Laura Cannon just sent me an email and she thought of something I'd never considered. Tests require SSR. So all the testing teachers are required to do means that they should be helping kids build their reading stamina through SSR. It's yet another good justification for independent reading. There are also all kinds of ways beyond the low level, literal computerized questions of AR to get kids to engage and respond to the text.
Also, I've followed the discussion on AR from some time back and I wanted to respond but I was out of town. There is no independent research supporting AR. The research that's been done has been conducted by people associated with AR or Renanassance Learning. I have a brilliant masters student (Amanda Terry) who just completed a quite comprehensive research study on AR. She plans on rewriting and publishing it. Actually, Amanda wanted to join MOT but I don't know if she did or not. I'm actually thinking I maybe be jumping the gun by discussing her research since she may want to do it. What she found was that-- 1. When kids discussed reading at all, the didn't discuss character, plots, or how much they enjoyed the book. They discussed how many AR points they got. When the points are removed, their incentive for reading disappears. 2. Kids saw AR as a subject and would say things like, "I'm not good at AR"-- in other words, the AR experience was actually oddly removed from a true literacy experience. 3. She did an analysis of the AR questions and compared them to Bloom's taxonomy. What she found is no surprise. The questions are restricted to the 2 lowest levels of Bloom's taxonomy. She concludes that over time this actually trains kids to do what I suggest in my book- as a teacher said to me once, it trains kids to "think dumb"-- that is over a period of time, they become habituated to read for minutia rather than for big ideas. 4. Kids actually reported that they became so AR quiz savvy that they could skim only portions of a book rather than read a whole book and think about it in depth. What's so tragic about that isn't just that they cheat to get the points-- look at what that does for their perceptions of literacy and their role in that process! 5. Kids limit their range of reading to AR books. 6. The focus is on quantity-- and with the big pushes for fluency and timing kids for reading--- speed rather than depth. AR and timed fluency tests then can act as a double whammy against comprehension and interaction with text, 7. Over 50% of the schools use AR even though there is no independent research to support it. Also, I've been following the strand on read alouds and I love the idea of using songs! It actually provides kids with another sign system and the tune and rhythm and rhyme scaffolds them. In regard to repeated readings, yes, they do help fluency. I have Melanie Kuhn's article ( someone mentinoned it as research supporting repeated readings) on an experimental study she did with 2 groups fo kids. One group, she trained in lots of fluency methods such as echo reading and lots of repeated readings of a somewhat limited number of books. The other group she used a wide range of books and focused on comprehension-- lots of discussion. The results were that the fluency group (where the focus was specifically on fluency) did indeed improve in fluency, but not in comprehension. The other group-- the one where she focused on comprehension and the kids read considerably more books did not significantly improve in fluency-- but they DID significantly improve in comprehension. That article was in Reading Teacher. It's easy to read and Steven Stahl cites her in the Voice of Evidence. If anyone wants that article, I have it and can email it to you. I use it in my research classes. I think that article and others when we look at them as a whole show us that kids-- God bless them-- learn what we teach them and sometimes we teach them things we don't intend. I don't know if MOT takes attachments. If it does, I can attach the article. It's fairly easy to read. On Sunday, June 24, 2007, at 12:18 PM, elaine garan wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
