I'm asking if anyone can provide feedback on my research paper. It is due July 29th by midnight. Usually I am not so late in submitting papers for editing or feedback but a tree fell on my house in a storm last week, causing enough damage to make it unlivable. While dealing with all that goes along with that, I've gotten behind in my schoolwork. So, any feedback will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks so much. Callie
This is the assignment:
After researching the topic, and finding at least 10 articles, analyze them looking for patterns of information, ideas, and findings about though about patterns and inconsistencies of information/ideas.
Write a Synthesis (or Summary) of the content of all of the articles. Be careful that you don't list each reference's findings. Work to synthesize the information. Bring the information together in your writing
At the end of your paper include a Critical Reflection section associated with your study of this topic. In your reflection, include the following: what you have learned, why study of this topic has been especially meaningful to you, and how you might apply or use what you have learned in instructional practice.
Due July 29th by midnight
Introduction
I walk into a silent second grade classroom. I find students sitting at their desks, or around the room. They quickly flip through the pages of their books or whisper quietly to their neighbor. Some are standing near the bookshelf, trying to appear as if they are intensely looking for the perfect book. I look around for the teacher and find her sitting at her desk, typing on the computer, looking at her plan book, or catching up on unfinished work. The class is having sustained silent reading time.
The aforementioned situation is one that I've seen many times as a Teacher Assistant. It is what I thought sustained silent reading or independent reading time was supposed to look like. But I've also wondered what good is this time doing if students aren't actually reading? And is it ok that the teacher is absorbed in her own work instead of making sure her students are reading? These thoughts led me to research the sustained silent reading program and what it is all about. I wanted to know exactly what the program consists of and if it is actually successful. I found this and much, much more.
Synthesis of Information
Many view sustained silent reading (SSR) as a block of time that the teacher sets aside each day, ranging from ten to thirty minutes depending on grade level, during which students sit silently and read (Hopkins, 2007). However, there are some inconsistencies as to the role of the teacher during this time, as well as how much structure should be put into place. These inconsistencies lead many to believe that SSR has many weaknesses that must be addressed in order to be successful, while others hold on to the belief that SSR is successful just the way that it is.
One of the main components of SSR is allowing students to choose their own books. This component is greatly supported by Stairs & Burgos (2010). Studies featured by Stairs & Burgos (2010) show that the amount of time children spend reading leisure reading is correlated with reading achievement that teachers play a critical role in influencing students' attitudes toward reading, and that immediate access to books and an inviting atmosphere are important in promoting reading (Morrow, 2003). Similarly, Flood, Lapp, and Fisher (2003) reported that "the effectiveness of voluntary reading programs, in which classrooms were filled with high-quality trade books, reported success in overall reading comprehension as well as improved attitudes toward reading" (p. 938). Interested in students' perceptions of independent reading, Stairs & Burgos (2010) asked students to respond to three questions in their reading journals:
1. What is the best book that you have read in class or own your own?
2. How did it change your life or influence your thinking?
3. Who else would like this book and why?
The journal entries written by students revealed that students enjoyed reading and the teacher noticed how their writing was much deeper and more thoughtful when writing about books they liked. The students became more interested in reading and connected characters and themes of their books to their own lives. These findings support the idea that SSR, which allows students to choose their own books, can be successful.
SSR has been found to be successful in cultivating students reading habits in school and cultivating students' pleasure and enjoyment in reading through studies conducted by Siah Poh Chua. Siah Poh Chua (2008) assessed students' reading habits and attitudes three times in a twelve month period. He conducted the study at a secondary school. Chua (2008) recruited only Form One (first year secondary education) students so that he could assess the baseline measure.
The SSR in this school was as follows: (a) a twenty-minute reading time; (b) teachers started the program in the first period and it was part of every school day; (c) students were free to choose which books to read; (d) all students, teachers, and staff were to do nothing but read books they liked; (e) class teachers acted as role models by participating in reading; (f) teachers allowed no interruption of students' reading; and (g) teachers encouraged students to write notes and reflections in their reading journals. (Chua, 2008, p. 181)
Chua conducted the first measure in October 2002, after all Form One students had participated in the SSR program for one week. Chua assessed the second and third measures in February 2003 and October 2003, respectively. The number of respondents to the three measures was 222, 208, and 224, respectively. Students were asked to complete a questionnaire and answer the following questions:
1. To what extent did you read books for leisure actively during the SSR period?
2. What was the proportion of your classmates that engaged in reading tasks during the SSR period?
3. How many hours did you spend on reading books for leisure after school?
4. What were your attitudes toward reading books for leisure?
At each assessment, a teacher distributed the questionnaires to students during school assembly. Chua briefed all students on the methods of answering the questionnaire first and then gave them time to ask questions and twenty minutes to complete the questionnaire. Chua's (2008) results revealed that the percentage of students who read books for leisure actively during the SSR period and the percentage of students who estimated half or more than half or their classmates engaged in reading tasks during the SSR period increased. Pertaining to reading habits after school, the percentage of students who spent more than one hour on reading books for leisure after school did not change significantly. As for students' attitudes towards reading, the percentage of students who agreed or strongly agreed that reading books for leisure was pleasurable and enjoyable increased after twelve months. However, the percentage of students who agreed or strongly agreed that reading books for leisure was useful and meaningful did not change significantly. Therefore, it was concluded that the SSR program had a significant effect on cultivating students' reading habits and cultivating students' pleasure and enjoyment of reading, but it did not have a significant effect on students' reading habits after school. Although this study found SSR to be successful in some areas, it also found that SSR could be improved to have an effect on students' reading habits after school as well.
SSR was also found to be successful through studies done throughout schools in Hong Kong. In sustained silent reading throughout Hong Kong, students read silently in a designated time period every day in school. They select their own reading material and are not asked to answer comprehension questions or write book reports (Chow & Chou, 2000). In the study of Nagy, Herman & Anderson, it was investigated whether students acquire measurable knowledge about unfamiliar words while reading natural text. Studied were 57 eighth grade students of average and above average reading ability. They were given individual interview and a multiple choice test. It was found that a moderate amount of reading will lead to substantial vocabulary gains. In Ozburn's study, sixty ninth grade students in remedial classes were studied. Students read self-selected books for the first 10-15 minutes of each daily 55-minute class. They also checked the books out and were encouraged to read at home. The Gates MacGinite Reading Test was administered before the study and 9 months later. It was found that all students' reading levels increased. A survey by Wiesendanger & Bader investigated what happened after the termination of SSR. They monitored the summer reading habits of both students who had, and those who has not been exposed to SSR during the previous school year. The survey revealed that students who had participated during the academic year in a reading program that incorporated SSR read considerably more during the following summer than did those who had not been part of the SSR program (Chow & Chou, 2000). All of these studies reveal that SSR can be successful in many ways, including increasing reading levels, increasing vocabulary, and motivating students to read more.
Fisher (2004) also found SSR to be successful in a study of an urban high school. After a student questioned why SSR was not being properly implemented in her high school, the school was put on the fast track to resuscitating SSR in the entire school. First, the problem of students not being given the time to read had to be assessed. A data sheet was used and 20 classrooms were observed, one per day. In each of the 20 classrooms, four students were randomly selected for observation, as was observed for five minutes. After it was determined that only 720 students out of 2,200 students were reading, it was decided that changes had to be made so that students were being given a chance to read. Teachers were asked to help students meet the "opportunity to read" standard, they were given money to purchase books for their classrooms, and were given SSR handbooks to help implement a successful SSR time in their classroom. SSR was also changed to third period so all students could participate. After two years of implementing these new policies, classrooms were once again observed to see if students were reading. Again, 20 random classrooms were selected, and four students were randomly selected in each classroom. It was found that 1,936 out of 2,200 were reading. The results clearly show that providing students with opportunities to read and books they will enjoy, students will become engaged in reading, which is the exact purpose of SSR.
Although there have been many studies that support the success of SSR, others have found weaknesses in the program that should be addressed. One of these weaknesses is the lack of engagement during reading time. Teachers often see students doing everything but reading during this time and, therefore, see independent reading as a waste of time and drop it from their classroom (Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2009, p. 313). Instead of completely dropping SSR, Kelly and Clausen-Grace (2009) suggest that teachers address the problems of SSR, this one being the lack of engagement. According to Kelly and Clausen-Grace (2009), there are several types of readers during SSR. This time should be differentiated to help all of these types of readers become engaged. Disengaged readers, such as "fake readers", "challenged readers", "unrealistic readers", and "compliant readers" all struggle with becoming engaged in books they choose or becoming engaged at all. Kelly and Clausen-Grace (2009) suggest that the teacher support these students through advice on choosing books, providing access to books which students will enjoy, close monitoring, and providing opportunities for feedback and peer discussions. Other readers such as "'Does non-fiction count?' readers", "'I can but I don't want to' readers", "bookworms", and "'Stuck in a genre' readers" can benefit from including non-fiction books in read alouds, monitoring students' volume of reading and complimenting them when it increases, allowing for peer discussions, and trying to help students become interested in all genres. Trying these strategies in the classroom can help students become more engaged in reading and eliminate the unwanted behaviors during this time.
Kelley and Clausen-Grace (2009) offer these suggestions after doing research together in third grade classroom. Kelley, a university instructor, decided to pair up with Clausen-Grace, a third grade teacher. They wanted to examine the metacognitive awareness of her students and to determine whether direct instruction in metacognitive strategies would benefit all learners. Clausen-Grace was worried about the growth of her above level readers and her "fake" readers. To gather data, researchers used the DRA to measure each child's engagement, fluency, and comprehension. Kelley and Clausen-Grace (2006) found that students were reading only a narrow selection of genres and had a poor view of reading. They also found that students were choosing inappropriate books, were "fake reading," and were unable to engage in reading because they lacked strategies needed to monitor comprehension. Kelley and Clausen-Grace spent seven months restructuring the SSR block through the implementation of the R5 program (read, relax, reflect, respond, and rap). This consisted of making new rules so that all students were reading and relaxing the entire SSR period. After reading, students took about five minutes to reflect and record the date, title, author, genre, and a brief response to their text. After responses, students shared their insights with an "elbow" partner. Along with implementing the R5 program, time was also spent integrating metacognitive units across the literacy block and providing direct instruction in various comprehension strategies. After this time, another DRA was done on each student. The results showed a positive turn, as more genres were being read, and metacognition and comprehension had improved.
Others have found that SSR does not provide enough structure for students. Instead, they believe that a new kind of SSR, called Scaffolded Silent Reading (ScSr), is more successful. This type of SSR makes use of silent, wide reading of independent-level texts selected from varied genres; periodic teacher monitoring of and interaction with individual students; and accountability through completed book response assignments (Reutzel, Fawson, & Smith, 2008, p. 39). To test the success of this type of SSR, a study was done involving four classrooms, four third-grade teachers, and 72 third-grade students in two elementary schools. All four teachers in the study rotated through teaching the ScSR and GROR treatments during the year of this study. (GROR is another approach to reading fluency practice in which students repeatedly read aloud (in general, 3-5 times) a single text (typically at grade level or instructional level) while they receive feedback from a teacher or other students. (Reutzel, Fawson, & Smith, 2008, p. 39)) Each teacher rotated every 9 weeks, teaching the ScSR and GROR treatments twice during the year. All third-grade students were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups in the two schools. Although it was found that there was no significant difference between the ScSR and GROR when assessing accuracy, rate (fluency), and comprehension, ScSR was favored when assessing students' expression. Students who participated in ScSR used more expression in their reading. It was also found that both ScSR and GROR successfully increased reading rates and comprehension.
For this study, students were also asked to respond to interview questions and teachers to respond in writing to other questions. Based on responses, it was concluded that students indicated both reading fluency practice treatments helped them to become better readers. Teachers found some initial problems in implementing the reading fluency practice treatments. However, as the year progressed, students and teachers seemed to enjoy the time for practice. Toward the end of the year, students expressed fatigue with reading fluency practice, but this may have reflected a general fatigue with schooling. Also, students seemed to concur with the observations that ScSR and GROR were enjoyable and useful, and they both lead to increased confidence in their abilities as readers. Therefore, it can be stated that ScSR, along with GROR, are successful in increasing students' reading rates and reading comprehension, while ScSR is more successful in increasing students' reading with expression.
Heidi Trudel (2007) concluding that more research was needed to determine if SSR should continue to be part of most children's school day, found evidence that an alternative to SSR, called Independent Reading (IR), can be very successful. There are five key elements which make IR different from SSR:
1. The teacher provides guidance in the students' text selections.
2. Students keep records of what they read.
3. Students reflect on what they read.
4. Both teacher and students participate in mini-lessons and discussions from time to time.
5. The teacher is not reading during the entire reading block (unless modeling a strategy with a student; Fountas & Pinnell, 2001).
Studies supporting IR have found that students tend to be more engaged during reading time when they provide reflections on what they have read. Studies have also shown that engaging in discourse and discussion during reading time can be beneficial for students' reading achievement as well as reading attitudes (Trudel, 2007, p. 310). Trudel decided to conduct a bit of research on her own to decide if SSR or IR would be better for her classroom. There were sixteen students in the class in grades 3 and 4.
Prior to this study, SSR had been implemented in the classroom for 30 minutes a day right before lunch. During this time, students self-selected books and were expected to read alone and silently. Trudel sat at the front of the room and read books. Students could sit at their own desks or elsewhere in the room as long as they weren't bothering anyone. No accountability or follow up activities were attached to this reading time. After students had participated in SSR for five weeks, they switched to IR for the following six weeks. Trudel collected data on observations and assessments during both the SSR and IR periods to compare student attitudes and reading behaviors during the implementation of IR and SSR. Students were also given a reading attitude inventory. After the study, Trudel found that the reading attitude scores of 11 out of the 16 students decreased slightly after switching from SSR to IR. However, her observations suggested an increase in overall reading attitudes after students switched from SSR to IR. The observations also revealed that negative behaviors increased as SSR continued, but they stopped altogether by the end of the IR portion of the study.
After the implementation of IR, 14 out of the 16 students increased their on-task time during silent reading. The majority of the 16 students were more frequently on task during IR than they were during SSR. More appropriate books were chosen during IR as well. Based on her results, Trudel has chosen to use IR in her classroom.
Sonia L. Lee-Daniels, concerned when she found her SSR block not being as successful as she had hoped, decided to tweak her SSR block to help her students become intrinsically motivated to read. Before making changes to her SSR block, Lee-Daniels researched SSR and DEAR time. She found that the Manning and Manning's (1984) study showed that DEAR works best when children share books, either in a conference with the teacher or in literature discussions with peers. Lee-Daniels (2000) also found that Cameron and Pierce's (1994) meta-analysis of 96 experimental studies on the effect of rewards found that verbal praise enhances intrinsic motivation, and that overall, rewards do not decrease intrinsic motivation. However, tangible rewards promised without regard to a standard of performance have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. Based on her research, Lee-Daniels decided what changes needed to be made to her SSR block. She found that DEAR time worked best in her classroom when students read not only individually, but with one another. Lee-Daniels also found that instead of using extrinsic rewards, she would simply recognize a student's accomplishment with an announcement that his/her bookworm had moved to a different interval, to help students become more intrinsically motivated.
Based on these findings, it can be concluded that many teachers and researchers have found SSR, utilized just as it is, can be successful. However, many others have found that changes should be made to the SSR program so that students are more engaged in reading, are closely monitored, and can be held accountable for what they are reading. They find that SSR is not structured enough for students and does not efficiently engage students in reading.
Reflection
Through my research, I have found that there are two sides to this argument concerning SSR. Some believe that SSR is sufficient as is, while others believe changes must be made to it or that other programs are superior, and both sides provide studies to support their beliefs. Since these studies have shown success for both sides, I can't make a decision on which program to use based solely on research. This leads me to believe that I must consider my students when deciding which program is best. Although I believe that SSR is a great program, I do realize that it does have weaknesses which can be addressed through providing more structure and monitoring or simply using other programs such as IR and ScSR.
The study of this topic has been especially important to me because I want my students to enjoy reading by themselves while also being engaged and learning. In order to achieve this goal, I must know what types of programs are out there, how to implement them successfully, and the statistics associated with them. This study has allowed me to learn about the SSR program, as well as IR and ScSR. Increasing my knowledge about all of these programs will help me to better choose the appropriate program for my classroom in the future.
Knowing that I can tweak the SSR program to better meet the needs of my students or even decide to implement a completely different program makes me more comfortable when thinking about my future classroom. This research has broadened my knowledge about reading programs so that I can choose which program or combination of programs is right for the students in my future classroom. This research has also strengthened my belief in the idea that students all learn differently and that their needs must be taken into consideration before implementing any program.
