Sustained silent reading

Last updated

Children in a Lao primary school on their first day of a Sustained Silent Reading program. This village, in the Kasi district of Laos, was the site of the nation's first SSR program. Sustained Silent Reading in Laos 2013.jpg
Children in a Lao primary school on their first day of a Sustained Silent Reading program. This village, in the Kasi district of Laos, was the site of the nation's first SSR program.

Sustained silent reading (SSR) is a form of school-based recreational reading, or free voluntary reading, where students read silently in a designated period every day, with the underlying assumption being that students learn to read by reading constantly. While classroom implementation of SSR is fairly widespread, some critics note that the data showcasing SSR's effectiveness is insufficient and that SSR alone does not craft proficient readers. Despite this, proponents maintain that successful models of SSR typically allow students to select their own books and do not require testing for comprehension or book reports. Schools have implemented SSR under a variety of names, such as "Drop Everything and Read (DEAR)", "Free Uninterrupted Reading (FUR)", or "Uninterrupted sustained silent reading (USSR)".[ citation needed ]

Contents

Efficacy

Advocates' perspective

According to advocates such as educational researcher Stephen Krashen, SSR leads to gains in several literacy domains. [1] Krashen looked at a large number of studies to see what conclusions were supported by empirical evidence. He found that concerning reading comprehension, SSR is successful; 51 of 54 studies found that students in an SSR program scored as well as, or better than, other students in this regard. It is most successful when used for longer periods. [2]

Furthermore, SSR was shown to create a reading habit. Several years after participating in a program, students reported more reading. [3] One study found that a single SSR session was enough to change attitudes about reading. Long-term effects of SSR include better vocabularies, better writing skills, better spelling, and greater knowledge of literature, science, and "practical knowledge". [4]

Several studies found that children in poor neighborhoods had less access to books at home and in libraries, and often the books available to them were not books that they wanted to read. [5] Prize-winning books were often not especially popular with children. Comic books, on the other hand, are often not available in libraries but are popular with many boys, and reading comics was found to increase the reading of other books. [6] Three additional studies showed that providing rewards for reading did not improve reading development. Krashen believes this is because the presence of a reward suggests that an activity is work, and makes it less appealing. [7] In two other studies, teachers noted fewer discipline problems when an SSR program was being used. [8]

Detractors' perspective

While many critics believe that SSR is beneficial to students because it gets them in the habit of reading, some argue that SSR alone may not be enough to increase student reading comprehension and fluency rates. One recurring theme in professional critiques of SSR is the prevalence of "fake reading". One study, published in 2010, found after observing one classroom during SSR that roughly 77% of the class was off-task during SSR time. Additionally, there was a 71% correlation between students who viewed reading favorably and students who were reading during SSR and vice versa. [9] These statistics suggest that most students who like reading stay on task during SSR, and most students who do not share their enthusiasm are off-task. There was no evidence to suggest that SSR was helping to create new readers in the classroom.

While some proponents of SSR believe that its detractors are simply against free reading time for students, many critiques of SSR involve supplementing SSR with other reading activities. In 2002, J.C. Marshall posited that SSR, in addition to read-alouds, writing exercises, and increased overall reading time, made for an environment much more conducive to a positive reading atmosphere. [10]

Similarly, Reutzel et al. proposed that scaffolded silent reading (ScSR) and guided repeated oral reading (GROR) are much more effective methods of independent reading. ScSR and GROR share many commonalities with SSR, but additionally feature a more hands-on approach from instructors, who actively play a part in book selection, encourage the reading of diverse texts, monitor student progress, hold book conferences, provide feedback, and hold their students accountable. When implemented in the classroom, students utilizing ScSR and GROR both committed fewer reading errors, demonstrated more expressive reading qualities, and increased their idea unit recall over a year. [11]

In education, SSR has been criticized for not helping children who are not fluent in the language they are reading. [12]

National Reading Panel analysis of SSR studies

While much of the criticism of SSR has come from independent research, there has also been some exception taken with the National Reading Panel (NRP) and their research into SSR. In 2000, the NRP meta-analyzed all quasi-experimental and experimental studies of SSR and found their effects to be positive. Some have challenged this claim. The panel also noted that the absence of quantitative evidence was not evidenced against the practice in itself. They recommended further study of SSR.

Jim Trelease, educator and author of The Read-Aloud Handbook, is one of many reading advocates who have disputed the impartiality of these findings. He points out that the NRP included only 14 research tests in their summary, out of 54 studies he identified that might have been used. In 10 of the studies used by NRP, SSR students performed the same as other students, and in 4 studies, SSR students did better. [13]

However, some argue the NRP is not impartial at all. The NRP only included studies that were verifiable and with scientifically credible designs. The NRP had rigorous guidelines for the studies it would include. For example, the NRP did not include studies without control groups. The fact that the NRP only analyzed 14 SSR studies, shows that the other studies were not scientifically credible.

In the full group of 54 studies, SSR students performed better in 25, worse in 3, and the same in 24. SSR students scored worse only in short-term studies of less than seven months. In studies that lasted one year or longer, SSR students did better in 8 of 10, and there was no difference in the other two. The NRP found that most of the SSR studies were not valid or verifiable. Many studies were simply correlational. Thus, only 14 studies followed guidelines that could make them statistically significant. Of these studies, SSR was found ineffective.

"Where do these negative SSR feelings come from?" Trelease asks. "Perhaps from the wonderful folks who make all those workbooks, textbooks, and score sheets that wouldn't be bought and used in class during the time students were lounging around reading books, magazines, and newspapers and getting so good at reading they might need even fewer of those sheets next year." There is some support for this charge: A blog titled "Why Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) Doesn't Work" is posted by the publisher of four workbooks that sell for $89.99 each. [14]

Practices

A range of practices have been associated with SSR, and some advocates suggest that teacher models of reading behavior (i.e., teachers read while the students read), a long-term commitment to SSR, availability of multiple level, high-interest texts, and a sense of reading community are particularly relevant.[ citation needed ]

Free voluntary reading

Free voluntary reading (FVR) or recreation reading, related to the comprehension hypothesis, is an educational theory that says many student gains in reading can be encouraged by giving them time to read what they want without too many evaluative measures. Sustained silent reading is a method of implementing recreational and FVR theory.[ citation needed ]

Other names

Uninterrupted sustained silent reading (USSR) was the predecessor to SSR in many ways. In the 1970s and 1980s, this specific method of reading education was commonplace in many schools around the United States. The prevailing thought process behind USSR was that it would not only create better readers, but also increase students' comfort levels as they navigated indexes, table of content sections, and even entire libraries citation. [15]

There are several notable organizations, acronyms, and celebrations that capture the essence of sustained silent reading. Drop Everything and Read (DEAR) is an acronym meant to encourage young students to read for at least half an hour every day. In the United States, some educators celebrate "DEAR Day" every year on April 12, the birthday of author Beverly Cleary. [16] Some specific institutions such as libraries and schools may even celebrate "DEAR Day" during the entire month of April.[ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

Whole language is a philosophy of reading and a discredited educational method originally developed for teaching literacy in English to young children. The method became a major model for education in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK in the 1980s and 1990s, despite there being no scientific support for the method's effectiveness. It is based on the premise that learning to read English comes naturally to humans, especially young children, in the same way that learning to speak develops naturally.

Stephen D. Krashen is an American linguist, educational researcher and activist, who is Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Southern California. He moved from the linguistics department to the faculty of the School of Education in 1994.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Speed reading</span> Techniques claiming to improve the ability to read quickly

Speed reading is any of many techniques claiming to improve one's ability to read quickly. Speed-reading methods include chunking and minimizing subvocalization. The many available speed-reading training programs may utilize books, videos, software, and seminars. There is little scientific evidence regarding speed reading, and as a result its value seems uncertain. Cognitive neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene says that claims of reading up to 1,000 words per minute "must be viewed with skepticism".

TPR Storytelling is a method of teaching foreign languages. TPRS lessons use a mixture of reading and storytelling to help students learn a foreign language in a classroom setting. The method works in three steps: in step one the new vocabulary structures to be learned are taught using a combination of translation, gestures, and personalized questions; in step two those structures are used in a spoken class story; and finally, in step three, these same structures are used in a class reading. Throughout these three steps, the teacher will use a number of techniques to help make the target language comprehensible to the students, including careful limiting of vocabulary, constant asking of easy comprehension questions, frequent comprehension checks, and very short grammar explanations known as "pop-up grammar". Many teachers also assign additional reading activities such as free voluntary reading, and there have been several easy novels written by TPRS teachers for this purpose.

The National Reading Panel (NRP) was a United States government body. Formed in 1997 at the request of Congress, it was a national panel with the stated aim of assessing the effectiveness of different approaches used to teach children to read.

Reading comprehension is the ability to process written text, understand its meaning, and to integrate with what the reader already knows. Reading comprehension relies on two abilities that are connected to each other: word reading and language comprehension. Comprehension specifically is a "creative, multifaceted process" that is dependent upon four language skills: phonology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.

Accelerated Reader is a website used to assist students with reading skills. It is a digital program that aims to help students and teachers manage and monitor independent reading practice in English and Spanish.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jim Trelease</span> American educator (1941–2022)

James Joseph Trelease was an American educator and author who stressed reading aloud to children to instill a love of literature.

Independent reading is a term used in educational settings, where students are involved in choosing and reading material for their independent consumption and enjoyment. Students that read independently have an emphasized creative choice in what they want to read and choose to learn. Usually, independent reading takes place alongside the ongoing curriculum in the classroom or homeschool. Independent reading can be tied to assessment and evaluation or remain as an activity in itself.

The comprehension approach to language learning emphasizes understanding of language rather than speaking it. This is in contrast to the better-known communicative approach, under which learning is thought to emerge through language production, i.e. a focus on speech and writing.

Language teaching, like other educational activities, may employ specialized vocabulary and word use. This list is a glossary for English language learning and teaching using the communicative approach.

Aliteracy is the state of being able to read but being uninterested in doing so. This phenomenon has been reported on as a problem occurring separately from illiteracy, which is more common in the developing world, while aliteracy is primarily a problem in the developed world. In 2002, John Ramsey defined aliteracy as a loss of a reading habit usually since reading is slow and frustrating for the reader.

In the field of second language acquisition, there are many theories about the most effective way for language learners to acquire new language forms. One theory of language acquisition is the comprehensible output hypothesis.

The input hypothesis, also known as the monitor model, is a group of five hypotheses of second-language acquisition developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen in the 1970s and 1980s. Krashen originally formulated the input hypothesis as just one of the five hypotheses, but over time the term has come to refer to the five hypotheses as a group. The hypotheses are the input hypothesis, the acquisition–learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis. The input hypothesis was first published in 1977.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reading</span> Taking in the meaning of letters or symbols

Reading is the process of taking in the sense or meaning of letters, symbols, etc., especially by sight or touch.

The directed listening and thinking activity (DLTA) is a strategy that was first identified by Stauffer (1980). It is used with early childhood students or students who are not yet successful independent readers. Teachers use this strategy to establish a purpose for reading with their students. With the use of this strategy students can become engaged in a text that they could not otherwise read on their own. Students are prepared to listen to a story that will be read by their teacher by being given specific information that they are to focus on as they listen. The strategy utilizes pre-reading, reading, and post-reading questions and discussions. Teachers use this strategy in an attempt to build on the knowledge that students already know and apply it to new information and situations. Students are provided with a framework to organize and recall information from storybooks. The directed reading and thinking activity is a very similar strategy that can be applied once this strategy is mastered and students become more advanced, independent readers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extensive reading</span> Reading longer, easier texts for extended periods of time

Extensive reading (ER) is the process of reading longer, easier texts for an extended period of time without a breakdown of comprehension, feeling overwhelmed, or the need to take breaks. It stands in contrast to intensive or academic reading, which is focused on a close reading of dense, shorter texts, typically not read for pleasure. Though used as a teaching strategy to promote second-language development, ER also applies to free voluntary reading and recreational reading both in and out of the classroom. ER is based on the assumption that we learn to read by reading.

The interaction hypothesis is a theory of second-language acquisition which states that the development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication. Its main focus is on the role of input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. It posits that the level of language that a learner is exposed to must be such that the learner is able to comprehend it, and that a learner modifying their speech so as to make it comprehensible facilitates their ability to acquire the language in question. The idea existed in the 1980s, and has been reviewed and expanded upon by a number of other scholars but is usually credited to Michael Long.

The natural approach is a method of language teaching developed by Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It aims to foster naturalistic language acquisition in a classroom setting, and to this end it emphasises communication, and places decreased importance on conscious grammar study and explicit correction of student errors. Efforts are also made to make the learning environment as stress-free as possible. In the natural approach, language output is not forced, but allowed to emerge spontaneously after students have attended to large amounts of comprehensible language input.

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) was developed in 1993 by Dr. John T. Guthrie with a team of elementary teachers and graduate students. The project designed and implemented a framework of conceptually oriented reading instruction to improve students' amount and breadth of reading, intrinsic motivations for reading, and strategies of search and comprehension. The framework emphasized five phases of reading instruction in a content domain: observing and personalizing, searching and retrieving, comprehending and integrating, communicating to others, and interacting with peers to construct meaning. CORI instruction was contrasted to experience-based teaching and strategy instruction in terms of its support for motivational and cognitive development.

References

  1. ↑ Krashen, Stephen. "False Claims About Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Skills vs. Whole Language, and Recreational Reading". No Child Left. Retrieved 16 June 2011.
  2. ↑ Krashen, S. 2007. "Extensive reading in English as a foreign language by adolescents and young adults: A meta-analysis." International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 3(2): 23-29.
  3. ↑ Greaney, V., and M. Clarke. 1973. "A longitudinal study of the effects of two reading methods on leisure-time reading habits." In Reading: What of the future? ed. D. Moyle. London: United Kingdom Reading Association, pp. 107-14, cited in Free Voluntary Reading by Stephen Krashen.
  4. ↑ Krashen, Stephen D., 2011. Free Voluntary Reading. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited, chapter 1.
  5. ↑ Worthy, J., M. Moorman, and M. Turner. 1999. What Johnny likes to read is hard to find in school. Reading Research Quarterly 34(10): 12-27.
  6. ↑ Ujiie, J., and S. Krashen. 1996. Is comic book reading harmful? Comic book reading, school achievement, and pleasure reading among seventh graders. California School Library Association Journal 19(2): 27–28.
  7. ↑ Krashen, Stephen D., 2011. Free Voluntary Reading. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited, chapter 1.
  8. ↑ Krashen, Stephen D., 2011. Free Voluntary Reading. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited, chapter 1.
  9. ↑ Cipiti, Ashley Faye (2010). Condense the Nonsense: On-task versus Off-task Sustained Silent Reading as Related to Reading Motivation (Thesis). Bowling Green State University.
  10. ↑ Marshall, J.C. (2002). Are They Really Reading? Expanding SSR in the Middle Grades. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers. ISBN   1571103376.
  11. ↑ Reutzel, Ray; et al. (2008). "Scaffolded Silent Reading: A Complement to Guided Repeated Oral Reading That Works!". The Reading Teacher. 62 (3): 202. doi:10.1598/RT.62.3.2 – via Research Gate.
  12. ↑ "For Students Who Are Not Yet Fluent, Silent Reading Is Not the Best Use of Classroom Time". Reading Rockets. 24 April 2013. Retrieved 2 March 2023.
  13. ↑ Trelease, Jim, The Read-Aloud Handbook Penguin Books, 2006. E-book version, no page reference available.
  14. ↑ Pennington, Mark (25 June 2011). "Why Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) Doesn't Work". penningtonpublishing.com. Archived from the original on 7 July 2011. Retrieved 27 July 2023.
  15. ↑ Berglund, Roberta L.; Johns, Jerry L. (1983). "A Primer on Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading". The Reading Teacher. 36 (6): 534–539. ISSN   0034-0561. JSTOR   20198269.
  16. ↑ "D.E.A.R. Day, April 12th". Reading Rockets. 22 July 2013. Retrieved 20 August 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.