TRT Podcast #109: My response to Jan Richardson & Michele Dufresne, Part 1
Jan Richardson and Michele Dufresne, guided reading gurus, recently shared a presentation in which they stated that the media is misinterpreting the science of reading and giving guided reading a bad rap. Were they correct? Is traditional guided reading worth saving? Here’s my reaction to their presentation.
Please note: Jan Richardson kindly sent a written response to this series, and I’ve responded to her points in this pdf.
Full episode transcript
This episode is in response to:
- Getting the Facts Straight on Guided Reading, with Jan Richardson & Michele Dufresne
Articles
- At a Loss for Words, by Emily Hanford (journalist)
- Is Emily Hanford Right? by Timothy Shanahan (researcher)
- The Role of Decoding in Learning to Read, by Isabel Beck & Connie Juel (two researchers)
Research
- The Simple View of Reading, by Wesley Hoover & Philip Gough
- Orthographic Mapping in the Acquisition of Sight Word Reading, Spelling Memory, and Vocabulary Learning, by Linnea Ehri
- Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Children Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis, by Linnea Ehri, Simon Nunes, Steven Stahl, & Dale Willows
Love Freebies?
Subscribing to our email newsletter is completely free. And when you do, you'll get access to our library of subscriber freebies! Sign up below to get access to a wonderful variety of math and literacy resources.
Nick
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of this presentation (the parts of it covered so far).
Unless I am missing something (certainly possible), Richardson saying the following is incredibly dishonest (to the point she has no credibility): “I wrote my first book on guided reading because I felt there wasn’t enough systematic explicit teaching of phonics and writing.”
Just look at the lesson plan templates from her widely used guided reading text. She devotes 2 days per lesson for early readers (reading the same leveled text each day). For readers working at levels A-C, she allots 3-4 minutes (over two days) to word study. For readers working at levels D-I, she allots 3-5 minutes (over two days) to word study. Even assuming this is high quality, systematic instruction (doubtful), it is a woefully inadequate amount of time for most readers reading at these levels. While I vehemently disagree with Richardson’s approach to reading instruction, I see its appeal and some of the points she makes are logical. However, no one acting in good faith can argue, as she apparently has, that her approach (based on the lesson plan templates she provides) are intended to address shortcomings in explicitly and systematically teaching phonics.
The copyright date on the lesson plan templates I am looking at are 2016.
Anna Geiger
Thank you so much, Nick – I really appreciate your thoughtful comment! I agree 100% that a few minutes of phonics over several days is not nearly enough explicit instruction and hardly qualifies. What bothers me the most about Dr. Richardson is that she seems to be saying that she’s been doing this right all along. She has inserted a lot of SOR vocabulary into her conversation without fully understanding it. I have two more response episodes coming up; I’d be interested in your take on those.
Barb
As a tutor who often works with struggling readers, I am really enjoying these last few podcasts. I always want to do what is best for my kiddos 😀
Anna Geiger
Thank you so much, Barb!