{"id":15588,"date":"2025-07-29T05:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-07-29T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nwea.org\/blog\/?p=15588"},"modified":"2025-07-28T09:40:28","modified_gmt":"2025-07-28T16:40:28","slug":"guided-reading-reimagined-how-to-close-reading-gaps-with-differentiation-and-scaffolding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nwea.org\/blog\/2025\/guided-reading-reimagined-how-to-close-reading-gaps-with-differentiation-and-scaffolding\/","title":{"rendered":"Guided reading reimagined: How to close reading gaps with differentiation and scaffolding"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n

My earliest reading memory is of my three-year-old self seated on my grandma\u2019s lap in her living room while she read and reread Old Hat New Hat <\/em>by Stan and Jan Berenstain. I don\u2019t recall why I was so fond of that book, but I\u2019m guessing the repetitive text with picture cues, which made it easy to decode and comprehend, had something to do with it. In addition, I love the main idea gleaned from the story: the perfect hat just might be that old hat made new again. Guided reading is like that old hat\/new hat notion; sometimes what\u2019s old can be dusted off, be made new, and become a perfect fit.<\/p>\n

What we now know about guided reading<\/h2>\n

In the early 2000s, I taught first-, second-, and third-grade students, and guided reading was a weekly practice in my classroom. Each fall I administered reading benchmark assessments in search of data to help me group my students for guided reading based on instructional reading levels. Three days per week I rotated through reading groups and supported students while they often read text below grade level. I assumed students would become too frustrated trying to read text at grade level, and this frustration would impede meaningful reading. Were my assumptions valid? Well, let\u2019s just say I wish I could go back in time and redesign guided reading in my classroom.<\/p>\n

According to NAEP data<\/a>, only 33% of fourth-graders nationally are proficient or above on state summative reading assessments. While this data is daunting, what\u2019s even more frustrating is the data from two decades ago, which suggests fourth-grade proficiency scores haven\u2019t changed significantly. Why aren\u2019t we moving the needle for all students? The answer may surprise you.<\/p>\n

While teachers, including myself, have certainly tried to implement best practices in hopes of closing reading gaps, we\u2019ve also been limiting opportunities for students to be successfully engaged with complex, grade-level text. State proficiency exams require students to decode and comprehend text at\u2014not below\u2014grade level. If students are busy reading text at their instructional reading levels, albeit below grade level, how can we reasonably expect them to read grade-level text on the state summative exams and earn a proficient score? I wouldn\u2019t want to try swimming laps in the deep end of the pool if I\u2019ve only been allowed to tread in shallow water. The jump from the shallow end to the deep end is best accomplished gradually, with scaffolding. The same can be said about reading grade-level text.<\/p>\n

What about that frustration factor? Are grade-level texts too frustrating for some students? Well, they may be challenging, but research suggests students aren\u2019t \u201cturned off\u201d by complex text. Linda Gambrell and colleagues<\/a> studied motivation and its relationship to reading in the \u201980s. They looked at the effects internal and external motivators have on student reading behaviors. Their studies of the relationship of text difficulty and motivation suggest either no relationship or a much more complicated one than we previously considered. When students are challenged and their learning is obvious, teachers won\u2019t need to worry about frustration or a lack of motivation. Instead, with appropriate support, students can successfully engage with grade-level text, and any frustration is mitigated.<\/p>\n

How to help readers catch up<\/h2>\n

So, should teachers continue assessing for students\u2019 instructional reading levels? It depends. What\u2019s the purpose for leveling? If teachers use instructional levels to limit access to grade-level text, then no. Instead, seek out data shedding light on students\u2019 skills gaps, and use that data to differentiate instruction and provide appropriate scaffolds using grade-level text.<\/p>\n

Imagine you\u2019re a second-grade teacher preparing for a new class of students this fall. Some of your second graders won\u2019t have secured phonological awareness or beginning phonics skills, all of which you don\u2019t teach because you won\u2019t find them in second-grade reading standards. Instead, based on Common Core Reading Standards<\/a>, your students need to achieve the following: \u201cBy the end of year, read and comprehend informational texts, including history\/social studies, science, and technical texts, in the grades 2\u20133 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range\u201d (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.2.10).<\/p>\n

The standards are clear: there\u2019s no time for remediation. So what\u2019s your plan? Here\u2019s what I would do, now that I know better.<\/p>\n