Re: SSR

Jill suggested I tackle the following in my presentation and blog: “Teachers as models - you might discuss the research on the "Drop Everything and Read" or "Sustained Silent Reading" programs - referred to in our text in Chapter 7. The idea is that teachers and administrators model reading along with requiring the kids to read. The problem is, there is no research showing it helps comprehension any. But it may encourage kids to read more, which can't hurt.”

I did some web research to find anything written about the efficacy about SSR with urban secondary students. I really wanted to find something to support SSR because I feel strongly that the more you read, the better you read and write. But as you would probably guess, I didn’t find very much. Here are a few items that I thought you might find interesting.

Item 1: “Trenton Central High School SSR: A Case Study” written by Diane Waff and
Patrice Connell and published in English Journal in May 2004.

The majority of students at Trenton Central High School are low-income minorities. In 2001-2002, 61 percent were considered proficient in reading and writing compared to 73 percent statewide.

To kick-off the SSR initiative, every teacher received a copy of Reading for Understanding: A Guide to Improving Reading in Middle School and High School Classrooms (Cziko & Hurwitz). Teachers who had received special training led professional development sessions for other teachers. The school decided to have SSR in social studies and language arts classrooms and used $50,000 in grants to purchase books from Scholastic. Each student had a SSR log that included a series of metacognitive prompts such as “While I was reading I got confused when...” or “I first thought...but then I realized...”

In most classrooms, the teachers just had the students read for 15 minutes and then write for another 5 minutes. In the better classes (those of the two authors), the teacher created more of a reading and writing community. That included:
1) Teachers would write notes back to students in the reading journals.
2) Students were encouraged to make real-life connections with the text and to reflect on their struggles as a reader.
3) Students made two- to three-minute presentations about their book to the class.
4) Students wrote letters to the authors.

I like what these teachers did, but there was nothing about impact on the students’ grades, test scores, or even feeling about reading.

Item 2 (for English teachers only): “An Attitude Adjustment: How I Reached My Reluctant Readers” by Kathleen Gutchewsky in English Journal, November 2001.

Gutchewsky discusses how she brought SSR into her class. She identifies three kinds of students: those who don’t have time to read, those who hate to read because they’ve never liked anything they’ve read, and those who have reading problems.

She started the school year by giving her students a reading survey. Only one out of 100 admitted to enjoying reading; 59 percent said they don’t read because they hate it or it’s stupid and 24 percent said it’s too hard. (She never describes her students except to say that she had freshman nor does she describe the school’s student body.)

Guchewsky then re-configured her curriculum to include a reading unit at the beginning of the year. She developed a list of 30 books at a variety of reading levels for them to choose from with authors and summaries. Students convened in student-to-student book talks after she modeled it and also kept reaction journals, prepared projects, and answered reader-response questions.

Throughout the rest of the year, students could earn extra credit by reading books at the high school level, complete a reaction journal (one page for every 50 pages), prepare a project from a list of options, and have a book talk with the teacher or the whole class. She had library staff (if only my school had any!) present books to the students and that was very successful. Participation in the extra credit was limited but increased when she allowed in-class reading time once a week.

SSR in Guchewsky’s class meant 20 minutes of any reading except texts for other classes. She kept a chart listing who was reading what. This gave her a chance to ask students if they liked their book. She would read too and let them know if she liked her book.

At the end of the year, Guchewsky had the students complete another reading survey and the results were much more positive – 70 percent said they liked to read. Again, nothing about any impact on grades or test scores, but the teacher considered it a success.

Item 3: “Accelerated Reader: Does It Work? If So, Why?” by Stephen Krashen, School Libraries in Canada, November 2002.

AR is a reading management program in which students have access to books, are given quizzes on the books for points, and earn prizes with those points. Krashen claims the program works in two ways and uses evidence from his school as well as a lit review he did. 1) Providing more access to books results in more reading and 2) Increasing recreational reading increases reading achievement.

To be honest, I found his argument lacking in evidence.

Item 4: One interesting idea I stumbled upon that I’m considering sending to my principal: We currently have homeroom at the start of the day. As you may imagine, attendance is dismal since most students see it as an extra 30 minutes to get themselves to school. One teacher on the National Council of Teachers of English website said her school has homeroom at the end of the day and the time is used for SSR. Considering how difficult it is to get my last class of the day to stay focused, that might make more sense. This could work in middle school because the students don’t skip out before the end of the day. I’m not sure it would work in high school.

Item 5: One useful resource: a list of SSR extension activities from the website of the National Council of Teachers of English:
http://www.readwritethink.org/lesson_images/lesson141/ssr.pdf