Issue 17: Is Guided Reading Inclusive? Deirdre O'Toole

“Inclusion in education is about ensuring that every learner feels valued and respected and can enjoy a clear sense of belonging.” - UNESCO, 2020

Inclusion in education means accepting and acknowledging the diversity within schools and ensuring the active participation of all so as to reach one’s full potential. This may involve removing barriers, enabling provision, and providing support so that children may learn together, irrespective of difficulties or differences. A child’s right to education or otherwise should not be subject to discrimination of any kind. Equitable access to whatever supports are needed in order to be meaningfully included and educated is of the highest importance for children who have additional needs. Otherwise, their disadvantages are intensified.

In this article, I will take a close look at the common practices of Guided Reading and the use of Levelled Readers in classrooms: how these practices do not promote inclusion, can be disadvantageous to struggling readers, and what alternatives may be more effective.

Differentiation

Differentiation is a delicate matter in literacy instruction. Ideally, it should involve different instruction to address the strengths and needs of children in a class so that they may all benefit. Differentiated instruction can take several forms: process, materials, environment, or product. A mixture of whole-class, group, and individual instruction allows for the inclusion of all children.

To achieve equity and full participation, all children must have access to the complete curriculum.

To achieve equity and full participation, all children must have access to the complete curriculum. One might think that whole-class literacy teaching does not allow for the individual differences and needs of children. However, the same content knowledge and skills can be taught to the whole class if differentiation is provided to meet the needs of individuals. Tomlinson outlines a practice called ‘Teaching Up,’ where the teacher plans first for advanced learners and then scaffolds success for struggling children on the same tasks. The “seemingly unattainable” can step within reach. Scaffolding can include small-group instruction, modelling, planning guidance, additional time, peer partnerships, or step-by-step instructions to ensure engagement and help the student reach success. These scaffolds may be temporary supports, adjusted as needed.

Differentiation is not just about ability or homogeneous grouping. Research since the 1980s illustrates that tracking and ability grouping promotes inequity rather than improving literacy achievement. Ability grouping does not grant equal access to knowledge; achievement gaps are sustained, leaving disadvantaged students continuing to fail. This common practice of small-group, ability-based literacy instruction is not inclusive and may even be detrimental to those most vulnerable in our classrooms.

The popularity of supporting children in groups rather than individually emerged when concerns were raised about cost-effectiveness. Schools want to support as many children as possible to achieve their potential. Several studies have investigated whether or not there is a significant difference in outcomes between one-to-one and small-group reading instruction. One study found that groups of 3-4 children achieved outcomes similar to those who received one-to-one teaching. Findings from others indicated no advantage to one-to-one teaching over groups of 2 or 3.

Small-group teaching, however, does allow for instructional differentiation when it provides extra or more intensive instruction to those who need it. There is a good deal of evidence to support the use of small-group teaching for literacy. When small groups have been compared to whole-class teaching, small groups have been more effective. However, this is only an advantage when every group receives instruction from a teacher. If one teacher works with one small group, and the rest of the class works ‘independently,’ the effects are dissipated.

Ability grouping is most disadvantageous to those in the lowest groups.

To be fully inclusive, small group instruction must be carefully considered before being put to use. What might appear to be an inclusive practice, grouping children according to ability so they get targeted instruction, can foster disadvantage. Race and socio-economic status are strongly correlated to reading achievement, meaning that the children in the ‘low’ groups are already disadvantaged. Ability grouping is most disadvantageous to those in the lowest groups. The children in these groups rarely catch up with their peers. Instead of ability groups or independent stations, using small groups to reteach a lesson or providing additional instruction and practice in certain literacy skills is more effective because not all children in the class will need it, only those struggling.

Guided Reading

Guided Reading… is the heart of a balanced literacy program. - Fountas and Pinnell, Guided Reading, p.1

Guided Reading evolved from the work of Marie Clay in New Zealand in the 1970s. Clay had observed children, developed a theory on how they learn to read, and created the intervention programme Reading Recovery. ‘Natural language’ texts, aligned to a gradient, were published to be used for Guided Reading. In 1996, Fountas and Pinnell, heavily influenced by Clay, published their book, ‘Guided Reading: Good First Teaching for All Children”. Guided Reading, along with a Benchmark Assessment System and a Text Level Gradient, became enormously popular, arriving in the UK not long after.

Guided Reading involves assigning children to groups of 4-7 according to their assessed book level. The teacher(s) work with a group for up to 30 minutes while the other groups engage in “meaningful literacy” activities, “managing their learning”. Children are given a ‘just-right’ text at their instructional level based on Running Records performed by the teacher. The teacher begins with a book introduction, familiarising the children with featured language and sentence structures, purportedly to enable successful independent reading. Experience is built for children in the lower groups by reading ‘easier’ books. Using texts with several lines of text on a page “without clear picture cues would confuse them.” This framework of ability grouping for reading instruction is asserted to be an effective method of differentiation.

Despite its popularity, Guided Reading does not support equity and inclusion. The framework is not in line with the research on effective literacy practices. Fountas and Pinnell describe their grouping mechanism as ‘dynamic’, but it is grouping by ability on a regular basis for up to an hour of the school day. As outlined earlier in this article, homogeneous grouping can increase achievement gaps. In addition, all groups of children are not seen every day, which means that some groups work independently for up to an hour. It is perplexing that children of any age would be expected to improve their reading achievement independently in this fashion continuously. Daily use of ability-based groups is a poor use of teacher time and results in fewer children receiving direct instruction. Ability groups are not equitable.

Homogeneous grouping can increase achievement gaps.

Levelled Readers

Instead of the whole class using the same text, Guided Reading and Literacy Lift Off assign different levels of books to each ability group. There are various forms of text-level gradients, with books graded by number, letter, or colour band. There is no definitive formula to determine the difficulty of a text level. The main criteria publishers use are sentence length, the rarity of words, and word count. Decodability is not a factor.

Early levels of these texts have simple layouts, beginning with repetitive structures, one line of text per page, which is directly supported by illustrations. They are intended to help develop concepts about print rather than word recognition. These types of text include the repetition of phrases and sentences, which does not improve word recognition proficiency. Decoding practice to promote automatic word recognition is not a feature. Children are expected to “move fluently through the text” from Kindergarten. Fluency comprises automaticity, accuracy, and prosody. The correct and effortless decoding of words is a necessary prerequisite to reading with appropriate expression. Trying to read with expression before developing automatic word recognition is akin to putting the cart before the horse. Phrasing support is provided by text layout, with punctuation occurring at the end of lines until the higher levels of texts intended for 2nd grade and above. The levels progress to include increased word count and sentence lengths. Children are encouraged to look at the first letter of an unknown word to predict what the word might be. The text level gradient is not equally distributed. The difference is smaller in the lower levels of books than in the upper levels.

In 1946, Betts proposed three levels of texts for any given child: independent level (easy), instructional level (just right), and frustration (hard). Betts claimed that the maximum achievement would come from children being taught with instructional-level texts. Children are assessed to find their instructional level, that is, a text that they can read independently with 90-94% accuracy. The criteria for this hypothesis were not supported by any evidence.

Further research into this concept also failed to validate it. Despite this, the instructional level theory has persisted in informing the instructional practice of teachers worldwide.

Guided Reading uses ‘Running Records’ to assess children’s reading, find their instructional text level, and place them in reading groups with similarly-performing peers. When performing a Running Record, the teacher records the words that a child reads accurately from a continuous text and calculates their accuracy rate. Mistakes or ‘miscues’ are also recorded and analysed. There is considerable variability in the use of Running Records for assigning book levels. Quantitative and qualitative data are collected, with results subject to teacher judgment. This may lead to an overestimation of progress. Running Records have low sensitivity as a diagnostic tool, with high rates of false negatives. In 2015, Parker et al. found that assessments using the Fountas and Pinnell levelling system had 54% accuracy in identifying pupils at risk of reading failure.

With such an imprecise scale and ambiguous criteria, it is bewildering that levelled texts continue to have such prominence in schools. If teachers are reliant on these texts and children are not given opportunities to read other types, they may become dependent on the features present to ‘solve’ words and read ‘fluently,’ neglecting decoding practice and impeding their progress. If schools are reliant on Running Records as an assessment tool, struggling readers may go unnoticed for quite some time, missing vital opportunities to build a solid foundation for future reading success. Such practices, while well-intended, are not inclusive.

There is an abundance of research available that can steer us toward more inclusive literacy practices, but the average teacher is unaware of it.

Conclusion

While we continue to make strides to become more inclusive in education, our literacy practices still leave a lot to be desired. Well-intentioned routines such as ability grouping and using the ‘just right’ text are not as effective as they are perceived. Achievement gaps are sustained and even widened. There is an abundance of research available that can steer us toward more inclusive literacy practices, but the average teacher is unaware of it. More needs to be done to improve the literacy achievement of our most disadvantaged students.

References

• Betts, E.A., 1949. Readability: Its application to the elementary school. The Journal of Educational Research, 42(6), pp.438-459.
• Bodman, S. and Franklin, G., 2014. Which Book and Why: Using Book Bands and Book Levels for Guided Reading in Key Stage 1
• Burns, M. K., Pulles, S. M., Maki, K. E., Kanive, R., Hodgson, J., Helman, L. A., McComas, J. J., & Preast, J. L. (2015). Accuracy of student performance while reading leveled books rated at their instructional level by a reading inventory. Journal of School Psychology, 53(6), 437−445
• Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Tejero Hughes, M. and Watson Moody, S., 2000. How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of educational psychology, 92(4), p.605.
• Foorman, B.R. and Torgesen, J., 2001. Critical elements of classroom and small‐group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), pp.203-212.
• Fountas, I.C. and Pinnell, G.S., 1996. Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children.
• Gamoran, A., 1992. Synthesis of research: Is ability grouping equitable? Educational Leadership, 50, pp.11-11.
• Hiebert, E.H. and Tortorelli, L.S. (2022) ‘The Role of Word-, Sentence-, and Text-Level Variables inPredicting Guided Reading Levels of Kindergarten and First-Grade Texts’, Elementary School Journal, Vol. 122 Issue 4, pp. 557–590.
• Hirsch, E.D., 2019. Why knowledge matters: Rescuing our children from failed educational theories. Harvard Education Press.
• Iversen, S., Tunmer, W.E. and Chapman, J.W., 2005. The effects of varying group size on the Reading Recovery approach to preventive early intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), pp.456-472.
• Klingbeil, D.A., McComas, J.J., Burns, M.K. and Helman, L., 2015. Comparison of predictive validity and diagnostic accuracy of screening measures of reading skills. Psychology in the Schools, 52(5), pp.500-514.
• Parker, D.C., Zaslofsky, A.F., Burns, M.K., Kanive, R., Hodgson, J., Scholin, S.E. and Klingbeil, D.A., 2015. A brief report of the diagnostic accuracy of oral reading fluency and reading inventory levels for reading failure risk among second-and third-grade students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(1), pp.56-67.
• Shanahan, T., 1983. ‘A Critique of P.A. Killgallon’s Study: A Study of Relationships Among Certain Pupil Adjustments in Reading Situations.’ Reading Research Revisited.Slavin, R.E., 1987. Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of educational research, 57(3), pp.293-336.
• Slavin, R.E., 1987. Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools:
• A best-evidence synthesis. Review of educational research, 57(3), pp.293-336.Sørensen, A.B. and Hallinan, M.T., 1986. Effects of ability grouping on growth in academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), pp.519-542.
• Tomlinson, C.A., 2014. The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Ascd.
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1994. Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education.
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2020. Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all. 92310038.
• United States Department of Education, 2005. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).
• Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S. and Hickman, P., 2003. Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional children, 69(4), pp.391-409.

Deirdre O’Toole

Deirdre O’Toole is a primary school teacher in Ireland. She has a keen interest in early literacy and is currently studying for her PhD in the area. She runs the Instagram page ‘Playful Classroom’ and the Facebook group, ‘Science of Reading Discussion for Irish Teachers’. Deirdre was the winner of the ‘Science of Reading Teacher of the Year 2023’ award by Nessy Learning.

Extracts from Dystinct Magazine