Teaching Tips

Курс иши бажаришнинг календарь режаси

Ҳафталар Қисмлар	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
Курс иши режаси
Кириш
Асосий қисм
Хулоса
Адабиётлар
Иловалар
Расмийлаштириш
Текшириш
Ҳимоя
Топшириш

Раҳбар______________________________________________________________

Evaluating Sustained Silent Reading in Reading Classes

Plan:

Introduction

1.1 Sustained silent reading

1.2 For Students Who Are Not Yet Fluent, Silent Reading Is Not the Best Use of Classroom Time

2.1 10 ways to get the most out of silent reading in schools

2.2 Sustained Silent Reading in the Classroom

2.3 Benefits of Sustained Silent Reading

Conclusion

References

Introduction

A Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) program has been implemented in schools through the Hong Kong Extensive Reading Scheme in English, which has been initiated and developed by the Education Department for 10 years. The aim of the SSR is to help students develop a good habit of reading and improve their English proficiency in the long run. In sustained silent reading, 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. SSR is nothing new. The term Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading was introduced as early as 1960. McCracken (1971) set forth some basic rules for initiating SSR. Since then, it has been implemented in reading classes at all grade levels. According to several research studies, effects of SSR on students' reading include improvement in reading skills and vocabulary acquisition, as measured by reading test scores, developing a positive attitude towards reading and cultivating a better reading habit. The discussion of the effects of SSR above is based on the SSR research on native speakers of English. There are a few studies that show SSR can be useful for English as a Second Language students. In Pilgreen & Krashen's study (1993), 125 high school ESL students in grades 10 through 12 participated in SSR for 12 to 15 minutes per day and were encouraged to continue their reading at home. Results indicate that students clearly enjoyed SSR. They reported that they engaged in outside reading more and liked leisure reading better after the 16-week SSR program. Students also showed gains in the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Comprehension Test. However, there is a lack of a control group in this study. It may affect the reliability of the findings, but the results are suggestive. Another study (Petrimoulx) involved 16 foreign students from 10 countries in the International Language Institute of the University of South Florida. Students were divided into 3 groups. Two groups received no SSR, while the third group did SSR 10 minutes a day for 15 weeks. Pre and Post reading comprehension tests and vocabulary tests were administered. The target group showed reading comprehension and vocabulary gains greater than the two control groups, but the gains are too small to be considered significant from a statistical point of view. A survey in this study does reveal a high degree of acceptance of the SSR activity and an increase of at-home reading.
A study that shows significant results was conducted in India (Aranha), a school in the suburbs of Bombay that uses English as its medium of instruction. SSR was introduced twice a week in one fourth grade class. Attitudes towards reading and reading achievement of the children in the experimental class were compared to those children in a control class that used the same language program without SSR. The results of the study show a high gain in reading attitudes in the SSR group and a loss in attitude scores in the control group. Girls of the experimental SSR group showed significant improvement in achievement scores compared with girls in the control group. Aranha concludes that SSR is a suitable classroom procedure for schools in Asia and Africa since it attempts to improve students' attitudes towards reading and their achievement in reading Elley & Mangubhai emphasize the important role of high-interest story reading in second language learning. They claim that exposure of the second language is normally planned, restricted, gradual and largely artificial. The amount of exposure is also limited (54, 55). Second language learners will benefit from total immersion in the target language. To test the "Book Flood Hypothesis": exposure to large numbers of story books will have an effect on general language competence, Elley & Mangubhai conducted a study in Fiji. The findings of this study and a follow-up study a year later demonstrate that there has been great progress in English language growth in the Book Flood groups.

1.1 Sustained silent reading

Sustained silent reading (SSR) is a form of school-based recreational reading, or free voluntary reading, where students read silently in a designated time period every day in school. An underlying assumption of SSR is that students learn to read by reading constantly. Successful models of SSR typically allow students to select their own books and require neither testing for comprehension nor book reports. Schools have implemented SSR under a variety of names, such as "Drop Everything and Read (DEAR)", "Free Uninterrupted Reading (FUR)", or "Uninterrupted sustained silent reading (USSR)". According to advocates such as educational researcher Stephen Krashen, SSR has been shown to lead to gains in several literacy domains.^[1] Krashen looked at a large number of studies to see what conclusions were supported by empirical evidence.
He found that with respect to reading comprehension, SSR is successful; 51 of 54 studies found that students in an SSR program scored as well as, or better than, other students in this regard. It is most successful when used for longer periods of time.^[2]
Furthermore, SSR was shown to create a reading habit. Several years after participating in a program, students reported more reading.^[3] One study found that a single SSR session was enough to change attitudes about reading. Long-term effects of SSR include better vocabularies, better writing skills, better spelling, and greater knowledge of literature, science, and "practical knowledge."^[4]
Several studies noted that children in poor neighborhoods had less access to books at home and in libraries, and often the books available to them were not books that they wanted to read.^[5] Prize-winning books were often not especially popular with children. Comic books, on the other hand, are often not available in libraries, but are popular with many boys, and reading comics was found to increase reading of other books.^[6]
Three studies showed that providing rewards for reading did not improve reading development. Krashen believes this is because the presence of a reward suggests that an activity is work, and makes it less appealing.^[7]
In two studies, teachers noted fewer discipline problems when an SSR program was being used.^[8]
Advocates also point out that students in SSR programs have more positive attitudes toward reading than students who do not participate in SSR programs.
The National Reading Panel (NRP) in the United States meta-analyzed all quasi-experimental and experimental studies of SSR and challenged the claim that SSR has positive effects. The panel stated that the literature contained insufficient numbers of quasi-experimental or experimental studies on SSR to validate its use as a sound educational practice. The panel also noted that the absence of quantitative evidence was not evidence against the practice in itself. They recommended further study of SSR.
Jim Trelease, educator and author of The Read-Aloud Handbook, is one of many reading advocates who has disputed the impartiality of these findings. He points out that the NRP included only 14 research tests in their summary, out of 54 studies he identified that might have been used. In 10 of the studies used by NRP, SSR students performed the same as other students, and in 4 studies, SSR students did better.^[9]
However, some argue the NRP is not impartial at all. In fact, the NRP only included studies that were verifiable and with scientifically credible designs. The NRP had rigorous guidelines for the studies it would include. For example, the NRP did not include studies without control groups. The fact that the NRP only analyzed 14 SSR studies, shows that the other studies were not scientifically credible.
In the full group of 54 studies, SSR students performed better in 25, worse in 3, and the same in 24. SSR students scored worse only in short-term studies of less than 7 months. In studies that lasted one year or longer, SSR students did better in 8 of 10, and there was no difference in the other two. The NRP found that most of the SSR studies were not valid or verifiable. Many studies were simply correlational. Thus, only 14 studies actually followed guidelines that could make them statistically significant. Of these studies, SSR was found ineffective.
"Where do these negative SSR feelings come from?" Trelease asks. "Perhaps from the wonderful folks who make all those workbooks, textbooks, and score sheets that wouldn't be bought and used in class during the time students were lounging around reading books, magazines, and newspapers and getting so good at reading they might need even fewer of those sheets next year." There is some support for this charge: A blog titled "Why Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) Doesn't Work" is posted by the publisher of four workbooks that sell for $89.99 each.^[10]