To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser

Back to Graphic Version

What the Research Says (or Doesn’t Say):

About Sustained Silent Reading By Jennifer Klump, NWREL Education Resources Advisor

There is growing recognition that districts must take the lead in implementing school reforms that last. As districts consider the most effective and applicable reforms, they attempt to ensure that programs and practices are backed by empirical evidence. Administrators, school improvement facilitators, teachers, school board members, and community members frequently contact the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory looking for research to make solid decisions.

Unfortunately, the research often doesn’t provide clear guidance on what is and isn’t effective. It is difficult to conduct experimental studies to determine if something “works,” especially for practices that don’t have a direct link to achievement. Even the question of “what works” is loaded, as a practice could work for one group of students in a particular situation and not another, and practices may vary from site to site.

One such practice that does not have a definitive research base is “sustained silent reading” [SSR]. SSR has many forms and names, but generally it is a fixed time period for silent reading during class. The effectiveness of sustained silent reading in increasing reading achievement has generated much conversation, especially after the National Reading Panel’s report on the scientific research of reading instruction (2000).

The panel conducted a review of research to determine if practices to encourage reading in class, primarily SSR, affected fluency and overall reading ability. The final analysis only included experimental studies published in refereed journals; studies that considered the link between encouraging students to read and reading achievement; and studies with English language reading focused on K–12 reading education. Although other methods of encouraging students to read were studied, the majority of the 14 studies included in the final analysis examined the impact of sustained silent reading. In most cases, these programs required at least 20 minutes a day in which students could read material silently on their own with self-selection of reading material and no monitoring or other classroom assignments.

After examining these 14 studies, the panel could not recommend that “schools should adopt programs to encourage more reading if the intended goal is to improve reading achievement. It is not that the studies have proven that this cannot work, only that it is yet unproven” (NRP, pp. 3–27). The panel advises that more research should be conducted. It recommends that voluntary reading within the school day be compared with nonreading activities or activities in which the amount of reading can be closely measured. The panel also said that studies should consider the effect of increasing student reading on both fluency and overall reading achievement.

Many researchers question the results of the panel and assert that there is research to support sustained silent reading. Stephen Krashen says that some studies were excluded because they weren’t published in refereed journals, or were studies of students reading in Spanish rather than English (2001, 2005). Krashen also argues that some studies were misinterpreted or didn’t fall under the definition of sustained silent reading practices (e.g., providing books that the student wishes to read, the teacher modeling reading for the children during SSR time, not using extrinsic motivators, and having short periods of SSR each day over a sustained time period). He also points out that long-term studies are more likely to show positive results for in-classroom reading and that the findings of “no difference” in many studies could mean that sustained silent reading was not studied for a long enough period of time. (For a more indepth discussion of the issues surrounding SSR, the National Reading Panel, and its critics, we refer you to the February 2005 issue of Phi Delta Kappan. The issue contains a discussion of the research from different viewpoints, including the authors of the NRP, critics of the NRP, and more objective researchers.)

Many practitioners and researchers suggest that the primary purpose of sustained silent reading is to encourage students to read more and to increase their enjoyment of reading rather than to have a direct effect on reading achievement (Gardiner, 2001; Yoon, 2002). Gardiner, a teacher at Billings Senior High School in Montana, says his experience shows if students had time to read during class, they looked forward to reading. Yoon’s meta-analytic study looked at the effect of SSR on attitudes toward reading. He determined that of seven studies examined, the effect size (0.12) is small but does provide empirical support for SSR having an impact on attitudes toward reading.

Even though many practitioners agree that students need to spend more time reading, not all agree that sustained silent reading is an effective use of instructional time. With time for classroom instruction increasingly shortened, some educators believe the most effective use of that time is on direct instruction (from an interview with a principal in Ivey & Fisher, 2005, and personal communication with a district superintendent). On the other hand, Fisher (2004) points out that one student he interviewed was not allowed to read at home; the only time she had for free reading was in her SSR class.

In summary, it would appear that some studies show positive results, others show no results, and results depend on a variety of factors. Those factors include the purpose for SSR, varying types of SSR, and the length of time that SSR is implemented. Marzano’s analysis of the research (2004) indicated that sustained silent reading programs lasting for at least a year showed more impact than those lasting less than a year. There are also numerous points of view about the use of classroom time and reading instruction. Although research is not definitive, if one chooses to implement sustained silent reading, the literature offers a list of key factors to make SSR programs more successful (adapted by Marzano, 2004, from Pilgreen, 2000):

1. Access: Ensure that students have books available to them at school, either in the classroom or school library. Students should not have to provide books from home or outside school.
2. Appeal: Allow students to choose books that interest them and are at the appropriate level of difficulty.
3. Conducive environment: SSR should be done in a quiet and uninterrupted environment.
4. Encouragement: Be excited about what your students are reading, show excitement for your own reading, and encourage children to share what they are reading with others. Model reading during the SSR period.
5. Staff Training: This is crucial to successful implementation. The purpose of SSR should be discussed, and all staff members should be supportive.
6. Nonaccountability: Don’t test students on their reading during or after SSR.
7. Follow-up activities: Have students discuss their reading, if possible.
8. Distributed time to read: Many successful programs have at least two days a week scheduled for SSR. It is important to have systematic and distributed times to read, whether it is 20 minutes a period twice a week or another arrangement.

Bibliography

This is a sampling of the research and resources on sustained silent reading, including some qualitative studies and commentaries on the research. We did not include every study analyzed by the National Reading Panel or Stephen Krashen. You can refer to their work for more discussion of the research.

Arthur, J. (1995). What is the effect of recreational reading on reading achievement of middle grade students? (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED 391143).

Bryan, G., & Reutzel, D. R. (2003). Sustained silent reading: Exploring the value of literature discussion with three non-engaged readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 43(1), 47–73.

Cooper, H. (2005). Reading between the lines: Observations on the Report of the National Reading Panel and its critics. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(6), 456–461.

Davis, Z. (1988). A comparison of the effectiveness of sustained silent reading and directed reading activity on students' reading achievement. High School Journal, 72(1), 46–48.

Fisher, D. (2004). Setting the “opportunity to read” standard: Resuscitating the SSR program in an urban high school. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 138–150.

Gardiner, S. (2001). Ten minutes a day for silent reading. Educational Leadership, 9(2), 32–5.

Ivey, G., & Fisher, D. (2005). Learning from what doesn’t work. Educational Leadership, 63(20), 8–14.

Krashen, S. (2001). More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on fluency. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(2), 119–22. Available online at www.extensivereading.net/er/krashen2001.html

Krashen, S. (2005). Is in-school free reading good for children? Why the National Reading Panel is (still) wrong. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(6), 444–447.

Marzano, R.J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

National Reading Panel. (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. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/subgroups.htm

Osborn, J., & Lehr, R. (with Hiebert, E.H.). (2003). A focus on fluency. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Retrieved December 21, 2004, from www.prel.org/products/re_/fluency-1.htm

Reiter, A. (2003). The effects of L2 pleasure reading on high school ESOL students' reading comprehension and motivation. Unpublished action research study, Annandale High School, Fairfax (VA) Public Schools. Available online at http://gse.gmu.edu/research/lmtip/arp/vol1pdfs/A.Reiter.pdf

Samuels, S. J. (2002). Reading fluency: Its development and assessment. In A. E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed.), pp. 166–183. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Yoon, J. (2002). Three decades of sustained silent reading: A meta-analytic review of the effects of SSR on attitude toward reading. Reading Improvement, 39(4), 186–195.