What Value Does SSR Really Have?
I started out the inquiry process by asking questions about the value of silent reading. When considering the effectiveness of SSR, perhaps success can only be determined if the objectives of the program are first established. In his book on sustained silent reading, Steve Gardiner states that is SSR has an ultimate goal, “it would be to create lifelong readers” (22). A practicing English and Social Studies teacher, when discussing the value of SSR, spoke of research proving that word exposure increases the likelihood of success in life (Keon). From this, I sought the research to support the expectations placed on the value of sustained silent reading (or not).
Stephen Krashen identifies the concept of free voluntary reading (FVR), time in which students read what they want without assessment (x). This concept of choice is incorporated into many SSR programs. In The Power of Reading, the results of reading comprehension tests of students in in-school free reading programs are compared to the results of students who have traditional reading instruction in their classrooms. In 38 of 41 studies (98%), “readers do as well or better than students who were engaged in traditional language arts programs” (3). The comparison also found that “studies that last longer show more consistently positive results” (3).
Stephen Krashen also writes the foreword for The SSR Handbook and he points out that "data on the success of free reading is consistent with the Comprehension Hypothesis, the idea that we 'learn to read by reading,' or, more generally, that comprehension of messages is the essential ingredient in the development of language and literacy" (x). Reading is a skill and practicing reading – like any skill – results in growth and improvement.
In her rationale for SSR programs, Janice Pilgreen states that "because reading is intrinsically rewarding, it induces students to develop the book habit, which represents a positive, long-term effect" (5). In one long-term study, students who took part in sustained silent reading in their school were reading more books - even six years later - compared with students who did not partake in SSR in school.
Finally, "research indicates that in-school free reading programs show outstanding results in promoting the development of reading comprehension... (and) genuine reading for meaning is far more valuable than doing work book exercises" (Pilgreen 4). Students learn to read by reading. The research - far too vast for a 5000 word inquiry - suggests that, if teachers can positively implement SSR programs, that students will benefit.
So, what do people say in arguments against sustained silent reading programs?
Arguments Against SSR (And Arguments Against Those Arguments)
In the Report of the National Reading Panel in 2000, research regarding the effectiveness of independent silent reading is drawn into question. Advocates for SSR support these programs by identifying correlational studies that show the best readers read the most and poor readers read the least. However, the NRP points out that “these findings are correlational in nature, and correlation does not imply causation. No doubt, it could be that the more children read, the more their reading skills improve, but it is also possible that better readers simply choose to read more” (NRP).
The National Reading Panel’s report also alleges that there is not “sufficient research evidence obtained from studies of high methodological quality to support the idea that [sustained silent reading programs] reliably increase how much students read or that such programs result in improved reading skills” (NRP). This was through an examination of studies that directly observed sustained silent reading; indirect research was not examined when considering the possibility that sustained silent reading could improve fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension. From the data the report compares, they claim that sustained silent reading “is not an effective practice when used as the only type of reading instruction to develop fluency and other reading skills” (NPR).
Elaine M. Garan and Glenn DeVoogd argue against the correlation/causation findings of the NRP report, in their article "The Benefits of Sustained Silent Reading: Scientific Research and Common Sense Converge." As they state, "there are just too many confounding factors that can and do contaminate the research process and make it nearly impossible to apply findings to all children in all schools and to effectively standardize instruction" (336-7). Applying the experimental model to educational research is troubling; "classrooms are not laboratories" (337). Finding studies that directly connected SSR to an increase in reading would be difficult, as creating control groups, such as in the experimental research model, would certainly be problematic (i.e. students who are required to no read).
According to Garan and DeVoogd, because the NRP saugh causality from their research, they excluded some very important studies; they "chose to rely solely on a medical model, using experimental treatments and control groups, even though few education researchers adopted such a model" (337). It would be almost impossible to design a study to prove causality between SSR and student achievement or an increase in skills - or whatever purpose the program had - and instead, the authors argue that common sense must prevail when considering sustained silent reading. "If we accept the lack of experimental research as a reason to eliminate SSR from schools, then we should also call a halt to practicing sports, or musical instruments, or phonics worksheets, or math homework, or preparing students to take standardized tests for that matter" (341). Reading is a skill and like any other skill - cooking or flying a plane or typing - it requires practice. Practice is what sustained silent reading provides.
In "Why Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) Doesn't Work," MA Reading Specialist, Mark Pennington lists 8 reasons for why SSR is not effective. His first reason refers to the NRP report, as the claim continues that there are no "statistically or educationally significant differences between those students who do SSR and those students who do not" (Pennington). However, Pennington himself states that this study also does not invalidate SSR.
Pennington also argues that there is not enough time in the school day to make SSR supportive, as "an hour of SSR per week is just not going to make much of a dent in the amount of independent reading that students need to achieve significant reading growth" (Pennington). Classroom time should be dedicated to teaching the curricular material that is required for student success. However, when SSR is scheduled into a school's day, it does not detract from teaching time. Students will be more motivated to read outside of school, if they have guided practice in the classroom, even for a short length of time. Also, when considering effective SSR programs, the length of time students spent reading was not found to be as influential in their success as the frequency with which they read (Pilgreen 18).
Another argument that Pennington makes against SSR is that allowing students to choose their own reading material, without guidance, is like letting "the lunatics be in charge of the asylum." This is a loaded statement and I think that the purpose of sustained silent reading should be considered when looking at this argument. If we are encouraging SSR as a way to promote reading, then allowing students to choose their own reading material will surely support this endeavour. I also think that guidance is necessary in SSR programs and that conversations between teacher and students should be constant, encouraging, and supportive.
Sustained silent reading isn't teaching. This is an "issue of educational priorities, efficiency, and effectiveness," according to Pennington. Sustained silent reading programs do not argue for the replacement of the curriculum with English class spent only reading quietly. If students are engaged in SSR, if it is implemented effectively, it is a practice that they will carry out into the real world. It does not devolve "the responsibilities and applications of reading strategies, comprehension or vocabulary development, and literary analysis to children," but allows students to practice skills that are taught outside of SSR time. What is the purpose of teaching these skills to students if they are not given the time to practice?
Lack of accountability is a component of SSR - but not a necessary one, should the teacher feel that students should keep some record. In his book, Steve Gardiner explains several techniques that he used during his 27 years of utilizing SSR in the classroom for keeping students accountable, and his programs were very successful. While teachers cannot ensure that all students are reading during SSR, a practicing teacher reminded me that we also cannot ensure that all students read King Lear or understand all the symbols in Lord of the Flies. I can only offer the ideal learning situation and environment for my students. If SSR is implemented effectively, it can be a time for students to practice skills they have learned and to discover the joy of reading.
"Why Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) Doesn't Work" also argues against such programs because "reader response is important to making students better readers." I support this statement but having read research on effective SSR programs, follow-up activities and discussions are very often included within successful programs. Pennington argues that combining SSR and Reader Response is a poor choice because there is not evidence of causation to prove that these programs are effective. Once again, this argument seems invalid when considered through the lens of common sense.
Including sustained silent reading in the school day may cause students to see enjoyable reading as a school-only activity, according to Pennington. Recreational reading will not transfer to outside of the classroom if we force our students to read. This does not consider that we are teaching our students how to choose reading material that they are interested in. Guiding the practice of choosing a book - reading the back and the first few paragraphs to see if you may enjoy it, for example - will surely promote the most amount of reading, both in and out of the classroom.
Finally, Pennington argues that sustained silent reading assumes that students will not read for homework. In creating a SSR program, this would certainly not be one of the assumptions I would make. I want to encourage my students to enjoy reading, as well as to benefit from the advantages of daily reading. There will be students who already love reading and SSR will be time for them to relax and enjoy a good book. For students who may not have discovered a connection with reading, SSR can help them explore the potential for reading, in their choice and interests.
When discussing factors that detracted from SSR success in a program that she was a part of, a practicing teacher and UBC Faculty Advisor provided me with some important points:
1) Teachers did not read during reading block, they prepped or marked
2) Some teachers did not ensure that their students had reading materials and did not enforce the reading time. Students slept or talked or played cards. Some teachers are also not familiar with “pretend” reading
3) When the reading block is placed is so important. If it is placed at the beginning of a block, the students skip up and then show up at the beginning of the “real” period. It works better if the reading block is placed at the end of a block when the students are already in class.
4) As an FA, I get to go in to a variety of schools that have SSRs in Vancouver. The ones that work best are when the whole school has bought in and the students have been doing it since grade 8. The admin can often be seen walking through the halls reading too.
5) Having a librarian that buys books that interest all sorts of students
6) It is important for teachers to have their own personal library in the classroom that students can borrow books from or magazines if they forgot their book. (Keon)
I am not attempting to prove that SSR is the only way – or even the best way – to improve literacy. Rather, I have found my own devotion to sustained silent reading programs through this inquiry and I hope to determine the most valuable way to implement such programs, in conjunction with the standard curriculum.
Stephen Krashen identifies the concept of free voluntary reading (FVR), time in which students read what they want without assessment (x). This concept of choice is incorporated into many SSR programs. In The Power of Reading, the results of reading comprehension tests of students in in-school free reading programs are compared to the results of students who have traditional reading instruction in their classrooms. In 38 of 41 studies (98%), “readers do as well or better than students who were engaged in traditional language arts programs” (3). The comparison also found that “studies that last longer show more consistently positive results” (3).
Stephen Krashen also writes the foreword for The SSR Handbook and he points out that "data on the success of free reading is consistent with the Comprehension Hypothesis, the idea that we 'learn to read by reading,' or, more generally, that comprehension of messages is the essential ingredient in the development of language and literacy" (x). Reading is a skill and practicing reading – like any skill – results in growth and improvement.
In her rationale for SSR programs, Janice Pilgreen states that "because reading is intrinsically rewarding, it induces students to develop the book habit, which represents a positive, long-term effect" (5). In one long-term study, students who took part in sustained silent reading in their school were reading more books - even six years later - compared with students who did not partake in SSR in school.
Finally, "research indicates that in-school free reading programs show outstanding results in promoting the development of reading comprehension... (and) genuine reading for meaning is far more valuable than doing work book exercises" (Pilgreen 4). Students learn to read by reading. The research - far too vast for a 5000 word inquiry - suggests that, if teachers can positively implement SSR programs, that students will benefit.
So, what do people say in arguments against sustained silent reading programs?
Arguments Against SSR (And Arguments Against Those Arguments)
In the Report of the National Reading Panel in 2000, research regarding the effectiveness of independent silent reading is drawn into question. Advocates for SSR support these programs by identifying correlational studies that show the best readers read the most and poor readers read the least. However, the NRP points out that “these findings are correlational in nature, and correlation does not imply causation. No doubt, it could be that the more children read, the more their reading skills improve, but it is also possible that better readers simply choose to read more” (NRP).
The National Reading Panel’s report also alleges that there is not “sufficient research evidence obtained from studies of high methodological quality to support the idea that [sustained silent reading programs] reliably increase how much students read or that such programs result in improved reading skills” (NRP). This was through an examination of studies that directly observed sustained silent reading; indirect research was not examined when considering the possibility that sustained silent reading could improve fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension. From the data the report compares, they claim that sustained silent reading “is not an effective practice when used as the only type of reading instruction to develop fluency and other reading skills” (NPR).
Elaine M. Garan and Glenn DeVoogd argue against the correlation/causation findings of the NRP report, in their article "The Benefits of Sustained Silent Reading: Scientific Research and Common Sense Converge." As they state, "there are just too many confounding factors that can and do contaminate the research process and make it nearly impossible to apply findings to all children in all schools and to effectively standardize instruction" (336-7). Applying the experimental model to educational research is troubling; "classrooms are not laboratories" (337). Finding studies that directly connected SSR to an increase in reading would be difficult, as creating control groups, such as in the experimental research model, would certainly be problematic (i.e. students who are required to no read).
According to Garan and DeVoogd, because the NRP saugh causality from their research, they excluded some very important studies; they "chose to rely solely on a medical model, using experimental treatments and control groups, even though few education researchers adopted such a model" (337). It would be almost impossible to design a study to prove causality between SSR and student achievement or an increase in skills - or whatever purpose the program had - and instead, the authors argue that common sense must prevail when considering sustained silent reading. "If we accept the lack of experimental research as a reason to eliminate SSR from schools, then we should also call a halt to practicing sports, or musical instruments, or phonics worksheets, or math homework, or preparing students to take standardized tests for that matter" (341). Reading is a skill and like any other skill - cooking or flying a plane or typing - it requires practice. Practice is what sustained silent reading provides.
In "Why Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) Doesn't Work," MA Reading Specialist, Mark Pennington lists 8 reasons for why SSR is not effective. His first reason refers to the NRP report, as the claim continues that there are no "statistically or educationally significant differences between those students who do SSR and those students who do not" (Pennington). However, Pennington himself states that this study also does not invalidate SSR.
Pennington also argues that there is not enough time in the school day to make SSR supportive, as "an hour of SSR per week is just not going to make much of a dent in the amount of independent reading that students need to achieve significant reading growth" (Pennington). Classroom time should be dedicated to teaching the curricular material that is required for student success. However, when SSR is scheduled into a school's day, it does not detract from teaching time. Students will be more motivated to read outside of school, if they have guided practice in the classroom, even for a short length of time. Also, when considering effective SSR programs, the length of time students spent reading was not found to be as influential in their success as the frequency with which they read (Pilgreen 18).
Another argument that Pennington makes against SSR is that allowing students to choose their own reading material, without guidance, is like letting "the lunatics be in charge of the asylum." This is a loaded statement and I think that the purpose of sustained silent reading should be considered when looking at this argument. If we are encouraging SSR as a way to promote reading, then allowing students to choose their own reading material will surely support this endeavour. I also think that guidance is necessary in SSR programs and that conversations between teacher and students should be constant, encouraging, and supportive.
Sustained silent reading isn't teaching. This is an "issue of educational priorities, efficiency, and effectiveness," according to Pennington. Sustained silent reading programs do not argue for the replacement of the curriculum with English class spent only reading quietly. If students are engaged in SSR, if it is implemented effectively, it is a practice that they will carry out into the real world. It does not devolve "the responsibilities and applications of reading strategies, comprehension or vocabulary development, and literary analysis to children," but allows students to practice skills that are taught outside of SSR time. What is the purpose of teaching these skills to students if they are not given the time to practice?
Lack of accountability is a component of SSR - but not a necessary one, should the teacher feel that students should keep some record. In his book, Steve Gardiner explains several techniques that he used during his 27 years of utilizing SSR in the classroom for keeping students accountable, and his programs were very successful. While teachers cannot ensure that all students are reading during SSR, a practicing teacher reminded me that we also cannot ensure that all students read King Lear or understand all the symbols in Lord of the Flies. I can only offer the ideal learning situation and environment for my students. If SSR is implemented effectively, it can be a time for students to practice skills they have learned and to discover the joy of reading.
"Why Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) Doesn't Work" also argues against such programs because "reader response is important to making students better readers." I support this statement but having read research on effective SSR programs, follow-up activities and discussions are very often included within successful programs. Pennington argues that combining SSR and Reader Response is a poor choice because there is not evidence of causation to prove that these programs are effective. Once again, this argument seems invalid when considered through the lens of common sense.
Including sustained silent reading in the school day may cause students to see enjoyable reading as a school-only activity, according to Pennington. Recreational reading will not transfer to outside of the classroom if we force our students to read. This does not consider that we are teaching our students how to choose reading material that they are interested in. Guiding the practice of choosing a book - reading the back and the first few paragraphs to see if you may enjoy it, for example - will surely promote the most amount of reading, both in and out of the classroom.
Finally, Pennington argues that sustained silent reading assumes that students will not read for homework. In creating a SSR program, this would certainly not be one of the assumptions I would make. I want to encourage my students to enjoy reading, as well as to benefit from the advantages of daily reading. There will be students who already love reading and SSR will be time for them to relax and enjoy a good book. For students who may not have discovered a connection with reading, SSR can help them explore the potential for reading, in their choice and interests.
When discussing factors that detracted from SSR success in a program that she was a part of, a practicing teacher and UBC Faculty Advisor provided me with some important points:
1) Teachers did not read during reading block, they prepped or marked
2) Some teachers did not ensure that their students had reading materials and did not enforce the reading time. Students slept or talked or played cards. Some teachers are also not familiar with “pretend” reading
3) When the reading block is placed is so important. If it is placed at the beginning of a block, the students skip up and then show up at the beginning of the “real” period. It works better if the reading block is placed at the end of a block when the students are already in class.
4) As an FA, I get to go in to a variety of schools that have SSRs in Vancouver. The ones that work best are when the whole school has bought in and the students have been doing it since grade 8. The admin can often be seen walking through the halls reading too.
5) Having a librarian that buys books that interest all sorts of students
6) It is important for teachers to have their own personal library in the classroom that students can borrow books from or magazines if they forgot their book. (Keon)
I am not attempting to prove that SSR is the only way – or even the best way – to improve literacy. Rather, I have found my own devotion to sustained silent reading programs through this inquiry and I hope to determine the most valuable way to implement such programs, in conjunction with the standard curriculum.