What do research findings summarise about 'silent reading'?

Downloads and links to relevant research and articles, along with book recommendations.
Post Reply
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

What do research findings summarise about 'silent reading'?

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

Thanks, again, to Dr Kerry Hempenstall for supplying the findings of research on 'silent reading'.

Kerry noted:
...generally speaking there is little evidence to support USSR, DEAR, and other silent reading methods as significant means of developing accuracy, fluency, or comprehension. This is particularly important when considering low-progress readers.
Kerry provided these summaries:
“A persistent fear among classroom teachers is that some students may not keep their eyes on their text when they are assigned silent independent reading tasks (Donovan, Smolkin, & Lomax, 2000; Fresch, 1995; Hiebert, Wilson, & Trainin, 2010). Guidance within silent reading contexts is key, as students achieving in the bottom quartile of their class frequently attend less well when they read silently in an unguided context as compared to a guided context

(Hiebert et al., 2010). … Although previous studies have shown silent reading to be an effective way to improve reading skills, more recent studies have shown that the conditions for silent reading practice in school often result in students acting like they are reading when they are not” (Hiebert & Reutzel, 2010). (p.123-4)

Hiebert, E.H. (2015). Teaching stamina & silent reading in the digital-global age. Reading Essentials Original Series, June 2015. Retrieved from
http://textproject.org/assets/library/r ... f#page=124
“Our results also indicated that oral reading fluency contributed significantly to comprehension, which is consistent with findings across a variety of diverse samples from students ranging from the primary to the secondary grades (Daane et al., 2005; Fuchs et al., 1988; Jenkins et al., 2003; Pinnell et al., 1995; Yavanoff et al., 2005). This finding was supported at the holistic level, as oral reading was more predictive of students’ reading comprehension within the SEMs. Further, students participating in this study answered on average 1.5 more comprehension questions correctly following oral as opposed to silent reading, even as the passages were held constant (see Table 1). Importantly, the silent reading fluency measures did not contribute significantly to reading comprehension. This finding is consistent with some previous literature, which suggests that prior to fifth grade, students comprehend better after oral reading than after silent reading (Elgart, 1978; Fletcher & Pumphrey, 1988; Prior & Welling, 2001).” (p.192)

Price, K.W., Meisinger, E.B., Louwerse, M.M., & D’Mello, S. (2016). The contributions of oral and silent reading fluency to reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 37(2), 167-201.
“ … the National Reading Panel (2000) report sparked considerable controversy when the panel reported a lack of research supporting independent, silent reading practice as an effective means for developing students’ reading fluency (e.g., Silent Sustained Reading [SSR] or Drop Everything and Read [DEAR]; Allington, 2002; Coles, 2000; J. W. Cunningham, 2001; Edmondson & Shannon, 2002; Krashen, 2002).” (p. 404)

Reutzel, D.R., Spichtig, A.N. & Petscher, Y. (2012). Exploring the value added of a guided, silent reading intervention: Effects on struggling third-grade readers’ achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 105(6), 404–415. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557881/
“The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of reading skill and reading modality (oral versus silent) on reading comprehension. A normative sample of sixth-grade students (N = 74) read texts aloud and silently and then answered questions about what they read. Skill in word reading fluency was assessed by the Test of Word Reading Efficiency, Second Edition (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2012), and students were identified as either normal or at-risk readers based on those scores. A 2 (reading skill) X 2 (reading modality) mixed factorial ANOVA was conducted. Results revealed that both normal and at-risk readers demonstrated better comprehension of text read orally as compared to text read silently. The middle school curriculum requires independent silent reading, yet students may enter middle school without the literacy skills they need to be successful. These findings suggest that students transitioning to middle school may benefit from additional pedagogical support in silent reading comprehension.” (p. 318)

Dickens, R.H., & Meisinger, E.B. (2016). Examining the effects of skill level and reading modality on reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 37, 318–337.
“ … one of the most widely implemented approaches to early reading instruction in the primary grades in schools across the United States is Guided Reading (GR; Fountas & Pinnel, 1996). This approach deemphasizes decontextualized instruction and practice of reading-related skills in favor of extended time spent reading text under the guidance of a teacher who supports the development of effective reading strategies (Fountas & Pinnell, 2012–13). Despite its widespread implementation (Ford & Opitz, 2008), GR has rarely been empirically validated. … GR teachers teach and prompt students to use reading strategies that involve three sources of text information: meaning cues from background knowledge and text context (including cues from illustrations), cues derived from students’ understanding of English syntax, and visual information derived from print, including sound–symbol relationships and sound-spellings associated with larger orthographic units such as onsets and rimes. As described by Fountas and Pinnel, word study instruction is primarily embedded in text reading and does not follow a predetermined scope and sequence.” (p. 269-70)
Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Taylor, W.P., Barth, A.E., & Vaughn, S. (2014). An experimental evaluation of guided reading and explicit interventions for primary-grade students at-risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(3), 268-293. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 723846.pdf
“Research has not been kind to the idea of mechanical “instructional level” criteria like 90-95% accuracy (e.g., Jorgenson, Klein, & Kumar, 1977; Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, Morris, Morrow et al., 2006; Morgan, Wilcox, & Eldredge, 2000; O’Connor, Swanson, & Geraghty, 2010; Powell, & Dunkeld, 1971; Stahl, & Heubach, 2005; Stanley, 1986).”

Shanahan, T. (2016). Further explanation of teaching students with challenging text. Retrieved from http://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/searc ... complexity
“Teachers do their best to improve students’ fluency, but sometimes the information they have to work with is incomplete and, therefore, leads them down the wrong path. For example, silent reading or 'Round Robin' reading seem like good ways to improve fluency. But, in fact, increasing fluency requires more practice, more support, and more guided oral reading than either of these strategies can deliver.”

Hasbrouck, J. (2006). For students who are not yet fluent, silent reading is not the best use of classroom time. American Educator, Summer 2006, 30(2).
“The purposes of this meta-analytic study were to investigate the overall effect of Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) on attitude toward reading and to identify the moderator variables of SSR on it. A meta-analytical approach developed by Hedges and Olkin (1985) was used. Results indicated that the average of effect size on reading attitude is 0.12.” (p.186)

Yoon, J-C. (2002). Three decades of sustained silent reading: A meta-analytic review of the effects of SSR on attitude toward reading. Reading Improvement, 39(4), 186-194.
USSR research
Dymock (1998) reviewed 14 studies of sustained silent reading. She found that in 9 of the studies there were no improvements in reading comprehension as measured by standardised tests. In some of the studies, pupils made gains, but they would possibly have made similar gains anyway, since pupils usually improve in reading during each year of school.

Dymock (1998) studied the effects on reading comprehension of sustained silent reading. She used the Electronic Bookshelf quizzes to verify comprehension of the material. Sustained silent reading was compared with guided reading and text structure training. Pupils from 8 to 10 years of age engaged in silent reading twice a week, for 30 minutes at a time, for 17 weeks. She found no differences in reading comprehension, as measured by standardised tests, among any of the three approaches, even though the sustained silent reading group were very much on-task as they read, and even though their understanding of the books they read was assessed with regular quizzes. On a positive note, sustained silent reading was no worse than the other two approaches.

Carver and Liebert (1995) questioned whether sustained silent reading is powerful enough to produce improvements in reading comprehension.

In USSR, pupils may appear to read silently, but are not necessarily concentrating, so may not gain from this open-ended reading activity (Widdowson, Moore, & Dixon, 1998).

Lund (1983) employed sustained silent reading with Year 9 remedial readers. Results showed that USSR did not produce any improvement when added to their normal remedial instruction

A variant of USSR involved a sample of 19 third-grade and fourth-grade poor readers (Shany & Biemiller, 1995). It was not a typical sustained silent reading study, because pupils did not read books on their own, but were given assistance with their reading. The assisted reading pupils either a) read to the teacher and the teacher helped with mistakes or b) listened to audio-taped versions of the text material. A control group of 10 children received no extra help. The assisted reading practice was provided over a 4 month time period. It involved 30 hours of reading practice.

The results showed that the pupils who received assisted reading improved in reading comprehension more than the control group who had no extra help. This is a positive result, but it is different from the usual brand of USSR, where no assistance is given. In fact, in sustained silent reading, the teacher is expected to read as well, rather than provide help to pupils. Another unusual aspect of the study was that the poor readers improved in decoding as well as reading comprehension. Could it be that the assisted reading helped their decoding, which in turn helped their reading comprehension?

Dymock, S. J. (1998). A comparison study of the effects of text structure training, reading practice, and guided reading on reading comprehension. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The University of Auckland.
Carver, R. P., & Liebert, R. E. (1995). The effect of reading library books at different levels of difficulty upon gain in reading ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 26-48.
Lund, J.M. (1983). Sustained silent reading with junior high school remedial readers. Unpublished doctoral study, Yeshiva University.
Shany, M. T., & Biemiller, A. (1995). Assisted reading practice: Effects on performance for poor readers in grades 3 and 4. Reading research Quarterly, 30, 382-395.
Widdowson, D. A. M., Dixon, R. S. & Moore, D.W. (1996). The effects of teacher modelling of silent reading on students' engagement during sustained silent reading. Educational Psychology, 16, 171-180.

Above is adapted from G. B. Thompson & T. Nicholson (Eds.) (1998), Learning to read: Beyond phonics and whole language. New York: Teachers College Press.


See also below: National Reading Panel Report . Section on Fluency http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.htm

Sustained Silent Reading (SSR)
One study of SSR (Evans & Towner, 1975) compared the effect of SSR on reading achievement with that of having students complete various reading skills exercises with commercial materials (i.e., worksheets). Reading gains were identical for both groups of 2nd graders at the end of 10 weeks.

In a similar, though larger study, Reutzel and Hollingsworth (1991) compared skills practice and SSR with 61 4th graders and 53 6th graders. These procedures were used for 1 month, and there were, again, no reading differences for the two approaches.

As with the previous study, the skills work was assembled by the researchers specifically to serve as a control activity, and was not part of the regular instructional program that these students received from their teachers.

Collins (1980) conducted an analysis of the impact of SSR on the reading achievement of 220 students from ten classrooms in grades 2 through 6. Students were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. This daily program was evaluated after 15 weeks (different grade levels allotted different amounts of time to SSR—2nd graders had 10 to 30 minutes per day; 3rd graders received 15 minutes daily; 4th graders, 30 minutes; and 5th and 6th graders, 15 to 25 minutes each day). The control group worked on spelling during these time periods. The SSR procedures led to no significant differences in vocabulary or comprehension as measured by various standardized tests, although the SSR groups appeared to move slightly faster through their basal readers during this period.

Langford and Allen (1983) examined the impact of SSR on the reading attitudes and achievement of 11 5th and 6th grade classes. These classes were randomly assigned to SSR or control conditions, resulting in 131 students in the SSR group (60 5th graders and 71 6th graders) and 119 students in the control group. Students in the control group learned about health and grooming while the SSR activities took place with the experimental subjects. The study failed to report the length of the instructional period or the duration of the intervention. Although there was significantly better improvement in word reading for the SSR group, these differences appear to be small in terms of educational Report 3-25 National Reading Panel importance. In any event, it is difficult to evaluate the value of these gains without more information about the length of the program. There were no differences in reading attitude that resulted from the intervention.

In still another evaluation of SSR, this one conducted in a junior high school, Cline and Kretke (1980) examined the effectiveness of the procedure over a 3-year period.

This study compared the reading achievement of 111 students who had been enrolled for 3 years at a junior high school that was using SSR with that of control group students drawn from two other schools that did not have this program. This study found no differences between the two groups. However, it was poorly designed, and it would be impossible to be certain whether there were gains. The study apparently compared gains between different achievement tests used at different grade levels (something that is not statistically sound), and it failed to provide any information about the length of the SSR time or how this time was used at the control school.

Davis (1988) considered the effect of SSR on reading comprehension with 8th graders. Fifty-six students were randomly assigned to one of two English classes.

These classes met daily for 50 minutes. Approximately half the time was devoted to either SSR or, alternatively, to directed reading activities with the teacher. This effort continued for an entire school year. Although the researcher intended to analyze these data for high-, medium-, and low-ability students separately, attrition in the low-ability groups rendered this impossible. Two comparisons were made for the high- and mediumability groups, and it was found that the medium-ability students made much greater gains with SSR than with directed reading (n = 19), but there were no significant differences among the two high-ability groups (15 students in these two groups). The gains attributed to SSR for the medium-ability group were substantial and educationally meaningful (about 1 year of difference on a standardized test). Unfortunately, the study is somewhat sketchy in terms of the statistical analysis: it provided no means or standard deviations and told little about the analysis of covariance that was used (i.e., How big were the initial differences across the groups? Was heterogeneity tested?).

In one of the best-designed studies on SSR, Holt and O’Tuel (1989) randomly assigned teachers and 211 7th and 8th grade students to an SSR condition and a regular reading instruction condition. Students in the SSR condition read self-selected materials for 20 minutes per day for 3 days each week, and they carried out sustained silent writing for two additional 20-minute periods each week. During the time these activities were carried out, the control group subjects worked on their regular reading instruction. At the end of 10 weeks, the students in the SSR groups had evidenced greater growth in vocabulary knowledge than was true for the control subjects. Reading comprehension did not improve for either group, however.

Burley (1980) randomly assigned 85 high school students enrolled in an Upward Bound summer program at a local college to one of four groups: SSR, programmed textbooks, programmed cassette tapes, and programmed skill development kits. The students in all groups received 75 minutes of reading instruction per day for 30 days, but part of this time was devoted to the SSR or other practice activities. In all, students practiced reading for about 14 hours in addition to the summer reading instruction during this 6-week period.

This study found a small, positive, statistically significant difference favoring SSR over the other procedures on reading comprehension but no differences on a vocabulary measure.

Summers and McClelland (1982) examined the effect of a 5-month program of SSR with 65 intact treatment and control classes from nine elementary schools. They found no significant differences in covariance-adjusted mean scores from standardized and informal reading achievement and attitude measures and no significant interaction effects for reading achievement, attitude, grade level, and sex. This study included approximately 1,400 children. This study was unique not only in terms of its extensive sample, but also in that it carefully monitored the delivery of the treatments.

In yet another study of SSR (Manning & Manning, 1984), three variations of SSR were tested with 4th graders. These variations were compared across an entire school year with a poorly described control group. Students (n = 415) from 24 classrooms were assigned to the four groups (intact classes were randomly assigned). The treatment lasted for an entire school year. This study found that two of the SSR Chapter 3: Fluency Reports of the Subgroups 3-26 variations led to higher reading achievement and that one did not. The pure SSR variation (i.e., the one that matched the recommended procedures), in which students read for an extra 35 minutes per day, led to no greater reading growth than was evident for the control group. However, when SSR was coupled with teacher conferences or peer discussion, then slight improvement in reading was evident for the SSR groups. This suggests that reading alone might provide no clear benefit but that additional reading in combination with other activities could be effective.

Not all the studies in this category focused on SSR, however. Morrow and Weinstein (1986), for instance, worked with six 2nd-grade reading classes to determine the efficacy of being involved in either a home- or school-based voluntary reading program in terms of amount of reading and reading achievement. This program, which provided students with enriched library materials and extended reading time, lasted for 9 weeks. Students did more school reading as a result of being in this program, and they continued to do so when the program ended, but achievement levels in reading were unrelated to program participation, and the program did not alter reading attitudes or the amount of home reading.

Accelerated Reader (AR)
AR is a commercial program designed to increase the amount of reading that students do with appropriate materials. Peak and Dewalt (1994) compared reading gains for two schools, one that used this program and one that did not. To make this comparison, they randomly selected 50 9th graders from each school. To be selected, a student had to have attended these schools since grade 3. Because standardized reading test scores (California Achievement Test) were available for each school at 3rd, 6th, and 8th grades, comparisons were made between these two groups at each point. They found a slight reading advantage in 3rd grade scores for the school that did not use AR and a slight advantage for the AR group at the end of the year.

Students in the AR group had taken part in 5 to 6 hours per week of in-class reading during the 5 years of this study, but there is no information on what the other students were doing during this time. More problematic is the calculation of gain scores across forms of a standardized test. The scores of each of these normative grade level tests are independent scales, and it is not valid to subtract these test scores from each other.

Given this serious problem and the limited data reporting that was evident, it is unclear whether any real difference in achievement can be attributed to this program on the basis of this study.

In another study of the Accelerated Reader (Vollands, Topping, & Evans, 1999), two small experiments were carried out. In one experiment, there was a small advantage due to participation in the program; in the other, there was not. Neither study had well-matched samples of students, and in the study that demonstrated an advantage, students also used a form of assisted reading similar to those examined earlier in this paper.

Carver and Liebert (1995) provided one of the clearest tests of the effect of reading by studying students during the summer. This study did not have a control group but simply examined the reading scores at the beginning of the program and 6 weeks later after the students had completed approximately 60 hours of self-selected reading. These students, in 3rd through 5th grades, made no gains in reading achievement at all, even though the books were at an appropriate level.

Encouraging Students to Read More: Implications for Reading Instruction
None of these studies attempted to measure the effect of increased reading on fluency. Instead, most of these studies considered the impact of encouraging more reading on overall reading achievement as measured by standardized and informal tests. It would be difficult to interpret this collection of studies as representing clear evidence that encouraging students to read more actually improves reading achievement. Only three studies (Burley, 1980; Davis, 1988; Langford & Allen, 1983) reported any clear reading gains from encouraging students to read, and in the third of these studies the gains were so small as to be of questionable educational value. Most of the studies, including the best designed and largest ones (Collins, 1980; Holt & O’Tuel, 1989; Summers & McClelland, 1982), reported no appreciable benefit to reading from such procedures (Holt & O’Tuel found improvement in vocabulary scores, but these did not translate into better reading comprehension). The most direct test of the effect of reading on learning was provided by Carver and Liebert (1995), and they found no clear benefit resulting from 60 hours of additional reading. Perhaps 60 hours of reading is insufficient for improving achievement in a measurable way.

Only two of the studies compared SSR with nonreading instruction (Collins, 1980; Langford & Allen, 1983).

One of these found no benefit, and the other found a very small benefit from SSR. More of the studies compared additional reading time with reading instruction itself. Often these studies interpreted the lack of difference between SSR and the control condition as meaning that SSR was as good as some, usually unspecified, form of reading instruction.

Comparing SSR with instructional routines that have no evidence of success—or whose success has been found to be unrelated to achievement gains (Leinhardt, Zigmond, & Cooley, 1981)—is meaningless. Although several reviews of the literature have concluded that procedures like SSR work simply because reading achievement does not decline once they are instituted, that is not a sound basis on which to recommend such procedures as effective. SSR may or may not work, but it is unreasonable to conclude that it does on the basis of such flawed reasoning. For the most part, these studies found no gains in reading due to encouraging students to read more. It is unclear whether this was the result of deficiencies in the instructional procedures themselves or to the weaknesses and limitations evident in the study designs.

It is impossible to sustain a negative conclusion with research. That is, the NRP cannot ultimately prove that a procedure or approach does not work under any conditions. No matter how many studies show a lack of effect due to an instructional routine, it is always possible that under some yet-unstudied condition the procedure could be made to work. Given the paucity of studies on increasing the amount of student reading— and the uneven quality of much of this work—there is a need to be especially cautious. Few of the studies reviewed here provided much monitoring of the amount of reading that students actually did in the programs, and only one kept track of the control student reading; therefore, in most cases, it is unclear whether the interventions actually led to more reading or just displaced other reading that students might have done otherwise. Nevertheless, given the evidence that exists, the Panel cannot conclude that schools should adopt programs to encourage more reading if the intended goal is to improve reading achievement. It is not that studies have proven that this cannot work, only that it is yet unproven.

There are few beliefs more widely held than that teachers should encourage students to engage in voluntary reading and that if they did this successfully, better reading achievement would result. Unfortunately, research has not clearly demonstrated this relationship.

In fact, the handful of experimental studies in which this idea has been tried raise serious questions about the efficacy of some of these procedures.

Encouraging Students to Read More: Directions for Further Research
There is a need for rigorous evaluations of the effectiveness of encouraging wide reading on reading achievement, particularly with popular programs such as SSR, DEAR, and AR. These studies need to monitor the amounts of reading—in and out of school—by both the experimental and control group students. To really understand the implications of such reading, it is important to compare these routines against procedures in which students actually read less. Without such information, one might only be comparing the effects of different forms of reading practice rather than comparing differences in amount of reading practice.

Finally, none of these studies could even demonstrate that they clearly increased the amount of student reading because none of them measured an adequate baseline of current or previous reading engagement.

That, too, should be addressed in future studies.

That encouraging more reading does as well as certain instructional activities in stimulating learning does not speak well of those instructional activities. Voluntary reading within the school day should be compared against nonreading activities or activities in which the amount of reading can be closely measured. (In fact, the field should consider adopting a new research convention for methodological studies with students in the 2nd grade or higher. The amount of gain attributable to reading alone should be the baseline comparison against which the efficacy of instructional procedures is tested. If an instructional method does better than reading alone, it would be safe to conclude that method works.) Studies should consider the effect of increasing student reading on both fluency and overall reading achievement. However, until such evidence is forthcoming, the National Reading Panel cannot indicate that research has proven that such procedures actually work.

Overall Conclusions
Fluency is an essential part of reading, and the NRP has reviewed its theoretical and practical implications for reading development. In addition, the Panel has conducted two research syntheses, one on guided oral reading procedures such as repeated reading and the other on the effect of procedures that encourage students to read more. These two procedures have been widely recommended as appropriate and valuable avenues for increasing fluency and overall reading achievement.

The NRP found a better, and more extensive, body of research on guided oral reading procedures. Generally, the Panel found that these procedures tended to improve word recognition, fluency (speed and accuracy of oral reading), and comprehension with most groups.

Although there has been some speculation that fluency development is complete for most students by grade 3 or 4, the Panel’s analysis found that these procedures continue to be useful far beyond that—at least for some readers. Repeated reading and other guided oral reading procedures have clearly been shown to improve fluency and overall reading achievement.

There is clear and substantial research evidence that shows that such procedures work under a wide variety of conditions and with minimal special training or materials. Even with this evidence, there is a need for more research on this topic, including longitudinal studies that examine the impact of these procedures on different levels of students over longer periods. It would also be worthwhile to determine the amount of such instruction that would be needed with most students and the types of materials that lead to the biggest gains when these procedures are used.

The results of the analysis of programs that encourage students to read more were much less encouraging.

Despite widespread acceptance of the idea that schools can successfully encourage students to read more and that these increases in reading practice will be translated into better fluency and higher reading achievement, there is not adequate evidence to sustain this claim. Few studies have attempted to increase the amount of student reading. Those that have investigated such issues have tended to find no gains in reading as a result of the programs. This does not mean that procedures that encourage students to read more could not be made to work—future studies should explore this possibility—but at this time, it would be unreasonable to conclude that research shows that encouraging reading has a beneficial effect on reading achievement.

Burley, J. E. (1980). Short-term, high intensity reading practice methods for Upward Bound Students: An appraisal. Negro Educational Review, 31, 156-161.
Carver, R. P., & Liebert, R. E., (1995). The effect of reading library books in different levels of difficulty on gain in reading ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 26-48.
Cline, R. K. J., & Kretke, G. L. (1980). An evaluation of long-term SSR in the junior high school. Journal of Reading, 23, 503-506.
Collins, C. (1980). Sustained silent reading periods: Effects on teachers’ behaviors and students’ achievement. Elementary School Journal, 81, 108-114.
Davis, Z. T. (1988). A comparison of the effectiveness of sustained silent reading and directed reading activity on students’ reading achievement. The High School Journal, 72(1), 46-48.
Evans, H. M., & Towner, J. C. (1975). Sustained silent reading: Does it increase skills? Reading Teacher, 29, 155-156.
Holt, S. B., & O’Tuel, F. S. (1989). The effect of sustained silent reading and writing on achievement and attitudes of seventh and eighth grade students reading two years below grade level. Reading Improvement, 26, 290-297.
Langford, J. C., & Allen, E. G. (1983). The effects of U.S.S.R. on students’ attitudes and achievement. Reading Horizons, 23, 194-200.
Manning, G. L., & Manning, M. (1984). What models of recreational reading make a difference. Reading World, 23, 375-380.
Morrow, L. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (1986). Encouraging voluntary reading: The impact of a literature program on children’s use of library centers. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 330-346.
Peak, J., & Dewalt, M. W. (1994). Reading achievement: Effects of computerized reading management and enrichment. ERS Spectrum, 12(1), 31- 34.
Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1991). Reading comprehension skills: Testing the distinctiveness hypothesis. Reading Research and Instruction, 30, 32-46.
Summers, E. G., McClelland, J. V. (1982). A field based evaluation of sustained silent reading (SSR) in intermediate grades. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 28, 100-112.
Vollands, S. R., Topping, K. J., & Evans, R. M. (1999). Computerized self-assessment of reading comprehension with the Accelerated Reader: Action Research. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 197-211.

Sustained silent reading is a popular technique for improving reading comprehension. It is sometimes called USSR (Uninterrupted sustained silent reading) or DEAR (Drop Everything and Read). But how effective is the technique in terms of improving children’s overall reading abilities? One problem for USSR and DEAR is that many pupils may appear to read silently, but are not concentrating, so may not gain from this open-ended reading activity (Widdowson, Moore, & Dixon, 1998). How are they to be motivated to read? One possibility is to combine free reading with quizzes. The Electronic Bookshelf (EB) does this. EB has on computer disks hundreds of quizzes to assess comprehension of hundreds of well known children’s books. Pupils read a book, then complete a quiz to verify comprehension. They can re-take quizzes if necessary. There are some hesitations about EB, especially in regard to possible negative effects on motivation to read. The effects of EB still need research.

Dymock (1998) studied the effects on reading comprehension of sustained silent reading. She used the EB quizzes to verify comprehension of the material. Sustained silent reading was compared with guided reading and text structure training. Pupils from 8 to 10 years of age engaged in silent reading twice a week, for 30 minutes at a time, for 17 weeks. She found no differences in reading comprehension, as measured by standardised tests, among any of the three approaches, even though the sustained silent reading group were very much on-task as they read, and even though their understanding of the books they read was assessed with regular quizzes. On a positive note, sustained silent reading was no worse than the other two approaches.

Dymock (1998) reviewed 14 studies of sustained silent reading. She found that in 9 of the studies there were no improvements in reading comprehension as measured by standardised tests. In some of the studies, pupils made gains, but they would possibly have made similar gains anyway, since pupils usually improve in reading during each year of school. Perhaps it is expecting too much to look for improvements in reading comprehension as a result of reading practice.

Carver and Liebert (1995) have questioned whether sustained silent reading is powerful enough to produce improvements in reading comprehension.

A study that has gone against this trend is one that involved a sample of third-grade and fourth-grade poor readers (Shany & Biemiller, 1995). It was not a typical sustained silent reading study. In a typical sustained silent reading period, pupils read books on their own. In this study, pupils were given assistance with their reading. A group of 19 poor readers engaged in assisted reading. The assisted reading pupils either a) read to the teacher and the teacher helped with mistakes or b) listened to audio-taped versions of the text material. A control group of 10 children received no extra help. The assisted reading practice was provided over a 4 month time period. It involved 30 hours of reading practice.

The results showed that the pupils who received assisted reading improved in reading comprehension more than the control group who had no extra help. This is a positive result, but it is different from the usual brand of sustained silent reading, where no assistance is given. In fact, in sustained silent reading, the teacher is expected to read as well, rather than provide help to pupils. Another unusual aspect of the study was that the poor readers improved in decoding as well as reading comprehension. Could it be that the assisted reading helped their decoding, which in turn helped their reading comprehension?

Lund (1983) employed sustained silent reading with Year 9 remedial readers. Results showed that USSR did not produce any improvement when added to their normal remedial instruction

Dymock, S. J. (1998). A comparison study of the effects of text structure training, reading practice, and guided reading on reading comprehension. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The University of Auckland.
Carver, R. P., & Liebert, R. E. (1995). The effect of reading library books at different levels of difficulty upon gain in reading ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 26-48.
Lund, J.M. (1983). Sustained silent reading with junior high school remedial readers. Unpublished doctoral study, Yeshiva University.
Shany, M. T., & Biemiller, A. (1995). Assisted reading practice: Effects on performance for poor readers in grades 3 and 4. Reading research Quarterly, 30, 382-395.
Widdowson, D. A. M., Dixon, R. S. & Moore, D.W. (1996). The effects of teacher modelling of silent reading on students' engagement during sustained silent reading. Educational Psychology, 16, 171-180.
There are many ways to help ensure that home run experiences will happen, among them, conducting read-alouds (Trelease, op. cit.); modeling reading;holding interesting book discussions; and just providing time to read. There is consistent evidence showing that, when students are provided time to read, they will take advantage of it. When observations of sustained silent reading classes are made in the middle of the school year and when students have adequate access to interesting reading material, the vast majority of students are involved in reading during the designated time

Wheldall, K., & Entwhistle, J. (1988). Back in the USSR: The effect of teacher modeling of silent reading on pupils' reading behavior in the primary school classroom," Educational Psychology, 8, pp. 51-56)

Von Sprecken, D & Krashen, S. (1998). Do students read during sustained silent reading? California Reader, 32(1), 11-13;

Cohen, K. (1999). Eighth-grade readers enjoy sustained silent reading. California Reader, 33(1), 22-25.

and

Rene Herda and Francisco Ramos, "How consistently do students read during sustained silent reading?," California School Library Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, 2001, pp. 29-31).
USSR

For Students Who Are Not Yet Fluent, Silent Reading Is Not the Best Use of Classroom Time
By: Jan Hasbrouck (2008)
Teachers do their best to improve students’ fluency, but sometimes the information they have to work with is incomplete and, therefore, leads them down the wrong path. For example, silent reading or 'Round Robin' reading seem like good ways to improve fluency. But, in fact, increasing fluency requires more practice, more support, and more guided oral reading than either of these strategies can deliver.
After more than 20 years as the neglected goal of reading instruction (Allington, 1983; NICHD, 2000), fluency has finally become the hot topic among reading researchers, professional development providers, and teachers. These days it is rare to pick up a reading journal, attend a professional conference, or sit in a faculty staff room at a school without hearing someone discussing reading fluency.
Surely most every educator has heard the message that if students aren't sufficiently fluent in their reading, they won't have sufficient comprehension. Given this clear statement — supported by a strong consensus of high-quality research studies — teachers and administrators everywhere are searching for ideas to help their students become fluent readers.
As someone who has conducted research on fluency over the past two decades, I find the current buzz both promising and troubling. As I will explain, fluency is a vital reading skill, but the buzz around fluency is reaching deafening levels — and crucial details from the research are being overlooked. As a result, schools across the country are putting significant amounts of time and effort into two instructional strategies for improving fluency that the research does not support: silent reading and Round Robin Reading (RRR).
Developing fluency among struggling readers takes more intensive, carefully guided practice than either of these strategies can deliver. Let's take a quick look at how these ineffective strategies became so popular and move on to an in-depth discussion of what reading fluency really is and how teachers can help their struggling students.
Marilyn Jager Adams (1990) stated in her noteworthy synthesis of reading research that "if we want children to read well, we must find a way to induce them to read lots" (p. 5). Many educators took this statement to heart and made the leap to the idea that one great way to help students do a lot of reading would be to have them read in the classroom. Methods labeled "sustained silent reading" (SSR) or "drop everything and read" (DEAR) became commonplace in schools across the country.
Some schools encouraged teachers to spend significant amounts of classroom time having the students-and often the teacher as well-read silently up to 30 minutes a day, plus an additional 15 minutes in writing personal reflections on what was read (Sierra-Perry, 1996). What some SSR and DEAR proponents may have missed is Adams's follow-up statement: "if we want to induce children to read lots, we must also teach them to read well" (1990, p. 5).
Of course, not all educators got swept up in the excitement around SSR and DEAR; some questioned if devoting this much time to unassisted, independent reading and writing could really be beneficial for all students. What about those students who struggle with basic reading skills and who may not use their silent reading time well-either wasting time by doing little to no reading or writing, or trying to read materials that cause frustration because they are too difficult?
As it turns out, such concerns are justified. The National Reading Panel* (NRP) concluded there is insufficient support from empirical research to suggest that independent, silent reading can be used to help students improve their fluency (NICHD, 2000). (Note that the NRP did not say that it has no benefits, just that evidence does not suggest it improves fluency. So, if some students are fluent readers, they could read silently while the teacher works with the struggling readers.)
Instead of independent silent reading, the NRP (NICHD, 2000) concluded that teachers should provide opportunities for students to read aloud with some guidance and feedback. One way some teachers have provided this kind of oral reading practice in their classrooms is with a method that has long been used in classrooms: Round Robin Reading. RRR involves having individual students in a group take turns reading aloud from text. While RRR can be used to read narrative passages, it is also frequently employed by content area teachers who have students take turns reading aloud all or part of a chapter in a social studies or science textbook.
A common rationale for using RRR in a classroom — along with providing the oral guided reading recommended by the NRP — is that in some classes there are students who would not be able or motivated to read a literature passage or a chapter from their textbook by themselves. RRR is seen as a way for a teacher to ensure that every student is in fact reading, and if there are some difficult words or concepts, the teacher is available to provide support.
Despite the popularity and longevity of RRR, upon reflection there are clearly several downsides to using this method. Perhaps the most obvious concern is how the requirement to read aloud to classmates can put students — especially those who struggle with reading — in a position of being humiliated and demoralized by displaying their weak skills in front of their peers. Their more skilled peers may feel uncomfortable as well, and are subjected to listening to poor examples of reading. Another concern about RRR is the very minimal practice provided by this method.
If there are more than a small number of students in the group, each individual student is only reading for a very short period of time, which is clearly insufficient to make any difference in fluency. In addition, it is questionable as to whether or not the students who are not reading aloud are actually paying attention. RRR can be most accurately viewed as a way to "cover" written text, but it is difficult to justify its use given these considerable weaknesses.
Since the importance of fluency has become widely recognized, teachers have been doing their best to improve students' fluency. But, as we have just seen, sometimes the information they have to work with is incomplete and, therefore, leads them down the wrong path. Silent reading seems like a good idea since it gives students additional practice. Round Robin seems like a good idea since it focuses the class on oral reading. But increasing fluency requires more practice, more support, and more guided oral reading than either of these strategies can deliver.
See these associated articles by Jan Hasbrouk explaining good practice in developing students' fluency:
* Understanding and Assessing Fluency
* Developing Fluent Readers
* Screening, Diagnosing, and Progress Monitoring: The Details
About the author
Jan Hasbrouck is president of JH Consulting, as well as an affiliate of the Behavioral Research and Teaching Group at the University of Oregon. Her most recent book, which she co-authored with Carolyn Denton, is The Reading Coach: A How-To Manual for Success.
References
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal in reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 36, 556-561.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. NIH Publication No. 00-4769. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office.
Sierra-Perry, M. (1996). Standards in practice: Grades 3-5. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hasbrouck, J. (2006). For students who are not yet fluent, silent reading is not the best use of classroom time. American Educator, Summer 2006, 30(2).
Post Reply