Compensating for the Shortcomings of Basal Readers

In this important article in The Reading Teacher, Peter Dewitz (Mary Baldwin College, Virginia) and Jennifer Jones (Radford University, Virginia) address what teachers should do when their districts mandate a “research-based” basal reading textbook to meet Common Core State Standards. The good news is that basal reading programs provide an assortment of texts and instructional tools:

• An anthology of reading selections
• A hefty teacher’s edition
• Small leveled readers
• Big books
• Workbooks
• Assessments
• Material on Response to Intervention, ELLs, and differentiation

All this saves a lot of work, so it’s not surprising that 74 percent of American teachers use programs like these, some with fidelity, others picking and choosing. 

However, say Dewitz and Jones, “Research on basal reading programs has always cast doubts on their instruction and curriculum design.” Among the flaws, according to researchers, is that basals are weak on explicit instruction in comprehension, metacognition, guided reading questions, building knowledge, and providing enough text to develop fluency and independent reading expertise. 

Dewitz and Jones also question basal publishers’ claim of a solid research base. “From extensive interviews,” they say, “we learned that basal reading programs are not written by a limited number of authors with a close eye on the research. Rather, authors, editors, graphic designers, and marketing experts develop these programs reflecting market demands, teachers’ wants, and research findings… Publishers embraced the label of ‘scientifically based reading research,’ using it as a marketing tool.”

Publishers and some states and districts have pushed the idea of “fidelity”, implying that the basal program is infallible, that everything teacher needs is in the box, and if the program is used faithfully, all students will learn. Yet in a Florida district in which teachers were required to use a basal program with fidelity, 25 percent of third graders failed the state assessment. Fidelity also raises a practical question: there simply isn’t time to implement all the components, so teachers must be selective – but which components should they choose?

“Logic and research suggest that following a basal program with fidelity is not the right path,” say Dewitz and Jones. “Schools and teachers must exercise their professional judgment when using instructional materials. They must know when to follow suggested lesson plans, delete instructional activities, supplement, and modify.” Here are eight ways to modify and augment a basal:

• Set goals and aim high. “Basal reading programs do not set explicit goals about desired levels of achievement, interpretive skills, reading breadth, or enjoyment,” say Dewitz and Jones. Teachers need to start by answering some basic questions:

• What is my vision for my students by the end of the year?
• What kind of readers do I want my students to be?
• How will I get my students there?

Then they should set concrete, quantitative goals that can be understood by students, parents, and administrators – for example, my third graders will be able to read a fourth-grade passage at an instructional level on the Qualitative Reading Inventory by the end of the year. Teachers should also set qualitative goals – for example, children reading widely and deeply, seeking out books and digital resources for pleasure and information, and sharing what they read with others. “A child who can read but chooses not to has no particular advantage over one who cannot read,” say Dewitz and Jones. 

• Use real children’s literature for read-alouds. “Although all basal programs contain read-aloud texts, typically one per week, often these texts lack the quality necessary to engage children in an exciting experience,” say Dewitz and Jones. “Basal read-alouds are often authored by unknown or nameless writers, preventing the class from making connections between the read-alouds and other popular works of children’s literature.” Even the high-quality passages by well-known authors (Make Way for Ducklings, for example) often eliminate most of the illustrations. It’s vital to use real children’s books geared to the themes and content being taught.

• Build knowledge. “Basal readers place considerable emphasis on teaching skills and strategies but neglect the development of knowledge,” say Dewitz and Jones. Basal themes are vague (relationships or natural changes, for example) and lessons tend to activate prior knowledge versus developing new content learning. Savvy teachers fill this gap with literature read-alouds, library books on particular topics, and resources from the Internet. 

• Read extensively outside the basal. The Common Core calls for more complex texts than those found in a basal anthology, say Dewitz and Jones: “Current research on six leading reading programs reveals that there is not enough text to read for students to become fluent, let alone avid, readers.” In fact, the average basal requires only fifteen minutes of reading a day for weak readers, less time for proficient readers. Teachers need to supply a wide variety of nonfiction trade books and novels and give students the time and motivation to read extensively.

• Adapt the scope and sequence to meet students’ needs. “We have come to question the scope and sequence of skills within basal programs, as well as the assumption that skills can’t be divorced from their reading selections,” say Dewitz and Jones. “The scope and sequence of comprehension skills and strategies instruction in most basal programs is overly complex, teaching too many skills under too many different labels, lacking in thoroughness, and unsupported by research.” Teachers may need to tweak the sequence in which word identification, vocabulary, decoding, and comprehension skills are taught to meet their students’ needs. 

• Be explicit and model thinking. “Basal readers lack the explicitness that researchers recommend,” say Dewitz and Jones. Teachers should supplement them with modeling, guided practice, and independent application of strategies, including a clear explanation of why the strategy is important and when to use it.

• Enhance guided practice. Basals put too much emphasis on questioning and too many of the questions do not focus on meaning but “sidetrack students into thinking about decoding, structural analysis, and even the mechanics of writing,” say Dewitz and Jones. Teachers need to put more emphasis on showing students how to comprehend a text and supporting their attempts.

• Differentiate instruction. “Basal programs approach differentiation in a tentative manner,” say Dewitz and Jones. “Basal programs cannot differentiate instruction because doing so would require data about the performance of individual students. The developers don’t know which vocabulary words your students have learned or need to know, and they don’t know why individual students struggle to comprehend… Despite the best of intentions by publishers, differentiation of instruction will always be under the control of the teacher exercising personal decision making using student data.” The best teachers differentiate on time, teaching, texts, and tasks. 

The bottom line: “Basal programs are merely one tool in the process. In the end, it is the teacher who matters most for our students,” say Dewitz and Jones.

“Using Basal Readers: From Dutiful Fidelity to Intelligent Decision Making” by Peter Dewitz and Jennifer Jones in The Reading Teacher, February 2013 (Vol. 66, #5, p. 391-400),

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/TRTR.01134/abstract; the authors can be reached at pdewitz@cstone.net and jjones292@radford.edu. 

From the Marshall Memo #475