Ltl.appstate.edu



The Effects of Structured, Silent, Sustained Reading on Student Engagement, Reading Fluency and ComprehensionKaren Massey-CerdaThird GradeLeslie RothenbergerFourth GradeLyle Creek Elementary SchoolBackground/IntroductionWe currently teach at Lyle Creek Elementary in Catawba County. Karen is originally from the United Kingdom and came to America in 2001 with the Visiting International Faculty Program. She has fourteen years of experience. She taught kindergarten for twelve years in both the U.K. and in America. She currently is in her second year teaching third grade. Leslie has seventeen years of experience. She taught kindergarten for fifteen years and is in her second year teaching fourth grade. Lyle Creek Elementary has approximately 540 students with 63% receiving free and reduced lunch. We are a Title I school located in a low socioeconomic community. The population at Lyle Creek is very diverse. Our students come from many ethnic backgrounds such as Hmong, Hispanic, Romanian, African American, and Caucasian. Based on IRI and E.O.G. data and the fact that research has shown (Allington, 2001) that on-grade level students need to read at least 90 minutes per day to make a year’s worth of growth and that below level readers need to read at least 120 minutes per day to make a year’s worth of growth, we were very concerned that our students were not meeting these goals and would therefore be unable to show adequate growth at the end of the year. This led us to examine our current silent, sustained reading practices. In our third and fourth grade classrooms many students were not consistently engaged in silent, sustained reading (SSR). We also noticed that some students did not always choose books at their independent level for SSR. Prior to our study, our SSR time was occurring at different times during the week and for varying lengths of time. Due to an imposed schedule in both classrooms, it was difficult to find time to allow all students to read silently at their independent level. This also made conferencing with students about their reading extremely difficult. We wanted to determine if changing the structure and implementation of SSR would increase student engagement and have a positive effect on reading comprehension and fluency. ResearchIt is evident that current research indicates the importance of some type of silent, sustained reading in daily instruction. “In order to become a proficient reader, the student must understand individual reading skills that are taught directly in the classroom, but must also be able to transfer and apply them to independent reading in context”(Moore, Jones and Miller, 1980). According to Siah & Kwok (2010), studies have found positive effects from establishing an SSR program, such as a positive connection between SSR and students’ attitudes towards reading, and an improvement in vocabulary and reading skills (Gardiner, 2001). SSR operates along a continuum. At one end of this continuum is true SSR; a time in which students read books of their own choice and there is no teacher monitoring. In fact, the teacher reads as the students read. At the other end of the continuum is SSR in which teachers help students choose appropriate books, conference with students to discuss the book they are reading, and students respond to the text. Garan & DeVoogd (2008). Kelley & Clausen-Grace (2006) also found that building in opportunities for sharing ideas and discussions about text could be a powerful motivation for engaging readers. A thoughtful modification of SSR geared to the needs of a class can result in significant gains on formal assessments of wide reading, metacognitive awareness, and comprehension. Reutzel, Fawson, & Smith, (2008) found concerns with the implementation of SSR included the absence of teacher monitoring. They concluded that "without monitoring, teachers cannot be assured that students are in fact reading during SSR time." Scaffolded Silent Reading (ScSR) is one innovation of traditional SSR. "ScSR 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). They found this type of SSR to be as effective as guided repeated oral reading in promoting fluency (accuracy, rate, and expression). Heidi Trudel (2007), a teacher/researcher, also studied the effects of true SSR versus a structured independent reading time. Her SSR was the "pure" version of SSR. When she implemented the structured independent reading time she included the five key elements of independent reading as established by Fountas and Pinnell in 2001. These included teacher guidance in text selection, student records of what they were reading, student reflection, teacher and student participation in mini-lessons, and the teacher not reading for the entire reading block. Trudel (2007) found that almost all negative behaviors stopped when she implemented structured independent reading. She also found that students were choosing more appropriate texts during structured independent reading than they were during SSR. Educators hope that students will enjoy reading in school and begin to read outside of school as well, continuing to be readers in their adult lives. The SSR program supports these intentions because it allows students to read items of their choice for their own purposes, a practice very similar to one that adult readers use in their lives (Bylunt Ermitage & Van Sluys, 2007).This research has led us to believe that SSR is indeed a vital component of our daily reading instruction. However, we have concluded that a daily, modified version of SSR that includes teacher monitoring, conferencing, and guidance in appropriate text selection would yield more positive effects on engagement, fluency, and comprehension than traditional SSR. Therefore, our study focused on the following questions: ? Does having a consistent, daily, structured, SSR time increase student engagement in reading? ? Does having a consistent, daily, structured, SSR time have a positive effect on reading comprehension and fluency? ParticipantsIn Leslie’s fourth grade classroom there are twenty students; ten male and ten female. She has sixteen Caucasian, two Hispanic, and two Hmong students. Of these twenty students, ten are reading below grade level based on their third grade EOG scores. In Karen’s third grade classroom there are nineteen students; ten male and nine female. She has four Hispanic, two Hmong and 13 Caucasian. Two of the students are diagnosed with ADHD. Of these nineteen students, nine are below grade level based on their IRI scores. In looking at this data, we contemplated including only the below level readers in our study. However, we decided to include all students in our intervention. We felt this was important because we wanted to know what effects the intervention would have on all students, not just our below level readers. We also felt that one-on-one conferencing with each student would give us valuable insight related to students’ strengths and weaknesses in the area of comprehension. We felt that this information would aid us in our overall literacy instruction.InterventionFor our study we decided to implement a daily, structured SSR time into our literacy instruction. We discussed what SSR would like in our classrooms and then agreed to include the following components:15 minutes daily at the same time during the school day. Choice of seating.Teacher guidance in ensuring students were choosing independent level text.Conferencing with each student once per week on a rotation basis.Students respond to text in Reader Response notebooks two times per week. These were completed during the language arts block and not during SSR because we wanted to maximize the amount of time students spent reading.We implemented this intervention for four weeks.Data CollectionEngagementSince we were monitoring engagement, fluency, and comprehension in our study, we met to discuss each of these areas. We defined what each area would be or look like in our classroom to ensure that we were implementing the study in a similar, if not identical, manner. Together we defined engagement as follows: Engagement is exhibiting appropriate behaviors such as staying in area, focusing on text and reading silently. We used a checklist to record observations of inappropriate behaviors during SSR. The checklist was adapted from Kelley, M.J., & Clausen-Grace, N. (2007). Comprehension shouldn't be silent: From strategy instruction to student independence. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Here is a sample checklist for Leslie’s fourth grade classroom:We used this checklist daily during SSR time and recorded inappropriate behaviors for the week. We also used it for recording anecdotal notes during SSR. For example, participant #20 had eleven tally marks for continually looking up/around room because he was continually checking the time on the television and looking at the teacher. When he asked the question, “Are we going to recess?” a tally mark was placed in the column headed Talks. Participant #6 had two tally marks in the third column because she was thumbing through the pages of her book and not actually reading. Another participant, #14, had six tally marks for looking around the room because he was distracted by the rain and kept looking out the window. The tally marks were totaled at the end of the week to show the number of inappropriate behaviors for the class during SSR. We were able to see which types of inappropriate behaviors were occurring most frequently. Based on our definition of engagement, this checklist provided a quick and easy way to determine levels of engagement for each participant. We had daily conversations about the checklists and compared the types of inappropriate behaviors that were occurring in each classroom. We discussed what the participants were doing when we checked off an inappropriate behavior to ensure we were recording the same types of actions in the same columns. This was very beneficial and helped with the consistent collection of data using this tool.For our second measure of engagement, we conferenced once per week with all students during SSR. We met to select the questions we would use during student conferences. These questions came from a reading workshop we attended when we were moved from kindergarten to the upper grades. The workshop was presented by a curriculum specialist for Catawba County Schools. We chose these particular questions because they addressed specific comprehension skills and we felt as though students would not be able to answer these questions if they were not truly engaged in reading the book. The questions we chose to use are as follows: When we conferenced with each student their responses were recorded on a recording sheet. Here is an example from Karen’s third grade classroom.We also had anecdotal notes that were taken during SSR with which to measure engagement. We met daily and shared our observations. FluencyTogether we defined fluency as words read correctly per minute. To measure fluency we used the following two measures: IRI scores from January and April and fresh read passages from our Scott Foresman basal series. There are three different levels of passages; below grade level, on grade level, and above grade level. Students read one of these three levels of passages based on their January IRI instructional level. For example, if a student in Leslie’s room was instructional at fourth grade, they read the on level passage. If a student in Karen’s room was instructional at fourth grade or higher, then they read the above level passage. We administered these fluency checks three times during the study. When we administered the fluency checks we did not tell the students that we were counting words correct per minute. However, some students asked why they had to complete the task and we told them we were timing them as we had done previously with reading assessments. All students saw the stopwatch, but the emphasis was on reading the passage to the best of their prehensionWe defined comprehension as percentage correct of passage questions on the IRI. We measured comprehension using IRI scores from January and April and students’ written responses to questions in their reader response notebooks. The questions we used for the reader response notebooks also came from the reading workshop we attended. We chose these because they also addressed specific comprehension skills addressed in both the third and fourth grade curricula. The students responded in their notebooks twice per week during the language arts block. We decided to code student responses using the following codes: N=no comprehension, PC=partial comprehension and C=full comprehension. We met on a weekly basis to read and discuss these responses. ResultsEngagementFor our first measure of engagement, we totaled the inappropriate behaviors weekly and entered the data into the graph below for comparison. Inappropriate Behaviors During SSRThe data indicates that the third grade students were considerably more engaged during SSR than the fourth grade students. However, inappropriate behaviors did continue to decrease each week in the fourth grade classroom. In week three of the data collection, Karen’s classroom saw an increase in the number of inappropriate behaviors. When we analyzed the behavior checklist and anecdotal notes, this increase was attributed to a number of factors. One student had not had his ADHD medication, a parent interrupted SSR time, and a normally engaged student who reads on a 6th grade level was distracted. When Karen conferenced with him about his book he said that he was enjoying the book and it was at his independent level. He said he was just thinking about 'a lot of other things' that day. In looking at the checklists over the four week period, it was clear that not all students were exhibiting inappropriate behaviors. The majority of the inappropriate behaviors in Leslie’s room were exhibited by the struggling readers that had scored a level 1 or 2 on the third grade E.O.G. The majority of inappropriate behaviors occurred in the category of looking around the room. In Karen’s classroom, the majority of inappropriate behaviors also occurred in the same category and was exhibited by the two students diagnosed with ADHD and below grade level students. We did not use any behavioral interventions during this study because we felt like it would skew the data we were trying to collect for engagement. We did not want the students to be more engaged because we intervened and redirected behaviors. We wanted to see how engaged they were solely based on the SSR intervention. The overall decrease in inappropriate behaviors over the course of the study indicates that a daily, structured SSR program has positive effects on student engagement. The analysis of the student responses to conferencing questions yielded similar results. We met twice a week to review and discuss the student responses. We discussed the level of engagement based on the depth of the student responses. If a student was unable to address a question thoroughly, we checked book level and choice of text based on interest level. We also reviewed the behavior checklist and anecdotal notes to see if there were any factors that may have affected responses on the day of their conference. Overall, we felt that the conferencing was very beneficial and kept students engaged because they knew they were being held accountable for reading. We also felt that students enjoyed having this one-on-one time with the teacher. As teachers, we also enjoyed this time because it allowed us to give each student feedback on an individual basis. We also took our anecdotal notes and entered them into Wordle. The results are shown in the wordle below.The results of the data included in our wordle indicate that book choice was a key component to higher levels of engagement. Many students chose nonfiction and graphic novels based on high interest levels and were subsequently more engaged during SSR. For example, one student in Karen’s classroom said that he liked SSR ‘because [he] got to read the books [he] likes to read’. A student in Leslie’s room also indicated that he liked SSR because he could read nonfiction books. He stated, “Fiction is not my thing.” This student exhibited high levels of engagement because he was allowed to choose a text that he enjoyed. These genres were popular with both boys and girls. Students indicated that they liked to read these genres because they were interested in learning new things about a variety of topics. The humor included in the graphic novels was also a motivating factor for engagement during SSR.Fluency and ComprehensionParticipantsThird GradeIRI ScoresJanuaryInstructionalLevelJanuaryFluency(WCPM)JanuaryComp. %AprilInstructional LevelAprilFluency(WCPM)AprilComp. %161265861251002613686612687351145851338746129726150875512886511210064120724125100738710041029385114655158819386100387100103945138774113808638384123828639393133951004110741439886311084153104514124601627470267931726650264581828260276801927610028780The pre and post test IRI scores above indicate that during our intervention, above grade level students (participants 1-8) on average increased their fluency. Participants 9-13 are on grade level students who do still struggle with words correct per minute. Three students showed a moderate increase in fluency. The remaining participants are below grade level students. Three of these students also showed a slight increase in fluency. The comprehension results indicate that all students’ comprehension levels increased or remained constant apart from participants 7, 13 and 19. The lower comprehension scores for participants 7 and 13 reflect the fact that students read an on grade level passage in January but read a higher level passage in April with increased difficulty in comprehension questions. Participant 19 is a below grade level reader who may have been focusing on reading quickly. This could also be a reflection of his weekly fluency checks through aims web where he is told to read as quickly as he can.ParticipantsFourth GradeIRI ScoresJanuaryInstructionalLevelJanuaryFluency(WCPM)JanuaryComp. %AprilInstructionalLevelAprilFluency(WCPM)AprilComp. %141038641176823831003951003383100310293451458651341005310786282906 2629026960738410038387849610041078795108865126941041027939180113113793122551241048641148613310010049780144928641131001541039341218716410286411286174140864100100185104865115941941396541349320511151410793The pre and post IRI scores for Leslie’s fourth graders show some mixed results. Two of the three above grade level students demonstrated an increase in fluency and all three showed an increase in comprehension. Most students showed an increase in fluency or a minimal decrease with the exception of participant 17. Participants 5, 10 and 20 showed a decrease in both fluency and instructional level from January to April. We believe that this could be the result of the type of passage they read. The fourth grade level passage that they read in January was a nonfiction passage. Based on the data we collected for engagement, we feel as though these students are more interested in nonfiction passages and this could have affected their performance. We also noticed that several participants showed an increase in fluency and a decrease in comprehension. This may be an indication that when students focus on reading quickly, comprehension suffers. The overall increase in comprehension in third grade may suggest that teacher guidance in choosing an appropriate level book during SSR has a positive effect on comprehension. It should also be noted that Karen has a higher proportion of on and above level readers than Leslie. The third grade students were also more engaged during SSR. We feel that these factors could account for the differences in the comprehension scores. The results of our fluency checks using the fresh read passages are shown below.ParticipantsThird GradeBaselineMid - StudyPost110116415221761491533145136133416914216451421141386122839879796100816014115699194961095969111981041001291107100139812411614931039915122136128168615211217808574 18711017119638089ParticipantsFourth GradeBaselineMid - StudyPost1841011122757582364687641251301295546376647375076052728738292912413211510828998119089104129712010813768986148611410315889299168393111178286921811912211419109115137208599107Karen’s data indicates mixed results for fluency and did not reflect the gains in fluency shown on the students’ IRI scores. Overall, Leslie’s data indicated an increase in fluency. As a result of this we discussed and examined how the fresh read passages and the IRI passages compare in difficulty.Our second measure of comprehension was student responses in their reader response notebooks.Third Grade Reader Response Samples Fourth Grade Reader Response Samples The reader response notebooks yielded mixed results for comprehension in both classrooms. The third grade sample on the left was coded as PC= partial comprehension. This sample received this code for the following reasons: On day one, question one he states the authors purpose correctly but does not elaborate on how he knows this. His response to setting is limited in detail. On day two when he is writing about the main idea, he does not clearly summarize the main idea or support it with two details. The sample on the right was coded C= full comprehension. This student clearly explains the author’s purpose and supports it with evidence. Her responses about setting and character are detailed and are again supported with evidence from the text. The fourth grade sample on the left was coded as NC=no comprehension. This response was coded in this manner because her sentences were disjointed and her answers were not related to the questions. She was unable to clearly support her answers using evidence from the text. The sample on the right was coded C=full comprehension. This student was able to fully address the questions and supported them with evidence from the text. In question 1 she was also able to make an inference about what could be done to solve the problem in the story.We met and discussed student responses on a weekly basis. We felt that this helped eliminate personal biasin examining data.DiscussionThe results of our study correlate with the research we read about the benefits of a modified SSR program in the classroom. For the most part, we have seen positive changes in both fluency and engagement. We found that choice of seating, interest level and correct book level fostered positive attitudes toward SSR. We felt that the behavior checklist was a very useful tool and provided insight as to the types of inappropriate behaviors that were occurring in our classrooms. This is important because it indicates for Leslie’s students that perhaps 15 minutes was too long for SSR to begin with. Perhaps it would have been better to begin with 10 minutes and build from there when inappropriate behaviors were minimal during the 10 minute period. Including conferencing as a component of SSR is vital. Teachers can quickly gain valuable insight as to a student’s level of engagement and comprehension of a text. Without this component in an SSR program, student accountability and motivation to read would be negatively impacted. We encountered a problematic issue in our data collection for fluency. After we completed the mid-study fluency check and several of Karen’s students’ fluency scores dropped significantly, we began to examine the fluency passages more carefully. We compared the fresh read passages with the IRI passages at below, on, and above grade level and felt that the fresh read passages were more difficult. We question whether these passages, although differentiated, were truly on each child’s instructional level. We also considered that one reason for increased fluency on the fresh read passages, especially in Leslie’s class, was due to the fact that students knew they would not have to answer any comprehension questions after reading. This allowed students to focus on simply reading the words and not on understanding the text.The anecdotal notes from our study also indicate the importance of providing a wide selection of books for SSR that are geared toward students’ interests. We both recognize a need for more nonfiction and graphic novels in our classroom libraries. Without this provision, student engagement and motivation to read would significantly decrease. Again, student choice was a key factor in the success of our intervention.Even though the comprehension results from the reader response notebooks were mixed, we still feel that it is important to include written responses to text as part of an SSR program. This allows teachers to determine if students are able to take the skills taught during guided reading instruction and apply them to their independent reading. Examining these responses can also provide insight for future instruction and skills that need to be revisited. In Karen’s third grade classroom, the students have enjoyed SSR and engagement was apparent in their comments and discussions throughout the school day. They asked for SSR daily and commented on how much they love the consistent time, that it was quiet and they could read more, and that they were able to read the books they wanted to read. While Leslie’s fourth grade students consistently participated in SSR and inappropriate behaviors decreased, they have not fully embraced SSR as Karen’s students have done. We feel that because more of Leslie’s students are struggling readers, they simply do not enjoy reading. They are not confident in their abilities as readers and are likely to read only for academic purposes. They view it as something they need to do in order to pass a test. At the end of our study we decided to ask students the following questions in order to gauge true feelings about reading and SSR:How do you feel about reading? Why?What makes someone a good reader?What are things that someone can do to become a better reader?How do you decide what to read during SSR?If you were in charge of SSR, what changes would you make? Why?Students immediately asked if they could be honest or would they get in trouble if they said how they truly felt. We encouraged them to be completely honest in their responses. These two examples are from struggling readers in Leslie’s fourth grade classroom and reflect the negative attitude towards reading and SSR that many of her students demonstrated during our intervention. Below are the contrasting responses from Karen’s third grade students. Karen recorded their responses to the questions.Student 8Fun and sometimes I read…..it’s fun.Someone who sounds out words so you know what they mean when you read.Read, read, read…..for at least thirty minutes every single day.Yes because at my other school I read faster than my friends on a one minute test and …yes I pick the just right books as well.Nothing…I like it.Student 4I love to read and I get into books.Fluency…if you are reading aloud you have to speak in a good tone so everyone can hear you.Just read all the time.I choose fantasy books like Percy Jackson books.I would make it longer and read more.Whilst Leslie’s students are aware of the importance of reading and what it takes to become a better reader as stated in questions 2 and 3, they both would choose to shorten SSR time. This correlates with our discussion about the need to implement SSR in Leslie’s room for ten minutes initially. These responses are also important because they emphasize the importance of striving to foster a love for reading in these students, not only during school but also at home. Karen’s student responses again show that her students enjoyed SSR and overall have a much more positive attitude towards reading and SSR.Future DirectionsBased on the positive results that our study showed after implementing a daily, structured SSR program, we plan to continue this intervention in our classrooms.While her students expressed negative attitudes about reading in general, Leslie plans to continue the SSR program as it has been implemented. The fact that the inappropriate behaviors decreased each week throughout the study is encouraging. She hopes that by continuing the practice, especially student conferencing, she can improve student attitudes toward independent reading. If their attitudes about reading remain the same, it will be detrimental to their success in school and in life. It is important to note that teachers should carefully consider the ability level of students and their attitudes about reading when implementing an SSR program in the classroom. This was shown in the responses from Leslie’s fourth grade students about reading and SSR. We would also like to consider using blogging as an alternative to the reader response notebook. It would be interesting to see if this would increase engagement and the depth of student responses. We would also like to incorporate a wider choice for student seating such as bean bags and back rests in order to enhance the environment of SSR to determine if making it seem less like an academic task and more like a fun, relaxing activity would increase engagement.Consistency of implementation is also vital to the success of an SSR program. With the constant demands placed on teachers throughout the school day it is often difficult to drop everything and read for 15 minutes. However, without consistency, the benefits of structured SSR will be diminished. Students will not see the value or importance of SSR, and reading in general, if it occurs on a hit-or-miss basis.ResourcesSiah, P., & Kwok, W. (2010). The value of reading and the effectiveness of sustained silent reading. The Clearing House, 83(5). Kelley, M.J. & Clausen-Grace, N. (2006). R5: The sustained silent reading makeover that transformed readers. The Reading Teacher, 60,148-156. Trudel, H. (2007). Making data-driven decisions: silent reading. The Reading Teacher, 61(4). Garan, E.M., & DeVoogd, G. (2008). The benefits of sustained silent reading: scientific research and common sense converge. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 336–344. Reutzel, D.R., Fawson, P.C., & Smith, J.A. (2008). Reconsidering silent sustained reading (SSR):?An exploratory study of scaffolded silent reading (ScSR). Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 102(1). Bylunt Ermitage, J. & Van Sluys, K. (2007). Relaxing, and having fun: third-grade perspectives on silent sustained reading. Illinois Reading Council Journal Vol. 35(2). ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download