RED TIME STORIES:
FOSTERING OR FORCING LITERACY ACROSS THE CURRICULUM?

Daniel H. Jarvis
PhD Candidate/ Graduate Teaching Assistant
J. G. Althouse Faculty of Education, The University of Western Ontario

Abstact

With the official introduction of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) in 2002, the acquisition of “literacy” has been mandated as a formal, academic right of passage in Ontario schools (EQAO, 2002). This action research study reports on the implementation of a Reading Every Day (RED) initiative, which formed part of a Literacy Action Plan that was developed to improve literacy skills in an Ontario secondary school. Data from more than 700 surveys was collected and analyzed, revealing informative patterns in both student and faculty perceptions regarding the RED program.

Context

Literacy, although often defined simply as the “ability to read and write” (New Oxford Dictionary of English, Pearson, 2001, p. 1076), is arguably a much more complex amalgam of skills, beliefs, and understandings—indeed, the subject of much debate and academic tension. Notwithstanding these vagaries of definition, literacy has been highly prized and therefore emphasized by most education systems worldwide (Elley, 1994). It has also been recently mandated as a formal, academic right of passage in Ontario schools. Since its inception in 2000, the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT), implemented by the Ontario Ministry of Education (OME) and administered and assessed by the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO), has been written by every Grade 10 student in the province who desired to be eligible to graduate with an Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD).

In its Report of Provincial Results (EQAO, 2002a), EQAO researchers analyzed the results of both the pilot OSSLT from October 2000, and the first official administration of the test in February 2002. According to this document, 75% of participants passed both the reading and writing components1 in 2002; up from the 68% who were successful in the 2000 trial run (p. 1). In subsequent administrations of the OSSLT, results have indicated first a decline in successful achievement, with only a 72% success rate in October 2002; and then a significant improvement, with 77% of students passing both the reading and writing sections in October 2003 (EQAO, 2003, p. 3). Despite this gain, these results also obviously indicate that 23% of Ontario students are still lacking the basic literacy skills deemed as “standard” or necessary. Since successful completion of the OSSLT was originally declared essential for graduation, and in light of such a large number of students who had failed the OSSLT in first and subsequent writings of the test, OME commissioned and published a new course entitled the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Course (OSSLC) (OME, 2003). Successful completion of the OSSLC would count as a bona fide credit towards graduation, and, more importantly, allow students to obtain their OSSD without having to formally pass the OSSLT (p. 3)

“Key Messages” found within the original provincial report (EQAO, 2002a) included the following:

1. the 2002 results are very encouraging,
2. teachers are making reading and writing a high priority,
3. the OSSLT is a useful quality assurance measure,
4. the test provides early and important diagnostic information for failing students and their parents, and
5. the disclaimer that the OSSLT results should be used to improve teaching and learning and should not be used to rank schools (p. 1).

Further, in the “Key Recommendations” section, schools were directed to, “in consultation with their communities, incorporate the overall and specific data from the February 2002 OSSLT into their existing school literacy improvement plans and develop curriculum-wide strategies for improving student achievement in reading and writing” (p. 2).

As chair of an ad hoc Curriculum Committee, struck by the administration of an Ontario secondary school to address significant issues in secondary school reform, I had the opportunity in 2002 to respond to these recommendations by helping to develop, implement, analyze, and modify one such school-based Literacy Action Plan. This cycle of recognizing a problem, reviewing relevant information, planning and implementing a solution, and then revising the approach taken, is much in keeping with the philosophy of action research, as defined by Mills:

Action research is any systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers, principals, school counsellors, or other stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment, to gather information about the ways that their particular schools operate, how they teach, and how well their students learn. (2000, p. 6)

Furthermore, at that point in time and within that context, I seized upon the opportunity to conduct a research investigation as part of my Principal’s Qualification Program (PQP) practicum project. From the list of various initiatives developed by our Curriculum Committee for the school’s Literacy Action Plan, I chose as the focus of my particular study the implementation of a daily reading program known as Reading Every Day (RED).

Sustained Silent Reading (SSR)

The notion of a Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) program was first introduced by Lyman Hunt in the 1960’s at the University of Vermont (Jensen & Jensen, 2002, p. 58), in an effort to support the improvement of literacy skills and to increase students’ enjoyment of reading. Over the last four decades, silent reading programs have gained popularity in many elementary and secondary classrooms in the United States , Canada , United Kingdom , and New Zealand (Yoon, 2002, p. 186). These programs have also gone by many different names such as Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading (USSR), High Intensity Practice (HIP), Motivation in Middle Schools (MIMS), Daily Independent Reading Time (DIRT), Free Voluntary Reading (FVR), Positive Outcomes While Enjoying Reading (POWER), Drop Everything and Read (DEAR), and Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) (Jensen & Jensen, 2002, p. 58; Gardiner, 2001, p. 32). The common thread running through these various adaptations of the program is the assumption that increased structured, uninterrupted, individual reading time can and should lead to better reading and literacy skills, and to positive attitudes towards reading in general.

Proponents of the strategy, Jensen and Jensen (2002) note, “Since its introduction, SSR has been implemented at all grade levels and according to research has been highly effective in the improvement of reading skills and the acquisition of vocabulary, not to mention the development of a positive attitude in students toward reading” (p. 58). Similarly, in Ten Minutes a Day for Silent Reading, Gardiner (2001) reported that after two decades of implementing silent reading times in the classroom he “learned that students who read frequently on their own had better literacy skills and better grades,” and that he “also discovered that if students had time to read during class, they quickly found books that they enjoyed and looked forward to reading” (p. 32). Bean (2002) likewise asserted that “similar results [compared to his own positive results] have been apparent in international assessments of literacy. Higher-achieving students are more likely to hold positive attitudes toward reading, borrow library books at least once a month, and engage in moderate amounts of leisure reading” (pp. 35-36).

However, not all researchers agree with these statements, maintaining, as does Yoon (2002) in his meta-analytic study entitled, Three Decades of Sustained Silent Reading, that the research is inconclusive and that a review of published and unpublished dissertations reveals that studies can be highlighted which indicate either positive effects of SSR—like those cited above—or neutral, and even negative, effects of the program on student skills and/or attitudes.

Not only is the general effectiveness of the SSR programs debated, but the extent, nature, and value of the SSR activities involved are also contended within academic circles. For example, some insist that the program, like it was originally presented, should involve only silent, independent reading (Gardiner, 2001; Anderson, 2000). Others maintain that this silent reading portion is only effective if it is included along with other related activities such as literature discussion groups (Bryan, Fawson, & Reutzel, 2003; Pilgreen cited in Miller, 2002; Speaker, 1990), analytic “reading sheets” (Dyson, 1991), skits and presentations to peers (Maher, 1999), and journal or “SSR Logs” entries (Waff & Connell, 2004; Valeri-Gold, 1995).

With a desire to investigate these equivocal research claims more fully and directly using actual primary data, and with the intent of reporting back findings to the committee and to the administration, I undertook to survey an entire secondary school population, including faculty, regarding the implementation of the above-mentioned Reading Every Day (RED) program.

Action Research Study

In May 2002, four similar yet distinct questionnaires (colour-coded for clarity and with questions tailored to the specific grade levels), were given to Grade 9 students, Grade 10 students, Grade 11/12/OAC students, and to faculty members to complete during a daily Teacher Advisory Group (TAG) session. Questionnaires were ultimately retrieved from 667/882 students (76%) and 42/56 members of the teaching faculty (75%). Each of the four research instruments began with the following introductory paragraphs,

As you know, the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test has become an official part of the secondary school experience in Ontario . For those Grade 10 students who wrote this test a few months ago, and for all those who will follow, a passing grade is now a requirement for graduation. In an attempt to help our students achieve a higher level of literacy, and with the performance target of having 75% of our students successfully pass the test in October 2003, [school] has developed its own Literacy Action Plan.

To help us determine the ongoing effectiveness of this plan, we have developed a series of questionnaires for both the students and staff members at our school. We would ask you to please complete the following questionnaire in a serious manner after reflecting on your experiences in your different classes throughout this past year (2001-2002) at [school]. Toward the end of the questionnaire you will be given an opportunity to share your personal comments and to make recommendations that you would like us to consider. The information collected from this research will be used to help us review and modify our Action Plan so that [school] students can be even more successful regarding their abilities to read, write, comprehend, and communicate.

The first part of each questionnaire featured approximately 10 questions, each of which required either a five-point Likert Scale response from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, or a selection from one of five possible choices. For example, the Grade 9 questionnaire asked the following:

1. I feel well-prepared to write the Grade 10 Literacy Test next October.
2. I enjoy the Reading Every Day (RED) time at the beginning of each day.
3. As a result of RED time each day, I feel that my reading skills have improved through practice.
4. In talking with my friends, I think that the majority of people like the RED time each morning.
5. As a result of RED time this year, I have done more of my own reading outside of school time.
6. I usually read the following type of material during RED time: assigned book, book I choose, textbook/notes, magazine, nothing
7. I think that RED time should be this long every morning: 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes
8. Other than assigned books or during RED time, I usually read about this much time per week: none, 0-1 hrs, 1-2 hours, 2-5 hours, more than 5 hours
9. Indicate the amount of practice you have had in the following literacy skills this past year in all of your classes combined: give and support your opinion, read and answer questions, write a summary, write a news report (each to be specified by none, some, regular, or great deal)

In the second section, students and faculty were asked to comment on questions such as:

1. My comments regarding RED time are the following:
2. If I was on your committee, here are some ideas that I would consider to help students to improve their reading and writing skills:
3. In order to prepare myself for the Grade 10 Literacy Test next year, I plan to do the following activities:
4. (for faculty only) If you would really like me to help implement a Literacy Across the Curriculum initiative, here is what I would like to see in terms of staff preparation:

Data from the 709 questionnaires were recorded in both numerical spreadsheets, where appropriate, and in lists of comments by question and by category, where applicable. A detailed report of these findings was disseminated to all faculty members following the research study, as were copies of the preliminary recommendations made to administration by the Curriculum Committee, and of the Gardiner (2001) article mentioned above.

Findings

When asked if they approved of the implementation of the OSSLT by the OME, faculty members were ostensibly divided, voting 40% in favour (agree/strongly agree), 38% opposed (disagree/strongly disagree), and 17% undecided. However, on the issue of RED time enjoyment, 100% of teachers surveyed indicated a positive (agree/strongly agree) response. A few pertinent comments follow:

“This is a good idea - supervised reading time has often been included in schools’ daily timetabling and works to stimulate interest in literature and to create a more relaxed tone – a time to reflect and turn off the noise from the world around students, their peers, the media and other influences.”

“I love this part of the day! – and my students are aware of my feelings, and read too.”

“A good approach to learning – sometimes it provides an opening for class depending on the ‘tidbits’ of info I’ve just read.”

“If anything, it reinforces that we think reading is important, and we are willing to invest ‘class time’ into it. It also has a calming effect on the class.”

Student responses to the question regarding the enjoyment of RED time indicated a much more divergent spread of opinion. At the Grade 9 level, 58% gave positive responses (agree/strongly agree), 45% of Grade 10 students were in approval, and 56% of seniors claimed to enjoy the daily reading time. Overall, 54% of the student body voted in favour of RED time (agree/strongly agree), 34% noted a negative response (disagree/strongly disagree), and 12% were undecided. Therefore, while a slim majority of students indicated an appreciation for the initiative—discussing cognitive, emotional, and skill-based benefits in their comments—many other students considered RED time an infringement on their rights, indicating that they either read regularly on their own outside of school time, or that they disliked reading altogether and therefore did not want to endure further ‘punishment’ during their school day. The former comment was quite popular among the senior students especially, with many of them perceiving RED time to be a junior-focused activity (Grades 9 and 10) in which they should either not be involved at all, or at the very least, in which they be given a choice to not participate. The following types of comments were made by students in favour of the RED program:

“It gives you time to wake up and to get your brain to function before work.”

“It makes me like other books that I wouldn’t normally read.”

“It helps you practice your reading skills and prepare for the Literacy Test.”

“Students feel better about themselves when they realize that their reading skills are improving because of RED.”

“It forces people to pick up a book and get into it.”

Those who did not like RED time provided comments ranging from brief statements of disapproval to well-reasoned arguments against RED, as evidenced in the following quotations:

“All that has improved is my sleeping skills – and I often get a lot of homework done.”

“It is a waste of time – why are you doing these horrible things?”

“I’d rather get work done in class and improve my literacy that way, then to be treated like babies with ‘silent reading’.”

“It’s not my fault teachers didn’t do their job—I can read and write fine and don’t need this RED time—people that are horrible at reading and writing should have RED.”

“Even though I love reading and do so often, I do not like being forced to read and find that 15 minutes is not enough time to get much out of it.”

“ Reading isn’t something you should learn by force – it’s too much like a penalty (i.e. not being able to talk) – reading is something we should enjoy, not despise.”

Other pejorative comments drew attention to issues such as teachers not participating, inconsistency among teachers regarding implementation (e.g., what reading materials qualified for RED, talking to peers during RED time, length of RED time), unavailability of library for homework during RED, and the time of day selected for the program (i.e., first thing in the morning). Finally, when asked if RED time was improving one’s reading skills, only 31% of students responded in the affirmative (agree/strongly agree), 40% in the negative (disagreed/strongly disagreed), and a large 29% were uncertain.

On the more technical aspects of RED time, the preferred duration, among both faculty and students, was 15-20 minutes per day; the most usual reading material was a book of choice (60%) followed by a magazine (23%); and the preferred time of day was more or less split between first thing in the morning and first thing in the afternoon.

Conclusions

In a school in which only 63% of Grade 10 participants passed the OSSLT (2002) in its first formal implementation—12% below the provincial success rate and 4% below the local board—administration and teaching faculty were obviously searching for effective methods and strategies to improve student literacy and the correlated OSSLT results (EQAO, 2002b, p. 4). The Literacy Action Plan that we developed at this school, based on a demographic and “gap analysis” process initiated by the local board (i.e., recognizing existing literacy-related initiatives and then determining where we needed new to grow and/or change), included such items as: a multi-media “literacy” presentation given to Grade 9 students during Grade 9 Day; a Grade 10 “Literacy Day” in which Grade 10 students completed the four main types of literacy exercises in their regular rotation of classes (these were marked that night by volunteers and returned the next day); a request to all faculty to incorporate one reading/writing skills assignment per course, per month; faculty professional development sessions on “literacy across the curriculum”; writing contests for students; regular newsletters to various stakeholders with related websites highlighted; and, of course, the Reading Every Day (RED) program.

Was RED successful in its first year of implementation? Did it fulfill our main objectives of increasing literacy skills and encouraging a lifelong love of literature and pleasure reading? Both portions of this latter question require a more longitudinal study to better understand the short- and long-term effects of the sustained reading program. While RED was unanimously approved of by faculty members, problems regarding the modeling of expected participation and the consistency of its implementation became overtly obvious to the student body. Although a majority of students favoured the RED routine, hundreds of students, with literacy skills ranging from remedial to advanced, opposed the program for many of the above-mentioned reasons.

In our research report, submitted to the school administration, several key recommendations regarding RED were presented by the Curriculum Committee in order to help guide the future implementation of the reading program.

1. Inform staff of the history and significance of sustained reading programs: distribute copies of the Gardiner (2001) article to all staff members and encourage them to share this information with students during the first few days of school.
2. Continue RED time for 15 minutes each day, but move it to the beginning of the first period following lunch.
3. Clarify the type of material to be read by students; i.e. determine if the focus should be on books/novels only, or on any ‘suitable’ material as selected by the student (e.g., magazines, textbooks, newspapers, etc.). [N.B. The committee recommends the former choice, but the decision should be made clear to staff and students regardless of the final consensus]
4. Continue to order more books for our library and make these purchases more readily visible/known to students.
5. Ensure that all staff members participate in the RED program and that hallways are securely monitored during this time to avoid distracting noises in the halls.

Retrospection oft yields clarity. In our rush to implement the RED program as part of our Literacy Action Plan, we failed to adequately inform both the faculty and, more importantly, the students as to its potential long-term, positive effects on skills and attitudes, as evidenced in the international research. Many students, as a result, were perhaps justified in feeling coerced into a program that was not only inconsistently implemented, but poorly rationalized and arguably restrictive. However, we, like Waff and Connell, Pilgreen, Gardiner and others, maintain that sustained daily reading has a great deal to offer students and staff members, if properly actuated and revisited.

Much has been learned from these RED time stories; the action research cycle allowing the administration and Curriculum Committee to continually monitor and fine-tune the various initiatives they had set in motion in 2002. More recent results from EQAO show that this particular school has went from a 63% pass rate in February 2002, down to 60% in October 2002, and then up to 73% (just shy of the 75% target) in October 2003, much like the board and provincial trends over that same time period (EQAO, 2003). To what extent the RED program, or the various other initiatives planned and monitored by our committee, are responsible for this notable gain, remains unknown. We hope they have contributed at least in part to this success.

As one graduating senior noted in the questionnaire, “I don’t think it’s up to the committee to ensure that students improve their reading and writing skills—it’s up to the students themselves.” Notwithstanding the importance and necessity of student interest and participation, parents, teachers and administrators should, and most certainly will, continue to play important roles in literacy education in Ontario . RED time, when properly implemented, seems to be one initiative that has the potential to positively affect achievement and attitudes.

Anderson, C. (2000). Sustained Silent Reading : Try it, you'll like it. The Reading Teacher, 54 (3), 258-259.

Bean, T. (2002). Making reading relevant for adolescents. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 34-37.

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), 47-71.

Dyson, L. (1991). Reading sheets and SSR. Journal of Reading, 35 (3), 245.

Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2002a, February). Ontario secondary school literacy test: Report of provincial results . Retrieved November 26, 2004 , from http://www.eqao.com/pdf_e/02/02P026e.pdf

Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2002b, February). Board and school results. Retrieved November 26, 2004 , from https://eqaoweb.eqao.com/G10_2002/PBSPublicDownload.asp

Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2003, October). Ontario secondary school literacy test: Report of provincial results, Highlights. Retrieved November 26, 2004 , from http://www.eqao.com/pdf_e/04/04P009e.pdf

Elley, W. B. (1994). Voluntary reading activities. In W. B. Elley (Ed.), The IEA study of reading literacy: Achievement and instruction in thirty-two school systems (pp. 65-148). Tarrytown , NY : Author.

Gardiner, S. (2001). Ten minutes a day for silent reading. Educational Leadership, 59(2), 32-35.

Jensen, T. L., & Jensen, V. S. (2002). Sustained Silent Reading and young adult short stories for high school classes. ALAN Review, 30(1), 58-60.

Maher, T. (1999). What is SSR anyway? The Reading Teacher, 52 (5), 447.

Mills, G. E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Columbus , OH : Merrill.

Miller, H. M. (2002). The SSR handbook: How to organize and manage a Sustained Silent Reading program. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(5), 434-435.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2003). The Ontario secondary school literacy course. Toronto, ON : Author. Retrieved November 27, 2004 , from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/eng12.pdf

Pearsall, J. (Ed.). (2001). New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Speaker, R. B., Jr. (1990). Another twist on Sustained Silent Reading: SSR + D. Journal of Reading, 34 (2), 143-144.

Valeri-Gold, M. (1995). Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading is an effective authentic method for college developmental learners. Journal of Reading, 38 (5), 385-386.

Waff, D., & Connell, P. M. (2004). Trenton Central High School SSR: A case study. English Journal, 93(5), 13-15.

Yoon, J.-C. (2002). Three decades of Sustained Silent Reading: A meta-analytic review of the effects of SSR on attitude toward reading. Reading Improvement, 39(4), 186-195.

¹ The OSSLT achievement results are those quoted in the EQAO reports using “Method 2,” which expresses the number of students as a percentage of those Grade 10 students who are working towards an Ontario Secondary School Diploma and who wrote the test, excluding those who were deferred or absent for all or part of the test.

Biographical Note:

Dan Jarvis is a mathematics and visual arts educator. He has taught at the Intermediate/Senior levels both overseas, at Chiang Mai International School in northern Thailand , and in two secondary schools in northern Ontario , Canada . As a full-time PhD candidate and Graduate Teaching Assistant at the University of Western Ontario , he is presently focusing his doctoral research on curricular negotiation and professional development models.

He can be reached at the J. G. Althouse Faculty of Education, The University of Western Ontario, 1137 Western Road , London , Ontario N6G 1G7 . Email: dhjarvis@sympatico.ca