Part 1 Some time back, I said I would post the federal research supporting SSR from my new book Smart Answers to Tough Questions. I got waylaid but here it is finally. I’m going to do this in 2 posts. The first will address what the National Reading Panel actually did with SSR and what you can say in response to the HUGE misconception that the panel said SSR isn’t worth doing in schools. The second post will cite the actual research with quotes from NRP panel members and contributors about the significance of SSR.
This is long and a little involved. If you get frustrated, bored or confused, I hope you’ll put this post in a file and save it to bring out if you’re challenged on allowing your kids to read in school. You can also skim down to the very end for the bottom line answer that you can say with certainty and that the rest of this long post documents. Also, please, please feel free to email me with any questions and I will answer them. A lot of this is in Smart Answers. I’m also going to post the research on read alouds including quotes from Bush’s former education Czar, Reid Lyon that supports read alouds and shared reading (using big books). BILL’S POST AND HIS QUOTE FROM THE NATIONAL READING PANEL: In response to whether or not the NRP research supports SSR, Bill wrote: "The Panel determined that guided repeated oral reading has a significant and positive impact on word recognition, reading fluency, and comprehension for students of all ages. However, the Panel was unable to conclude that independent silent reading, as the only type of reading instruction, improves reading fluency." First, let’s look at the last line of that quote: “However, the Panel was unable to conclude that independent silent reading, as the only type of reading instruction, improves reading fluency." What does that sentence tell us and what DOESN’T it tell us? It tells us that the NRP couldn’t determine if SSR improves FLUENCY. What it doesn’t tell us is what other reading skills/processes SSR does improve. It only tells us about fluency. Odd, isn’t it? THE NRP’S PECULIAR CHOICE OF A DEPENDENT VARIABLE for SSR What that quote doesn’t tell us is if SSR improves COMPREHENSION, or vocabulary. Right? Also, the NRP doesn’t say that SSR does not have a significant impact on student reading achievement. It does NOT say that. What they say is that they couldn’t find enough EXPERIMENTAL studies on the effects of SSR on FLUENCY to draw any conclusions. Remember, the put SSR under the subgroup on Fluency, not under Comprehension. They looked for studies that assessed the impact of SSR on how well kids could read aloud. In fact, the NRP complains that most of the studies on SSR did not directly assess fluency, but “Rather, only changes in vocabulary and/or comprehension were typically measured as outcomes rather than increases in fluency that could be expected from increased reading practice.” (Summary, p. 12). Recall, the NRP had 5 subgroups that all operated entirely separate from each other. Why--- why did this panel make Fluency the dependent variable for SSR when most of the studies reasoned that the purpose of SSR is to improve comprehension and reading attitudes of kids? Why? Also, when they saw that most of the studies by respected researchers in the field of reading assessed the impact of SSR on Comprehension or Vocabulary (vocabulary is under Comprehension in the NRP) why didn’t little red flags shoot up and why didn’t they say, “Hmmm—maybe we’re looking at the wrong outcome for SSR here. Most intelligent researchers figure SSR will help comprehension or vocabulary. We are pretty alone in wondering if reading silently helps kids to read better out loud. Let’s call up the Comprehension Subgroup and say, ‘Hey, maybe you guys should examine SSR in your category since it obviously is more appropriate under Comprehension and Vocabulary than under Fluency” ? So the NRP couldn’t find enough studies on SSR and its impact on Fluency! If I were not such a nice person, I would be tempted to say, “Well… duh” Now tell me—if you were doing a huge federal research project and you wanted to know the impact of SSR, would you make the dependent variable Fuency?? Or would you look for studies where the dependent variable was Comprehension or Vocabulary, or students’ attitudes towards reading? Isn’t that strange? Doesn’t make you say, “Aha! I see why they couldn’t find enough experimental research to come to any conclusions about SSR and its affects on fluency! They were looking at an illogical dependent variable!” ANOTHER REASON WHY THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH ON SSR I have to make one more point here that Dick Allington raised. There is another good reason why there are so few studies using experimental research on SSR. Think about this: The effects of SSR on reading improvement are part of a process. Processes are not quick treatments that immediately show results (or not). In other words, the effects of SSR result from having one group of kids read extensively over a LONG period of time (the experimental group). The growth of these kids’ reading achievement is then compared to a group of kids who are not permitted to read silently (the control group). In fact, to make sure the research is as methodologically sound as possible, the researchers should do their best to make sure the kids don’t read at home either. It’s not a one shot—“Here, you little treatment group kids, sit here and read for an hour and you little control group kids, you play tiddley winks for an hour” and then you test them and see which group improved. NO. it means withholding one treatment or method from as big a group of kids as possible for as long as possible. Now think about that. What principal, what teacher, what parent is going to allow their child to be put in a research project that requires them not to read? What group do you think the NRP members would want their children or grandchildren in? The group that does a lot of reading or the group that’s forbidden to read or whose reading is severely limited. I think we should ask them! Think of the ethical considerations of that type of research and in fact a lot of other experimental research in education too. Someone said on this listserve that kids aren’t labrats. Well, if the federal government prevails, they will be and so will you. WHAT THE NRP DOES SAY ABOUT SSR The NRP does say “Literally hundreds of correlational studies suggest that the more that children read, the better their fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.” ((Summary booklet, p. 12). However, since these studies are correlational in nature rather than involving experimental research (where a big group of control group kids do not read at all or their reading is severely limited and controlled-- ) that research cannot “prove” that practice in reading improves reading achievement! Think about that too. One of the points I make in Smart Answers to Touch Questions is that if we accept the NRP’s premise that even though literally hundreds of correlational studies show that kids who read more read better—but nevertheless there is not enough hard evidence to let kids read in schools--- then we should expect sports coaches and music teachers and dance teachers to tell kids they should quit practicing because there’s no proof that practice helps achievement. YOUR BOTTOM LINE ANSWER If someone says to you, “You shouldn’t let your students read in school because the NRP says that it doesn’t benefit reading”, you can say: “They didn’t say that. They said they couldn’t find enough experimental research to say for sure but this is because they looked for studies that assessed the effects of SSR on Fluency instead of on Comprehension or Vocabulary or Attitudes Toward Reading. The NRP report clearly states that they are NOT saying that SSR doesn’t help kids. In fact, the NRP says, ‘It should be made clear that these findings do not negate the positive influence that independent silent reading MAY have on reading fluency, nor do the findings negate the possibility that wide independent reading significantly influences vocabulary development and reading comprehension. Rather , there are simply not sufficient data from well-designed studies capable of testing questions of causation to substantiate causal claims.’ That is not the same as saying that SSR does not help kids read better. They are saying that they didn’t find enough experimental research to prove anything. They did say that literally hundreds of correlational studies support SSR.” THE BIZARRE ELIMINATION OF A HUGE LONGITUDINAL SERIES OF STUDIES ON SSR AND READING ALOUDS One more thing— When the NRP selected its research for SSR, it eliminated the MOST extensive longitudinal studies on SSR and reading aloud to kids. These were the famous “book flood” studies by Warwick Elley and Mangubhai. This was experimental research! The control group used a commercial reading/skills program while the experimental classrooms were “flooded” with high interest books that were used in a variety of ways including SSR. The Fluency group did not include the Book Flood studies supposedly because they were done with kids for whom English was a second language! What is bizarre about this is: 1. We have such a huge population of ELL’s in this country 2. The NRP subgroup report on Phonics generalized its findings to ELL’s (in the Summary) – I have complained about this extensively because it is WRONG, wrong wrong to do that. 3. The Phonemic Awareness section not only included studies done on kids who spoke other languages, the studies were not even in English and what’s more 11 of them were in languages that are phonetically regular such as Hebrew and Spanish and others. So there is a real issue with the fact that they excluded sound experimental research that supports SSR and read alouds. I would note that contributor Steven Stahl cites the Book Flood studies in his chapter in the Voice of Evidence in Reading Research that was put together by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to explain how the NRP report should be implemented in classrooms. Oh and Stahl also recommends 30 minutes of SSR with books of the kids’ own choice as part of the school day. This and other quotes and information are in Smart Answers to Touch Questions. I’m sorry this post is so long but there is not a 25 word or less response to a complex issue. If this is too long, then you can trust the Bottom Line Answer I gave here. In my next post, I’ll give you the actual research quotes from Smart Answers to Tough Questions that support SSR. I also want to give you the research that support read alouds! That was an amazing discussion on here. I loved Ginger’s approach—combining read alouds with a very natural think aloud—that the kids talk about after she has read to them. There is powerful, powerful evidence to support read alouds including quotes from Reid Lyon. Enough—you are probably all asleep by now— But if you’re not asleep, here is one more provocative question—Why is Fluency a separate subgroup in the NRP report? Why isn’t Fluency discussed under the section of Comprehension? Doesn’t this elevate fluency to an equal status with Comprehension? Doesn’t it appear to assume that if kids are fluent, they will comprehend even though the research doesn’t support that notion past first grade and the very beginnings of reading? Doesn’t this cause teachers to move Fluency to the forefront and start focusing on it. How fluent are you? How fluent do you need to be when most reading is done silently except when we’re assessing younger kids? When we push “fluency, fluency” don’t kids think “fast” instead of “deep” There are two interesting articles in this week’s Reading Today that support the notion that we have run amok on this fluency bandwagon to the detriment of a focus on comprehension. Elaine Garan _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
