Abstract:
The practice of grouping students in small group guided reading based on their
instructional reading levels, and then instructing them with texts that match those instructional
reading levels has been universally accepted as best practice by the majority of educators,
reading specialists, and interventionists as the paramount way to maximize reading growth and
achievement. However, some scholars are questioning the basis of the origin of this foundational
research data regarding the percentages for accuracy and comprehension recommended for the
reading levels set forth in Betts’ 1946 book, Foundations of Reading Instruction. More recently,
according to the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), the level of text complexity must be
raised for all grade levels in order for the United States to compete internationally. For these
reasons, this mixed-methods study examined the implications of student growth and achievement
in NWEA pre/posttests based on the amount of time students spent reading texts in guided
reading below, at, and above their instructional reading levels, along with educator perceptions.
Two classrooms of 2nd grade students (n=34) were measured for one semester. To deepen the
understanding of the results, data were triangulated through teacher and school leader interviews.
The findings from this study indicated that students who read texts that were both higher than
their instructional reading levels and that matched their instructional reading levels achieved
more reading achievement and growth. With regards to students successfully reading texts above
their instructional reading level, this study also suggests that both student interests and teacher
scaffolding must accompany this harder level text. Although not extensive, evidence from this
study, supports the prior dyad reading and fluency research that suggests students are able to
make greater gains in reading when given texts above their instructional reading level to read.
Given these results, further field studies are recommended to allow for greater generalization.
