What the Research Says about Leveled Reading

What does the research tell us about leveled reading? Listen to Dr. Katie O’Daniels synthesize sources across contexts and read along using the links below. Spoiler alert: it’s a little messy. But, there are implications to consider regarding scaffolding, motivation, leveling system, and matching readers to texts.

• Leveled Literacy Intervention
  This intervention report is from What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) in regard to Leveled Literacy Intervention, which is basically Fountas & Pinnell’s Tier 2 intervention that relies on leveled texts using the F & P Guided Reading levels (A-Z). It shows positive effects, but I think it is worth noting that the studies reported on looked at this program in an intervention setting only, not as a Tier 1 general classroom practice.
  What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), 2017
  Resource Type: Research synthesis

• Reading Recovery
  This intervention report is also from the WWC in regard to Reading Recovery, which is also an intervention, typically for 1st graders, that uses a leveled text system. There are also positive effects in the studies outlined here.
  What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), 2013
  Resource type: Research synthesis

• Improvement in Reading Rate Under Independent and Difficult Text Levels
  This study (2010) seems to suggest there are no achievement difference between practice in “independent” text or practice in “difficult” text. This, then, would support an argument against matching readers with leveled texts, or at least suggest there is no achievement argument against using “difficult” texts.
  Rollanda E. O’Connor, H. Lee Swanson, and Cathleen Geraghty, 2010

• The effects of dyad reading and text difficulty on third graders reading achievement
  The same study above was replicated in this study (2018) and found similar results.
  Lisa Trottier Brown et al., 2018

• Effect of Difficulty Levels on Second-Grade Delayed Readers Using Dyad Reading
  This study (2000) measured reading gains after students had read in dyad pairs (two kids – one proficient reader, one “delayed” reader). This one suggests the kids who read more difficult texts improved more than those working on independent level texts.
  Alissa Morgan, Bradley R. Wilcox, and J. Lloyd Elderedge, 2000

• Determining the academic and affective outcomes of dyad reading among third graders
  However, the caveat I would bring up in these last two studies is that students’ affect & motivation were not measured. That is typically an argument for the use of leveled texts – so that we can keep children within the zone of proximal development to avoid frustration/avoidance and/or reduced self-concept. This study (2020) replicated the last two (dyad reading) but also looked at affect/attitude.
  Jacob D. Downs, Kathleen A. J. Mohr & Tyson S. Barrett, 2020

• Teaching Children to Become Fluent and Automatic Readers
  This study (2006) looked at the differences in supporting reading growth through two different fluency interventions – FORI & wide-reading approaches. In both cases, they used “grade level” material which would be considered “difficult” for children reading below grade level standards according to F & P levels. The main thing I want to point out here is the section on “Scaffolding Challenging Texts.” 
  Melanie R. Kuhn et al., 2006

  Additional Reading:

• A Gradient of Text: What, Why & How?
  Fountas and Pinnell

• Let’s Start Leveling about Leveling,
  Glasswell and Ford, 2011

• Reconsidering Text Gradients,
  Burkins and Croft, 2010

• Limiting Children to Books They Can Already Read: Why it Reduces Their Opportunity to Learn
  Timothy Shanahan, 2020
  Research type: Conceptual