Secondary Students? Reading Attitudes and Achievement in a  
Scaffolded Silent Reading Program versus Traditional Sustained Silent Reading 
 
by 
 
Chandra Lorene West 
 
 
 
 
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the Degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
August 9, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Keywords: sustained silent reading, 
attitude, achievement, secondary 
 
 
Copyright 2010 by Chandra Lorene West 
 
 
Approved by 
 
Bruce Murray, Chair, Associate Professor of Reading Education 
Marie Kraska, Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology 
Kevin Roozen, Assistant Professor of English 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
ii 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 
 
 
 This study explored the reading attitudes and achievement, as well as genre knowledge, 
of tenth, eleventh, and twelfth-grade students who participated in Scaffolded Silent Reading, 
Sustained Silent Reading, or a control group.  The Reading and You attitude survey, Degrees of 
Reading Power achievement measure, and Genre Assessment were administered to 66 secondary 
students enrolled in English classes at a high school in the southeastern United States.  Their 
attitudes toward reading, reading achievement, and knowledge of genre were assessed at the 
beginning of the course and again at the end of the course to compare any changes. 
The research questions that guided this study were: 1) To what extent do students on the 
secondary level participating in Scaffolded Silent Reading show greater improvement in attitudes 
toward reading books than students participating in Sustained Silent Reading or in a control 
group?  2) To what extent do students on the secondary level participating in Scaffolded Silent 
Reading show greater improvement in reading achievement than students participating in a 
control group?  3) To what extent do students on the secondary level participating in Scaffolded 
Silent Reading show greater improvement in knowledge of the following genres?
autobiography, biography, fantasy, fiction, historical fiction, horror, mystery, nonfiction, poetry, 
romance, science fiction, and sports?than students participating in Sustained Silent Reading or 
in a control group? 
 
 
 
 
iii 
 
 
 
 
 
Acknowledgments 
 
 
 The author wishes to thank all of the faculty members who made this dissertation 
possible, especially Bruce A. Murray, who provided the Reading and You attitude survey which 
was used in this project and whose assistance was invaluable.  Secondly, the author wishes to 
acknowledge the valued input of Marie Kraska and Chih-Hsuan Wang, who provided much-
needed guidance with statistical analyses.  Thirdly, the author also wishes to thank Kevin 
Roozen, who reviewed many a draft and provided extremely valuable feedback and Maria Witte, 
my outside reader, who stepped in at the last minute and allowed me to complete this process.  
Finally, the author wishes to express her deep and abiding love for her family and friends who 
supported her throughout this long and arduous process. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iv 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ iii  
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. viii  
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. ix 
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... x 
Chapter I - Introduction to Research ............................................................................................. 1 
 My reading and teaching experiences ............................................................................... 1 
 My experiences with sustained silent reading  ................................................................. 4 
 My students? experiences with sustained silent reading ................................................... 7 
 My experiences with secondary readers ........................................................................... 9 
 Pilot study ....................................................................................................................... 11 
 Pilot study survey instruments ........................................................................................ 12 
      Student attitude survey toward DEAR ....................................................................... 12 
      Reader?s autobiography questionnaire ....................................................................... 13 
      Quickwrites ................................................................................................................ 14 
 Observations and realizations ......................................................................................... 16 
 Scaffolded silent reading................................................................................................. 17 
 Statement of the problem ................................................................................................ 18 
 Purpose of the study ........................................................................................................ 19 
 Significance of the study ................................................................................................. 20 
v 
 
 Limitations of the study .................................................................................................. 21 
 Definitions of terms ........................................................................................................ 22 
 Research questions .......................................................................................................... 23 
 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 23 
Chapter II ? Review of Related Literature .................................................................................. 25 
 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 25 
 In-school and out of school reading ................................................................................ 25 
 A program of in-school reading: The history of sustained silent reading....................... 32 
 Experimental studies of sustained silent reading ............................................................ 35 
 Quasi-experimental studies of sustained silent reading .................................................. 41 
 Case studies of sustained silent reading .......................................................................... 47 
 Teacher research of sustained silent reading .................................................................. 50 
 Reviews of sustained silent reading research.................................................................. 57 
 Scaffolded silent reading: An adaptation of sustained silent reading ............................. 60 
 Sustained silent reading and attitude toward reading ..................................................... 64 
 Attitude toward reading and reading achievement ......................................................... 70 
 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 75 
Chapter III - Methods.................................................................................................................. 76 
 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 76 
 Participants and setting ................................................................................................... 77 
 Study design .................................................................................................................... 78 
 Description of treatment groups...................................................................................... 81 
      Sustained silent reading ............................................................................................. 81 
vi 
 
      Scaffolded silent reading............................................................................................ 82 
      Control group ............................................................................................................. 82 
 Description of survey instruments .................................................................................. 83 
      Reading and you attitude survey ................................................................................ 83 
      Genre assessment ....................................................................................................... 84 
      Student genre writing ................................................................................................. 86 
      Degrees of reading power .......................................................................................... 87 
 Data collection ................................................................................................................ 89 
 Data analysis ................................................................................................................... 90 
 Validity, reliability, generalizability, and triangulation .................................................. 92 
 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 94 
Chapter IV - Findings ................................................................................................................. 95 
           Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 95 
           Results .............................................................................................................................. 96 
           Reading and you attitude survey ...................................................................................... 97 
           Reading achievement measure: Degrees of reading power ........................................... 103 
           Genre assessment ........................................................................................................... 107 
           Summary ........................................................................................................................ 115 
Chapter V - Discussion ............................................................................................................. 116 
 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 116 
 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 116 
 Implications................................................................................................................... 119 
 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 120 
vii 
 
 Recommendations for future research .......................................................................... 120 
References ................................................................................................................................. 122 
Appendix A ? Reading and you attitude survey ....................................................................... 132 
Appendix B ? Genre assessment............................................................................................... 135 
Appendix C ? DEAR contract .................................................................................................. 138 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
viii 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Tables 
 
 
Table 1 ? Reliability of reading and you attitude survey .......................................................... 100 
Table 2 ? Reading and you attitude survey ............................................................................... 102 
Table 3 ? Reading achievement: Degrees of reading power .................................................... 104 
Table 4 ? Genre assessment ...................................................................................................... 111 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ix 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Figures 
 
 
Figure 1 ? Wide Writing Genre Wheel  ...................................................................................... 85 
Figure 2 ? Student Example of Genre Pie Chart....................................................................... 139 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
x 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Abbreviations 
 
 
AHSGE  Alabama High School Graduation Exam 
 
DEAR  Drop Everything and Read 
 
DRA Developmental Reading Assessment  
 
DRP  Degrees of Reading Power 
 
ESL English as a Second Language 
 
GROR Guided Repeated Oral Reading 
 
HIP High Intensity Practice 
 
IRA International Reading Association 
NCTE National Council of Teachers of English 
ScSR Scaffolded Silent Reading 
SSA Self-Selected Activities 
SSR Sustained Silent Reading    
SSW Sustained Silent Writing 
USSR Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH 
 
My Reading and Teaching Experiences  
 
When I was a high school student, I was a voracious reader.  In fact, teachers would 
complain that I read too much.  What they meant was that I read for pleasure instead of paying 
attention in class.  As a high school teacher, it appeared that I didn?t teach the kind of student 
that I was in school.  My students?sophomores, juniors, and seniors in high school?didn?t read 
books for pleasure, at least not that I observed in the classroom.  I didn?t notice any student so 
engrossed in any book during class that I had to pry him or her away from it.  Nell (1988) refers 
to this state of being lost in a book as ?ludic? reading?from the Latin ludo, which means ?I 
play.?  He defines pleasure reading as the kind of reading one does for fun and relaxation.  I 
suspected that my students did not read books for fun or relaxation, although they sometimes 
read newspapers and online text.  They certainly did not seem to want to read books assigned to 
them in English classes, but I was curious to find out if they would read books in school if given 
a choice of reading material. 
 When I first began teaching high school English in 1994, I was assigned to teach a course 
of Remedial Reading.  My class consisted of ten students, but it felt like thirty.  These students 
appeared to me to be frustrated with reading books in school and manifesting their frustration 
through either acting out, talking back, or staring numbly into space.  I was frustrated because I 
didn?t know how to get them to read at all and didn?t know what strategies might work to get 
them to better comprehend books.  At that point, I didn?t even think about how I could get them 
2 
 
to read books for pleasure.  I only taught the remedial reading class my first year of teaching in 
1994 and then in 2005 I began teaching Remedial Reading again.  This class, since renamed 
AHSGE Reading, was designed to help students who have failed the Alabama High School 
Graduation Exam in Reading to pass the exam.  Throughout my teaching career, I have also 
taught ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade regular-level English classes. 
As part of a mini-research project for a college class during my doctoral studies, I 
decided to observe one of my colleagues who teaches ninth grade English, both honors and 
regular-level classes, and starts every class period with Drop Everything and Read (DEAR), 
which is another name for Sustained Silent Reading.  When I observed her, I noticed her reading 
in front of her students and was shocked that everyone seemed to be reading.  Most of my 
students appeared to have poor attitudes toward reading books and these students appeared to 
have positive attitudes toward reading books for pleasure.  As a result of that experience, I 
wanted to learn more about DEAR, so I began reading about what research had previously been 
done.  My preliminary research showed me that there are many acronyms for it; it is most 
commonly known as SSR (Sustained Silent Reading) and has also been called USSR 
(Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading).  I discovered that SSR has been around since the late 
1960s, but that most of the research had been done with younger students.   
As a result of my research and observation, I decided to include DEAR in my regular 
eleventh and twelfth grade English classes in the spring of 2005.  I wasn?t sure if it would help 
older students have better attitudes toward reading, read more books, or read texts with better 
comprehension, since the research I read on Sustained Silent Reading and reading attitudes had 
been conducted mainly with elementary students.  For example, McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth 
(1995) conducted a study on reading attitudes with first through sixth graders and found that for 
3 
 
that sample of the population, ??recreational and academic reading attitudes, on average, begin 
at a relatively positive point in Grade 1 and end in relative indifference by Grade 6? (p. 951).  
This conclusion supported their initial theory that frustrating reading experiences for poor 
readers would lead to them having increasingly negative attitudes toward reading books and 
therefore read fewer books.  This study made me wonder if my students? attitudes toward reading 
were also negative or indifferent, and I wanted to know more about what might motivate my 
students to read. 
Wilhelm (1994) also wanted to know what motivated reluctant readers.  After reviewing 
the literature on reading studies, he concluded, ?The studies imply that reluctant readers do not 
know how to engage with texts, i.e. how to enter, evoke, connect and reflect on the creating of 
story worlds and meanings.  Drama and art were shown to support students as they began to 
think of reading as a productive activity instead of the passive reception of meaning, and as they 
began to try new moves for making meaning with text? (Wilhelm, 1994, p. v).  In order to assist 
students in engaging with text and entering the story world, he decided to introduce students to 
artistic and dramatic responses to literature.  He hoped to move his students from being passive 
receptacles of knowledge to becoming active readers of text who created their own meaning. 
Over the course of one academic year, he conducted teacher research for his dissertation 
on how highly-engaged seventh-grade readers responded to literary text and how drama and art 
helped less engaged readers develop a wider repertoire of response strategies.  He collected data 
from protocols, symbolic story representations, and interviews.  He also recorded his 
observations in his journal during classes, during lunch, after school, or during his free period.  
He found that teaching his students to visualize and imagine what they were reading helped 
motivate them to read, and he also discovered that students were reading outside of school.  
4 
 
However, he writes, ?They did not expect school reading to be fun, engaging or personally 
satisfying.  If they regarded themselves as readers, then the reading they valued was pursued in 
study halls, at home, with friends and family ? usually any place but the classroom? (Wilhelm, 
1994, p. 98).   I suspected my students might be reading outside of school, but I also wanted to 
connect the outside to the inside and make in-school reading more enjoyable for them.  
My Experiences with Sustained Silent Reading 
 
A few years ago I decided to try Sustained Silent Reading with my eleventh and twelfth 
grade English students and observe the results.  I hoped that giving my students time to read in 
class might encourage them to read.  As Eisner (1992) stresses, ?The allocation of time to what 
we teach has other consequences as well.  The amount of time allocated to a field of study 
influences the kinds of mental skills children have the opportunity to acquire.  Thus time 
represents both values and opportunity: value, because it indicates what is considered significant; 
opportunity, because the school can be thought of as a culture of opportunity? (p.  592).  Time is 
a precious commodity in schools, and it is impossible to introduce every student to every piece 
of literature valued by society during the school day.  But when students are given the time in 
school to read and the choice of what they want to read, they are exposed to a wider variety of 
books.  Teachers should still expose students to the classics, but should also give them time to 
read texts of their choice to improve their reading skills.  This could include many types of texts, 
including books, graphic novels, newspapers, magazines, and online text.  I wanted to 
demonstrate to students that reading was a valuable skill to possess in society, and my first step 
was to incorporate SSR into my daily classroom routine.   
Another reason I wanted to implement SSR was to give students a voice and a choice of 
what they wanted to read in class.  As Rosenblatt (1976) asserts, ?Victorian notions about the 
5 
 
influence of literature led to a rigid censorship of books by publishers and critics as well as by 
parents and teachers.  Particular books were valued because they offered approved models of 
conduct which young people were expected to imitate.  The view of literature presented here has 
led to a rather different emphasis: in a democracy, the more varied the literary fare provided for 
students, the greater its potential as an educationally liberating force? (p. 214).  In order to better 
prepare students to become active citizens in a democratic society, they need to be able to make 
choices for themselves and that can start with allowing students to choose what they want to read 
in school during SSR.   
At first, I was nervous about starting my own SSR program because I had no experience 
with it, so I asked my colleague how she did it and what was important to know before I started 
it.  She informed me that the teacher reading in front of the class was extremely important 
because it served as an example to the students.  She didn?t use the term teacher modeling, but as 
I dug deeper into the research, I found out that was what she meant.  As a result of my 
preliminary research and talking with my colleague, I decided to start with ten minutes every 
block.  I did notice some positive outcomes from implementing the program in my classroom.  
One was that my students seemed calmer and quieter.  Also, I had fewer discipline problems and 
wrote fewer office referrals.   
However, I was concerned that students weren?t really reading during SSR time, so I 
asked them to start sharing what they were reading with the class.  Students were reluctant to 
volunteer during whole-class discussion to discuss what they were reading with their classmates 
and, when I occasionally asked them to recommend a book, I was greeted with silence.  I would 
ask them if they enjoyed what they were reading, what they liked about what they were reading, 
and just general questions designed to elicit any response from them at all.  I eventually stopped 
6 
 
asking them to share because I didn?t want to force them to do something they didn?t want to, but 
I realized that something more needed to be a part of the process beyond the time allotted in class 
for free reading to promote my disaffected readers? love of reading.  I had hoped that by my 
modeling my personal love of reading and by some of their peers also modeling reading that the 
other students might pick up a book and read, but that wasn?t the case with some students.   
 I wasn?t entirely satisfied with SSR and felt that I wanted to do more with it because I 
wanted students to share their experience of reading with their peers and with me.  I knew from 
my research that one of the important components was that it should not have a graded 
assignment attached to it.  The reason wasn?t specifically stated in the research I read, but I 
surmised that it would somehow ruin the experience and take away the pleasure of reading.  
However, I wanted students to be accountable and actually read books and not use the time for 
homework or sleeping.  I realized that I could encourage them by giving them the time to read, 
by giving them the choice of what they want to read, and by modeling reading.  However, just 
modeling reading or giving them the time and choice of reading materials was not enough to 
convince all of my students to read every day.   
One idea I got from another teacher was to require students to write a letter to the author 
after they finished reading a book.  I soon realized that even by giving students up to 30 minutes 
a day to read that some had not completed a single book in a month.  Even though I modeled 
reading for them every day, they did not read every day.  Therefore, I concluded that teacher 
modeling alone, at least with high school students, was not going to encourage them to read.  I 
could only hope that their peers might influence them to read.  After reading more about SSR 
and how teachers such as Reynolds (2004) had implemented it, I decided not to require students 
to write a letter to the author, but instead to offer it as an extra credit assignment.  Not a single 
7 
 
one of my students chose to do the assignment.  When I asked one of my students why he wasn?t 
reading anymore during SSR, he told me that, since there was no assignment due, he saw no 
reason to read anymore.  It seemed nothing I or the other students did encouraged this particular 
student to read.  This experience led to my desire to understand my students? experiences during 
SSR and what influenced them to choose to read or not to read.   
My Students? Experiences with Sustained Silent Reading 
 As I observed my students during SSR, one trend I noticed was that the majority of my 
students preferred reading newspapers and magazines to books.  I thought they preferred 
newspapers because they could keep up with current events and sometimes read about 
themselves or their classmates in the local newspaper, and I thought they preferred magazines to 
books because the articles were shorter and there are pictures in magazines that aren?t in books.  
When I first began the program, I had very few books in my classroom library that appealed to 
teenagers.  I had some classic novels and some dusty old romances, but no new books geared to 
teenagers, so I started using my annual instructional money to purchase books aimed at 
teenagers.   
When I asked them what their favorite book was, the book mentioned most often was 
Tears of a Tiger by Sharon Draper, which is a young adult novel with an African-American 
protagonist that they had read in middle school.  I deduced from that response that they enjoyed 
reading stories with characters like themselves, so I began buying more books with African-
American teenagers in them.  The semester after I started my program, I also asked the librarians 
to help me recommend books.  I surmised that the better I knew my students, the better 
recommendations I could offer.   
8 
 
I did attempt to influence one student?s in-class reading behavior after finding out that he 
enjoyed reading about forensics and real-life crime.  He told me that he liked watching the 
television show CSI about crime scene investigation, and so he started the semester reading a 
book from that series.  When he was done with it, I suggested he read Patricia Cornwell?s 
Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper Case Closed.  I had read it myself, so I could make the 
suggestion based on my own knowledge of both the book and of my student.  I was shocked that 
he had never heard of Jack the Ripper, but I felt that it was a good recommendation since it dealt 
with forensics.  I thought that everyone had heard of the famous murder case involving Jack the 
Ripper, but that incident made me realize that my students don?t have the same background 
knowledge that I have and that I would have to find out more about them as individuals to be 
able to recommend books they might like.  He eventually chose not to read the book; I surmised 
it might have been because of the high reading level, the length of the book, or that it may have 
not interested him.  I wish I had asked him why he didn?t want to read it, but I hadn?t wanted to 
pry or make him feel bad for not reading the book.  In the end, it seemed to me that one of the 
keys to promoting reading was to know my students? likes and dislikes.   
 Because I wanted my students to challenge themselves by reading longer and more 
complex works, I wanted to make it a requirement that my students read a book and not the 
newspaper.  I took them to the library, but that wasn?t enough to convince them to read books 
instead of newspapers.  The librarian had pulled a cart full of books that appealed to teenagers 
and to many different interests.  However, few of my students checked out a book that day.  I 
think some of them may have had library fines that prohibited them from checking out books, 
but I also think another reason was that they didn?t think reading was ?cool? or they may have 
had frustrating experiences with reading and didn?t want to attempt it again.   
9 
 
The main reason I wanted my students to read books is that I wasn?t sure if they could 
improve their reading skills by reading newspapers when most are written on a sixth-grade 
reading level or lower, although newspapers could serve as a bridge toward more complex 
reading.  The reading required for the graduation exam is mainly based on American literature, 
so it is written at an eleventh-grade level or higher.  The questions on the exam are designed to 
test reading comprehension skills such as cause and effect, drawing conclusions, finding the 
main idea and supporting details, and recognizing literary elements and figurative language.  I 
taught these skills in my classroom, yet I also wanted students to enjoy reading for pleasure and 
practice reading books they were able to choose for themselves, which is why I implemented 
SSR.   
My Experiences with Secondary Readers 
 During the 2005-2006 school year, I taught twelfth-grade English and also what was then 
called Remedial Reading, a course designed to help students pass the Alabama High School 
Graduation Exam (AHSGE).  Partly to remove the stigma of the term remedial, the course has 
since been renamed AHSGE Reading to emphasize the institutional purpose of the class, which 
is to help students gain the skills and strategies they need to pass the graduation exam.  Students 
are assigned to the AHSGE Reading course because they have failed the graduation exam in 
reading.  I hoped that by giving them time, choice, and a positive role model, it would inspire 
them to read and that by reading more, they would become better readers and pass the graduation 
test. 
I initially thought that these students would have poorer attitudes toward reading than my 
regular twelfth-grade English students, and I wanted to find out if SSR could encourage them to 
read more.  I also wanted to track what students were reading.  I started with a tracking sheet 
10 
 
where students wrote when they read, what they read, and how much they read.  It simply asked 
?What did you read?? and ?If you liked what you chose, why?  If you didn?t like what you chose, 
why not??  That form, however, was too limiting and did not give me the data I wanted, so I 
eventually discarded it.  Also, when I asked my students to talk about they were reading and if 
they liked it, they would just shrug and say they didn?t know.  I tried modeling what I wanted 
them to do by talking about what I was currently reading, but they still didn?t want to talk, so I 
eventually stopped asking.  I wasn?t sure if they didn?t want to talk about reading because it 
wasn?t ?cool? or because they really had nothing to say or for some other reason. 
Next, I decided I wanted students to respond in writing to what they read since I couldn?t 
get them to talk about what they read, so I asked them to choose one response per day from thirty 
reading responses from Pilgreen?s (2000) The SSR Handbook.  Some sample responses are, ?I 
like what I just read because?,? ?One idea I learned is?,? ?The reading is getting exciting 
because?? and students could also choose to write their own response.  Students did not respond 
to the prompts every day, which led me to wonder if they were truly reading at all.  Because I 
was modeling reading, I couldn?t always see if students were reading, and even if they had a 
book open and appeared to be reading, I had no way of knowing if they truly were reading.   
I picked about ten books a week to highlight by simply putting them up front on my 
classroom whiteboard, which is a trick I learned from a professor in one of my undergraduate 
education classes.  Eventually, students would be curious and pick up the books I placed in the 
front of the classroom, look at the back cover, or even ask about them.  At the beginning of the 
semester, I had students answer questions about what they liked to read so I could recommend 
books for them and I learned that my students liked a variety of different types of books: 
11 
 
mystery, romance, and horror.  After implementing SSR for a year, I wanted to conduct a study 
to see what my students thought of it and if it was making a difference in their reading attitudes. 
Pilot Study 
 When I started the 2006-2007 school year, I found out that I would be teaching twelfth 
grade English as well as two sections of AHSGE Reading in the fall.  These classes included 
sophomores, juniors, and seniors who had failed the Alabama High School Graduation Exam in 
Reading.  This was an unusual makeup for the class since it usually consisted of mainly seniors 
who had a limited time to pass the exam or they would not graduate.  Those sophomore and 
junior students taking the class fall semester would not even take the graduation exam until the 
spring semester, so it was difficult for me to motivate them.  They didn?t see the purpose of the 
class, so I stressed to them that it was first and foremost a reading class and that we would read 
books every day for pleasure.   
I believed that daily book reading would improve their reading comprehension skills and 
that would translate to them eventually passing the AHSGE in Reading.  Along with teaching 
them the skills and strategies to pass the test, I stressed that daily reading might improve their 
stamina in taking the test, since I think that the majority of students fail the exam because they 
get mentally tired and give up.  I have personally administered the graduation exam and have 
observed students start bubbling in any answer just so they can finish the test and then fall 
asleep.  The reading passages are sometimes long on the test, and the students don?t have the 
patience or practice to read them.  The metaphor I use with my students is that taking the test is 
like trying to run a marathon; they need to train for it just like an athlete would and practice 
reading daily.  Some of my students only know how to crawl and need to learn how to run.  By 
12 
 
reading books daily, I hoped my students would improve their reading skills and gain a more 
positive attitude toward reading.   
Pilot Study Survey Instruments  
Student Attitude Survey toward DEAR 
 
For my pilot study, I administered the Student Attitude Survey toward SSR (Herbert, 
1987) and changed SSR to DEAR so my students would be familiar with the term.  This 20-
question survey was designed using a four-point Likert scale, where one was designated as ?most 
like me,? while four was ?least like me.? The instrument is reverse coded, which means it is a 
mixture of positive and negative questions.  Specific questions asked students to rate how they 
like or dislike DEAR and also how they feel about reading and their ability to read.  Herbert 
(1987) implemented the attitude survey herself with seventh, eighth, and ninth-grade students.  
She reported that 61% of seventh graders, 52% of eighth graders, and 58% of ninth graders had 
negative attitudes toward SSR, while 39% of seventh graders, 48% of eighth graders, and 42% of 
ninth graders had positive attitudes toward SSR.   
I first administered the Student Attitude Survey toward DEAR to my students near the 
beginning of the semester on August 8, 2006.  A total of 47 surveys were completed.  59.8% of 
the responses were positive and 39.9% of the responses were negative towards DEAR.  
Therefore, I concluded that the majority of the students responded positively about DEAR, while 
the minority reported they felt negatively about DEAR.  Finally, I also administered the Student 
Attitude Survey toward DEAR to my students near the end of the semester on December 7, 2006.  
I discovered that the results were still mostly positive towards reading and DEAR.  Overall, 
56.6% of the responses were positive, while 43.3% were negative.  Both of these percentages 
13 
 
differed by approximately 3%, with a slight decrease in positive attitudes and a slight increase in 
negative attitudes.   
Reader?s Autobiography Questionnaire 
Both at the beginning and at the end of the semester, I asked students to complete a 
reader?s autobiography questionnaire about their experiences as readers.  Buehl (2001) wrote 
guidelines on how to develop a reading autobiography, which I had adapted into a handout for 
my students.  There were two parts to the handout: part one had seven questions related to what 
and how students read and part two had nine questions related to students? past experiences with 
reading at home and in school.   
Since the data on this questionnaire was verbal, I had different variables than just 
numbers to consider.  The slight majority of the students, 53%, responded that they did not read 
often, mentioning that they only read when they were bored or had nothing else to do.  More than 
half of the students, 53%, mentioned some sort of distraction that interfered with their ability to 
read as well as they would like, such as loud noises, people talking, family, friends, work, 
homework, sports, music, or television.   
 I mainly used the same procedure for analyzing the final administration of the Reader?s 
Autobiography Questionnaire as I had used for the initial administration.  Almost half of the 
students, 49%, had negative or indifferent attitudes toward being a reader, while 29% of the 
students mentioned strong or positive attitudes.  Overall, there were no significant changes to the 
students? responses to the reader?s autobiography questionnaire from the initial to the final 
administration.   
 
 
14 
 
Quickwrites 
 I also assigned a series of eight quickwrites to my students over the course of eight weeks 
near the end of the semester so that I could find out more about the students? attitudes toward and 
experiences with DEAR.  After I collected the students? responses to each quickwrite, I 
transcribed them into a compact list so that I could more easily read and compare their responses.  
I was careful to type the students? words exactly as they had written them, including misspellings 
and other grammatical miscues. 
      For quickwrite one, I asked students to respond to the following prompt: ?How would you 
describe yourself as a reader??  I received 38 responses from the students in the two AHSGE 
Reading courses I taught.  Most of the students reported that they were good readers, but that 
they did not like to read.  Quickwrite two stated, ?Rate DEAR from 1-10 (1 being the lowest and 
10 being the highest) and justify your rating.?  Four of the students rated DEAR a ten, eight 
students rated it either an eight or a nine, while twenty students rated it from five to seven 
because they stated they had to be in the mood to read.  No students rated DEAR three or four; 
however, three students rated DEAR either a one or two.   
Quickwrite three: ?Now that we have participated in DEAR for a few months, how would 
you describe DEAR for someone who has never experienced it before??  Twelve students 
described DEAR as ?fun? or ?good,? while five students used the word ?boring? to describe 
DEAR.  One student wrote, ?I think they would like it if they liked to read but if they don?t like 
to read they might not like it.?  This confirmed what I also thought, that students who enjoyed 
reading would enjoy DEAR, but those who didn?t like to read would not like it.  Quickwrite four: 
?Please respond to the following: For me during DEAR time, this is what it?s like?? Eight 
students again reported that they thought DEAR was ?boring.?  However, a few students 
15 
 
reported more positive impressions, such as one female student who wrote, ?For me during 
DEAR time, this is what it?s like a day relaxation.  A day to forget about everything and just be 
in your own little world.? 
Quickwrite five: ?What do you think was my reason for using/requiring DEAR?  Why do 
you think I use it every day??  Several students wrote that it was to make them better readers or 
to get them to read more, while others wrote that it was to expand their vocabulary.  A few 
students assumed that it was time for me to read my book, while one student thought it was 
because I didn?t like them to talk.  Quickwrite six: ?Would you recommend that I use DEAR 
again in the next class that I teach?  Why or why not??  Since this was a yes or no question, I 
counted how many yes and how many no responses and calculated the percentages.  88% of the 
students positively reported that they would recommend DEAR, while 12% negatively reported 
that they would not.   
Quickwrite seven: ?How would you describe yourself as a reader?  Has your description 
changed from the beginning of the semester?  If so, how??  This prompt was similar to 
quickwrite one; the only difference was that I asked students if their description of themselves as 
readers had changed since the beginning of the semester.  Most, 65%, reported that their 
description had not changed, while 35% reported that their description had changed.  Finally, 
quickwrite eight asked students to, ?Rate DEAR from 1-10 (1 being the lowest and 10 being the 
highest) and justify your rating. Do you like DEAR more or less than you did at the beginning of 
the semester??  This again was similar to quickwrite two, except that I added the question of 
whether the students liked DEAR more or less than they had at the beginning of the semester.  
34% stated that they liked DEAR more, 20% stated they liked it less, while 23% stated they felt 
about the same about DEAR.  43% rated DEAR highly from eight to ten, 34% rated it in the 
16 
 
middle from five to seven, and 14% rated it from one to three.  I thought this was a positive 
result that most students seemed to like DEAR. 
Observations and Realizations 
Each day during DEAR, as I modeled reading for my students, I also observed them and 
wrote down some of my observations of their behavior in my field notes, using abbreviations to 
save time.  Every day, I transcribed my notes into my computerized teacher-researcher journal 
where I also included my reflections on the day?s experience for me personally and any 
questions I still had about my research.  One word to describe the students? behavior would be 
?compliant.?  They were mainly quiet and respectful of DEAR time, but I was unsure if they 
were actually reading.   
After my pilot study concluded, I came to several realizations about DEAR.  One is that 
when I could not read, it took the class longer to settle down.  This made me realize that teacher 
modeling is important, if only for the students to remain quiet out of respect while I and some of 
their classmates read.  I had hoped that my reading would inspire them to read, but I now know 
that is not realistic.  Another realization was that I could not force them to read if they didn?t 
want to.  I knew this before I started my study, but it became obvious to me that no matter what I 
did?giving students the choice to read, the time to read, and the teacher model? I could not 
make everyone read.  I also realized that the students got good at pretending to read and I 
wondered if that was to please me.  Finally, I thought that DEAR helped to quiet the class down 
and I wondered if the routine was comforting for the students.    
During the spring semester of the 2006-2007 school year, I taught three sections of 
English 12 and implemented DEAR, but did not do a formal study.  I taught English 12, English 
10, and AHSGE Reading during the 2007-2008 school year and again implemented DEAR, but 
17 
 
did not formally study or observe the implementation. In 2008-2009, I taught English 10, 
AHSGE Reading, and AHSGE Language, again implementing DEAR with all classes except for 
AHSGE Language, but not formally studying it.  However, I was still unsatisfied with my SSR 
program and searched for ways to implement it more successfully.  As a result of my research, I 
discovered a new adaptation of SSR called Scaffolded Silent Reading. 
Scaffolded Silent Reading  
When I read about Scaffolded Silent Reading during the summer of 2009, I knew I 
wanted to implement it with my classes the following school year to give my students the time to 
read, the choice of what they wanted to read, and the exposure to a variety of genres.  As 
described by Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, and Smith (2008), ScSR includes all of the traditional 
elements of SSR along with book selection strategies, exposure to a wide variety of book genres, 
assigning books at the students? independent reading levels, teacher-student conferencing, goal 
setting, and completion of projects.  One difference between ScSR and SSR is that instead of 
modeling reading for students, the teacher scaffolds students? strategies for book selection.  
Wilhelm (2004) defines scaffolding as, ??providing  very explicit and active assistance in 
handing over expert knowledge that helps students to master new strategies? (p. 37).  
Occasionally, I also modeled reading for my students and shared what I was reading with them 
by talking about the books.  I also took my students to the library every other week for the 
librarian to give us book talks on each of the ten genres they would be reading for the semester.   
For the 2009-2010 school year, I taught English 10, English 12, and AHSGE Reading.  
During the fall semester, I implemented ScSR with my English 10 and English 12 classes and 
SSR with my English 10 class.  During the spring semester, I implemented ScSR with both my 
English 10 and English 12 classes.  I decided to include the AHSGE Reading class in the study 
18 
 
as a control group since they did not participate in either SSR or ScSR.  When I designed the 
study, I was aware that this class might be unique to my high school and I wanted my results to 
be more generalizable.  I wanted to implement ScSR with my students to see if it might improve 
their attitudes toward reading, reading achievement levels, and genre knowledge. 
Statement of the Problem 
Students at the secondary level may possess negative attitudes toward reading that inhibit 
them from engaging in the act of reading; as a consequence, they may not read daily for pleasure 
and may lack the necessary reading skills to compete in today?s global economy.  These negative 
attitudes begin at home and continue as students progress through school.  After students have 
graduated from high school and/or college and have become parents themselves, they can pass 
on a negative reading attitude to their children and the cycle continues.  As Beers states in her 
foreword to Lesesne?s (2003) book, reluctant readers and children of reluctant readers: 
?come to school lacking a positive stance toward reading, having never 
experienced that aesthetic connection that Louise Rosenblatt, in Literature as 
Exploration, explained as critical to forge a connection with a text.  Many of these 
students move through school adopting an aversion toward reading and the 
insidious cycle of aliteracy continues.  To break this cycle, teachers must 
recognize that a dislike of reading is an acquired taste.  One isn?t born with a love 
for or an aversion to reading.  Experiences at school and at home with parents, 
peers, teachers, and a variety of texts all help form a student?s reading attitude  
(p. x). 
 
It is essential that students have a positive attitude toward reading so they will continue to read 
long after they have completed school.  Illiteracy is when someone does not know how to read, 
19 
 
and aliteracy is when students know how to read, yet they choose not to.  Teachers can assist 
students in learning how to read, but it is more difficult to motivate students to want to read.  
This can have a profound effect on those students? ability to successfully complete high school, 
higher education programs, and later to obtain and maintain employment in a demanding world.   
As teachers, we need to show students that reading is an important activity worthy of 
their time; however, that is not often the case in today?s high schools.  As Christenbury (2001) 
writes, ?In high school, we pay lip service to reading as an important activity, but we rarely make 
time for it in the school day, leaving our students with the unmistakable impression that reading 
is not important enough to occupy any part of their instructional time?Letting students read in 
school should be one of our priorities; it reinforces for students?and it reminds us as 
educators?that reading is as valuable an instructional activity as any we can devise? (p. 156).  In 
conclusion, incorporating an in-school reading program such as Scaffolded Silent Reading into 
the curriculum can demonstrate to students that not only do we as teachers think reading is 
important, but that society values it as well.   
Purpose of the Study 
 
The purpose of this study was to examine secondary-level students? reading attitudes, 
reading achievement levels, and genre knowledge in a ScSR program compared to traditional 
SSR.  The use of SSR and ScSR fits the curricula of secondary English language arts; standard 1 
of the NCTE/IRA Standards for the English Language Arts states, ?Students read a wide range of 
print and nonprint texts to build an understanding of texts, of themselves, and of the cultures of 
the United States and the world; to acquire new information; to respond to the needs and 
demands of society and the workplace; and for personal fulfillment.  Among these texts are 
fiction and nonfiction, classic and contemporary works? (Smagorinsky, 1996, p. viii).  Giving 
20 
 
students time in school to read would allow them to read a wide range of print texts both for 
personal reasons and to prepare them for society, as they move on to higher education and also as 
they enter the work force.  In addition to giving students time in class to read print texts, teachers 
should also ensure access to nonprint texts such as music, video, and the Internet.  These texts 
can enrich the learning experience and allow students to connect what they learn to what they 
already know.   
In addition to tapping into prior knowledge, teachers should also encourage students to 
read a wide variety of texts as often as possible.  Guthrie and Anderson (1999) stress, 
?Understanding why people read is valuable because wide and frequent reading confers many 
benefits.  Studies show that being a wide and frequent reader increases a student?s reading 
achievement by 10-15 percentile points on standardized tests? (pp. 17-18).  Not only will 
students who read more perform better on standardized tests, they will also possess more 
knowledge than students who do not read a wide variety of texts.  They will be more successful 
in their pursuit of educational and career goals and, ultimately, contribute more to society. 
Significance of the Study 
 
 This study is important for researchers and teachers for several reasons.  First, it is 
important for teachers to understand why students either choose or do not choose to read.  
Secondly, this study is important for researchers because it will add to the body of knowledge 
about secondary-level students? reading attitudes and achievement levels.   Finally, it is 
important for teachers to know more about secondary-level students? attitudes toward reading 
and achievement levels in order to assist them in becoming better readers. 
Not knowing how to read is a problem in today?s schools, but choosing not to read is an 
even bigger problem.  Cramer and Castle (1994) assert, ?While illiteracy is, without question, a 
21 
 
very serious concern, aliteracy may be an even greater one.  Aliteracy has been defined as a ?lack 
of the reading habit; especially, such a lack in capable readers who choose not to read? (Harris & 
Hodges, 1981, p. 11)?of the 4 out of 5 Americans who can read, only 1 actually does? (p. 4).  
Students graduate from high school, and even college, knowing how to read, but choosing not to.  
Their reading skills don?t progress beyond a certain point, which becomes problematic when 
they lack the requisite skills to survive in today?s economy.   
It is important for teachers and researchers to understand more about secondary students? 
attitudes toward reading and reading achievement.  Since one of the goals of education is to help 
students become successful in the workplace, improving literacy through fostering a positive 
reading attitude and increasing students? reading achievement should be a priority.  Mikulecky 
(1994) reiterates the importance of literacy as it relates to employment, ?When we take part in 
shaping adults and adolescents who avoid reading, who are convinced they are not very good at 
it and who do not plan to change, we help develop people who have few choices in our global 
economy.  Their problem is not theirs alone, because they are condemned to no jobs or very low-
wage jobs that cannot pay the taxes communities need to prosper? (p. 253).  When students 
cannot read well, they cannot compete for high-paying jobs with those who can.  In conclusion, 
aliteracy and illiteracy affect everyone and it is everyone?s responsibility, including parents and 
teachers, to encourage reading.   
Limitations of the Study 
 
 This study was limited to students who were enrolled in the teacher-researcher?s AHSGE 
Reading, English 10, and English 12 classes as well as a colleague?s English 11 class during the 
fall and spring semesters of the 2009-2010 academic year.  Also, there have only been a couple 
22 
 
of studies of Scaffolded Silent Reading since it is relatively new (Reutzel, Fawson, & Smith, 
2008; Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, & Smith, 2008).   
Definitions of Terms 
 
The following definitions of terms apply in this study: 
 
Drop Everything and Read (DEAR): also known as Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) or 
Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading (USSR). 
Reading: Nell (1988) cites Rubakin and Bethman (1937), ?Reading is an interaction among 
author, reader, the book itself, and the environment? (p. 116).  Reading is understanding the 
messages encoded in text. 
Reading Achievement: what readers are able to accomplish on an informal reading task for 
school or a formal reading assessment, which measures vocabulary and comprehension 
(California Achievement Test, Degrees of Reading Power, Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, and 
Metropolitan Achievement Test).   
Reading Attitude: the disposition a student has toward reading for pleasure that cause him or 
her to choose to read or not to read for pleasure. 
Reading Comprehension: The RAND Reading Study Group (2002) defines reading 
comprehension as ??the process of simultaneously extrac ting and constructing meaning through 
interaction and involvement with written language? (p. 11).  They stress that comprehension 
involves three elements: the reader, the text, and the activity in which comprehension is a part. 
Recreational Reading: also known as voluntary reading, pleasure reading, independent reading, 
or ?ludic? reading (Nell, 1988).  Reading which is done for the purpose of enjoyment. 
Scaffolded Silent Reading (ScSR):  a supplementary recreational reading program that includes 
all of the traditional elements of Sustained Silent Reading along with book selection strategies, 
23 
 
exposure to a wide variety of genres, assigning books at the students? independent reading levels, 
teacher-student conferencing, goal setting, and completion of projects.   
Sustained Silent Reading (SSR): a supplementary recreational reading program giving students 
time to read in class, a choice in reading materials, and teacher modeling of reading. 
Research Questions 
 
1. To what extent do students on the secondary level participating in Scaffolded Silent 
Reading show greater improvement in attitudes toward reading books than students 
participating in Sustained Silent Reading or in a control group? 
2. To what extent do students on the secondary level participating in Scaffolded Silent 
Reading show greater improvement in reading achievement than students participating in 
a control group? 
3. To what extent do students on the secondary level participating in Scaffolded Silent 
Reading show greater improvement in knowledge of the following genres?
autobiography, biography, fantasy, fiction, historical fiction, horror, mystery, nonfiction, 
poetry, romance, science fiction, and sports?than students participating in Sustained 
Silent Reading or in a control group? 
Summary 
 
 This chapter presented a brief overview of my experiences with Sustained Silent Reading 
and secondary readers.  It reviewed the pilot study I conducted with Sustained Silent Reading 
and included an overview of Scaffolded Silent Reading, an adaptation of Sustained Silent 
Reading.  It also included a statement of the problem as well as the purpose, significance, 
limitations, and assumptions of the study.  Finally, it included definitions of the terms used in the 
study and research questions that guided the study.  The next chapter contains a review of 
24 
 
literature related to in-school and out-of-school reading, the history of sustained silent reading, 
scaffolded silent reading, attitude toward reading, and reading achievement as it relates to 
Sustained Silent Reading. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 
 
Introduction 
 
 This chapter reviews the literature related to in-school and out-of-school reading, teenage 
boys and girls? reading in and outside of school, and Sustained Silent Reading, which is an in-
school reading program.  After reviewing the foundational studies in the history of SSR section, 
the remaining studies dealing with SSR are subdivided into the following sections: experimental 
research, quasi- experimental research, case studies, teacher research, and studies which review 
SSR.  This review will also discuss the literature related to Scaffolded Silent Reading, an 
adaptation of SSR.  Finally, this chapter will review the literature pertaining to attitude toward 
reading as well as reading achievement, which empirical studies have examined in connection 
with SSR.   
In School and Out-of-School Reading 
Reading during school time is only a small portion of a student?s total reading time, 
which also includes reading done outside of school.  Researchers have explored students? out-of-
school literacies to understand why they may be failing to meet teachers? expectations of literacy 
in school.  In their review of studies related to out-of-school literacies, Schultz and Hull (2002) 
report, ??the definitions of reading (and we can add writing and speaking) that schools use may 
not take into account the reading a student does out of school? (p. 14).  For example, students 
may be reading magazines, newspapers, technical manuals, online text, or religious texts outside 
26 
 
of school.  They point out that students? literate lives are often more complex outside of school 
than what teachers are able to observe in school.   
Snyder (2002) confirms, ?The print-based industrial model of education needs to be 
redesigned to take account of the reality that young people are more likely to develop complex 
literacy repertoires outside educational institutions? (p. 8).  This type of out-of-school literacy 
includes many forms of electronic media.  Smith and Wilhelm (2006) list some of these 
electronic texts: ??word processors, multipurpose software, online journals, blogs, zines, rpgs, 
MUDs, image downloads, Internet surfing, linking, computer games, music and lyric downloads, 
video downloads and production, Web and hypermedia design software, html code, and much 
more? (p. 166).  From interviews with teenage boys, Smith and Wilhelm (2006) learned that 
these students had a rich, varied literacy experience outside of school, which included these other 
forms of literacy not typically recognized in a school setting.   
 Students are not only reading outside of school, but they are also writing.  As part of a 
longitudinal ethnographic study, Roozen (2008) reports on the out-of-school literacy activities of 
a student labeled as a college basic writer.  He describes how Charles, the subject of his study, 
sought extra practice with public speaking through weekly poetry readings when he was 
experiencing difficulty with a college speech course.  He also describes how Charles read for a 
purpose; in his case, he read magazine joke pages, flyers, and emails to get material to present at 
an Open Mic Night.  Although he made poor grades on his first two speeches for class, he made 
As on the last two, which may indicate that his real-world experiences helped improve his in-
school performances.  He concludes that we need to look at writers? lives inside and outside of 
school to understand the writer as a whole.  Researchers and teachers should also look at 
students? in-school and out-of-school reading. 
27 
 
One study examined the in-school and out-of-school reading and writing activities of a 
female undergraduate Mexicano student.  In a longitudinal ethnographic study, Roozen (2009) 
reports how Angelica, a self-described ?bookworm,? remembered her older sisters reading books 
to her as a child and how ?This regular exposure to literacy at home paid off in the classroom?? 
(p. 548).  Her love for reading and writing eventually led her to become an English major in 
college; however, she decided to change majors after realizing the kind of writing she liked to do 
and the kind of writing she was expected to do in English classes were vastly different.  After 
enrolling in a basic journalism course, she realized that writing human-interest stories was 
similar enough to the type of journaling she preferred and she became a journalism major.  Being 
able to choose what she wanted to write was valuable for her in choosing a career path.   
Studies show that literacy plays an important role in what career paths people choose and are 
able to achieve (Brandt, 2001; Roozen, 2009; Smith & Wilhelm, 2002).  Brandt (2001) claims, 
?The ability to read and, more recently, to write often helps to catapult individuals into higher 
economic brackets and social privilege?In short, literacy is valuable ? and volatile ? property? 
(p. 2).  She defines literacy as a resource and looks at why people gain literacy and for what 
purposes.  Employing life-story research methodology, she interviewed subjects and gathered 
autobiographical monologues, as well as biographical surveys from 80 Americans aged 10 to 98 
about their earliest memories of reading and writing to determine how literacy has changed.   
Being able to read and write also determines the societal rights, privileges, and freedoms 
people can enjoy.  Brandt (2001) asserts that, ?Knowing how to read enhances political and 
economic rights, whereas not knowing how to read diminishes them.  In relationship to 
illiterates, literates enjoy more autonomy and prerogative; in a practical sense, their liberties are 
worth more? (p. 47).  She further explicates that people need to know how to read and 
28 
 
understand legal contracts and also need to know how to write in order to have a voice in a 
democracy.  In addition, access to computer technology also determines how informed people 
are and how they are able to express their opinions.   
Brandt (2001) summarizes and reports her findings from the life stories she analyzed and 
discusses how most of the subjects? earliest memories of reading included pleasant ones of being 
read to by family members from both religious and secular texts.  In addition, these subjects 
mentioned their use of public libraries to support their reading, as well as buying books and 
receiving them as gifts.  She concludes: 
Messages about the prestige of reading are sent to children early and often.  
Reading is incorporated into shared family rituals and is supported independently 
of school through such avenues as religion, hobbies, and the values of parent-
child involvement.  School-based campaigns such as D.E.A.R. (Drop Everything 
and Read), in which all members of a school community, from principal to 
custodian, are supposed to devote 15 minutes a day to reading, is matched by 
television commercials and library posters featuring sports figures and other 
cultural icons extolling the virtues of reading (Brandt, 2001, p. 167). 
What she neglects to say is that not every home emphasizes the importance of reading just as not 
every school implements an in-school reading program such as SSR or ScSR.  It is essential for 
teachers and researchers to understand what motivates students to read both in and out of school. 
Smith and Wilhelm (2002, 2006) have explored what literacy means to boys, while 
Skilton-Sylvester (2002) explored what literacy means to girls.  In their well-known study 
?Reading Don?t Fix No Chevys?: Literacy in the Lives of Young Men, Smith and Wilhelm 
(2002) explore the literate lives of adolescent males in and out of school.  They assert, ?A variety 
29 
 
of research shows that boys learn to read later than girls and never catch up?They are 
particularly behind when it comes to reading novels and extended forms of narrative fiction?the 
kind of reading that counts in most language arts classes? (Smith & Wilhelm, 2002, p. xix).  
Boys are at a disadvantage in English classrooms because they mature later and are not interested 
in the types of narrative fiction reading that are valued in school.  They interviewed 49 teenage 
boys from four different schools, collected literacy logs, observed the boys in and outside of 
class, and wrote profiles on each participant.   
In their summary of the research on gender and literacy, Smith and Wilhelm (2002) 
report the following generalizations: 1) boys read less than girls, 2) boys value reading less than 
girls and spend less time doing it, 3) boys are less interested in reading for pleasure and more 
interested in reading for reading for a useful purpose, 4) boys and girls read different things, 5) 
boys are more likely to read graphic novels, book series, humor, science fiction or fantasy, 
magazines, newspapers, electronic texts, or informational texts, 6) boys are less likely to discuss 
their reading, 7) boys prefer active responses such as acting out a response or making something, 
and 8) boys need more teacher time than girls (pp. 10-11).  The differences between boys and 
girls when it comes to reading are evident to many teachers; however, researchers are just 
recently beginning to study these differences. 
From interviewing the boys and creating profile interviews, Smith and Wilhelm (2002) 
learned, ?? Andre reads because reading ?puts his mind at ease.?  The profile continues by noting 
that ?when Andre reads a book his mind is completely absorbed by the characters and the story.?  
Nonetheless, when the boys talked about Andre, their focus was not on his getting lost in a book, 
the immediate pleasure he took from it, but rather on what his reading would bring him in the 
future? (p. 65).  Even though Andre may have been experiencing what Nell (1988) referred to as 
30 
 
the state of being lost in a book, the other boys valued reading and school for what both could do 
for them in the future and also saw reading as an obstacle to overcome or as a way to achieve 
their career goals.  
They also viewed reading as ?schoolish? and read if they found it purposeful and helpful 
in their future goals.  Even though the boys pursued literacy interests outside of school, they saw 
in-school literacy solely as a tool to help them succeed in school.  Smith and Wilhelm (2002) 
conclude, ?The boys almost universally felt that school denied them choice and control and 
therefore any sense of personal agency or competence.  When Jeff asked two of his groups from 
the public schools for a metaphor for school, both groups agreed upon prison.? (p. 109).  Even 
though they don?t mention programs like SSR or ScSR in their study, those programs would 
allow students to choose what they wanted to read. 
In their study Going with the Flow: How to Engage Boys [and Girls] in Literacy 
Learning, Smith and Wilhelm (2006) confirm what research has said about in-school and out-of-
school reading: ?Because they didn?t understand the purposes for school assignments or what 
skilled school reading entailed, they felt less engaged with their school texts than with the 
reading they did outside of class? (p. 10).  The boys they interviewed for their study read outside 
of school, but didn?t feel a sense of purpose for the types of reading they were asked to complete 
in school and for school.  They interviewed boys about their reading and found that the boys 
liked playing video games because they presented an appropriate challenge and increased in 
difficulty.   
In contrast, when asked to read texts in school?classics such as Beloved, Ethan Frome, 
and The Great Gatsby?these students felt overwhelmed by the difficulty of the reading.  These 
students also enjoyed getting immediate feedback from sports, games, art, and music, so they 
31 
 
chose texts that provided information, such as reading on the Internet, newspaper, instruction 
manuals, and thrillers, which also gave feedback.  Smith and Wilhelm (2006) conclude, ?If we 
want our students to read far and read wide, perhaps we need to focus on how we want them to 
read? (p. 21).  They suggest teachers use reading strategies, such as activating prior knowledge, 
an activity they refer to as ?frontloading,? with novels that all students read in class.  They do not 
explicitly mention an in-school reading program such as SSR or ScSR in their studies, although 
they do state, ?Other ways to incorporate choice are to provide free time to read in the classroom 
or to incorporate literature circles and book clubs in which students choose books that will help 
them pursue inquiry questions of interest or follow authors or ideas they have come to know 
about? (Smith & Wilhelm, 2002, p. 197).  However, they caution that choice may not work to 
motivate students to read if only certain kinds of choices are allowed. 
Boys are not the only ones who practice literacy outside of school.  Skilton-Sylvester 
(2002) observed seven Cambodian girls at home and in school and reports, ?At the school these 
girls attended, being good at literacy had quite negative peer-group consequences? (p. 61).  She 
explains that other students felt they couldn?t talk to the girls because they were always reading 
books, so the girls compensated by reading books and magazines outside of school.  She stresses 
that for Cambodians, being literate meant oral rather than written text and also that being literate 
could even have resulted in their deaths; ?This historical stance toward those who are literate was 
reinforced by the genocide of Pol Pot?s regime in which being literate was a reason for being 
killed? (Skilton-Sylvester, 2002, p. 62).  This could possibly explain the girls? reluctance to read 
and write in school, but they had literate lives outside of school, which including writing letters 
and fictional stories as well as illustrating them.  She concludes by asserting that schools need to 
show students what they gain by writing (and reading) for school assignments.   
32 
 
A Program of In-School Reading: The History of Sustained Silent Reading  
 
Students read both outside of school for personal reasons and in school for class 
assignments, but they could also be allowed to read for personal reasons during school.  
Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) is an in-school reading program that allows students time in 
class to read anything of their choice without having a graded assignment attached to it.  One of 
the first descriptions of SSR came from an article by Hunt (1970/1997).  He referred to the 
program as Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading (USSR) and stated it was, ??the essence of 
reading power; the ability to keep going with ideas in print.  Without it the reader is crippled; 
with the power of Sustained Silent Reading the reader is on his own, he can propel himself 
through print.  He is an independent reader and does not depend on outside direction by the 
teacher? (Hunt, 1970/1997, p. 281).  He referred to USSR as a ?fundamental reading skill? and 
suggested that, for low-powered readers, less oral reading should be used.  He then reports the 
testimony of a second-grade teacher, who had been stressing the negative aspects of students? 
struggling to read, rather than highlighting the positive aspect of what they could accomplish; 
?Attitudes affect one?s approach to the teaching-learning situation.  The effect on youngsters can 
be astounding when one stresses positive rather than the negative? (Hunt, 1970/1997, p. 281).  
As they read more, their skills improved and they still received skills instruction when they 
needed it; however, most of their time was spent reading. 
One of the first proponents of SSR, McCracken (1969) wrote an editorial promoting it 
and stressed, ??there are  no book reports, no comprehension checks, no word recognition 
exercises, and no teaching as part of the Sustained Silent Reading.  There is only Sustained Silent 
Reading? (p. 446).  The implication is that there is no need for an assignment to be attached to 
SSR when students are sustaining reading for an extended period of time.  He further reiterates 
33 
 
that students may be literate and yet still not choose to read.  He concludes his editorial by 
stating, ?Students will know that teachers believe reading is important when we give time for 
practicing reading every school day so that every student has a time to read silently, sustaining 
himself for at least thirty minutes, and a majority of students will become hooked on the habit of 
reading for a lifetime, rather than becoming literate adults who rarely use a book again after 
graduation? (McCracken, 1969, p. 447-448).  His statement became the basis for my 
implementation of Sustained Silent Reading in my own classroom.   
Another early supporter of SSR, Oliver (1970) reports on High Intensity Practice (HIP), 
which includes Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading (USSR), Sustained Silent Writing 
(SSW), and Self-Selected Activities (SSA).  He claims, ?The magic of HIP seems to be in the 
quiet atmosphere and the favorable behavior models of peers and teachers.  HIP children have 
been given time to read in school? (Oliver, 1970, p. 71).  Some of the most important aspects of 
the program are the quiet time to read and the modeling of teachers and other students.  Oliver 
(1970) also stresses that during HIP, students are in control of their own learning and that 
teachers should learn to give up some of that control.  He concludes, ?Of course, children need 
direct reading instruction, but not to the exclusion of practice.  High Intensity Practice is HIP? (p. 
71).  That program, along with SSR and ScSR, provides much needed practice time for students 
to be able to practice the skill of reading. 
McCracken (1971) stresses that SSR is only one part of a reading program and suggests 
that teachers who want to implement it should follow six rules: 1) Each student must read 
silently, 2) The teacher reads, 3) Each student selects a single book/magazine/newspaper and 
cannot change, 4) A timer is used, 5) There are absolutely no reports or records of any kind, and 
6) Begin with whole classes or larger groups of students heterogeneously grouped (p. 521).  In 
34 
 
answer to some teachers? concerns about how to know if students are reading is to simply 
observe their behavior.  If they appear to be turning pages regularly over a consecutive period of 
time, they are most likely reading.  He also states that students might want to talk about what 
they are reading or might request more time to read.  After the first week of implementation, the 
teacher should be able to encourage student responses such as summarizing, relating it to current 
events, looking up words, answer other students? questions about the book, keep a journal, or list 
books or pages read.  He concludes by saying that students report liking SSR and that, ?in our 
press for achievement, the importance of practice in reading silently has been overlooked.  Our 
students are overtaught and under-practiced? (McCracken, 1971, p. 583).  SSR provides much 
needed practice for students in the skill of reading. 
Another early supporter of SSR, Mork (1972) strongly recommends the program and 
points out that students need reading time in school: ?Unless the educational atmosphere in the 
home is one that regularly includes periods of silent reading for all members of the family, it is 
unlikely that a child will go home and read, even when told to do so by the teacher.  Making 
special outside reading assignments has done little to encourage reading, especially reading for 
the sake of enjoyment and getting ideas from books? (p. 439).  He goes on to question whether 
it?s more practice in reading that makes students better readers or if better readers read more 
because they have enjoyed success with it. 
According to McCracken and McCracken (1978), the important components of SSR are 
to give students a choice of what to read, to provide the time in class to read, and for the teacher 
to model a love of reading.  They determined that teacher modeling was crucial to the success of 
SSR.  Using reports from teachers, they came to the conclusion that if the teacher did not model 
an enjoyment of reading, students did not read during SSR.  They share an anecdote about one 
35 
 
teacher they observed reading a newspaper in class every day and how his action encouraged 
students to begin reading as well.  They stress, ?This was not a conscious attempt to impose SSR, 
but we realized that there was a tremendous power in an adult modeling? (McCracken & 
McCracken, 1978, p. 407).  These students imitated the behavior of the teacher, which 
demonstrates the influence of teacher modeling on students? behavior during SSR.  While some 
teachers were implementing SSR in their own classrooms, researchers were beginning to study 
it.   
Experimental Studies of Sustained Silent Reading  
Several researchers have conducted experimental studies of SSR (Cline & Kretke, 1980; 
Collins, 1980; Evans & Towner, 1975; Holt & O?Tuel, 1989; Langford & Allen, 1983; Manning 
& Manning, 1984; Methe & Hintz, 2003; Pluck, Ghafari, Glynn, & McNaughton, 1984; 
Wheldall & Entwistle, 1988; Widdowson & Dixon, 1996).  Evans and Towner (1975) questioned 
whether or not the practice of SSR led to skill development in reading.  Their study examined 48 
fourth graders over a ten-week period, half of which had been assigned to SSR and half to a 
supplementary materials practice group.  Each group received an hour of reading instruction.  
The experimental group practiced traditional SSR as described by McCracken (1971), while the 
control group practiced word recognition, vocabulary, and reading exercises.  They found no 
significant differences between the groups on the reading subtest of the Metropolitan 
Achievement Test, Intermediate; therefore, the researchers concluded that SSR was neither more 
nor less effective than other strategies. 
One criticism of SSR research has been that few measure the long-term effects of SSR on 
attitude toward reading.  However, one study by Cline and Kretke (1980) did examine the long-
term effects of SSR on junior high school students who had been in the program for three years.  
36 
 
Researchers compared these students to a control group that had not had SSR and discovered 
SSR had positive effects on the students? attitude toward reading, but no effect on reading 
achievement.  However, this study was conducted with students who already scored above 
national norms on standardized tests, so that might explain the lack of increase in reading 
achievement.   
Collins (1980) studied the effects of SSR on elementary students? reading achievement.  
She used four instruments to assess achievement: ??the Gates -MacGinitie Reading 
Achievement Test, the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Teacher Individual Pupil Evaluation Forms, 
and basal reading book placement levels of students,? while the following instruments ??to 
assess attitude toward reading were the Attitude Assessment and Lyman Hunt?s How I Feel 
About Reading? (Collins, 1980, p. 110).  After beginning SSR in the middle of the year, the 
experimental group read daily for 15 weeks, while the control group received only basal reader 
instruction.  The researcher found, ??there were no significant differences in attitude between 
experimental and control groups?the attitudes of both groups toward reading became more 
negative during the year? (Collins, 1980, p. 111).  However, the experimental group?s scores on 
the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills were significantly higher than the control group. 
Langford and Allen (1983) also explored the effects of USSR on fifth and sixth grade 
students? reading attitudes and achievement.  The researchers used four instruments: the 
Heathington Intermediate Scale for Measuring Attitudes (1975), the Estes Attitude Scale (1971), 
A Scale of Reading Attitude Based on Behavior by Rowell (1972), and the Slosson Oral Reading 
Test (SORT, 1963) (Langford & Allen, 1983, p. 196).  On two of the measures, the Heathington 
and the Estes which were self-report measures completed by students, there was no significant 
difference between the USSR students? attitudes and the control group students? attitudes toward 
37 
 
reading; however, the Rowell, a self-report scale teachers used to measure students? observable 
reading attitude behavior, favored the USSR group.   
Langford and Allen (1983) explain, ?Data obtained by the Rowell may also be open to 
question, in that the teachers in the language arts classes may have known which children were 
involved in the USSR groups and marked their tests for these children more favorably? (p. 197).  
However, there was a significant difference in reading achievement on the SORT, which favored 
the USSR group.  Langford and Allen (1983) report, ?These findings indicate that the increase in 
reading test scores of children participating in USSR was significantly greater than the increase 
in reading test scores of children who did not participate in USSR? (p. 198).  The researchers 
conclude that more research into USSR and reading attitude is needed. 
In an experimental study of three models of recreational reading, fourth-grade students 
were divided into four groups: control, Sustained Silent Reading, peer interaction, and teacher-
student conferences (Manning & Manning, 1984).  They administered a reading attitude 
inventory, which they developed specifically to measure the reading attitudes of fourth-grade 
students, pre and post treatment.  They assumed content validity since the items were similar to 
other reading attitude inventories, although they didn?t specify which ones they used.  They 
pilot-tested the instrument in 1980 with two fourth-grade classes and asked teachers to rate their 
students? attitudes toward reading on a scale from zero to eighteen?the same scale used on their 
inventory, which further established the validity of the instrument.  They used the reading subtest 
of the California Achievement Test as their measure of reading achievement pre and post 
treatment. 
Teachers in all three experimental groups implemented SSR as described by McCracken 
(1971) and served as teacher models.  Students in the SSR-only group were allowed the time to 
38 
 
read, choice of reading materials, and teacher models.  In the peer interaction group, students 
were also allowed to interact with each other about their reading.  Manning and Manning (1984) 
describe the peer interaction: ?They engaged in varied activities such as small group and paired 
discussions about books, oral reading in pairs, and book sharing through activities such as 
puppetry and dramatization? (p. 377).  In the student-teacher conference group, all students had 
individual reading conferences with their teachers at least once a week.  These conferences lasted 
from three to ten minutes and allowed students to discuss what they were reading and make goals 
for future reading.   
The researchers found statistically significant differences between the groups on both 
their reading achievement and attitudes toward reading.  Manning and Manning (1984) report, 
?These data indicate that students who were involved in the peer-interaction model and the 
individual teacher-student conferences model obtained significantly higher gain scores (p<.01) 
on a measure of attitude toward reading than did students who were involved in the other two 
groups? (p. 379).  The students in the peer-interaction group also showed significantly higher 
scores in reading achievement, which made the peer-interaction model the most successful of the 
treatments.  Although the Sustained Silent Reading group did not increase their attitudes as much 
as the peer interaction group or the teacher-student conference group, they did show an increase 
in their reading attitude.   
Experimental studies have also shown that an important aspect of SSR is teacher 
modeling of reading.  The theory is that students will be influenced to read more during SSR 
because they are imitating the teacher?s modeling behavior.  However, some of the definitions 
for on-task reading behavior in these studies are too narrow and don?t really measure if the 
students are actually reading, comprehending, or enjoying what they are reading.  Pluck, Ghafari, 
39 
 
Glynn, and McNaughton (1984) designed two experiments to examine how teacher and parent 
modeling of recreational reading affected elementary students? reading behavior.  They defined 
on-task reading behavior as a student having his or her eyes directed at a page of text for ten 
seconds and not talking.  This definition does not include whether or not the student was actually 
reading or just looking at a book.  They theorized that children would imitate a modeled behavior 
such as reading.   
During experiment 1 of the Pluck et al. (1984) study, a baseline condition was set where 
the teacher simply instructed students to read quietly; however, during the modeling sessions, the 
teacher modeled reading for pleasure by telling the students how much she was enjoying reading 
her book.  The results showed that the effects were larger for the low achievers, but the high 
achievers also increased their on-task behavior.  In a related experiment, a gifted nine-year old 
boy read the most when he was allowed to select his own reading material and when he 
witnessed the parent modeling of silent reading.  This suggests that the self-selection of material 
is an important factor along with modeling.   
Wheldall and Entwistle?s (1988) study was designed to replicate and extend Pluck et al. 
(1984).  In a series of four studies, researchers studied the reading behavior of elementary 
students who observed teacher modeling during Sustained Silent Reading.  The researchers 
wanted to determine if teacher modeling was the crucial variable during SSR.  They used the 
same definition for ?on-task reading behavior? as Pluck et al. (1984), that the students? eyes 
should be looking at their own book and they should not be talking during SSR.  They found that 
students paid attention more when teacher modeling was included in SSR than when the teacher 
modeling was not included and concluded that quiet conditions alone were not as effective as 
40 
 
teacher modeling.  Furthermore, they observed that students would watch the teacher reading and 
then go back to their own reading during SSR. 
Holt and O?Tuel (1989) implemented SSR and SSW (Sustained Silent Writing) with 
seventh and eighth grade students reading two or more years below grade level over a ten-week 
period.  Researchers identified students who were reading at least two years below their 
academic grade level by their achievement test scores and randomly assigned them to either the 
experimental or control group.  The control group solely used the basal reading program, while 
the experimental group also got to self-select their reading during SSR/SSW time.  SSR time 
lasted for 20 minutes, three times a week, while SSW time was for 20 minutes, two times a 
week.  When compared to the control group, the experimental group significantly improved their 
reading achievement, attitude toward reading, and writing.   
Widdowson and Dixon?s (1996) study was also designed to replicate the Pluck et al. 
(1984) study.  Their review of the research related to SSR noted that few studies looked at how 
engaged the students were during the Sustained Silent Reading time.   They assert that just 
giving time for SSR was not enough to guarantee all students would read.  Therefore, they 
wanted to know whether teacher modeling during SSR would help engage students in reading 
during SSR.  Similar to Pluck et al. (1984), they defined on-task reading behaviors for the 
teacher and students as looking at the book for eight seconds and not talking.  The teacher 
modeling increased the on-task behaviors of the low and average-achieving readers, but not the 
high-achieving readers.  The researchers speculated that the high-achieving readers were already 
engaged in reading and did not need the teacher modeling.  The limitation of this study was that 
it only measured whether or not students were looking at a book, not whether they were actually 
reading or comprehending.   
41 
 
Similar to the previous studies, Methe and Hintz (2003) defined on-task reading behavior 
as the students? eyes being directed toward the text of an open book for 10 seconds.  They found 
that there was a strong relationship between the teacher demonstrating excitement about reading 
and the students maintaining on-task reading behavior.  However, by limiting the students? 
reading behavior to only whether they were looking at a book, not whether or not they were 
actually reading or comprehending, the researchers could not know for certain whether or not 
students were actually reading.   
Quasi-Experimental Studies of Sustained Silent Reading 
In addition to experimental studies of SSR, researchers have also conducted quasi-
experimental studies in classrooms where random assignment was not feasible (Davis, 1988; 
Fisher 2004; Herbert, 1987; Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2006; Ozburn, 1995; Parr & Maguiness, 
2005; Pilgreen & Krashen, 1993; Summers & McClelland, 1982; Von Sprecken & Krashen, 
1998; Wiesendanger & Bader, 1989).  In a quasi-experimental study of intermediate students in 
grades five, six, and seven in British Columbia, Summers and McClelland (1982) evaluated the 
effects of SSR on reading attitude and comprehension.  They report the basic concepts of SSR 
as: 1) schoolwide scheduling, 2) teacher modeling, 3) self-selected reading, 4) access to material, 
5) no outside interruption, 6) positive feedback, 7) limited record keeping, 8) time limits from 
20-25 minutes, and 9) gradual implementation (Summers & McClelland, 1982, p. 104).  All of 
the components to SSR have been mentioned in other studies except for positive feedback, which 
the authors do not define in this article.  They administered the Estes Attitude Scale as their 
reading attitude measure and the Metropolitan Achievement Test as their comprehension 
measure.  They found no statistically significant differences between the SSR groups and non-
SSR comparison groups on both measures; however, the staff reported strong positive reactions 
42 
 
to SSR as well as noticing their students? attitudes toward SSR and reading being positive as 
well; however this data was limited due to its self-report nature.  They speculate possible reasons 
for their results: SSR may have been implemented poorly, the model of SSR evaluated may not 
have matched the analysis, the treatment was not long enough, and the teacher modeling may 
have been weak (Summers & McClelland, 1982, p. 107). 
Herbert (1987) used a student attitude survey toward SSR to study seventh through ninth 
grade students.  She discovered that even though the majority of students had positive attitudes 
toward reading, they did not like SSR and wanted it eliminated from their school day.  
Approximately half reported that they did not even read during SSR.  These results are dismal, 
but more information is needed to determine why these students did not like SSR.  The twenty-
question survey is limited in that it only asks whether or not students like or dislike SSR and not 
why they may like or dislike it. 
Davis (1988) compared SSR to directed reading activities, where ?students are often 
expected to participate in various ways in oral reading and ?teacher talk?? (p. 46).  The teacher-
researcher randomly assigned one of her eighth-grade English classes to SSR and the other to 
directed reading.  She devoted 40 minutes Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays for the entire 
school year to SSR in one class, while the other class received 40 minutes of directed reading 
activities.  By the end of the year, she had lost her low ability readers due to attrition, while her 
medium ability SSR readers showed a statistically significant difference 13 percentiles greater 
than the directed reading activity readers on their adjusted average achievement on the 
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills Reading subtest.  There was no statistically significant 
difference between the groups for her high ability readers.  She speculates that these readers 
43 
 
might have been approaching a ?ceiling effect? where their reading abilities had little room to 
improve. 
Wiesendanger and Bader (1989) examined the long-term effects on elementary students? 
reading habits after they had completed the SSR program.  One limitation of the study was that it 
took place almost immediately after the students had participated in SSR and did not measure 
any long-term effects of the program.  A significant finding of the study was that the SSR 
students read much more than the non-SSR students; however, there was little difference 
between the above average readers who had SSR and those who had not.  They conclude by 
speculating that for older, lower ability students, SSR may have had more of an effect.   
Pilgreen and Krashen (1993) explored the impact of Sustained Silent Reading on the 
reading attitudes of 125 English as a Second Language (ESL) secondary students.  Using a self-
report method, 56% of the students reported that they enjoyed SSR ?very much,? while 38% 
reported that they enjoyed SSR ?some? (Pilgreen & Krashen, 1993, p. 22).  Students also 
reported an increase in their frequency of reading, enjoyment of outside reading, and opinion of 
improvement in reading.  The students also showed gains on the Stanford Diagnostic Reading 
Comprehension Test.  Since no control group was used in this study, the results are ??only 
suggestive, but the large gains suggest that free reading is an effective means of promoting 
literacy development with ESL students? (Pilgreen & Krashen, 1993, p. 21).  
Ozburn (1995) reports on a successful high school SSR program with 60 ninth grade at-
risk Hispanic students who were given the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test in August and again 
in May to determine if daily SSR had an effect on their reading achievement.  Most students read 
below fifth-grade level at the beginning of the school year, but the average grade level 
improvement by the end of the year was 3.9.  They had access to an extensive classroom library 
44 
 
of 35 paperbacks per student as well as a variety of magazines and comic books.  They read a 
book of their choice for the first 10-15 minutes of each class and were also encouraged to read at 
home.  The researcher concluded that a wide variety of books on all reading levels was important 
to the success of SSR. 
One criticism of SSR is that many students don?t actually read, but instead pretend to 
read or simply stare into space.  Von Sprecken and Krashen (1998) observed 11 middle school 
classes during SSR before and after winter break to allow students time to get used to the routine 
and five minutes after SSR began to allow students time to get a book.  Students were classified 
as actively reading if they were silent with a book in front of them, their eyes were apparently 
moving, and they appeared to turn pages at a rate appropriate to the number of words on the page 
(Von Sprecken and Krashen, 1998, p. 12).  Von Sprecken and a school counselor acted as the 
two observers.  Results showed that the overall percentage of students reading during SSR was 
90%.  Von Sprecken and Krashen (1998) concluded, ??free reading is an intrinsically pleasant 
activity that children will do if they have access to interesting reading material, time to read, and 
a place to read? (p. 13). 
In an action research case study of one urban California high school, Fisher (2004) 
explored the revitalization of SSR.  Using a SSR observation log, teachers determined whether or 
not 1) students had a book, 2) students? eyes followed the text at an appropriate rate for reading, 
and 3) students turned the pages at an appropriate rate for reading.  Teachers also recorded the 
number of minutes of uninterrupted reading for four randomly selected students.  Eight ninth- 
grade teachers were identified: four who often implemented SSR and four who did not.  Using 
the Gates-MacGinitie scores from these two comparison groups, the author determined that 
??the studen ts who were provided time to read independently on a daily basis had statistically 
45 
 
higher reading scores?the data from a quasi -experimental retrospective study suggested that 
independent reading time mattered, at least for students in this urban school? (Fisher, 2004, p. 
142). 
Parr and Maguiness (2005) thought that discussion might be a powerful addition to SSR.   
They conducted a qualitative study involving three teachers and grade nine students at a 
secondary school in New Zealand.  In the first part of the study, the researchers worked with the 
teachers to develop a conversation model and then, in the second part of the study, they 
implemented the conversation model during SSR.  The teachers conducted instructional 
conversations approximately once a week.  The researchers specify, ?The conversations focused 
on how selections of books were made, such as looking for features that matched what a student 
enjoyed.  Conversations also involved discussion of what the students were currently reading, or 
had previously read, in SSR or elsewhere? (Parr & Maguiness, 2005, p. 100).  The teachers used 
these conversations to find out what their students were reading and why they chose the books 
they did. 
The researchers also focused on students? agency and identity as readers.  They defined 
agency as, ??a student?s exercise of power or control in the SSR situation?Agency was 
differentiated from identity because in the former there was evidence of power over self as the 
driver in the interchange? (Parr & Maguiness, 2005, p. 101).  After implementing the 
conversation model, they made some adjustments.  A couple of problems they noticed was that 
students did not want to start a conversation and that teachers sometimes had difficulty giving up 
control of the conversations.  In conclusion, Parr and Maguiness (2005) state, ?Before the 
conversations began, all eight students who completed the trial were considered reluctant readers 
in SSR.  At the end of the year, two had made quite marked improvements in this regard and two 
46 
 
were still reluctant to read in SSR.  Most students?valued the opportunity to discuss their 
voluntary reading in SSR times?? (p. 105).  Therefore, the researchers conclude that including 
discussion in SSR might be a way to motivate students to read and also to allow teachers to get 
to know their students? reading habits. 
Kelley and Clausen-Grace (2006) discussed their adaptation of SSR they named R5, 
which represent the following, read and relax, reflect and respond, and rap.  During the read and 
relax portion, students chose a book to read just as they do in SSR, however, unlike SSR, they 
also had a set purpose and the teacher monitored and conferenced with the students.  During the 
reflect and respond portion, students recorded the book title and genre, identified the reading 
strategy they used, as well as an interesting tidbit about what they read.  Finally, during the ?rap? 
session, students paired up to share what they read about and, during the whole-class session, the 
teacher facilitated students reporting what their partner shared (Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2006, 
p. 152).  This program is similar to Scaffolded Silent Reading (ScSR) in a couple of ways.  First, 
students in both programs have a set goal and complete writing assignments.  Second, teachers 
teach strategies and conference with students.  One difference between ScSR and R5 is that 
students in ScSR are assigned to read texts at their independent reading level; however, both 
programs encourage students to read in different genres. 
Kelley and Clausen-Grace (2006) administered the Developmental Reading Assessment 
to measure their students? reading engagement and comprehension.  They followed the students 
from third to fourth grade and administered the DRA seven months after the initial 
administration.  The percentage of students scoring at the independent or advanced levels for 
wide reading and self-assessment/goal setting increased from 33% to 100% and students listing 
having read three or more genres increased from 38% to 61%.  They report, ?Comprehension 
47 
 
also improved as evidenced on the DRA 4-8.  All areas demonstrated growth: prediction, 
summarization, literal questioning, interpretation, reflection, and metacognitive awareness? 
(Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2006, p. 154).  They conclude by stating that they saw improved 
motivation in every student and believe that their students truly became engaged readers as a 
result of the program. 
Case Studies of Sustained Silent Reading and Scaffolded Silent Reading 
Only a couple of case studies have been conducted with Sustained Silent Reading or 
Scaffolded Silent Reading (Bryan, Fawson, & Reutzel, 2003; Stehle, 1981).  For her dissertation 
research, Stehle (1981) conducted a case study on the implementation of SSR at her junior high 
school.  She surveyed both students and teachers about their attitudes toward SSR, which is a 
program she states was mainly designed to increase reading attitudes.  She reports, ?Of the 196 
junior high school pupils who answered six open-ended essay type questions, more than ninety-
two percent of the population surveyed expressed positive attitudes toward the SSR program.  
Teacher responses?were somewhat less positive but nevertheless confirmed a belief in the value 
of the project? (Stehle, 1981, p. vii).  She interviewed both students and teachers because she 
considered them both stakeholders in the implementation of SSR.  She states, ?The development 
of a successful SSR program is a dual responsibility for it involves the attitude of both teacher 
and student?The teacher?s role, in terms of  SSR, is one of guidance and encouragement; the 
teacher must support and assist the reader? (Stehle, 1981, p. 51).   
Stehle (1981) and the other teachers agreed to try SSR for one year as a pilot program.  
She implemented it in her eighth-grade classroom once a week, usually on Fridays, by offering 
students ten points for ?successful completion of the SSR process? (Stehle, 1981, p. 62).  She 
explains that for students to earn the points, they needed to come to class with a book, sustain 
48 
 
their reading through eye contact with the page, and not talk or leave their desks or disturb 
others.  Students recorded the titles of the books they read each time, whether it was fiction or 
nonfiction, and how many pages they read for the 40 minutes of weekly SSR time.  Once a 
month, she took her students to the library so they could select their own books. 
After SSR had been in place for five years, Stehle (1981) administered a survey to the 
seven other English teachers in her department to ascertain their perceptions of SSR.  From the 
responses, it was apparent that all of the teachers had similarly implemented SSR once a week 
and the majority felt that it was a worthwhile use of instructional time.  She also administered a 
survey to students to gauge their perceptions of SSR.  Of the 196 eighth graders she surveyed, 
92% of the responses to SSR were positive, with only 8% responses being classified as negative.  
Most students claimed there was nothing they disliked about the program; some even suggested 
that SSR should be held more often than only once a week.  Stehle (1981) concludes by stating, 
?The right to read is critical in conjunction with academic success; the joy of reading?the love 
of reading is not so easily or as systematically taught? (p. 121).  Every student has the right to 
read, but teachers should also provide students with the time to read and the choice of what they 
want to read. 
Bryan, Fawson, and Reutzel (2003) argue, ??teachers who themselves read silently 
during SSR time are teaching by modeling the behaviors of a silent, engaged ?reader.?  But 
research has failed to establish the value of teachers serving as ?silent reading models? on either 
the achievement or engagement of elementary-aged students? (p. 49).  However, several studies 
have demonstrated that teacher modeling does have an effect on elementary students? reading 
achievement and attitude toward reading (Campbell, 1989; McCracken and McCracken, 1978; 
Methe and Hintz, 2003; Pluck, Ghafari, Glynn, and McNaughton, 1984; Wheldall and Entwistle, 
49 
 
1988; Widdowson and Dixon, 1996).  Although the authors claim no studies have been done 
with SSR and discussion, Parr and Maguiness (2005) did conduct a qualitative study of SSR that 
included discussions between students and teachers.  They found that discussion was motivating 
for most of the students. 
Bryan, Fawson, and Reutzel (2003) further claim that children become ?bored? by the 
routine of SSR and cite studies by Gambrell (1978) and Lee-Daniels & Murray (2000); however 
as teachers and researchers have found, children will eventually become bored with any 
program, which the researchers themselves found out when they implemented ScSR and GROR 
with elementary students.  They conducted case study research with three ?non-engaged? 
readers, which they define as readers who are ??passive, inactive, and seldom see reading as 
pleasurable.  They are often unwilling to take risks and rarely venture beyond their limited 
reading comfort zone? (Bryan et al, 2003, p. 53).  In addition to being described as passive, these 
readers were also labeled disinterested, unenthusiastic, reluctant, inattentive, lacking confidence, 
easily distracted, and distracting to others.  All three students were Caucasian, two were males, 
and one was a female.   
The researchers observed the students? behavior during silent reading time, establishing 
baseline conditions, intervention conditions, and transfer conditions.  During the baseline 
condition, students read during their normal silent reading time.  The intervention consisted of 
the participants meeting with the researcher and having a ten-minute literary discussion.  The 
literary discussion consisted of both the student and the researcher being involved in discussion 
topics and taking turns speaking.  During the transfer stage, the intervention was withdrawn.  
They report, ?The purpose of the transfer was to see if the impact of the intervention would 
continue after the intervention was withdrawn? (Bryan et al, 2003, p. 55).  Results show that the 
50 
 
female student was off-task less and more engaged during SSR time after the intervention and 
transfer stage.  However, one of the male students exhibited more off-task behaviors, which the 
researchers theorize might have been a consequence of a substitute teacher he had during SSR.  
The researchers reintroduced the intervention and were more successful, despite the substitute 
teacher still being in the classroom.   
Finally, the other male student?s behavior during the baseline period was inconsistent, 
although he wasn?t off-task as often during the intervention and he was much more consistent 
with being on-task during the transfer period.  In conclusion, the researchers state, ?The evidence 
here seems to tenuously support the claim that literature discussions with another individual, in 
this case an adult researcher, during SSR time dramatically reduced all three students? off-task 
behaviors thus increasing their observed engagement during SSR time each day? (Bryan et al, 
2003, p. 67).  They stress that teachers should not merely spend their SSR time modeling 
reading, but instead should engage students in conversations about their reading and also allow 
students to converse with peers or adult volunteers about what they are reading.  However, the 
researchers do admit some limitations with their study, such as the small number of participants 
and the unique classroom context and suggest further research is needed. 
Teacher Research of Sustained Silent Reading and Scaffolded Silent Reading 
Several teacher-researchers have implemented SSR in their classrooms and reported their 
results (Akmal, 2002; Allen, 1995; Campbell, 1989; Clarke, 2006; Greenwood, 1985; Jensen & 
Jensen, 2002; Lee-Daniels & Murray, 2000; Leeser, 1990; Pyle, 1990; Reutzel & Fawson, 2002; 
Reynolds, 2004; Speaker, 1990; Trudel, 2007).  As a secondary reading specialist, Greenwood 
(1985) taught elective reading classes which included students with diverse reading levels who 
had lost the desire to read for pleasure.  He included SSR once a week in his reading classes and 
51 
 
had students sign a contract that included the requirements for their grade and a daily log where 
the students kept a record of their daily activities.  After checking to see what the students were 
reading, he modeled reading for them during SSR and, along with his students, gave book talks.  
He encouraged his students to read whenever they could, during lunch, at home, and any spare 
time they had.  He reports, ?What a pleasure it was to see some students unashamedly reading 
during lunch!? (Greenwood, 1985, p. 490).  This type of peer modeling may have as profound an 
effect on students as teacher modeling does on students in the classroom. 
Campbell (1989) stresses the importance of the teacher as a role model during SSR and 
reports on several studies of teacher modeling during SSR.  She states, ?The evidence from a 
variety of sources, albeit limited, does suggest that for SSR to be a success the teacher will need 
to provide a model of silent reading.  However, the teacher working as a role model will not 
guarantee success? (Campbell, 1989, p. 181).  She concludes by mentioning that, along with 
teacher modeling, the time of day was also important and that SSR should not be the last lesson 
of the day. 
A ninth-grade reading teacher, Pyle (1990), suggests that teachers try SSRW (Sustained 
Silent Reading and Writing).  At first, she thought that having students write answers to generic 
questions after reading ??took away some of the joy and spontaneity of reading? (Pyle, 1990, p. 
379).  However, she felt that writing was the key to a successful SSR program, so she had 
students write for five minutes in a journal notebook.  She discovered that they wrote both 
positive and negative comments and that their journal entries became more sophisticated as the 
year progressed.   
Speaker (1990), a university professor, suggests that teachers use SSR + D (Sustained 
Silent Reading plus Discussion).  He states that, ?SSR + D can add an important social 
52 
 
dimension to literacy acquisition? (Speaker, 1990, p. 143).  Teachers can use the last five 
minutes of SSR to allow students to discuss what they read in partners and small groups and 
model a discussion of what they are reading.  Leeser (1990) also suggests using discussion with 
USSR by combining it with USA (Uninterrupted Sharing Activity) and having students share in 
pairs what they read.  He claims that, ?Sharing increases both comprehension and enjoyment? 
(Leeser, 1990, p. 429).  He further explains that if students don?t get to share what they read, 
much like a fisherman who gets the chance to share a good fish story, they would feel empty and 
unfulfilled.  Sharing fulfills that need people have to share what they are excited about with 
others. 
As a high school English teacher, Allen (1995) has had first-hand experience with SSR.  
She conducted teacher research with her secondary readers and acted as a teacher-model and 
researcher-observer during SSR.  She states, ?During Sustained Silent Reading, I saw my task as 
twofold: modeling silent reading behaviors and monitoring the progress of each individual 
student.  In my view, the success of a Sustained Silent Reading program is directly related to 
seeing teachers as active, involved readers of texts they have chosen for themselves? (Allen, 
1995, p. 89).  For an SSR program to be successful, students must be able to choose what they 
want to read and teachers must model a love of reading.  While the teacher is modeling reading, 
her job is also to make sure that each student is reading. 
Lee-Daniels and Murray (2000) decided that just having a Sustained Silent Reading 
program was not enough to get Lee-Daniels? second-grade students excited about reading.  She 
implemented SSR, but was unsatisfied with the initial results.  She used Manning and Manning?s 
(1984) finding that peer interaction was a powerful motivator for students as inspiration to pair 
her students together for book discussions.  What she discovered was that students needed choice 
53 
 
in their reading materials and a classroom community in which to share what they read.  Again, 
an important aspect of any Sustained Silent Reading program is to give students the choice of 
what they want to read and to allow them to interact with their peers. 
Along with books and newspapers, students can also read other types of materials.  
Jensen and Jensen (2002) suggest using young adult short story anthologies during SSR to hook 
reluctant readers.  As high school language arts teachers, they implemented a school wide SSR 
program where everyone read on Thursdays and language arts teachers also included SSR in 
their classrooms on Fridays.  They asked six classes?two team-taught ninth grade English 
classes, two honors ninth grade English classes, and two regular ninth grade English classes?to 
complete a short story evaluation form after every SSR period.  They required students to read 
from the short story collection if they did not bring a book to read.  The team-taught and regular 
students ??seem to think that reading is drudgery, and the commitment required to read a longer 
work is overwhelming to them? (Jensen & Jensen, 2002, p. 59).  However, most of the honors 
students stated they would rather read a book than a short story.  Although they did not conduct a 
scientific study, Jensen and Jensen (2002) reported, ?The whining from students and teachers 
was greatly diminished, as both were experiencing more success and enjoyment in SSR? (p. 59). 
Akmal (2002) discusses using contracts with his middle school students to keep them on 
track during SSR.  This allowed students more control over what they read, how much they read, 
and what kind of assessment they wanted to produce.  For example, students established the 
number of pages they would read each week and whether their report would be oral, written, or a 
project.  He did assign grades to SSR, but based it on the number of pages students read.  His 
system of negotiating contracts with students gave them ownership of their learning.  Akmal 
(2002) stresses, ?Having choices of books and reporting formats and the opportunity for 
54 
 
individual time with the teacher appealed to their personal interests and developed the student-
adult relationship? (p. 157).  This description is similar to SSR in that students are able to choose 
books and it is similar to ScSR in that students are able to conference with the teacher. 
In their book Your Classroom Library: New Ways to Give it More Teaching Power: 
Great Teacher-Tested and Research-Based Strategies for Organizing Your Library to Increase 
Students? Reading Achievement, which is aimed at teachers from kindergarten to sixth grade, 
Reutzel and Fawson (2002) suggest teachers should use reading workshop, which includes SSR, 
in the intermediate grades and voluntary reading/independent reading time/SSR in the middle 
grades.  The authors claim, ?When students participate in SSR, they gain significant benefits in 
reading comprehension and engagement.  These benefits are at least as noteworthy as those 
obtained through skills instruction in reading? (Reutzel & Fawson, 2002, p. 112).  They cite 
Pilgreen (2000) to back up their claim and stress that, in her text The SSR Handbook: How to 
Organzie and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading Program, students reported that they felt they 
were asked to do less work during SSR than during a traditional skill lesson.  The research has 
shown that students? achievement does increase after participating in SSR (Minton, 1980; 
Roettger, Szymczuk, & Millard, 1979; Swanson, 1982). 
However, if teachers find it difficult to motivate students to reading during SSR, the book 
provides a sample mini-lesson that instructs teachers to administer an interest inventory and to 
conference with students to find out what kinds of books they like to read.  They stress, ?If the 
student isn?t becoming engaged in the reading, help him or her to make another selection based 
on the information you now have about interests and motivation? (Reutzel & Fawson, 2002, p. 
113).   
55 
 
Reynolds (2004), a young adult novelist and teacher, promotes SSR as a way to motivate 
reluctant adolescent readers, which can help reluctant readers become lifelong readers.  In her 
book, she reports how she assisted teachers in implementing an SSR program with adolescents at 
a junior/senior high school for juvenile offenders.  They renamed their SSR program SAFARI, 
which stands for Students and Faculty All Read Independently.  The basis of the program was 
for students and staff members to read a book of their choice for twenty-five minutes every day 
at the same time, which led to a ?community of readers.?  When students saw the staff members 
read along with them, that motivated them to read and contributed to the sense of community.  
After four weeks, she informally assessed the program and discovered that 81% of the students 
reported that they planned to continue reading after they left the school.   
Reynolds (2004) emphasizes that the teacher modeling aspect was part of the success and 
also points out some practices that can be roadblocks to the success of SSR, such as having it 
only on Monday and Friday, which doesn?t allow the students to get drawn into a book.  Another 
roadblock to a successful SSR program is when teachers get too caught up with monitoring the 
checkout of books and monitoring what the students are reading through reading logs.  Also, 
staff members with negative attitudes can discourage students from participating in SSR.  She 
stresses that it is hard to measure whether SSR programs promote lifelong reading because few 
studies have examined its long-term effects.   
Clarke (2006), a literacy specialist at a charter high school, describes how his school has 
tried to revitalize reading for their reluctant readers.  He states, ?Recognizing that the first step to 
becoming a better reader is to read frequently, in spring 2004 Blackstone put a Sustained Silent 
Reading program in place, requiring all students to read for 20 minutes a day, four days a week? 
(Clarke, 2006, p. 67).  He stresses the importance of choice and teacher modeling in motivating 
56 
 
reluctant readers and also reports increases in students? reading scores and improvement in their 
attitudes toward reading. 
Trudel (2007) conducted teacher research with her elementary students on Sustained 
Silent Reading (SSR) versus structured independent reading (IR).  She reports on ?The five key 
elements of IR (which make it different from SSR) are as follows: 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, and 5. The teacher is not reading during the entire reading block 
(unless modeling a strategy with a student; Fountas & Pinnell, 2001? (Trudel, 2007, p. 309).  
Some similarities between IR and SSR are that they both provide time to read and allow the 
students to self-select their own reading material.   
In addition to observing her students? reading behaviors during IR and SSR, Trudel 
(2007) also administered a reading attitude inventory (Lewis, 1979).  Based on her observations, 
she concluded that the students were more frequently on task during IR than they were during 
SSR.  However, the students? reading attitude scores decreased after switching from SSR to IR.  
Although, Trudel (2007) stresses, ?My teacher observations suggested an increase in overall 
reading attitudes after students switched from SSR to IR?Students rarely shared their insights 
on reading during SSR unless I asked them.  This was different during IR? (p. 311).  Although 
she was disappointed in the reading inventory results, she relied on her expertise as a teacher to 
determine the true effectiveness of IR for her students.  In addition to teacher research of SSR, 
several articles have been published reviewing the program. 
 
 
57 
 
Reviews of Sustained Silent Reading Research 
Since the 1980s, several reviews of Sustained Silent Reading have been published (Clary, 
1991; Grubaugh, 1986; Moore, Jones, & Miller, 1980; Sadoski, 1980; Wiesendanger & Birlem, 
1984).  After a decade of SSR having been implemented in elementary, middle, and high 
schools, Moore, Jones, and Miller (1980) conducted a meta-analysis of the program.  They stress 
that SSR has been around longer than ten years and that it has ??existed for as long as people 
have been reading.  Whenever a person selects something to read for his/her own purpose, 
spends more than a few moments perusing it, and comprehends whatever s/he wants, SSR is 
occurring.  Only in the last decade, however, has SSR gained attention as a component in a 
school reading program? (Moore et al, 1980, p. 445).  They describe SSR similarly to how 
McCracken (1971) described it: time to read, self-selected material, no interruptions, no 
accountability, and the teacher models reading.  However, they also state that teachers should 
react to what they read and that students should interact with each other.  That peer interaction 
was a motivator for reading was a powerful finding of Manning and Manning (1984); however, it 
was not part of SSR?s original design. 
SSR has also been referred to as ?recreational? or ?free reading.?  However, many of the 
early studies of SSR reported contradictory results or were conducted over a short time period.  
After reading the research of the time, Moore, Jones, and Miller (1980) drew several 
conclusions: 1) SSR has a positive effect on student attitude toward reading, 2) SSR has a 
positive effect on reading ability when combined with a regular program of reading instruction, 
and 3) More research is needed on SSR.  (p. 448).  They also stressed that poor implementation 
of SSR could lead to poor results, which teachers could possibly avoid if they modeled reading, 
utilized the program correctly, and gave it enough time to be successful.   
58 
 
Sadoski (1980) reports that SSR was originally called Uninterrupted Sustained Silent 
Reading (USSR), which was then shortened to Sustained Silent Reading (SSR).  SSR is also 
called DEAR, which stands for Drop Everything and Read.  In a review of the research on 
USSR, Sadoski (1980) claimed that it was a better way to foster a positive attitude toward 
reading than skills-based reading instruction that emphasizes drill and practice.  He stresses, 
??students who read tend to become better readers, and the best way to develop reading ability 
is not through assessment or isolated skills drill, but by reading? (Sadoski, 1980, p. 154).  This 
claim is supported by other research, such as Oliver (1970) who ??suggested employing a ratio 
of 20% instruction to 80% practice to develop purposeful, independent readers, believing that 
developing reading as a whole will automatically improve sub-skills application? (Sadoski, 1980, 
p. 153).  He further concludes that SSR allows students the time and opportunity to foster a love 
of reading. 
Research into SSR is somewhat contradictory, especially with high school students.  
Wiesendanger and Birlem (1984) reviewed 11 studies that examined the effect of SSR on 
students? reading attitudes; nine of the studies indicated a positive effect, while two studies, both 
of high school students, indicated a negative effect.  The first secondary study by Milton (1973) 
attributed the failure of SSR to inadequate faculty inservice.  The other secondary study, 
conducted by Mikulecky and Wolf (1977), examined the effect of three reading activities?
USSR, self-selected reading games, and self-selected reading skills-related reading materials and 
activities?on seventh-grade students? reading attitudes.  In this study, USSR, another variation 
of SSR, stands for uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading.  Each group showed a decline in 
attitude toward reading.  While this was a negative result, the fact that the USSR group 
demonstrated the smallest loss in mean reading attitude score compared to the other groups can 
59 
 
be interpreted positively, since it appears that USSR had the least negative impact on the 
students? reading attitudes when compared to the other methods.   
Grubaugh (1986) gives an overview of the history of SSR in elementary, junior high, and 
high schools, along with some tips for teachers and administrators who want to implement it in 
their schools.  He states, ?Developing a positive attitude toward reading is perhaps the most 
important result of the research on SSR? (Grubaugh, 1986, p. 169).  Grubaugh (1986) states, 
?According to several research studies, the long-term treatment effect of SSR on students? 
reading skills can improve reading skills significantly, as measured by reading test scores? (p. 
169).  He recommends that SSR involve everyone in the entire school reading usually at the 
same designated daily time, while the reality is that sometimes SSR is only implemented in 
English or Reading classrooms.   
SSR has been a recreational reading program in elementary and some junior high/middle 
schools for many decades.  Rarely has it been implemented with high school students; however, 
Clary (1991) states, ?Observation tells us that adolescents, particularly secondary students, have 
little free time outside of school for reading; this is a major cause of decline in free reading at 
this age? (p. 343).  Secondary students have many other activities vying for their free time, such 
as extracurricular activities and after school jobs, so SSR may be a valuable addition to the 
school day.  It provides time to read in school to many students that don?t have time to read 
outside school hours.  Clary (1991) mentions several factors that might get some adolescents to 
read: interest, accessibility, environment, time, models, and motivation.  SSR provides the time, 
the teacher modeling, and the students? choice of what they want to read, but by itself, it may not 
be enough to motivate students to read or to help improve their reading skills.  Recently, 
researchers have created a new program designed to improve on the original design of SSR. 
60 
 
Scaffolded Silent Reading: An Adaptation of Sustained Silent Reading 
Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008) contend that SSR as it has been traditionally 
implemented in classrooms has several weaknesses.  One weakness is that since teachers model 
reading during the SSR time period, they may not be monitoring students? reading.  Another 
weakness is that students are allowed to choose what they want to read during SSR, but are not 
taught book selection strategies.  In summarizing the National Reading Panel?s criticisms, the 
authors assert that SSR lacks teacher monitoring and student accountability and that Scaffolded 
Silent Reading can alleviate these weaknesses; therefore they proposed an adaptation of SSR, 
which they called Scaffolded Silent Reading.   
They define Scaffolded Silent Reading as: ?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).  The program includes book selection strategies, exposure to a wide 
variety of genres, assigning books at the students? independent reading levels, teacher-student 
conferencing, goal setting, and completion of projects.  ScSR is different from traditional SSR in 
the fact that students create ??book response projects, such as drawing an d labeling a ?character 
wanted? poster, making a story map, or filling in a blank graphic organizer? (Reutzel, Jones, 
Fawson, & Smith, 2008, p. 200).  Other differences include no teacher monitoring and feedback 
and no student accountability in SSR as opposed to ScSR. 
 In their mixed methods yearlong study involving 72 third-grade students, Reutzel, 
Fawson, & Smith (2008) compared ScSR to guided repeated oral reading (GROR) and found no 
significant differences between the two programs and their effect on students? reading fluency 
and comprehension.  They extend the NRP?s definition of fluency to include not only accuracy, 
61 
 
rate, and expression, but also decoding and comprehension.  Using two pretest and two posttest 
passages from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading 
Fluency (ORF) test, the researchers determined the students? reading accuracy, rate, expression, 
and comprehension.  They also conducted classroom observations of teachers and students as 
well as student interviews.  Finally, teachers kept a weekly response journal to record their 
successes and difficulties with implementation of the treatment.  The researchers admit that a 
limitation of their study was that there was no control group. 
 During the Scaffolded Silent Reading treatment, teachers began each day modeling fluent 
reading of a text, followed by discussion of what made the reading fluent.  Then students were 
instructed to select a book to read at their appropriate independent reading level from each 
teacher?s classroom library, which had been sorted into different levels of difficulty.  Students 
were required to read from six different genres each nine weeks.  The genres on the Reading 
Genre Wheel consisted of: fantasy, folktales, fables, adventure, science fiction, humor, sports, 
mystery, biography, historical fiction, autobiography, and poetry.  Teachers conducted 
conferences with the students where they asked students to read aloud from their book and set 
goals for finishing the book.  When students finished a book, they colored in that slice of the 
Genre Wheel and selected another book from a different genre.  The authors fail to mention what 
accountability the students would have after finishing a book, such as a writing assignment or 
project (Reutzel, Fawson, & Smith, 2008). 
 The GROR treatment shared some similarities with ScSR, but also had some differences.  
Both programs were implemented for 25 minutes from Monday to Thursday and the goal of both 
programs was to increase students? fluency and comprehension.  The role of the teacher during 
both was to monitor and provide feedback to students as well as explain and model fluent 
62 
 
reading.  One of the differences between GROR and ScSR is that students in the former practice 
oral reading while students in the latter practice silent reading.  With GROR, students read the 
same text on their grade level chosen by the teacher, while ScSR students read texts on their 
independent reading levels they are able to choose with teacher guidance.  GROR emphasized 
repeated readings of text, while ScSR emphasized wide reading of texts across different genres.  
While ScSR was mostly individual, GROR allowed for peer collaboration (Reutzel, Fawson, & 
Smith, 2008, p. 43).   
One strength of the GROR program versus ScSR could be the peer interaction, which 
also allowed students the novelty of using a fluency phone, described by the authors as 
??constructed of white, 2 -in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe and PVC-pipe elbows.  The bottom 
part of the PVC fluency phone swiveled out for the reader to read into.  The earpiece was placed 
on the ear of the listener during paired reading to hear the buddy?s reading through the fluency 
phone? (Reutzel, Fawson, & Smith, 2008, p. 44).  Although most of the pretest and posttest 
measures showed no significant difference between the groups, the researchers did note, ??a 
significant mean gain difference between the ScSR or GROR treatments favoring the ScSR 
group mean gain on expression as measured by phrasing, volume, smoothness, and pace on the 
My Parents passage? (Reutzel, Fawson, & Smith, 2008, p. 45).   
Both groups showed a 43% average increase in reading comprehension (Reutzel, 
Fawson, & Smith, 2008, p. 48).  However, they report, ?Toward the end of the study, all teachers 
noted some fatigue with both reading fluency practice treatments.  They wrote, ?they are getting 
sick of just practicing their reading.  I?m starting to lose some of them? and ?some are beginning 
to complain every morning?? (Reutzel, Fawson, & Smith, 2008, p. 47).  It seems for both 
treatments that students got tired and bored with them. 
63 
 
 Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, and Smith (2008) further expound on the research they 
conducted with ScSR.  They claim, ?Some researchers have suggested that instructional 
scaffolding might improve the effectiveness of SSR, but there have been no studies of the effects 
of Scaffolded Silent Reading nor descriptions of how this scaffolding of silent reading might be 
accomplished (Hiebert, 2006)? (Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, & Smith, 2008, p. 195).  This highlights 
the need for a well-designed study.  The researchers described how the teacher color-coded each 
book to represent the independent reading level and allowed students to choose what they wanted 
to read with her guidance and support to read in a wide variety of genres, such as fantasy, 
folktales, fables, adventure, science fiction, humor, sports, mystery, biography, autobiography, 
historical fiction, and poetry (Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, & Smith, 2008, p. 197).  
 Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, and Smith (2008) highlight the differences between ScSR and 
SSR with the main difference being that there is no teacher monitoring and feedback and no 
student accountability in SSR.  While it is true that the original design of SSR stressed that there 
should be no graded assignment attached to the program in order to stress the pleasure of 
reading, McCracken (1969) does not mention that teachers should not monitor or provide 
feedback.  He does stress that teachers should model reading for their students while they stress 
that teachers should ?teach and scaffold students? appropriate book selection strategies?  
(p. 197) instead of modeling silent reading.  However, the researchers describe a form of 
modeling that the teacher practiced with ScSR: ?Each day ScSR practice time began with Mrs. T 
providing a short, 5-8 minute explanation and modeling of an aspect or element of fluent reading 
or how to use a comprehension strategy using a teacher-selected text? (Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, 
& Smith, 2008, p. 199).  Although they found no significant differences between ScSR and 
GROR, they stress that results indicated the practices were equal and that ScSR is a ??viable, 
64 
 
complementary, and motivating approach that is comparable to the NRP-recommended reading 
practice of GROR for this sample of third-grade students? (Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, & Smith, 
2008, p. 205).  In conclusion, they stated that ScSR was just as good a practice as the 
traditionally-implemented GROR recommended by the National Reading Panel.  Although few 
studies of ScSR have been conducted so far, many studies of SSR and reading attitudes have 
been. 
Sustained Silent Reading and Attitude toward Reading  
Several researchers have developed scales to measure students? attitudes toward reading 
which some researchers have used in their evaluation of SSR (Estes, 1971; Hawk, Roberson, & 
Ley, 1984; Herrold, Stanchfield, & Serabian, 1989; McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995; 
Mikuleckly, 1976; Mikulecky & Wolf, 1977; Roettger, 1980; Rowell, 1972; Schaer, Ley, Neal, 
& Wright, 1988).  Estes (1971) developed a scale to measures students? attitudes toward reading.  
He chose to use a Likert scale because of its accuracy and ease of use and asked a group of 27 
teachers to submit statements related to attitude toward reading.  From those statements, he 
selected 28 to pilot-test with 283 students from grades 3-12.  Analysis revealed that younger 
students had more positive attitudes toward reading.  He includes the twenty-item attitude scale, 
along with the response values assigned to each letter.  Students respond with A, B, C, D, or E, 
with A representing ?strongly agree? and E representing ?strongly disagree.?  For example, an A 
response on a positive question receives 5 points, while an A response on a negative question 
receives 1 point.  He recommends administering the survey pre and post to gauge students? 
changes in attitude. 
Roettger (1980) examined the reading attitudes of elementary students who were good 
readers, but had poor attitudes toward reading as measured on the Estes Attitude Scales.  She 
65 
 
states, ?The children were selected because their attitude scores and actual reading performance 
contradicted the belief that children who read well have positive attitudes toward reading while 
those who do not read well have negative attitudes? (Roettger, 1980, p. 451).  She discovered 
through interviews conducted a year after the initial administration of the attitude scale that 
students had different expectations for reading.  The high attitude/low performance students 
thought of reading as a tool for survival, while the low attitude/high performance students 
thought of reading as ??a means of gaining specific information to help them get good grades, 
do their school work, and learn more about the world.  For them, learning and performing well in 
school had a high priority? (Roettger, 1980, p. 452).  The low attitude/high performance students 
talked about reading as a skill and enjoyed specific types of books, while the high attitude/low 
performance students could name more general types of books that interested them.  Students in 
both groups expressed the desire to have more time in school to read and to discuss what they 
read with other students and the teacher.  This supports the use of SSR or ScSR in schools. 
Rowell (1972) also developed an attitude scale for reading, which he called A Scale of 
Reading Attitude Based on Behavior.  He started the process by selecting three categories of 
reading: ??reading for pleasure, reading in the content areas, and reading as it takes place in 
reading classes? (Rowell, 1972, p. 443).  Similarly to Estes (1971), he also used a Likert scale, 
which ranged from ?always occurs? to ?never occurs.?  However, his attitude scale contained 
sixteen items rather than twenty.  Also, unlike Estes (1971), his scale was designed for teachers 
to fill out based on the student?s observable behavior.  For example, the first item states, ?The 
student exhibits a strong desire to come to the reading circle or to have reading instruction take 
place? (Rowell, 1972, p. 444).  Since the teacher has to observe each student and each behavior 
separately, this attitude scale takes a much longer time than the Estes (1971) to administer, 
66 
 
thereby making it impractical for teachers with limited time or large classes.  He stresses that 
teachers need to make a decision whether to allow students to fill out an attitude scale or to have 
teachers observe students and fill out this attitude scale, which Rowell (1972) tested for its 
reliability and validity for classroom use.   
Mikulecky (1976) developed a reading attitude survey, the Mikulecky Behavioral 
Reading Attitude Measure (MBRAM), for his dissertation.  During the construction of the 
instrument, he conducted a pilot test in 1975 and conducted statistical analyses for construct and 
concurrent validity as well as test-retest reliability.  He field-tested the instrument with 1750 
seventh through twelfth-grade students.  The survey consists of 20 questions rated on a five-point 
Likert scale with one representing ?very unlike me? and five representing ?very like me.?  Some 
questions ask how much the student reads and are mainly worded so that someone who loves to 
read would rate himself or herself highly, while someone who dislikes reading would rate 
himself or herself low.   
Mikulecky and Wolf (1977) administered the MBRAM to 135 seventh-graders in order to 
examine the effect of USSR and reading games on secondary students? reading attitudes.  All 
groups showed a decline in positive reading attitudes; however, the USSR group demonstrated 
the smallest loss in mean reading attitude score, while the reading games group demonstrated the 
greatest loss.  The researchers speculated that the briefness of the treatment, twenty minutes a 
week for ten weeks, may have led to the lack of statistically significant differences between 
groups and that reading attitudes take time to develop and change.   
Hawk, Roberson, and Ley (1984) analyzed the factor structure of the MBRAM with 411 
gifted seventh and eighth-grade students.  Their results indicated that the instrument was a 
unidimensional measure of attitude, but did not measure Krathwohl?s five stages of attending, 
67 
 
responding, valuing, organization, and characterization.  They caution that the instrument should 
be regarded as experimental and should not be used for decision-making about student placement 
or about instructional programs. 
 Schaer, Ley, Neal, and Wright (1988) also evaluated the MBRAM to determine whether 
or not it measures Krathwohl?s five stages of attitude and is a true hierarchical scale.  They 
administered the instrument to 198 undergraduate teacher education students and used the 
Guttman Scale Analysis procedure to examine whether or not the MBRAM is a unidimensional 
index of reading attitudes.  Their findings indicated that the instrument is useful in determining 
the reading attitudes of adults.  One important finding was that ?69% of the preservice teachers 
were classified at one of the two lowest stages of attitude internalization (attending or 
responding)? (p. 186).  This finding may help teacher educators be able to determine the reading 
attitudes of prospective teachers who will in turn influence their future students. 
Herrold, Stanchfield, and Serabian (1989) studied the effects of a listening-to-literature 
program on the attitudes of middle school students toward reading.  They stressed the importance 
of modeling as a highly motivating behavior for students and chose the teacher reading to the 
students as the modeling behavior to examine.  Using a pretest-posttest design, the Reaction 
Toward Reading Attitude Scale developed by Stanchfield was administered to sixth, seventh, and 
eighth-grade students.  They found that boys enjoyed listening to the teacher read stories more 
than girls.  Another interesting finding was that both boys and girls had little desire to read 
during their free time.  This fits with the findings of McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth (1995) that 
by grade six, students have become largely indifferent to reading.  Although they did not study 
SSR, they did look at teacher modeling behavior through oral reading as a way to motivate 
students, especially boys, to read. 
68 
 
McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth (1995) surveyed over 18,000 children in first through 
sixth grades about their attitudes toward recreational and academic reading.  They used the 
Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS) developed by McKenna and Kear (1990) to 
measure students? attitudes toward both types of reading.  They explain that attitude can affect 
students? reading achievement and that poor attitude might lead to students choosing not to read.  
They reported several findings: positive attitude in grade one had declined by grade six, girls had 
more positive attitudes than boys and the gap widens with age, and that ethnicity had little effect 
on either recreational or academic reading attitude.   
Overall, they noticed a negative trend in students? attitudes toward reading as they got 
older and progressed in school.  McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth (1995) state, ?The overall 
negative trend in reading attitude can be explained in part by the increasing impact of poor 
reading ability in the upper grades? (p. 952).  Because the students don?t read well, they have a 
poor attitude toward reading, which makes sense, since most students probably have a negative 
attitude toward activities they don?t perform well.  This study only studied students up to sixth 
grade; therefore, more research is needed on secondary readers? attitudes. 
Mitchell and Ley (1996) examined high school students? reading attitudes and behaviors.  
They stated that little previous research had been done with a high school population, but that 
high achieving readers generally have a more positive attitude toward reading than low achieving 
readers.  Their findings were that females reported more positive attitudes toward reading for 
enjoyment purposes than males and that high school students generally read to be successful in 
school and not for their own personal enjoyment.  Students in grade 12 had a more positive 
attitude toward reading for individual development than students in grade nine, but neither their 
reading for enjoyment nor levels of voluntary reading was statistically significant for grade level.  
69 
 
Students in the most advanced classes reported more positive attitudes toward reading than 
students in the less advanced classes.  Overall, the high school students in this study reported that 
they read mostly for its contribution to their success in school.   
In their review of research, Wiesendanger and Birlem (1984) reported that SSR had a 
negative effect on high school students? reading attitudes.  Of the 11 studies they reviewed, nine 
reported positive effects, while two studies found that SSR actually had a negative effect on 
students? attitudes.  They conclude that several factors must be included in research on SSR to be 
effective: long-term study, SSR combined with reading instruction, younger students, and 
teacher training (Wiesendanger et al., 1984, p. 199).  Although they claim SSR might be more 
beneficial for younger students, more research is needed to determine if it might benefit older 
students as well. 
Yoon (2002) conducted a meta-analysis of the research on the effects of SSR on attitude 
toward reading.  He claims that previous reviews of SSR have not established its effect on 
attitude toward reading; therefore, he wanted to analyze the research to determine whether or not 
SSR enhances students? attitudes toward reading.  Initially, he looked at 350 studies, but 
removed most because he would be unable to calculate effect size.  This left him with 43 studies, 
of which he ultimately analyzed seven because they were experimental studies that included 
control groups and calculable effect sizes.  Six of the seven studies Yoon (2002) analyzed were 
conducted with elementary students, while one study was conducted with junior high students.   
For the seven studies, Yoon (2002) calculated 11 effect sizes to account for the multiple 
outcome measures in some studies.  Five of the 11 effect sizes included a treatment length of less 
than six months, while the treatment length of the other six effect sizes was more than six 
months.  He reports that the average effect size of SSR on attitude toward reading was .12, which 
70 
 
translates to the attitude score of participants in the SSR group exceeding 55% of the participants 
in the control group.  Therefore, since the attitude scores of the SSR group were higher than 
more than half of the control group, Yoon (2002) concludes, ?This result provides evidence to 
support the effectiveness of the SSR reading activity at enhancing students? reading attitude? (p. 
192).   
A limitation of this meta-analysis was the small number of studies he analyzed and the 
fact that he eliminated any study that did not have an SSR group compared to a control group or 
did not contain statistical information to determine effect size.  However, his ??findings suggest 
that providing a fixed period of time for students to read materials of their own choosing either 
for pleasure or for information facilitate their attitude toward reading? (Yoon, 2002, p. 186).  He 
concludes by suggesting SSR would be most beneficial for low-grade students, rather than high-
grade students because they don?t have as many other leisure activities to distract them as older 
students.  In addition to attitude toward reading, studies have also examined students? reading 
achievement. 
Attitude toward Reading and Reading Achievement  
A students? attitude toward reading is important because attitude has been correlated with 
reading achievement.  Several studies have examined a possible connection between students? 
attitudes toward reading and their reading achievement, while other studies have simply 
examined students? reading achievement (Dwyer & Reed, 1989; Maynes, 1982; Minton, 1980; 
Paulson & Henry, 2002; Roettger, Szymczuk, & Millard, 1979; Swanson, 1982).  In an 
experimental study, Roettger, Szymczuk, and Millard (1979) investigated the relationship 
between attitude and achievement for third through sixth-grade students.  They modified the 
Estes Attitude Scale Toward Reading and tested the validity and reliability of their new Reading 
71 
 
Attitude Scale instrument.  They used the Iowa Test of Basic Skills to measure reading 
achievement.  They divided the students into three groups based on their self-reported reading 
attitude: high, average, and low and also divided them into five groups based on their teachers? 
perceptions of their reading attitude: very high, high, average, low, very low.  They report, 
?While there was a significant difference in attitude between high and low achievers, the 
correlations between attitude and achievement on both the vocabulary and comprehension 
subtests were relatively low.  The findings of this study indicate that, contrary to the assumption 
that a positive attitude is essential to learning to read successfully, attitudes cannot be used as a 
predictor of academic achievement? (Roettger et al, 1979, p. 141).  They conclude that some 
students may value reading as an important skill to succeed in school, but dislike it because it is 
difficult for them, while other students who are skilled readers, may not see reading as a 
worthwhile way to spend their time. 
Minton (1980) explored the effect of SSR on the attitudes and achievement of ninth 
graders and teachers.  There were mixed results from the students and the teachers about their 
attitudes toward SSR.  Most of the students thought that SSR was an ?O. K. idea? and most of 
the teachers thought it was an ?excellent idea?; however, 52% of the teachers rated the SSR 
program as ?not successful.?  The researcher speculated that SSR was not successful because the 
teachers were not included in the decision to implement SSR and were not given adequate 
inservice on how to implement it.   
Even though there were mixed results on both students and teachers? attitudes toward 
SSR and reading, there were some positive results on the students? reading achievement as 
measured by the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test.  Minton (1980) reports, ?During the spring 
semester, when the SSR program was in effect, the students showed a growth of six months in 
72 
 
speed and accuracy (8.6 to 9.2), three months in vocabulary (8.6 to 8.9), and four months in 
comprehension (8.2 to 8.6).  Therefore, the SSR program may have had some positive influence 
upon the reading achievement of ninth grade students in vocabulary and comprehension? (p. 
499).  These are positive results showing that, even though students? attitudes became more 
negative, their reading achievement improved. 
She concludes by stating, ?If SSR is to be incorporated successfully into the secondary 
school curriculum, different levels of student ability and maturity must be considered along with 
the right of the students to determine when and where he/she will read for pleasure? (Minton, 
1980, p. 502).  She based this conclusion on the idea that the current trend is to meet the 
individual needs of students; however, SSR is based on the belief that everyone read at the same 
time.  She stresses that students need to learn to read independently and it doesn?t have to be all 
at the same time like it is during SSR. 
Maynes (1982) reports on an elementary school principal who took students showing 
deficiencies of half a grade level or more on the Gates-McGinitie Reading Test for reading 
achievement to the library for 45 minutes during the noon-hour break four days out of five each 
week for six months.  The results were neither positive nor negative.  Maynes (1982) states, 
?There is no indication in these results that the poor readers have acquired a new appreciation for 
reading as a result of their U.S.S.R. experience? (p. 4).  However, she cautions that the program 
had only been going on for two years and there might be long-term effects in the future that 
could not be measured at that time.   
Swanson (1982) examined the relationship between attitude toward reading and reading 
achievement by correlating first-grade students? scores on the Heathington (1975) reading 
attitude inventory with their reading scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test.  Although 
73 
 
she found no significant correlation between reading attitude and reading achievement for the 
group of students as a whole, she reported, ?Significant correlations between attitude inventory 
and reading achievement scores of .48 (p < .01) for 48 females and of .32 (p < .01) for 43 blacks 
suggested higher degrees of association for these two select groups? (Swanson, 1982, p. 1303). 
She concluded that younger students usually have positive attitudes toward reading, while older 
students develop negative attitudes when reading becomes more of an academic task, rather than 
a pleasurable one.   
Dwyer and Reed (1989) contend, ?Little empirical research appears to have been 
undertaken to determine effects of Sustained Silent Reading on either achievement or attitudes 
toward reading? (p. 283).  They then report on eight studies that researched the effects of SSR on 
reading achievement and attitudes toward reading.  The studies that examined attitude and SSR 
had mixed results; some studies produced positive attitudes in students, while others produced 
negative attitudes toward SSR.  However, the researchers caution that the negative attitudes 
might have resulted from flaws in implementing the SSR program.  They conducted their own 
study with fourth and fifth grade students and found that boys had more negative attitudes 
toward reading than girls.  They conclude, ?The question of whether SSR enhances attitudes 
toward reading remains essentially unanswered? (p. 291). 
One current study of a measure of reading achievement, the Degrees of Reading Power 
measure, used an eye-tracker to record ten undergraduate students? eye movements as they took 
the DRP.  Paulson and Henry (2002) explain, ?The eye tracker records eye position by 
measuring pupil and corneal reflections with an infrared reflection source and is accurate to 
within half a degree of vision angle. The eye-movement data are captured and produced as a 
series of x and y coordinates, which analysis software superimposes on a bitmap image of the 
74 
 
text that was read. Fixation order and duration are available, that is, where the reader looked and 
for how long the reader looked there? (p. 237).  Eye movements can reveal how a reader 
comprehends text.  For example, readers fixate longer on unfamiliar words and shorter on 
predictable words. 
 Paulson and Henry (2002) conclude, ?The results of this study suggest that the eye 
movements of students taking the DRP do not in any way correspond to those of their reading of 
the unclozed, baseline passages which, for all these passages may lack in aesthetic appeal, 
resemble much of the reading college and high school students are asked to complete? (p. 242).  
They speculate that students used their test-taking strategies rather than reading comprehension 
strategies because of the cloze nature of the test.  They further strongly state, ?Our conclusion is 
that the DRP is not an accurate measure, or even a modest approximation of, the reading 
comprehension process. The DRP doubtlessly measures something, but it may not be reading, 
and it certainly is not the reading comprehension process?in fact this test appears to cause 
readers to radically alter their reading processes simply to complete the assessment successfully? 
(Paulson and Henry, 2002, p. 242).  However, these researchers used an eye-tracker to measure 
students? reading which does not measure what a student comprehends as he or she reads text.  
They claim that the eye-tracker measures comprehension because students? eyes will pause 
longer on unfamiliar words; however, this does not take into account eye fatigue or fatigue in 
general with taking standardized tests.  It is possible the students used test-taking strategies 
rather than reading strategies, but if a test-taking strategy helps students comprehend text then it 
may also be a good reading strategy. 
 
 
 
 
75 
 
Summary 
 
This chapter reviewed the literature related to the history of Sustained Silent Reading, 
reviews of SSR, as well as experimental, quasi-experimental, case study, and teacher research of 
SSR.  It also reviewed the research related to Scaffolded Silent Reading, an adaptation of SSR.  
Finally, it reviewed the literature related to attitude toward reading and reading achievement as it 
relates to SSR.  The next chapter presents my research methods. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
76 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
METHODS 
 
Introduction 
 
 This study focused on students? attitudes toward reading, reading achievement, and genre 
knowledge in tenth and twelfth-grade English courses taught by the researcher, as well as an 
eleventh-grade course taught by another teacher.  During the fall semester of 2009, a regular-
level class of English 10 participated in Sustained Silent Reading, while another regular-level 
class of English 10 and a regular-level English 12 class taught by the researcher participated in 
Scaffolded Silent Reading.  During the spring semester of 2010, a regular-level English 10 class 
and a regular-level English 12 class taught by the researcher participated in Scaffolded Silent 
Reading.  An AHSGE Reading class taught by the researcher served as a control group as well as 
a regular-level English 11 class taught by another teacher and did not participate in either 
Scaffolded Silent Reading or Sustained Silent Reading.  I used the following questions to guide 
my research: 
1) To what extent do students on the secondary level participating in Scaffolded Silent  
Reading show greater improvement in attitudes toward reading books than students 
participating in Sustained Silent Reading or in a control group?   
2) To what extent do students on the secondary level participating in Scaffolded Silent  
Reading show greater improvement in reading achievement than students 
participating in a control group?   
3) To what extent do students on the secondary level participating in Scaffolded Silent  
77 
 
Reading show greater improvement in knowledge of the following genres?
autobiography, biography, fantasy, fiction, historical fiction, horror, mystery, 
nonfiction, poetry, romance, science fiction, and sports?than students participating 
in Sustained Silent Reading or in a control group? 
 Before presenting an overview of the specific ways in which I conducted the research, I 
will introduce this chapter with a description of my participants and why I decided to use a 
mixed methods approach.  Following the section on study design, I will describe the different 
treatment groups, survey instruments, data collection, data analysis, validity, reliability, 
generalizability, and triangulation. 
Participants and Setting 
 I received permission to conduct this study through the Institutional Review Board of 
Auburn University and the board of education that has jurisdiction over the high school that is 
the site of the study.  I also obtained permission to conduct the study from the principal of the 
high school where I am employed as a full-time English teacher.  I explained to the potential 
participants that any participant under the age of 19 must have written permission from his or her 
legal guardian.  If a potential subject agreed to participate, he or she must give the form to their 
legal guardian or provide me with an address to which I may send the legal guardian an informed 
consent form.  All students enrolled in my classes and the control group class completed the 
reading survey, genre assessment, and Degrees of Reading Power. 
 The high school where I teach is located in a rural community in Alabama near a 
university community.  The population of the school is 60% African-American, 36% White, and 
4% Hispanic and Asian.  The students for the study consisted of high school readers enrolled in 
my English 10 and English 12 classes fall 2009 and spring 2010, along with one section of 
78 
 
English 11 taught by another teacher, which served as a control group.  I teach on block 
scheduling where the classes are 96 minutes long.  Every first block class in the school 
participates in the character education program for the first 15 minutes and third block is 
interrupted by lunch.   
 In order to avoid coercion, I had a colleague consent my students and collect the forms 
and I received permission from the Institutional Review Board to mail additional forms home in 
an attempt to obtain consent.  At the end of both semesters, after assigning final grades and 
mailing additional consent forms home, I had collected 66 consent forms.  The students who 
agreed to participate in the study consisted of 38 females and 28 males, 42 African Americans, 
23 Caucasians and one classified as Other?Laotian, and 28 twelfth graders, 27 tenth graders, 
and 11 eleventh graders.   
Study Design 
When I first considered conducting research in my own classroom, I was concerned about 
the effect on my students.  I realized that I was in a position of power as their teacher and was 
concerned that students might feel obligated to respond to me because I held the ?power? of the 
grade.  However, teacher research can be a positive force in the classroom.  Wilhelm (2004) 
states, ?Teacher research shifts the relationships in a classroom.  Instead of delivering 
information, we invest ourselves in the creative and relational work of engaging, challenging, 
and assisting students in new ways? (p. 184).  Therefore, I wanted to preserve my role as teacher 
while also assuming the role of researcher and use a mixed methods approach that would intrude 
on my students? lives the least amount possible.   
Creswell (2003) defines mixed methods research as, ??one in whic h the researcher tends 
to base knowledge claims on pragmatic grounds? (p. 18).  In other words, this is a practical 
79 
 
approach for when the researcher wants to collect data to answer questions or solve a problem.  
In order to answer these questions, the researcher collects both quantitative (numeric) and 
qualitative (text) data.  Creswell asserts, ?A mixed methods design is useful to capture the best of 
both quantitative and qualitative approaches.  For example, a researcher may want to both 
generalize the findings to a population and develop a detailed view of the meaning of a 
phenomenon or concept for individuals? (p. 22).  Quantitative methods allow the research to be 
more generalizable to the larger population, while qualitative methods allow the research to be 
more specific to the persons directly involved with the study.   
Similarly to teachers and their relationship with their students, qualitative researchers also 
relate to their subjects.  Creswell (2003) states, ?Qualitative researchers look for involvement of 
their participants in data collection and seek to build rapport and credibility with the individuals 
in the study.  They do not disturb the site any more than is necessary? (p. 181).  As their teacher, 
I did not want to disturb the normal flow of my classroom; however, as a researcher I wanted to 
be able to understand my student-participants.  Moss (1994) suggests that qualitative research 
methods can ?open up the academic conversation about literacy to the people who seem to have 
the most at stake?our students, particularly those from ?powerless? communities? (p. 2).  
Qualitative methods allow the researcher to relate to his or her participants and to include a more 
in-depth description of the context in which the research took place.  As for qualitative data, I 
wanted to gather as many student artifacts and observational data as I could to support the survey 
data.   
However, this type of data would be open to interpretation.  Creswell (2003) affirms, 
?Qualitative research is fundamentally interpretive.  This means that the researcher makes an 
interpretation of the data?It also means that the researcher filters the data through a personal 
80 
 
lens that is situated in a specific sociopolitical and historical moment.  One cannot escape the 
personal interpretation to qualitative data analysis? (p. 182).  As both a teacher and a researcher, 
I had a personal connection to my students as they fulfilled the role of also being participants in 
my study. 
As a mixed methods researcher, I chose to use what Creswell (2003) refers to as a 
concurrent triangulation strategy, in which both the quantitative and qualitative data collection 
happen during one phase of the research and can strengthen the results through the use of 
multiple data sources.  He stresses, ?This traditional mixed methods model is advantageous 
because it is familiar to most researchers and can result in well-validated and substantiated 
findings? (Creswell, 2003, p. 217).  However, this method has some limitations, including 
requiring effort and expertise, as well as difficulty in comparing and resolving discrepancies 
between the two different data sets.  Creswell (2003) stresses that the analysis should be 
combined, ?In a concurrent study, the quantitative and qualitative data collection may be 
presented in separate sections, but the analysis and interpretation combines the two forms of data 
to seek convergence among the results? (p. 222).  In other words, both the quantitative data from 
the surveys and the qualitative data from student artifacts and observations would support each 
other and strengthen the findings. 
In their foundational chapter, Campbell and Stanley (1963) describe experimental and 
quasi-experimental designs for research.  They state, ?This chapter is committed to the 
experiment: as the only means for settling disputes regarding educational practice, as the only 
way of verifying educational improvements, and as the only way of establishing a cumulative 
tradition in which improvements can be introduced without the danger of a faddish discard of old 
wisdom in favor of inferior novelties? (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, p. 2).  I chose to use a quasi-
81 
 
experimental design in order to strengthen my results and explore the relatively new program of 
Scaffolded Silent Reading in relation to the already established program Sustained Silent 
Reading.  I did not want ScSR to merely be a ?fad? and I did not want the traditional SSR 
program to be discarded without conducting my own research in my own classroom. 
As a teacher with access to a population of students, I chose to employ a nonequivalent 
control group design with my own students.  Creswell (2003) explains, ?In this design, a popular 
approach to quasi-experiments, the experimental group A and the control group B are selected 
without random assignment.  Both groups take a pretest and posttest.  Only the experimental 
group receives the treatment? (p. 169).  During the fall semester of the 2009-2010 school year, I 
chose to have one group of tenth-graders participate in SSR, while one group of tenth-graders 
and another group of twelfth graders participated in ScSR.  During the spring semester, one 
group of tenth-graders and another group of twelfth-graders participated in ScSR, along with two 
groups of eleventh and twelfth-grade students who served as control groups.   
Description of Treatment Groups 
 
Sustained Silent Reading 
 
As one of the original proponents of Sustained Silent Reading, McCracken (1971) 
stressed that SSR is only one part of a reading program and suggested that teachers who want to 
implement it should follow six rules: 1) Each student must read silently, 2) The teacher reads,  
3) Each student selects a single book/magazine/newspaper and cannot change, 4) A timer is used, 
5) There are absolutely no reports or records of any kind, and 6) Begin with whole classes or 
larger groups of students heterogeneously grouped (p. 521).  For my implementation of 
Sustained Silent Reading, I gave students the time and the choice of what they wanted to read in 
school and I read along with them; however, I did allow them to change books and did not use a 
82 
 
timer.  When I first implemented SSR in 2005, I had used a timer, but I found that it sometimes 
interrupted the reading time or that it made the students watch the timer instead of reading their 
books.  In accordance with the original design, I did not assign any reports or require students to 
keep any records.  Although I did not require students to read in different genres, they were 
exposed to the biweekly booktalks from the librarian. 
Scaffolded Silent Reading 
Scaffolded Silent Reading is different from traditional Sustained Silent Reading because 
students create ??book response projects, such as drawing and labeling a ?character wanted? 
poster, making a story map, or filling in a blank graphic organizer? (Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, & 
Smith, 2008, p. 200).  Other differences include no teacher monitoring and feedback and no 
student accountability in Sustained Silent Reading as opposed to Sustained Silent Reading.  
Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008) defined Scaffolded Silent Reading as: ?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? (p. 39).  The program includes book selection strategies, exposure to a wide variety 
of genres, assigning books at the students? independent reading levels, teacher-student 
conferencing, goal setting, and completion of projects.  I implemented Scaffolded Silent Reading 
according to the previous description except that I added teacher modeling and booktalks and 
students completed writing assignments instead of art projects or graphic organizers. 
Control Group 
While the Scaffolded Silent Reading and Sustained Silent Reading groups were allowed 
to read whatever they choose to read during the time period in school, my control group was 
given no time for reading in school and no choice of reading materials.  Finally, my control 
83 
 
group was exposed to the booktalks, but the control group taught by the other teacher was not 
exposed to them.  As part of my normal classroom instruction, I collected quantitative data from 
the Reading and You attitude survey, Genre Assessment, and Degrees of Reading Power.  I also 
collected qualitative data from observations and student artifacts, including their genre writings 
and pie charts.  The next sections will discuss these instruments in detail.    
Description of Survey Instruments 
Reading and You Attitude Survey 
The Reading and You Attitude Survey was based on the Mikulecky Behavioral Reading 
Attitude Measure (MBRAM) developed by Mikulecky (1976) and revised by B. A. Murray at 
Auburn University in 2009.  Mikulecky pilot-tested and then field-tested the instrument and 
conducted statistical analyses for construct and concurrent validity as well as test-retest 
reliability with other available reading attitude measures such as the Estes Scale (1971), the 
Kennedy-Halinski Reading Attitude Measure (1975), and the Dulin-Chester Scale (1976).  The 
MBRAM was also evaluated in other studies and determined to be a unidimensional measure of 
reading attitude (Hawk, Roberson, & Ley, 1984; Mikulecky & Wolf, 1977; Schaer, Ley, Neal, & 
Wright, 1988). 
In 2009, B. A. Murray at Auburn University revised the MBRAM, which originally 
contained all positive items, to create the Reading and You Attitude survey, which contains an 
even number of positive and negative items in the 28-item survey.  Students rate themselves 
along a Likert scale from one, which represents ?not like me? to four, which represents ?just like 
me? and scores range from a low of 28 to a high of 112.  He conducted a pilot test of the attitude 
survey with ten high school students and revised four items, which included a negative item that 
received a positive correlation with the total score or positive items or an item with no 
84 
 
correlation.  The correlation between the positive total and attitude total was .88, while the 
correlation between the negative total and attitude was -.88.  (B. A. Murray, personal 
communication, June 28, 2009). 
 During the fall and spring semesters of 2009-2010, I administered the Reading and You 
attitude survey to my students at the beginning and end of each semester in order to measure any 
changes that may have occurred over the course of a semester.  After I had collected all of the 
data, I inputted the students? scores on each of the 28 items into a spreadsheet, reverse coded the 
negative, ?not like me?, items, and summed the scores to come up with a total score.   
First, I organized the data according to descriptive statistics: gender, ethnicity, grade, 
semester, and treatment.  Then I entered the students? pretest and posttest data and coded the 
students according to their gender, ethnicity, and grade.  I also coded the treatment the students 
received as well as the semester in which they received this treatment.  PASW Statistics 18.0 was 
used to analyze the data with the findings reported in the next chapter.   
Genre Assessment 
 I designed the Genre Assessment based on a genre assessment by Kellner (2005).  Her 
genre assessment contained the following genres: adventure, fantasy, historical fiction, mystery, 
realistic, science fiction, biography, informational, drama, oral tradition (folklore), and poetry.  
Reutzel and Fawson (2002) created a reading genre wheel with the following: fantasy, folktales, 
fables, adventure, science fiction, humor, sports, mystery, biography, historical fiction, 
autobiography, and poetry.  I combined the genres Kellner (2005) mentioned with the ones 
Reutzel and Fawson (2002) mentioned, deleting categories I thought more appropriate for the 
intermediate grades and adding ones I thought more appropriate for the upper grades.   
85 
 
Also, I combined autobiography with biography and added horror to mystery to come up 
with the following genres for my wide writing genre wheel: autobiography/biography, 
horror/mystery, fantasy, poetry, romance, sports, fiction, historical fiction, nonfiction, and 
science fiction.  I thought folktales and fables could be covered under fantasy and humor was too 
broad a category.  I added romance because I am familiar with it myself as a reader and also I 
thought my students might enjoy reading it.  Finally, I added nonfiction to give students more 
experience reading that type of text that they would encounter on the AHSGE Reading.  
 
Instead of 11 questions such as the Kellner (2005) genre assessment measures, my genre 
assessment contains 24 questions in two sections including matching genres with definitions as 
well as matching genres with examples.  The 12 genres on the assessment are: autobiography, 
biography, horror, mystery, fantasy, poetry, romance, sports, fiction, historical fiction, 
nonfiction, and science fiction.  For example, the first item on the assessment is the definition for 
Autobiography/
Biography
Fantasy
Horror/Mystery
Poetry 
Romance Sports 
Fiction
Historical Fiction
Nonfiction
Science 
Fiction
Wide Writing Genre Wheel
Adapted from D. R. Reutzel & P. C. Fawson (2002) 
86 
 
poetry, ?written in verse, not prose; may or may not rhyme and the example for poetry was as 
follows: ?The rain is raining all around, / It falls on field and tree, / It rains on the umbrella here, 
/ And on the ships at sea.?  The genre assessment measures whether or not students know how 
each genre is defined and whether or not they can recognize examples from each genre.  Scores 
range from a low of 0 to a high of 24 (See Appendix B).   
During the 2009-2010 school year, I administered the Genre Assessment to my students 
at the beginning and the end of each semester.  Each student could have earned from 0 to 24 on 
the pre and on the posttest and results were compared to determine whether the students? 
knowledge of genre had improved or not.  The same procedure was used to analyze the data as 
was used with the Reading and You attitude survey. 
Student Genre Writing 
As part of their classroom assignments, students submitted writing assignments of at least 
one page, double-spaced and typed, as they finished reading each of the books in the ten genres: 
autobiography/biography, fantasy, horror/mystery, poetry, romance, sports, fiction, historical 
fiction, nonfiction, and science fiction.  After reading either an autobiography or a biography, 
students were asked to report the story of that person?s life.  For both fantasy and science fiction, 
students were instructed to write their own stories, based on what they read.  After reading either 
a horror or a mystery novel, students were to write their own story, similar to what they read.  I 
instructed them to give the reader clues so he/she could guess who the murderer/monster is who 
is terrorizing the characters in their story. 
After reading a collection of poetry by one author or multiple authors, students were to 
choose their favorite poem and write their own original poem, imitating its style, including their 
inspiration poem.  Students would also write a romantic story, including a happy ending, after 
87 
 
reading a romance.  For sports, students could write a newspaper article about their favorite 
sports figure or an expository essay explaining how to play the sport they read about.  After 
reading both fiction and historical fiction books, students would write their own fictional stories, 
including well-developed characters and plot, while focusing on a particular setting for historical 
fiction.  Lastly, after reading a nonfiction book, students would write a nonfiction essay on a 
topic of their choice from the book they read.  Students colored in pieces of the wide writing 
genre wheel as they turned in the writing assignments, with the goal being a completed pie chart 
by the end of the semester. 
Degrees of Reading Power  
 The Degrees of Reading Power measure of reading achievement is a 70-question measure 
of reading achievement with scores ranging from 0-70.  According to the publisher, the DRP 
??provides a holistic, criterion -referenced measure of how well students understand the 
meaning of text?Growth in reading ability occurs when students read materials at their 
appropriate reading level.  To help students meet the reading challenges of the classroom, state 
assessments, and beyond, student reading gains must be accurately measured and supported by 
linking comprehension ability with text difficulty? (Questar Assessment, 2010).  In other words, 
it claims to measure students? reading ability.  Each question gives students a choice of five 
words to fill in the blank in a sentence as part of a paragraph, with each question increasing in 
difficulty as the test progresses.  The test measures whether or not students know the vocabulary 
words as well as if they can recognize them in context. 
Flippo and Schumm (2000) reviewed currently available reading tests, such as the DRP 
(1995 edition) and state that the test is used: ?1) to evaluate the current level of students? 
achievement in reading, 2) to determine the most difficult prose a student can use with 
88 
 
instructional assistance and as an independent reader, 3) to measure the growth in the ability to 
read with comprehension, and 4) to place students in developmental reading courses at the 
college level? (p. 436).  They report two advantages of the DRP: that it is untimed and that, since 
prior knowledge is not necessary to understand the passages, the test is unbiased towards 
culturally diverse students.  The DRP measures reading as a process, rather than reading as a set 
of individual skills, and is a modified cloze test, with each passage increasing in difficulty.   
The standard DRP test contains the following characteristics: ?1) The test passage must 
be read and understood for students to respond correctly.  That is, the sentences containing the 
blanks will make sense with each of the options when read in isolation.  However, when the 
surrounding text is taken into account, only one response is plausible, 2) Regardless of the 
difficulty of the passage, all response options are common words, and 3) Item difficulty is linked 
to text difficulty? (Flippo & Schumm, 2000, p. 437).  Therefore, the test measures reading 
comprehension not just vocabulary knowledge.  Flippo and Schumm (2000) state that the 
publishers of the DRP report the reliability of the measure: ?Kuder-Richardson Formal 20 
reliability coefficients were computed.  Of the 72 reliability coefficients computed, 52 were 
greater than or equal to .95.  The range of reliability coefficients was .93 to .97? (p. 438).  As for 
validity, the publisher suggests that the design of the test?a student who comprehends the text 
should be able to answer items correctly?obviously makes it a measure of reading 
comprehension. 
 During the spring semester of the 2009-2010 school year, I administered the DRP to my 
ScSR and control group students at the beginning and at the end of the semester.  The other 
control group taught by another teacher also took the DRP pre and posttest.  The same statistical 
89 
 
procedures and analyses used with the Reading and You attitude survey and the Genre 
Assessment were also used with this measure. 
Data Collection 
At the beginning of the semester, I asked students if they wanted to participate in the 
study, making it clear that this would not affect their grade for better or worse if they chose to 
participate or not.  A colleague conducted the consent process and kept the informed consent 
forms collected from all potential participants and their legal guardians until the end of the 
semester after I had assigned grades.   
 As part of my normal classroom instruction, I collected qualitative data (student artifacts 
and observational field notes) and quantitative data (Reading and You attitude survey, Genre 
Assessment, and Degrees of Reading Power).  I directly observed the students during SSR and 
ScSR during the fall semester, as well as being a participant myself.  An important aspect of SSR 
is for the teacher to model reading while students read; therefore, I will be a participant-observer.  
During ScSR, my primary responsibility was to model my enjoyment of reading for the students, 
while my secondary responsibility was to write down in my teacher-research journal what I 
observed during SSR.  During ScSR, the teacher?s role is to ?teach and scaffold students? 
appropriate book selection strategies? (Reutzel, Jones, Fawson & Smith, 2008, p. 197).  
Therefore, my responsibility as their teacher shifted to scaffolding and modeling strategies, not 
reading.  As a teacher-researcher, my responsibility still remained to observe and record my 
observations.  I called both programs DEAR for Drop Everything and Read. 
 I kept a record of my experiences and observations in my field notes.  This tool allowed 
me to keep a daily record of what I observed and how I felt about it at the time, which will be 
useful for me in constructing the final written record.  As a seventh-grade teacher and teacher-
90 
 
researcher, Wilhelm (1997) has kept a teaching journal about his teaching experiences and 
records his ??observations about particular students, assess what seemed to work or not work 
for the kids, tell stories, posit theories, make plans, and revise lessons that I hope will be more 
successful in the future? (p. 40-41).  For his dissertation research, he recorded his observations 
and conversations with his nine case study students, writing in his journal during classes, during 
lunch, after school, or during his free period.  I also collected student writing they had completed 
as part of their reading during DEAR time. 
Data Analysis  
Creswell (2003) suggests steps for quantitative data analysis: 1) use a table to report the 
number of participants who did and did not return surveys, 2) check for response bias, 3) discuss 
descriptive data analysis, including means, standard deviations, and range of scores, 4) identify 
the statistical procedure and reliability for developing survey instruments, and 5) identify the 
statistics and program for testing research questions (p. 160).  I created a table to track the 
assigned student number, gender, ethnicity, grade, and scores of each student on the three 
surveys.  Response bias is ??the effect of nonresponses on survey estimates?Bias means that if 
nonrespondents had responded, their responses would have substantially changed the overall 
results of the survey? (Creswell, 2003, p. 160).  To counteract reponse bias, I attempted to collect 
both pre and post data from every student and attempted to collect consent forms from every 
student, both by sending those forms home with the students and also by mailing forms home. 
Miles and Huberman (1994) define qualitative data analysis as ??consisting of three 
concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification? 
(Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 10).  Data reduction is the ongoing process of organizing and 
discarding data.  Data display is an ??organized, compressed assembly of information that 
91 
 
permits conclusion drawing and action? (p. 11).  Conclusion drawing and verification is when 
the researcher decides what the data means.  Throughout this study, I had a wealth of information 
to analyze, including my student surveys and artifacts and field notes. 
 Initially, I analyzed and coded my field notes.  Miles and Huberman (1994) define codes 
as ??tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information 
compiled during a study? (p. 56).  They advise going through transcripts and field notes with a 
pencil and marking off similar units, dividing them into topics and subtopics.  I analyzed my data 
and began to generate codes in what Miles and Huberman (1994) refer to as ?first-level coding,? 
which is a ??device for summarizing segments of data? and ?pattern coding,? which  is ??a 
way of grouping those summaries into a smaller number of sets, themes, or constructs? (p. 69).  I 
decided that I would look for patterns related to three areas correlated to my quantitative surveys: 
reading attitude, reading achievement, and genre knowledge. 
 Creswell (2003) suggests the following steps for qualitative data analysis and 
interpretation: 1) ?Organize and prepare the data for analysis.  This involves transcribing 
interviews, optically scanning material, typing up fieldnotes, or sorting and arranging the data 
into different types depending on the source of information? (p. 191), 2) get a general sense by 
reading through the data, 3) code the data by organizing it into categories, 4) generate a 
description of the participants and then use the coding to generate themes, 5) decide how to 
represent the description and themes in the narrative, and 6) interpret the data using the 
researcher?s experiences as well as what the literature suggests (Creswell, 2003, p. 191).   
Creswell (2003) defines data transformation and states that researchers may quantify the 
qualitative data by ??creating codes and themes qualitatively, then counting the number of 
92 
 
times they occur in the text data?This quantification of qualitative data then enables a 
researcher to compare quantitative results with the qualitative data? (p. 220).   
Campbell and Stanley (1963) state, ?The most widely used acceptable test is to compute 
for each group pretest-posttest gain scores and to compute a t between experimental and control 
groups on these gain scores.  Randomized ?blocking? or ?leveling? on pretest scores and the 
analysis of covariance with pretest scores as the covariate are usually preferable to simple gain-
score comparisons? (p. 23).  However, they caution, ?Where intact classes have been assigned to 
treatments, the above formulas would provide too small an error term because the randomization 
procedure obviously has been more ?lumpy? and fewer chance events have been 
employed?Essentially, the class means are used as the ba sic observations, and treatment effects 
are tested against variations in these means.  A covariance analysis would use pretest means as 
the covariate? (p. 23).   
Validity, Reliability, Generalizability, and Triangulation 
In experimental research, there are several potential threats to validity: internal validity, 
external validity, statistical conclusion validity, and construct validity.  Creswell (2003) defines 
internal validity threats as, ??experimental procedures, treatments, or experiences of the 
participants that threaten the researcher?s ability to draw correct inferences from the data in an 
experiment? (p. 171).  For example, students in the experimental group may talk to students in 
the control group, which leads to a diffusion effect.  They also might change their opinions or 
mature during the experiment.  Finally, another threat to internal validity is using inadequate 
procedures, such as changing the survey instrument in the middle of the experiment.   
Campbell and Stanley (1963) list eight threats to internal validity: history, maturation, 
testing, instrumentation, statistical regression, selection biases, experimental mortality, and 
93 
 
selection-maturation interaction.  History refers to events that may happen between the pre and 
post tests along with the experimental variables, while maturation refers to the subjects getting 
older, more tired, etc.  Testing refers to how taking a test may affect the scores of another testing 
and instrumentation refers to any changes in observers or calibration that may cause changes in 
the results.  Statistical regression is where groups were selected based on their extreme scores, 
with selection bias also being a possibility for the selection of participants.  Experimental 
mortality refers to the fact that participants may drop out of the study before its completion and 
selection-maturation interaction refers to variables that might be confused with the experimental 
variables (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, p. 5). 
Creswell (2003) defines external validity threats as, ??wh en experimenters draw 
incorrect inferences from the sample data to other persons, other settings, and past or future 
situations.  For example, a threat to external validity arises when the researcher generalizes 
beyond the groups in the experiment to other racial or social groups not under study? (p. 171).  
An example with my study might be if I generalized my results to ninth graders or to Hispanic 
students although neither group was represented in my population.  Threats to statistical 
conclusion validity and construct validity arise, ??when experimenters draw inaccurate 
inferences from the data because of inadequate statistical power or the violation of statistical 
assumptions.  Threats to construct validity occur when investigators use inadequate definitions 
and measures of variables? (Creswell, 2003, p. 171).  For example, a threat to statistical 
conclusion validity might arise if the data set was too small to make adequate assumptions.   
Campbell and Stanley (1963) list four factors that may threaten external validity: reactive 
or interaction effect of testing, interaction effects of selection biases and experimental variable, 
reactive effects of experimental arrangements, and multiple-treatment interference.  They 
94 
 
explain, ?The reactive or interaction effect of testing, in which a pretest might increase or 
decrease the respondent?s sensitivity or responsiveness to the experimental variable and thus 
make the results obtained for a pretested population unrepresentative of the effects of the 
experimental variable for the unpretested universe from which the experimental respondents 
were selected? (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, p. 5).  For example, giving the participants in my 
study a pre survey assessment on reading attitude makes them aware that I am studying reading 
attitudes and may influence them to have a more positive attitude on the post survey.  However, I 
controlled for that by giving the pre and post surveys to both ScSR and SSR treatment groups as 
well as two control groups. 
Other threats to external validity include any effects of the experimental variable and 
selection biases as well as any effects of experimental arrangements, which includes any effect 
of the experimental variable on people in a nonexperimental setting.  Finally, another threat to 
external validity can occur when participants are exposed to multiple treatments since the effects 
are likely to linger.  A test of repeated measures, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), was 
conducted on the three survey instruments with the results being presented in the next chapter. 
Summary 
This chapter presents a brief overview of research methodology that was used in this 
study.  It included a description of my participants and setting and why I decided to use a mixed 
methods approach.  It also described the different treatment groups, survey instruments, data 
collection, data analysis, validity, reliability, generalizability, and triangulation.  The next 
chapter contains the results of my research. 
 
 
 
 
95 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
FINDINGS 
 
Introduction 
 
This study focused on secondary students? attitudes toward reading, reading achievement, 
and genre knowledge in a Scaffolded Silent Reading program versus Sustained Silent Reading 
and control groups.  The study took place during the 2009-2010 school year and involved three 
regular English 10, two regular English 12 courses, and one AHSGE Reading course that I, as 
teacher-researcher, taught, along with a section of regular English 11 taught by another teacher.  
Both of the regular English 12 classes and two of the regular English 10 classes participated in 
ScSR, while one regular English 10 class participated in SSR.  During the spring semester, the 
regular English 11 class and the AHSGE Reading class did not participate in either ScSR or SSR 
and served as control groups. 
A total of 66 students gave consent for their data to be used in this study.  Of those 66 
students, 44 students participated in ScSR during the fall and spring semesters, while 22 students 
participated in either SSR or a control group.  Most of the students, 40, were enrolled in the 
spring semester, while 26 students were enrolled in the fall semester.  There were 38 females and 
28 males involved in the study.  Most of the students were African American, 42, with 23 
Caucasian students and one student classified as Other.  Finally, there were a total of 28 twelfth-
graders, 11 eleventh-graders, and 27 tenth-graders.  In addition to completing the surveys, the 
ScSR students also turned in genre writing assignments; however, only 12 of those students 
completed all ten genres.  Only the spring semester students completed the pie chart that 
96 
 
represented the genres they completed both by reading books and writing assignments.  Before 
presenting the results of the individual surveys, this chapter will present the results of all three 
surveys combined. 
Results 
 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on all three surveys to determine if there 
were significant differences between students in Scaffolded Silent Reading versus Sustained 
Silent Reading combined with the control groups on a survey of reading attitude, a measure of 
reading achievement, and an assessment of genre knowledge.  The fall semester SSR group was 
combined with the spring semester control groups because the number of students in these 
groups was too small to yield any power.  For all three measures, results revealed no significant 
differences between the treatment groups on the dependent variable, Wilks? ? = .989, F(1, 29) = 
6.554, p = .016.  For the reading attitude survey and genre knowledge assessment given both 
semesters, results also revealed no significant differences between the treatment groups on the 
dependent variable, Wilks? ? = .982, F(1, 51) = 2.576, p = .115.  Since one measure, the Degrees 
of Reading Power measure of reading achievement, was only given during the spring semester, it 
was analyzed separately from the other two measures.  For the measure of reading achievement, 
results revealed the Scaffolded Silent Reading group outperformed the control group, Wilks? ? = 
.953, F(1, 33) = 13.489, p = .001, although both the mean scores of both groups decreased.   
After analyzing the data using an ANOVA, an independent-samples t test was also 
conducted on the individual surveys to determine if there were significant differences between 
the Scaffolded Silent Reading group and the Sustained Silent Reading plus control group.  Those 
who participated in Scaffolded Silent Reading (M = 18.29, SD = 4.648) had significantly higher 
genre knowledge scores than those who participated in Sustained Silent Reading or a control 
97 
 
group (M = 12.11, SD = 5.759), t(40) = 3.84, p < .001, d = 1.20.  These results indicate statistical 
significance as well as a large effect size.  Also, those who participated in Scaffolded Silent 
Reading (M = 33.86, SD = 14.670) had significantly higher reading achievement scores than 
those who participated in a control group (M = 14.70, SD = 6.750), t(22) = 3.83, p = .001, d = 
1.58.  These statistically significant results also indicate a large effect size.  Finally, there were 
no statistically significant differences between the groups on the reading attitude survey.  Those 
who participated in Scaffolded Silent Reading (M = 69.13, SD = 15.582) did have a higher mean 
score on the reading attitude survey than those who participated in Sustained Silent Reading or a 
control group (M = 64.41, SD = 13.272), t(44) = 1.10, p = .277, d = 0.3, but the results were not 
statistically significant and there was only a small effect size.  Results on each of the individual 
measures are presented in the next sections. 
Reading and You Attitude Survey  
 
During the fall and spring semesters of the 2009-2010 school year, 66 students at the 
secondary level participated in this within-subjects design with 44 students involved in 
Scaffolded Silent Reading and 22 students in either Sustained Silent Reading or a control group.  
Students took the Reading and You attitude survey both at the beginning and at the end of the 
semester.  After administering the pre survey and before implementing ScSR or SSR, I explained 
to the class what it was and what it was not.  I informed them that they were not to talk, study, or 
sleep during this time, but only to read.  I would also be reading with them and there would be no 
project attached to it.   
As I modeled reading for my students in the SSR and ScSR classes, I also observed them 
and wrote down some of my observations of their behavior and, sometimes, what I overheard 
them saying, before, during, and after.  I wrote down my observations in my field notes, using 
98 
 
abbreviations to save time.  Over the course of two semesters, I jotted down 95 pages of notes.  
Along with what I saw, I also wrote down what I heard as students sometimes discussed what 
they were reading with me or their classmates.   
In regards to students? attitudes toward reading, one trend I noticed was that the SSR 
class had a hard time settling down to read and that the girls mostly appeared to be reading, but 
rarely the boys.  After noticing on several different occasions that most of my SSR boys did not 
read, I asked them why they didn?t want to read.  When I asked one of my male students to 
explain this to me, he said he did read, but he just didn?t have a book and he asked me to pick 
one for him.  He didn?t give me much guidance, so I chose Classic Ghost Stories, which he 
ended up giving to a girl to read.  I wrote, ?Despite all the library trips/booktalks the boys seem 
unmoved/unfazed.?  I felt extremely frustrated and wondered if ScSR would have made a 
difference with them.   
When asked why he didn?t want to read, one boy claimed, ?It?s a girl sport.?  This fits in 
with what Smith and Wilhelm (2002, 2006) have found in their studies of male teenage readers.  
Although the boys in their study had a rich and varied literate life outside of school, they did not 
typically read in school.  In their summary of the research on gender and literacy, Smith and 
Wilhelm (2002) reported the following generalizations: 1) boys read less than girls, 2) boys 
value reading less than girls and spend less time doing it, 3) boys are less interested in reading 
for pleasure and more interested in reading for reading for a useful purpose, 4) boys and girls 
read different things, 5) boys are more likely to read graphic novels, book series, humor, science 
fiction or fantasy, magazines, newspapers, electronic texts, or informational texts, 6) boys are 
less likely to discuss their reading, 7) boys prefer active responses such as acting out a response 
or making something, and 8) boys need more teacher time than girls (p. 10).  The differences 
99 
 
between boys and girls when it comes to reading are evident to many teachers; however, 
researchers are just recently beginning to study these differences.   
In addition to my boys not wanting to read, I also suspected some other students had 
negative attitudes toward reading as well.  On November 12, 2009, I wrote, ?I think DEAR time 
is torture for some.?  This was an overall feeling I had and was not related to any specific event, 
but just was an accumulation of all of the previous days.  I also noticed that when I didn?t model 
reading, the students sometimes didn?t read, even when I circulated around the room, checking 
what they were reading and if they were reading.  This occurred with both boys and girls. 
Before I analyzed the data on the reading attitude survey using statistical processes, I 
looked at the raw data to determine if students? attitude scores increased or decreased from pre to 
post.  Overall, both the Scaffolded Silent Reading and control group students improved their 
attitudes toward reading, while most of the SSR students? reading attitudes decreased.  Of the 40 
tenth and twelfth-grade students who participated in ScSR and gave consent for their data to be 
included in this study, 60% improved their scores on the Reading and You Attitude survey, while 
40% of the scores declined.   
The tenth-graders? reading attitudes improved more than the twelfth-grade students and 
the fall semester students? reading attitudes overwhelmingly improved as opposed to the spring 
semester students.  Of the 17 tenth-graders who returned their consent forms and completed both 
the pre and post surveys, 64.7% improved their scores, while 35.3% of the scores declined.  For 
the 23 twelfth-graders who returned their consent forms and completed both the pre and post 
surveys, 56.5% improved their scores on the Reading and You Attitude survey, while 43.5% of 
the scores declined.  Of the seven fall semester students, 71.4% improved their scores, while 
100 
 
28.6% of the scores declined, while 50% of the spring semester students? reading attitudes 
improved while 50% declined.   
Most of the SSR students? reading attitudes declined, while most of the control groups? 
reading attitudes improved.  For the eight tenth-grade students in the SSR group who returned 
their consent forms and completed both the pre and post surveys, 37.5% improved their scores 
on the Reading and You attitude survey, while 62.5% of the scores declined.  Finally, of the 13 
eleventh and twelfth-grade students in the control groups who returned their consent forms and 
completed both the pre and post surveys, 69.2% improved their scores on the Reading and You 
attitude survey, while 30.8% of the scores declined.   
After looking at the preliminary results, I conducted a reliability analysis on the twenty-
eight item reading attitude survey.  Cronbach alpha for the scale was .861, indicating a degree of 
internal consistency among the items on the scale.  The means of the individual items ranged 
from 1.42 to 3.09, with a mean on the total scale of 65.15 (SD = 13.906).  Overall, the 
participants? responses on the scale indicated that they possessed a moderate attitude toward 
reading.  The mean and standard deviation of the items of the reading attitude survey are 
provided in Table 1. 
Table 1  
Reliability of Reading and You Attitude Survey  
Item   M   SD 
 
1 
 
2.08 
 
1.046 
2 2.03 1.031 
3 2.33 1.193 
101 
 
4 2.66 1.049 
5 1.84 .949 
6 2.12 1.142 
7 2.67 1.098 
8 2.89 1.170 
9 2.52 1.159 
10 2.71 1.030 
11 1.91 1.032 
12 2.55 1.077 
13 2.71 1.030 
14 2.25 1.040 
15 2.35 1.173 
16 1.64 .912 
17 2.27 1.152 
18 2.27 1.083 
19 2.03 1.164 
20 2.76 1.055 
21 2.39 1.161 
22 2.05 1.135 
23 3.09 1.014 
24 2.19 1.116 
25 1.86 1.069 
26 1.42 .757 
27 2.50 1.135 
28 2.42 1.195 
 
102 
 
Possible scores on the Reading and You attitude survey ranged from 28 to 112.  Results 
show that the mean score of the students in the ScSR group increased from 65.88 to 67.58, while 
the mean score of the students in the SSR plus control group decreased from 65.62 to 65.12. The 
mean and standard deviation are provided in Table 2.   
Table 2  
Reading and You Attitude Survey 
Time Treatment       M        SD 
    
Pretest 
 
Posttest 
Scaffolded Silent Reading 65.88 
67.58 
13.812 
14.970 
Pretest 
 
Posttest 
Sustained Silent Reading 
Plus Control Group 
65.62 
65.12 
10.676 
15.413 
 
Although the means of the ScSR group increased and the means of the SSR plus control 
group decreased, the results of the ANOVA and the independent samples t test showed no 
significant differences between the ScSR and SSR groups on the reading attitude survey.  I also 
analyzed the students? performance on the reading attitude survey based on their gender, 
ethnicity, grade level and semester enrolled in the class.  Results show that the 17 males in both 
the ScSR and SSR groups improved their reading attitudes more than the 31 females although 
their scores started lower in the beginning. The mean of the male students increased from 61.29 
to 63.88, while the females slightly increased from 68.32 to 68.97.   
There were few differences between students based on their ethnicity, although the one 
student classified as Other increased his score the most.  There were 28 African American, 19 
Caucasian students, and one student classified as Other.  The African American students 
increased their mean from 66.75 to 68.61, the Caucasian students only increased their mean from 
103 
 
64.47 to 64.63, while the student classified as Other increased his score from 66.00 to 75.00.  
The mean of the twenty-five tenth-graders increased from 63.12 to 65.68, while the mean of the 
twenty-three twelfth-graders stayed exactly the same at 68.78.  Overall, the reading attitudes of 
the tenth graders improved while the twelfth-graders? reading attitudes stayed the same.   
In addition to analyzing the data according to gender, ethnicity, and grade level, I also 
analyzed the data to determine whether or not the semester a student participated in ScSR or SSR 
may have been a factor.  Although, as a teacher I suspected there were some differences, there 
were no statistically significant differences between the students? reading attitude scores based 
on the semester they participated in the program.  However, the fall semester students? reading 
attitudes improved slightly more than the spring semester students.  The mean of the fall 
semester students increased from 63.73 to 65.45, while the mean of the spring semester students 
also increased slightly from 67.62 to 68.62.  While there were no statistically significant 
differences between the groups on the reading attitude survey, there was a trend toward the 
Scaffolded Silent Reading students increasing their reading attitudes, which might have been 
demonstrated if the time period of the treatment had been longer. 
Reading Achievement Measure: Degrees of Reading Power 
In order to measure whether students? reading achievement levels had improved, I 
administered the Degrees of Reading Power posttest on May 5, 2010 in an attempt to give it 
early enough so that students wouldn?t be too tired by the end of the semester and just mark any 
answer.  However, I noticed that some students took only 30 minutes to complete the seventy-
item posttest, which suggested to me that they didn?t really try to do their best.  One tenth-grade 
male student even told me, ?I only tried on 10 of these.?  The mean score of both groups 
decreased with the students in the ScSR group scoring higher than the control group, but 
104 
 
demonstrating more of a decrease, while the mean score of the students in the control group was 
lower than the ScSR students, but decreased less.  The mean and standard deviation are provided 
in Table 3.   
Table 3  
Reading Achievement: Degrees of Reading Power 
Time Treatment       M        SD 
    
Pretest 
 
Posttest 
Scaffolded Silent Reading 38.15 
30.50 
16.694 
15.271 
Pretest 
 
Posttest 
Control Group 16.78 
15.33 
2.108 
6.837 
 
Before  analyzing the results of the reading achievement measure using statistical 
methods, I first examined the raw scores on both the pretest and posttest.  Most of the students? 
scores on the Degrees of Reading Power measure of reading achievement decreased.  A total of 
35 students returned consent forms and completed the DRP during the spring semester.  Of those 
35, 26 tenth and twelfth-grade students participated in ScSR with 26.9% increasing their scores 
and 73.1% of the scores decreasing.  Although most students? scores decreased, the tenth-graders 
performed better than the twelfth-graders.  Out of the 16 twelfth graders in the ScSR group, only 
12.5% improved their scores, while 87.5% of the scores declined.  Out of the ten tenth graders in 
the ScSR group, 50% improved their scores, while 50% of the scores declined.   
The scores of the students in the control groups also decreased.  Results for the nine 
eleventh and twelfth-grade students in the control groups indicated that 33.3% improved their 
scores and 66.7% of the scores declined.  Of those nine students, five were in the AHSGE 
Reading control group taught by the teacher-researcher with 40% of the scores improving and 
105 
 
60% of the scores declining.  Four students were in the English 11 control group taught by the 
other teacher with 25% of the scores improving and 75% of the scores declining.   
After viewing the initial results, I was concerned that students had gotten frustrated with 
the test and just started marking any answer at that point just to finish the test, so I discussed the 
issue with my committee chair and we decided to cut the score off when students had missed five 
items in a row.  According to Flippo and Schumm (2000), ?Students are urged to stop when the 
test no longer is comprehensible; guessing is not encouraged? (p. 438).  Since those instructions 
were not included with the DRP that I had administered to my students and my colleague had 
administered to her students, I had instructed my students to do their best on the test.  Even if I 
had given those instructions, I can imagine that my students would just stop after a few 
questions, claiming that they did not understand the test, just to get out of doing any work. 
 I reexamined both the pretests and posttests and cut the scores off after students had 
missed five items in a row.  I noticed a pattern on a few of the scantrons which made it appear 
that students had begun just marking any answer from almost the beginning of the test.  Either 
that or they truly did not know the answers.  I deemed these pretests unreliable and threw their 
scores out.  According to this process, all of the control group?s pretest scores were unreliable.  
After examining the posttests, I especially noticed that the twelfth-graders appeared to bubble in 
any answer just to get done with the test.  However, I did notice several students? scores, 
especially the twelfth-graders in the ScSR group, increased from pre to posttest, using this 
method.  After throwing out the unreliable scores, I was left with 14 students in the ScSR groups, 
mostly twelfth graders with one tenth grader.  In conclusion, I am cautious to report any reliable 
results on this measure of reading achievement. 
106 
 
I also analyzed the data according to the students? gender, ethnicity, and grade level and 
did not analyze the data according to semester since the DRP was only given during the spring 
semester.  Both males and females decreased their mean; males went from 23.67 to 17.42, while 
females went from 37.35 to 31.39.  The majority of the students were African American and 
their mean decreased from 32.79 to 27.75.  The Caucasian students also decreased their mean 
from 33.30 to 23.20, but the one student classified as other increased his score from 23.00 to 
33.00.  Finally, 19 students were twelfth-graders, ten were tenth-graders, and six were eleventh-
graders in the control group.  The only group that showed any increase in their mean was the 
tenth-graders who went from 22.20 to 22.70.  The twelfth-graders? mean decreased from 43.32 to 
32.47 and the mean of the eleventh-graders also decreased from 16.33 to 14.50.   
Although both groups? reading achievement scores decreased, the Scaffolded Silent 
Reading group outperformed the control group and an independent samples t test demonstrated 
statistical significance between the groups.  Those who participated in Scaffolded Silent Reading 
(M = 33.86, SD = 14.670) had significantly higher reading achievement scores than those who 
participated in a control group (M = 14.70, SD = 6.750), t(22) = 3.83, p = .001, d = 1.58.  These 
statistically significant results also indicate a large effect size.  Even though the Scaffolded Silent 
Reading group performed better than the control group, the results were disappointing since both 
groups? scores decreased. 
Although the results of the reading achievement measure were disappointing overall, I 
also relied on what I knew as a teacher and what I observed daily to determine what students 
really achieved.  I knew as a teacher that sometimes students appear to be reading, but do not 
comprehend what they are reading.  Often they do not ask for assistance from me as their 
teacher, but one time a couple of students asked me for help in understanding what they are 
107 
 
reading.  One female twelfth-grade ScSR student asked me about Cut, which is about a girl in 
therapy who is a cutter.  I had read the book, so I was able to explain that the book is told 
through flashbacks, which seemed to make sense to my student.  Another female twelfth-grade 
ScSR student was reading a romance novel by Linda Lael Miller, but said it wasn?t interesting to 
her and that she was confused.  I noticed that the book was the third in a series, so I suggested 
that might be why it was confusing and that she might be better off choosing another book.  
These moments made me think that the Scaffolded Silent Reading students were attempting to 
comprehend what they were reading.  I don?t think they would done that if they had been in a 
Sustained Silent Reading program with no teacher feedback or in a control group where students 
weren?t allowed the time to read in school or the choice of what they wanted to read. 
Genre Assessment 
 
During the fall and spring semesters of the 2009-2010 school year, all students taught by 
the teacher-researcher, including the SSR and control group students, participated in biweekly 
booktalks sponsored by the librarian and were exposed to the genres, while the control group 
taught by another teacher was not exposed to the genres.  These booktalks lasted for 
approximately 10-15 minutes and consisted of the librarian reading the book jacket descriptions 
to the students, accompanied by music.  While the SSR and control group students were not 
required to read or write in the genres, the ScSR students were required to read and write in each 
of the following ten genres: 1) autobiography/biography, 2) horror/mystery, 3) fantasy, 4) poetry, 
5) romance, 6) sports, 7) fiction, 8) historical fiction, 9) nonfiction, and 10) science fiction.  I 
gave them the Wide Writing Genre Wheel and instructed them that, over the course of the 
semester, they would a book in each of the genres and complete a writing assignment after 
reading each book.   
108 
 
In addition to allowing students to check out books from the library every other week, I 
also continued to add to my classroom library based on what students told me they were 
interested in reading or what I perceived they might enjoy.  For example, I added NFL coach 
Tony Dungy?s biography to my collection along with You Hear Me?  Poems and Writing by 
Teenage Boys and the complete Bluford series.  I also learned what students were interested in 
reading during the booktalks.  For example, a couple of students wanted to check out Dope Sick 
by Walter Dean Myers and I already had several books by that author in my classroom library.  
Several students read books from the Bluford series, which is a young adult series that includes 
African American protagonists and real-life settings that appeals to my students.  Finally, 
students also read such fantasy and horror books as Twilight and Cirque de Freak; both of which 
have become popular and made into movies. 
On August 31, 2009, I began taking all of my students, including both the SSR and ScSR 
groups, to the library for biweekly booktalks from the librarian.  Over the course of two 
semesters, she conducted eight booktalks every two weeks.  After each booktalk, I noticed that 
some students were eager to check out the books she had mentioned and actually did end up 
checking them out and reading them for DEAR time.  On September 1, 2009, I administered the 
genre pretest to the students.  We had already discussed autobiography and biography with the 
tenth graders since it is part of their literature curriculum.  I noticed that the SSR group was 
talkative, but the tenth-grade ScSR group appeared to all be reading, which I reported as seeing 
their eyes moving.   
After reviewing the genre writing assignments I received during the fall, I revised them 
slightly.  For example, I realized I had allowed students to write their own life story for the 
autobiography/biography assignment which they would be able to do without having to read a 
109 
 
book.  I revised the assignment to read, ?After reading either an autobiography OR a biography, 
report the story of the person?s life.?  Sometimes it was a challenge determining which genre a 
book belonged to or what a student might be interested in reading.  For example, one male 
twelfth-grade student wanted to read Flyboys for his historical fiction selection, but the book is 
classified as nonfiction, so we discussed how there is no historical nonfiction category.  
Eventually, we decided it contained fictional details and he used it for his historical fiction 
selection.  A female twelfth-grade student consulted with me about a nonfiction book she was 
reading about child abuse, but she had already completed her nonfiction assignment, so we 
decide it could also fit into the autobiography/biography category.  Since the books could fit into 
multiple categories, I was flexible because my goal was to get students to read.  It also helped 
that I have read most of the books in my classroom library or I know enough about them to be 
able to recommend them to students. 
After students read a book in one of the ten categories of the genre wheel, they colored in 
the piece of the pie chart to keep track of their progress.  I also used this tool during their 
conferences to help keep them on track.  I instructed them to color in what they have read not 
just what they have turned in to give them a greater sense of completion, which seemed to help 
motivate them.  Most eventually ended up turning in all or most of their assignments.  Several of 
the spring semester twelfth-grade students turned in some of their genre assignments during the 
last week before the final deadline and some turned them in on the deadline date.  Of the 16 
spring semester twelfth-grade students who gave consent, only five completed all ten writing 
assignments with the ten genre categories.  However, most students completed from seven to 
nine assignments.  Only one of the students who gave consent completed none of the DEAR 
assignments.  Of the nine fall semester twelfth-grade students with consent forms, four 
110 
 
completed all ten writing assignments.  For the nine fall semester tenth-grade students who gave 
consent, only two finished all ten assignments, while most students completed at least five 
assignments.  
Of the eight spring semester tenth-grade students who gave consent, only one student 
completed all of the assignments.  Several students completed from seven to nine assignments.  
Overall, of these 42 ScSR students who gave consent for their data to be used in this study, only 
twelve students completed all ten assignments; however, since this was most likely a new 
experience for all of the students to read ten books in a semester, I consider it a minor victory 
that secondary students read books at all.  Of these 12 students, only three of them were 
Caucasian males, with the slight majority, seven students, being African American females who 
completed all of the assignments.  The remaining two students were Caucasian females.  
Although no African American males completed all ten assignments, the one male student 
classified as Other, who was also an English as a Second Language student, did complete nine of 
them.   
Before analyzing the results using statistical processes, I examined the raw data.  The 
Scaffolded Silent Reading students overwhelmingly outperformed the SSR and control groups.  
Of the 38 ScSR students, 68.4% improved their scores, 21.1% of the scores declined, and 10.5%, 
four students, demonstrated no change on the Genre Assessment.  The tenth graders performed 
better than the twelfth graders.  For the 17 tenth-grade students in the fall and spring semester 
ScSR groups, 76.5% improved their scores on the genre assessment, 17.6% of the scores 
declined, and 5.9%, one student, demonstrated no change.  For the 21 twelfth-grade students in 
the ScSR groups, 61.9% improved their scores on the genre assessment, 23.8% of the scores 
declined, and 14.3% showed no change.  Even though the SSR group was exposed to the genres, 
111 
 
only 37.5% improved their scores on the genre assessment, 50% of the scores declined, and 
12.5% showed no change.  The results were exactly the same for the students in the control 
groups during the spring semester.  Possible scores on the Genre Assessment ranged from 0 to 
24.  The mean of the students in the ScSR group increased from 16.32 to 17.84, while the mean 
of the students in the SSR plus control group decreased from 12.75 to 12.13.  The mean and 
standard deviation are provided in Table 4.   
Table 4  
Genre Assessment 
Time Treatment       M        SD 
    
Pretest 
 
Posttest 
Scaffolded Silent Reading 16.32 
17.84 
4.737 
4.779 
Pretest 
 
Posttest 
Sustained Silent Reading 
Plus Control Group 
12.75 
12.13 
2.964 
6.010 
 
Using an ANOVA statistical analysis, I also analyzed the data on the Genre Assessment 
in relation to the semester the student participated in the programs, as well as their gender, 
ethnicity, and grade.  Twenty-two students were enrolled in the fall and twenty-four students 
were enrolled in the spring.  The fall semester students improved more than the spring semester 
students, with their mean increasing from 14.23 to 15.64, while the spring semester students 
barely increased their mean from 17.04 to 17.96.  The female students improved their mean score 
from15.35 to 17.10, while the male students? scores decreased slightly from 16.40 to 16.33.  
Based on ethnicity, all mean scores increased with the student classified as Other improving the 
most from 14.00 to 20.00, followed by Caucasians from 17.53 to 19.53, then African Americans 
with a slight increase in their mean of 14.64 to 15.11.  Finally, both tenth and twelfth-graders 
112 
 
increased their mean with the tenth-graders going from 14.24 to 15.60 and the twelfth-graders 
from 17.43 to 18.33.   
After viewing the initial results on the ANOVA, I decided to review the students? genre 
writings and see how many they had completed, which would indicate to what degree they had 
participated in the Scaffolded Silent Reading program.  A little over half of the students, 24 out 
of 42, completed eight or more, 80%, of the ten writings, with 33 of the 42 students completing 
five or more, 50%, of the genre writings.  After removing data from students who completed 
seven or less genre writings, I conducted an independent samples t test to compare the 24 ScSR 
students to the 18 control group students.   
Results indicated that there was statistical significance between the Scaffolded Silent 
Reading group and Sustained Silent Reading plus control group.  Those who participated in 
Scaffolded Silent Reading (M = 18.29, SD = 4.648) had significantly higher genre knowledge 
scores than those who participated in Sustained Silent Reading or a control group (M = 12.11, 
SD = 5.759), t(40) = 3.84, p < .001, d = 1.20.  These results indicate statistical significance as 
well as a large effect size. 
See Figure 2 for an example of a student?s genre pie chart, which is from an African 
American twelfth-grade female, who decided to be extremely creative with her pie chart and 
draw designs instead of coloring in the pie wedges.  Although this student only turned in nine 
assignments, her chart indicates she may have read in all ten genre categories.  Most of her 
writing was one page in length. For example, her first assignment was for Big Fish, which we 
decided to classify as fantasy.  Although she definitely demonstrated understanding of the 
fantasy genre, her sentences were choppy.  She wrote, ?The battle took place right outside the 
home of Henry?s family.  It was very long.  It was back and forth until Henry grabbed the 
113 
 
monster by the arm and ripped it right out of the socket.?  This section definitely reminded me of 
Beowulf, which the students had read earlier in the semester.  Perhaps the writer was 
remembering those details and inserted them into her story. 
Her last assignment for the fiction book Chasing Destiny by Eric Jerome Dickey was one 
of the longest at one and a half pages.  The fiction assignment specified that the student should 
write his/her own fictional story including well-developed characters and plot.  Her story 
included herself as a first-person narrator and her friends, the Biker Girls, who were chased by 
her ex-boyfriend.  The story had a surprise ending, ?The man who got out of the drivers seat was 
who I never thought it would be, my ex.  He had a gun with a barrel pointing straight for us.  I 
was about to pull my .25 off of my waist when I heard a shot.  He had shot Lady in the head and 
knew she was dead.  Before I knew it, I had a gun in my hand and was releasing every bullet I 
had into his large body.  That was the day I lost my best friend and my ex lover.?  The quality of 
her writing had improved from her earlier work to this later work.  However, her score on the 
Genre Assessment went down one point from 20 to 19 out of 24 correct. 
Another student who completed a pie chart was a Caucasian twelfth-grade male, who 
listed the titles of his books in addition to shading in the pie wedges with a black ink pen.  He 
completed all ten genre categories and his writings ranged from one to five pages handwritten.  
By far, his longest selection was for the mystery about the Chandra Levy case called Sex, Power, 
and Murder by David Wright, Don Gentile, and Nicholas Maier.  The details for his story appear 
to come straight out of the book, except that he changed the names.  For example, he wrote, 
?Many believe that Tyler Freeman knew or had something to do with Sara Johnson?s death.  
Tyler Freeman to this day says he had nothing to do with Johnson?s death.?  This was a book I 
had observed him reading in class, and in fact, another teacher had complained to me that he had 
114 
 
been reading it in her class too.  All of his writings demonstrated an understanding of each genre, 
which is supported by his score on the Genre Assessment posttest, in which he increased his 
score 3 points from 19 to 22 out of 24 correct. 
The most dramatic increase on the Genre Assessment came from an African American 
twelfth-grade female who went from eight out of 24 correct on her pretest to 20 out of 24 correct 
on the posttest.  Since she was enrolled in my fall semester class, she did not complete a pie 
chart; however, I kept track of each student?s progress through a DEAR contract (See Appendix 
C), which students signed at the beginning of the semester, promising to read a book in each of 
the ten genres over the course of a semester.  This student?s writings demonstrated her 
knowledge of each of the genres.  For example, her mystery story involved a kidnapped baby 
who was later recovered by her mother.  Her biography reported the life of Michael Jackson after 
she read the book Michael! by Mark Bego, while her nonfiction selection was about teaching a 
baby to walk.  Her romance story included a happy ending, which was part of the instructions.  
She wrote, ?The marriage was great they had children and they upgraded all the orphans.  Loving 
life they lived happily ever after.?   
However, she didn?t always follow the directions for the assignments.  For example, the 
sports assignment for the fall semester students was to read a sports book and then ?choose your 
favorite sports figure and write a newspaper article detailing his or her career.?  She read a book 
about golf, but stated her favorite sport was volleyball and that she didn?t like golf.  She wrote, ?I 
didn?t read the book for the sport but for the knowledge that it gives?Even though I don?t like 
the sport it was talking about I still liked the book.?  As a result of reading the assignments from 
the fall semester, I revised them for the spring and changed sports to ?After reading in this genre, 
either choose your favorite sports figure and write a newspaper article detailing his or her career 
115 
 
OR write an expository essay explaining how to play the sport, based on what you read.?  
Overall, this student completed all ten assignments, but the quality of her writing varied, perhaps 
depending on whether or not she really related to the book. 
Summary 
In conclusion, the Scaffolded Silent Reading students improved their genre knowledge 
more than the Sustained Silent Reading plus control group students with a degree of statistical 
significance, their reading achievement was higher than the control group, but their reading 
attitudes were not statistically significantly different from the Sustained Silent Reading plus 
control group.  This chapter presented the results of my research and the next chapter contains 
my discussion of those results. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
116 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
Introduction 
 
 This study examined secondary students? reading attitudes and achievement as well as 
their knowledge of specific genres of books in a Scaffolded Silent Reading program versus 
Sustained Silent Reading and control groups.  This chapter will discuss the conclusions, 
implications, and limitations of this study.  Finally, recommendations for future research will be 
presented for researchers wanting to further study Scaffolded Silent Reading and teachers 
wanting to implement their own program. 
Conclusions 
 To the extent that the data collected for this study were reliable and the assumptions 
correct, certain conclusions may be made.  While there were no statistically significant 
differences between the treatment groups on the reading attitude measure, there were some 
notable differences between the groups.  Overall, the students in the Scaffolded Silent Reading 
group improved their reading attitudes more than the students in either the SSR group or control 
groups as shown on the Reading and You Attitude survey.  Even though there were only a small 
number of students in the SSR group, most of their reading attitudes got worse from pre to post.  
There was a slightly larger number in the control groups, but their reading attitudes actually 
improved.  Most of the improvement was shown by the eleventh-grade students taught by 
another teacher, so there possibly could have been something else going on in that class that 
could account for the positive results.  The students in the AHSGE Reading class also showed a 
117 
 
slight improvement in their attitudes toward reading, although they did not participate in either 
SSR or ScSR.  However, they did attend the booktalks and had the same access to my classroom 
library as the other classes I taught.   
 In order to assess students on their knowledge of particular book genres, I administered 
the 24 item Genre Assessment pre and post exposure to the treatment program.  All students that 
I taught both fall and spring semesters were exposed to the genres every other week during the 
librarian?s booktalks, while the eleventh-grade control group taught by another teacher did not 
have access to those.  Results indicated that the Scaffolded Silent Reading group, the students 
who completed eight or more genre writings, did outperform the other groups on their 
knowledge of genre with a high degree of statistical significance.  Neither the SSR group nor the 
control groups completed the genre writings and were not required to turn in any assignments 
related to their in-class pleasure reading. 
Even though the SSR group was exposed to the genres, barely over a third of their scores 
increased and half of their scores decreased on the Genre Assessment.  For the three students in 
the control group taught by me who were exposed to the genres and completed both the pre and 
posttest, only one-third showed improvement, while two-thirds of the students? scores decreased 
on their knowledge of genre.  For the five students in the control group taught by another teacher 
who were not exposed to the genres and who completed both the pre and the posttest, two-fifths 
improved their scores, two-fifths decreased, and one-fifth demonstrated no change in genre 
knowledge. 
Although the Scaffolded Silent Reading students? reading attitudes and genre knowledge 
improved, three-fourths of their reading achievement scores on the Degrees of Reading Power 
assessment declined.  However, the Scaffolded Silent Reading students outscored the control 
118 
 
group on the measure with a high degree of statistical significance.  Also, the tenth-graders 
performed better than the twelfth-graders with half of them improving their scores as compared 
with barely twelve percent of the twelfth-graders.  Two-thirds of the students? scores in the 
control groups decreased although students in the control group taught by the teacher-researcher 
performed slightly better than the students in the control group taught by another teacher.  The 
DRP was not administered to the SSR group in the fall since there was no access to the test.  
While these were disappointing results, there could be many factors affecting them.   
One factor that could have affected the results might have been the administration of the 
DRP near the end of the spring semester.  Students may have marked any answer just to 
complete the task.  Even though students were given a completion grade, they were not graded 
on accuracy for the purpose of the class, but only for the purpose of the study.  Another possible 
reason for the overall decline in scores is that the vocabulary on the reading achievement 
measure may have been too high level for the students.  Another possibility is that the test was 
not administered correctly. 
According to Flippo and Schumm (2000), the directions for administering the test 
indicate that students should stop when they were no longer able to comprehend the test and I did 
not instruct my students to do that out of concern that they would not try at all.  I attempted to re-
analyze the pre and posttests by cutting off the score when students had missed more than five 
items in a row; however, some students missed that many starting from the first question, so that 
was an unreliable method.  I was able to isolate a small group of students, mostly twelfth-
graders, who appeared to try their best on both the pretest and the posttest.  Of those students, 
most did increase their scores.  Finally, one research study by Paulson and Henry (2002) that 
119 
 
analyzed the DRP concluded that it was not a measure of reading comprehension or achievement 
at all, but instead might measure how well students take that type of reading test. 
 In conclusion, the results of this study show that the Scaffolded Silent Reading students 
improved their attitudes toward reading more than students in either Sustained Silent Reading or 
control groups.  They also overwhelmingly improved their knowledge of the genres tested on the 
Genre Assessment.  Finally, few students who participated in this study improved their scores on 
a measure of reading achievement, although the tenth-graders performed better than the twelfth-
graders. 
Implications 
 The present study showed that reading attitudes of students who participated in 
Scaffolded Silent Reading improved more than students who participated in Sustained Silent 
Reading or a control group, although their scores were not statistically significant on the reading 
attitude survey.  The reliability analysis of the Reading and You attitude survey demonstrates 
that it is a valid measure of reading attitude that other researchers and teachers may want to 
consider using.  This study is important for teachers and researchers who wish to implement 
Scaffolded Silent Reading and explore its possible effects on students? reading attitudes because 
increasing students? attitudes toward reading may help them continue to read long after they 
graduate.   
In addition to the Scaffolded Silent Reading students? reading attitudes increasing, their 
knowledge of specific genres of books also dramatically increased which demonstrates that 
encouraging students to read widely exposes them to a variety of genres.  This exposure may 
help students, who otherwise would not have the desire to read or the access to books, find out 
what they enjoy reading.  Lastly, this enjoyment of reading may transform reluctant readers into 
120 
 
passionate readers.  The researcher-designed Genre Assessment may be a useful tool for 
researchers and teachers who want to assess their students? knowledge of different book genres, 
but it needs more field testing.  Although few of the students increased their reading 
achievement, this may have been due to the nature of the measure itself, to the students? overall 
lack of motivation, or the difficulty in measuring this variable.  More research is needed to 
determine which measures of reading achievement are the most effective with students at the 
secondary level.   
In conclusion, the results of this study yield implications for teachers who wish to 
implement Scaffolded Silent Reading in their own classrooms.  The need for ways to improve 
students? reading attitudes and achievement is an ongoing quest and is supported by this study.  
Finally, the researcher believes that Scaffolded Silent Reading is a promising alternative to 
Sustained Silent Reading that needs further research.   
Limitations 
 However, this study has several limitations.  One limitation is that it was conducted with 
a small number of participants.  Second, data was only collected during two semesters over the 
course of one school year.  Therefore, a longitudinal study with more participants might yield 
data with higher statistical power.  Third, the Scaffolded Silent Reading program is relatively 
new and the researcher did not have as much experience implementing it as with Sustained Silent 
Reading.  More experience with and research of Scaffolded Silent Reading would prove helpful 
for researchers and teachers when designing future studies. 
Recommendations for Future Research  
 Future research should explore the Scaffolded Silent Reading program and its 
possibilities for improving students? reading attitudes and achievement as well as their 
121 
 
knowledge of genres of books.  Exposing students to a wide variety of genres may increase their 
reading attitudes and achievement, but this has not been examined empirically to a great extent.  
Thus far, only a couple of studies have attempted to look at the Scaffolded Silent Reading 
program prior to this study and those were conducted with elementary students (Reutzel, 
Fawson, & Smith, 2008; Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, & Smith, 2008).   
One recommendation would be that the time period of measuring the effectiveness of the 
program should be more than a single semester.  Longitudinal studies are recommended to 
determine the effectiveness of Scaffolded Silent Reading at different grade levels?elementary, 
middle, and high school.  Another recommendation would be to increase the sample size since 
the sample size for this study was small and did not yield much statistical power.  Finally, 
researchers and teachers should take into account when they administer the surveys so that the 
participants might not suffer test fatigue. 
Continued use of the Reading and You attitude survey is also recommended since the 
instrument has demonstrated reliability and may be useful for teachers and researchers to 
understand students? attitude toward reading.  Further study of the newly-developed Genre 
Assessment is also recommended since it has only been used in this study.  Finally, follow-up 
studies should use other instruments to measure reading achievement to determine to what extent 
Scaffolded Silent Reading may affect students? reading achievement.   
 
 
 
 
 
122 
 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 
Akmal, T. T. (2002). Ecological approaches to sustained silent reading: Conferencing,  
 contracting, and relating to middle school students.  Clearing House, 75(3), 154-157.   
Allen, J.  (1995). It?s never too late: Leading adolescents to lifelong literacy.  Portsmouth, NH:  
 Heinemann. 
Brandt, D.  (2001). Literacy in American lives.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Bryan, G., Fawson, P. C., & Reutzel, D. R. (2003).  Sustained silent reading: Exploring the value  
of literature discussion with three non-engaged readers.  Reading Research and  
Instruction, 43(1), 47-73. 
Buehl, D.  (2001, April 19).  Develop a reading autobiography.  The Reading Room, March  
2001.  Retrieved August 3, 2005 from http://www.weac.org/News/2000-1/march01/read- 
print.htm 
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for  
research.  In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1-76). Chicago:  
Rand-McNally. 
Campbell, R.  (1989). The teacher as a role model during sustained silent reading (SSR). 
Reading, 23(3), 179-183. 
Christenbury, L. (2001). Afterword: Future directions for reading in high school.  In B. O.  
 Ericson (Ed.), Teaching reading in high school english classes (pp. 155-158).  Urbana,  
 IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 
123 
 
Clarke, B.  (2006). Breaking through to reluctant readers.  Educational Leadership, 63(5), 66-69. 
Clary, L. M.  (1991). Getting adolescents to read.  Journal of Reading, 34(5), 340-345. 
Cline, R. K. J., & Kretke, G. L.  (1980). An evaluation of long-term SSR in the junior  
high school.  Journal of Reading, 23(6), 503-506. 
Collins, C. (1980). Sustained silent reading periods: Effect on teachers? behaviors and students?  
 achievement.  The Elementary School Journal, 81(2), 109-114. 
Cramer, E. H., & Castle, M. (1994).  Developing lifelong readers.  In E. H. Cramer & M. Castle  
 (Eds.),  Fostering the love of reading: The affective domain in reading education  
(pp. 3-9).  Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 
Creswell, J. W.  (2003).  Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods  
approaches.  Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 
Davis, Z. T. (1988). A comparison of the effectiveness of sustained silent reading and directed  
reading activity on students? reading achievement.  High School Journal, 72(1), 155-156. 
Dwyer, E. J., & Reed, V.  (1989).  Effects of sustained silent reading on attitudes toward reading.   
 Reading Horizons, 29, 283-293. 
Eisner, E.  (1992).  The misunderstood role of the arts in human development.  Phi Delta  
Kappan, 73(8), 591-595. 
Estes, T. H. (1971). A scale to measure attitudes toward reading.  Journal of Reading, 15(2),  
135-138. 
Evans, H. M., & Towner, J. C. (1975). Sustained silent reading: Does it increase skills?  Reading  
Teacher, 29, 155-156. 
Fisher, D.  (2004).  Setting the ?opportunity to read? standard: Resuscitating the SSR program in  
an urban high school.  Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 138-150. 
 
Flippo, R. F., & Schumm, J. S. (2000).  Reading tests.  In R. F. Flippo and D. C. Caverly (Eds.),  
124 
 
 Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 403-472).  Mahwah, NJ:  
 Erlbaum. 
Greenwood, S. C.  (1985).  Use contracts to motivate and manage your secondary reading class.   
 Journal of Reading, 28(6), 487-491. 
Grubaugh, S.  (1986).  Initiating sustained silent reading in your school.  Clearing House,  
60, 169-173. 
Guthrie, J. T., & Anderson, E. (1999). Engagement in reading: Processes of motivated, strategic,  
 knowledgeable, social readers.  In J. T. Guthrie & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.) Engaged  
 reading: Processes, practices, and policy implications (pp. 17-45). New York, NY:  
 Teachers College Press. 
Hawk, J. W., Roberson, T. G., & Ley, T. C.  (1984).  The factor structure of the Mikulecky  
Behavioral Reading Attitude Measure.  Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 
1059-1065. 
Herbert, S. S.  (1987).  Open to suggestion.  Journal of Reading, 30, 648-651. 
Herrold, Jr., W. G., Stanchfield, J., and Serabian, A. J.  (1989).  Comparison of the effect  
of a middle school, literature-based listening program on male and female  
attitudes toward reading.  Educational Research Quarterly, 13(4), 43-46. 
Hiebert, E. H. (2006).  Becoming fluent: Repeated reading with scaffolded texts.  In S. J.  
Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction  
(pp. 204-226).  Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 
Holt, S. B., & O?Tuel, F. S. (1989). The effect of sustained silent reading and writing on  
achievement and attitudes of seventh and eighth grade students reading two years below  
grade level.  Reading Improvement, 26, 290-297. 
125 
 
Hunt, L. C. (1970/1997). The effect of self-selection, interest, and motivation upon independent,  
 instructional, and frustrational levels.  The Reading Teacher, 50(4), 278-282. 
Jensen, T. L., & Jensen, V. S.  (2002).  Sustained silent reading and young adult short  
stories for high school classes.  The ALAN Review, 30(1), 58-60. 
Kelley, M., & Clausen-Grace, N. (2006). R5: The sustained silent reading makeover that  
           transformed readers.  The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 148-156. 
Kellner, N. R. (2005, February). Genre assessment.  Library Sparks, February 2005.   
Retrieved June 24, 2009 from http://www.highsmith.com/pdf/LibrarySparks/2005/ 
lsp_feb05_lessons.pdf 
Langford, J. C., & Allen, E. G. (1983). The effects of USSR on students? attitudes and  
           achievement.  Reading Horizons, 23, 194-200. 
Lee-Daniels, S. L. & Murray, B. A.  (2000).  DEAR me: What does it take to get children  
reading?  The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 154-155. 
Leeser, J. H. (1990). USSR + USA.  The Reading Teacher, 43(6), 429. 
Lesesne, T. S. (2003). Making the match: The right book for the right reader at the right time,  
 grades 4-12.  Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. 
Manning, G. L. and Manning, M. (1984).  What models of recreational reading make a  
difference?  Reading World, 23, 375-380. 
Maynes, F. J.  (1982).  U.S.S.R. for poor readers.  Orbit, 13, 3-4. 
McCracken, R.  (1969).  Do we want real readers?  Journal of Reading, 12(6), 446-448. 
McCracken, R. A. (1971).  Initiating sustained silent reading.  Journal of Reading, 14(8),  
521-524, 582-583. 
McCracken, R. A., & McCracken, M. J.  (1978).  Modeling is the key to sustained silent  
126 
 
reading.  Reading Teacher, 31, 406-408. 
McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J.  (1990).  Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool  
for teachers.  Reading Teacher, 43, 626-639. 
McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A.  (1995).  Children?s attitudes toward  
reading: A national survey.  Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934-956. 
Methe, S. A., & Hintze, J. M.  (2003).  Evaluating teacher modeling as a strategy to  
increase student reading behavior.  School Psychology Review, 32(4), 617-623. 
Mikulecky, L.  (1976).  The developing, field testing, and initial norming of a secondary/adult  
level reading attitude measure that is behaviorally oriented and based on Krathwohl?s  
taxonomy of the affective domain.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of  
Wisconsin-Madison. 
Mikulecky, L. (1994). The need for affective literates.  In E. H. Cramer & M. Castle (Eds.), 
 Fostering the love of reading: The affective domain in reading education (pp. 249-254).   
 Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 
Mikulecky, L., & Wolf, A.  (1977).  Effect of uninterrupted sustained silent reading and of  
reading games on changes in secondary students? reading attitudes.  In P. David Pearson,  
(Ed.), Reading theory, research and practice.  (pp. 126-130).  Clemson, SC: The National  
Reading Conference, Inc. 
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M.  (1994).  Qualitative data analysis: An expanded  
sourcebook.  Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 
Minton, M. J.  (1980).  The effect of sustained silent reading upon comprehension and  
 attitudes among ninth graders.  Journal of Reading, 23(6), 498-502. 
Mitchell, T. L., & Ley, T. C.  (1996).  The reading attitudes and behaviors of high school  
127 
 
students.  Reading Psychology, 17, 65-92. 
Moore, J. C., Jones, C. J., & Miller, D. C.  (1980).  What we know after a decade of  
sustained silent reading.  The Reading Teacher, 33, 445-450. 
Mork, T. A. (1972). Sustained silent reading in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 25(5),  
438-441. 
Moss, B. J.  (1994).  Introduction.  In B. J. Moss (Ed.), Literacy across communities.   
 
(pp. 1-7).  Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 
 
Nell, V.  (1988).  Lost in a book: The psychology of reading for pleasure.  New Haven:  
Yale University Press. 
Oliver, M. E.  (1970).  High intensity practice: The right to enjoy reading.  Education,  
19(1), 69-71. 
Ozburn, M. S.  (1995).  A successful high school sustained silent reading program.   
English in Texas, 26(3), 4-5. 
Parr, J. M., & Maguiness, C. (2005).  Removing the silent from SSR: Voluntary reading as social  
 practice.  Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(2), 98-107. 
Paulson, E. J., & Henry, J. (2002). Does the Degrees of Reading Power assessment reflect the  
 reading process?  An eye-movement examination.  Journal of Adolescent & Adult  
 Literacy, 46(3), 234-244. 
Pilgreen, J.  (2000).  The SSR handbook.  Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers. 
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. 
128 
 
Pluck, M., Ghafari, E., Glynn, T., & McNaughton, S.  (1984).  Teacher and parent  
modelling of recreational reading.  New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies,  
19, 114-123. 
Pyle, V. S.  (1990). SSRW?Beyond silent reading.  Journal of Reading, 33(5), 379-380. 
Questar Assessment. (2010).  Degrees of Reading Power DRP Program Educational  
Assessment Product ? Questar Assessment, Inc.   Retrieved April 20, 2010 from 
http://www.questarai.com/Products/DRPProgram/Pages/default.aspx 
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in  
 reading comprehension.  Santa Monica, CA: RAND. 
Reutzel, D. R., & Fawson, P. C. (2002). Your classroom library: New ways to give it more  
teaching power: Great teacher-tested and research-based strategies for organizing your  
library to increase students? reading achievement.  New York: Scholastic. 
Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A.  (2008). Reconsidering silent sustained  
reading: An exploratory study of scaffolded silent reading.  The Journal of  
Educational Research, 102(1), 37-50. 
Reutzel, D. R., Jones, C. D., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A.  (2008). Scaffolded silent  
 reading: A complement to guided repeated oral reading that works!  The Reading  
 Teacher, 62(3), 194-207. 
Reynolds, M. (2004).  I won?t read and you can?t make me: Reaching reluctant teen  
readers.  Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 
Roettger, D. (1980). Elementary students? attitudes toward reading.  The Reading Teacher, 33,  
451-453. 
Roettger, D., Szymczuk, M., & Millard, J.  (1979).  Validation of a reading attitude scale  
129 
 
for elementary students and an investigation of the relationship between attitude  
and achievement.  Journal of Educational Research, 72(3), 138-142. 
Roozen, K. (2008). Journalism, poetry, stand-up comedy, and academic literacy: Mapping the  
interplay of curricular and extracurricular literate activities.  Journal of Basic Writing,  
27(1), 5-34. 
Roozen, K. (2009). From journals to journalism: Tracing trajectories of literate development.   
College Composition and Communication, 60(3), 541-572. 
Rosenblatt, L. (1976).  Literature as exploration.  New York, NY: Noble and Noble. 
Rowell, C. G. (1972). An attitude scale for reading.  The Reading Teacher, 25(5), 442-447. 
Sadoski, M. C.  (1980).  Ten years of uninterrupted sustained silent reading.  Reading  
Improvement, 17, 153-156. 
Schaer, B. B., Ley, T. C., Neal, K. S., and Wright, J. P. (1988).  Evaluation and validation of the  
Mikulecky Behavioral Reading Attitude Measure.  Educational and Psychological  
Measurement, 48, 181-186. 
Schultz, K., & Hull, G. (2002).  Locating literacy theory in out-of-school contexts.  In G. Hull &  
K. Schultz (Eds.), School?s out! Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom  
practice.  (pp. 11-31).  New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 
Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2002).  Literate at home but not at school.  In G. Hull & K. Schultz (Eds.),  
           School?s out! Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice.  (pp. 61-90).   
           New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 
Smagorinsky, P.  (1996).  Standards in practice grades 9-12.  Urbana, IL: National Council of  
 
 Teachers of English. 
 
Smith, M. W., & Wilhelm, J. D. (2006).  Going with the flow: How to engage boys [and girls] in  
130 
 
 their literacy learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 
Smith, M. W., & Wilhelm, J. D. (2002).   ?Reading don?t fix no Chevys?: Literacy in the lives of  
 young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 
Snyder, I. (2002). Silicon literacies.  In I. Snyder (Ed.).  Silicon literacies: Communication,  
innovation, and education in the electronic age, 3-12.  London: Routledge. 
Speaker, R. B.  (1990). Another twist on sustained silent reading: SSR + D.  Journal of  
Reading, 34(2), 143-144. 
Stehle, C. F.  (1981). Invitational learning: A case study on the implementation of the  
sustained silent reading (SSR) program within the junior high school classroom.   
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Rochester. 
Summers, E. G., & McClelland, J. V. (1982). A field-based evaluation of sustained silent reading  
(SSR) in intermediate grades.  Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 28, 100-112. 
Swanson, B.  (1982).  The relationship between attitude toward reading and reading  
achievement.  Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 1303-1304. 
Trudel, H.  (2007).  Making data-driven decisions: Silent reading.  The Reading Teacher, 61(4),  
 
 308-315. 
 
Von Sprecken, D., & Krashen, S.  (1998).  Do students read during sustained silent  
reading?  The California Reader, 32(1), 11-13. 
Wheldall, K., & Entwistle, J.  (1988).  Back in the USSR: The effect of teacher modelling  
of silent reading on pupils? reading behaviour in the primary school classroom.   
Educational Psychology, 8, 51-66. 
Widdowson, D. A. M., & Dixon, R. S.  (1996).  The effects of teacher modeling of silent  
reading on students? engagement during sustained silent reading.  Educational  
131 
 
Psychology, 16(2), 171-180. 
Wiesendanger, K. D., & Bader, L.  (1989).  SSR: Its effects on students? reading habits  
after they complete the program.  Reading Horizons, 29, 162-166. 
Wiesendanger, K. D., & Birlem, E. D.  (1984).  The effectiveness of SSR: An overview  
of the research.  Reading Horizons, 24, 197-201. 
Wilhelm, J.  (1994).  Developing readers: Teaching engaged and reflective reading in the middle  
 
school.  University of Wisconsin-Madison.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 
 
Wilhelm, J. D.  (2004).  Reading IS seeing: Learning to visualize scenes, characters, ideas, and  
 
 text worlds to improve comprehension and reflective reading.  New York: Scholastic,  
 
 Inc. 
 
Wilhelm, J. D.  (1997).  You gotta BE the book: Teaching engaged and reflective reading  
 
with adolescents.  New York: Teachers College Press. 
Yoon, J.  (2002).  Three decades of sustained silent reading: A meta-analytic review of the  
effects of SSR on attitude toward reading.  Reading Improvement, 39, 186-195.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
132 
 
Appendix A - Reading and You Attitude Survey 
Name : _________________________ Circle one:  Male  Female Age: ____________ 
Directions: Circle the number for each statement to show how much it describes you.  
1. You have so many books you want to read that you put a lot of books back without finishing 
them. 
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
2. When you're waiting in class before school or when you finish your work, you pick up 
something to read.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
3. If you're packing for a trip, you don't want to drag along any books.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
4. You can name an author or series for which you've read most or all the books.   
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
5. You don't mind if you are so busy you don't have time to read.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
6. While you are going on vacation, you look for something good to read to take along.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
7. When you go to look something up, you often catch yourself reading about something else, 
too.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
8. You've rarely if ever read a whole book.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
9. If people ask you what's worth reading, you can't think of anything to tell them. 
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
133 
 
10. When you run across something you don?t know, it's too much trouble to look it up.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
11. Even when you are very busy, you always find at least a few minutes to read.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
12. When you are with someone younger, it's a good idea to read a story aloud. 
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
13. You remember times when you go so wrapped up in a story it seemed like you were living in 
the book world.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
14. The picture on the cover is what makes you want to buy or check out a book.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
15. You would be disappointed if you opened a present and it turned out to be a book. 
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
16. When shopping or online, you like to visit a bookseller and browse for books.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
17. If you're babysitting, watching TV together makes more sense than reading aloud.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
18. After you finish reading a story, you quickly forget about what happened.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
19. When you don't have to read anything for school, you do something besides reading.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
 
 
134 
 
20. You don't have any good friends who like to read or talk about books.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
21. You have a collection of books at your house that belongs to you.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
22. You?ve just heard about a good book you don't have in your classroom, but you've got better 
things to do with your money.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
23. To choose a book, you read something to find out what the book is about.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
24. You don't really need to have your own personal copies of books.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
25. There is always a good book near your bed.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
26. If people ask you what you want for your birthday, you can usually think of a book.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
27. If you have to read a book, you pick a short one so you can finish it.  
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
28. Sometimes you find yourself so excited about a book that you try to get your friends to read 
it. 
NOT LIKE ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST LIKE ME  
1  2  3  4 
 
 
 
 
135 
 
Appendix B - Genre Assessment 
 
Name : ____________________ Circle one:  Male  Female Age: ____________ 
Adapted from the following source: 
http://www.highsmith.com/pdf/LibrarySparks/2005/lsp_feb05_lessons.pdf 
 
Part I Directions:  Match each of the following genres to its definition. 
 
A.  Autobiography    G.  Romance 
B. Biography       H.  Sports    
C. Poetry       I.  Historical Fiction  
D. Fantasy     J.  Horror 
E. Science Fiction     K.  Fiction 
F. Mystery     L.  Nonfiction 
 
1.  Written in verse, not prose; may or may not rhyme 
2.  Stories about people falling in and out of love 
3.  Stories about people involved in competitive and non-competitive activities 
4.  True stories about real people and/or events 
5.  Stories that involve magic, wizards, and mythical creatures 
6.  True stories about real people?dead or alive?written by other people 
7.  Made up stories about what might possibly happen in the future based on scientific principles 
8.  True stories about real people written by the person himself or herself 
9.  Story revolves around a problem, crime, or mystery to be solved using clues 
10. Stories set in a specific time period (can be based on real-life people and/or events) 
11. Made up stories about made up people and events 
12. Scary stories about monsters, murderers, ghosts, etc. 
 
 
 
136 
 
 
Part II Directions ? Match each example to its genre. 
 
A. Autobiography    G.  Romance 
B. Biography       H.  Sports    
C. Poetry       I.  Historical Fiction  
D. Fantasy     J.  Horror 
E. Science Fiction     K.  Fiction 
F. Mystery     L.  Nonfiction 
13.  ?Atticus was right.  One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his 
shoes and walk around in them.  Just standing on the Radley porch was enough.? 
 
14.  ?Their faces were only inches apart, and he blinked once, then his eyes seemed to pierce 
right through her.  Slowly his hand rose, and with exquisite gentleness he touched her cheek.? 
 
15.  ?They say that weightlessness can cause disorientation, especially in children, whose sense 
of direction isn?t yet secure.  But Ender was disoriented before he left Earth?s gravity.  Before 
the shuttle launch even began.? 
 
16.  ?The rain is raining all around, 
 It falls on field and tree, 
         It rains on the umbrella here, 
 And on the ships at sea.? 
 
17.  ?On a morning in mid-April, 1687, the brigantine Dolphin left the open sea, sailed briskly 
across the Sound to the wide mouth of the Connecticut River and into Saybrook Harbor.? 
 
18.  ?A few months after my twenty-first birthday, a stranger called to give me the news.? 
 
19.  ?On glancing over my notes of the seventy odd cases in which I have during the last eight 
years studied the methods of my friend Sherlock Holmes??  
 
20.  ?John Adams was a lawyer and a father, a graduate of Harvard College, the husband of 
Abigail Smith Adams, the father of four children.? 
 
21. ??Elves and Dragons!?  I says to him.  ?Cabbages and potatoes are better for me and you.  
Don?t go getting mixed up in the business of your betters, or you?ll land in trouble too big for 
you,? I says to him.? 
 
22. ?Wicks said: There?s blood and broken glass and charred paper in there?but there?s no one 
in that room at all.?  Paul Sheldon looked at Wicks, and then he began to scream.  He was still 
screaming when he fainted.? 
 
137 
 
23. ?Harry is every coach?s dream kid:  He shows up for every practice early, stays late and is 
enthusiastic.  Harry is also every coach?s nightmare:  He has neither the instinct nor the physical 
talent for the game.? 
 
24.  ?In 1939, people fishing off the coast of South Africa caught a fish none of them had ever 
seen before.  Two meters (6 feet) long and bright blue, with odd lumps on either side of its tail 
fin, the fish was a coelacanth [SEE-luh-kanth].  They were thought to have become extinct in the 
days of the dinosaurs.? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
138 
 
Appendix C - DEAR Contract  
 
I, _______________________ promise to read a book in each of the following 10 genres over 
the course of the semester:   
 
? Autobiography or Biography 
? Horror or Mystery  
? Fantasy 
? Poetry 
? Romance 
? Sports 
? Fiction 
? Historical Fiction 
? Nonfiction 
? Science Fiction. 
 
I will finish each book by the proposed deadline and turn in the writing assignments for 50 points 
each.   
     
 Genre        Proposed Finish Date 
 
1.  
 
2. 
 
3. 
 
4. 
 
5. 
 
6. 
 
7. 
 
8. 
 
9. 
 
10. 
 
 
  
139