reading groups. When that instruction was added with well-structured texts, greater comprehension in expository texts was seen; however, earlier research by Dymock (1998) demonstrated that general instruction through guided reading groups actually was just as effective in impacting reading comprehension on standardized tests as small group instructions that focused exclusively on text structures.

In light of the limited research, Denton and colleagues (2014) structured a more comprehensive design to compare guided reading as an intervention versus more explicit skill instruction (phonics and word skills) for at-risk second graders. While acknowledging the limitations of the study, results indicated that both guided reading and explicit instruction improved outcomes from typical classroom instruction. Outcomes did not differ significantly between the interventions, though the researchers found some added value in explicit instruction to accelerate growth in decoding, fluency, and comprehension. In the end, the efficacy of guided reading is probably best researched in the classrooms in which it is used. Teachers should be able to demonstrate a positive impact from guided reading, using outcomes their learners need to make progress.

Is Guided Reading Still Important?

In this chapter, I provide a clearer vision of what guided reading should be. When guided reading is implemented within that vision, it becomes quite clear that it still has a relevant role in classroom literacy programs. Guided reading is a viable small group structure for needed differentiated instruction in a comprehensive literacy program. Guided reading provides an important systematic means to closely observe, assess, and respond to the common patterns in learners. Guided reading can be positioned to play a vital role in accelerating the growth of learners in need of closing the gap with their peers. Grounded in research-based principles, we can see the original promise of guided reading. Now we need to make sure that promise is achieved. Let’s start by looking at how guided reading can best fit with the other aspects of the literacy program in the next chapter.