Blogs About Reading

Right to Read

Margaret Goldberg

Margaret Goldberg is the co-founder of Right to Read Project, a group of teachers, researchers, and activists committed to the pursuit of equity through literacy. Margaret serves as a literacy coach in a large urban district in California and was formerly a classroom teacher and curriculum developer. All posts are reprinted with permission from the Right to Read Project. Follow the Right to Read Project on Twitter.

Predictable Books: Purpose-Written for Guessing

December 7, 2020

The good

Toddlers and preschoolers adore picture books with predictable language because they can emulate reading without needing to decode. Young children love Brown, Bear Brown Bear, What Do You See? and I Went Walking and Silly Sally because the repeating sentence patterns and big, bold, colorful illustrations allow them to confidently “read” the books by memorizing the patterns and looking at the pictures.

two page spreads children's picture book I Went Walking

Predictable books pique children’s interest in reading and can be used to teach concepts of print (how to hold a book, turn the pages, and point to the words).

Publishers Weekly describes I Went Walking as “a kind of guessing game that little ones will enjoy playing again and again.” Delighting prereaders with predictable books makes instructional sense in preschool and, perhaps, even part way into kindergarten, but in elementary classrooms these guessing games continue well past the point of developmental appropriateness, to the detriment of children’s reading progress.

The bad

Leveled books are so ubiquitous that teachers and parents may have a difficult time imagining reading instruction without them. Books at the lowest levels are predictable, like the text below, Friends, which is from a first grade reading intervention program that purports to serve struggling readers.

two page spreads children's predictable picture book Friends

To actually read Friends, and predictable books like it, a child would need to have command of phonics — short vowels (big), long vowels (bone), diphthongs (bowl), consonant-le words (little) — and, if that were the case, the child would not be a struggling reader.

But children don’t actually read Friends, they recite sentences from memory, perhaps pointing to words on the page, and they use pictures and knowledge of the story to approach the text as if reading were a game of memory and strategic guessing.

According to the accompanying lesson plan, the teacher introduces Friends by saying:

“This book is called Friends. These two dogs are friends. The big dog is Orson (point to tag on collar) and the little dog is Taco (point to tag).”

The introduction continues with a read-aloud of the entire text in which the teacher points to and reads each word and discusses the illustrations with the students. By the time children receive their own copies of the text they are prepared to recite the story from memory.

This instruction might be appropriate in a preschool classroom, but it does nothing to serve the needs of the first-graders for whom the lesson is intended. In fact, it may further delay their reading development.

“[This model of instruction] fosters dependence on pictures, prereading rehearsal, and context for identifying words. Unfortunately, these are the strategies that poor readers rely on when they are having difficulty deciphering the alphabetic code.”

— Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling

Why do students in reading intervention so often receive lessons that are at odds with their instructional needs?

The misconception

Reading “experts” and their publishers have developed and promoted instructional materials that intentionally frame reading as if it were a guessing game. In fields such as neuroscience and cognitive psychology, the neurology of reading is well understood, but many educational leaders have clung to a disproven belief that reading is a “psycholinguistic guessing game.” Kenneth Goodman, a “founding father” of whole language instruction, wrote:

“Skill in reading involves not greater precision but more accurate first guesses based on better sampling techniques, greater control over language structure, broadened experiences, and increased conceptual development. As the child develops reading skill and speed, he uses increasingly fewer graphic cues.”

— Goodman, 1967

Predictable books have flooded elementary school classrooms, intervention rooms, and children’s book bags because educators have misunderstood what it takes to become a skilled reader. In the manual that accompanies Friends, the program’s authors, Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell, explain to teachers:

“You want readers to have and use many ways to solve or analyze words.”

— Leveled Literacy Intervention Program Guide, p. 89

This misguidance can be traced back to Marie Clay, who developed the Reading Recovery intervention program that is now widely used in American schools. She believed, inaccurately, that:

All readers, from five year old beginners to the effective adult reader, need to use the sentence structure, order cues, size cues, features, special knowledge, first and last letter knowledge before they resort to left to right sounding out of chunks or letter clusters, or in the last resort, single letters.”

Clay, 1998

Predictable books are purpose-written to teach children not to rely on phonics because the idea underpinning their construction is that readers should predict words using meaning and sentence structure, and attend to “graphic cues” (letters) as little as possible. Texts, like Friends, are intentionally written to include phonics that students have not been taught in an effort to discourage readers from attending to the letters in words.

The belief that students need to be taught strategies to avoid decoding can be found in elementary instruction, curricula, and assessments. When a child “reads” predictable texts, the teacher will often complete a “running record,” an assessment that helps her to analyze the compensatory strategies the child uses to avoid decoding words.

Does the child use the meaning of the story to guess what a word might be?

  • I Went Walking: “I went walking. What did you see? I saw a [color] [animal] looking at me.”
  • Friends: “Orson has a big [dog-related object]. Taco has a little [same dog-related object].”

Does the child use the sentence structure to approach reading the text as if it were a game of fill in the blanks?

  • I Went Walking: “I went walking. What did you see? I saw a [adjective] [noun] looking at me.”
  • Friends: “Orson has a big [noun]. Taco has a little [same noun].”

Does the child use visuals to approach the book as a matching game?

  • I Went Walking: picture of a cat’s tail extruding from a basket. “A cat!”
  • Friends: picture of a bowl? A dish? And a word beginning with the letter B. “A bowl!”

In running records and guided reading lessons, the strategies a child uses to guess words (meaning, sentence structure and visuals) are framed as the reader’s strengths, but these are actually warning signs that a child can’t read the words.

While there are many ways to figure out what a word might be, there is only one way to read it. Readers build skill by decoding words — at first very deliberately but then effortlessly and unconsciously. By attending to spelling patterns in words, we learn to connect the print on the page with spoken language (bowl = /b/ /ō/ /l/). Decoding is reliable because 50% of English words are entirely decodable and another 34% can be sounded out with just a little shift in pronunciation (in-de-pen-dent = “induhpendent”). For more, see How Words Cast Their Spell.

If children learn to decode while using predictable texts that is despite, not because of, the books they’ve received.

The consequences

Some children learn to read because even though they’ve been given predictable books and guided reading, they discover that the most reliable way to pronounce a word is to attend to its letters. But others are not so fortunate.

“That children who are so taught aren’t actually learning to read becomes clear when they attempt to read an unfamiliar text for the first time and are stymied.”

Moats, 2007

“… whatever else a particular intervention accomplishes for at-risk children, if it does not significantly impact their ability to read words fluently and accurately in text, then it has not addressed a primary problem they experience in becoming good readers.”

Mathes & Torgesen, 2000

Children who struggle to crack the code of written English may spend years in elementary school flipping through predictable books, approaching reading as if it were a guessing game. To move out of lower level books, children have to stop predicting words and start paying attention to the letters on the page. But when guessing and skipping strategies have become second nature, it’s difficult for struggling readers to change gears and accept that they need to decode every word. Shifting from predicting to sounding out words can be frustrating and labor-intensive for the student (and the parent or teacher).

The solution

The time spent with predictable books would be better spent with “decodable texts,” which include only words that beginning readers can sound out with the phonics they have been taught. Decodables provide readers with a purpose for learning and applying phonics. Like predictable books, decodables are purpose-written and are not “authentic” texts. But their goals could not be more different.

Predictable books aim to teach children to predict words, while decodables aim to support decoding instruction. We undermine phonics instruction when we hand children predictable books because the texts are purpose-written to show children that predicting words is a viable alternative to sounding them out.

Predictable books may be everywhere, but that doesn’t mean that elementary school children (and teachers) should be using them. If we want our children to become skilled readers and attend to words as they read, we need to use materials that teach them to value the letters on the page.


It was predictable texts that caused the Californian educational fiasco and the same readers , I believe, cause Reading Recovery students to fail in the long term because they reinforce the wrong strategies . Decodable texts with hybrid readers and controlled vocabulary should be used for vulnerable students. , Never predictable texts except as a novelty or a supplementary reader.

This is an 'eye-opener' to me. I thought decoding and predictability were ok to use 'hand-in-hand. Don't you think predictable books help to build their confidence as they learn to decode?

I couldn’t agree more but I do wish we had a wealth of decodable text that was high interest and exiting for readers! What do you suggest?

Thank you for this thoughtful piece on early reading development. I would like to offer a few clarifications. If I understand the "thesis" of the piece is: reading is not a guessing game and predictable books are bad because they are purposefully written to teach developing readers to guess at words and to avoid decoding words. Decodable books are good because their purpose is to teach decoding.

First, any text, regardless of the "purpose" for which is has been written, can be used instructionally in many different ways or not at all. The way you interact with the developing reader and the text will determine the potential benefit of your instructional time. For example, I often use authentic texts that are not decodable (and not predictable) to teach decoding. Rather than using a purely decodable text, we use a shared reading strategy that combines read aloud and decoding. I read the text until I come to a word that the child should be learning to decode. The child is asked to take on the part of the reading task - to decode the word.

Likewise, I have always used predictable books to teach decoding - not word guessing. As we read, when we come an "unknown" but "predictable" word, we decode the word whether or not the child has already identified the word through whatever means. Just because the child can guess the next word is “dog” based on a picture or rhyming pattern does not mean they are forbidden from decoding the word -- unless the teacher says otherwise. So, using so called predictable texts to teach reading are less of a text purpose problem and more of an instructional use question.

Second, in terms of the efficacy of decoding, let's pretend you have a major water leak. You ask, "do you know a reliable plumber?" I reply, "Try Larry. He shows up half the time." You look at me quizzically, and say, "You call that reliable?" I reply, "Proponents of decoding do!"

While I joke, decoding is an essential early reading skill and learning to read is definitely not a guessing game. We should keep in mind it is not the texts themselves but rather how the teachers and students interact with texts that determine the potential payoff of investing precious instructional time.

As an EL teacher, I spend an incredible amount of time teaching English Learners how to stop guessing and learn to use phonics to read text. So often these students are sent to "Reading Intervention" and are given predictable texts, and reading strategies that are not helpful in learning to read. I loathe the question, "Does that make sense?" How can reading make sense when you don't understand the vocabulary? Picture cues only help for so long. And I've never heard someone say: The cat sits on the mat with a hat. Nonsense reading is not how we speak or write in English. This article should be required reading for every literacy instructor. Thanks for this valuable information!

Add comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
"I feel the need of reading. It is a loss to a man not to have grown up among books." —

Abraham Lincoln