Pennington Publishing Blog

After four years of being a literacy consultant I went back to being a classroom teacher of a grade six/seven class. That summer I reread The Reading Zone by Nancy Atwell and this made me think about silent reading. I realized that I wssn’t always giving my students enough time to get in the zone. I also was aware that I had no guarantees my students were actually reading at home but I could make sure they were reading at school. I also added a response component to this daily reading block. I taught how to select “just right” books. In my second year of teaching again, my class reads half an hour a day and have a few minutes to work on their responses or they may finish at home. The result has been a class of kids who love to read and have become hooked so that they really do read at home as well. I have had some rather amazing results as far as reading improvement as well. The other day my “initially worse reader” wanted to know when we were having lit circles because he had read three books he wanted to discuss in the last week!

Mark,
I’m really not sure where to begin. Do I comment on the philosophies of SSR? Do I specifically list out the advantages of a Reader’s Workshop? Do I talk about how independent reading looks different? Do I discuss the instructional approaches to best shape young readers? Do I address phrases like “teachers cannot add on without taking away,” “band-aide,” “let the lunatics be in charge of the asylum”, “SSR is coercive,” “carrots and sticks”, or “parent buy in”?

This sentence caught my attention, “I advocate abandoning SSR and assigning independent reading as homework.” I could tell you had spent a great deal of time in your argument for abandoning SSR, but was surprised to see you suggest replacing it with independent reading as homework. Never mind the current educational debate over the effectiveness of homework, but consider what may be lost.

In my classroom, first graders begin the year with about 120 minutes of independent reading time per week (that does not include misc. opportunities across the day). By the end of the year that time has grown to nearly 225 minutes per week (during this time I am conferring with readers and learning with small groups). In the course of the year we have discussions about reading strategies, books/authors, balancing reading choices, and a variety of topics important for young readers. These collaborative conversations carry into student reading and growth is reflected in the changes in the way they use their reading time, their growth as readers, and their ability to respond to literature.

There are opportunities to read, to respond, and to grow thinking. Most of all, there are opportunities to collaborate with peers and learn from readers their own age. I cannot imagine parents igniting the interest in reading that young readers instill in one another through these conversations.

While I wonder about many things as I read your article, I wonder most about the loss of community in this plan. When I went to school we participated in SSR, but no conversation ever came out of it. No one ever talked about books. No one ever shared what they were reading. I’m wondering how we would be different as readers if we would have had opportunities to read, talk, and learn to the live the life of a reader together.

Thanks for leaving me with lots to think about.
Cathy

First of several comments:

1. Reading Research Does Not Support SSR
“According to the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000), the experimental design studies on SSR indicate no statistically or educationally significant differences between those students who do SSR and those students who do not. Some educational researchers have criticized the findings of the National Reading Panel, arguing that long term correlational studies do suggest that students doing SSR gain more in reading than those who do not. However, correlation does not imply causation.”
SK: My criticisms of the NRP conclusions on SSR are not based on correlational studies. Please see not only Power of Reading (second edition, 2004), but also two articles on this topic, free download, at http://sdkrashen.com/index.php?cat=2. Both published in the Phi Delta Kappan. There are also numerous short articles and exchanges published in Education Week and other places on the NRP report.

2. There is Not Enough Class Time for SSR
SK: According to my interpretation of the research, see citations in previous post, SSR does very well when compared with traditional instruction in direct comparisons, which suggests that it is efficient. Also, students who do SSR do more reading outside of school. It increases interest in reading.

3. Free Choice Reading in SSR Does Not Maximize Reading Development
“Students often choose books with reading levels far below or far above own their reading levels and so do not experience optimal reading growth. Most reading experts suggest a 95-98% word recognition level as being necessary for comprehensible input and vocabulary acquisition. To be crass, allowing students to choose their own reading material, without any guidance, lets the lunatics be in charge of the asylum.”
SK: I comment on this in my responses to the NRP. See especially http://sdkrashen.com/articles/in-school%20FVR/all.html, which was published in the Phi Delta Kappan (it is listed as submitted).

4. SSR is Not Teaching
“SSR devolves the responsibilities and applications of reading strategies, comprehension or vocabulary development, and literary analysis to children. I’m not saying a teacher should exclusively assume the role of “sage on the stage,” but a “guide on the side,” should guide, not merely model.
Additionally, SSR is not appropriate for all students. SSR does not magically differentiate instruction. For example, some students (even secondary learners) need oral fluency practice, not independent silent reading. Other students already read extensively at home and do not need more independent reading time.”
SK: SSR is part of a reading program, not all of it. And MANY of these “needs” are developed as a result of reading.

5. “Reading researchers Von Sprecken and Krashen concluded that children were more likely to read during SSR when certain conditions were in place: When there was access to interesting reading in the classroom and students are not required to bring their own reading material, when teachers read while students are reading, and when teachers made efforts to promote and discuss certain books the researchers found that 90% of students were reading. Even in a class in which none of these conditions were met, however, Debra Von Sprecken and Stephen Krashen found that 80% of the students were reading when observed. (California Reader, 1998, 32(1): 11-13) Not many teachers I know would be satisfied with a classroom instructional strategy in which from 4 to 9 of their 36 students (10-20%) did not participate.”
SK: The 80% is the result under the weakest conditions.

5. continued and 6: SSR requires band aids, eg monitoring, assessing, checklists, questions, discussions, reader response, plot diagrams, etc.
SK: SSR works quite well all by itself. Again, see my citations. Do these supplements help? You have to list sources and show us the relevant research that demonstrates that these activities are superior to self-selected reading for pleasure.
I suspect that most of them are not and when added to SSR do not increase SSR’s efficiency (Manning et al study is an interesting exception).
The ones that are worth-while are part of literature study (readers theater, circles, discussions). SSR is not literature study, it is a supplementary activity. Many criticisms of SSR complain that it is not literature study. This is true. We need both
PS: I love Atwell’s book, the Reading Zone. A great way to integrate self-selection with literature study.

7. SSR Turns Recreational Reading into a School Thing
“Let’s face it. SSR is coercive and required in a contrived setting—hardly the conditions that will transfer to recreational reading out of the classroom. If our end goal is to get students to become lifelong independent readers outside of the school experience, shouldn’t we teachers work toward that end?”
SK: Fair enough, an empirical question: Does SSR result in an independent reading habit. The studies so far say that it does.

8. SSR Gives Up on Students, Peers, and Parents
“I advocate abandoning classroom SSR and assigning independent reading as homework.”
SK: If SSR is coercive in school, it is also coercive as homework, especially if we follow your guidelines (novels only, require reading different genres, strictly monitored). But again, this is an empirical question: Does SSR homework result in an independent reading habit?
PS: I am looking forward to a detailed study of the effectiveness of a program following your guidelines.

Unrepentant commercial announcement; I have a new book out: Free Voluntary Reading. Available on Amazon.

It doesn’t work? Guess I should contact my students who benefitted from my structured SSR program that did include instructional accountability and utilized time in class and at home and let them know. I am new to your writing and trying to determine to what extent your purpose and publishing company control your arguments. Meanwhile, this reading specialist does not agree with your conclusions.

Just to clarify, the National Reading Panel(2000)did cite studies showing improvement for students whose SSR time was combined with reading conferences and/or discussion.

The studies that did not show improvement were those that included SSR without any teacher/student or student/student interaction, basically drop-everything-and-read(DEAR). It surprised me that you included DEAR in your list of pseudonymns for SSR since DEAR does not include any of the components of an effective SSR program.

I agree with Dr. Krashen. SSR is not a specific strategy, it is a support for those strategies that we already have explicitly taught.

My experience with Middle School English Learners using SSR in a Language Arts class has taught me that the gift of SSR is the the connection students make with the literature, with each other and with their teacher as they read and talk about books that interest them. The Reading Conference is a powerful tool in the hands of a skilled teacher. It provides students a safe place to share their thoughts about what they are reading (sans a whole-class ‘audience’) while developing a positive realtionship with the teacher.

In my opinion, a healthy SSR program is the epitome of a teacher who is the ‘guide on the side’ instead of the ‘sage on the stage.’

Mark Pennington: “Mary, I’m afraid these studies are not listed in the NRP report. The only reference regarding SSR and other reading instruction is the following: “The available data do
suggest that independent silent reading is not an effective practice when used as the only type of reading instruction to develop fluency and other reading skills, particularly with students who have not yet developed critical alphabetic and word reading skills.” (NRP 12) And Dr. Krashen has commented on this finding by agreeing that SSR is not a comprehensive reading program.”
MY RESPONSES:
(1) The NRP comment addresses a position that nobody has ever held (or ever stated, to my knowledge). No, SSR is not a comprehensive reading program. Nobody ever said it was. It is used for a few minutes each period, e.g. 10-15 minutes. That is how SSR has always been done.
(2) The NPR says SSR is not for those who haven’t developed “critical alphabetic and reading skills.” Again this is an attack on the position nobody has ever held. SSR is not designed to help beginning readers. It is for those who can already do some independent reading.

MP: “I agree with you that independent reading should serve as practice for the explicit strategies already taught.”
SK: I suspect that independent reading is the place these strategies are developed. So many good readers have the strategies but were never taught them. The field has assumed that all strategies are teachable and should be taught. This is an open question that needs to be investigated.

Re 90% engaged in reading:
MP: “However, even the optimal 90% leaves out quite a few students and these are typically the ones with the greatest reading challenges. Why not, instead, use class time for reading instruction that engages all learners? Additionally, many teachers have used SSR under the certain conditions described in the study (such as Yours Truly) and abandoned the strategy because participation was nowhere near the 80-90 percent.”

SK: If you weren’t getting 90% involvement, I suggest that one or more of the following conditions were present: (1) reading selections not interesting or not comprehensible (2) too much comprehension checking; (3) insisting that students read a book, not a magazine or graphic novel; (4) insisting they finish every book they start. I prefer to push to 100% by supplying truly COMPELLING reading material, rather than doing lots of monitoring.
The concept of compelling is crucial. Please see Lao, C. and Krashen, S. 2008. Heritage language development: Exhortation or good stories? International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 4 (2): 17-18. Available at ijflt.com (free).

MP: “Why not “limit” self-selected independent reading to optimal word recognition levels and/or other measurements to maximize vocabulary growth? It’s not as if there aren’t enough compelling books to choose at their independent levels-the motivational component remains.”
SK: If free reading is simply comprehensible and interesting/compelling, vocabulary growth will be excellent. I can’t imagine getting more bang for the buck. In Power of Reading and elsewhere I argue that self-selected free reading is why everyone with huge vocabularies did it.

MP: “Furthermore, I haven’t seen you comment on free choice with respect to reading widely in a variety of genres and other print media.”
SK : I have argued for narrow reading in several of my books and papers, allowing students to stay with one topic, author, genre. This ensures interest and comprehensibility. As time goes on, readers gradually expand their reading interests. For arguments and supporting evidence, please see: Krashen, S. 2004. The case for narrow reading. Language Magazine 3(5): 16-20.

MP: ” …with SSR (or FVR) taking up huge amounts of class time …”
SK: We talking about 10-15 minutes each period of an activity known to be pleasant and effective.

MP:”And, unless I am mistaken, you don’t address the issue of students who select frustration-level texts because their peers are reading such or they like the perceived theme, e.g. vampires.”
SK: The cure for reading books that are too hard in order to impress people: Make available reading material that so interesting/compelling that showing off is no longer a concern.

What we do know is that students who participate in SSR do more unassigned reading on their own, outside of school. A very interesting study: Vincent Greaney, who reported more reading even years later. It isn’t just the time assigned for SSR, it’s the ability of SSR to promote more independent reading outside of school.
Greaney, V., & Clarke, M. (1973). “A longitudinal study of the effects of two reading methods on leisure-time reading habits.” In D. Moyle, Reading: What of the Future? (pp. 107-114). London: United Kingdom Reading Association.
Also: Pilgreen, J. and Krashen, S. 1993. Sustained silent reading with English as a second language high school students: Impact on reading comprehension, reading frequency, and reading enjoyment. School Library Media Quarterly 22: 21-23.
And I still think that SSR and literature discussion are different things. Both crucial.

“The study may well indicate that SSR results in more unassigned reading at home, but it may well be that assigned reading at home produces even more unassigned reading at home. I know there are no studies on this; however, if compelling, free-choice reading begets more voluntary reading, wouldn’t it necessarily follow that reading assigned for homework would produce more voluntary reading? From my own experience, many of my students read much more than the required two hours per week.”
SK: I agree that it would be an interesting study to do. Assigned reading at home might result in LESS voluntary reading than SSR. Most likely, it depends on how it is organized and implemented.

“Also, agreed that literature discussion is separate from independent reading; however, having students discuss their reading on a daily basis with parents provides a social context for reading and helps students practice the reading comprehension/meaning-making strategies of internal monitoring of text, developing the reader-author dialogue, self-questioning strategies, summary/re-tell, inferences, drawing conclusions, etc. In other words, I don’t advocate having students and their parents engage in heavy-duty literary analysis (teachers do have a role here), but reading a lot surely should be coupled with reading well.”
SK: I would categorize discussion of reading with parents as a literature activity.

“Yes, some of these reading skills can be acquired naturally through reading in-it-of-itself, but why not intentionally design independent reading to maximize comprehension development, as well as appreciation and enjoyment of the reading?”
SK: Yes, good point. Some strategies, even though acquired, might be helpful in making reading more comprehensible when taught early. My point: We have assumed that ALL strategies good readers use should be taught explicitly. But: Some are innate (eg prediction), some develop without teaching as a result of reading. Among the latter, we need to determine which are profitable to teach and which are not. I’m not opposed to direct teaching. I’m opposed to the assertion that everything can and should be taught directly.

“Also, let’s not forget that we are dealing with children… Whether reading independently in or out of class, the knowledge that the text will be discussed does motivate levels of concentration. And not just for children… for example, a grad student assigned The Power of Reading will read differently if the work will be discussed in a paper or on an exam. Reading for a purpose does provide motivation to read well.”

SK: We shouldn’t have to be prepared to discuss everything we read. At least some of our reading should be simply reading. That’s the point of SSR. Again, it is part of the program, not the entire program.

“In addition to student-parent discussions, I also encourage my students to form literature circles and book clubs. This last year a group read Hunger Games and discussed the reading daily on a forum I set up and monitored: one post and one response required per day. Students love the interaction of the reading and say that they understand the novels more when they have the immediate opportunity to discuss.”

SK: Agreed. Lit circles/book clubs can be terrific. I would consider these activities to be “literature” activities. SSR is not a competitor to these activities.

The National Reading Panel was a political group and they ignored tons of evidence on free voluntary reading. The evidence is overwhelming on the power and value of volume reading. This is not disputed. There is plenty of time to do it in class- time better spent than on strategies readers acquire by READING anyway. Readers Workshop is powerful. Teachers need to be aware of scores of YA books and authors. We spend 90% of most class time engaged in self-selected reading. There is time for students to respond and time to model. There is also time for reading conferences. I don’t do skill-drill-kill yet 90% of students with me for two years pass state reading assessments. Yes- 90%. More importantly- book loving citizens are created. We get 100% participation because students can read magazines, comics, instructions for their new iPhone or whatever they want. It is the role of the teacher to help students select books and tell them it is ok to abandon ones they do not want to finish. Creating reading habits in school carry over to home. My students put time in at home because they actually find books they like and are excited about books. Teachers with little YA fiction knowledge are poorly equipped to help readers develop good habits. Reading comes down to making sense of what is on the page- pure and simple. Only through volume reading can students get the interaction with text they need to self- develop into a proficient book loving child. There is no such thing as a “baby book.” If students find a homerun book and teachers foster the excitement students find from those books- you do not have to coerce students to read. My students get in trouble in other classes for trying to read their books and they continue to read at home. I have a classroom library of over 3,000 books. If we give students exposure to a wide variety of books and time to explore and read them- amazing things happen. Many teachers lack the knowledge of YA books to carry this off.

Wilhelm II (henceforth Bill2) seems to be doing what Nanci Atwell talks about: doing real literature study using self-selected books. He is not doing SSR for 90% of class time.
I think we should distinguish:
(1) SSR: self-selected, zero accountability, read what you like (within reason)
(2) literature. This may or may not involve self-selected reading.
Bill2’s students are probably doing both.

Very provocative site. However, you are overly relying on the NRP Report which was hurried and clearly guilty of acts of omission that are well documented elsewhere.

To update your heading No. 1 “Reading Research Does Not Support SSR,” I think you should read and integrate the results of research by Elaine Garan and her co-author in their Reading Teacher, Dec. 2008 article. They provide overwhelming support for SSR using the NIMH’s confection of “scientifically based reading research.” If that were the basis for all research Margaret Mead’s efforts would have gone unpublished. There is plenty of empirical, ethnographic, and anecdotal for how children grow and change when SSR is a regular staple of class time. Teachers vary instruction and where you see SSR, you will frequently see conferencing between teacher and child using self-selected literature. Some teachers skillfully use Literature Circles helping children learn how writing questions boosts children’s insights into literature. Lastly, this area would be enhanced by acknowledging how Jeannette Veatch worked out a comprehensive reading program in the 1950s and 1960s using a conferencing approach and self-selection of literature. Large chunks of time in the classroom were spent reading books silently and discussing books. Children created interesting projects as an outgrowth of the book conferencing with the teacher. Her work is built into several editions of her book culminating in Veatch, Jeannette (1979). Reading in the Elementary School. New York: John Wiley & sons.

Full Citation of Garna: Garan, E.M., & DeVoogd, G. (2008, December). The Benefits of Sustained Silent Reading: Scientific Research and Common Sense Converge. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 336–344. doi: 10.1598/RT.62.4.6

THANKS for sharing this info. I wish everyone would understand that SSR should NOT be included in the school setting.

SSR does work when it is coupled with Structured Independent Reading Instruction. Structured Independent Reading supports the reader through conferences and focused mini lessons. I suggest everyone who believes in teaching the reader and not the whole class novel read, Middle School Readers, by Nancy Allison. We are losing so many students by focusing solely on the novel of the semester and not the strategies all readers need to access all types of text. The only way we can offer students the volume of text they need to become sophisticated readers is to implement independent reading in the classroom. Independent reading needs to be supported within the classroom to ensure that students are reading and receiving the differentiated instruction they need.

Wow–such faith in the lame NRP! I won’t go over the same ground Professor Krashen has covered, but I can say that I consider the in-class free voluntary reading my ninth graders do to be the most useful and effective part of my course. And if you consistently get more than 90% participation rate in anything with the population you describe, you are doing unusually well, in my experience.

They had SSR in my high school, when I was a student. It was a terrible experience. We were all herded into the library and forced to read for about 20 mins. The whole thing was ridiculous. There wasn’t enough time to get into the book, and everyone just felt this silent tension in the room. The librarians would pretend to read, while they observed the class. The whole thing was disgusting. I enjoyed reading greatly (on my own time), but, after a few tries, I completely stopped trying to read in that hell hole.

In my opinion as a classroom teacher of language arts for 15 years, you are wrong. The middle school students I have taught over the years started off pretty much the same: hating reading, believing that it wasn’t “their thing”, with a reading level at least 3 years below grade level, and most (90% at least) admitting to never reading at home. So I was faced with two obstacles: the students who would rather text or play games than read and administration who only care about standardized testing results.

So even though I also made them read at home, I had to make time to read in class to hook them. We would start the class with SSR for 10 minutes and then I would tell them about the Young Adult high interest book I was reading. Then I would randomly call on 2 or 3 students to discuss the book they were reading. This always started out as forced but after a while the kids would not only respond to rhe routine but they started asking questions about MY book and looking for it in the library. The fact that I read books intended for them, opened up their minds to books and I could hear their attitudes changing saying things like, “well that’s not boring,” or “they don’t have interesting books like that in the library” then looking shocked when I informed them it was indeed from our own library. Most middle school students think they hatw to read because they don’t know what they like so I would arm them with book summaries and reviews.

As their attitudes changed, so did their reading habits at home. How did I know? Because I went against one part of FVR-holding them accountable. I made them AR test using the Renaissance Learning quizzes to make sure reading was occuring.

The results: for the students a love or at least appreciation of reading and increased reading levels. For the administration: increased test scores.

You can’t tell me SSR does not work. In fact it is lacking desperately! YOUR ARTICLE MAKES ME SICK!

Prior to implementing SSR in my classroom, my FCAT score were average at best. In the past five years, my scores have been among the best in the district. I credit SSR. Research, by the way, DOES support SSR as carrying value. Anyone in doubt owes it to themselves to read articles by Krashen, Pilgreen, etc.

What about those school districts filled with students who cannot be expected to do homework due to the fact that once they get home they are faced with running a household because their guardians (be it a single parent, parents, grandparent, or even older sibling) had gone out, or is partying at home, or other variables. Your point of view is one sided. You suggest a model that works for privileged groups of students, who have resources, parents that help, and a place and reason to do homework. What about those who do not have any such privilege? What about the students who have never picked up a book? What about the other side of the story where the only place students can have a relaxed atmosphere to read is inside the classroom. If you are going to argue your point effectively, please consider the other side of the spectrum.

There is an overwhelming about of research that supports SSR, especially when it is used in a ELAR block. In my current district, we have the students for 90 minutes each day. Plenty of time for SSR. And teachers color code the books for specific students. When it is SSR time, students got to the shelf and must choose the appropriate color. Students also must complete index cards summarizing what they have read.

I am a new instructional coach, and I have seen both sides of the debate on SSR as well as modifications that take a middle ground. I was looking for articles to find out more about the research, but this blog actually clears up everything so well. I’d love to see the two of you collaborate on an article about this practice so that I can more clearly see the thought processes by reading experts. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain both sides, I have learned so much from these comments!

@Ramona Lowe

You’re talking about the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence. Maybe your students *did* benefit, or maybe they grew naturally over the course of the year, as students will do. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming balance of empirical studies suggest that SSR is not beneficial when compared to other uses of class time.

@Mark Pennington
And science homework! My 5th/6th, 95% ELL student classes showed great gains in both fluency and attitudes toward science over the course of the year when I started assigning grade-level science reading as my only homework.

@meredyth
SSR can be more valuable than most other types of reading done in class because it gives students a chance to choose what they learn rather than learning what the “have to learn.” If you choose not to do so, fine, but don’t make an unsubstantial claim that voluntary reading doesn’t work. Maybe you didn’t see the results you wanted to see, but not every teacher wants the same results as you. Some teachers want students to find a joy in reading they never had before. Many students would not pick up a book if they were not given time to do so.