Note: After reading this article, please visit the transcript of the discussion forum to view readers' comments. For links to related postings in Reading Online, click here.

Sustained silent reading (SSR) in the classroom involves students in reading self-selected material for an extended period. In some schools, SSR-type programs are called “DEAR” (drop everything and read), “SQUIRT” (silent, quiet, uninterrupted individualized reading time), or “USSR” (uninterrupted sustained silent reading). Although there are variations in format and implementation, the basic principles of time and ownership are the same.

The classroom use of SSR grew out of concern for student reading achievement. The program is based on the belief that self-selection motivates students to read with interest, and the resulting extended period of practice improves their reading achievement (Karweit & Slavin, 1981; Marliave, Fisher, & Dishaw, 1978). Another important element of SSR is modeling, based on the idea that effective learning results from following the example of another's model behavior (Bandura, 1986). As Hunt (1970) first described SSR, everyone in the school (students, teachers, administrators, secretaries, maintenance staff, etc.) was required to stop her or his usual work to read. Because everyone reads at the same time, students understand that the adults think that reading is important enough to engage in it themselves as a scheduled part of the busy school day.

Studies indicate that students who engage in SSR improve in both reading achievement and attitude toward reading (Bowermaster, 1986; Dionisio, 1989; Farrel, 1982; Oberlin & Shurgarman, 1989; Pilgreen & Krashen, 1993; Pyle, 1990). In addition, the kind of wide reading that occurs during SSR broadens students' background knowledge, providing them with a better base from which to relate to their subject area texts (Grubaugh, 1986). And the benefits of SSR seem to extend beyond the years of formal schooling. Tunnel and Jacobs (1989) found that adults who had been involved in a free reading or SSR program as students read more than did other adults. And adults who read more participate more in society and enter the workforce at higher levels (Guthrie, Shafer, Wang, & Afflerbach, 1995).

As SSR has become part of the curriculum in countless schools and districts, teachers have faced numerous challenges in implementing the program. In order to ascertain just what decisions teachers must make about key aspects of SSR, we constructed a 35-question survey that we hoped would yield a base of knowledge about how challenges were being handled in individual classrooms. The questions focused on participation (Who initiates the program? Who participates? Are they satisfied with the program?), organization (How often is it done? At what time of day?), material (Who chooses the material? What kinds of material are chosen?), and evaluation (Are there follow-up activities? Are grades given?). Since challenges in SSR implementation are often similar from classroom to classroom, the information gained from the survey responses may provide direction for educators who are interested in using this particular approach as part of their literacy programs.

Methods

The survey sample included 96 seventh-grade reading teachers from 32 school districts in 5 northeastern Pennsylvania (USA) counties (Luzerne, Wyoming, Susquehanna, Wayne, and Lackawanna). The population of these counties is 655,588, 65 percent of which is urban and the remaining 35 percent rural. The survey included multiple-choice and open-ended questions, along with questions using a ten-point Likert scale. It was piloted with seventh-grade reading teachers to ensure clarity of wording of the questions and of the directions for completion. Adjustments were made on the basis of feedback from the pilot.

Along with the survey, each teacher in the sample received an accompanying letter that described the purpose of our research as “an effort to gain a better understanding of the extent to which sustained silent reading is being utilized...[in order to determine how] we can better serve our students.” The teachers could request to receive a copy of the survey results, and they were told that their completion of the survey would enter them in a raffle for a $20 gift certificate from a school supply store. Follow-up letters were sent to those who had not responded two weeks after the initial mailing.

The decision to sample seventh-grade teachers was based on a number of factors. Beginning in the fifth grade or thereabouts, students often begin to change classes on a fairly rigid schedule during each school day. This practice of allotting a certain number of minutes to each subject area usually continues through high school. Therefore, from middle school onward teachers have numerous instructional goals and objectives that must be met during fixed time periods, and they must decide on the activities they will implement in order to achieve these goals and objectives. They must consider how much -- if any -- of this quite limited time they will devote to SSR.

In addition, when students reach the middle school years, they usually develop interests not expressly supported by community or school. Students of this age often enjoy reading nonacademic material such as comic books or fan magazines that do not form part of the curriculum, and occasionally they show a preference for books that include violence or sexually explicit content. Such selections pose a particular challenge for teachers who must balance appropriateness of text versus issues of personal preference and censorship.

Results

Questions Focused on Participation (survey questions 1-4, 6-8, 14, 24, 27, 28, 30-33)

Two out of three teachers (67%) indicated that SSR was currently used in their schools. Nonusers of SSR had been teaching reading an average of 3 years longer than users. In schools employing SSR, reading classes were estimated at 31 students with an average total seventh-grade enrollment of 197. Among schools not employing SSR, reading classes were estimated at 24 students with an average seventh-grade enrollment of 172. Differences in terms of enrollment and class size between the user and nonuser groups were not statistically significant.

Teachers at 20 of the 23 schools (87%) where SSR was not currently in place indicated that they had used the program in the past. Lack of time and issues related to the students -- such as their ability level or their coming to class without reading material -- were cited as reasons that the program was no longer implemented. In approximately three-quarters of these schools, teachers were at least partly responsible for the decision to stop the SSR programs (see Figure 1). More specifically, the decision to stop SSR was made jointly by administrators and teachers in 48 percent of these schools, while teachers were the sole decision makers in 29 percent. In 10 percent of the schools, administrators made the decision to stop the program, and in 14 percent, individuals other than teachers or administrators were the decision makers.

Among those schools where SSR was in use, it had been part of the reading program for an average of 6.8 years. Interestingly, while teachers were primarily responsible for the cessation of the program in schools where it had been discontinued, they were also instrumental in introducing SSR into the curriculum. Teachers reported that they were solely responsible for the implementation of the program in 63 percent of the schools surveyed, while an additional 35 percent worked with administrators to initiate the program. In only 2 percent of schools were other individuals reported as having been responsible for the introduction of the program.

The reasons that SSR had been introduced into the schools that continued to use it reflected the original goals for the program. Teachers indicated that they wanted to model the value of reading, provide students with the opportunity to read, and increase their students' reading vocabulary through active modeling.

It is interesting to note that SSR was used by all individuals in the building in very few schools (2%), in stark contrast to one of the basic precepts of the program. This may be explained by the fact that individual teachers are making the decision to implement SSR, rather than administrators mandating the practice for an entire building or district. However, among schools where SSR was in use, 80 percent of the teachers reported that they themselves always or usually read while the students did, and 17 percent reported that they read sometimes. Only 1 respondent reported never reading during SSR.

Teacher satisfaction with the SSR program was assessed using a ten-point Likert scale, where 1 indicated extreme dissatisfaction and 10 indicated extreme satisfaction. The average rating among respondents was 7.5, indicating that teachers are very satisfied with the program. This is not surprising because these teachers have a strong voice in decision making regarding SSR initiation and implementation. Additionally, the average rating of 7.9 that survey respondents assigned to perceived student satisfaction indicates that teachers believe that their students are also very satisfied with SSR. This, too, is not surprising since it is likely that part of the teachers' satisfaction is derived from the apparent student satisfaction with the program.

Questions Focused on Organization (survey questions 9-13)

Schools in the survey sample varied considerably in the frequency with which they used SSR in their curricula (see Figure 2). On average, SSR occurred 3 days per week, although approximately half the schools used the program less often (40% implemented it on 1 day only and 14% on 2 days) while 38 percent used it more often (12% implemented it on 4 days per week and 26% on 5 days). Further, while the average school spent 22 minutes per day in SSR, the range was from 4 to 50 minutes.

Four of ten teachers indicated that they would like to spend more time on SSR because they felt that students enjoyed it and that it motivated them to read. However, 59 percent of respondents indicated that they would not choose to increase the time spent on SSR because of overall time constraints in their classrooms. No teachers currently using SSR indicated that they would like to decrease the time allotted to it in their reading programs. Further, in the majority of schools surveyed (78%) the time allocated to SSR had remained stable from the preceding year, with only 8 percent of schools opting to reduce time spent in the activity. When teachers did decide to reduce time spent on the program, it was usually because of a perception that individual students were less responsive to it or less strong academically. These students were viewed as needing skills instruction, including vocabulary, more urgently than SSR. Some teachers (15%) indicated that they employed SSR at the beginning of the school year but discontinued it at some point because of the other demands of the curriculum.

In 85 percent of the schools where SSR was in use, the program occurred at a specific time of day, perhaps as a way to provide a transition between activities. Teachers indicated that they most often chose to have students engage in SSR during the last part of an instructional period, at the beginning of a period, at the beginning of the day, or on a specific day of the week (usually Friday).

Questions Focused on Material (survey questions 17-22, 25, 26)

By definition, SSR is based on student self-selection of reading material. However, teachers did report monitoring students' selections in various ways. Approximately one school in five (22%) was very restrictive, requiring that students select their reading material for SSR from a school reading list. Thirty-five percent of schools were somewhat less restrictive; they provided lists of recommended reading. Lists of both required and recommended reading were reported as having been compiled by the reading teachers themselves, librarians, or English teachers, or were drawn from textbook supplements. Student input on books for these lists was apparently not sought.

Sixty-nine percent of the teachers discouraged certain types of reading material, such as comics, magazines, textbooks, and newspapers, as well as material on certain topics that they deemed “unsuitable.” Teachers were particularly concerned about pornography and violence. Of the 80 percent of teachers who reported reading themselves during SSR, books were the most popular choice by far at 65 percent, followed by magazines (15%) and newspapers (10%).

At times, students came to class without any reading material for SSR. Typically, teachers handled this problem in a low-key way (see Figure 3). Seventy-seven percent of the teachers in our survey reported that they provided material, while 11 percent allowed students to make a selection from the class library, a collection maintained in 93 percent of SSR classrooms. Some teachers (8%) indicated that they lowered a student's grade if SSR materials were forgotten, and only 4 percent responded with disciplinary action.

Questions Focused on Evaluation (survey questions 15, 16)

The majority of the teachers (65%) did not evaluate students' SSR activities in any way, in keeping with the original design of the program. These teachers seemed strongly committed to a system free of grades, commenting, among other things, that “reading should be a spark to ignite a fire -- grades tend to throw water on the spark” and “if it is graded, it defeats the purpose of Reading Class...to become life-long readers.” The 35 percent of teachers who did assign grades seemed similarly committed to their approach. They made comments such as “In order to value reading, students must be graded on the act of reading” and “It makes them accountable.”

Of those teachers who did assign grades, oral and written book reports, journals or logs, teacher-made tests, discussion, conferences, oral questioning, and projects were cited as methods of evaluation. Some teachers also reported using the Accelerated Reader (AR) program, a commercial package that has students read books from a list (determined by the program's developers) and take computer -based comprehension tests on those books. Rewards and recognition are often given to those who read a certain number of books and pass the accompanying tests. Even if students are free to choose their reading material for SSR, in schools where AR is also in use it seems likely that books from the AR list will be selected most frequently since reading them affords the possibility of rewards and recognition.

Discussion

The practice of setting aside a part of the school day for silent reading is alive and well, based on the sample in the current study. Despite the fact that a few teachers have decided to discontinue the use of SSR, most continue to use some form of silent reading. In addition, most of the teachers who implement SSR express satisfaction with the program, possibly because of its strong element of teacher empowerment. For the most part, teachers feel that SSR helps them to achieve goals common to many reading curricula: developing students' positive attitude to reading, improving their achievement, and fostering in them a life-long habit of reading for information and enjoyment. Teachers are also often allowed to determine how SSR will be implemented in their classrooms. When teachers are given the opportunity to select and design instructional practices, their commitment to and satisfaction with these practices often increases, and they become more successful. Furthermore, SSR, which encourages students' whole-hearted engagement in independent reading, gives teachers the opportunity to design a practice with their students' needs and preferences firmly in mind.

However, the fact that teachers often make the instructional decisions about implementation of SSR also raises some question about the integrity of the practice as it was first described by Hunt (1970). In many cases, for example, teachers or administrators restrict students' selection of reading material, but when choice is removed, intrinsic motivation to read may be diminished (Gottfried, 1990). On the other hand, it seems likely that most educators and others in the community would agree that youngsters should not be allowed to read certain material, particularly pornographic or excessively violent content. The difficulty lies in determining who will judge which material is unacceptable, and by what criteria.

Teachers and others in the community also generally believe that students should read material that is well written, interesting, and full of ideas. This probably explains some schools' and teachers' restrictions on comic books, magazines, and newspapers in favor of “literature.” It can reasonably be argued, however, that if students are allowed to read material that interests them -- which, for seventh graders might include comic books -- then as their tastes and needs change, their experience with reading for pleasure will inspire them to read more widely, perhaps eventually selecting texts that educators would generally agree are “worthwhile.”

In order to “protect” students while still allowing them some choice, personnel in some schools and districts develop lists of required or recommended readings for SSR. Given the increased interest in such issues in the community and the trend in the United States to involve families in school literacy programs, it is surprising that parents do not often become involved in development of reading lists. Also surprising is that students are not more involved in the selection process -- something that could contribute to development of intrinsic motivation. Future research should explore the relationship between student input in development of reading lists and their satisfaction with and motivation to participate in SSR programs. It would also be interesting to devise and implement a model in which school personnel, parents, and students have input into guidelines for selection of material for SSR, and to explore the resulting implications for issues relevant to censorship, inclusion of parents in literacy programs, and maximization of students' intrinsic motivation to read.

Although student choice of reading material may not often be completely unrestricted, many teachers who use SSR do give thought to the element of self-selection as an intrinsic motivator when they organize their classrooms. The widespread establishment of classroom libraries may be at least partly an effort to make books readily available to students. In addition, teachers often have a supply of books for those who come unprepared for SSR. Possibly, these teachers believe that the goals of SSR justify their structuring of the experience, while those who take disciplinary action or give lower grades in response to students' forgetting their reading material focus more on the goal of students' development of personal responsibility. Reflection on their goals and objectives for the program would be helpful to teachers as they plan for the implementation of SSR.

While it may be desirable for teachers to make the decisions about implementation of SSR in their own classrooms, it is unfortunate that some decide to exclude low-achieving students from this part of the curriculum. All too often, these students are relegated to instruction in low-level skills when they could profit considerably from more interesting activities (Allington & Walmsley, 1995). As stated earlier, several studies have shown that SSR can result in improved attitude toward reading and gains in reading achievement, with positive effects lasting into adulthood. Surely low-achieving students would benefit from exposure to such a program. Research on the effects of SSR with low-achieving students would give teachers valuable information for planning balanced literacy programs for this population.

Another area in which implementation of SSR has departed from the program's original design is in the area of modeling. The practice of requiring everyone in the school building to read during a designated SSR period is apparently not widespread. Since individual teachers in the school are often involved in the decision to implement SSR, it follows that some may decide not to participate; administrators and other staff may also choose not to read. Because teacher commitment is a contributing factor to the success of instructional practices, continued support of individual teacher choice regarding participation in SSR is justified. However, our survey suggests that even if everyone in the building does not participate, the element of modeling is still present because the overwhelming majority of teachers who use the program read along with their students during SSR periods. Because they choose most often to read books, we might infer that they are following the same guidelines for selection of reading material that they set for their students.

The issue of evaulation and the use of follow-up activities is interesting, both because it was not part of the original design of SSR and because teachers express such firm opinions about their decisions in this area. Teachers probably make their decisions based on their philosophies and experiences, their perception of student needs, and the cultural contexts of their communities. On one hand, most teachers in the sample felt that follow-up activities and grades contradicted an essential element of SSR: to provide an opportunity for pleasure reading. On the other hand, some teachers in the sample considered follow-up activities and grades as indications of the value placed on independent reading -- that is, it is as important as any other academic activity. In addition, some felt that grades themselves inspire achievement.

Teachers in both groups appear to be following different practices for the same reason: they recognize independent reading as a means of promoting reading achievement, and they believe in the importance of motivation. The area in which they differ substantially is in the type of motivation they feel is necessary for their students. Those who do not evaluate or assign follow-up activities rely on SSR stimulating students' intrinsic motivation to read (Stipek, 1993). For them, the act of reading is an end in itself, and they feel secure in the belief that intrinsic motivation is more powerful than external recognition or reward (Gottfried, 1990). It is also possible that, in their judgment, students in the seventh grade no longer need extrinsic motivation to engage in reading (Maggart & Zintz, 1992; Stipek).

The second group of teachers may feel that at times seventh graders need some extrinsic incentive in order to increase their intrinsic motivation (Lepper, 1983). This difference of opinion may center on the fact that the middle school years are a time of transition for many children; indeed, intrinsic motivation is seen to a greater degree in secondary school. Follow-up activities also provide teachers with an opportunity to give feedback to their students, and feedback itself can increase intrinsic motivation, particularly if it is specific, frequent, and immediate (Bandura, 1969; Kulik & Kulik, 1988).

Teachers planning to implement SSR in their own classrooms must consider what types of motivation are most appropriate for their students. For those who view follow-up activities and grades as desirable, SSR as a component of a reading workshop might be appropriate. In this model, students independently read self-selected material (which may or may not be limited by teacher-imposed guidelines or by reading lists, either recommended or required) and respond to it in a variety of ways. They may do some writing about their chosen text, engage in discussions with peers, create and present a dramatic piece, or work on some other project that extends their engagement with the reading material. In addition to providing some extrinsic incentive for reading, the rationale for these follow-up activities centers on the following precepts:

Deciding Whether and How to Implement the Program

References

Allington, R.L., & Walmsley, S.A. (Eds.). (1995). No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America's elementary schools. Newark, DE, and New York: International Reading Association and Teachers College Press.
Back

Atkinson, J.W. (1964). Introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Back to “A Word About Motivation”

Atwell, N. (1989). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Back to “A Word About Reading Workshop”

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Back to “A Word About Motivation”
Back to main article

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Back

Bowermaster, M. (1986). It's time to SQUIRT. Momentum, 17(4), 54-55.
Back

Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in one student-centered classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Back to “A Word About Reading Workshop”

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.
Back

Dionisio, M. (1989). Filling empty pockets: Remedial readers make meaning.English Journal, 78(1), 33-37.
Back

Farrel, E. (1982). SSR as the core of a junior high reading program. Journal of Reading, 26(1), 48-51.
Back

Gottfried, A.E (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 525-538.
Back
Back (2nd citation)

Grubaugh, S. (1986). Initiating sustained silent reading in your school. Clearing House, 60(4), 169-172.
Back

Guthrie, J.T., Shafer, W., Wang, Y.Y., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Relationships of instruction and amounts of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(1), 8-25.
Back

Hunt, L.C. (1970). Effect of self-selection, interest, and motivation upon independent, instructional, and frustrational levels. Reading Teacher, 24(2), 146-151.
Back
Back (2nd citation)

Karweit, N., & Slavin, R. (1981). Measurement and modeling choices in studies of time and learning. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 157-171.
Back

Klausmeier, H.J., Jeter, J.T., Quilling, M.R., Fryer, D.A., & Allen, P.S. (1975). Individually guided motivation. Madison, WI: Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.
Back to “A Word About Motivation”

Kulik, J.A. & Kulik, C.I. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research Journal, 21, 79-97.
Back to “A Word About Motivation”
Back to main article

Lepper, M.R. (1983). Extrinsic reward and intrinsic motivation: Implications for the classroom. In J.M. Levine & M.C. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning (pp. 281-317). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back to “A Word About Motivation”
Back to main article

Maggart, Z.R., & Zintz, M.V. (1992). The reading process: The teacher & the learner (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Back to “A Word About Motivation”
Back to main article

Marliave, R., Fisher, C., & Dishaw, M. (1978). Academic learning time and student achievement in the B-C period (Tech. Rep. No. 29). San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
Back

Noden, H., & Vacca, R.A. (1994). Whole language in middle and secondary classrooms. New York: HarperCollins.
Back to “A Word About Reading Workshop”

Oberlin, K.J., & Shurgarman, S.L. (1989). Implementing reading workshop with middle school LD readers. Journal of Reading, 32, 628-687.
Back

Pilgreen, J., & Krashen, S. (1993). Sustained silent reading with English as a second language high school students: Impact on reading comprehension, reading frequency, and reading enjoyment. School Library Media Quarterly, 22(1), 21-23.
Back

Pyle, V.S. (1990). SSRW--Beyond silent reading. Journal of Reading, 30, 379-380.
Back

Ryan, R. & Stiller, J. (1991). The social contexts of internalization: Parent and teacher influences on autonomy, motivation, and learning. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 115-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Back to “A Word About Motivation”

Stipek, D.J. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Back

Tunnel, M.O., & Jacobs, J.S. (1989). Using real books: Research findings on literature-based reading instruction. Reading Teacher, 42(7), 470-477.
Back

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society (Trans. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Soubermn). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Back

Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted February 2000
© 2000 International Reading Association, Inc. ISSN 1096-1232