The

Power of
Reading
 The
Power of
Reading
Insights from the Research

Second Edition

Stephen D. Krashen
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Krashen, Stephen D.
The power of reading: insights from the research/by Stephen D.
Krashen.—2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN 978-1-59158-169-7 (hardback) — ISBN 978-0-31305-335-1 (ebook)
1. Books and reading. 2. Literacy. I. Title.
Z1003.K917 2004
028′.9–dc22 2004044207
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available.
Copyright © 2004 by Stephen D.Krashen
All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be
reproduced, by any process or technique, without the
express written consent of the publisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging Card Number: 2004044207
ISBN: 978-1-59158-169-7
EISBN: 978-0-31305-335-1
First published in 2004
Libraries Unlimited, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881
A Member of the Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
www.lu.com
Heinemann, 361 Hanover Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801
A division of Reed Elsevier Inc.
www.Heinemann.com
10 9 8 7 6
Contents
Introduction

1. The Research
The Evidence for FVR
In-School Free Reading Programs
Reported Free Voluntary Reading
Reported Free Reading in a Second Language
The Author Recognition Test
Read and Test Studies
Summary
The Alternative to Free Reading: Direct Instruction
The Complexity Argument
Competence without Instruction
The Effect of Instruction
Other Benefits of Reading
The Pleasure of Reading
Reading and Cognitive Development
Good Thinkers Read More
Reading and Writing Apprehension
Conclusion
An Interpretation
Notes

2. The Cure
Access
More Access at Home Results in More Reading
 Better Classroom Libraries Result in More Reading
Better School Libraries Result in More Reading
Access to Public Libraries Results in More Reading
Comfort and Quiet
Libraries
Children Get Their Books from Libraries
Better Libraries Result in Better Reading
Poverty and Access to Books
What About School?
Libraries and Second Language Acquirers
Money for Libraries: Who Is Paying Now?
Reading Aloud
Reading Experience
Home Run Books
Models
Providing Time to Read
Direct Encouragement
Other Factors
Light Reading: Comic Books
A Brief History
Comic Books and Language Development
Comic Texts
Experiments with Comic Book Reading
Comics as a Conduit
The Case for Comics
Light Reading: The Teen Romance
Light Reading: The Power of Magazines
Is Light Reading: Enough?
Do Rewards Work?
What Does the Research Say?
Reading Management Programs
Notes
3. Other Issues and Conclusions
The Limits of Reading
Writing
Writing Style Comes from Reading
More Writing Does Not Mean Better Writing
What Writing Does
The Effect of Television
Does More Television Mean Less Reading?
The Language of Television
Television and Language Development
Television: A Summary
Second Language Acquirers
Conclusions
Notes

References
Researcher Index
Subject Index
Introduction
The sophisticated skills demanded by high-level academic or professional work—the
ability to understand multiple plots or complex issues, a sensitivity to tone, the expertise to
know immediately what is crucial to a text and what can be skimmed—can be acquired only
through years of avid reading. —Mary Leonhardt (1998)

Is There a Literacy Crisis?

I first heard about the literacy crisis in 1987 on the Oprah Winfrey Show
. Oprah Winfrey had four adult “illiterates” as guests, people who, it was
asserted, were completely unable to read and write. Their stories were
touching, and by now, familiar to the reading public. They told how they
had been “passed along” in school, surviving by paying careful attention in
class and relying on friends. They had evolved strategies for getting through
the day; for example, when they went to a restaurant with friends, they
would wait to see what other people were ordering, then order the same
thing.
Soon after this program, the plight of illiterates was dramatized in a
made-for-TV movie starring Dennis Weaver. And soon after that, Stanley
and Iris was released, a film telling the story of an adult illiterate. Thanks to
television shows such as Oprah Winfrey, these films, and numerous articles
in the press and in popular magazines, the public has the impression that a
sizable percentage of the public is completely illiterate, that the public
schools are graduating hordes of young people who can’t read. The public
also has the impression that illiteracy is curable by tutoring sessions that
teach nonreaders to read aloud—in other words, phonics.
 Both impressions are wrong. There is no literacy crisis, at least not the
kind of crisis the media have portrayed. There are, first of all, very few
people who have been through the educational system who are completely
unable to read and write. In fact, literacy, defined simply as the ability to
read and write on a basic level, has been steadily rising in the United States
for the last hun-dred years (see, e.g., Stedman and Kaestle 1987).
There is, however, a problem. Nearly everyone in the United States can
read and write. They just don’t read and write well enough. Although basic
literacy has been on the increase for the last century, the demands for
literacy have been rising faster. Many people clearly don’t read and write
well enough to handle the complex literacy demands of modern society.
The problem is thus not how to bring students to the second- or third-grade
reading level; the problem is how to bring them beyond this.
(It is not clear, by the way, that heavy doses of phonics is the answer
even at the beginning level; for extensive discussion of the most recent
controversies, see Krashen 2002; Garan 2002; Coles 2003).
The cure for this kind of literacy crisis lies, in my opinion, in doing one
activity, an activity that is all too often rare in the lives of many people:
reading. Specifically, I am recommending a certain kind of reading—free
voluntary reading (henceforth FVR). FVR means reading because you want
to. For school-age children, FVR means no book report, no questions at the
end of the chapter, and no looking up every vocabulary word. FVR means
putting down a book you don’t like and choosing another one instead. It is
the kind of reading highly literate people do all the time.
I will not claim that FVR is the complete answer. Free readers are not
guaranteed admission to Harvard Law School. What the research tells me is
that when children or less literate adults start reading for pleasure, however,
good things will happen. Their reading comprehension will improve, and
they will find difficult, academic-style texts easier to read. Their writing
style will improve, and they will be better able to write prose in a style that
is acceptable to schools, business, and the scientific community. Their
vocabulary will improve, and their spelling and control of grammar will
improve.
 In other words, those who do free voluntary reading have a chance. The
research also tells me, however, that those who do not develop the pleasure
reading habit simply don’t have a chance—they will have a very difficult
time reading and writing at a level high enough to deal with the demands of
today’s world.
FVR is also, I am convinced, the way to achieve advanced second
language proficiency. It is one of the best things a second language acquirer
can do to bridge the gap from the beginning level to truly advanced levels
of sec-ond language proficiency.
This book examines the research on FVR, the ways FVR can be imple-
mented, and issues related to reading, writing, and literacy. The possibilities
free voluntary reading offers individuals and society are great. The goal of
this book is to show the reader what free voluntary reading has to offer.
1 The Research
Free voluntary reading (henceforth FVR) means reading because you
want to: no book reports, no questions at the end of the chapter. In FVR,
you don’t have to finish the book if you don’t like it. FVR is the kind of
reading most of us do obsessively all the time.
FVR is one of the most powerful tools we have in language education,
and, as I argue in this chapter, FVR is the missing ingredient in first
language “language arts” as well as intermediate second and foreign
language instruction. It will not, by itself, produce the highest levels of
competence; rather, it provides a foundation so that higher levels of
proficiency may be reached. When FVR is missing, these advanced levels
are extremely difficult to attain.
Free voluntary reading (FVR) is the foundation
of language education.

In the following section, the evidence for the efficacy of FVR is briefly
reviewed. Following this review, I argue that alternative means of
promoting language and literacy development are not nearly as effective.

The Evidence for FVR

In-School Free Reading Programs

In-school free reading programs provide some of the clearest evidence
for the power of reading. In these programs, part of the school day is set
aside for unrestricted FVR. There are three kinds of in-school free reading
programs: sustained silent reading, self-selected reading, and extensive
reading. In sustained silent reading, both teachers and students engage in
free reading for short periods each day (from five to 15 minutes; see
Pilgreen 2000). In self-selected reading, free reading is a large part of the
language arts program, with teachers holding conferences with students to
discuss what was read. In extensive reading, a minimal amount of
accountability is required, for example, a short summary of what was read.
Types of in-school FVR: sustained silent
reading, self-selected reading, extensive reading.

Table 1.1:
Results of Reading Comprehension Tests: In-School Free
Reading Compared to Traditional Approaches

Table 1.1 summarizes the impact of in-school free reading programs on

tests of reading comprehension. In each case, readers were compared to
students in traditional programs. These were programs that emphasized
assigned reading and direct instruction in grammar, vocabulary, reading
comprehension, and spelling.
Two findings clearly emerge from this table: First, in-school free
reading programs are consistently effective. In 51 out of 54 comparisons
(94 percent), readers do as well as or better than students who were engaged
in traditional programs.
Note that a finding of “no difference” between free readers and students
in traditional programs suggests that free reading is just as good as tradi-
tional instruction, which confirms that free reading results in literacy
growth, an important theoretical point we return to later. As we will see
later, there is also strong evidence that free reading is extremely pleasant
and results in superior general knowledge. Even if free reading were
equivalent to direct instruction in terms of literacy development, it should
therefore be the preferred option.
 In 51 out of 54 comparisons, students using
FVR did as well as or better on reading tests than
students given traditional skill-based reading
instruction.

Second, studies that last longer show more consistently positive results.
One reason for this finding is apparent to teachers who have used free
reading in their classrooms: It takes a while for students to select a book.
Table 1.1 suggests that programs that last longer than a year are consistently
effective. 1
The longer FVR is done, the more consistent the
results.

In-school free reading programs are also effective for vocabulary

development, grammar test performance, writing, and oral/aural language
ability (Greaney 1970; Krashen 1989).
Only a few in-school reading studies have measured gains in spelling.
Of these, Pfau (1967) reported no additional gains in spelling due to
supplementary free reading, but Collins (1980) and Hafiz and Tudor (1990)
found that those who participated in sustained silent reading made better
progress in spelling than those who were in a traditional instruction
program. Elley (1991) reports a split-decision: In one group, those who did
in-school free reading made better progress in spelling than traditionally
taught students, but in another comparison with different students, there was
no difference. In no case, however, did traditionally taught students do
better. 2
Some examples illustrate the findings of in-school free reading. Much
of the research summarized in table 1.1 was performed on first lan-guage
acquirers in elementary school in the United States. The results of the
following studies show that free reading is very effective with other groups
as well.
McNeil, in Fader (1976), examined the effects of a free reading program
on 60 reform school boys, ages 12–17. The boys were encouraged to read
newspapers, magazines, and softcover books, and the reading material was
the basis for classroom discussions. After one year, the readers increased
their reading comprehension scores (Scholastic Achievement Test) from
69.9 to 82.7 (a gain of 12.8), while comparisons only improved from 55.8
to 60.4 (a gain of 4.6).
Reform-school boys benefited from FVR.

Elley and Mangubhai (1983) showed that free reading has a dramatic
effect on second language acquirers. In their study, fourth- and fifth-grade
students of English as a foreign language were divided into three groups for
their 30-minute daily English class. One group had traditional audio-lingual
method instruction, a second did only free reading, while a third did “shared
reading,” Shared reading “is a method of sharing a good book with a class,
several times, in such a way that the students are read to by the teacher, as
in a bedtime story. They then talk about the book, they read it together, they
act out the story, they draw parts of it and write their own caption, they
rewrite the story with different characters or events” (Elley 1998, pp. 1–2).
After two years, the free reading group and the shared reading group were
far superior to the traditional group in tests of reading comprehension,
writing, and grammar.
Children studying English in Fiji benefited from
FVR.

Elley (1991) also showed that free reading had a profound effect on
second language acquirers in Singapore. In three studies involving a total of
ap-proximately 3,000 children, ages six though nine, and lasting from one
to three years, children who followed the “Reading and English Acquisition
Program,” a combination of shared book experience, language experience,
and free reading (“book flood”), outperformed traditionally taught students
on tests of reading comprehension, vocabulary, oral language, grammar,
listening comprehension, and writing. 3
Children studying English in Singapore
benefited from FVR

Elley’s more recent data (Elley 1998) come from South Africa and Sri
Lanka. In all cases, children who were encouraged to read for pleasure
outperformed traditionally taught students on standardized tests of reading
comprehension and other measures of literacy. Table 1.2 presents the data
from South Africa. In this study, EFL students who lived in print-poor
environments were given access to sets of 60 high-interest books, which
were placed in classrooms, with another 60 made available in sets of six
identical titles. The books were used for read-alouds by the teacher, shared
reading, and silent reading. Table 1.2 presents data from different
provinces; in every case the readers outperformed those in comparison
classes, and the gap widened with each year of reading.

Table 1.2
In-School Reading in South Africa

Source : Mason and Krashen (1997)

Beniko Mason’s studies show that in-school extensive reading works

very well for older students studying English as a foreign language. In
Mason’s first study (included in Mason and Krashen 1997), experimental
students were taking a required English as a foreign language class at the
college level in Japan. It was, however, a special class, consisting
exclusively of students who had previously failed English (termed Sai
Rishu, or retakers). Students were pre- and posttested with a cloze test,
which required them to fill in missing words in an English text. For one
semester, students in the experimental class read graded readers, both in
class and as homework. There was some “accountability” in these classes,
but it was minimal: Students had to write short synopses and keep a diary in
Japanese, recording their feelings, opinions, and progress. Students in the
comparison classes followed the traditional grammar and translation-based
curriculum.
Reluctant English students in Japan benefited
from FVR.
 As presented in table 1.3 , even though the extensive readers started the
semester with much lower test scores in English reading, they made larger
gains than the traditional group and nearly caught up with them by the end
of the semester.

Table 1.3
Extensive Reading in Japan: Cloze Test Results
Pretest mean (sd) Post test mean (sd)
Extensive Reading 22.55 (11.54) 31.40 (11.43)
Traditional 29.70 (8.23) 33.05 (8.24)
Source: Mason and Krashen (1997)

Perhaps the most important and impressive finding of this study is the
clear improvement in at-titude shown by the students who did extensive
reading. Many of the once reluctant students of English became eager
readers. Several wrote in their diaries that they were amazed at their
improvement. Their diaries also indicated that they understood the stories.
Also of interest is Mason’s observation that students did not progress
linearly from easy to hard books. Some students read easy books after
reading some more difficult texts, and then returned later to harder books.
In subsequent studies, Mason showed that extensive reading was
superior to traditional instruction in programs lasting for a full academic
year for both university and community college students. She also
demonstrated that extensive readers improve in writing as well as reading
(Mason and Krashen 1997).
Shin (2001) examined the impact of a six-week self-selected reading
experience among 200 sixth graders who had to attend summer school
because of low reading proficiency. About 30 percent of each group were
limited English proficient. Students attended class four hours per day;
during this time, approximately two hours were devoted to self-selected
reading, including 25 minutes in the school library. The district invested
$25 per student on popular paperbacks and magazines, with most books
purchased from the Goosebumps series. In addition, about 45 minutes per
day was devoted to reading and discussing novels such as Wilson Rawl’s
Where the Red Fern Grows and Scott O’Dell’s The Island of the Blue
Dolphins . Comparison children followed a standard language arts
curriculum during the summer.
Goosebumps summer was successful .

The readers gained approximately five months on the Altos test of

reading comprehension and vocabulary over the six-week period, while
comparisons declined. On the Nelson-Denny reading comprehension test,
the summer readers grew well over one year. On the vocabulary section,
however, the groups showed equivalent gains.
In view of the many recent moves to force less proficient readers to go
to summer school to increase their reading ability, Shin’s program clearly
offers a more pleasant and more effective alternative to the usual diet of
drills and exercises. 4

Reported Free Voluntary Reading

People who say they read more typically read better and have a more
mature writing style. As is the case with in-school free reading, this result
has been confirmed in many studies (for a detailed review, see Krashen
1988). I present here only a few examples.
Those who say they read more read and write
better.

Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988) asked fifth graders to record

their activities outside of school and reported that “among all the ways
children spend their time, reading books was the best predictor of several
measures of reading achievement (reading comprehension, vocabulary, and
reading speed), including gains in reading comprehension between second
and fifth grade” (p. 285).
Postlethwaite and Ross (1992) studied schools in 32 countries whose
nine-year-olds did especially well in reading, controlling for books in the
home and other background factors. Of 150 possible pre-dictors of high
reading scores, free reading came in second: Students in schools in which
there was more reading of books, magazines, and comics read better. The
third best predictor was the amount of reading time in class.
Kim (2003) reported similar results for summer reading for a group of
children who had just completed grade five. In a careful study in which he
statistically controlled for a wide variety of other factors (including gender,
poverty, ethnicity, attitude/motivation, and whether the child was
emotionally disturbed, learning disabled, or a speaker of English as a
second language), those who read more over the summer made significantly
greater gains in reading comprehension. Kim calculated that reading one
book over the summer was associated with a .03 standard deviation gain in
reading comprehension; thus, reading five books is associated with a .15
standard deviation gain (about 3 NCE units). If such gains are cumulative,
that is, if they could be repeated each summer, the impact is very
substantial, even if only a modest amount of additional reading is done.
Five extra books over the summer=3 percentiles
gain.

Studies also show a relationship between reports of amount read and

spelling performance (for first language acquisition, Stanovich and West
1989; for second language acquisition, Polak and Krashen 1988), and a
positive relationship between reported free reading and writing ability in
Chinese has been demonstrated by Lee and Krashen (1996, 1997) and Lee
(2001).

Reported Free Reading in a Second Language

Studies in both second and foreign language confirm that those who
read more do better on a wide variety of tests.
FVR and the Spanish subjunctive.

In Stokes, Krashen, and Kartchner (1998), stu-dents of Spanish as a

foreign language in the United States were tested on their knowledge of the
subjunctive, a verb form that students of Spanish usually find very difficult
to master. The test used probed subjects’ ability to actually use the
subjunctive in a real situation, not simply whether they knew the rule. In
fact, only subjects who were not aware that the subjunctive was the focus of
the test were included in the analysis. The only significant predictor of the
ability to use the subjunctive was the amount of free voluntary reading done
in Spanish; the amount of formal study of Spanish, the amount of formal
study specifically aimed at the subjunctive, and how long subjects had lived
in a Spanish-speaking country were not significant predictors of subjunctive
competence.
Similar results for mastery of the English relative clause were reported
for international students living in the United States (Lee, Krashen, and
Gribbons 1996).
FVR and the English relative clause.

Several studies confirm that those who read more in their second
language also write better in that language (Salyer 1987; Janopoulous 1986;
Kaplan and Palhinda 1981).
FVR and the TOEFL.

The amount of free reading reported is also a very good predictor of

performance on the TOEFL examination, the test of academic English that
international students take that assesses their competence in listening
comprehension, grammar, and writing, in addition to reading
comprehension. The relationship between free reading and TOEFL scores
has been demonstrated by studies done with those taking the test abroad
(Gradman and Hanania 1991) as well as those living in the United States
(Constantino, Lee, Cho, and Krashen 1997): Those who reported more
“extracurricular read-ing” (Gradman and Hanania) and “free reading” and
“book reading” (Constantino et al.) scored higher on the TOEFL. Of great
interest is the finding that the amount of “extracurricular writing” done was
not a significant predictor of TOEFL scores (Gradman and Hanania).
The relationship between reported free voluntary reading and literacy
development is not large in every study, but it is remarkably consistent.
Nearly every study that has examined this relationship has found a positive
correlation, and it is present even when different tests, different methods of
probing reading habits, and different definitions of free reading are used.
 Although the results of reported free voluntary reading studies are
impressive, there are some problems with this research. First, the studies
rely on how much reading people say they do, which may or may not be
accurate. Second, one can imagine other factors that could have been
responsible for literacy development. Perhaps those who read more also did
other things, such as vocabulary exercises, or perhaps those who did more
drills and exercises in school did better on reading tests and also became
better readers and thus read more. I think these possibilities are far-fetched,
but they are possible.
Other explanations for literacy development are
possible but not plausible.

One could also argue that the in-school free reading studies discussed
earlier also have this problem—maybe the additional reading inspired
students to do more drills and exercises. This is also unlikely, but it is
possible.

The Author Recognition Test

Keith Stanovich, in a series of studies, has verified the value of a simple
procedure for studying the impact of reading. In the author recognition test,
subjects simply indicate whether they recognize the names of authors on a
list. For speakers of English as a first language, scores on the author
recognition test have been shown to correlate substantially with measures of
vocabulary (West and Stanovich 1991; West, Stanovich, and Mitchell 1993;
Lee, Krashen, and Tse 1997), reading comprehension (Cipielewski and
Stanovich 1990; Stanovich and West 1989), and spelling (Cunningham and
Stanovich 1990). These results have been confirmed using other first
languages as well: Significant correlations have been reported between
performance on an author recognition test and writing performance in
Chinese (Lee and Krashen 1996), and Korean (Kim and Krashen 1998a),
and between author recognition test performance and vocabulary
development in Spanish (Rodrigo, McQuillan, and Krashen 1996).
Those who recognize more authors’ names have
read more and have superior literacy
development.

Those who report reading more also do better on the author recognition
test. This is true for English speakers (Stanovich and West 1989; Allen,
Cipielewski, and Stanovich 1992), Korean speakers (Kim and Krashen
1998a), Chinese speakers (Lee and Krashen 1996), and Spanish speakers
(Rodrigo et al. 1996).
One study also reported a positive correlation between performance on
the author recognition test and the amount of reading subjects were
observed doing. West, Stanovich, and Mitchell (1993) observed airport
passengers waiting for flights and classified them as either readers (those
who were observed to be reading for at least 10 continuous minutes) or
nonreaders. Readers did significantly better on an author recognition test as
well as a short vocabulary recognition test.
Only one study thus far has examined the performance of foreign
language students on the au-thor recognition test. Kim and Krashen (1998b)
reported that for high school students of English as a foreign language,
performance on an English author recognition test was a good predictor of
performance on an English vocabulary test. In addition, those who reported
more free reading in English also tended to do better on the author
recognition test.
In addition to providing confirmation of the relation between
recreational reading and language development, the author recognition test
and similar measures (magazine recognition test, title recognition test)
promise to simplify work in this area.

Read and Test Studies

Read and test studies also provide evidence for the power of reading. In
read and test studies, subjects read passages containing words whose
meanings are unfamiliar to them. Readers are not alerted to the presence of
these words in the text, nor are they told that a vocabulary or spelling test
will be given after they read the text. Rather, readers are encouraged to read
the passage for its meaning. After they finish reading the passage, they are
tested to see if they have acquired some or all of the meanings of the
unfamiliar words or if their spelling of these words has improved. Read and
test studies thus probe “incidental” learning.
Read and test studies utilize passages with
unfamiliar words in context.

Some of the most important read and test studies were done at the
University of Illinois (Nagy, Herman, and Anderson 1985; Nagy, An-
derson, and Herman 1987). The Illinois researchers used elementary school
students as subjects and passages from elementary school textbooks as
texts. Their measures of vocabulary knowledge had an important feature:
They were sensitive to whether subjects had acquired just part of the
meaning of a target word. Nagy et al. (1985) concluded from their data that
when an unfamiliar word was seen in print, “a small but reliable increase of
word knowledge” typically occurred (Nagy and Herman 1987, p. 26).
Each time an unfamiliar word is read in
context, a small increase in word knowledge
typically occurs.

The Clockwork Orange Study

The Clockwork Orange study (Saragi, Nation, and Meister 1978)

provides a powerful demonstration of our ability to acquire vocabulary by
reading. In this study, adult readers (native speakers of English) were asked
to read A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, a novel that contains 241
words from a slang called nadsat. Each nadsat word is repeated an average
of 15 times. Few readers know these words before reading the book. The
versions of A Clockwork Orange sold in bookstores have a dictionary in the
back, so readers can look up the meanings of the nadsat words.
Students who read a novel with many unique
words actually acquired the meaning of many of
those words from context clues alone.

In this study, subjects were simply asked to read A Clockwork Orange

and were told that after they finished it, they would be given a test of
comprehension and literary criticism. They were not told to try to learn or
remember the nadsat words. What is crucial is that they were given copies
of the book without the dictionary in the back. The subjects read the book
on their own time and reported finishing it in three days or less. A few days
later, subjects were given a multiple-choice test covering 90 of the nadsat
words.
A great deal of vocabulary acquisition took place. Scores ranged from
50 percent to 96 percent correct, with an average of 76 percent—subjects
picked up at least 45 words, simply by reading a novel.
Second language read and test studies confirming that vocabulary can
be acquired by reading include Pitts, White, and Krashen (1989); Day,
Omura and Hiramatsu (1991); Dupuy and Krashen (1993); Horst, Cobb,
and Meara (1998); and Pulido (2003). In Hermann (2003), two groups of
adult ESL students were tested on unknown words contained in Animal
Farm . One group memorized the list by rote; the second read the book. The
readers were not aware they would be tested on vocabulary. When tested
after one week, those who memorized the list did better, but after three
weeks there was no difference between the groups. Those who did rote
memorization forgot words between the two tests, but the readers actually
improved their scores. 5
It is clear that some contexts give the reader better clues to the meaning
of a word than others do. Nevertheless, research indicates that most
contexts are helpful; Beck, McKeown, and McCaslin (1983) found that 61
percent of the contexts they examined in basal readers were of help in
acquiring new vocabulary, providing at least some clues to meanings of
unfamiliar words, while 31 percent were of no help and 8 percent were
“misdirective.”
Despite the presence of occasionally unhelpful or misdirective contexts,
readers eventually arrive at meanings of many unknown words. The few
that escape readers, the few that must be looked up or that readers get
completely wrong, are a tiny minority compared to the enormous number
successfully acquired. 6
Most contexts are “helpful.”

Spelling
 Spelling read and test studies yield similar results (see Krashen 1989 for
a detailed review). Each time readers read a passage containing words they
cannot spell, they make a small amount of progress in acquiring the correct
spelling.
Reading improves spelling.

Nisbet’s study (1941) is typical. Children ages 11 to 14 read passages

containing words they could not spell correctly on a pretest. After reading
the passage, the children could spell an average of about one out of 25 of
these words. Nisbet found this figure unimpressive and concluded that
“intensive reading and study of a passage…does lead to some learning of
spelling, but this gain is not sufficient…to justify the neglect of specific
spelling instruction” (p. 11). This may, however, be enough to make a
substantial contribution to spelling competence if readers read enough. 7
The hypothesis that spelling comes from reading is confirmed by an
experience familiar to all teachers: Our spelling gets worse when we read
misspelled words. A modified read and test study, in fact, confirmed that
“reading student essays may be hazardous to one’s spelling accuracy”
(Jacoby and Hollingshead 1990, p. 357). In this study, subjects read
misspelled versions of different words. Even though they read the
misspelled words only once, when given a spelling test, the subjects
performed significantly worse on the words they had seen misspelled than
on those they had seen spelled correctly.
If readers read misspelled words, their spelling
declines as well as the confidence of the speller.

Jacoby and Hollingshead (1990) point out that the effect of seeing an
incorrectly spelled word just one time was not large. They noted, however,
that
much more dramatic results were produced… by the second author of [the] paper. In the
course of collecting the data…she read the incorrectly spelled words a large number of
times. As a result of this extended experience with those incorrect spellings, she reports
having lost confidence in her spelling accuracy. She can no longer judge spelling accuracy
on the basis of a word “looking right.” The word might look right because it was one of our
incorrectly spelled words, (pp. 356–357)
 Summary
In-school free reading studies and “out of school” self-reported free
voluntary reading studies show that more reading results in better reading
comprehension, writing style, vocabulary, spelling, and grammatical
development. Read and test studies confirm that reading develops
vocabulary and spelling. Figure 1.1 summarizes the “reading hypothesis.” 8
In-school FVR results in better

reading comprehension
writing style
vocabulary
spelling
grammatical development

Figure 1.1 The Reading Hypothesis

Despite these results, it could be argued that reading is only one way to
develop literacy. In the following section, we examine one rival hypothe-
sis, the hypothesis that literacy can be developed in another way, by direct
instruction.

The Alternative to Free Reading: Direct

struction

Direct instruction can be characterized as a combination of two

processes:
 1. Skill-building: Skill-building means consciously learning a rule, word
meaning, or spelling and then making the rule “automatic” through output
practice.
2. Error correction: When errors are corrected, students are expected to
adjust their conscious knowledge of the rule, word, or spelling.
Can direct (skill-based) instruction complete
with FVR as the best method of improving
literacy?

There are several compelling reasons why direct instruction cannot

account for the development of literacy. Each of these reasons, taken alone,
is sufficient. Together, the case against instruction is overwhelming. Briefly,
there are three arguments against instruction:
1. Language is too vast, too complex to be taught or learned one rule or
word at a time (the complexity argument).
2. Literacy development can occur without formal instruction
(competence without instruction).
The case against direct instruction is
overwhelming.

3. The impact of direct instruction is typically small or nonexistent.

When studies do show an effect of instruction, the effect sometimes
disappears with time.

The Complexity Argument

Many scholars have noted that language is too complex to be
deliberately and consciously learned one rule or item at a time. This
argument has been made for the acquisition of grammar (Krashen 1982),
spelling (Smith 1994a), phonics (Smith 1994b), writing style (Smith 1994a;
Krashen 1984), and vocabulary (Smith 1988; Nagy, Herman, and Anderson
1985).
Perhaps the most concrete example is vocabulary. Estimates of adult
vocabulary size range from about 40,000 (Lorge and Chall 1963) to
156,000 words (Seashore and Eckerson 1940), and it has been claimed that
elementary school children acquire from eight (Nagy and Herman 1987) to
more than 14 (Miller 1977) words per day.
Language is too complex to be learned one rule
or word at a time.

Not only are there many words to acquire, there are also subtle and
complex properties of words that competent users have acquired. Quite
often, the meaning of a word is not nearly adequately represented by a
synonym. As Finegan (1999) points out, words that appear to have the same
meaning often refer to slightly different concepts or are used in slightly
different ways. 9
Language users must acquire many words with
many nuances of meaning and complex
grammatical properties.

Also, when we acquire a word we acquire considerable knowledge

about its grammatical properties. With verbs, for example, this includes
fairly straightforward properties, for example, whether they are transitive or
intransitive (we can say, “John told a joke,” but not “John told.”) , as well as
more complex properties, for example, the fact that in the sentence “John is
easy to please,” the subject of “please” is “someone” and not John, but John
is the subject of “please” in “John is eager to please.” Professional
grammarians have struggled to properly describe the generalizations
underlying such differences, and they are rarely taught.
Vocabulary teaching methods typically focus on teaching simple
synonyms and thus give only part of the meaning of the word and none of
its so-cial meanings or grammatical properties.
Teaching vocabulary lists is not efficient. The
time is better spent reading.

Competence without Instruction

There is abundant evidence that literacy development can occur without
formal instruction. Moreover, this evidence strongly suggests that reading is
potent enough to do the entire job alone.
The read and test studies reviewed earlier are among the most
compelling cases of literacy development without instruction. Clearly, in
these cases, acquisition of vocabulary and spelling occurred without skill-
building or correction.
Similarly, students in in-school free reading programs (see “In-School
Free Reading Programs,” above) who made gains equal to or greater than
children in traditional programs have demonstrated acquisition of literacy
without direct instruction.
People with large vocabularies and good writing ability do not generally
claim to have developed them through study. Smith and Supanich (1984)
tested 456 company presidents and reported that they had significantly
larger vocabulary scores than a comparison group of adults did. When
asked if they had made an effort to increase their vocabulary since leaving
school, 54.5 percent said they had. When asked what they did to increase
their vocabulary, however, about half of the 54.5 percent mentioned
reading. Only 14 percent of those who tried to increase their vocabulary (3
percent of the total group) mentioned the use of vocabulary books.
Only a small percentage of those with large
vocabularies used increase their vocabulary books
to vocabularies.

Some Case Histories

Some impressive case histories strongly suggest that reading alone is
enough. Richard Wright (1966) grew up in an environment in which read-
ing and writing was disapproved of by family members; his grandmother
actually burned the books he brought home, “branding them as worldly”
(Wright 1966, p. 142).
Wright became interested in reading and in hearing stories at an early
age, thanks to a school-teacher (a boarder at his home) who told him stories
from novels. Wright struggled to gain access to reading material. He
delivered newspapers only so that he could read them and used an
associate’s library card to take books out of a library that was restricted to
whites.
 Clearly in agreement with the research reported here, Wright credits
reading with providing his development as a writer: “I wanted to write and I
did not even know the English language. I bought English grammars and
found them dull. I felt I was getting a better sense of the language from
novels than from grammars” (1966, p. 275).
Author Richard Wright attributed his language
development to novels, not English grammars.

Although Richard Wright depended, to a great extent, on fiction,

Malcolm X (El-Hajj Malik El-Shabbaz) credited nonfiction with his literacy
development. As he describes in his autobiography, Malcolm X had early
success in school. He was, in fact, president of his seventh-grade class. His
life in the streets, however, “erased everything I’d ever learned in school
(El-Shabazz 1964, p. 154). He describes his first attempt to write a letter to
Elijah Mohammed:
At least twenty-five times I must have written that first one-page letter to him, over and
over. I was trying to make it legible and understandable. I practically couldn’t read my
handwriting myself; it shames even to remember it. My spelling and grammar were as bad,
if not worse (p. 169).

Malcolm X educated himself in prison by

reading.

The change came in prison. “Many who hear me today somewhere in

person, or on television, or those who read something I’ve said, will think I
went to school far beyond the eighth grade. This impression is due entirely
to my prison studies” (p. 171).
These “prison studies” consisted largely of reading. Building his
vocabulary at first the hard way, by studying the dictionary, Malcolm X
became a dedicated reader: “In every free moment I had, if I was not
reading in the library, I was reading on my bunk. You couldn’t have gotten
me out of books with a wedge” (1964, p. 173).
Like Richard Wright, Malcolm X specifically gave reading the credit:
“Not long ago, an English writer telephoned me from London, asking
questions. One was, ‘What’s your alma mater?’ I told him, ‘Books’” (1964,
p. 179).
 The following cases are interesting because they confirm that language
and literacy development can occur from reading in a “heritage” or family
language, and in a second language. In both cases, the acquirers themselves
were unaware that they had made any progress.
Segal (1997) describes the case of L., a 17-year-old 11th-grade student
in Israel. L. spoke English at home with her parents, who are from South
Africa, but had serious problems in English writing, especially in spelling,
vocabulary, and writing style. Segal, L.’s teacher in grade 10, tried a variety
of approaches:
Summer reading caused a dramatic
improvement in writing.

Error correction proved a total failure. L. tried correcting her own mistakes, tried process
writing, and tried just copying words correctly in her notebook. Nothing worked. L.’s
composi-tions were poorly expressed and her vocabulary was weak. We conferenced
together over format and discussed ideas before writing. We made little progress. I gave L.
a list of five useful words to spell each week for six weeks and tested her in an
unthreatening way during recess. L. performed well in the tests in the beginning, but by the
end of six weeks she reverted to misspelling the words she have previously spelt correctly.

In addition, L.’s mother got her a private tutor, but there was little
improvement.
Segal also taught L. in grade 11. At the beginning of the year, she
assigned an essay:
Summer reading caused a dramatic
improvement in writing.

When I came to L.’s composition I stopped still. Before me was an almost perfect essay.
There were no spelling mistakes. The paragraphs were clearly marked. Her ideas were well
put and she made good sense. Her vocabulary had improved. I was amazed but at the same
time uneasy.

Segal discovered the reason for L.’s improvement: She had become a
reader over the summer. L. told her, “I never read much before but this
summer I went to the library and I started reading and I just couldn’t stop.”
L.’s performance in grade 11 in English was consistently excellent, and her
reading habit has continued.
 Cohen (1997) attended an English-language medium school in her
native Turkey, beginning at age 12. The first two years were devoted to
intensive English study, and Cohen reports that after only two months, she
started to read in English, “as many books in English as I could get hold of.
I had a rich, ready made library of English books at home… I became a
member of the local British Council’s li-brary and occasionally purchased
English books in bookstores…. By the first year of middle school I had
become an avid reader of English.”
Her reading, however, led to an “unpleasant incident” in middle school:
I had a new English teacher who assigned us two compositions for homework. She
returned them to me ungraded, furious. She wanted to know who had helped me write
them. They were my personal work. I had not even used the dictionary. She would not
believe me. She pointed at a few underlined sentences and some vocabulary and asked me
how I knew them; they were well beyond the level of the class. I had not even participated
much in class. I was devastated. There and then and many years later I could not explain
how I knew them. I just did.

Spelling without Instruction

There is excellent evidence that children can learn to spell without
instruction. The earliest study showing this was done by Cornman (1902),
who studied the effect of dropping all spelling instruction in elementary
schools for three years (spelling errors were still corrected by teachers,
however). Cornman concluded that the effects of spelling instruction were
“negligible” and that uninstructed students continued to improve in spelling
and did just as well as students in previous years’ classes and students in
other schools. 10
Several studies show children can learn to spell
without instruction.

Cornman’s results were replicated by Richards (1920), who studied 78

children in grades six, seven, and eight who went without spelling
instruction for one year. Richards reported that 68 percent of these children
improved more than one year in spelling, 20 percent made no change, and
only 12 percent got worse. An additional replication was done by Kyte
(1948), who found that “ex-cellent spellers” who were excused from
spelling instruction continued to improve.
 Very young children can learn to spell without instruction. Goodman
and Goodman (1982) reported that their daughter Kay learned to read and
spell before she came to school, without any formal instruction at home. At
age six, Kay spelled 58 percent of the words on a third-grade spelling list
correctly and recognized the correct spellings of 91 percent of the words.
Several researchers have found that children can spell correctly a
substantial percentage of words they have not yet studied in class
(Thompson 1930; Curtiss and Dolch 1939; Hughes 1966) and that children
improve each year on words they have already studied (Curtiss and Dolch
1939), which is additional evidence that spelling improves without
instruction.
Adults acquiring English improve their spelling
without instruction.

Haggan (1991) presented evidence suggesting that adult second

language acquirers can improve their spelling without instruction. Haggan
reported that fourth-year Arabic-speaking English majors at the University
of Kuwait made fewer spelling errors in their writing than first-year English
majors, even though little emphasis was put on “systematic, explicit
teaching of spelling” (p. 59) in the curriculum.

The Effect of Instruction

The studies reviewed earlier of in-school free reading programs show
that when free reading and direct (traditional) instruction are compared
directly, free reading is as good or better, and in long-term studies free
reading is a consistent winner. In addition, Snow, Barnes, Chandler,
Goodman, and Hemphill (1991) reported no significant correlations
between the amount of explicit vocabulary instruction students had and
gains in read-ing comprehension and vocabulary over four years. Snow et
al. also found that the exclusive use of a basal reader or workbook in
reading lessons was negatively correlated with gains in reading
comprehension, but that the use of a workbook for homework was
positively correlated with gains in reading comprehension, a result that
conflicts with other results presented in this section.
 FVR is nearly always superior to direct
instruction on tests of

reading
vocabulary
writing
grammar

Although the research on the impact of in-school free reading on

spelling was not conclusive, there is, however, extensive evidence from
other sources showing that spelling instruction has little effect. Rice (1897)
claimed to find no correlation between the amount of time children were
instructed on spelling and their spelling performance. 11
Almost all studies show little improvement in
spelling through direct instruction.

Additional evidence that spelling instruction is not very effective comes

from Brandenburg (1919), who reported no improvement in spelling
accuracy among college students after their psychology papers were
“persistently and clearly” marked for spelling errors in one semester.
Finally, Cook (1912) showed that students have a very hard time
learning and applying spelling rules. Cook gave a total of 96 high school
and college students a spelling test containing words that exemplified
spelling rules the students had studied the previous semester. He found no
difference in accuracy among (1) students who said they knew the rules and
used the rules while spelling the test words, (2) those who knew the rules
but did not use them, and (3) those who did not know the rules at all. Also,
the college students did better on the test, but the high school students knew
more spelling rules, confirming the lack of a relationship between knowing
spelling rules and spelling accuracy. 12
I have found only two studies in which spelling instruction had a clear
effect. In Thompson (1930), instruction accounted for approximately a half-
year extra growth over and above that expected without instruction. I have
pointed out, however (Krashen 1989), that Thompson’s students put in a
huge amount of time in spelling instruction. In Hammill, Larsen, and
McNutt (1977), students who had spelling instruction were clearly ahead of
uninstructed children in grades three and four. This advantage, however,
washed out by grades five and six. At this level there was no difference
between instructed and uninstructed children in spelling accuracy as
measured by a standardized spelling test. Spelling instruction, when it
works, may only succeed in helping children learn to spell words that they
would have learned to spell on their own anyway. 13
When spelling instruction works, it may only be
helping children learn to spell words they will
learn to spell on their from reading.

Wilde (1990) estimated that each spelling word learned through direct
instruction requires about 20 minutes of instructional time! Here is her
logic: Spelling programs, she estimated, cover about 720 words per year
and typically take up 15 minutes per day, or 45 hours per year. Children,
however, have probably acquired the spellings of about 65 percent of the
words before they are taught and acquire another 12 percent incidentally
during the year, a total of 77 percent. Assuming the children reach 95
percent mastery of the spelling list (an optimistic assumption), this means
that instruction was responsible for mastery of 18 percent of the 720 words
(95 percent minus 77 percent), or 130 words. At 45 hours per year, this
means each word took about 20 minutes to learn to spell.
A series of studies, dating from 1935, confirms that grammar instruction
has no impact on reading and writing (see reviews by Krashen 1984 and
Hill-ocks 1986). Probably the most thorough is the New Zealand study
(Elley, Barham, Lamb, and Wyllie 1976). High school students were
divided into three groups: One group studied traditional grammar in English
class, a second studied transformational grammar, and a third studied no
grammar. Students were tested every year for three years. Elley et al. found
no differences in reading comprehension, writing style, writing mechanics,
or vocabulary among the groups, and a follow-up done one year after the
project ended also showed no differences among the groups. The authors
concluded that “it is difficult to escape the conclusion that English
grammar, whether traditional or transformational, has virtually no influence
on the language growth of typical secondary students” (pp. 17–18). The
study of complex grammatical constructions does not help reading (or
writing); rather, mastery of complex grammar is a result of reading. 14
Other Benefits of Reading

The Pleasure of Reading

Let me tell you, if you don’t know it from your own experience, that reading a good book,
losing yourself in the interest of words and thoughts, is for some people (me, for instance)
an incredible intensity of happiness. (Asimov 2002, p. 18)

In Krashen (1994), I proposed the pleasure hypothesis: Pedagogical

activities that promote language acquisition are enjoyable. Of course, just
because an activity is enjoyable does not mean it is good for language
acquisition; some activities may be very enjoyable but may not help at all.
Enjoyment is no guarantee of effectiveness. It is, how-ever, interesting that
there is strong evidence that free voluntary reading is very enjoyable.
The pleasure hypothesis: If an activity promotes
language acquisition, it is enjoyable. But
enjoyment does not guarantee language
acquisition.

The evidence includes work by Csikszentmihalyi (1991), who

introduced the concept of flow. Flow is the state people reach when they are
deeply but effortlessly involved in an activity. In flow, the concerns of
everyday life and even the sense of self disappear—our sense of time is
altered and nothing but the activity itself seems to matter. Cross-cultural
studies indicate that flow is easily recognized by members of widely
different cultures and groups. For example, members of Japanese
motorcycle gangs experience flow when riding (Sato 1992), and rock
climbers experience flow when climbing (Massimini, Csikszentmihalyi, and
Della Fave 1992).
Of special interest is the finding that reading “is currently perhaps the
most often mentioned flow activity in the world” (Csikszentmihalyi 1991,
p. 117). This finding is consistent with reports of individual pleasure
readers. A resident in Walse in Northern Italy said that when he reads “I
immediately immerse myself in the reading and the problems I usually
worry about disappear” (Massimini et al. 1992, p. 68). One of Nell’s
subjects reported, “reading removes me…from the…irritations of living…
for the few hours a day I read ‘trash’ escape the cares of those around me,
as well as escaping my own cares and dissatisfactions” (Nell 1988, p. 240).
W.Somerset Maugham, quoted in Nell, had similar comments:
“Conversation after a time bores me, games tire me, and my own thoughts,
which we are told are the unfailing resource of a sensible man, have a
tendency to run dry. Then I fly to my book as the opium-smoker to his
pipe” (Nell 1988, p.232).
Reading is the most frequently mentioned
“flow” activity.

A number of studies confirm that students prefer in-school free reading

to traditional lan-guage arts.
Bailey (1969) asked parents of 22 children in in-school free reading
programs how their children reacted to in-school free reading. In response
to the question, “Does your child ever complain of reading in the
classroom?” all 22 responded “no.” When asked, “Does your child seem
more or less interested in reading this year?” 21 said “more” and one
responded that there was no difference.
Gray (1969) asked 27 children who had just completed a year of
individualized reading: “If you were to choose your reading program for
another year, which would you choose?” All 27 chose independent reading.
Greaney (1970) compared two groups of sixth graders in Dublin and
found clear evidence that students prefer free reading to traditional
language arts activities. While both groups had 40 minutes per day of
reading class, the experimental group was allowed to choose their own
reading material that they could read at their own rate. After the eight-
month program, the experimental students rated their reading class as
significantly more interesting than the comparison group rated their
traditional class ( table 1.4 ).
Students prefer reading to traditional pedagogy.

Table 1.4
Free Reading versus Traditional Language Arts
 Rating Self-selected Traditional
very interesting 28 8
reasonably interesting 9 13
neutral-boring 3 17
Source: Greaney (1970)

Ivey and Broaddus (2001) asked 1,765 sixth graders in 23 different

schools which reading activ-ities they enjoyed most in their language arts
class. The clear winners were free reading time (63 percent) and the teacher
reading aloud (62 percent) (students could check more than one item).
McQuillan (1994) examined reactions of university-level foreign
language and second language students to a popular literature class that
included some self-selected reading. McQuillan asked students to compare
self-selected reading, assigned reading, and grammar instruction: “Based on
your experience this class and other second language classes, which do you
believe is the most pleasurable: assigned readings, self-selected reading, or
grammar?”
Because results for both second language and foreign language students
were similar, McQuillan combined them. Of the 49 students, 55 percent
found assigned popular reading more pleasurable, 29 percent voted for self-
selected reading, and 16 percent voted for grammar.
McQuillan noted that the preference for assigned reading may have
been due to the fact that the assigned readings were “well-liked material
that had been popular with previous students” (1994, p. 98); those supplied
by the instructor were thus good reading as well as convenient. McQuillan
also asked: “Given a choice between reading popular literature and studying
grammar, which would you prefer to do?” Eighty percent (n =39) said they
would prefer reading popular literature. Additional very positive reactions
to free reading from foreign language students are reported by Rodrigo
(1997) and Dupuy (1997, 1998).
Nell (1988) provided interesting evidence showing why bedtime
reading is so pleasant. Plea-sure readers were asked to read a book of their
own choice, while their heart rate, muscle activity, skin potential, and
respiration rate were measured; level of arousal while reading was
compared to arousal during other activities, such as relaxing with eyes shut,
listening to white noise, doing mental arithmetic, and doing visualization
activities. Nell found that during reading, arousal was increased, as
compared to relaxation with eyes shut, but a clear decline in arousal was
recorded in the period just after reading, which for some measures reached
a level below the baseline (eyes-shut) condition. In other words, bedtime
reading is arousing, but then it relaxes you. Consistent with these findings
are Nell’s results showing that bedtime reading is popular. Of 26 pleasure
readers he interviewed, 13 read in bed every night and 11 “almost every
night” or “most nights” (1988, p. 250).
Why bedtime reading is so pleasant.

In a review of surveys done between 1965 and 1985, Robinson and

Godbey (1997) confirm the pleasure of reading: Adult Americans
consistently rated reading as enjoyable. In their 1985 survey of 2,500
adults, book and magazine reading was rated 8.3 out of 10 in enjoyment,
compared to 7.5 for hobbies, 7.8 for television, and 7.2 for “conversations.”
The research literature is filled with informal reports confirming that
children find reading in school to be very pleasant. Johnson (1965) reported
that when her sixth graders were allowed to do recreational reading “there
were no discipline problems” and children would occasionally ask for more
reading time when the free reading pe-riod was over. Petre (1971) reported
on the effect of 35-minute “reading breaks” in public schools in Maryland:
“The most unusual happening when the reading break begins is total
quietness…. One middle school principal reports a 50 percent drop in
discipline cases after the school began such a reading environment” (p.
192).
Pilgreen’s high school ESL students (Pilgreen and Krashen 1993) were
very positive about SSR (sustained silent reading): Of Pilgreen’s subjects,
56 percent reported that they enjoyed the SSR sessions “very much,” while
38 percent said they enjoyed them “some,” and only 7 percent reported that
they only enjoyed them a little. Similarly, Sadowski (1980) asked high
school students how they liked a seven-week SSR program: “Of those
responding (48%), 58% gave the program strong praise and asked for its
continuation, while only .09% gave the program strong negative criticism
and called for its elimination” (p. 724).
Davis and Lucas (1971) studied seventh and eighth graders who did free
reading for one year, and noted: “Almost without exception, the students
endorsed the concept and asked for similar classes in ensuing years…the
center counselors received many complaints that the fifth-minute periods
were not long enough. The students wanted at least one hour daily in the
center” (p. 743).
Thompson (1956) found that “most of the teachers using self-selection
evaluate it by saying ‘I like it because my children like it. All my discipline
problems are solved…’. One teacher asked ‘How do you stop them from
reading? Mine take out a book as soon as they come in from recess, and
start reading again as soon as spelling and arithmetic assignments are
completed’”(p. 487).
Oliver (1976) noted that SSR had “a quieting effect” on fourth, fifth,
and sixth graders and that it “exerts an inhibiting pressure on potentially
disruptive behavior of individuals” (p. 227). Farrell (1982) noted that junior
high school students dur-ing SSR showed “a reluctance to put (books) aside
when the bell rang” (p. 51).
Before ending this cheerful section, I must point out that in two cases,
in-school free reading was not perceived to be pleasant. Minton (1980)
studied the impact of SSR in a high school over one semester. Both students
and faculty were negative about the program (only 19 percent of the
students thought it was an “excellent idea”) and were less likely to be
reading after the SSR program; 28 percent said they were currently reading
a book after the program ended, compared to 55 percent before the program
began. Minton discusses several possible reasons SSR flopped. The most
compelling to me was the fact that SSR was implemented at the same time
every day, which was very awkward and disruptive. Some students were in
physical education classes, some were in industrial arts, etc.
A second negative report comes from Herbert (1987). Students in
grades seven, eight, and nine had mostly negative attitudes toward SSR.
Herbert provides the questionnaire used but does not provide additional
details about how SSR was done. She notes, however, that most of the
students had positive attitudes about reading in general.
A review of several SSR studies by Yoon (2002) revealed that those
who participated in SSR showed better attitudes as reflected by their
responses on attitude questionnaires. In contrast to the testimonials
presented in this section, however, results were modest and were only
evident for studies of grade three and younger. Yoon included several
unpublished doctoral dissertations in his review and relied on the results of
formal questionnaires, which could explain the difference (see Von
Sprecken and Krashen 2002 for commentary on the validity and limitations
of attitude scales in reading). 15

Reading and Cognitive Development

There is little doubt that reading influences cognitive development, but

it is surprisingly difficult to find direct evidence. Ravitch and Finn (1987),
in their study What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?, found that those 17-year-
olds who knew more, read more: Those who lived in a print-richer
environment did better overall on tests of history and literature, and there
was a clear relationship between the amount of reported leisure reading and
performance on the literature test. Stanovich and Cunningham (1992)
confirmed that college students who read more did better on the same test
of history and literature that Ravitch and Finn used, and this relationship
held even when nonverbal ability factors were controlled.
Those who read more, know more.

Those who read more also do better on various measures of cultural

knowledge. West and Stanovich created a cultural literacy test, a checklist
of 30 names of artists, entertainers, explorers, philosophers, and scientists.
Those who had more print exposure did better on this test, even when other
factors, such as SAT scores (West and Stanovich 1991), age, education,
exposure to television (West, Stanovich, and Mitchell 1993), and nonverbal
abilities (Stanovich, West, and Harrison 1995) were controlled. Stanovich
and Cunningham (1993) found similar results for a test of “practical
knowledge” and a test of science and social studies. Filback and Krashen
(2002), in a study of Chris-tian adults, found that the amount of voluntary
Bible reading done was a good predictor of biblical knowledge, but the
amount of formal Bible study was not.

Good Thinkers Read More

Studies of “good thinkers” also give us some reason to believe that
reading makes you smarter. Good thinkers, however they are defined, read a
great deal and have read a great deal. Simonton (1988) concluded that
“omnivorous reading in childhood and adolescence correlates positively
with ultimate adult success” (p. 11). Schafer and Anastasi (1968) reported
that high school students considered to be creative read more than average
students, with more creative students reporting that they read over 50 books
per year. Emery and Csikszentmihalyi (1982) compared 15 men of blue-
collar background who became college professors with 15 men of very
similar background who grew up to become blue-collar workers. The future
professors lived in a much more print-rich environment and did far more
reading when they were young. 16

Reading and Writing Apprehension

Free reading has additional benefits. Lee and Krashen (1997) proposed
that those who read more have less “writing apprehension” because of their
superior command of the written language. They reported a modest but
negative correlation between the amount of reading done and scores on a
writing apprehension questionnaire for Taiwanese high school students (see
also Lee 2001). The mod-est size of the correlation (r=−.21) may be
because other factors affect writing apprehension, such as mastery of the
composing process. It is consistent, however, with reports that those with
less writing apprehension enjoy reading more (Daly and Wilson 1983).
Conclusion
In face-to-face comparisons, reading is consistently shown to be more
efficient than direct instruction. Other studies confirm that direct instruction
has little or no effect. The conclusion we can draw from these findings can
be easily stated: Reading is a powerful means of developing reading
comprehension ability, writing style, vocabulary, grammar, and spelling. In
addition, evidence shows that it is pleasant, promotes cognitive
development, and lowers writing apprehension.

An Interpretation

Studies showing that reading enhances literacy development lead to

what should be an uncontroversial conclusion: Reading is good for you.
The research, however, supports a stronger conclusion: Reading is the only
way, the only way we become good readers, develop a good writing style,
an adequate vocabulary, advanced grammatical competence, and the only
way we become good spellers.
Reading is the only way.

There are two reasons for suspecting that this stronger conclusion is
correct. First, the major al-ternative to reading, direct instruction, is not of
much help. Second, research and theory in other areas come to the same
conclusion. Researchers in early reading development have concluded that
we “learn to read by reading,” that we learn to read by attempting to make
sense of what we see on the page (Goodman 1982; see also Flurkey and Xu
2003; Smith 1994b). In my work in language acquisition, I have concluded
that we acquire language in only one way: by understanding messages, or
obtaining “comprehensible input” in a low-anxiety situation (e.g., Krashen
2003a). This is precisely what free voluntary reading is: messages we
understand presented in a low-anxiety environment.
 If this conclusion is true, if reading is the only way, it means we have to
reconsider and reanalyze what we are doing when we attempt to teach
language and develop literacy directly, with drills and exercises. All we are
doing when we teach language this way is testing. Traditional language arts
instruction, in other words, is merely a test, a test that privileged children,
who grow up with books, pass and that less fortunate children fail.
Direct instruction with drills and exercises is
merely testing.

Let me make this very concrete. Every Monday, in thousands of

language and language arts classes, children are given a list of 20
vocabulary words. During the week they do “skill-building” exercises:
Draw a line from the word to the definition, fill-in-the-blank, write three
sentences with each word. On Friday, the children are tested on the words.
If you show the list of 20 words to a child who has read, who grew up
with books, he probably knows 15 or 16 of the words already. He has seen
them before, in Choose Your Own Adventure, Harry Potter, and Batman
Returns . If he studies, he gets an A. If he doesn’t study, he gets a B.
If you show the list of 20 words to a child who did not grow up with
books, the situation is very different. He may know five or six of the words.
If he studies, with a heroic effort, he might get a D+. Direct language
instruction for these children may be nothing more than a test that they fail.
And like victims of child abuse, they blame themselves. 17
Readers pass vocabulary tests; nonreaders fail.

What do we typically do for children who did not grow up with books?:
more drills and exer-cises, more of what does not work. The title of Richard
Allington’s 1980 paper summarizes the results of his research: “Poor
Readers Don’t Get to Read Much in Reading Groups.” Those who can read
well are allowed to do more free reading. Those behind in reading have to
do more worksheets, workbook pages, and exercises, a practice that can
only increase the gap.
Poor readers get more of what doesn’t work.
 The Schoolboys of Barbiana, a group of eight teenagers who were
unable to succeed in the Italian school system (Schoolboys of Barbiana
1970), understood that school is a test. Their thorough analysis of failure in
Italian schools revealed an undeniable social class bias: At every level,
children of the poor failed at higher rates than children of professional
classes. The parents of those who fail, according to the Schoolboys, are
persuaded to blame the children:
The poorest among the parents…don’t even suspect what is going on…. If things are not
going so well, it must be that their child is not cut out for studying. “Even the teacher said
so. A real gentleman. He asked me to sit down. He showed me the record book. And a test
all covered with red marks. I guess we just weren’t blessed with an intelligent boy. He will
go to work in the field, like us.” (p. 27)

The Schoolboys, however, placed the reason for the failure of these children
elsewhere. One reason they gave is that those who are successful come to
school already literate.
Teachers in intermediate schools (grades six to eight) feel they are
teaching literacy, because they see improvement: “When they come into the
first intermediate [grade six], they were truly illit-erate. But now, all their
papers are all correct.” What has really happened is that the less literate
students have failed and have left school:
Who is she talking about? Where are the boys she received in the first? The only ones left
are those who could write correctly to begin with; they could probably write just as well in
the third elementary. The ones who learned to write at home.

The less literate are the first to fail and drop out
of school.

The illiterate she had in the first grade are just as illiterate now. She has simply dropped
them from sight. (1970, p. 49).

The problem, the Schoolboys conclude, needs to be solved at school:

At times the temptation to get rid of them [the children of the poor) is strong. But if we lose
them, school is no longer school. It is a hospital that tends to the healthy and rejects the
sick. It becomes just a place to strengthen the existing differences to a point of no return.
(1970, pp. 12–13)

Notes
 1. The following studies were used to complete table 1.1 :
Duration less than seven months:
Positive: Wolf and Mikulecky 1978; Aranha 1985; Gordon and Clark
1961; Holt and O’Tuel 1989 (grade seven), Huser 1967 (grade six); Burley,
1980; Mason and Krashen 1997 (study 1, Extensive Reading); Shin 2001.
No Difference: Sperzl 1948; Oliver 1973, 1976; Evans and Towner
1975; Collins 1980; Schon, Hopkins, and Vojir 1984 (Tempe); Sartain 1960
(“good readers” group); Summers and McClelland 1982 (three groups);
Huser 1967 (grades four and five); Holt and O’Tuel 1989 (grade eight);
Reutzel and Hollingsworth 1991.
Negative: Lawson 1968; Sartain 1960 (“slow readers” group); San
Diego County 1965.
Duration seven months to one year:
Positive: Fader 1976; Elley 1991 (Singapore, P1 survey); Jenkins 1957;
Manning and Manning 1984 (peer-interaction group); Bader, Veatch, and
Eldridge 1987; Davis 1988 (medium ability readers); Mason and Krashen
1997 (four-year college student study, Extensive Reading); Mason and
Krashen 1997 (two-year college student study, Extensive Reading);
Lituanas, Jacobs, and Renandya 1999 (Extensive Reading).
No Difference: Manning and Manning 1984 (pure SSR); Manning and
Manning 1984 (student-teacher conference group); Schon, Hopkins, and
Vojir 1984 (Chandler); Schon, Hopkins, and Vojir 1985 (grades seven and
eight); McDonald, Harris, and Mann 1966; Davis and Lucas 1971 (grades
seven and eight); Healy 1963; Davis 1998 (high-ability readers)
Duration longer than one year:
Positive: Elley and Mangubhai 1983 (grades four and five); Elley 1991
(Singapore, sample of 512); Elley 1991 (Singapore, P3 survey); Aranow
1961; Bohnhorst and Sellars 1959; Cyrog 1962; Johnson 1965.
No Difference: Cline and Kretke 1980; Elley et al. 1976.
In Davis (1988), superior gains were made by the medium-ability group
(a full extra year of prog-ress!) but the difference between the readers and
comparisons was not statistically significant for the high-ability readers.
Nevertheless, the high-ability readers gained an additional 5 percentile
points (five months) over the comparisons. Also, the failure of the high-
ability group to show significant gains can be explained: SSR works best
with less mature readers: It is doubtful that readers of this note, already
excellent readers, will improve with a few minutes per day of SSR. Cline
and Kretke (1980) reported no difference in gains in reading in a long-term
study, but subjects were junior high school students who were reading two
years above grade level and had probably already established a reading
habit.
In Manning and Manning (1984), students who engaged in sustained
silent reading made better gains than a comparison group, but the difference
was not statistically significant. Sustained silent reading was significantly
better than traditional instruction, however, when readers interacted with
each other, that is, when they discussed their reading with each other and
shared books.
The National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development 2000) claimed that the advantage shown by readers in
Burley (1980) was “small.” Students in SSR were compared to students in
three other conditions. For one measure, the overall F was 2.72 (p< .05), for
the other F=8.74, (p<.01). Burley does not report the details of the follow-
up comparisons, only that the readers were significantly better. It was not
possible to calculate effect sizes from the data presented. It is not clear how
the National Reading Panel concluded that this difference was small,
especially considering the fact that the treatment lasted only six weeks and
contained only 14 hours of reading. In a response to my comment,
Shanahan (2000) claims that “the problem here was not with the statistics,
but with the design of the study. Each of the four treatments was offered by
a different teacher, and students were not ran-domly assigned to the groups.
It is impossible to unambiguously attribute the treatment differences to the
methods.” This is not accurate: Student assignment was in fact random
(Burley 1980, p. 158), and the four teachers were randomly assigned to one
of the four groups. In addition, the group that did SSR was superior to three
different comparison groups, taught by three different teachers.
 The National Reading Panel interpreted Holt and O’Tuel (1989) as
showing no difference between readers and comparisons in reading
comprehension. This study consisted of two samples, seventh and eighth
graders. According to the text of the article, for the total sample, the readers
were significantly better on tests of reading comprehension. The text also
states that the difference was significant for the seventh graders but not the
eighth graders. In Holt and O’Tuel’s Table 2, however, the reading
comprehension result for grade seven is clearly not significant. The effect
size for grade seven (my calculations), based on posttest means, was a
substantial .58, but for grade eight it was only .07. The NRP did not
mention this discrepancy. I classified the results of this study as a split-
decision.
2. Tsang (1996) reported that Hong Kong middle and high school
students who participated in an after-school extensive reading program
lasting 24 weeks made better gains in writing than comparison students in a
math program, and also did better than students who did extra writing.
Readers showed better gains in content and language use, but not in
vocabulary, organization, or mechanics. Tsang notes that the failure to gain
in vo-cabulary may be due to what was read (graded, pedagogical readers),
or to the insensitivity of the writing task to detect gains in vocabulary; the
topic may have demanded little new vocabulary. Tudor and Hafiz (1989)
and Hafiz and Tudor (1990) also reported no improvement for the variety of
vocabulary used in writing after a sustained silent reading experience; the
nature of the task and/or restrictions in what was read could explain these
results as well. In addition, all of these studies were relatively short term,
lasting less than one academic year.
Renandya, Rajan, and Jacobs (1999) examined the progress of 49
Vietnamese government officials who took a two-month intensive English
course in Singapore. Their proficiency in English was considered “low to
high intermediate” before taking the course.
Part of the course consisted of extensive reading: Students were
required to read either 20 books in English or at least 800 pages.
Importantly, students were encouraged to read books that they could read
without too much difficulty and that were interesting, and were encouraged
to read different kinds of books. After reading the books, students wrote
short summaries. Teachers gave feedback on the content of the summaries,
with little emphasis on writing mechanics. Questionnaire results confirmed
that the students found the reading to be interesting, comprehensible, and
enjoyable.
Renandya et al. reported that those students who did the most reading in
the class made the best gains (r=.386) on a general test of English (listening,
reading, grammar, and vocabulary). This predictor survived a multiple
regression analysis, which means that it was a significant predictor even
when other factors were considered, such as the amount of reading done in
English before arriving in Singapore.
Although no control group was used in this study, the results are very
suggestive. It is hard to image any other source for the gains than reading
—one could argue, for example, that those who read more were the more
motivated students in general and were also those who studied their
grammar and vocabulary harder. I have argued, however, that direct
grammar study is not particularly effective (e.g., Krashen 2003a). Finally, it
could be argued that writing summaries was responsible for the gains.
Research reviewed in chapter 3 , as well as Tsang’s results, above, indicate
however that adding writing does not add to the power of reading.
3. Elley (1991) also contains some fascinating discussion of reactions to
in-school free reading. Some adults were concerned about how well those
in the reading sections would do on tests. Elley’s data confirm that the
readers do very well on tests, better in fact than those who study grammar.
My view is that they do well on tests because they can’t help it: Thanks to
reading, they have subconsciously absorbed or “acquired” many of the
conventions of writing, and using them is automatic and involuntary. In
fact, I think it is fair to say that well-read people nearly always write
acceptably well and find it very difficult to write poorly. Another concern
raised by some of the adults was that the children in the reading sections
were “merely enjoying themselves.” The attitude that acquisition of
language must be painful is unfortunately widespread.
4. The National Reading Panel (NRP), supported by the U.S.
government, also reviewed studies of in-school reading, and reached the
startling conclusion that there is no clear evidence sup-porting this practice
(National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2000). They
were, however, able to find only 14 comparisons, all lasting less than one
academic year, between students in in-school free reading programs and
comparison children, devoting only six pages of their massive report to this
topic (as compared to approximately 120 pages devoted to research on
phonemic awareness and phonics).
Interestingly, in-school reading did not fare badly even in the limited
analysis done by the NRP, with in-school readers doing better in four cases,
and never doing worse. As discussed above, even a finding of “no
difference” suggests that free reading is just as good as traditional
instruction and is therefore preferable, because it is more pleasant and
provides benefits other than literacy development.
I have also argued (Krashen 2001) that the NRP not only missed many
studies, they also misinterpreted some of the ones they included.
5. It has been argued that the number of words acquired in these studies
is not sufficient to account for growth in vocabulary or adult vocabulary
size (Horst, Cobb, and Meara 1998; Waring and Takakei 2003): It has been
estimated that about one million words of reading for a fifth-grade child
will result in vocabulary growth of several thousand words per year, enough
to account for adult vocabulary size. One million words is an average dose
of reading for middle-class children (Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding 1988)
and is not difficult to attain, if interesting reading material is available.
Comic books, for example, contain at least 2,000 words, while teen
romances, such as the Sweet Valley High series, contain 40,000 to 50,000
words (Parrish and Atwood 1985).
Horst, Cobb, and Meara (1998) reported a gain of only five words after
subjects read a 20,000-word book. Extrapolated to one million words read,
this means growth of only 250 words in a year. The procedure used in this
study, however, was odd: Students followed along in the text while the story
was read aloud in class by the teacher in six class sessions. This was done
to ensure that students covered the entire text and to prevent looking up
words while reading. Horst et al. assure us that students were “absorbed by
the story” (p. 211), but this method means readers can not proceed at their
own pace and cannot reread and pause. In addition, subjects may have
acquired words from the text not included in the test, which was especially
likely in this study because a long text was used (but unlikely in Waring and
Takakai, discussed below, as a controlled vocabulary graded reader was
used). Finally, the measures used by Horst et al. did not grant partial credit.
Waring and Takakei (2003) reported that forgetting occurred rapidly in
their read and test study: Their subjects, intermediate adult students of
English as a foreign language in Japan, read a graded reader of
approximately 6,000 words that contained 25 words that had been changed
into substitute words (e.g., “yes” became “yoot,” “beautiful” became
“smorty”). The substitute words appeared from one to 18 times. The
reading took about one hour. On tests given immediately after the reading,
subjects got about 10 right on a multiple-choice test and five right on a
translation test. But three months later, scores dropped to six correct and
one correct on these tests, far too little to account for vocabulary growth.
The gain reported by Waring and Takakei, one word after reading a 6,000-
word book, projects to less than 200 words gained from one million words
read.
The results of this study suggest that vocabu-lary acquisition is
distributed and incremental; that is, it is best done when encounters with
words are spaced or spread out over time, and it happens a little at a time.
For some kinds of memorization, it has been shown that distributed
practice (spaced out over time) is far more efficient than massed (all at
once) practice. Bustead (1943), a replication of Ebbinghouse’s original
results, is relevant here. Subjects simply read a passage (they did not
attempt to memorize it) several times with different time intervals between
readings. If a student read a 200-line poem many times, with readings one
hour apart, Bumstead reported that it would take 24 readings to memorize
the poem, a total of 229 minutes of reading. If the readings were 48 hours
apart, it would take only 10 readings, or 95 minutes. If the readings were
192 hours apart, it would take only eight readings, or 77 minutes.
Distributed exposure can thus triple efficiency, and, of great interest to us, it
is especially powerful on delayed tests (see Willingham 2002 for a review
of research). Encountering words in natural texts typically provides, of
course, distributed exposure to vocabulary. Waring and Takakei’s treatment
lasted only one hour, an example of massed exposure: Subjects did not
encounter any of the target words during the interval between the treatment
and the delayed tests, because the words were artificial and do not occur in
normal English. This explains the rapid forgetting. (It is likely that many of
the nadsat words readers of A Clockwork Orange recalled would have faded
in three months as well; forgetting, however, would probably not be as
dramatic as in Waring and Takakei, as the book was read over a longer time,
a few days, as contrasted with one hour.)
Swanborn and de Glopper (1999) found that studies using tests that give
partial credit when sub-jects get some of the meaning of the word right
show higher rates of vocabulary learning. This suggests that many words
are not learned all at once when they are seen in context. Rather, word
knowledge grows in “small increments.” At any given time, there are words
we know well, words we do not know, and words in between Twadell
(1973) suggested that “we may ‘know’ a very large number of words with
various degrees of vagueness—words which are in a twilight zone between
the darkness of entire unfamiliarity and the brightness of complete
familiarity” (p. 73). (See Wesche and Paribakht 1996 for another way of
measuring partial familiarity with vocabulary.)
Waring and Takakai allowed partial credit on their translation test, but
they report that partial credit was rarely granted. This could have been due
to a reluctance of subjects to guess. Also, partial credit was given when the
subject gave a word with “a similar meaning,” not for a word that contained
some of the semantic features of the correct answer. Waring and Takakai did
not include a mechanism for partial credit on their multiple-choice test;
distractors did not overlap in meaning with the correct option. As noted
earlier, other researchers allowed partial credit on multiple-choice tests
when the subject chose a distractor that partially overlapped in meaning
with the correct answer. Measures more sensitive to partial credit would
have resulted in increased scores that might have matched estimates of
vocabulary growth.
Laufer (2003) claims that for adult second language students, writing
activities in which stu-dents use new words in sentences and essays are
more effective for vocabulary acquisition than reading words in stories. In
the reading condition in her study, however, subjects were provided with or
looked up the meanings of unfamiliar words; her study was thus a
comparison of different ways of consciously learning words. Adding to the
unnaturalness, readers were either provided with marginal glosses of the
unfamiliar words or looked up the unfamiliar words in the dictionary.
Laufer also presents an unusual argument against relying on reading for
vocabulary growth in a second language, maintaining that the amount of
reading necessary for substantial vocabulary growth cannot be provided in a
classroom context because so little time is available (2003, p. 273). But this
is actually an argument for reading, because recreational reading is one of
the few activities a foreign language acquirer can engage in without a
classroom and without a teacher. In fact, it doesn’t even require speakers of
the language, and the language student can continue reading long after the
class ends. There is little hope that students will continue to engage in
sentence production exercises after they finish studying the language
formally.
6. Most of the contexts in Schatz and Baldwin (1986) were not helpful
or “facilitative”; readers could not successfully acquire unfamiliar words
from them. Passages used, however, were only three sentences long.
Determining the meaning of some words may take more than three
sentences. Consider this example from Schatz and Baldwin: “He takes out
an envelope from a drawer, and takes paper money from it. He looks at it
ruefully, and then with decision puts it into his pocket, with decision takes
down his hat. Then dressed, with indecision looks out the window to the
house of Mrs. Lithebe, and shakes his head” (p. 443).
From just this passage, it is very hard to arrive at the meaning of
“ruefully.” With wider con-text (several pages, or even chapters) and a
deeper understanding of the character and what has happened in the story,
the reader would have a much better chance. (See, for example, the
discussion of the Clockwork Orange study in the text.)
Some experimenters have been able to improve vocabulary acquisition
by rewriting texts to make contexts more “facilitative” or “considerate.”
Although readers in these studies are able to acquire more vocabulary from
altered texts, readers still acquire an impressive amount from original,
unaltered texts (Herman et al. 1987; Konopak 1988).
7. See Ormrod (1986) for results similar to Nisbet’s, and a similar
interpretation. Gilbert’s studies (Gilbert 1934a, 1934b, 1935) were, to my
knowledge, the first read and test studies showing that spelling knowledge
can be increased by reading.
8. What about assigned reading? It is reasonable to expect that assigned
reading will have a positive impact on literacy development if it is
interesting and comprehensible. The research is consistent with this
interpretation. Rehder (1980) reported spectacular gains for high school
students in reading comprehension and vocabulary after a one-semester
course in popular literature, which included required reading and a limited
amount of self-selection (students were allowed to choose some of the
reading from a list).
Lao and Krashen (2000) reported similar results for students of English
as a foreign language. They compared progress in reading over one
semester between university-level EFL students in Hong Kong who
participated in a popular litera-ture class that emphasized reading for
content and enjoyment and students in a traditional academic skills class.
Those in the popular literature class read six novels, five assigned and one
self-selected. The popular literature group made far better gains in
vocabulary and reading rate. These researchers apparently succeeded in
assigning reading that was genuinely interesting for their students. (See also
McQuillan 1994, discussed in the text.)
But not all assigned reading is compelling: O’Brian (1931) reported that
a traditional skill-building program was superior to an extensive reading
program for fifth and sixth graders. The reading, however, was assigned
reading on social science topics. Sixth graders interviewed by Worthy
(1998) “read the books they were assigned in school, and both had enjoyed
some of them but ‘hated’ most” (p. 513). Two years later, as eighth graders,
one boy described the assigned reading in language arts class as “boring
and stupid” (p. 514). Both boys were enthusiastic readers on their own,
however. Bintz (1993) described several students who were considered to
be “passive and reluctant” readers by teachers but who read avidly on their
own. These secret readers said they “expected assigned reading to be
boring” (p. 611). One 11th grader told Bintz, “I don’t remember much from
books I have to read in school. I do remember almost everything from
books I choose to read” (p. 610).
There is, of course, good reason to assign certain books (see
“Conclusions” in chapter 3 of this book), but including self-selected reading
is important because it ensures that reading is understandable and is for
genuine interest.
9. Finegan provides this example: The words “vagrant” and “homeless”
are synonyms. “Vagrant,” however, carries a negative affective mean-ing,
while “homeless” is neutral or even positive (p. 187).
10. For a statistical analysis of Cornman’s data using modern statistical
procedures, see Krashen and White (1991). We confirmed that Cornman’s
conclusions were basically correct: Uninstructed students did just as well as
instructed students on spelling words in their own compositions. We found
some effect for formal instruction in spelling on some of the tests that
focused students on form (words presented in a list, out of context), that
encouraged the use of conscious knowledge. This finding is consistent with
current language acquisition theory (Krashen 2003a).
11. See Krashen and White (1991) for a reanalysis of these data, which
confirmed Rice’s claims. As in our reanalysis of Cornman (1902; see note
10, this chapter), spelling instruction had some effect on tests in which
students were focused on form.
12. Cook also reported that even though the students had just studied the
rules, many could not recall them. Of those who did recall the rules, the
version they gave was often much simpler than the version they were
recently taught: “Curiously enough, most of the collegians who cited a
version of the ie/ei rule as consciously used relied upon the word ‘Alice’
and other mnemonic devices which gave a clue to only one or two of the 11
words (relating to the ei/ei rule)…. No [high school] freshman cited the rule
as recently taught, but four had it almost correct…. Three [high school]
seniors gave the rule substantially as taught, but nearly all the others who
cited anything gave a version of something taught in earlier years, the
‘Alice’ rule, etc. The rule seems more likely to stick as first learned” (1912,
p. 322). (The “Alice” rule is new to me; apparently it reminds writers that
“i” comes before “e” except after “c.”)
13. Note that Hammill, Larsen, and McNutt’s results are also strong
evidence that spelling development can occur without instruction,
confirming the results of earlier studies.
14. See Krashen (2003a) for evidence for the limits of direct grammar
instruction in second language development.
15. Von Sprecken and Krashen (2002) reviewed studies using reading
attitude surveys and concluded that contrary to popular opinion there is no
decline in interest in reading as children get older. Older children and
adolescents have more time pressure than younger children do, and have
other interests, but interest in reading remains strong (see also Bintz 1993).
16. It appears to be the case that good thinkers, as a group, read more
than the general population does. After a certain point, however, the
relationship between the amount of reading done and thinking is less clear.
Goertzel, Goertzel, and Goertzel (1978) studied 300 “eminent personalities
of our age” (subjects of biographies published after 1963 in the Menlo Park
Library) and reported that almost half of the group were “omnivorous
readers” (p. 11). Simonton (1984) did a reanalysis of these data, however,
and found only a .12 correlation between “achieved eminence” and amount
of reading done. Van Zelst and Kerr (1951) reported a modest .26
correlation between number of professional journals read regularly and
productivity (published papers and inventions) in a sample of scientists
(controlled for age). They also reported that the relationship between
reading and productivity resulted in a bimodal curve—some less pro-
ductive scientists read a great deal. Apparently, good thinkers do read a lot,
but it is possible to over-read. Wallas (1926) was aware of this, noting that
“industrious passive reading” (p. 48) may interfere with problem solving.
What appears to be the case is that wide reading is clearly helpful, but
when one is reading to solve specific problems, selective reading is more
efficient, that is, reading what you need to read to solve the problem you are
currently working on. Brazerman (1985) provides support for this idea.
Brazerman examined the reading habits of top physicists and reported that
they read a great deal, visiting the library frequently to keep up with current
research. They distinguished, however, between “core” and “peripheral”
reading, reading carefully only what was relevant to their interests at the
time.
17. Research confirms that the difference among children in vocabulary
size is enormous. Smith (1941) found, in fact, that some first graders had
larger vocabularies than some high school students. According to Smith, the
range of basic words known to first graders was from 5,500 to 32,000, and
for twelfth graders from 28,200 to 73,200. Other researchers have come up
with more conservative data, but still conclude that there are huge
differences among children. White, Graves, and Slater (1990) concluded
that “mainstream” children know about 50 percent more words than
“disadvantaged” children know (see also Graves, Brunett, and Slater 1982.
2. The Cure
If the arguments presented in the previous chapter are correct, if free
voluntary reading is the only way to develop adequate levels of reading
comprehension, writing style, vocabulary, grammar, and spelling, the
implications are clear: One of the major goals of language education should
be to encourage free reading, to make sure it happens. While we have paid
lip-service to the value of reading (the shopping bag I got from the market
recently proclaimed “Make reading your bag: open books=open doors),
there has been only limited real effort in this direction.
One of the major goals of language education
should be to encourage free reading.

Access

The most obvious step is to provide access to books. It is certainly true

that “you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.” But
first we must make sure the water is there. And when it is, horses always
eventually drink.

More Access at Home Results in More Reading

The research supports the commonsense view that when books are
readily available, when the print environment is enriched, more reading is
done. A print-rich environment in the home is re-lated to how much
children read; children who read more have more books in the home
(Morrow 1983; Neuman 1986; Greaney and Hegarty 1987; McQuillan
1998a; Kim 2003).
Lao (2003) asked prospective teachers to retrospect about their reading
habits during childhood and adolescents. All 12 who described themselves
as “reluctant readers” when young said they grew up in print-poor
environments. All 10 who described themselves as “enthusiastic early
readers” said they grew up in print-rich environments.

Better Classroom Libraries Result in More Reading

Enriching the print environments in classrooms has been shown to
result in more reading. Morrow and Weinstein (1982) reported that
installing well-designed library corners in kindergarten classes that
previously did not have them resulted in more use of books and other
“literature activities” by children during free play time. In addition, children
did more free reading when the books in the library corner were more
physically accessible, when they were within the children’s reach, and when
teachers allowed the children to take books home from the classroom
library (Morrow 1982).
When children have access to more books at
home, at school, or at the public library, they read
more.

Better School Libraries Result in More Reading

Enriching the print environment by means of a school library results in
more reading. We have know this for a long time: Cleary (1939) reported
that children in a school with no school library averaged 3.8 books read
over a four-week period, while children from a school with a school library
averaged exactly double that figure, 7.6 books. Moreover, children from the
school with the li-brary read “better” books; 84 percent of the books they
selected were on “approved lists,” compared to 63 percent of the reading
done by the children with no library. Gaver (1963) reported that children
who had access to school libraries did more reading than children who only
had access to centralized book collections (without librarians), who in turn
read more than children who only had access to classroom collections. My
reanalysis of Gaver’s data showed a strong correlation (r=.72) between the
number of volumes available to the children and the amount they reported
reading. In a study of libraries and reading in 41 states and the District of
Columbia, McQuillan (1998a) also found that better school libraries (more
books) resulted in more reading,
Students take more books out of school libraries that have more books
and stay open longer (Houle and Montmarquette 1984). Each of these
factors affects circulation independently: Increasing the supply of books by
20 percent, according to Houle and Montmarquette, increases the number of
books taken out by about 10 percent, and increasing library hours about 20
percent increases loans by 17 percent in high school libraries and about 3.5
percent in elementary school libraries. Planned trips to the library also have
an effect: McQuillan and Au (2001) reported that high school students did
more reading when their teachers took them to the school library on
planned library visits more often.
Larger school library collections and longer
hours increase circulation, as do more organized
visits to the library.

One of Lao’s (2003) “enthusiastic” readers re-ports that her parents

were avid readers and read to her, but books were not plentiful at home.
“Linda” tells us that her mother got books from other sources, such as the
public library and that the school library was especially important in her
life: “My school library was like a second home. I was always there and
loved to read.”

Access to Public Libraries Results in More Reading

Access to public libraries also affects how much children read. Heyns
(1978) reported that children who live closer to public libraries read more.
Kim (2003) reported a strong relationship between the amount of reading
done over the summer by fifth graders and whether students said it was easy
to access book at a library.
 One of Lao’s reluctant readers (“Eileen,” in Lao, 2003, described above)
who had grown up in a print-poor environment at home (“books were
scarce at home…practically non-existent,” p. 15) became a reader thanks to
the public library. In the fourth grade, she discovered Judy Blume’s books,
and her reading “took off from there” (p. 16). (See below for a discussion of
“home run” book experiences.)
Ramos reported dramatic increases in reading thanks to one visit to a
public library (Ramos and Krashen 1998). In this study, second- and third-
grade children who came from print-poor environments and who attended a
school with a poor school library were taken to the public library monthly,
during school time but before the library was open to the public. This
allowed the children to explore the library, share books, and not be
constrained by the need to remain quiet. Each child was allowed to take out
ten books, which suddenly produced a substantial classroom library for use
during sustained silent reading time and for reading at home. Three weeks
after the first visit to the library, both children and parents were surveyed. It
was clear that the children enjoyed their visit; most reported reading more,
that reading was eas-ier, and that they wanted to return to the library.
Parents’ responses were consistent with the children’s’ responses and
tended to show even more enthusiasm. Table 2.1 presents the details.

Table 2.1
Reactions to Library Visit
Child survey (n=93)
First time visited the public library: 52%
Returned to the library since the visit: 62%
Reading more since the library visit: 75%
Feel reading is easier now: 82%
Parent survey (n=75)
Children more interested in reading since visiting the 96%
library:
Notice improvement in child’s reading: 94%
Child spends more time with books: 94%
Would like the library visiting program to continue: 100%
 Child has asked parent to take them to the library since 67%
the visit:
Source: Ramos and Krashen (1998)

One trip to a public library greatly increased

enthusiasm for reading.

Of course, the implication of this study is not simply to use the public
library. The solution must come from school. The school involved in this
study was lucky to have a cooperative, well-supplied public library close to
the school. Others are not so lucky.
Access to books from any of the sources mentioned above (home,
school, public library) will be extremely helpful, and may be enough to
guarantee the establishment of a reading habit. Unfortunately many children
have access to none of them. Worthy and McKool (1996) studied 11 sixth
graders who “hated to read” Nine of the 11 had little access to interesting
reading material at home, in the school library, or in their classroom
libraries, and none had visited the public library in the year before the
interview. The two students who had access to interesting reading were the
only two “who read with any degree of regularity” (p. 252). Ironically, even
though all were described as reluctant readers, all appeared to be quite
enthusiastic about some kinds of reading, especially “light reading” (see
discussion below).
Often, those who “hate to read” simply do not
have access to books.

Figure 2.1 summarizes the relationship between the print environment,

free voluntary reading, and the development of literacy. Confirmation that
figure 2.1 is correct comes from studies of the effect of the print
environment on literacy development directly, indicated by the dotted line
in figure 2.1 . These studies show consistent results: The richer the print
environment, that is, the more reading material available, the better the
literacy development. (Research reviewed in Krashen 1985a, 1988, 1989;
Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, and Hemphill 1991; and Foertch 1992
is confirmation.)
 The richer the print environment, the better the
literacy development.

Figure 2.1 The Relationship of Print Environment and

Free Voluntary Reading to Literacy Development

Although the relationship between the richness of the print environment

and literacy development is always positive, the strength of the relationship
found by researchers is often modest. One likely reason for this is that there
is a missing link, or a “mediating variable”: Actual free reading, as
illustrated in figure 2.1 . A print-rich envi-ronment will only result in more
literacy development if more reading is done.
Pack (2000) provides clear evidence that simply providing access is not
always enough. In a study of children’s after-school activities, Pack
identified a group of children he labeled “library latch-key kids,” children
whose parents used the public library as a “free source of after-school care”
from one to six hours per day. Pack reported that the children did “little
more than ‘hang out’ at the library” (p. 166). They did not read, but passed
the entire time in socializing with other children and playing on the
computer.
However, a rich print environment helps only
when more reading is done.

Providing access to books is thus a necessary, but not sufficient

condition for encouraging reading. Other factors act to make free reading
more desirable.

Comfort and Quiet

 The physical characteristics of the reading environment are important.
Morrow (1983) reported that preschool and kindergarten children used the
library corner more when it had pillows, easy chairs, and carpets, and when
it was partitioned off and quiet.
A particularly fascinating result was reported by Greaney and Hegarty
(1987), who found that parents of fifth graders classified as heavy readers
allowed their children to read in bed more than parents of fifth graders
classified as nonreaders. Of the heavy readers, 72.2 percent of their parents
allowed reading in bed, compared to only 44.4 percent of the nonreaders’
parents.

Libraries

The first two factors for encouraging reading mentioned in this chapter,
access to books and a quiet comfortable place to read, are rarely met in
many students’ lives, in school or outside of school. One place where these
conditions can be met is the library. If many students do in fact lack access
to books, and if the arguments for reading as the source of literacy
development presented in chapter 1 are even partly correct, libraries are
crucially important.

Children Get Their Books from Libraries

Children get a substantial percentage of their books from libraries. Table
2.2 combines data from several different studies in which 11-year-old
elementary school students were asked where they got their books for free
reading.
There is variation in the data: In some studies, the school library is the
most widely used source, in others it is the classroom library or public
library. There is good agreement in all studies, however, that children get
much of their reading material from some kind of library.
 Children get much of their reading material
from libraries.

Table 2.2
Sources of Books for 11-Year-Old Children
Study Percent Getting Books
from Libraries
Gaver 1963 30–63
Lamme 1976 81
Ingham 1981 72–99
Swanton 1984 70
Doig and Blackmore 1995 school lib=63; class
lib=25, public=57
Worthy, Moorman, and Turner school=19; class=3;
1999 High SES public=14
Worthy, Moorman, and Turner school=34; class=6;
1999 Low SES public=14
Ivey and Broaddhus 2001 school=55; class=28,
public=61

While one study reported a decline in public library use as children get
older (Williams and Boyes 1986; see esp. p. 260), the percentage of library
use was still very high (86 percent of six- to seven-year-olds reported using
the library, declining to 44 percent among 16- to 18-year-olds), other
studies clearly show that teenagers also get many of their books from
libraries ( table 2.3 ).

Table 2.3
Sources of Books for Teenagers
Study Age Percent Getting Books from Libraries
Mellon ninth school library—“almost 90%”; public
1987 graders library—girls 66%, boys 41%
 Smart Girl 11–18 school library—66%; public library—
Poll 1999 58%
Fairbank et 10–17 “the library”—66%; “school”—25%
al. 1999

Better Libraries Result in Better Reading

If libraries are a major source of books, and if more reading means
better reading, better libraries should be associated with better reading. This
has been found to be the case.
Gaver (1963) reported that children in schools with larger school
libraries made better gains in reading than children in schools with smaller
school libraries, who in turn made better gains than children in schools that
had only classroom libraries.
Elley and Mangubhai (1979; reported in Elley 1984) found that the most
important predictor of English reading scores among children in the Fiji
Islands was the size of the school library. “Those schools with libraries of
more than 400 books produced consistently higher mean scores than those
with smaller libraries or none at all…school had high scores without a large
library” (p. 293).
A solid confirmation of the positive effect of libraries was a remarkable
study by Lance, Welborn, and Hamilton-Pennell (1993), who found that
money invested in school libraries in Colorado was associated with higher
reading scores, even when factors such as poverty and availability of
computers were controlled. Lance and his colleagues have replicated these
results in Colorado and in several others states, showing that library quality,
defined in terms of the number of books in the library and the presence and
quality of library staffing, is consistently related to reading achievement. 1
Library quality (books and staffing) is related to
reading achievement.

The value of the library was confirmed again in Krashen (1995), an

analysis of predictors of the NAEP fourth-grade reading test scores for 41
states. The results of this analysis should be of great interest to Californians,
because it was California’s low performance on this test relative to other
states that inspired the formation of a read-ing task force and the perception
that something was wrong with how reading was being taught in California.
Among the best predictors of the NAEP performance was the number of
books per student in the school library. As was the case with the Lance et al.
study, this analysis controlled for other factors, such as computers and total
amount of money invested in the schools. The results strongly suggest that
California’s real problem is access to books: California’s school libraries
are among the worst in the United States, both in terms of books and
staffing. This suggestion was confirmed by McQuillan’s work.
McQuillan (1998a) examined a wide variety of factors relating to NAEP
fourth-grade reading scores in 41 states plus the District of Columbia.
McQuillan also found that school libraries were a good predictor of NAEP
scores. Most impressive were his findings that a very strong relationship
existed between the overall print environment (school library, public library,
books available in the home) and reading achievement (r=.68) and that this
relationship was still substantial when the effect of poverty was considered.
McQuillan also noted that California ranks very low among states in the
United States not only in school libraries, but also in other sources of print,
books in the home, and public libraries.
Elley (1992) surveyed reading achievement in 32 countries and found
that the quality of a country’s school libraries was a significant predictor of
its rank in reading. Not surprisingly, Elley reported that children in more
economically developed countries read much better than those in less
economically developed countries. This is, most likely, because children in
wealthier countries have more access to print. Of special interest to us,
however, Elley also found that children in the less wealthy countries with
the best school libraries made up a large percentage of the gap (“highest
quarter” in table 2.4 ). The school library can make a profound difference.

Table 2.4
Mean Achievement by School Library Size: 14-Year-Olds
 mean=500
Source: Elley (1992)

There is overwhelming evidence that children of poverty have far less

access to reading material than do children from higher-income families.
For these children, the school library is their only hope, the only possible
source available for reading material. Sadly, the evidence thus far shows
that school libraries are not succeeding in helping these children in most
cases.

Poverty and Access to Books

Smith, Constantino, and Krashen (1996) investigated the availability of
print in several communities in the Los Angeles area, including two vastly
different ones, Beverly Hills and Watts. The difference in print environment
was staggering. Children interviewed in affluent Beverly Hills said that they
had an average of 200 books available to them at home (their own or
siblings’). Children in low-income Watts, however, averaged less than one
book, .4 to be precise. In addition, public libraries in Beverly Hills had
twice as many books, and there was much more access to book stores for
Beverly Hills children.
Neuman and Celano (2001) found startling differences between two
high-income and two low-income print environments. Among their findings
were these:
Children from high-income families are
“deluged” with books; children from low-income
families must “aggressively and persistently seek
them out.”

There were more places to buy books in the high-income

neighborhoods. Neuman and Celano looked at bookstores, drugstores,
grocery stores, bargain stores, corner stores, “other” stores, and
children’s stores. Each low-income neighborhood had four places to
buy children’s books. One high-income neighborhood had 13 places,
the other 11. The low-income neighborhood had no place to buy young
adult books. One high-income neighborhood had three, the other one.
High-income children had access to a much wider variety of books in
stores. The total number of children’s book titles available in the two
low-income neighborhoods was 358 (one title for every 20 children) in
one and 55 in the other (one title for every 300 children). In one high-
income neighborhood, 1,597 titles were available (.3 per child), in the
other, 16,455 (13 per child). Comparing the print-richest and the print-
poorest, high-income children have 4,000 times the number of titles
available. In low-income neighborhoods, “drugstores were the most
common source of print materials for young children” (p. 15). Young
adult materials were “scarce.”
Public libraries in high-income areas had far more juvenile books per
child. Both libraries in the high-income neighborhood were open two
evenings per week (until 8:00 P.M.); the low-income libraries were
never open past 6:00 P.M.
There was more readable environmental print in the high-income
neighborhoods. Nearly all environmental signs were readable (96 and
99 percent). In the poor neighborhood, signs were often “graffiti-
covered and difficult to decipher” (p. 19); only 66 and 26 percent were
in “good readable condition” (p. 19).
There were more places in public suitable for reading in the high-
income neighborhood (e.g., coffee shops with good lighting, seating,
friendly staff, etc.). Thus, children in the high-income communities
were more likely to see people reading.
 Neuman and Celano conclude that “children in middle-income
neighborhoods were likely to be deluged with a wide variety of reading
materials. However, children from poor neighborhoods would have to
aggressively and persistently seek them out” (p. 15).
With gigantic differences such as these, it is hard to argue that children
of poverty need more direct instruction in the form of phonemic awareness
and phonics exercises. Our first priority is to make sure these children have
something to read. 2
Di Loreto and Tse (1999) found substantial differences in the children’s
section of public libraries in high-income Beverly Hills and working class
Santa Fe Springs. The Beverly Hills library contained many more children’s
books and magazines, and had an impressive staff dedicated to children’s
literature, while the Santa Fe Springs library had no staff especially for the
children’s section ( table 2.5 ).

Table 2.5
Comparison of Children’s Section of Public Libraries in
Two Communities

Source: Di Loreto and Tse (1999)

What About School?

Poverty per se is of course devastating. But schools can counter the
effects of poverty in at least one area: access to books. Recall that
McQuillan (1998a) found that the relationship between access to books and
reading achievement held even when the effects of poverty were
statistically controlled (see also Lance’s studies, discussed above, as well as
Roberts, Bachen, Hornby, and Hernandez-Ramos 1984, Table 3B). Thus,
while it is true that children of poverty have less access to books, given two
groups of such children, the group provided with more access to books will
show more literacy development.
Thus far school has done little. In fact, school has not only failed to
level the playing field, it has made the disparity worse.
Children from High-Income Families Go to Schools with Better
Classroom Libraries
In our Beverly Hills/Watts comparison (Smith et al. 1996), we found
that the classroom libraries we inspected in Beverly Hills schools averaged
about 400 books; those in Watts, only about 50.
Duke (2000) reported that classroom libraries for first graders in high-
income areas averaged 33 books and magazines per child, compared to 18
per child in low-income neighborhoods. During the year, an average of 19
books and magazines per child were added to the high-income libraries, but
only 10 were added to classroom libraries in schools in low-income areas.
Duke also noted that books in low-income classroom libraries “appeared to
be older” (p. 475, n.3).
High-income area classrooms had more books on display. These
classroom libraries had an average of 21 books on “full display” at the
beginning of the year, with 60 more on full display over the course of the
year, compared to 10 on full dis-play at the beginning of the year in low-
income classroom libraries, with an average of 16 more displayed during
the year.
Children from High-Income Families Have Access to Better School
Libraries

Beverly Hills school libraries have two to three times as many books as
those in Watts (Smith et al. 1996).
Neuman and Celano (2001) found that school libraries In high-income
neighborhoods had more books per child (18.9 and 25.7, compared to 12.9
and 10) and were open more days (both were open five days per week,
compared to four and two days per week for school libraries in low-income
areas). Both high-income school libraries had a librarian with a master’s
degree. Neither low-income school library had a certified librarian. Recall
that Lance and his colleagues found that the quality of library staffing was
related to higher reading scores.
The disparity extends to library services. In a California study,
LeMoine, Brandlin, O’Brian, and McQuillan (1997) reported that students
in high-achieving schools in affluent areas are able to visit the school
library more frequently, both independently and as a class, and are more
likely to be allowed to take books home. Seven out of the 15 low-achieving
schools they studied did not allow children to take books home.
Allington, Guice, Baker, Michaelson, and Li (1995) have reported
similar findings for school libraries in New York State, reporting that of the
12 school libraries they investigated, the six that served few poor children
had more books than the six that served many poor children.
Children who live in high-income
neighborhoods go to schools with better
classroom and school libraries.

In agreement with Smith et al. (1996), Allington et al. also found that
classroom libraries in schools serving poorer children had fewer books, and
in agreement with LeMoine et al. (1996), Allington et al. reported that “in
the schools serving many poor children access to the library was usually
restricted to a single weekly visit. Several schools also restricted the
number of titles that children could borrow (usually one or two per visit).
Two schools barred children from taking library books out of the building!
No low-poverty school had such a restriction, and it was more common in
these buildings for children to have relatively open access to the library
throughout the day and, in some cases, before and after the regular
classroom schedule” (p. 24).
The disparity extends to content as well. Children from higher-income
families have access to the reading material they like, but children from
lower-income families do not. Worthy, Moorman, and Turner (1999)
examined access to reading for 419 sixth graders in the Austin, Texas, area.
In agreement with other studies (see table 2.1 ), Worthy et al. found that the
children were active library users: 44 percent said they usually got their
reading material from some kind of library. The sample was divided into
higher- and lower-income groups, based on eligibility for free and reduced
lunch. The lower-income children were more dependent on libraries,
especially school libraries: 63 percent of the lower-income children, for
example, utilized the school library, as compared to 40 percent of the
children from higher-income families.
Worthy et al. asked the children what they liked to read. The top
preferences for all children, regardless of reading ability and gender, were
scary books (R.L.Stine, Stephen King) and comic books (this study was
done before the Harry Potter novels became popular). Worthy et al. then
investi-gated whether these kinds of reading materials were available in
three of the school libraries that served these children. The comics and
magazines these children said they liked were “largely unavailable.” Scary
books were “moderately” available. Because of their popularity, the more
recent releases were usually checked out. Nor was preferred reading
available in classrooms: “While most teachers were aware of many of their
students’ preferences and most did not object to books like Goosebumps
(“I’m just thrilled that they’re reading’), fewer than one third of the
classrooms contained more than a handful of such materials” (p. 22).
Moreover, “teachers who had such materials usually used their own money
to buy them or asked students to donate their used books” (p. 23). Children
from higher-income families can get what they want to read outside of
school; children from lower-income families often cannot and are
dependent on the school and classroom libraries, which often do not include
what they really want to read.
Classroom and school libraries in high-income
area schools are more likely to have what children
want to read.

The tendency of some libraries to exclude what people want to read is

of course not new. Michael Dirda, at age 10, noticed it: “How strange, it
seemed to me, that the high-minded librarians refused to stock the Hardy
Boys or Tom Corbett, the Space Cadet” (Dirda 2003, p. 59). Nell (1988)
provides extensive documentation that many librarians regard themselves as
“guardians of good taste.”
Libraries and Second Language Acquirers
The library situation is even worse for those acquiring English as a
second language. Developing literacy in the primary language is an ex-
tremely efficient means of developing literacy in the second language
(Cummins 1981, Krashen 1996, 2003c). In order to become good readers in
the primary language, however, children need to read in the primary
language. In 1991, the average Spanish-speaking family with limited
English proficient children in school in the United States had only 26 books
in their home (this figure refers to total books, not age-appropriate books
for children) (Ramirez, Yuen, Ramey, and Pasta 1991), about one-fifth the
national average (Elley 1994). Once again, school does not solve the
problem: In the bilingual schools studied by Pucci (1994), school libraries
had approximately one book per child in Spanish (compare this with the
national average of 18 books per child in elementary schools in the United
States; Miller and Shontz 2001).
Developing reading ability in the primary
language helps the development of literacy in
English, but there is often little to read in the
primary language.

Constantino (1994) has reported that ESL students often have little idea
of what the school library can offer, and that parents of ESL students were
nearly completely unaware of what was in libraries and how they operated
(Constantino 1995).

Money for Libraries: Who Is Paying Now?

Allington et al. (1995) reported that in their survey of schools in New
York State, “classrooms with the largest collections of trade books were
those where teachers reported they purchased most of the books” (pp. 23–
24).
A great many teachers supply their students with books from their own
funds. Teachers who do this are in an impossible ethical dilemma; if they do
not buy books for their students, there is nothing to read. If they do, and
students progress in literacy, the basal series and unused software gets the
credit. There is only one solution to this intolerable situation: a much
greater investment by the school in books.
The money is there. A fraction of the investment we are willing to make
for technology and testing will provide access to good reading material for
all children.
A small percentage of what we spend on
technology and testing would ensure access to
books for all children.

A Modest Proposal
An article in the Los Angeles Times (MuZoz 2003) announced that first
lady Laura Bush visited The Vernon City Elementary School in Los
Angeles in order to award them $5,000 for the library collection. Vernon
Elementary was the first school in the United States to receive money from
the Laura Bush Foundation for America’s Libraries. This all sounds
encouraging, until we take a closer look. The article also stated that only
131 other schools in the country are getting additional funding from the
Laura Bush Foundation. And 6,100 schools applied! That means only 2
percent of those that applied got funded.
There is more: The Vernon City school received enough money to add,
at most, 400 titles to its library. This will raise Vernon’s ratio of books per
child from 15 to 1 to 16 to 1. (Recall that the national average is 18 to 1.)
Also, Vernon, as a member of Los Angeles Unified School District, has no
funding for a school librarian, and according to the LA Times article, library
hours will be cut next semester because of the budget. Who is going to
select the books, be responsible for their care, introduce them to children,
and help teachers integrate the new books into the curriculum? When will
the children have a chance to see the books?
Mrs. Bush is correct to want to help school li-braries. I’m afraid,
however, that the contribution of the Bush Foundation is like shooting an
arrow at the moon: It is in the right direction but won’t get far.
Here is another suggestion: An article in Education Week announced
that the testing required for No Child Left Behind will cost $5.3 billion
between 2002 and 2008 (Richard 2003). What if that $5.3 billion were
invested instead in a trust fund for school libraries, dedicated to improving
both books and staffing in high poverty area schools? The interest on this
sum might be enough to guarantee a print-rich environment and adequate
libraries for all children in the United States forever. (My thanks to David
Loertscher for the trust fund idea.)
Another advantage of a permanent fund is that schools would no longer
have to compete against each other for tiny amounts, and the time now
spent writing grants, evaluating grants, and searching for money could be
utilized in more productive ways.

Reading Aloud

Largely thanks to the enormous impact of Jim Trelease’s Read Aloud

Handbook, now in its fifth edition (2001), the practice of reading aloud to
children is widespread in North America, and with good reason.
Children who are read to at home read more on their own (Lomax 1976;
Neuman 1986, 1995). Neuman (1995) reported that parents of children who
were heavy readers “established a fixed rou-tine early on of reading to their
children when they were young .. nap-time and bedtime stories were said to
begin as early as six months of age” (p. 132). In addition, when teachers
read stories to children and discuss the stories (“literature activities”),
children read more (Morrow and Weinstein 1982). Only one of the 12
reluctant readers in Lao’s study (Lao 2003; discussed earlier) was read to as
a child; all 10 of the enthusiastic early readers were read to.
Two classroom studies confirm that children are more likely to select
books for independent reading that teachers have read to them (Martinez,
Roser, Worthy, Strecker, and Gough 1997; Brassell 2003).
Children who are read to at school or at home
read more and show better literacy development.
 From elementary school, the research then jumps to the college level: In
Pitts (1986), “basic skills” university students (“intelligent but under-
prepared students,” p. 37) were read to one hour per week for 13 weeks.
Selections included works by Twain, Salinger, Poe, and Thurber, and the
reading was discussed afterwards. Pitts reported that the class that was read
to checked out more books and better books from the reading lab than did
students in other basic skills classes. In addition, the class that was read to
did better on the final essay.
Even college students read more and better
books when they are read to.

Reading aloud has multiple effects on literacy development. As noted

above, it has an indirect effect—hearing stories and discussing stories
encourages reading, which in turn promotes literacy development. Hearing
stories appears to have a direct impact on literacy development as well.
Short-term studies show that children make significant increases in
vocabulary knowledge after just a few hearings of studies containing
unfamiliar words (Eller, Pappas, and Brown 1988; Elley 1989; Leung and
Pikulski 1990; Stahl, Richek and Vandevier 1991).
In controlled studies, it has been shown that children who are read to
regularly, at home or at school, make superior gains in reading compre-
hension and vocabulary (Bus, Van Ijzendoorn, and Pellegrini 1995; Blok
1999). In a recent study by Denton and West (2002) of over 20,000
children, it was reported that children who were read to at least three times
a week prior to entering kindergarten did better than those read to less than
three times a week on a measure of reading, given at the end of
kindergarten and the end of first grade. This result held even when the
effect of poverty was controlled.
Senechal, LeFebre, Hudson, and Lawson (1996) is a remarkable
confirmation that storybook reading by parents contributes to literacy
development: They found that children of parents who scored higher on a
test of knowledge of storybook authors and storybook titles did better on a
test of vocabulary. This result held regardless of the parents’ education and
the parents’ own reading habits.
 Hearing stories read aloud is not only beneficial, it is pleasant. The
empirical research confirms what most parents know: The vast majority of
children say that they enjoy being read to (Walker and Kuerbitz 1979;
Mason and Blanton 1971; Wells 1985; Senechal et al. 1996). Here is a
concrete example. Feitelson, Kita, and Goldstein (1986) is an empirical
study that confirmed the positive impact of read-alouds on language
development. In addition to providing test scores, Feitelson et al. also
presented this interesting report on how children reacted to hearing stories.
First graders in Israel were read to from the Kofiko series, which dealt with
the adventures of a monkey. The following is a quote from a teacher’s
observational record, two months after the reading program began: “11:20:
The class is busy copying home assignment questions from the blackboard.
At 11:25 the teacher reminds the children that ‘we need to hurry because we
want to read Kof iko.’ There are immediate shouts of ap-proval and
children hurry to finish the task. A few faster children go to the desks of the
slower ones and assist them. Cries of ‘hurry up’ and ‘let’s get it done so we
don’t lose time,’ are heard from various directions” (p. 348).
Nearly all children like being read to.

In addition to the enthusiasm for hearing stories in the classroom,

Feitelson et al. reported that children asked their parents to buy them
Kofiko books: “By the end of the study 13 of the 31 children in the
experimental class personally owned one or more Kofiko books; all
together the children owned 45 Kofiko books. Four additional children were
borrowing Kofiko books from relatives, neighbors, or the public library. In
comparison, there were single Kofiko volumes in each of three homes in
one control class, and one Kofiko book each in four homes and two in a
fifth home in the second control class. In every case these belonged to older
siblings and the interviewed first grader had not read them” (p. 350).
Here is another stunning example of the power of read-alouds, from the
first edition of Jim Trelease’s Read Aloud Handbook (2001):
Assigned in mid-year to teach a sixth-grade class of remedial students, Mrs. (Ann)
Hallahan shocked her new students by reading to them on her first day of class. The book
was Where the Red Fern Grows .
 A hardened, street-wise, proud group (mostly boys), they were insulted when she began
reading to them. “How come you’re reading to us? You think we’re babies or something?”
they wanted to know. After explaining that she didn’t think anything of the kind but only
wanted to share a favorite story with them, she continued reading Where the Red Fern
Grows . Each day she opened the class with the next portion of the story and each day she
was greeted with groans. “Not again today! How come nobody else ever made us listen like
that?”

Mrs. Hallahan admitted to me later, “I al-most lost heart.” Bust she persevered, and
after a few weeks (the book contained 212 pages), the tone of the class’s morning remarks
began to change. “You’re going to read to us today, aren’t you?” Or “Don’t forget the book,
Mrs. Hallahan.”

“I knew we had a winner,” she confessed, “when on Friday, just when we were nearing
the end of the book, one of the slowest boys in the class went home after school, got a
library card, took out Where the Red Fern Grows, finished it himself, and came to school
on Monday and told everyone how it ended.” (p. 26)

Reading Experience

Reading itself promotes reading. A consistent finding in in-school free

reading studies is that children who participate in these programs are more
involved in free voluntary reading after the program ends than those in
traditional programs (Pfau 1967; Pilgreen and Krashen 1993). Greaney and
Clarke (1973) present a spectacular example: Sixth-grade boys who
participated in an in-school free reading program for eight and one-half
months not only did more leisure reading while they were in the program
but also were still reading more than comparison students six years later.
Tse (1996) describes the case of Joyce, an adult ESL student in the United
States who did not view reading as a leisure activity and had never read a
book in English before coming to the United States. After participating in
an extensive reading class, her attitude toward reading “changed
dramatically,” and she continued to read after the end of the course, and
recommended that her husband take the same class, rather than a traditional
class. Shin (1998) noted an improvement in attitude to-ward pleasure
reading among 15 ESL middle school students after one year of sustained
silent reading. Before the SSR experience, only three out of 16 (23 percent)
were regular pleasure readers. This increased to 56 percent (nine out of 16)
at the end of a year.
Reading itself promotes reading.

Cho and Krashen (2002) documented a clear increase in interest in

reading and in promoting pleasure reading in English as a foreign language
among teachers in Korea after only one two-hour exposure to interesting
and comprehensible children’s literature. Previously, the teachers had
associated reading in English with difficult pedagogical texts that were
packed with difficult vocabulary and grammar; many had never
experienced reading truly interesting material in another language.

Home Run Books

When I read Garfield books in first grade, I thought I found something better than TV.

Trelease (2001) has suggested that a single very positive reading

experience, one “home run book.” can create a reader. Trelease took the
term “home run” book from Fadiman (1947), in reference to his earliest
experience in reading, a book entitled The Overall Boys . “One’s first book,
kiss, home run, is always the best.” A series of three studies has confirmed
that Trelease is right. In all three studies, elementary school children were
asked one question: Was there was one book or reading experience that
interested you in reading? Children were also asked to name the book if
they could.
Sometimes one positive reading experience can
create a reader.

It was clear from students’ responses that they understood the question.
While most simply reported the name of a book, some added commen-tary,
such as
“It was the Box Car Children that started me reading, because it was a good book.”

“Captain Underpants! That book turned me on, because it was funny and an adventure.”

“The book that got me interested was Clue, because I didn’t like to read before.”
 “I liked to read ever since my first book, Chicka Chicka Boom Boom.”

(Von Sprecken, Kim, and Krashen 2000, p. 9)

In Von Sprecken, Kim, and Krashen (2000), 53 percent of the 124

fourth graders recalled at least one home run book. In Kim and Krashen
(2000), 75 percent of 103 sixth graders from a high poverty school recalled
one or more home run books. Finally, in Ujiie and Krashen (2002), 82
percent of 266 fourth and fifth graders in another low-income area school
recalled one or more home run books.
In agreement with other studies of favorite books (Ivey and Broaddus
2001), the children mentioned a wide variety of books. The fourth graders
in Von Sprecken et al. (2000) mentioned Animorphs (eight students),
various “scary books” (16; but 15 of the 16 mentioned a book by
R.L.Stine), Marvel Comics (three), Charlotte’s Web (two), books by Judy
Blume (two), a book from the Boxcar Children series (two), The Lion, the
Witch and the Wardrobe (two), books by Beverly Cleary (four), and many,
many others. The sixth graders in Kim and Krashen (2000) mentioned,
among others, Don’t Look at the Mirror, Kristy’s Great Idea, The Giver,
Night in the Terror Tower, The Giving Tree, The Plague, The Outsiders,
Island of the Blue Dolphin, Looking for Home, Calling All Creeps, Pigs
Can Fly, The Diary of Anne Frank, Goosebumps, Matilda, Annie and the
Old One, and Go Dogs Go. Home run books in Ujiie and Krashen (2002)
included Fear Street, Captain Underpants, The Little Mermaid, The Stone
Fox, Goosebumps, and many others.
Lao’s (2003) subjects also differed with respect to what caused the
home run experience. For one subject, it was Judy Blume. For another, it
was a magazine: Her subject “Jane” tells us: “Teachers were very structured
and basal readers were used as required reading. I did not like the basal
reader at all and had a hard time with reading until my mother brought me a
magazine called True Confessions . This magazine had stories about girls
who were in trouble with boyfriends, mothers or life in general. I loved this
magazine and from then on, I began reading” (p. 16).
Children mention a wide variety of “home run”
books.
 The finding that readers mentioned a wide variety of books underscores
the importance of providing many different titles in school and classroom
libraries and introducing children to a wide range of literature in language
arts. One cannot predict what book will serve as a home run experience for
a particular child.

Models

Children read more when they see other people reading, both at school
and at home. Morrow (1982) found that nursery school and kindergarten
use of library corners increased when teachers read during sustained silent
reading sessions.
Wheldall and Entwhistle (1988) examined the reading behavior of
eight- and nine-year-old chil-dren during their daily SSR time and
confirmed that children were significantly more engaged in actual reading
while teachers were reading than when teachers were not reading.
Morrow (1983) and Neuman (1986) reported that parents of children
who do more leisure reading read more than parents of children who show
less interest in books. Although these parents might do other things that
promote reading, these results suggest that having a model is important.
Children read more when they see other people
reading.

These studies indicate that teachers should follow McCracken and

McCracken’s (1978) advice and actually read for pleasure during sustained
silent reading time. Although this may be difficult, given the endless
paperwork teachers have to deal with, the results will make the sacrifice
worthwhile.

Providing Time to Read

 Simply providing time to read results in more reading. Sustained silent
reading, of course, provides time for reading, and as we have seen, children
who have participated in SSR programs read more on their own than those
who have not, both immediately after the program ends (Pilgreen and
Krashen 1993) as well as years later (Greaney and Clarke 1973). There is
also strong evidence that students really use SSR time for reading.
Children read more when they have time to
read.

Von Sprecken and Krashen (1998) observed sustained silent reading

sessions in a middle school in the middle of the school year and reported
that 90 percent of the students were reading. More reading tended to take
place in those classrooms in which more books were available in the
classroom library (see “Access,” above) in which teachers also read while
students read (see “Models,” above), in which students were not re-quired
to bring their own books, and in which teachers made deliberate efforts to
promote certain books. In one of the 11 classes observed, there were few
books, no modeling of reading, no promotion of books, and students had to
bring their own books. Nevertheless, 80 percent were observed to be
reading during SSR.
Cohen (1999) unobtrusively observed 120 eighth-grade students during
SSR time over a two-week period and found that 94 percent were reading
during SSR. She noted that enthusiasm for sustained silent reading was not
high at the beginning of the school year but increased after one to two
months.
After the first few weeks, most children read
during SSR.

Herda and Ramos (2001) reported that 63 percent of students observed

in SSR sessions in grades one through twelve were actively reading; in
grades one through five, the percentages were much higher, ranging from
76 percent to 100 percent. In the upper grades, students were given the
option of studying or pleasure reading, and a substantial percentage took
advantage of the study option. Nevertheless, a surprising percentage were
reading for pleasure, ranging from 29 percent in grade 12 to 65 percent in
grade nine.
Direct Encouragement

Research is sparse in this area, but it appears that simply suggesting

reading to children may have an impact on the amount of reading done.
Morrow (1982) reported that when nursery school and kindergarten
teachers encouraged pupils to use the library corner more, the pupils did so.
Lamme (1976) found that elementary school classroom libraries were used
more when teachers “encouraged their use.” Greaney and Hegarty (1987)
found that 73 percent of the parents of “heavy readers” in the fifth grade
encouraged their children to read specific books, as compared to 44 per-cent
of the parents of nonreaders, and Neuman (1986) reported a strong
correlation (r=.53) between “parental encouragement of reading” and the
amount of time children devoted to reading.
Conversely, directing children to read may backfire if the reading
material is not appropriate, that is, either not interesting or not
comprehensible, or both. Greaney and Hegarty also reported that more
parents of nonreaders encouraged newspaper reading (41 percent, compared
to 18 percent of the parents of nonreaders). One interpretation of this result
is that newspaper reading was not right for these fifth graders.
Direct encouragement to read can work if
reading material is interesting and
comprehensible.

The case of Ben Carson suggests that direct encouragement to read can
stimulate an interest in reading and thus lead to better literacy development.
Carson, now a neurosurgeon, was a poor student in the fifth grade when his
mother required him to check out two books per week from the library and
insisted that he report on his reading to her at the end of each week. Carson
was not enthusiastic, but he obeyed his mother. What is crucial is that
Carson’s mother allowed him to read whatever he wanted to.
At first, Carson chose books on animals, nature, and science, reflecting
his interests. Carson reported that while he was a “horrible student in the
traditionally academic subjects, I excelled in fifth grade science” (1990, p.
37). As his science reading expanded, he “became the fifth grade expert in
anything of a scientific nature” (p. 37).
Carson credits reading with improving his reading comprehension and
vocabulary, which affected all his academic work, reporting that he be-came
“the best student in math when we did story problems” (p. 38). Consistent
with the research, reading also improved his spelling: “I kept reading all
through summer, and by the time I began sixth grade I had learned to spell a
lot of words without conscious memorization” (p. 39).
The initial impetus his mother provided led to dramatic results: “As I
continued to read, my spelling, vocabulary, and comprehension improved,
and my classes became much more interesting. I improved so much that by
the time I entered seventh grade…. I was at the top of the class” (p. 39).
Clearly, Carson’s mother provided him with just the right amount of direct
encouragement; because his reading was self-selected, the intrinsic pleasure
of reading soon took over, and direct instruction was no longer necessary.
Ben Carson’s reading resulted in much better
performance in school

The critical role of self-selection is confirmed in this report from a

reader interviewed by Carlsen and Sherrill (1988):
As soon as I was progressing through the primary grades I remember a distinct lack of
enthusiasm for reading because my mother tried to force books on me, which I disliked,
either because they were too difficult or they were about subject matter in which I had no
interest. My older sister had been extremely fond of horse stories and I could not tolerate
them. (p. 138)

Of course, encouragement only works if readers have access to truly

compelling books and are capable of reading them.
Shin (2003) presents another case in which direct encouragement
worked: Tanesha was a sixth grader who read at the fourth-grade level and
had little confidence in her reading ability. Tanesha was enrolled in a
special summer program that emphasized free reading (Shin 2001). Shin
observed that Tanesha could read and understand Goosebumps, and
encouraged her to try to finish one Goosebumps book and read another over
the weekend. Tanesha was extremely doubtful that she could do it, but
surprised herself by finishing both volumes. Shin then challenged her to
read a Goosebumps book in a single day. Despite her reluctance, Tanesha
accepted the challenge and succeeded, went on to read one Goosebumps
book per day for the next few weeks, and eventually moved on to Fear
Street, and Judy Blume, reading a total of 40 books over the summer.
The conditions were right for direct encouragement to work with
Tanesha. As was the case with Ben Carson, there was access to plenty of
books, the reading material was compelling, and Tanesha was capable of
doing the reading: She only lacked confidence.
Ben Carson and Tanesha received just the right
amount of direct encouragement.

Another form of direct encouragement is informing students about the

theory and research underlying free voluntary reading. This is especially
important with older students, who, based on previous classes, have
assumed the correctness of skill-building and direct teaching of language.
Lee (1998) is a report of one successful attempt to share theory and research
with students of English as a foreign language in Taiwan.

Other Factors

Other factors that appear to affect how much children read include:
Discussion and literature circles: As noted in chapter 1 , Manning and
Manning (1984) reported greater gains with SSR when students discussed
their reading with each other in pairs and small groups. Of great interest is
their finding that a group that had brief weekly individual teacher-student
conferences in which “the book the student was reading was discussed and
plans for further reading were set” did not make as much progress.
The “shared book experience” group in Elley and Mangubhai (1983),
also discussed in chapter 1 , did better than the “pure SSR” group in the
first year of their study, but there were no differences after a second year.
Recall that in “shared book experience,” books are read to the class,
discussed, read together, and acted out.
 These studies focus on gains in reading achievement, not amount read,
but the results are suggestive.
Peer pressure: Appleby and Conner (1965), in their description of a
one-semester free reading elective high school English course, informally
observed that what students read was heavily influenced by what their peers
were reading. Some students, in fact, felt compelled to read what their
friends were reading and ignored their own interests. Wendelin and Zinck
(1983) asked fifth graders why they selected the books they did. Sixty-nine
percent responded that they relied more on friends’ recommendations than
on teachers’ recommendations. Worthy (1998), in a study of two sixth
graders, concludes that peer recommendations “may be the most important
motivator for voluntary reading.”
Young people’s reading choices are influenced
by their peers.

Book display: Morrow (1982) reported that good kindergarten and

nursery school teachers know what book store owners know: When library
corners have “attracting features,” posters, bulletin boards, and displays
related to children’s literature, children show more interest in books.
Paperbacks: Lowrey and Grafft (1965) com-pared two groups of fourth
graders, one reading hardcover books and the other reading paperback
versions of the same books (the books were “known to be popular with
students and teachers”). The paperback group showed a dramatic
improvement in attitude toward books and reading, while the hardcover
group showed no significant change. Other studies showing that children
prefer paperbacks include Ross (1978), Wendelin and Zinck (1983), and
Campbell, Griswald, and Smith (1988). Also, the successful Hooked on
Books experiment (Fader 1976) emphasized paperbacks.
Children prefer paperback books to hardcover
books.

Jim Trelease has some interesting suggestions on how parents can

encourage reading. In an interview (Carter 1988), Trelease recommended
“the three B’s”:
 Book ownership: “Again and again, I meet people who tell me that name of a special book
they owned and didn’t have to share.”

Trelease’s three Bs:

book ownership
book racks
bed lamps

Book rack: Trelease suggests keeping reading materials in book racks in the bathroom

Bed lamp: “Even at age 3, you can say to the child: You are old enough to read in bed like
Mom and Dad.”

In addition, teachers have used booktalks (see, e.g., Duggins 1976) and
authors’ visits (e.g., Reed 1985) to encourage reading.

Light Reading: Comic Books

On a November day in 1957 I found myself standing in front of Miss Grosier’s first grade
class in Hillcrest Elementary School, trying to think of a really good word. She had us
playing this game in which each kid had to offer up a word to the class, and for every
classmate would couldn’t spell your word, you got a point—provided of course that you
could spell the word. Whoever got the most points received the coveted gold star.

“Bouillabaisse,” I said, finally.

“You don’t even know what that is,” Miss Grosier scolded.

“It’s fish soup.”

“You can’t spell that.”

“Can too.”

“Come here. Write it,” She demanded.

I wrote it. She looked it up, and admitted that it was, indeed, correct.

Easiest gold star I ever won. And right here, right now, I’d like to thank, albeit
somewhat belatedly, whoever wrote the Donald Duck comic book in which I found the
word bouillabaisse. Also, I’d like to thank my mother who read me that comic book and so
many others when I was four and five…. I learned to read from those sessions long before I
started school. While most of my classmates were struggling with See Spot Run, I was
 reading Superman . I knew what indestructible meant, could spell it, and would have cold-
bloodedly used it to win another gold star if I hadn’t been banned from competition after
bouillabaisse. (Shooter 1986, p. A85)

The power of comic book reading: the Jim

shooter story.

The author of this wonderful story is Jim Shooter, former editor-in-chief

of the Marvel Comic Book Company. It appeared in the 1986 edition of the
Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide .
Light reading is the way nearly all of us learned
to read.

Perhaps the most powerful way of encour-aging children to read is to

expose them to light reading, a kind of reading that schools pretend does
not exist. anda kind of reading that many children, for economic or
ideological reasons, are deprived of. I suspect that light reading is the way
nearly all of us learned to read.
In this section, I focus on comic books. Comics have been very popular,
and there has been some interesting research on comic book reading.
Before showing how comics can encourage reading, I present a brief
history of comic books in the United States, as well as research that focuses
on questions that have been of concern to the public: Are comic books
“challenging” enough? Does comic book reading cause any harm? Finally, I
bring the discussion around to the original concern: Can comic book
reading lead to additional free voluntary reading?

A Brief History
Comics enjoyed a “Golden Age” from about 1937 to 1955, a time that
saw the introduction of such characters as Superman (1938), Batman
(1939), Wonder Woman (1941), and Archie (1941). During this time, 90
percent of all elementary school children and 50–80 percent of junior high
school students were comic book readers (Slover 1959; Witty and Sizemore
1954; Blakely 1958. Lyness (1952) reported more modest readership of
comics, but the number of children reading comics is still substantial in his
study, with 69 percent of fifth-grade boys reporting reading at least four
comics a week and 46 percent reading 10 or more.
The golden age of comic books.

Public concern about the impact of comic books on behavior, stimulated

in part by Wertham’s Seduction of the Innocent (1954), resulted in the
establishment of the Comics Code, guide-lines that one comic book
historian referred to as “the most severe form of censorship applied to any
mass medium in the United States” (Inge 1985). The result was a decline:
“Writers and artists, in an attempt to ‘clean up their act,’ began to grind out
boring and repetitive stories about spooks and funny animals” (Brocka
1979).
The fears about comic books appeared, however, to be unfounded.
Research has failed to find a strong relationship between comic book
reading and behavior. Hoult (1949) reported that delinquents read more
comics and more comics labeled “harmful” and “questionable” than did a
comparable group of nondelinquents, but nearly all of Hoult’s subjects
reported reading comic books. Witty (1941) compared the 10 percent of
pupils in grades four through six who read the most comics with the 10
percent who read the least, and found that the two groups “received almost
the same average marks and were considered by their teachers to be about
equally well-adjusted and effective in social relationships” (p. 108). Lewin
(1953, cited in Witty and Sizemore 1955) reported similar results.
Comic book reading is not responsible for
antisocial behavior.

The recovery, the “Silver Age” of comic books, began in 1961, with the
publication of Marvel Comics’s Fantastic Four, followed in 1962 by what
may have been the most important event in comic book history in the
United States: the first appearance of Spider-Man. Under Stan Lee’s
leadership, Marvel developed the first superheroes with problems. Spider-
Man, for example, has problems that the Superman and Batman of the
1940s and 1950s never imaged—financial problems, romance problems,
lack of direction, and a lack of self-esteem.
 There is clear evidence that the Silver Age is still going strong, but there
have been ups and downs. Annual sales of comic books in 1983 were $200
million (Los Angeles Herald Examiner, October 4, 1987). This skyrocketed
to $850 million in 1993 but fell to $375 million in 1998 and to $250 million
in 2000 (Businessweek.com, August 29, 2002). Some experts think the
recent decline in comics is due to the development of animated computer
and video games (Hartl 2003), and there are signs of recovery: In 2001,
sales increased slightly to $260 million.
Movies based on comic-book characters are expected to boost interest
in comics, and graphic novels or book-format comics, “meatier and fuller-
length comic books” (Gorman 2002), according to one librarian, “have
proven to be a hit with kids and are flying off library shelves” (Gorman
2002, p. 42), especially among teenagers. Gorman is not alone in her
observations on graphic novels: The American Library Association held a
preconference session on graphic novels in 2002, and BookExpo America
offered a full-day graphic novel session in 2003 and had a “graphic novel
pavilion” as part of the exhibitions. The School Library Journal now has
regular columns on comics and graphic novels (see, e.g., Weiner 2003).
Just as the Marvel comics of the 1960s were a giant step beyond the
comics of the 1940s, graphic novels are a giant step beyond the comic book,
with subtle, complex, and often fascinating plots. Here are two graphic-
novel “classics” for beginners in this genre: The Dark Knight (Miller 1986)
features an aging Batman who comes out of retirement to fight crime, no
longer in partnership with the police commissioner but as a vigilante. This
Batman is tired and sore after adventures and has serious philosophical
disagreements with Superman. The Watchmen (Moore 1986) is based on the
quote from Cicero, “who watches the watchmen?” The watchmen, of
course, are the superheroes. Time Magazine called it “the best of the breed”
of graphic novels, and “a superlative feat of imagination” (Cocks 1988).
Graphic novels are popular today.

A particularly popular type of graphic novel is the Manga, Japanese

graphic novels in English translation. Publishers Weekly described Manga
as “one of the hottest categories in bookstores” (MacDonald 2003), which
“is gradually evolving from a hard-core cult obsession to the kind of
mainstream phenomenon that teens and young adults adopt as their own.”
The number of comic books shops in the United States increased from
about 100 in the mid-1970s to about 4,000 in 1987. The number has
declined since the late 1980s but is still impressive. Duin (2002) reported
that there were 3,600 comic book stores in the United States, and The
Master List ( http://www.the-master-list.com ) provides information about
2,500 comic book stores in the United States and Canada.
Williams and Boyes (1986) studied children in three English-speaking
Canadian communities from 1973 to 1975 and reported that 80.4 percent of
the children reported that they read or had read comic books. In 1991,
McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth, using a stratified sample of children from
95 school districts in 38 states, reported that the percentage of elementary
school children reading comic books in the United States was substantial:
For boys, the range was from 69 percent (grade one) to 75 percent (grade
6), while for girls the range was from 50 percent (grade 6) to 60 percent
(grade 1). This is less comic book readership than during the Golden Age of
comics, but it is a considerable amount.
Confirming the continuing popularity of comic books, Worthy,
Moorman, and Turner (1999) asked sixth graders in the Austin, Texas, area
what they liked to read. The top preferences for all children, regardless of
reading ability and gender, were scary books (R.L.Stine, Stephen King) and
comic books.

Comic Books and Language Development

Comic books opened up my imagination and gave me a large vocabulary…. What other
six-year-old would know what a serum was? Or invulnerability? (Sharon Cho, in Rosenthal
1995, p. 51)

Wertham, in Seduction of the Innocent (1954), asserted that comic book

reading interfered with learning to read and with language development,
claiming that “severe reading difficulties and maximum comic book reading
go hand in had, that far from being a help to reading, comic books are a
causal and reinforcing factor in children’s reading disorders” (p. 130).
 Wertham’s claims have not been supported. Research done on comic
book texts and on the impact of comic book reading on language
development and school performance suggests that comic books are not
harmful. Moreover, there is considerable evidence that comic books can and
do lead to more “serious” reading.
Claims that reading comic books retards
reading development are unfounded.

Comic Texts
In 1941, R.L.Thorndike recommended that comics should be
considered: “In view of the need of the upper elementary school and junior
high school pupil for a large volume of reading and vocabulary building
experience, this source should not be neglected” (p. 110).
Current comics average about 2,000 words per issue (not counting
advertisements). This is significant: One comic a day would mean well over
a half million words a year, half of the average yearly reading volume of
middle-class children (Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding 1988).
One comic a day= 500,000 words a year.

Several studies of comic book reading difficulty have been done.

Thorndike (1941) used the Lorge formula and reported that the popular
Superman and Batman comics were written at about the fifth- or sixth-grade
level. Wright (1979) used the Fry formula and evaluated a wider range of
comics. Wright’s findings for superhero comics (e.g., Superman, The
Incredible Hulk ) are consistent with Thorndike’s, while other comics are
far easier, as shown in table 2.6 . 3

Table 2.6
Reading Level of Comic Books (1978)
 Source: G.Wright, “The Comic Book: A Forgotten Medium in the Classroom,” Reading
Teacher 33 (1979). Reprinted with permission of Gary Wright and the International
Reading Association.

If readability scores have any validity, Thorndike’s and Wright’s

analyses show that comics can be at a respectable level of difficulty. In
comparison, best sellers in 1974 ranged in readability from grade 6 to grade
10, with a mean readability score of 7.4 (Schulze 1976, cited in Monteith
1980).
To see how sophisticated comic dialogue can get, consider these
examples. The first is from Marvel’s Fantastic Four. In this scene Reed
Richards, a master scientist (a.k.a. Mr. Fantastic), is explaining to his wife,
Sue Richards (a.k.a. the Invisible Woman), how the villain Psycho-Man
operates:
Comic book texts can be complex.

The Psycho-Man has a vast technology at his command, darling, but he had traditionally
used it to only one end: to manipulate emotions. Everything he does is designed to create
 conflicting, confusing emotional stimuli for his intended victims. (The Fantastic Four, no.
283, 1985, p. 21)

The reading level of this passage, according to the Flesch-Kincaid formula,

is 12.0, or 12th grade.
In Marvel’s Secret Wars, no. 1, several superheroes speculate about how
they were involuntarily transported to another planet:
Captain Marvel: H-how’d we get here? I mean one minute we’re checking out this giant
watchmacallit in Central Park, then “poof,” the final frontier.

Mr. Fantastic (Reed Richards): This much I can tell you, Captain Marvel—this device
apparently caused sub-atomic particle dissociation, reducing us to proto-matter, which it
stored until it teleported us here, to pre-set coordinates in space, where it reassembled us
inside a self-generated life support environment.

The Incredible Hulk: That’s obvious, Richards!

(Secret Wars, no. 1., p. 2)

Mr. Fantastic’s explanation is written at the 12th-grade level, according

to the Flesch-Kincaid formula. It should be pointed out that readability
formulas such as the Fry formula are based on random samples of the text.
The above excerpts were not chosen at random: I selected them because
they are hard. They are thus not typical of comic book language, but they
show what comic books readers occasionally encounter.
Deborah Glasser has pointed out to me that if teachers are looking for
high-interest/low-vocabulary reading for older students, they can’t do better
than Archie . Archie is about high school students, but according to Wright’s
data, it is written at the second-grade level. In addition, after 60 years,
Archie and his friends are still in high school, certainly the longest
incarceration in the history of education. This is good news for students and
teachers, because it means that there are plenty of used Archie comics
around.
The value of Archie comics was confirmed by Norton (2003), who
studied the comic book reading habits of 30 preteen readers, all dedicated to
Archie . The children universally praised the comics (“ARCHIE RULES”),
described the characters as “interesting, engaging and humorous” (p. 142),
and shared and discussed Archie comics with each other “on a regular
basis,” (p. 143), forming a true literacy community. As expected, this view
was not shared by teachers and other adults. Norton asked the interesting
question of when and why adults, who “loved to read Archie comics as
chil-dren, dismiss them ‘garbage’ once they reached adulthood?” (p. 146).
Archie is excellent high-interest/ low-
vocabulary reading.

Experiments with Comic Book Reading

Two sustained silent reading studies using comic books have been
published. In a 15-week study using fifth graders, Sperzl (1948) found no
difference between groups reading comics and reading other material on
tests of reading comprehension and vocabulary. Both resulted in acceptable
gains. Perhaps the most interesting finding in Sperzl’s study is how much
the children enjoyed reading comic books. Sperzl reported that “the period
was eagerly looked forward to…as far as the rest of the world was
concerned, it simply did not exist for these boys and girls” (p. 111). (See
also Norton 2003 for similar reactions to comic books among preteen
readers.)
Arlin and Roth (1978) compared third graders reading “educational”
(e.g., classic) comics with another group reading “high-interest” books.
Both groups gained in reading comprehension. Although “poor readers”
gained more from book reading, poor readers reading comic books still
matched expected growth, gaining .26 years in 10 weeks.
We can interpret both studies as showing that comic book reading is at
least as beneficial as other reading. Both studies, however, were short term
(recall the review of in-school free reading studies done in chapter 1 ; in-
school free reading is clearly more effective when durations are longer), and
the comic book readers in Arlin and Roth’s study read classic comics. 4
A number of studies confirm that long-term comic book readers, those
who continue to read comics after the early grades, are at least equal to non-
comic book readers in reading, language de-velopment, and overall school
achievement (Witty 1941; Heisler 1947; Blakely 1958; Swain 1948;
Greaney 1980; Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding 1988). Even children who
read almost nothing but comic books do not score significantly below
average in reading comprehension (Greaney 1980).
An exclusive diet of comic books will probably develop adequate but
not advanced levels of competence in language and literacy development.
There is good evidence, however, that such reading habits are unusual. In
general, long-term comic book readers do as much book reading as non-
comic book readers (Witty 1941; Heisler 1947; Bailyn 1959; Swain 1948),
and the results of several studies suggest they do more (Blakely 1958; Ujiie
and Krashen, 1996a, 1996b).
Table 2.7 presents the results from one of these studies. Ujiie and
Krashen (1996a) asked seventh-grade boys about their comic book reading,
overall reading, book reading, and attitude toward reading. Those who
reported more comic book reading also reported for-pleasure reading in
general. The results were similar for middle class children and for “chapter
1” children, those who came from lower-income families.

Table 2.7
How Often Do You Read for Pleasure?

Source: Ujiie and Krashen (1996a)

Similar results were reported for book reading and for attitudes toward
reading, with more comic book reading associated with greater enjoyment
of reading. What is especially interesting is that although the middle class
boys tend to read more in general, undoubtedly related to the fact that they
have access to more books (Neuman and Celano 1999), heavy chapter 1
(low income) comic book readers reported more reading than the occasional
and non-comic book reading middle class boys.
Some studies show comic book readers read as
much as non-comic book readers. Some studies
show they read more.
 There is, in addition, evidence that light reading can serve as a conduit
to heavier reading. It can help readers not only develop the linguistic
competence for harder reading but also develop an interest in books.
Comics can serve as a conduit to heavier
reading.

Comics as a Conduit
Research by Hayes and Ahrens (1988) suggests that comic books can
play an important role in helping readers progress to the level where they
can read and understand demanding texts. According to their findings, it is
highly unlikely that much educated vocabulary comes from conversation or
television. Hayes and Ahrens found that the frequency of less-common
words in ordinary conversation, whether adult-to-child or adult-to-adult,
was much lower than in even the “lightest” reading. About 95 percent of the
words used in conversation and television are among the most frequent
5,000 words. Printed texts include far more uncommon words, leading
Hayes and Ahrens to the conclusion that the development of lexical
knowledge beyond basic words “requires literacy and extensive reading
across a broad range of subjects” (p. 409). Table 2.8 presents some of their
data, including two of the three measures they used for word frequency.
Note that comic books occupy a position between conversation and
abstracts of scientific papers, falling somewhat closer to conversation. This
confirms that they can serve as a conduit to more challenging reading.

Table 2.8
Common and Uncommon Words in Speech and Writing
Frequent Rare
Words Words
Adults talking to children 95.6 9.9
Adults talking to adults (college 93.9 17.3
grads)
Prime-time TV: adult 94.0 22.7
 Children’s books 92.3 30.9
Comic books 88.6 53.5
Books 88.4 52.7
Popular magazines 85.0 65.7
Newspapers 84.3 68.3
Abstracts of scientific papers 70.3 128.2
frequent words=percentage of text from most frequent 5,000 words rare words=number
of rare words (not in most common 10,000) per 1,000 tokens.
Source: Hayes and Ahrens (1988)

Several case histories support the view that light reading is the way
many, if not most, children learn to read and develop a taste for reading.
Haugaard (1973) writes of her experiences with comic books:
As the mother of three boys, who, one after an-other, were notoriously unmotivated to read
and had to be urged, coaxed, cajoled, threatened and drilled in order even to stay in super
slow group in reading, I wish to thank comic books for being a conduit, if not a
contribution, to culture.

The first thing which my oldest boy read because he wanted to was a comic book. (p. 84)

Despite her initial reluctance, Haugaard bought her son comics,

reasoning that
as long as these things appealed to him where all other printed matter had failed, I let him
read all he wanted. The words he learned to read here could be used in other reading
material too and perhaps his skill would lure him beyond this level, (p. 84)

The results were startling:

He devoured what seemed to be tons of the things…. The motivation these comics
provided was absolutely phenomenal and a little bit frightening. My son would snatch up a
new one and, with feverish and ravenous eyes, start gobbling it wherever he was—in the
car on the way home from the market, in the middle of the yard, walking down the street, at
the dinner table. All his senses seemed to shut down and he became a simple visual
pipeline, (p. 85)

Comic books lead to other reading.

Comics did indeed lead to other reading. After a year or two,

Haugaard’s eldest son gave his collection away to his younger brother (who
now “pores over the comic books lovingly”), and Haugaard noted that “he
is far more interested now in reading Jules Verne and Ray Bradbury, books
on electronics and science encyclopedias” (p. 85).
Haugaard’s experience is consistent with the rest of the literature. Her
sons’ absorption in comics is identical to the reaction Sperzl’s students had
(see “Experiments with Comic Book Reading” above), and the eldest son’s
interest in other kinds of reading agrees with the studies mentioned earlier
showing that comic book reading does not re-place or eliminate book
reading. (It should be pointed out that the results of these studies suggest
that Haugaard’s eldest son need not have given up comics in order to enjoy
other books. He might not have stopped if he had access to today’s graphic
novels.)
Mark Mathabane, in his autobiographical account of his youth in South
Africa (Mathabane 1986), mentions comic books as making an important
contribution to his acquisition of English and his desire to read. Mathabane
had had limited exposure to English until his grandmother began to work
for a friendly English-speaking family outside the impoverished ghetto
were Mathabane and his family lived:
Autobiographical examples attest to the value
of comic book reading.

Not long after she started working for the Smiths, she began bringing home stacks of comic
books: Batman and Robin, Richie Rich, Dennis the Menace, The Justice League of
America, Tarzan of the Apes, Sherlock Holmes, Mysteries, Superman, The Incredible Hulk,
Thor—God of Thunder, The Fantastic Four and Spider-Man, (p. 170)

Mathabane’s reaction was similar to that of Haugaard’s son:

Having never owned a comic book in my life, I tirelessly read them over and over again,
the parts I could understand. Such voracious reading was like an anesthesia, numbing me to
the harsh life around me. Soon comic books became the joy of my life, and everywhere I
went I took one with me: to the river, to a soccer game, to the lavatory, to sleep, to the store
and to school, reading it furtively when the teacher was busy at the blackboard, (p. 170)

Mathabane credits comics with helping to bring his English to a level

where he could begin to read and appreciate his English books:
Midway into my eleventh year, Granny started bringing home strange-looking books and
toys. The books, which she said were Mrs. Smith’s son’s schoolbooks, bore no resemblance
 whatsoever to the ones we used at my school. Their names were as strange to me as their
contents: Pinnocchio, Aesop’s Fables and fairy tales of the brothers Grimm. At this point,
because of reading comics, my English had improved to a level where I could read simple
sentences. I found the books enthralling, (p. 170)

Comics also helped South Africa’s Bishop Desmond Tutu:

My father was the headmaster of a Methodist primary school. Like most fathers in those
days, he was very patriarchal, very concerned that we did well in school. But one of the
things I am very grateful to him for is that, contrary to conventional educational principles,
he allowed me to read comics. I think that is how I developed my love for English and for
reading. (Campbell and Hayes, cited in Trelease 2001, p. 134)

Trelease (2001) points out that anybody concerned about a possible

connection between comic book reading and juvenile delinquency should
consider Bishop Tutu’s experience.
M.Thomas Inge, a professor of the humanities, remarks that comics
were clearly a conduit for him and others: “For my generation, it was the
comic book that led directly to the printed page” (Inge 1985, p. 5).
Professor Inge has clearly not given up reading comics. His essays on
comic books (Inge 1985) are informative and scholarly.
“For my generation, it was the comic book that
led directly to the printed page.”

This writer’s experience is similar: I was in the low reading group in the
second grade. My father encouraged comic book reading, and improve-
ment soon followed. And Jim Trelease tells us that as a child, he had the
largest comic book collection in his neighborhood (Trelease 2001, p. 134).
His conclusion, based on the research and his personal experience is that “if
you have a child who is struggling with reading, connect him or her with
comics. If an interest appears, feed it with more comics” (p. 134).
Dorrell and Carroll (1981) show how comic books can be used to
stimulate additional reading. They placed comic books in a junior high
school library but did not allow them to circulate; students had to come to
the library to read the comics. Dorrell and Carroll then compared the
circulation of non-comic book material and total library use during the 74
days the comics were in the library, and the 57 days before they were
available. The presence of comics resulted in a dramatic 82 percent increase
in library use (traffic) and a 30 percent increase in circulation of non-comic
material ( table 2.9 ).

Table 2.9
Effects of Including Comic Books in a Junior High School
Library
Pre-comic Comic
Period Period
Number of students who used the 272.61 496.38
library (daily average)
Circulation (daily average) 77.49 100.99
Pre-comic period=54 days; comic period=74 days
Number of students who used the library does not include students brought to the
library by teachers for class assignments.
Source: Adapted from L.Dorrell and E.Carroll, “Spider-Man at the Library,” School
Library Journal 27 (1981).

Dorrell and Carroll also reported that the presence of comics in the
library did not result in any negative comments from parents, and that
teachers, school administrators, and library staff members supported and
encouraged the idea of comic books in the library.
Juan Necochea, now a professional academic, related how comics
contributed to his literacy development (Cline and Necochea 2003).
Necochea began school at age eight in the United States, with no
knowledge of English and no previous schooling. Yet, “toward the end of
the second grade, at the age of 9,…there was a sudden a significant surge in
my academic performance—I seemed to go from a nonreader to proficient
reader of English practically overnight…my teachers…must have assumed
that I must have been a ‘late bloomer’” (p. 124).
Necochea attributes his success to his previously developed literacy in
Spanish, which, he informs us, came from two sources: A home
environment rich in oral language, filled with “folk tales, legends, family
histories, tragedies, music and traditions” (p.124), and…comics books.
Necochea was an avid comic book reader (his favorite was Kalimán, el
Hombre Increíble ). At first he paid his older brother to read the comics to
him, but eventually he learned to read them himself: “Kalimán and my
older brother became my first reading teachers” (p. 125). Necochea reports
that by age six he could read in Spanish very well.
This case not only confirms the power of comic books, it also confirms
the power of first language literacy as a facilitator of second language
literacy, a topic we return to in chapter 3 .

The Case for Comics

The case for comics is a good one:

The texts of comics are linguistically appropriate, and pictures can

help make the texts comprehensible. 5
Research shows that comics have no negative effect on language
development and school achievement.
Comic book readers do at least as much reading as non-comic book
readers, and the most recent research shows that they read more
overall, read more books, and have more positive attitudes toward
reading.
There is strong evidence from case studies that comics can serve as a
conduit to book reading.

Light Reading: The Teen Romance

Another example of light reading that can encourage additional reading

is the teen romance. Parrish (1983) provides this characterization:
Most of teen romance books are written to a formula. The central character is a girl, 15 to
16 years old, and the story is always told from her viewpoint. One or more boys, 17 to 18
 years old, are also needed. The setting is usually contemporary and familiar, such as a
small town. First love is a favorite plot focus.

The joys of falling in love, the anxiety it engenders, the pain and growth of problems met,
and the inevitable happy ending are all standard. However, these romances exclude sexual
situations, profanity, or perversions. The conflict is usually about the heroine’s feelings—
insecurity, uncertainty, unpopularity, inferiority, pleasure/pain, a struggle for independence.
Dialogue generally carries the action, while characterization is revealed through the
romantic interaction and problems, (p. 611)

Teen romances were read by many, if not most, girls in junior high
school and high school in the 1980s. Parrish and Atwood (1985) surveyed
250 junior and senior high school girls in the Phoenix metropolitan area and
reported that during the school year, 50 percent of the eighth graders said
they had read from one to five teen romances, and 100 percent of the ninth
graders had read at least five. Also, “an astonishing 12% of the twelfth
graders had read in excess of thirty novels this school year” (p. 24).
Teen romances are very popular with teenage
girls.

Although there has been little research on teen romances, the results are
quite similar to those of comic book research.
Teen romances appear to have linguistically acceptable texts, ranging in
reading level from grade four to grade seven. Sweet Valley Twins is written
at the fourth-grade reading level; Sweet Dream Romances, written for girls
ages 10 to 15, is at the fifth-grade level; and the Sweet Valley High series,
for age 12 and older, is written at the sixth-grade level. Caitlin, a “love
trilogy” written by Francine Pascal, ranges from the grade five to the grade
seven reading level. By way of comparison, recall that the mean readability
level of best sellers is around the seventh-grade level.
Reading levels range from grades four to seven.

Reading teen romances does not seem to prevent other kinds of reading.
Parrish and Atwood (1985) found that “students who read the romance
novels read many other kinds of literature also” (p. 25).
Teen romances appear to bring students into the library. According to
Parrish and Atwood, eighth and ninth graders in the 1980s got their ro-
mance novels equally from friends, bookstores, and school libraries. Tenth
graders favored drug and grocery stories and the school library. Twelfth
graders showed the greatest diversity: Over half got their books from
friends and the public library, 37 percent from bookstores and the school
library, with little use of home and drug/grocery stores. Thus, despite the
existence of other places to get teen romances, the school library still plays
a significant role as a source of reading for this genre.
There is evidence that reading teen romances promotes reading. The
following, quoted by Parrish (1983), sounds very much like Haugaard’s
report of how comic books stimulate reading. The writer is a 14-year-old
girl: “I am the kind of person who hates to read, but when my mother
brought home a Silhouette book for me to read, I just couldn’t put it down”
(p. 615)
There is no research on the behavioral effects of
reading teen romances.

Just as there has been concern about the content of comic books, there is
concern about the content of teen romances. There has been no research on
the behavioral effects of teen romances, but concerned teachers and parents
may be interested in reading Sutton’s thoughtful review. Sutton (1985)
gives the teen romance cautious approval, suggesting that while we regard
“the lesser lights of paperback fiction as the competition” (p. 29), they have
some merit:
Characterization is minimal, the writing is less than graceful (‘They were all being so polite
and civilized the twins thought they would throw up.” and even romance is overshadowed
by the soap opera suspense. But it does work: the bare bones plots, hokey and hoary, move.
The links between successive volumes are clever, and you really want to know…what
Jessica is going to pull next (p. 27).

A recent series of studies suggests that teen romances may have another
important use: They may be ideal sources of comprehensible and interesting
reading material for some acquirers of Eng-lish as a second language.
Teen romances worked for some adult second
language acquirers.

Kyung-Sook Cho (Cho and Krashen 1994, 1995a, 1995b) worked with
a group of women in their thirties who, despite years of formal (grammar-
based) study of English in Korea and considerable residence in the United
States, had made little progress in English. Cho first suggested that her
subjects read books from the Sweet Valley High series, written for girls ages
12 and older. These books proved to be too difficult; they could only be
read with great effort, and with extensive recourse to the dictionary. Cho
then asked her subjects to try Sweet Valley Twins, novels based on the same
characters but at a younger age, written for readers ages 8 to 12. Once
again, the texts were too difficult. Cho then recommended Sweet Valley
Kids, novels dealing with the same characters at an even younger age,
written for readers ages five to eight. Her subjects, all adults, became
enthusiastic Sweet Valley Kids readers.
Cho reported significant vocabulary growth in her readers (Cho and
Krashen 1994), and also gathered informal evidence of their progress,
including reports from their friends (Cho and Krashen 1995a). Perhaps the
most impressive result is the report of one of her subjects one year after she
starting reading Sweet Valley books. After one year, this subject, who had
never read for pleasure in English prior to this study, had read all 34 Sweet
Valley Kids books, had read many books from the Sweet Valley Twins and
Sweet Valley High series, and had started to read Danielle Steele, Sydney
Sheldon, and other authors of romances in English (Cho and Krashen
1995a).

Light Reading: The Power of Magazines

Rucker (1982) provides a strong demonstration of the power of

magazines to promote and im-prove reading ability. Rucker gave junior
high school students questionnaires probing their interests. A few months
later, he provided a random sample of the students with two free magazine
subscriptions relating to their interests. One group of students received the
magazines for one year, another for a year and a half. Neither the students
nor their parents were informed that an experiment was being conducted,
and even teachers did not know about the subscriptions.
 Magazine reading appears to promote more
reading.

Rucker reported that students who received the magazines had superior
gains on standardized tests of reading (but not on a test of “language,” i.e.,
mechanics and spelling). A reasonable interpretation of these results is that
the magazines themselves served as valuable input and that they stimulated
even more reading. As Rucker points out, magazines are the most “reader
interest specific” of all mass media and “may thus consequently be the most
valuable as stimuli to reading” (p. 33).

Is Light Reading Enough?

It is sensible to suppose that what is read matters. Despite the benefits

of light reading, a diet of only light reading will probably not lead to
advanced levels of development. Only a few studies bear on this issue, and
they are correlational, which means we cannot be sure whether reading
preferences are a cause or result (or both) of reading ability. The studies,
however, suggest that reading comprehension and vocabulary development
are related to what is read.
A diet of light reading only isn’t enough.

Rice (1986) reported that adults with better vocabularies “tended to read
more sophisticated materials,” such as technical journals, history, liter-ary
magazines, and science magazines. Hafner, Palmer, and Tullos (1986)
found that better readers (top one-half on a reading comprehension test) in
the ninth grade tended to prefer “complex fiction” (historical fiction,
science fiction, mystery, adventure, personal development, personal
insight), while “poor readers” (bottom one-half) tended to prefer “how-to-
do-it” books, science books, hobby books, and books on art, music, and
history. Southgate, Arnold, and Johnson (1981) found that seven- to nine-
year-olds who were better readers preferred adventure books, while “funny
books” were more popular with less advanced readers.
 Thorndike (1973), in his large-scale study of reading comprehension in
15 countries, reported that for 14-year-olds the types of reading that
correlated best with reading comprehension ability were, in order, 1)
humor; 2) history and biography; 3) science fiction, myths, and legends;
and 3) adventure and current events. Thorndike also reported that by the
end of secondary school the pattern had changed somewhat: While reading
of sports, love stories, and school stories was negatively correlated with
reading comprehension, history and biography, technical science, and
philosophy and religion showed the strongest positive correlation.
There is some agreement among the studies; science fiction and
adventure books seem to be consistently preferred by good readers. There
are also some contradictions: Good readers, according to Thorndike, prefer
history and religious books, but in the Hafner, Palmer, and Tullos study,
poor readers preferred these topics. (An obvious prob-lem in relating
reading growth to genre is that there might be quite a bit of variation in
complexity within one kind of reading. Clearly, research in this area has just
begun.)
As noted earlier, Greaney (1980) identified a group of “predominately
comic book readers.” fifth-grade children who did far more comic book
reading than book reading. These children were not significantly below the
group average in reading comprehension but were not as proficient as
children classified as “predominately book readers.”
The results of these studies do not imply that light reading is to be
avoided. As argued earlier, light reading can serve as a conduit to heavier
reading: It provides both the motivation for more reading and the linguistic
competence that makes harder reading possible. Reassuring and supporting
evidence comes from studies that show that many children who do
extensive free reading eventually choose what experts have decided are
“good books” (Schoonover 1938), and studies show that readers gradually
expand their reading interests as they read more (LaBrant 1958). Also,
books children select on their own are often harder than their official
“reading level” (Southgate, Arnold, and Johnson 1981).
Light reading isn’t enough, but it can lead to
heavier reading
Do Rewards Work?

The studies presented in this chapter suggest that the intrinsic reward of
reading is so great that it will stimulate additional reading. They suggest
that we do not need extrinsic rewards for reading, that is, gold stars, cash
awards, reading club membership, or other incentives. Smith (1988) argues,
in fact, that awards can backfire:
Show a child that the payoff for reading or writing something is a treat, a token, a happy
face or a high mark, and that is what the child will learn is the price literacy should extract.
Every child knows that anything accomplished by coercion, no matter how benign, cannot
be worth doing it its own right, (p. 124)

What Does the Research Say?

Research offers no support for the use of rewards and suggests, in
agreement with Smith, that rewards may be harmful.
McLoyd (1979) asked second and third graders to read from “high-
interest” books under three conditions: “high reward,” “low reward,” and
“no reward.” In the high reward condition, children were promised a reward
that they rated the most highly out of six presented. In the low reward
condition, children were promised a reward that they rated the least highly
out of six presented.
It was explained to the rewarded children that the reward would be
granted if they read until they reached a marker in the book indicating 250
words and that the experimenter was interested in their opinion of the book.
Rewards were not mentioned to the children in the no reward condition;
rather, they were simply asked to read up to the indicated place in the text
and to then give their opinion of the book. The reading sessions lasted 10
minutes.
Rewarding reading sends the message that
reading is unpleasant or not worth doing without
a reward.
 The difference between the two rewarded groups was not statistically
significant, but both rewarded groups differed from the non-rewarded
group. The rewarded groups clearly read only what they had to in order to
get the reward, barely going beyond the 250-word marker. The non-
rewarded readers went well beyond this point; they read more than twice as
much as the rewarded groups.
Children appear to be perfectly willing to read without rewards (witness
the success of Harry Pot-ter) and do not even think of rewards when asked
about how to encourage reading, in contrast to teachers.
Worthy (2000) asked 419 middle school children and 35 teachers for
their suggestions for motivating students to read. The schools were from a
range of ethnic and socioeconomic groups.
The students were asked: “What could your language arts teacher do to
make students more motivated to read?” Students were asked to write up to
three suggestions, and made a total of 509 suggestions. Teachers were
asked, “What do you think are the best ways of motivating students to
read?” and provided “multiple suggestions.” Both groups recommended
providing more interesting books (students=45 percent of suggestions,
teachers=35 percent), and both recommended more student choice and
more read-alouds. Nine student suggestions were for more time to read, but
this was not mentioned by teachers.
Of interest to us here is incentives: “Teachers and students made
strikingly different suggestions regarding incentives. Although 29% of
teacher suggestions were focused on rewarding or coercing students to read
(i.e. grades, “nagging”) only 9% of students’ suggestions fell into this
category, and often their suggestions were obviously facetious (e.g. ‘Give
us $10 for every page we read)” (p. 448).
Worthy noted that, “Although most teachers spoke of the importance of
developing intrinsic motivation to read, more than half said that they used
external motivators as inducements to reading” (p. 448).
When asked how to encourage reading, students
rarely recommend rewards.
 Similarly, Ivey and Broaddus (2001) asked 1,765 sixth graders what
stimulated them to read; only 7 percent mentioned external rewards.
Bintz (1993) also found that many teachers be-lieved in incentives. He
asked teachers what would promote student interest in reading. Teachers
felt that many students were not interested in reading and that they needed
to be forced to read and needed to be “held accountable” for their reading.
Many of the teachers, Bintz concluded, were unaware that many of these
“reluctant” readers were avid readers of self-selected reading outside of
school. The students, according to Bintz, were not reluctant to read but were
only reluctant to read school-assigned material.

Reading Management Programs

A number of studies have attempted to determine the impact of reading
management programs, programs in which children are tested on what they
read and rewarded for points earned on these tests. McQuillan (1997)
reviewed studies of the effectiveness of these programs and concluded that
there was no evidence that they improved reading achievement or attitudes
toward reading. I have recently reviewed studies of the best known of these
programs, Accelerated Reader (Krashen 2003d), and summarize my results
here.
Accelerated Reader (AR) has four components:
1. Children are provided with substantial access to books.
2. Children read books that they select themselves (AR recommends
one hour per day for free voluntary reading).
3. Children earn points by taking tests on the content of the books, tests
that focus on literal meaning.
4. Children get prizes in exchange for the points they earn on the tests.
(The AR company points out that this feature is not intrinsic to AR, but is at
the discretion of the school.)
We would not be surprised to learn that a program that includes items 1
and 2 will increase reading proficiency. As discussed in this chapter, there is
strong evidence that when readers are provided access to comprehensible
and interesting reading material, they read more. As documented in chapter
1, those who read more, read better. The question of interest, then, is
whether features 3 and 4 make any difference. Do tests and rewards help?
The obvious study that would settle this is to see whether programs such as
Accelerated Reader are better than simply providing more books and more
time to read. Unfortunately, this kind of comparison has not been done.
Studies of Accelerated Reader do not provide
evidence that tests and rewards are helpful.

Studies of Accelerated Reader

Most studies of the efficacy of AR compare AR to doing nothing

special; that is, they compare students in AR programs to students in
traditional language arts classes in which no effort is made to increase
access to books, encourage reading, and provide more time to read. Many
of the results are positive, with AR students doing better on standardized
tests than comparison students in traditional language arts classes. Even
when results are positive, however, they do not tell us which aspects of AR
are responsible for the results. I reviewed these studies in detail in Krashen
(2003d).
Not all of these studies, however, show that AR was in fact more
effective than traditional lan-guage arts instruction. Goodman (1999)
reported that AR students gained only three months over an academic year
on standardized tests of reading comprehension. In one of the reports on the
official AR Web site (renlearn.com; Report 36), AR was done in two
middle school classrooms for one year. One class showed gains, the other
did not: Mathis (1996) compared progress with AR for a group of sixth
graders with gains made by the same students the year before and found no
difference. It could be argued that the duration of these studies was not long
enough to show the impact of AR: Recall that the impact of sustained silent
reading is greater when studies are long term. This does not help explain the
results of the next study, however.
Pavonetti, Brimmer, and Cipielewski (2003) administered the Title
Recognition Test to seventh graders in three districts. The Title Recognition
Test is a checklist that correlates highly with other measures of reading
exposure as well as with various measures of reading achievement (see
discussion in “The Author Recognition Test” section in chapter 1 ). For all
three districts combined, Pavonetti et al. reported no difference between
those children who had had AR and those who had not.
Only three studies have attempted to deal with the issue of what aspect
of AR is effective. In all three, however, it appears to be the case that the
AR group had more exposure to comprehensible text, and in two studies the
comparison group did not do pure “recreational reading.” In all three
studies, the results are inconsistent and unclear. 6

Conclusions on AR
Despite the popularity of AR, we must conclude that there is no real
evidence supporting it, no real evidence that the additional tests and
rewards add anything to the power of simply supplying access to high-
quality and interesting reading material and providing time for children to
read.
This is not to say that I have proven that AR is ineffective. I have only
concluded that data sup-porting it do not exist. Although McLoyd’s results
suggest that rewards actually inhibit reading, we must withhold judgment
until additional controlled studies confirm this. What we can conclude,
however, is that the enthusiasm for AR is not supported by research. Before
purchasing AR and submitting students to tests, a more prudent policy
might be to ensure that high-interest reading material is easily available to
students, and that students have time to read and a place to read. 7

Notes

1. These results are summarized below. In all cases, poverty was a

significant predictor of achievement. The number of books per student and
amount of library staffing were also consistent predictors of achievement.
In some studies, these relationships held even when poverty was controlled,
but in others they were only present when poverty was not controlled.

Predictors of Test Score Performance

*=books and staffing combined as one factor

**=differences emerge if poverty not controlled
RC=reading comprehension
contr.=statistically controlled
lit=literacy; M=math; Sc=science; LA=language arts
Sources: Colorado II=Lance, Rodney, and Hamilton-Pennell (2000a); Alaska=Lance,
Hamilton-Pennell, Rodney, Petersen, and Sitter (1999); Pennsylvania=Lance, Rodney,
and Hamilton-Pennell (2000b); Oregon=Lance, Rodney, and Hamilton-Pennell (2001);
Texas=Smith (2001); Indiana=NCES (2000); Massachusetts=Baughman (2000);
Iowa=Rodney, Lance, and Hamilton-Pennell (2002).

2. For additional arguments against the over-emphasis on phonemic

awareness and phonics, see Krashen (2002, 2003b); Smith (1994b).
3. The Fry formula is based on three random samples of 100 words.
These samples can vary quite a bit. Note, for example, the variability in the
three samples for The Incredible Hulk in table 2.2 (5.5, 9.2, 1.9). Daniel
Krashen has suggested to me that the 9.2 sample may have been based on
the speech of Bruce Banner, the Hulk’s alter ego. Banner is a research
scientist, and his speech reflects his profession.
4. Although classic comics are probably more acceptable to parents and
teachers, there is evidence that they are not all that popular with children.
Wayne (1954) asked 297 seventh-grade students to indicate which comic
types they preferred; each student was asked to choose four from a list of
15. Classic comics ranked ninth out of 15. When children are asked which
comics they prefer, without a list to choose from, classic comics are never
mentioned (for a review of these studies, see Witty and Sizemore 1954).
Michael Dirda, in his reading autobiography, shares his enthusiasm for
comic books, but tells us, “I never really cottoned to the earnest and
didactic ‘classic comics’…Who would pick up something called The
Cloister and the Hearth ?” (Dirda 2003, p. 56).
5. There has been some concern that the pictures in comic books will
allow children to ignore the text and might actually interfere with learning
to read (Wertham 1954). According to language ac-quisition theory,
however, pictures can actually help, because they can provide clues that
shed light on the meaning of an unfamiliar word or grammatical structure—
they can, in other words, help make texts more comprehensible (Krashen
1985). As one comic book reader, a preteen acquirer of English as a second
language, put it: “[T]hey got picture…colorful picture to help the readers to
understand like how, what is happening, going on“(Guofang, quoted in
Norton 2003, p. 143).
But some children do ignore the text and only look at the pictures.
Bailyn (1959) found that 27 percent of the fifth- and sixth-grade boys she
observed reading comic books “concentrated mainly on the pictures.” In the
irsustained silent reading study, Arlin and Roth (1978) reported that poor
readers appeared to do more picture reading of comic books than good
readers did.
Why are some children picture readers? At first glance, the picture
reading syndrome is puzzling, because pictures do not tell the whole story
in most comics, and children do not typically ignore print in their
environment. Here are some possibilities:
A difficult text combined with attractive pictures. While readers can
tolerate some “noise” in texts, too many unknown elements will discourage
attempts at comprehension (Frebody and Anderson 1983). A second grader
may not even try to read the relatively complex text and storyline of comics
such as X-Men or Negation, but might find the pictures of great interest.
Mistaken assumptions about reading. Some picture readers may be able
to read substantial por-tions of the text but do not attempt to read. It is
possible that their incorrect assumptions about reading discourage these
children from trying to read. Because of “reading lessons” in school, they
may have the mistaken impression that in order to read they need to know
every word in the text. Such an assumption sets up a defeating sequence of
events: The reader reads less, and as a result has less of a chance to develop
reading ability and acquire more language.
These are only possibilities. Frank Smith has pointed out to me that if
they are true, it does not follow that picture reading can be cured by
denying the child comic books. More comic reading, not less, may be the
solution. With more exposure, the child’s interest in the story might
stimulate attempts at reading.
6. One report appears in two versions: Vollands, Topping, and Evans
(1996) is an ERIC report, while Vollands, Topping, and Evans (1999) is a
slightly abbreviated version appearing in The Reading and Writing
Quarterly . The report included two independent studies, each lasting six
months. In both cases, it is claimed that AR was compared to a group that
did recreational reading.
Vollands, Topping, and Evans: Project A: As discussed in detail in
Krashen (2003d), this study provides no clear support for AR. The
comparison group children had to give “written feedback” on what they
read, and the AR group was read to in addition to doing self-selected
reading. Jeff McQuillan (personal communication) has pointed out that if
we add the read-aloud time to the SSR times, the AR group had
considerably more exposure to comprehensible text, 3,225 minutes
compared to 2,850 minutes for the comparison group. As noted earlier in
this chapter, read-alouds contribute strongly to literacy development
The results are not clear. The AR group made better gains on one
measure of reading compre-hension as well as on a test of reading accuracy,
but both groups declined on another test of reading comprehension, given
only to a random subsample of the AR group. The AR group appeared to
decline less, however, than the comparison group did.
This study is not a comparison of AR versus recreational reading alone.
It is a comparison of two programs in which students in both programs were
held accountable for what they read, and the children in the AR group had
more exposure to comprehensible text than comparison children did.
 Vollands et al.: Project B: The comparison group in this study was also
engaged in an incentive program. Vollands et al. noted that that “children
would write their name on a publicly displayed chart when they had
finished their book” (1999, p. 54). In addition, comparison children also
read from a selection of novels, with all reading done aloud by the students,
and they had to answer comprehension questions on the reading. This is not
free voluntary reading. If we only consider the genuine free reading done by
the comparison group, the AR children had slightly more exposure to
comprehensible text (see Krashen 2003d for details).
AR children in this study took tests but did not receive rewards. Points
earned, however, were displayed in public.
The results were inconsistent. Comparison students made larger gains
on one standardized test of reading comprehension (Edinburgh), but AR
students made larger gains on another reading comprehension measure
(Neale), with comparisons making no gains at all on the Neale, a
mysterious result, because comparisons were considered to be “good
readers.” This inconsis-tency may be due to the fact that all 26 comparison
students and nearly all AR students took the Edinburgh test, but only a
random sample of 11 AR students and 12 comparison students took the
Neale comprehension test.
It is difficult to conclude much of anything from this study: Both groups
had similar incentives (recognition), and results were mixed.
Facemire (2000) also used a comparison group that was engaged in
recreational reading. AR was used with 15 third graders in a high poverty
area of West Virginia. AR students gained five months over the nine-week
period, and comparisons gained three months. This study is an important
step in the right direction but has a few problems. First, it is likely that the
AR students read more than the comparisons did; AR students had “at
least” 20 minutes per day of SSR, while comparisons had exactly 20
minutes. While comparisons had “access” to the library, AR students had a
regularly scheduled 80 minutes per week.
Second, each group contained one unusual outlier. The AR group
included one child who gained 2.3 years in nine weeks, and the comparison
group included one child who got much worse in reading, dropping more
than one year during the nine-week study. If we remove these outliers, the
groups look nearly the same, with the AR group gaining four months and
the comparisons three and one-half months.
7. A study of EFL students in Japan (Kitao, Yamamoto, Kitao, and
Shimatani 1990) contains some interesting statistics that show that the usual
means of encouraging reading don’t work very well. They compared
reading graded readers as a course requirement with reading graded readers
for extra credit. All students had to hand in book reports to receive credit.
Two hundred twenty graded readers were made available.
Those who read as a requirement read only what was assigned: 92 out
the 93 students did the assigned reading, but 87 of them read only one book.
Only 69 out of the 207 who were offered extra credit handed in book
reports. Of those who handed in reports, the average was slightly more than
two per student (2.2).
Why these sad results? There are several possibilities:
1. The book report requirement made reading much less desirable.
2. The books were simply not interesting: Even though students rated
the books as some-what interesting (mean of 4.44 on a 1 to 6 scale),
“interest” was not the reason the readers read. When the readers were asked
what motivated them to read, only five listed “interesting books” as their
first reason, and only 17 listed this as their second reason.
3. The students had little time to read outside of school. When the
nonreaders were asked why they did not read, 70 out of 128 indicated they
were too busy as their first reason, and 37 more mentioned this as their
second reason.
What we can conclude is that for university students, reading graded
readers for grades or ex-tra credit, with required book reports, does not
produce spectacular results.
3. Other Issues and Conclusions

The Limits of Reading

Even with massive free voluntary reading of appropriate texts, complete

acquisition of the conventions of writing may not take place; even very
well-read people may have gaps in their competence. Typically, these gaps
are small, and many readers will recognize them as problems they
experience. Here are some examples:
Even with extensive FVR gaps in literacy may
remain.

Spelling demons: Words like “committment” (or is it “commitment”?)

and “independence” (or is it “independance”?).
Punctuation: Does the comma go inside or outside the quotation mark?
Grammar: Subject-verb agreement is sentences such as: A large group
of boys is (are?) expected to arrive tomorrow.
These errors usually do not make much of a difference in terms of
communication. “Independance,” for example, communicates the idea just
as well as “independence.” Obeying the rules, however, is important for
cosmetic reasons; readers often find written language containing errors
irritating, and this reaction can detract from a writer’s message.
Why do well-read readers have gaps? What prevents the full acquisition
of the written lan-guage? One explanation is that not all the print is attended
to; that is, successful reading for meaning does not require the full use of
everything that appears on the page. It has been demonstrated (Goodman, in
Flurkey and Xu 2003; Smith 1994b) that fluent readers generate hypotheses
about the text they are about to read, based on what they have read already,
their knowledge of the world, and their knowledge of language, and only
attend to those aspects of print they need to confirm their hypotheses. For
example, most readers can guess what the last word of this sentence is
going to—. Good readers don’t need to fully and carefully perceive the “be”
at the end of the sentence in order to understand it; they just need to see
enough to confirm that it is there.
Good readers do not attend to everything on the
page.

Thus, competent readers do not pay attention to every detail on the

page, and they may fail to acquire the its/it’s distinction or whether certain
words end in -ence or -ance. These tiny gaps, in my view, are a small price
to pay for fluent and efficient reading. 1
Even those aspects of print that are attended to and understood may not
be acquired. Several researchers have hypothesized that affective factors
may be responsible for failure to acquire some aspects of language. Dulay
and Burt (1977; see also Dulay, Burt, and Krashen 1982) have suggested
that for language acquisition to occur, language acquirers need to be “open”
to the input, or have a low “Affective Filter.” When language acquirers are
anxious, or put on the defensive, the input may be understood, but it will
not reach those parts of the brain that are responsible for language
acquisition (what Chomsky has called the “language ac-quisition device”;
see Chomsky 1965). A block, the Affective Filter, will keep the input out.
The “affective filter” prevents input from
reaching the “language acquisition device.”

Smith (1988) has pointed out that a great deal of learning occurs
effortlessly, when learners consider themselves to be potential members of
certain groups, or “clubs,” and expect to learn. Teenagers, for example,
learn the elaborate dress code, slang, and behavior patterns of their peers
not by deliberate study but by observing others and deciding they want to
be like them. Similarly, Smith argues, when readers conclude that they are
potential members of the “literacy club,” people who read and write, they
“read like writers” and absorb the enormous amount of knowledge that
writers possess. Smith’s idea is quite consistent with the Affective Filter
hypothesis: Considering oneself a member or potential member of the
literacy club results in a lower Affective Filter, with more of the input
reaching the language acquisition device. 2
When readers consider themselves to be
potential members of “the literacy club,” they
acquire the enormous amount of information that
writers possess.

What can be done to fill these tiny gaps, those that remain even after
massive reading and after entrance into the literacy club? We do,
unfortunately, need to be concerned, because society’s standards for writing
accuracy are 100 percent. Errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar are
not tolerated in writing intended to be read by others, unless it is informal e-
mail.
Direct teaching can help fill some of the gap.

Direct teaching and the use of grammar handbooks and dictionaries can
help us fill at least part of the gap. Such conscious learning of language is
very limited, however, and needs to be used with caution—an excessive
concern with form or correctness while trying to work out new ideas in
writing can be very disruptive. Experienced writers know this and limit
their “editing” to the final draft, after their ideas have been worked out on
the page (see, e.g., Sommers 1980). It also seems rea-sonable to expect that
only more mature students will be able to develop extensive conscious
knowledge; it might be most efficient to delay this kind of direct teaching
until high school.
Given extensive free reading, however, and a genuine invitation to join
the literacy club, readers will acquire nearly all of the conventions of
writing. With enough reading, good grammar, good spelling, and good style
will be part of them, absorbed or acquired effortlessly.

Writing
 Writing deserves more space than I am giving it here. My goal,
however, is not to provide a complete survey of what is known about
writing and how writing ability develops, but to make two crucial points:
1. Writing style does not come from actual writing experience, but from
reading.
2. Actual writing can help us solve problems and make us smarter.

Writing Style Comes from Reading

The research reviewed earlier strongly suggests that we learn to write by
reading. To be more precise, we acquire writing style, the special language
of writing, by reading. We have already seen plenty of evidence that this is
so: In chapter 1 we saw that those who participate in free reading programs
write better (e.g., Elley and Mangubhai 1983; McNeil in Fader 1976), and
those who report they read more write better (e.g., Applebee 1978;
Alexander 1986; Salyer 1987; Janopoulous 1986; Kaplan and Palhinda
1981; Applebee, Langer, Mullis, Jenkins, and Foertsch 1990). As noted in
chapter 1 , Lee and Krashen (1996) and Lee (2001) have confirmed that
more reading is related to better writing in Chinese (Mandarin).
Formal language is too complex to be learned
one rule at a time.

There are other reasons to suspect that writing style comes from
reading. The “complexity argument” (see chapter 1 ) applies to writing as
well. All the ways in which “formal” written language differs from informal
conversational language are too complex to be learned one rule at a time.
Even though readers can recognize good writing, researchers have not
succeeding in completely describing just what it is that makes a “good”
writing style good. It is, therefore, sensible to suppose that writing style is
not consciously learned but is largely absorbed, or subconsciously acquired,
from reading.
According to common wisdom, we learn to write by actually writing.
The reading hypothesis asserts that this is not true, at least as far as style is
concerned. Smith (1988) tells us why we do not learn to write by writing:
 I thought the answer [to how we learn to write] must be that we learn to write by writing
until I reflected on how little anyone writes in school, even the eager students, and how
little feedback is provided…. No one writes enough to learn more than a small part of what
writers need to know. (p. 19)

The research confirms Smith’s reflections.

We do not learn to write by writing.

Actual writing in school appears to be infre-quent. Here is one typical

report: Applebee, Langer, and Mullis (1986) asked students how many
essays and reports they had written over six weeks for any school subject.
Only 18.6 percent of the fourth graders wrote more than 10, while only 7.8
percent of the eleventh graders wrote more than 10.
The actual amount of writing done by a typical
student is low.

Writing outside of school is also not frequent: Applebee et al.’s llth

graders did the most out-of-school writing, but only 17.4 percent kept
diaries, 37.3 percent said that they wrote letters to friends, and 74.8 percent
said they wrote notes and messages at least weekly. (See also Applebee et
al. 1990 and Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, and Hemphill 1991 for
similar results.)
Research by Rice (1986) allows us to make at least a crude comparison
of writing and reading frequency outside of school. Rice probed reading
and writing behavior of several groups, and I present one of them (high
verbal adults) as a representative sample. These subjects reported 15.1
hours per week in “total reading,” but only two hours per week in writing
(1.9 hours for “short writing” and .1 hour for “long writing”). Assuming
even a very slow reading rate (200 words per minute) and a very fast
writing rate (typing at 60 words per minute), this still means that people
deal with far more words in reading than in writing, a ratio of 25 to 1. More
likely, the true ratio is closer to 150 to 1. Considering the complexity of the
system that is to be acquired, these data severely weaken the case for
writing as an important source of language acquisition. (See also Evans and
Gleadow 1983 for similar estimates of reading and writing frequency.
Thanks to e-mail, people may be writing more these days. This possibility
has not been investigated to my knowledge.)
 People encounter far more language in reading
than in writing.

More Writing Does Not Mean Better Writing

Several additional reports have confirmed that students do little writing
in school and outside of school: The recently published National Council on
Writing report (2003) noted that according to the NAEP data, students in
elementary school spend on the average only three hours per week or less
on writing assignments. They recommend that schools double the amount
of time students spend writing, and insist that “writing be taught in all
subjects and at all grade levels” (p. 3). The research, however, does not
support this simple solution: More writing does not necessarily lead to
better writing.
Although some studies show that good writers do more writing than
poor writers (see Applebee et al. 1990 and studies summarized in Krashen
1984), increasing the amount of writing students do does not increase their
writing proficiency. First language studies in English include Dressel,
Schmid, and Kincaid (1952); Arnold (1964); and Varble (1990). First
language studies showing no relationship between writing frequency and
quality in Chinese are Lee and Krashen (1997) and Lee (2001). Hunting
(1967) describes unpublished dissertation research showing that writing
quantity is not related to writing quality. An exception is Lokke and Wykoff
(1948); very small differences were found, however, between college
freshmen who wrote two themes per week and those who wrote one theme
a week. In addition, Hillocks (1986), after an extensive review that included
unpublished dissertation research, found that writing classes that
emphasized free writing did not produce significantly better writing than
comparison classes.
Numerous studies show that increasing writing
quantity does not affect writing quality.

Second language studies include Burger (1989) and Mason (2003).

Burger’s subjects were students of English as a second language in Ottawa,
Canada, enrolled in sheltered subject matter courses (teaching language
through content). She reported that adding an extra class on writing, which
included correction of students’ written errors, had no impact on writing
quality or on tests of general English proficiency.
Mason (2003), in a study of adult (college student) EFL in Japan,
compared the effect of three different activities as a supplement to free
voluntary reading: writing short commentaries of what was read in the first
language (Japanese), writing commentaries in the second language
(English), and writing commentaries in the second language and getting
errors corrected. She found no difference among the three groups in gains in
writing accuracy (or reading achievement) after three semesters. In
addition, the extra time devoted to writing clearly made no contribution to
language development: The two groups who wrote in English devoted an
extra two hours per week to writing in English, with no dividends in
increased proficiency.
Hypothesizing that writing style comes from reading, not writing, is
consistent with what is known about language acquisition: Language
acquisition comes from input, not output, from comprehension, not
production. Thus, if you write a page a day, your writing style or your
command of mechanics will not improve. However, other good things may
result from your writing, as we shall see in the next section.
Language acquisition comes from input, not
output; from comprehension, not production.

No studies, to my knowledge, have attempted to find a relationship

between what is read and writing style. Such a relationship surely exists,
because different styles have different linguistic char-acteristics. Smith
(1988) has noted this, and advises: “To learn to write for newspapers, you
must read newspapers; textbooks about them will not suffice. For
magazines, browse through magazines rather than through correspondence
courses on magazine writing. To write poetry, read it” (p. 20).
Nevertheless, it is probably true that reading anything at all will help all
writing, at least to some extent. Although there are clearly different styles of
prose, there is also considerable overlap among styles (Biber 1986): So-
called narrative style has, for example, some but not all of the
characteristics of formal, expository prose. Thus, reading novels will not
make you a competent essayist; you will have to read lots of essays to
develop the essay-type style. But reading novels will provide at least some
of the features of essay style; a novel reader will write a much better essay,
stylistically, than someone who has read little of anything. And, as
emphasized throughout this book, doing light reading will provide the
competence that makes heavier reading more comprehensible.

What Writing Does

Although writing does not help us develop writing style, writing has
other virtues. As Smith (1988) has pointed out, we write for at least two
reasons. First, and most obvious, we write to communicate with others. But
perhaps more important, we write for ourselves, to clarify and stimulate our
thinking. Most of our writing, even if we are published authors, is for
ourselves.
As Elbow (1973) has noted, it is difficult to hold more than one thought
in mind at a time. When we write our ideas down, the vague and abstract
become clear and concrete. When thoughts are on paper, we can see the
relationships among them, and can come up with better thoughts. Writing,
in other words, can make you smarter.
Writing can help us think through and solve
problems.

Readers who keep a diary or journal know all about this—you have a
problem, you write it down, and at least some of the problem disap-pears.
Sometimes the entire problem goes away. Here is an example of this
happening, a letter written to Ann Landers in 1976:
Dear Ann: I’m a 26-year-old woman and feel like a fool asking you this question, but—
should I marry the guy or not? Jerry is 30, but sometimes he acts like 14…

Jerry is a salesman and makes good money but has lost his wallet three times since I’ve
known him and I’ve had to help him meet the payments on his car.

The thing that bothers me most, I think, is that I have the feeling he doesn’t trust me. After
every date he telephones. He says it’s to “say an extra goodnight,” but I’m sure he is
checking to see if I had a late date with someone else.
 One night I was in the shower and didn’t hear the phone. He came over and sat on the
porch all night. I found him asleep on the swing when I went to get the paper the next
morning at 6:30 A.M. I had a hard time convincing him I had been in the house the whole
time.

Now on the plus side: Jerry is very good-looking and appeals to me physically. Well—that
does it. I have been sitting here with this pen in my hand for 15 minutes trying to think of
something else good to say about him and nothing comes to mind.

Don’t bother to answer this. You have helped me more than you will ever know.—Eyes
Opened. (Permission granted by Ann Landers and Creators Syndicate.)

Perhaps the clearest experimental evidence showing that writing helps

thinking is from a series of studies by Langer and Applebee (1987). High
school students were asked to read social studies passages and then study
the information in them either by writing an analytic essay on an as-signed
question relating to the passage, or by using other study techniques (e.g.,
note taking, answering comprehension questions, writing summaries,
“normal” studying without writing). Students were then given a variety of
tests on the material in the passages. Langer and Applebee reported that “in
general, any kind of written response leads to better performance than does
reading without writing” (p. 130). In their third study, they showed that
essay writing did not result in greater retention when the reading passage
was easy; when the passage they read was difficult, however, essay writers
did much better than students using other study techniques. Similar results
have been reported by Newell (1984), Marshall (1987), and Newell and
Winograd (1989).
Studies show that writing can help thinking.

Sometimes just a little bit of writing can make a big difference. In

Ganguli’s study (1989) college mathematics students who devoted three
minutes per period to describing in writing an important concept covered in
class easily outperformed a comparison group on the semester final exam.
For a review of additional research supporting the hypothesis that writing
“can make you smarter,” see Applebee (1984), Boice (1994), and Krashen
(2003a). 3
The Effect of Television

It is widely assumed that watching television has a negative effect on

reading and other aspects of language. There are at least two commonsense
arguments against television. First, watching TV takes time, time that could
be spent reading (this is known as the “displacement argument”). The
evidence, we will see, is not clear.
It is widely assumed that television has a
negative effect on reading. Not so.

A second argument against television is that TV programs do not

provide the kind of input that would stimulate language development.
According to the research, this assertion is true: TV language is not nearly
as complex as book language. Nevertheless, a moderate amount of TV
watching appears to be harmless; studies show no significant impact of TV
watching on tests of literacy and school performance, unless the amount of
TV watching is excessive.

Does More Television Mean Less Reading?

The view that television watching displaces reading is a popular one,
and a few case histories appear to support it. Some of the college students in
Carlsen and Sherrill (1988) blamed television for preventing them from
becoming readers and, in the following case, for extinguishing their interest
in reading: “I continued this avid interest in reading until I was in the fifth
grade. Then the one-eyed monster, commonly known as television, entered
the realms of our living room…. To say the least, the television set replaced
any book” (p. 138).
Some empirical studies appear to support this observation: In a study of
sixth graders, Medrich, Roizen, Rubin and Buckley (1982) reported that
high-volume TV watchers were less likely to be regular recreational readers
than those who were moderate watchers, who in turn read less than those
who were low-volume watchers. Amount of TV watching, however, is
related to socioeconomic class, with lower-income families watching
signifi-cantly more television (research reviewed in Comstock and Paik
1991). As we have seen, those in lower-income families have far less access
to books. Thus, the correlation between TV watching and book reading may
be spurious, a result of the fact that those in poorer families watch more TV
and have less access to books. Access to books could be the actual cause of
less frequent reading, not more TV. This interpretation is consistent with
other studies showing no relationship between TV watching and reading,
reviewed below.
When television is new, it can displace reading. This effect occurs when
TV is initially introduced into a community (Brown, Cramond, and Wilde
1974) and when viewers are very young (preschoolers in Burton, Calonico,
and McSeveney 1979; six-year-olds in Gadberry 1980). Some early studies
done when television was just introduced in the United States also showed
that TV watchers read less (Coffin 1948; Maccoby 1951) as did a survey
carried out in 1965–1966 of the impact of TV in 14 countries (Robinson
1972).
When television is new, it can displace reading.
When it is more established, it does not.

When television is more established in a community, TV viewers read

just as much as nonviewers, however (Himmelweit, Oppenheim, and Vince
1958), and subsequent studies done in the United States show no
relationship between television watching and book reading (Schramm, Lyle,
and Parker 1961; Robinson 1980; Zuckerman, Singer, and Singer 1980; but
see McEvoy and Vincent 1980, who found no difference in TV watching
between “light” and “heavy” readers but reported that “nonreaders”
watched more television). Robinson and Godbey (1997) reported an
increase in TV watching from 1965 to 1985 in the United States but also
reported a slight increase in time spent reading books and magazines;
newspaper reading, however, declined during this time. 4
In an ethnographic study of three families, Neuman (1995) concluded
that TV watching was much less likely to displace storybook reading to
children when storybook time was “a structured family activity” (p. 168),
taking place regularly at a specific time. TV watching, she noted, was often
a default activity, taking place “because it happens to be there when other,
even possibly more attractive, activities are not” (p. 170).
Some studies suggest that television can actually encourage reading:
The dramatization of a book on television increases the likelihood that the
book will be read (Himmelweit, Oppenheim, and Vince 1958; Busch 1978;
Wendelin and Zinck 1983; Campbell, Griswald, and Smith 1988). The
Book Industry Study Group (1984, cited in Neuman 1995, p. 103) reported,
however, than only 4 percent of children they studied chose a book on the
basis of seeing or hearing about it on television. It is also possible that
television does not increase all reading, but “redirects the existing reading
choice of an audience” (Beentjes and Van der Voort 1988, p. 392).
It has also been argued that television discourages reading and other
uses of literacy because television characters are rarely seen reading or
writing, or even behaving as if they read and write. As Postman (1983) has
pointed out:
It is quite noticeable that the majority of adults on TV shows are depicted as functionally
illiterate, not only in the sense that the content of book learning is absent from what they
appear to know but also because of the absence of even the faintest signs of a
contemplative habit of mind, (p. 12)

The Language of Television

There is some basis for the second accusation presented at the beginning
of this section: Televi-sion does not provide high-quality linguistic input.
Television does not provide high-quality
linguistic input.

Fasick (1973) reported that the language used in children’s books was
significantly more complicated than the language used in children’s
television shows. For example, 64 percent of the sentences in books (five
books recommended for reading aloud to preschool children) were
“complex,” compared to 34 percent for television (“Captain Kangaroo” and
two cartoons). Moreover, the complex sentences found in books involved
more subordination. In other words, the complex sentences of the books
were more complex. Fasick concluded that the language of television was
only about as complicated as the speech of average fifth graders.
The language of children’s books is more
complex than that of children’s television.

Liberman (1979) analyzed the language used in programs popular in the

1970s. His analysis of sentence complexity is in close agreement with
Fasick’s results. In addition, Liberman also reported that the quantity of
language used on television was low. Of the eight shows Liberman
analyzed, the one using the largest number of words, M.A.S.H., contained a
total of 3,395 words, and only 900 different words.
The quantity of language used on television is
low.

Liberman concluded that “very likely, the lexicon of TV programming

is under 5,000 words” (1979, p. 604), a pathetic result when one considers
that estimates of first graders’ vocabulary size range from 5,500 to 32,000
words (Smith 1941). Liberman’s conclusions are supported by Hayes and
Ahrens (1988), a study we discussed in chapter 2 . Recall that Hayes and
Ahrens found that the lan-guage of TV and ordinary conversation, whether
between adults and adults or adults and children, was similar in terms of
vocabulary. For all three, about 95 percent of the words used were from the
most frequent 5,000 words in English. Printed texts, including comic books,
children’s books, and magazines, contained far more uncommon words.
Television shows may provide some input of value for young children
in early stages of language acquisition (Rice and Haight 1986). They do
not, however, compare very well to reading, either in terms of the
complexity or the amount of language they provide.

Television and Language Development

The impact of television on school-related measures, including reading
comprehension, vocabulary, spelling, and “language arts,” has been
thoroughly studied. Several careful reviews of this research have been done
(Williams, Haertel, Haertel, and Walberg 1982; Beentjes and Van der Voort
1988; Comstock and Paik 1991; Neuman 1995; see also studies by Neuman
1988 and Foertsch 1992), and they arrive at similar conclusions:
The impact of TV on reading is negative only
when TV watching is excessive.

The overall impact of television is negative, but slight. In fact, it is

hardly detectable. No matter what measures of achievement are
examined, more television watching means only slightly reduced
performance in reading comprehension, vocabulary, and other school-
related measures.
Several studies find that achievement actually increases (slightly) with
moderate amounts of TV watching; that is, the more TV, the better
watchers do on school-related tests. The relationship holds only up to
about two hours of TV per day. After reaching this threshold, the
relationship is negative: The more TV, the worse watchers do, with TV
watching showing a clearly nega-tive impact when it exceeds four
hours per day (see, e.g., Neuman 1988, 1995). Interestingly, increased
television watching is associated with better literacy development for
children acquiring English as a second language (Blosser 1988); this
relationship did not hold true for beginners, however, for whom
English-language television was probably not comprehensible.
There is some evidence that television has more negative effects on
older students (high school; Neuman 1988) and on those in higher
socioeconomic classes (Beentjes and Van der Voort 1988), but the
impact remains small. Also, as one would expect, there is evidence
that the impact of television depends on what programs children
watch, with lower achievement related to watching entertainment-type
and adventure programs (Neuman 1988). 5

In general, however, correlations between what is watched and reading

achievement are very modest (Degrotsky 1981; Potter 1987); the only
substantial correlation reported by Potter (1987) was a negative relationship
between watching soap operas and knowledge of science. Jönsson (1986),
however, reported that preschool children whose parents “helped them to
assimilate and understand television messages and kept a check on their
televiewing” (p. 32) did better in school later on, and fifth graders who
watched more documentaries did better in grade six.
Television is not the culprit in the “literacy
crisis.” The culprit is the absence of reading
material.

Television: A Summary
Much of what is on television may not be of high quality; nevertheless,
television is clearly not the culprit in the “literacy crisis.” Although the
language of many TV shows is not impressive, there is no clear evidence
that TV displaces reading, and there is only a weak negative relationship
between TV watching and performance on school-related tests. In fact, a
little TV watching appears to be better than none at all, and TV watching
may be helpful for second language acquisition. It is only when television
watching is excessive that a clear negative effect appears, what Trelease
(2001) refers to as “over-viewing” of TV.
Phrased slightly differently, it seems that those who do better on tests of
language and literacy read more, but watch TV only a little less. Apparently
it is not the presence of television that prevents children from reading; more
likely, it is the absence of interesting books. Corteen and Williams (1986)
agree: Consistent with the results of other studies, they found a negative
correlation between amount of TV watching and reading achievement, but
the size of the relationship was small, and they conclude that “the absence
of reading practice is, in our view, more important than television” (p. 71). 6
A final bit of data confirms this conclusion. Neuman (1995) compared
the book choices of children who were heavy readers and heavy TV
watchers, heavy readers and light TV watchers, and light readers and heavy
TV watchers. The first two groups chose books of equally high quality
(according to a scale measuring intellectual challenge, complexity, and
richness of ideas), and both groups of heavy readers chose books of higher
quality than the light readers. TV watching does not displace reading, nor
does it mean lower-quality reading.

Second Language Acquirers

When second language acquirers read for pleasure, they develop the
competence to move from the beginning “ordinary conversational” level to
a level where they can use the second language for more demanding
purposes, such as the study of literature, business, and so on. As some of
the studies discussed earlier in this volume show, when second language
acquirers read for pleasure, they can continue to improve in their second
language without classes, without teachers, without study, and even without
people to converse with (e.g., Clio’s Sweet Valley studies, discussed in
chapter 2 ).
There are also compelling reasons for encouraging recreational reading
in the first language for second language acquirers. In early stages, it can
profoundly accelerate the development of reading ability in the second
language.
Pleasure reading allows second language
acquirers to improve without going to class.

First, if it is true that we “learn to read by reading” (Goodman 1982;

Smith 1994b), it is obviously easier to learn to read in a language the reader
understands. Thus, it will be easier to learn to read in the primary language.
Once the ability to read is acquired, there is good evidence that much of this
ability transfers to the second language, even when the writing systems are
different (Cummins 1981). There is strong correlational evidence
supporting this hypothesis, as well as compelling case histories (Krashen
2003c).
Learning to read in the first language is a short
cut to second language reading.
 Second, as discussed in chapter 1 , reading provides knowledge,
knowledge of the world as well as subject matter knowledge. The
knowledge gained through the first language can make second language
input much more comprehensible.
Third, there is reason to suspect that the plea-sure reading habit itself
transfers. A pleasure reader in the first language will become a pleasure
reader in the second language (Camiciottoli 2001).
Evidence confirming that reading in the first language is helpful for
second language acquisition comes from the documented success of
bilingual programs that provide literacy development and subject matter
teaching in the primary language. Such programs, it has been shown, teach
English as well as or better than programs in which children are taught in
English all day (for reviews, see Willig 1985; Greene 1997. An especially
complete recent study is Oller and Eilers 2002).
Recreational reading can also be of tremendous help for those who wish
to continue to develop their primary or “heritage” language (HL). Contrary
to popular opinion, it is very difficult to continue to develop one’s primary
language while living in another country. The most obvious barrier is lack
of input; if one only uses the heritage language at home, there are of course
limits to how far one can develop the language. Other barriers are less
obvious, but are powerful: There is evidence that some heritage language
speakers go through a stage of rejection or avoidance of the heritage culture
(Tse 1998) and may avoid using the heritage language. Those in this stage
of “ethnic ambivalence/evasion” will not improve their heritage language
competence, regardless of whether input is available or not. Finally, some
imperfect heritage language speakers report that their efforts to use the
language are met with correction and even ridicule by more competent HL
speakers, a reaction that discourages the use of the HL (Gupta and Yeok
1995; Krashen 1998b).
A big part of the solution for those lacking input or facing ridicule is a
method that supplies in-put and works for shy people: recreational reading.
Several studies confirm that recreational reading works for heritage
language development: Tse (2001) reported that those who “beat the odds”
and managed to maintain unusually high levels of competence in their
heritage language had access to reading materials in the heritage language,
and nearly all developed an interest in reading in the language for pleasure.
Cho and Krashen (2000) found four independent predictors of HL
competence among second-generation Korean HL speakers: parental use of
the HL, trips to Korea, TV watching, and recreational reading. McQuillan
(1998b) reported that Spanish classes at the university of level for native
speakers of Spanish that emphasized pleasure reading and discussion of
texts of interest resulted in more enthusiasm for Spanish reading as well as
better gains in vocabulary, as compared to traditional instruction.
It is easy to say that recreational reading in the primary language can be
a big help, but there is a major barrier that prevents implementation: little
access to books. A huge percentage of limited English speaking children in
the United States are Spanish-speakers. As noted in chapter 2 , Spanish
speaking limited English proficient children have very little access to books
in Spanish, at home (Ramirez et al. 1991) or in school (Pucci 1994). 7
Few books are available in primary or heritage
languages.

Conclusions

My conclusions are simple. When children read for pleasure, when they
get “hooked on books,” they acquire, involuntarily and without conscious
effort, nearly all of the so-called language skills many people are so
concerned about: They will become adequate readers, acquire a large
vocabulary, develop the ability to understand and use complex grammatical
constructions, develop a good writing style, and become good (but not nec-
essarily perfect) spellers. Although free voluntary reading alone will not
ensure the attainment of the highest levels of literacy, it will at least ensure
an acceptable level. It will also provide the competence necessary for
dealing with demanding texts. 8 Without it, I suspect that children simply do
not have a chance.
 Children who are readers will develop at least
acceptable levels of literacy. Without a reading
habit, children simply do not have a chance.

When we read, we really have no choice—we must develop literacy. We

rarely find well-read people who have serious problems with grammar,
spelling, and so on. They write acceptably well because they can’t help it;
they have subconsciously acquired good writing style as well as all or
nearly all of the conventions of writing.
Well-read people write well because they have
subconsciously acquired good writing style.

I am not, however, proposing a language arts program consisting only

of free reading. I also recognize the value of reading that is assigned by
teachers, and reading that is recommended by teachers, librarians, and
parents. A language arts class, in my view, is primarily a literature class.
Assigned reading and free voluntary reading will help each other: Through
literature, students will grow intellectually and be exposed to a wider
variety of books, which can stimulate more free reading. In fact, one of the
ways we know that a literature program is effective is if it results in more
free voluntary reading. In turn, free voluntary reading will help build
language competence and contribute to intellectual growth, which will
make literature more comprehensible and meaningful.
FVR is not a replacement for the language
program. FVR complements language arts
classes.

Our problem in language education, as Frank Smith has pointed out, is

that we have confused cause and effect. We have assumed that we first
master language “skills” and then apply these skills to reading and writing.
But that is not the way the human brain operates. Rather, reading for
meaning, reading about things that matter to us, is the cause of literate
language development.
We have confused cause and effect.

If this view is even partly correct, it means that we need to create a

print-rich environment for children both inside and outside school. It means
that teachers need to be assured that creating such an environment will
make their jobs easier, not harder, and will give more satisfying results.
Administrators need to know that when teachers are reading to students,
and when teachers are relaxing with a good book during sustained silent
reading sessions, teachers are doing their job. Administrators need to know
that a print-rich environment is not a luxury but a necessity. (Administrators
will be relieved to know that creating a print-rich environment is not
excessively expensive: For the price of a few computers, a school library
can be significantly improved.) Administrators will also be pleased to know
that providing a print-rich environment will lead to an easier and more
productive day for teachers, with improved student competence in reading
and language arts, competence that shows up in real life as well as on
standardized test scores.
The true path to higher test scores is reading.

Parents need to know that children will get far more benefit from being
read to, from seeing parents read for pleasure, and from reading comics,
graphic novels, magazines, and books, than they will from working through
workbooks on sale at the local drug store.
Parents should opt for actual reading rather
than using workbooks.

Finally, there is no question that reading is pleasant; as we have seen,

the research literature is replete with reports of the pleasure children get
from free reading (see chapter 1 , “The Pleasure of Reading” section), as
well as the boredom that often accompanies some required reading and
work-book exercises. While it may not be true that everything that is good
for you is pleasant, the most effective way of building literacy happens to
be the most pleasant.

Notes
 1. The Smith-Goodman view of reading as the confirmation of
predictions has been challenged. For discussion and a response to some
critics, see Krashen (1999).
2. Smith’s hypothesis explains why some of us cannot seem to write
convincingly in certain styles, despite massive reading of texts written in
these styles. I have read widely, but seem only to be able to write
comfortably in the academic (or at best modified academic) style you are
reading now, reflecting the club I have joined. (I have been told that even
my personal letters read like journal papers.) Smith’s hypothesis also
explains, conversely, why reading just a modest amount of authors we
admire can influence our writing style.
3. Strong confirmation that writing helps thinking is the work of Robert
Boice. Boice (1983) concluded that regularly scheduled writing sessions
encouraged more writing and the emergence of more creative ideas than did
“spontaneous” writing (writing when the writer “felt like it”). Boice asked
college students to write under several conditions: not to write at all for
several weeks (control group), to write only when they felt like it, or to
write regularly at scheduled sessions each day. Subjects were asked to keep
track of the number of pages written and the number of creative or novel
ideas they came up with. Regular daily writing resulted in about double the
number of pages written and double the number of new ideas, as compared
to writing when one felt like it. The con-trol group reported the fewest
number of new ideas. Boice has recommended a modest amount of regular
daily writing in several of his publications (see especially Boice 1994).
There is no doubt in my mind that it works. I would never have completed
this edition of this book without following Boice’s suggestions.
4. There is some evidence supporting the reasonable hypothesis that
what children watch is related to how much they read. In agreement with
other research, Zuckerman, Singer, and Singer (1980) found no overall
relationship between time spent watching TV and time spent reading, but
they also found that children who watched more “fantasy violent” programs
tended to read less. Schramm, Lyle, and Parker (1961) also reported no
relation between TV watching and book reading, but found that children
who watch more TV read fewer comic books (see also Murray and Kippax
1978 for similar results; Williams and Boyes 1986, however, found a slight
positive correlation between TV watching and comic book reading).
5. This is consistent with research showing that children who watch
more “violent fantasy” programs do less reading, as mentioned in note 4.
Cleary (1939) found that the impact of radio in the 1930s was remarkably
similar to the impact of television today. Cleary concluded that overall,
“radio listening does not seriously restrict the amount or quality of reading”
(p. 126). Although those who listened to the radio a great deal (more than
three hours per day) read fewer books (but read more newspapers and
magazines), those who did very little listening to the radio had less interest
in read-ing. Cleary also reported that heavy moviegoers, those who attended
more than three films per week (5 percent of her sample), read more books
and read higher-quality books.
6. Computer use, contrary to popular opinion, appears to be mildly
positively related to reading. Robinson and Godbey (1997) reported
positive but small correlations between amount of computer use and time
spent reading books for adults: More computer use was associated with
more reading. The relationship remained significant even when the
researchers controlled for social class; this is important to do because
higher-income people are more likely to have computers and to read more.
Of great interest is the finding that the relationship also held for different
uses of the computer. Time spent word processing, using the computer for
financial purposes, and playing games on the computer (!) all correlated
positively with time spent reading. Time spent on the computer was
negatively correlated with time spent watching TV, but again the
relationship was small. The results of a recent Gallup Poll (Gallup 2002)
confirmed that computers do not bleed reading time: Those who regularly
use computers spend as much time reading as those who do not.
7. Pucci and Ulanoff (1996) surveyed 32 school librarians: 54 percent
said that books written in Spanish were difficult to obtain, and 70 percent
said that their cost was “prohibitive.” Of 5,000 books on one approved
reading list for purchase for school libraries, only 300 were in Spanish.
Pucci and Ulanoff note that “even if these books were age appropriate, a
child reading two books per week would finish every Spanish volume in the
library before entering fourth grade” (p. 114).
8. As noted in chapter 2 , note 6, there are clear differences between
different genres. But there is overlap: Reading in any genre will help make
any other genre more comprehensible. A student about to take ninth-grade
world history who has read 100 Sweet Valley High novels will have more
success with the history texts than a classmate who has done little or no
recreational reading. And one who has read all the Harry Potter novels (five
have been published at the time of this writing) will probably have very few
problems.
References
Alexander, F. 1986. California assessment program: Annual report.
Sacramento: California State Department of Education.
Allen, L., J.Cipielewski, and K.Stanovich. 1992. Multiple indicators of
children’s reading habits and attitudes: Construct validity and
cognitive correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology 84:489–
503.
Allington, R. 1980. Poor readers don’t get to read much in reading groups.
Language Arts 57:872–876.
Allington, R., S.Guice, K.Baker, N.Michaelson, and S.Li. 1995. Access to
books: Variations in schools and classrooms. The Language and
Literacy Spectrum 5:23–25.
Anderson, R., P.Wilson, and L.Fielding. 1988. Growth in reading and how
children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research
Quarterly 23:285–303.
Applebee, A. 1978. Teaching high-achievement students: A survey of the
winners of the 1977 NCTE Achievement Awards in writing.
Research in the Teaching of English 1:41–53.
———. 1984. Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research 54:
577–596.
Applebee, A., J.Langer, and I.Mullis. 1986. The writing report card.
Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.
Applebee, A., J.Langer, I.Mullis, L.Jenkins, and M.Foertsch. 1990.
Learning to write in our nation’s schools: Instruction and
achievement in 1988 at grades 4, 8, and 12. Princeton, N.J.:
Educational Testing Service.
Appleby, B., and J.Conner. 1965. Well, what did you think of it? English
Journal 54:606–612.
Aranha, M. 1985. Sustained silent reading goes east. Reading Teacher 39:
214–217.
Aranow, M. 1961. A study of the effect of individualized reading on
children’s reading test scores. Reading Teacher 15:86–91.
Arlin, M., and G.Roth. 1978. Pupil’s use of time while reading comics and
books. American Educational Research Journal 5:201–216.
Arnold, L. 1964. Writer’s cramp and eyestrain—are they paying off?
English Journal 53:10–15.
Asimov, I. 2002. It’s been a good life. New York: Prometheus Books.
Bader, L., J.Veatch, and J.Eldridge. 1987. Trade books or basal readers?
Reading Improvement 24:62–67.
Bailey, A. 1969. How parents feel about individualized reading. In
Individualized reading: Readings, ed. S.Duker. Metuchen, N.J.:
Scarecrow, pp. 325–330.
Bailyn, L. 1959. Mass media and children: A study of exposure habits and
cognitive effects. Psychological Monographs 73:201–216.
Baughman, J. 2000. School libraries and MCAS scores. Available:
http://artemis.simmons.edu/~baughman/mcas-school-libraries .
Beck, I., M.McKeown, and E.McCaslin. 1983. Vocabulary development:
Not all contexts are created equal. Elementary School Journal
83:177–181.
Beentjes, J., and T.Van der Voort. 1988. Television’s impact on children’s
reading skills: A review of the research. Psychological Monographs
73: 201–216.
Biber, D. 1986. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English.
Language 62:384–414.
Bintz, W. 1993. Resistant readers in secondary education: Some insights
and implications. Journal of Reading 36(8):604–615.
Blakely, W. 1958. A study of seventh grade children’s reading of comic
books as related to certain other variables. Journal of Genetic
Psychology 93: 291–301.
Blok, H. 1999. Reading to young children in educational settings: A meta-
analysis of recent research. Language Learning 49(2):343–371.
Blosser, B. 1988. Television, reading and oral language development: The
case of the Hispanic child. NABE Journal 13:21–42.
Bohnhorst, B., and S.Sellars. 1959. Individual reading instruction vs. basal
textbook instruction: Some tentative explorations. Elementary
English 36: 185–202.
Boice, R. 1983. Contingency management in writing and the appearance of
creative ideas: Implications for the treatment of writing blocks.
Behavioral Research Therapy 21(5):537–43.
———. 1994. How writers journey to comfort and fluency. Westport,
Conn.: Praeger.
Brandenburg, G. 1919. Some possibly secondary factors in spelling ability.
School and Society 9:632–636.
Brassell, D. 2003. Sixteen books went home tonight: Fifteen were
introduced by the teacher. The California Reader 36(3):33–39.
Brazerman, C. 1985. Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes
and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication 2:3–43.
Brocka, B. 1979. Comic books: In case you haven’t noticed, they’ve
changed. Media and Methods 15:30–32.
Brown, J., J.Cramond, and R.Wilde. 1974. Displacement effects of
television and the child’s functional orientation to media. In
Children’s understanding of television, ed. J.Bryant and
D.Anderson. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–33.
Burger, S. 1989. Content-based ESL in a sheltered psychology course:
Input, output, and outcomes. TESL Canada 6:45–59.
Burley, J. 1980. Short-term, high intensity reading practice methods for
upward bound students: An appraisal. Negro Educational Review
 31(3–4): 156–161.
Burton, S., J.Calonico, and D.McSeveney. 1979. Effects of preschool
television watching on first-grade children. Journal of
Communication 29(3): 164–170.
Bus, A., M.Van Ijzendoorn, and A.Pellegrini. 1995. Joint book reading
makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on
intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational
Research 65:1–21.
Busch, J. 1978. Television’s effects on reading: A case study. Phi Beta
Kappan 59:668–671.
Business Week Online. 2002. Comics clamber back from the brink.
Available:
http://businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2002/nf20020829_234
4.htm .
Bustead, A. 1943. Finding the best method for memorizing. The Journal of
Educational Psychology 34:110–114.
Camiciottoli, B.C. 2001. Extensive reading in English: Habits and attitudes
of a group of Italian university students. Journal of Research in
Reading 24(2): 135–153.
Campbell, C., D.Griswald, and F.H.Smith. 1988. Effects of tradebook
covers (hardback or paperback) on individualized reading choices
by elementary-age children. Reading Improvement 25:166–178.
Campbell, D., and J.Stanley. 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Carlsen, G.R., and A.Sherrill. 1988. Voices of readers: How we come to
love books. Urbana, Ill.: NCTE.
Carson, B. 1990. Gifted hands. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Books.
Carter, C. 1988. Does your child love to read? Parade Magazine, April 3.
Cho, G., and S.Krashen. 2000. The role of voluntary factors in heritage
language development: How speakers can develop the heritage
 language on their own. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 127–
128:127–140.
Cho, K.S., and S.Krashen. 1994. Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet
Valley High Kids series: Adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading
37: 662–667.
———. 1995a. From Sweet Valley Kids to Harlequins in one year.
California English 1(1):18–19.
———. 1995b. Becoming a dragon: Progress in English as a second
language through narrow free voluntary reading. California Reader
29:9–10.
———. 2002. Sustained silent reading experiences among Korean teachers
of English as a foreign language: The effect of a single exposure to
interesting, comprehensible reading. Reading Improvement
38(4):170–174.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Cipielewski, J., and K.Stanovich. 1990. Assessing print exposure and
orthographic processing skill in children: a quick measure of reading
experience. Journal of Educational Psychology 82:733–740.
Cleary, F. 1939. Why children read. Wilson Library Bulletin 14:119–126.
Cline, R., and G.Kretke. 1980. An evaluation of long-term SSR in the
junior high school. Journal of Reading (March): 503–506.
Cline, Z., and J.Necochea. 2003. My mother never read to me. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy 47 (2):122–126.
Cocks, J. 1988. The passing of Pow! and Blam! Comics grow up, get
ambitious, and turn into graphic novels. Time Magazine, January 25.
Coffin, T. 1948. Television’s effect on leisure-time activities. Journal of
Applied Psychology 32:550–558.
Cohen, K. 1999. Reluctant eighth grade readers enjoy sustained silent
reading. California Reader 33(1):22–25.
Cohen, Y. 1997. How reading got me into trouble. Class paper, Trenton
State University, Summer.
Coles, G. 2003. Reading the naked truth: Literacy, legislation, and lies.
Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
Collins, C. 1980. Sustained silent reading periods: Effects of teachers’
behaviors and students’ achievements. Elementary School Journal
81:109–114.
Comstock, G., and H.Paik. 1991. Television and the American child. New
York: Academic Press.
Constantino, R. 1994. Immigrant ESL high school students’ understanding
and use of the school and public library. SCOPE Journal 93:6–18.
———. Minority use of the library. California Reader 28:10–12.
Constantino, R., S.Y.Lee, K.S.Cho, and S.Krashen. 1997. Free voluntary
reading as a predictor of TOEFL scores. Applied Language
Learning 8: 111–118.
Cook, W. 1912. Shall we teach spelling by rule? Journal of Educational
Psychology 3:316–325.
Cornman, O. 1902. Spelling in the elementary school. Boston: Ginn.
Corteen, R., and T.Williams. 1986. Television and reading skills. In The
impact of television, ed. T.M.Williams. New York: Academic Press,
pp. 39–86.
Csikszentmihalyi , M. 1991. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.
New York: HarperPerennial.
Cummins, J. 1981. The role of primary language development in promoting
educational success for language minority students. In Schooling
and language minority students. Sacramento: California Department
of Education, pp. 3–49.
———. 1996. Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a
diverse society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual
Education.
Cunningham, A., and K.Stanovich. 1990. Assessing print exposure and
orthographic processing skill in children: A quick measure of
reading experience. Journal of Educational Psychology 82:733–740.
Curtiss, H., and E.Dolch. 1939. Do spelling books teach spelling?
Elementary School Journal 39:584–592.
Cyrog, F. 1962. Self-selection in reading: Report of a longitudinal study. In
Claremont reading conference: 26th yearbook, ed. M.Douglas.
Claremont, Calif.: Claremont Graduate School, pp. 106–113.
Daly, J., and D.Wilson. 1983. Writing apprehension, self-esteem, and
personality. Research in the Teaching of English 17:327–341.
Davis, F., and J.Lucas. 1971. An experiment in individualized reading.
Reading Teacher 24:737–743, 747.
Davis, Z. 1998. A comparison of the effectiveness of sustained silent
reading and directed reading activity on students’ reading
achievement. The High School Journal 72(1):46–48.
Day, R., C.Omura, and M.Hiramatsu. 1991. Incidental EFL vocabulary
learning and reading. Reading in a Foreign Language 7(2): 541–
551.
Degrotsky, D. 1981. Television viewing and reading achievement of seventh
and eighth graders. ERIC Document No. ED 215 291.
Denton, K., and J.West. 2002. Children’s reading and mathematics
achievement in kindergarten and first grade. Washington, D.C.:
National Center for Educational Statistics.
Di Loreto, C., and L.Tse. 1999. Seeing is believing: Disparity in books in
two Los Angeles area public libraries. School Library Quarterly
17(3):31–36.
Dirda, M. 2003. An open book. New York: Norton.
Doig, D., and A.Blackmore. 1995. Leisure reading: Attitudes and practices
of Australian year 6 children. Australian Journal of Language and
Literacy 18(3):204–217.
Dorrell, L., and E.Carroll. 1981. Spider-Man at the library. School Library
Journal 27:17–19.
Dressell, P., J.Schmid, and G.Kincaid. 1952. The effects of writing
frequency upon essay-type writing proficiency at the college level.
Journal of Educational Research 46:285–293.
Duggins, J. 1976. The elementary self-contained classroom. In The new
hooked on books, ed. D.Fader. New York: Berkeley Books, pp. 181–
190.
Duin, J. 2002. Comics still flying high. The Washington Times, February 6.
Duke, N. 2000. For the rich it’s richer: Print experiences and environments
offered to children in very low- and very high-socioeconomic status
first-grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal
37(2): 441–478.
Dulay, H., and M.Burt. 1977. Remarks on creativity in second language
acquisition. In Viewpoints on English as a second language, ed.
M.Burt, H. Dulay, and M.Finnocchiaro. New York: Regents, pp. 95–
126.
Dulay, H., M.Burt, and S.Krashen. 1982. Language two. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dupuy, B. 1997. Voices from the classroom: Students favor extensive
reading over grammar instruction and practice, and give their
reasons. Applied Language Learning 8(2):253–261.
———. 1998. Cercles de lecture: Une autre approche de la lecture dans la
classe intermédiate de français langue étrangrèe. The Canadian
Modern Language Review 54 (4):579–585.
Dupuy, B., and S.Krashen. 1993. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in
French as a foreign language. Applied Language Learning 4 (1,
2):55–63.
Elbow, P. 1973. Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Eller, R., C.Pappas, and E.Brown. 1988. The lexical development of kinder-
gartners: Learning from written context. Journal of Reading
Behavior 20: 5–24.
Elley, W. 1984. Exploring the reading difficulties of second language
learners in Fiji. In Reading in a second language, ed. J.C.Alderson
and A.Urquart. New York: Longman, pp. 281–301.
———. 1989. Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading
Research Quarterly 24:174–187.
———. 1991. Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-
based programs. Language Learning 41:375–411.
———. 1992. How in the world do students read? Hamburg: The
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement.
———. 1994. IE A study of reading literacy. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
———. 1998. Raising literacy levels in third world countries: A method
that works. Culver City, Calif.: Language Education Associates.
Elley, W., I.Barham, H.Lamb, and M.Wyllie. 1976. The role of grammar in
a secondary school curriculum. Research in the Teaching of English
10:5–21.
Elley, W., and F.Mangubhai. 1983. The impact of reading on second
language learning. Reading Research Quarterly 19:53–67.
El-Shabbaz, E. 1964. The autobiography of Malcolm X. New York:
Ballantine.
Emery, C., and M.Csikszentmihalyi. 1982. The socialization effects of
cultural role models in ontogenetic development and upward
mobility. Child Psychiatry and Human Development 12:3–19.
Evans, H., and J.Towner. 1975. Sustained silent reading: Does it increase
skills? Reading Teacher 29:155–156.
Evans, P., and N.Gleadow. 1983. Literacy: A study of literacy performance
and leisure activities in Victoria, BC. Reading Canada Lecture 2:3–
16.
Facemire, N. 2000. The effect of the accelerated reader on the reading
comprehension of third graders. ERIC Document No. ED 442 097
Fader, D. 1976. The new hooked on books. New York: Berkeley Books.
Fadiman, C. 1947. Party of one: The selected writings of Clifton Fadiman.
Cleveland: World Publishing.
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates. 1999. California Statewide Poll,
Job # 620–157. Santa Monica, Calif.: California Opinion Research.
Farrell, E. 1982. SSR as the core of junior high school reading program.
The Reading Teacher 36:48–51.
Fasick, A. 1973. Television language and book language. Elementary
English 50:125–131.
Feitelson, D., B.Kita, and A.Goldstein, 1986. Effects of listening to series
stories on first graders’ comprehension and use of language.
Research in the Teaching of English 20:339–355.
Filback, R., and S.Krashen. 2002. The impact of reading the bible and
studying the bible on biblical knowledge. Knowledge Quest
31(2):50–51.
Finegan, E. 1999. Language: Its structure and use. 3d ed. New York:
Harcourt Brace.
Flurkey, A., and J.Xu, eds. 2003. On the revolution in reading: The selected
writings of Kenneth S.Goodman. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
Foertsch, M. 1992. Reading in and out of school. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education.
Frebody, P., and R.Anderson. 1983. Effects of text comprehension of
differing proportions and locations of difficult vocabulary. Journal
of Reading Behavior 15:19–39.
Gadberry, S. 1980. Effects of restricting first graders’ TV-viewing on
leisure time use, IQ change, and cognitive style. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology 1:45–57.
Gallup. 2002. Does reading still stack up? Gallup Poll News Service,
September 3. Available: 2002. http://www.gallup.com .
Ganguli, A. 1989. Integrating writing in developmental mathematics.
College Teaching 37:140–142.
Garan, E. 2002. Resisting reading mandates. Portsmouth, N.H.:
Heinemann.
Gaver, M. 1963. Effectiveness of centralized library service in elementary
schools. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Gilbert, L. 1934a. Effect of spelling on reading in the ninth grade. School
Review 42:197–204.
———. 1934b. Effect of reading on spelling in the secondary schools.
California Quarterly of Secondary Education 9:269–275.
———. 1935. Study of the effect of reading on spelling. Journal of
Educational Research 28:570–586.
Goertzel, M., V.Goertzel, and T.Goertzel, T. 1978. Three hundred eminent
personalities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodman, G. 1999. The Reading Renaissance/Accelerated Reader
program. Final County school-to-work evaluation report. ERIC
Document No. ED 427 299
Goodman, K. 1982. Language, literacy, and learning. London: Routledge
Kagan Paul.
Goodman, K., and Y.Goodman. 1982. Spelling ability of a self-taught
reader. In Language and literacy: The selected writings of Kenneth
S.Goodman, vol. 2., ed. F.Gollasch. London: Routledge, pp. 135–
142.
Gordon, I., and C.Clark. 1961. An experiment in individualized reading.
Childhood Education 38:112–113.
Gorman, M. 2002. Thirty graphic novels you can’t live without. School
Library Journal 48(8):42–44, 47.
Gradman, H., and E.Hanania. 1991. Language learning background factors
and ESL proficiency. Modern Language Journal 75:39–51.
Graves, M., G.Brunett, and W.Slater. 1982. The reading vocabularies of
primary grade children from varying geographic and social
backgrounds. In New Inquiries in Reading Research and Instruction,
ed. J.Niles and C. Harris. Rochester, NY: National Reading
Conference, pp. 99–104.
Gray, G. 1969. A survey of children’s attitudes toward individualized
reading. In Individualized reading: Readings, ed. S.Duker.
Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, pp. 330–332.
Greaney, V. 1970. A comparison of individualized and basal reader
approaches to reading instruction. Irish Journal of Education 1:19–
29.
———. 1980. Factors related to the amount and type of leisure time
reading. Reading Research Quarterly 15:337–357.
Greaney, V., and M.Clarke. 1973. A longitudinal study of the effects of two
reading methods on leisure-time reading habits. In Reading: What of
the future? ed. D.Moyle. London: United Kingdom Reading
Association, pp. 107–114.
Greaney, V., and M.Hegarty. 1987. Correlations of leisure time reading.
Journal of Research in Reading 10:3–20.
Greene, J. 1997. A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of
bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal 21 (2,
3):103–122.
Gupta, A., and S.P.Yeok. 1995. Language shift in a Singapore family.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16(4):301–
314.
Hafiz, F., and I.Tudor. 1990. Graded readers as an input medium in L2
learning. System 18(1):31–42.
Hafner, L., B.Palmer, and S.Tullos. 1986. The differential reading interests
of good and poor readers in the ninth grade. Reading Improvement
 23:39–42.
Haggan, M. 1991. Spelling errors in native Arabic-speaking English
majors: A comparison between remedial students and fourth year
students. System 19:45–61.
Hammill, D., S.Larsen, and G.McNutt. 1977. The effect of spelling
instruction: A preliminary study. Elementary School Journal 78:67–
72.
Hartl, B. 2003. Comic relief: Heroic efforts keep Parts Unknown afloat. The
Business Journal of the Greater Triad Area, March 31.
Haugaard, K. 1973. Comic books: A conduit to culture? Reading Teacher
27: 54–55.
Hayes, D., and M.Ahrens. 1988. Vocabulary simplification for children: A
special case of “motherese”? Journal of Child Language 15:395–
410.
Healy, A. 1963. Changing children’s attitudes toward reading. Elementary
English 40:255–257, 279.
Heisler, F. 1947. A comparison of comic book and non-comic book readers
of the elementary school. Journal of Educational Research 40:458–
464.
Herbert, S. 1987. SSR—What do students think? Journal of Reading
30(7):651.
Herda, R., and F.Ramos. 2001. How consistently do students read during
sustained silent reading? California School Library Journal
24(2):29–31.
Herman, P., R.Anderson, P.D.Pearson, and W.Nagy. 1987. Incidental
acquisition of word meanings from expositions with varied text
features. Reading Research Quarterly 22:263–284.
Hermann, F. 2003. Differential effects of reading and memorization of
paired associates on vocabulary acquisition in adult learners of
English as a second language. TESL-EJ 7(1): A-1. Available:
http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESOL-EJ .
Heyns, B. 1978. Summer learning and the effects of schooling. New York:
Academic Press.
Hillocks, G., Jr. 1986. Research on written composition: New directions for
teaching. ED 265552. Urbana, Ill.: ERIC.
Himmelweit, H., A.Oppenheim, and P.Vince. 1958. Television and the
child. New York: Oxford University Press.
Holt, S., and F.O’Tuel. 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.
Horst, M., T.Cobb, and P.Meara. 1998. Beyond Clockwork Orange:
Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in
a Foreign Language 11(2):207–223.
Houle, R., and C.Montmarquette. 1984. An empirical analysis of loans by
school libraries. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 30:104–
114.
Hoult, T. 1949. Comic books and juvenile delinquency. Sociology and
Social Research 33:279–284.
Hughes, J. 1966. The myth of the spelling list. National Elementary
Principal 46: 53–54.
Hunting, R. 1967. Recent studies of writing frequency. Research in the
Teaching of English 1:29–40.
Huser, M. 1967. Reading and more reading. Elementary English 44:378–
382, 385.
Inge, M.T. 1985. The American comic book. Columbus: Ohio State
University.
Ingham, J. 1981. Books and reading development: The Bradford book flood
experiment. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Ivey, G., and K.Broaddus. 2001. “Just plain reading”: A survey of what
makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading
Research Quarterly 36(4):350–377.
Jacoby, L., and A.Hollingshead. 1990. Reading student essays may be
hazardous to your spelling: Effects of reading incorrectly and
correctly spelled words. Canadian Journal of Psychology 44:345–
358.
Janopoulos, M. 1986. The relationship of pleasure reading and second
language writing proficiency. TESOL Quarterly 20:763–768.
Jenkins, M. 1957. Self-selection in reading. Reading Teacher 11:84–90.
Johnson, R. 1965. Individualized and basal primary reading programs.
Elementary English 42:902–904, 915.
Jönsson, A. 1986. TV: A threat or a complement to school? Journal of
Educational Television 12(1):29–38.
Kaplan, J., and E.Palhinda. 1981. Non-native speakers of English and their
composition abilities: A review and analysis. In Linguistics and
literacy, ed. W.Frawley. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 425–457.
Kim, H., and S.Krashen. 1998a. The author and magazine recognition tests
as predictors of literacy development in Korean. Perceptual and
Motor Skills 87:1376–1378.
———. 1998b. The author recognition and magazine recognition tests, and
free voluntary reading as predictors of vocabulary development in
English as a foreign language for Korean high school students.
System 26: 515–523.
Kim, J. 2003. Summer reading and the ethnic achievement gap. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, April 21.
Kim, J., and S.Krashen, S. 2000. Another home run. California English
6(2): 25
Kitao, K., M.Yamamoto, S.K.Kitao, and H.Shimatani. 1990. Independent
reading in English—use of graded readers in the library English as a
second language corner. Reading in a Foreign Language 6(2):383–
395.
Konopak. B. 1988. Effects of inconsiderate vs. considerate text on
secondary students’ vocabulary learning. Journal of Reading
Behavior 20:25–41.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
New York: Prentice Hall.
———. 1984. Writing: Research, theory and applications. Beverly Hills:
Laredo Publishing.
———. 1985a. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Beverly
Hills: Laredo.
———. 1985b. Inquiries and insights. Menlo Park: Calif.: Alemany Press.
———. 1988. Do we learn to reading by reading? The relationship between
free reading and reading ability. In Linguistics in context:
Connecting observation and understanding, ed. D.Tannen.
Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, pp. 269–298.
———. 1989. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional
evidence for the Input Hypothesis. Modern Language Journal
73:440–464.
———. 1994. The pleasure hypothesis. In Georgetown University Round
Table on Languages and Linguistics, ed. J.Alatis. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press, pp. 299–302.
———. 1995. School libraries, public libraries, and the NAEP reading
scores. School Library Media Quarterly 23:235–238.
———. 1996. Under attack: The case against bilingual education. San
Francisco: Alta Publishing.
———. 1998a. Why consider the library and books? In Literacy, access,
and libraries among the language minority population, ed.
R.Constantino. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow, pp. 1–16.
———. 1998b. Language shyness and heritage language development. In
Heritage language development, ed. S.Krashen, L.Tse, and
J.McQuillan. Culver City, Calif.: Language Education Associates.
———. 1999. Three arguments against whole language and why they are
wrong. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
———. More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel
report on fluency. Phi Delta Kappan 83:119–123.
———. 2002. The NRP comparison of whole language and phonics:
Ignoring the crucial variable in reading. Talking Points 13(3):22–28.
———. 2003a. Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei
lectures. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
———. 2003b. The unbearable coolness of phonemic awareness. Language
Magazine 2(8):13–18.
———. 2003c. Three roles for reading. In English learners: Reaching the
highest level of English literacy, ed. G.Garcia. International Reading
Association.
———. 2003d. The (lack of) experimental evidence supporting the use of
Accelerated Reader. Journal of Children’s Literature 29 (2):9, 16–
30.
Krashen, S., and H.White. 1991. Is spelling acquired or learned? A re-
analysis of Rice (1897) and Cornman (1902). ITL: Review of
Applied Linguistics 91–92:1–48.
Kyte, G. 1948. When spelling has been mastered in the elementary school.
Journal of Educational Research 42:47–53.
LaBrant, L. 1958. An evaluation of free reading. In Research in the three
R’s, ed. C.Hunnicutt and W.Iverson. New York: Harper, pp. 154–
161.
Lai, F.K. 1993. The effect of a summer reading course on reading and
writing skills. System 21(1):87–100.
Lamme, L. 1976. Are reading habits and abilities related? Reading Teacher
30: 21–27.
Lancaster, T. 1928. A study of the voluntary reading of pupils in grdes IV–
VIII. Elementary School Journal 28:525–537.
Lance, K., C.Hamilton-Pennell, M.Rodney, L.Petersen, and C.Sitter, C.
1999. Information empowered: The school librarian as an academic
achievement in Alaska schools. Juno: Alaska State Library.
Lance, K., M.Rodney, and C.Hamilton-Pennell. 2000a. How school
librarians help kids achieve standards: The second Colorado study.
San Jose: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.
———. 2000b. Measuring to standards: The impact of school library
programs and information literacy in Pennsylvania schools.
Greensburg, Pa.: Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries (604
Hunt Club Drive, Greensburg PA, 15601).
———. 2001. Good schools have school librarians: Oregon school
librarians collaborate to improve academic achievement. Salem:
Oregon Educational Media Association.
Lance, K., L.Welborn, and C.Hamilton-Pennell. 1993. The Impact of school
library media centers on academic achievement. Castle Rock, Colo.:
Hi Willow Research and Publishing.
Langer, J., and A.Applebee. 1987. How writing shapes thinking. Urbana,
Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.
Langford, J., and Allen, E. 1983. The effects of U.S.S.R. on students’
attitudes and achievements. Reading Horizons 23:194–200.
Lao, C.Y. 2003. Prospective teachers’ journey to becoming readers. New
Mexico Journal of Reading 32(2):14–20.
Lao, C.Y., and S.Krashen. 2000. The impact of popular literature study on
literacy development in EFL: More evidence for the power of
reading. System 28:261–270.
Laufer, B. 2003. Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners
really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical
evidence. The Canadian Modern Language Review 59(4):567–587.
Lawson, H. 1968. Effects of free reading on the reading achievement of
sixth grade pupils. In Forging ahead in reading, ed. J.A.Figurel.
Newark, Del: International Reading Association, pp. 501–504.
Lee, S.Y. 1998. Effects of introducing free reading and language acquisition
theory on students’ attitudes toward the English class. Studies in
English Language and Literature 4:21–28.
———. 2001. What makes it difficult to write. Taipei: Crane Publishing
Company.
Lee, S.Y., and S.Krashen. 1996. Free voluntary reading and writing
competence in Taiwanese high school students. Perceptual and
Motor Skills 83: 687–690.
———. 1997. Writing apprehension in Chinese as a first language. ITL:
Review of Applied Linguistics 115–116:27–37.
Lee, S.Y., S.Krashen, and L.Tse. 1997. The author recognition test and
vocabulary knowledge: A replication. Perceptual and Motor Skills
83:648–650.
Lee, Y.O., S.Krashen, and B.Gribbons. 1996 The effect of reading on the
acquisition of English relative clauses. ITL: Review of Applied
Linguistics 113–114:263–273.
LeMoine, N., B.Brandlin, B.O’Brian, and J.McQuillan. 1997. The (print)-
rich get richer: Library access in low- and high-achieving
elementary schools. The California Reader 30:23–25.
Leonhardt, M. 1998. How to sweeten your school’s climate for reading.
School Library Journal 44(11):28–31.
Leung, C, and J.Pikulski. 1990. Incidental learning of word meanings by
kindergarten and first-grade children through repeated read aloud
events. In Literacy theory and research: Analysis from multiple
paradigms, ed. J. Zutell and S.McCormick. Chicago: National
Reading Conference, pp. 281–301.
Liberman, M. 1979. The verbal language of television. Journal of Reading
26: 602–609.
Lituanas, P., G.Jacobs, and W.Renandya. 1999. A study of extensive
reading with remedial reading students. In Language instructional
 issues in Asian classrooms, ed. Y.M.Cheah and S.M.Ng. Newark,
N.J.: International Reading Association, pp. 89–104.
Lokke, V., and G.Wykoff. 1948. “Double writing” in freshman composition
—an experiment. School and Society 68:437–439.
Lomax, C. 1976. Interest in books and stories at nursery school.
Educational Research 19:110–112.
Lorge, I., and J.Chall. 1963. Estimating the size of vocabularies of children
and adults: An analysis of methodological issues. Journal of
Experimental Education 32:147–157.
Lowrey, L., and W.Grafft. 1965. Paperback books and reading attitudes.
Reading Teacher 21:618–623.
Lyness, P. 1952. The place of the mass media in the lives of boys and girls.
Journalism Quarterly 29:43–54.
Maccoby, E. 1951. Television: Its impact on school children. Public
Opinion Quarterly 15:421–444.
MacDonald, H. 2003. Manga sales just keep rising. Publishers Weekly,
March 17.
Manning, G., and M.Manning. 1984. What models of recreational reading
make a difference? Reading World 23:375–380.
Marshall, J. 1987. The effects of writing on students’ understanding of
literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English 21:30–63.
Martinez, M., N.Roser, J.Worthy, S.Strecker, and P.Gough. 1997.
Classroom libraries and children’s book selections: Redefining
“access” in self-selected reading. In Inquires in literacy: Theory and
practice. Forty-sixth yearbook of The National Reading Conference,
ed. C.Kinzer, K.Hinchman, and D.Leu. Chicago: National Reading
Conference, pp. 265–272.
Mason, B. 2003. Evidence for the sufficiency of extensive reading on the
development of grammatical accuracy. Doctoral dissertation,
Temple University, Osaka, Japan.
Mason, B., and S.Krashen. 1997. Extensive reading in English as a foreign
language. System 25:91–102.
Mason, G., and W.Blanton. 1971. Story content for beginning reading
instruction. Elementary English 48:793–796.
Massimini, F., M.Csikszentmihalyi, and A.Della Fave. 1992. Flow and
biocultural evolution. In Optimal experience: Psychological studies
of flow in consciousness, ed. M.Csikszentmihalyi and
I.Csikszentmihalyi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
60–81.
Mathabane, M. 1986. Kaffir boy. New York: Plume.
Mathis, D. 1996. The effect of the Accelerated Reader program on reading
comprehension. ERIC Document No. ED 398 555.
Maynes, F. 1981. Uninterrupted sustained silent reading. Reading Research
Quarterly 17:159–160.
McCracken, R., and M.McCracken. 1978. Modeling is the key to sustained
silent reading. Reading Teacher 31:406–408.
McDonald, M., J.Harris, and J.Mann. 1966. Individual versus group
instruction in first grade reading. Reading Teacher 19:643–646, 652.
McEvoy, G., and C.Vincent. 1980. Who reads and why? Journal of
Communication 30:134–140.
McKenna, M., D.Kear, and R.Ellsworth. 1991. Developmental trends in
children’s use of print media: A national study. InLearner
factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction,
ed. J.Zutell and S. McCormick. Chicago: National Reading
Conference, pp. 319–324.
McLoyd, V. 1979. The effects of extrinsic rewards of differential value on
high and low intrinsic interest. Child Development 10:1010–1019.
McQuillan, J. 1994. Reading versus grammar: What students think is
pleasurable for language acquisition. Applied Language Learning
5:95–100.
———. 1996. How should heritage languages be taught? The effects of a
free voluntary reading program. Foreign Language Annals
29(1):56–72.
———. 1997. The effects of incentives on reading. Reading Research and
Instruction 36:111–125.
———. 1998a. The literacy crisis: False claims and real solutions.
Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
———. 1998b. The use of self-selected and free voluntary reading in
heritage language programs: A review of research. In Heritage
language development, ed. S.Krashen, L.Tse, and J.McQuillan.
Culver City, Calif.: Language Education Associates, pp. 73–87.
McQuillan, J., and J.Au. 2001. The effect of print access on reading
frequency. Reading Psychology 22:225–248.
McQuillan, J., and V.Rodrigo. 1998. Literature-based programs for first
language development: Giving native bilinguals access to books. In
Literacy, Access, and Libraries Among the Language Minority
Population, ed. R. Constantino. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow, pp. 209–
224.
Medrich, E., A.Roizen, V.Rubin, and S.Buckley. 1982. The serious business
of growing up: A study of children s lives outside school. Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Mellon, C. 1987. Teenagers do read: What rural youth say about leisure
reading. School Library Journal 38(8):27–30.
Miller, F. 1986. The Dark Knight returns. New York: DC Comics.
Miller, G. 1977. Spontaneous apprentices: Children and language. New
York: Seabury.
Miller, M., and M.Shontz. 2001. New money, old books. School Library
Journal 47(10):5–60.
Minton, M. 1980. The effect of sustained silent reading upon
comprehension and attitudes among ninth graders. Journal of
Reading 23:498–502.
Monteith, M. 1980. How well does the average American read? Some facts,
figures and opinions. Journal of Reading 20:460–464.
Moore, A. 1986. Watchmen. New York: DC Comics.
Morrow, L. 1982. Relationships between literature programs, library corner
designs, and children’s use of literature. Journal of Educational
Research 75: 339–344.
———. Home and school correlates of early interest in literature. Journal
of Educational Research 75:339–344.
Morrow, L., and C.Weinstein. 1982. Increasing children’s use of literature
through program and physical changes. Elementary School Journal
83: 131–137.
Munoz, H. 2003. First Lady delivers $5,000 and a passion for reading.
Education Week, May 21.
Murray, J., and S.Kippax. 1978. Children’s social behavior in three towns
with differing television experience. Reading Teacher 28:19–29.
Nagy, W., R.Anderson, and P.Herman. 1987. Learning word meanings from
context during normal reading. American Educational Research
Journal 24: 237–270.
Nagy, W., and P.Herman. 1987. Breadth and depth of vocabulary
knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In The
nature of vocabulary acquisition, ed. M.McKeown and M.Curtiss.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Erbaum, pp. 19–35.
Nagy, W., P.Herman, and R.Anderson. 1985. Learning words from context.
Reading Research Quarterly 23:6–50.
National Council on Writing. 2003. The neglected “R”: The need for a
writing revolution. New York: College Entrance Examination
Board.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).
2000. Report of the National Reading Panel Teaching children to
read. [NIH Publication no. 00–4754]. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
NCES, 2000. A study of the differences between higher- and lower-
performing Indiana schools in reading and mathematics. Oak
Brook, Ill.: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Nell, V. 1988. Lost in a book. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Neuman, S. 1986. The home environment and fifth-grade students’ leisure
reading. Elementary School Journal 86:335–343.
———. 1988. The displacement effect: Assessing the relation between
television viewing and reading performance. Reading Research
Quarterly 23: 414–440.
———. 1995. Literacy in the television age: The myth of the TV effect. 2d
ed. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Neuman, S., and D.Celano. 2001. Access to print in low-income and
middle-income communities. Reading Research Quarterly 36(1):8–
26.
Newell, G. 1984. Learning while writing in two content areas: A case
study/protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English
18:265–287.
Newell, G., and P.Winograd. 1989. The effects of writing on learning from
expository text. Written Communication 6:196–217.
Nisbet, S. 1941. The scientific investigation of spelling instruction: Two
preliminary investigations. British Journal of Educational
Psychology 11:150.
Norton, B. 2003. The motivating power of comic books: Insights from
Archie comic book readers. The Reading Teacher 57(2):140–147.
O’Brian, I. 1931. A comparison of the use of intensive training and wide
reading in the improvement of reading. Educational Method
10:346–349.
Oliver, M. 1973. The effect of high intensity practice on reading
comprehension. Reading Improvement 10:16–18.
———. 1976. The effect of high intensity practice on reading achievement.
Reading Improvement 13:226–228.
Oller, D.K, and R.Eilers. 2002. Language and literacy in bilingual children.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Ormrod, J. 1986. Learning to spell while reading: A follow-up study.
Perceptual and Motor Skills 63:652–654.
Pack, S. 2000. Public library use, school performance, and the parental X-
factor: A bio-documentary approach to children’s snapshots.
Reading Improvement 37:161–172.
Parrish, B. 1983. Put a little romance into your reading program. Journal of
Reading 26:610–615.
Parrish, B., and K.Atwood. 1985. Enticing readers: The teen romance craze.
California Reader 18:22–27.
Pavonetti, L., K.Brimmer, and J.Cipielewski, J. 2003. Accelerated reader:
What are the lasting effects on the reading habits of middle school
students exposed to Accelerated Reader in elementary grades?
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 46(4):300–311.
Petre, B. 1971. Reading breaks make it in Maryland. The Reading Teacher
15: 191–194.
Pfau, D. 1967. Effects of planned recreational reading programs. Reading
Teacher 21:34–39.
Pilgreen, J. 2000. The SSR handbook: How to organize and maintain a
sustained silent reading program. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
Pilgreen, J., and S.Krashen. 1993. Sustained silent reading with high school
ESL students: Impact on reading comprehension, reading frequency,
and reading enjoyment. School Library Media Quarterly 22:21–23.
Pitts, M., H.White, and S.Krashen. 1989. Acquiring second language
vocabulary through reading: A replication of the Clockwork Orange
study using second language acquirers. Reading in a Foreign
Language 5:271–275.
Pitts, S. 1986. Read aloud to adult learners? Of course! Reading Psychology
7: 35–42.
Polak, J., and S.Krashen. 1988. Do we need to teach spelling? The
relationship between spelling and voluntary reading among
community college ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 22:141–146.
Postman, N. 1983. The disappearing child. Educational Leadership 40:10–
17.
Postlethwaite, T., and K.N.Ross. 1992. Effective schools in reading:
Implications for educational planners. An exploratory study. The
Hague: The International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement.
Potter, W. 1987. Does television viewing hinder academic achievement
among adolescents? Human Communications Research 14:27–46.
Pucci, S. 1994. Supporting Spanish language literacy: Latino children and
free reading resources in the schools. Bilingual Research Journal
18:67–82.
Pucci, S., and S.Ulanoff. 1996. Where are the books? The CATESOL
Journal 9(2):111–116.
Pulido, D. 2003. Modeling the role of second language proficiency and
topic familiarity in second language incidental vocabulary
acquisition through reading. Language Learning 53(2):233–284.
Ramirez, D., S.Yuen, D.Ramey, and D.Pasta. 1991. Final report:
Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-
exit and late-exit bilingual education programs for language
minority students, Vol. I. San Mateo, Calif.: Aguirre International.
Ramos, F., and S.Krashen. 1998. The impact of one trip to the public
library: Making books available may be the best incentive for
reading. The Reading Teacher 51(7):614–615.
Ravitch, D., and C.Finn. 1987. What do our 17-year-olds know? New York:
Harper & Row.
Reed, C. 1985. Reading adolescents: The young adult book and the school.
New York: Holt Rinehart Winston.
Rehder, L. 1980. Reading skills in a paperback classroom. Reading
Horizons 21: 16–21.
Renaissance Reader, Report 36: Maine middle school achieves academic
success with Renaissance comprehensive schoolwide program.
Available: www.renlearn.com.
Renandya, W., B.R.S.Rajan, and G.Jacobs. 1999. ER with adult learns of
English as a second language. RELC Journal 30(1):39–61.
Reutzel, R., and P.Hollingsworth. 1991. Reading comprehension skills:
Testing the distinctiveness hypothesis. Reading Research and
Instruction 30: 32–46.
Rice, E. 1986. The everyday activities of adults: Implications for prose
recall—Part I. Educational Gerontology 12:173–186.
Rice, J. 1897. The futility of the spelling grind. Forum 23:163–172, 409–
419.
Rice, M., and P.Haight. 1986. “Motherese” of Mr. Rogers: A description of
the dialogue of educational television programs. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Disorders 51:282–287.
Richard, A. 2003. GAO says costs for state tests all in how questions asked.
Education Week, May 21.
Richards, A. 1920. Spelling and the individual system. School and Society
10: 647–650.
Roberts, D., C.Bachen, M.Hornby, and P.Hernandez-Ramos. 1984. Reading
and television: Predictors of reading achievement at different age
levels. Communication Research 11(1):9–49.
Robinson, J. 1972. Television’s impact on everyday life: Some cross-
national evidence. In Television and social behavior, vol. 4, ed.
E.Rubinstein, G. Comstock, and J.Murray. Rockwell, Md.: National
Institute of Mental Health, pp. 410–431.
———. 1980. The changing reading habits of the American public. Journal
of Communication 30:141–152.
Robinson, J., and G.Godbey. 1997. Time for life: The surprising way
Americans use their time. University Park: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Rodney, M., K.Lance, and C.Hamilton-Pennell, 2002. Make the connection:
Quality school library media programs impact academic
achievement in Iowa. Bettendorf, Iowa: Mississippi Bend Area
Educational Agency.
Rodrigo, V. 1997. Son concientes los estudiantes de Espagnol intermedio de
los beneficios que les brinda la lectura? Hispania 80:255–264.
Rodrigo, V., J.McQuillan, and S.Krashen. 1996. Free voluntary reading and
vocabulary knowledge in native speakers of Spanish. Perceptual
and Motor Skills 83:648–650.
Rosenthal, N. 1995. Speaking of reading. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
Ross, P. 1978. Getting books into those empty hands. Reading Teacher 31:
397–399.
Rucker, B. 1982. Magazines and teenage reading skills: Two controlled
field experiments. Journalism Quarterly 59:28–33.
Sadowski, M. 1980. An attitude survey for sustained silent reading
programs. Journal of Reading 23:721–726.
Salyer, M. 1987. A comparison of the learning characteristics of good and
poor ESL writers. Applied Linguistics Interest Section Newsletter,
TESOL 8: 2–3.
San Diego County. 1965. A plan for research. In Individualized reading:
Readings, ed. S.Duker. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, pp. 359–363.
Saragi, Y., P.Nation, and G.Meister. 1978. Vocabulary learning and reading.
System 6:70–78.
Sartain, H. 1960. The Roseville experiment with individualized reading.
Reading Teacher 12:277–281.
Sato, I. 1992. Bosozuku: Flow in Japanese motorcycle gangs. In Optimal
experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness, ed.
 M.Csikszentmihalyi and I.Csikszentmihalyi. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 92–117.
Schafer, C, and A.Anastasi. 1968. A biographical inventory for identifying
creativity in adolescent boys. Journal of Applied Psychology 58:42–
48.
Schatz, E., and R.Baldwin. 1986. Context clues are unreliable predictors of
word meanings. Reading Research Quarterly 20:439–453.
Schon, I., K.Hopkins, and C.Vojir. 1984. The effects of Spanish reading
emphasis on the English and Spanish reading abilities of Hispanic
high school students. Bilingual Review 11:33–39.
———. 1985. The effects of special reading time in Spanish on the reading
abilities and attitudes of Hispanic junior high school students.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 14:57–65.
Schoolboys of Barbiana. 1970. Letter to a teacher. New York: Vintage
Books.
Schoonover, R. 1938. The case for voluminous reading. English Journal 27:
114–118
Schramm, W., J.Lyle, and E.Parker. 1961. Television in the lives of our
children. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Seashore, R., and L.Eckerson. 1940. The measurement of individual
differences in general English vocabularies. Journal of Educational
Psychology 31:14–31.
Segal, J. 1997. Summer daze. Class paper, Trenton State University,
Summer.
Senechal, M., J.LeFebre, E.Hudson, and E.Lawson. 1996. Knowledge of
storybooks as a predictor of young children’s vocabulary. Journal of
Educational Psychology 88(1):520–536.
Shanahan, T. 2000. Reading Panel: A member responds to a critic.
Education Week, May 31, 39.
Shin, F. 1998. Implementing free voluntary reading with ESL middle school
students—improvement in attitudes toward reading and test scores.
 In Literacy, access, and libraries among the language minority
population, ed. R. Constantino. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow, pp. 225–
234.
———. 2001. Motivating students with Goosebumps and other popular
books. CSLA Journal (California School Library Association)
25(1):15–19.
———. 2003. Should we just tell them to read? The role of direct
encouragement in promoting recreational reading. Knowledge Quest
32(3):49–50.
Shooter, J. 1986. Marvel and me. In The comic book price guide, ed.
R.Overstreet. New York: Harmony Books, pp. A85–96.
Simonton, D. 1984. Genius, creativity, and leadership. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
———. 1988. Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Slover, V. 1959. Comic books vs. storybooks. Elementary English 36:319–
322.
SmartGirl Internette, Inc. 1999. Teen Read Week Report, November.
Smith, C., R.Constantino, and S.Krashen. 1996. Differences in print
environment for children in Beverly Hills, Compton and Watts.
Emergency Librarian 24(4):130, 160
Smith, E. 2001. Texas school libraries: Standards, resources, services and
students’ performance. Austin: Texas State Libraries and Archives
Commission.
Smith, F. 1988. Joining the literacy club. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
———. 1994a. Writing and the writer. 2d ed. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
———. 1994b. Understanding reading. 5th ed. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Smith, M. 1941. Measurement of the size of general English vocabulary
through the elementary grades and high school. Genetic Psychology
Monographs 24:311–345.
Smith, R., and G.Supanich. 1984. The vocabulary scores of company
presidents. Chicago: Johnson O’Conner Research Foundation
Technical Report 1984–1.
Snow, C., W.Barnes, J.Chandler, I.Goodman, and H.Hemphill. 1991.
Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Sommers, N. 1980. Revision strategies of student writers and experienced
adult writers. College Composition and Communication 31:378–
388.
Southgate, V., H.Arnold, and S.Johnson. 1981. Extending beginning
reading. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Sperzl, E. 1948. The effect of comic books on vocabulary growth and
reading comprehension. Elementary English 25:109–113.
Stahl, S., M.Richek., and R.Vandevier. 1991. Learning meaning vocabulary
through listening: A sixth-grade replication. In Learner
factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction,
ed. J.Zutell and S. McCormick. Chicago: National Reading
Conference, pp. 185–192.
Stanovich, K., and A.Cunningham. 1992. Studying the consequences of
literacy within a literate society: the cognitive correlates of print
exposure. Memory and Cognition 20(1):51–68.
———. 1993. Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations
between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of
Educational Psychology 85(2):211–229.
Stanovich, K., and R.West. 1989. Exposure to print and orthographic
processing. Reading Research Quarterly 24:402–433.
Stanovich, K., R.West, and M.Harrison. 1995. Knowledge growth and
maintenance across the life span: The role of print exposure.
Developmental Psychology 31(5):811–826.
Stedman, L., and C.Kaestle. 1987. Literacy and reading performance in the
United States, from 1880 to the present. Reading Research
 Quarterly 22: 59–78.
Stokes, J., S.Krashen, and J.Kartchner. 1998. Factors in the acquisition of
the present subjunctive in Spanish: The role of reading and study.
ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 121–122:19–25.
Summers, E., and J.V.McClelland. 1982. A field-based evaluation of
sustained silent reading (SSR) in intermediate grades. Alberta
Journal of Educational Research 28:110–112.
Sutton, R. 1985. Librarians and the paperback romance. School Library
Journal 32:253–258.
Swain, E. 1948. Using comic books to teach reading and language arts.
Journal of Reading 22:253–258.
Swanborn, M., and K.de Glopper. 1999. Incidental word learning while
reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research
69(3):261–285.
Swanton, S. 1984. Minds alive: What and why gifted students read for
pleasure. School Library Journal 30:99–102.
Thompson, M. 1956. Why not try self-selection? Elementary English 33:
486–490.
Thompson, R. 1930. The effectiveness of modern spelling instruction. New
York: Columbia University Teacher’s College. Contributions to
Education, No. 436.
Thorndike, R. 1941. Words and the comics. Journal of Experimental
Education 10:110–113.
———. 1973. Reading comprehension education in fifteen countries. New
York: Halsted Press.
Trelease, J. 2001. The read-aloud handbook. 5th ed. New York: Penguin.
Tsang, W-K., 1996. Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing
performance. Applied Linguistics 17(2):210–233.
Tse, L. 1996. When an ESL adult becomes a reader. Reading Horizons
31(1): 16–29.
———. 1998. Ethnic identity formation and its implications for heritage
language development. In Heritage language development, ed.
S.Krashen, L. Tse, and J.McQuillan. Culver City, Calif.: Language
Education Associates, pp. 15–29.
———. 2001. Resisting and reversing language shift: Heritage-language
resilience among U.S. native biliterates. Harvard Educational
Review 71(4): 676–706.
Tudor, I., and F.Hafiz. 1989. Extensive reading as a means of input to L2
learning. Journal of Research in Reading 12(2):164–178.
Twadell, F. 1973. Vocabulary expansion in the TESOL classroom. TESOL
Quarterly 7:61–78.
Ujiie, J., and S.Krashen.. 1996a. Comic book reading, reading enjoyment,
and pleasure reading among middle class and chapter I middle
school students. Reading Improvement 33(1):51–54.
———. 1996b. Is comic book reading harmful? Comic book reading,
school achievement, and pleasure reading among seventh graders.
California School Library Association Journal 19(2):27–28.
———. 2002. Home run books and reading enjoyment. Knowledge Quest
3(1): 36–37.
Van Zelst, R., and W.Kerr. 1951. Some correlates of technical and scientific
productivity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 46:470–475.
Varble, M. 1990. Analysis of writing samples of students taught by teachers
using whole language and traditional approaches. Journal of
Educational Research 83:245–251.
Vollands, S., K.Topping, and R.Evans. 1996. Experimental evaluation of
computer assisted self-assessment of reading comprehension:
Effects on reading achievement and attitude. ERIC Document ED
408 567.
———. 1999. Computerized self-assessment of reading comprehension
with the accelerated reader: Action research. Reading and Writing
Quarterly 15: 197–211.
Von Sprecken, D., and S.Krashen. 1998. Do students read during sustained
silent reading? California Reader 32(1):11–13.
———. 2002. Is there a decline in the reading romance? Knowledge Quest
30(3): 11–17.
Von Sprecken, D., J.Kim, and S.Krashen. 2000. The home run book: Can
one positive reading experience create a reader? California School
Library Journal 23(2):8–9.
Walker, G., and I.Kuerbitz. 1979. Reading to preschoolers as an aid to
successful beginning reading. Reading Improvement 16:149–154.
Wallas, G. 1926. The art of thought. London: C.A. Watts. (Abridged
version, 1945). Excerpts reprinted in Creativity, ed. P.E.Vernon
(1970). Middlesex, England: Penguin, pp. 91–97.
Waring, R., and M.Takakei. 2003. At what rate do learners learn and retain
new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign
Language 15(2):130–163.
Wayne, R. 1954. Survey of interest in comic books. School Activities
25:244.
Weiner, S. 2003. Mutants for the masses: Graphic novel roundup. School
Library Journal 49 (5):32–33.
Wells, G. 1985. Language development in the pre-school years. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wendelin, K., and R.Zinck. 1983. How students make book choices.
Reading Horizons 23:84–88.
Wertham, F. 1954. Seduction of the innocent. New York: Rinehart.
Wesche, M. and T.S.Paribakht 1996. Assessing second language vocabulary
knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language
Review 53(1):13–40.
West, R., and K.Stanovich. 1991. The incidental acquisition of information
from reading. Psychological Science 2:325–330.
West, R., K.Stanovich, and H.Mitchell. 1993. Reading in the real world and
its correlates. Reading Research Quarterly 28:35–50.
Wheldall, K., and J.Entwhistle. 1988. Back in the USSR: The effect of
teacher modeling of silent reading on pupils’ reading behaviour in
the primary school classroom. Educational Psychology 8:51–56.
White, T., M.Graves, and W.Slater. 1990. Growth of reading vocabulary in
diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning. Journal
of Educational Psychology 82:281–290.
Wilde, S. 1990. A proposal for a new spelling curriculum. Elementary
School Journal 90:275–290.
Williams, P., and M.Boyes. 1986. Television-viewing patterns and use of
other media. In The impact of television, ed. T.M.Williams. New
York: Academic Press, pp. 215–263.
Williams, P., E.Haertel, G.Haertel, and H.Walberg. 1982. The impact of
leisure-time television on school learning: A research synthesis.
American Educational Research Journal 19:19–50.
Willig, A. 1985. A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of
bilingual education. Review of Educational Research 55(3):269–
317.
Willingham, D. 2002. Allocating student study time: “Massed” versus
“distributed” practice. American Educator (Summer). Available:
http://www.aft.org/american_educator/summer2002/askcognitivesci
entist.html.
Witty, P. 1941. Reading the comics: A comparative study. Journal of
Experimental Education 10:105–109.
Witty, P., and R.Sizemore. 1954. Reading the comics: A summary of studies
and an evaluation, I. Elementary English 31:501–506.
———. 1955. Reading the comics: A summary of studies and an
evaluation, III. Elementary English 32:109–114.
Wolf, A., and L.Mikulecky. 1978. Effects of uninterrupted sustained silent
reading and of reading skills instruction on changes in secondary
 school students’ reading attitudes and achievement. In 27th
Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Clemson, S.C.:
National Reading Conference, pp. 226–228.
Worthy, J. 1998. “On every page someone gets killed!” Book conversations
you don’t hear in school. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy
41(7): 508–517.
———. 2000. Teachers’ and students’ suggestions for motivating middle-
school children to read. In 49th yearbook of the National Reading
Conference, ed. T.Shanahan, and F.Rodriguez-Brown. Chicago:
National Reading Conference, pp. 441–451.
Worthy, J., and S.McKool. 1996. Students who say they hate to read: The
importance of opportunity, choice, and access. In Literacies for the
21st century: Research and practice, ed. D.Leu, C.Kinzer, and
K.Hinchman. Chicago: National Reading Conference, pp. 245–256.
Worthy, J., M.Moorman, and M.Turner. 1999. What Johnny likes to read is
hard to find in school. Reading Research Quarterly 34(10):12–27.
Wright, G. 1979. The comic book: A forgotten medium in the classroom.
Reading Teacher 33:158–161.
Wright, R. 1966. Black boy. New York: Harper & Row.
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.
Zuckerman, D., D.Singer, and J.Singer. 1980. Television viewing, children’s
reading, and related classroom behavior. Journal of Communication
32: 166–174.
Researcher Index
Ahrens, M., 103 , 143 , 167
Alatis, J., 170
Alderson, J.C., 164
Alexander, F., 132 , 157
Allen, E., 172
Allen, L., 12 , 157
Allington, Richard, 39 , 72 , 73 , 75 , 157
Anastasi, A., 36 , 181
Anderson, D., 159
Anderson, R., 8 , 13 , 14 , 19 , 46 , 51 , 97 , 102 , 124 , 157 , 165 , 168 , 176
Applebee, A., 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 138 , 139 , 157 , 172
Appleby, B., 90 , 157
Aranha, M., 40 , 157
Aranow, M., 41 , 158
Arlin, M., 101 , 124 , 158
Arnold, H., 115 , 116 , 183
Arnold, L., 135 , 158
Asimov, L, 28 , 158
Atwood, K., 46 , 111 , 178
Au, J., 59 , 175

Bachen, C., 71 , 180

Bader, L., 41 , 158
Bailey, A., 30 , 158
Bailyn, L., 102 , 124 , 158
Baker, K., 72 , 73 , 75 , 157
Baldwin, R., 50 , 181
Barham, I., 28 , 41 , 164
Barnes, W., 25 , 26 , 62 , 134 , 183
Baughman, J., 158
Beck, I., 15 , 158
Beentjes, J., 142 , 144 , 145 , 158
Biber, D., 137 , 158
Bintz, W., 52 , 54 , 118 , 119 , 158
Blackmore, A., 163
Blakely, W., 93 , 102 , 158
Blanton, W., 79 , 174
Blok, H., 78 , 158
Blosser, B., 145 , 158
Bohnhorst, B., 41 , 159
Boice, Robert, 139 , 152 , 153 , 159
Book Industry Study Group (cited in Neuman 1995), 142
Boyes, M., 65 , 96 , 153 , 187
Brandenburg, G., 26 , 159
Brandlin, B., 72 , 173
Brassell, D., 78 , 159
Brazerman, C., 55 , 159
Brimmer, K., 121 , 178
Broaddus, K., 30 , 83 , 118 , 169
Brocka, B., 94 , 159
Brown, E., 78 , 164
Brown, J., 141 , 159
Brunett, G., 55 , 166
Bryant, J., 159
Buckley, S., 140 , 175
Burger, S., 135 , 159
Burley, J., 40 , 42 , 43 , 159
Burt, M., 130 , 163
Burton, S., 141 , 159
Bus, A., 78 , 159
Busch, J., 142 , 159
Bustead, A., 48 , 160

Calonico, J., 141 , 159

Camiciottoli, B.C., 147 , 160
Campbell (cited in Trelease 2001), 107
Campbell, C., 91 , 142 , 160
Campbell, D., 160
Carlsen, G.R., 88 , 140 , 160
Carroll, E., 108 , 163
Carson, Ben, 87 , 89 , 160
Carter, C., 91 , 160
Celano, D., 68 , 70 , 72 , 103 , 177
Chall, J., 19 , 173
Chandler, J., 25 , 26 , 62 , 134 , 183
Cheah, Y.M., 173
Cho, G., 149 , 160
Cho, Kyung-Sook, 10 , 82 , 113 , 147 , 160 , 161
Cho, Sharon (cited in Rosenthal 1995), 97
Chomsky, N., 130 , 160
Cipielewski, J., 12 , 121 , 157 , 161 , 178
Clark, C., 40 , 166
Clarke, M., 81 , 85 , 167
Cleary, F., 58 , 153 , 161
Cline, R., 41 , 42 , 161
Cline, Z., 109 , 161
Cobb, T., 15 , 46 , 47 , 168
Cocks, J., 95 , 161
Coffin, T., 141 , 161
Cohen, K., 86 , 161
Cohen, Y., 23 , 161
Coles, G., 161
Collins, C., 3 , 40 , 161
Comstock, G., 140 , 144 , 161 , 180
Conner, J., 90 , 157
Constantino, R., 10 , 68 , 71 , 72 , 75 , 161 , 170 , 175 , 182
Cook, W., 26 , 53 , 161
Cornman, O., 24 , 53 , 161
Corteen, R., 146 , 162
Cramond, J., 141 , 159
Csikszentmihalyi, I., 174 , 181
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 29 , 36 , 162 , 164 , 174 , 181
Cummins, J., 74 , 147 , 162
Cunningham, A., 12 , 35 , 162 , 183
Curtiss, H., 25 , 162
Curtiss, M., 176
Cyrog, F., 41 , 162

Daly, J., 36 , 162

Davis, F., 33 , 41 , 162
Davis, Z., 41 , 162
Day, R., 15 , 162
de Glopper, K., 48 , 184
Degrotsky, D., 145 , 162
Della Fave, A., 29 , 174
Denton, K., 78 , 162
Di Loreto, C., 70 , 163
Dirda, Michael, 74 , 123 , 163
Doig, D., 163
Dolch, E., 25 , 162
Dorrell, L., 108 , 163
Douglas, M., 162
Dressell, P., 135 , 163
Duggins, J., 91 , 163
Duin, J., 163
Duke, N., 71 , 163
Duker, S., 158 , 166 , 181
Dulay, H., 130 , 163
Dupuy, B., 15 , 31 , 163

Eckerson, L., 19 , 182

Eilers, R., 148 , 177
Elbow, P., 137 , 163
Eldridge, J., 41 , 158
Eller, R., 78 , 164
Elley, W., 3 , 4 , 5 , 28 , 41 , 45 , 65 , 67 , 75 , 78 , 90 , 132 , 164
Ellsworth, R., 96 , 175
El-Shabbaz, El-Hajj Malik, 21 , 164
Emery, C., 36 , 164
Entwhistle, J., 84 , 186
Evans, H., 40 , 164
Evans, P., 134 , 164
Evans, R., 125 , 126 , 185

Facemire, N., 127 , 164

Fader, D., 4 , 41 , 91 , 132 , 163 , 164
Fadiman, C., 82 , 165
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates, 165
Farrell, E., 33 , 165
Fasick, A., 143 , 165
Feitelson, D., 79 , 165
Fielding, L., 8 , 46 , 97 , 102 , 157
Figurel, J.A., 172
Filback, R., 35 , 165
Finegan, E., 19 , 52 , 165
Finn, C., 35 , 179
Finnocchiaro, M., 163
Flurkey, A., 37 , 130 , 165
Foertsch, M., 62 , 132 , 135 , 144 , 157 , 165
Frawley, W., 169
Frebody, P., 124 , 165

Gadberry, S., 141 , 165

Gallup, 154 , 165
Ganguli, A., 139 , 165
Garan, E., 165
Garcia, G., 171
Gaver, M., 59 , 65 , 165
Gilbert, L., 51 , 166
Glasser, Deborah, 100
Gleadow, N., 134 , 164
Godbey, G., 32 , 141 , 154 , 180
Goertzel, M., 54 , 166
Goertzel, T., 54 , 166
Goertzel, V., 54 , 166
Goldstein, A., 79 , 165
Gollasch, F., 166
Goodman, G., 120 , 166
Goodman, I., 25 , 26 , 62 , 134 , 183
Goodman, Kenneth, 25 , 37 , 130 , 147 , 152 , 166
Goodman, Y., 25 , 166
Gordon, I., 40 , 166
Gorman, M., 95 , 166
Gough, P., 78 , 174
Gradman, H., 10 , 11 , 166
Grafft, W., 90 , 173
Graves, M., 55 , 166 , 187
Gray, G., 30 , 166
Greaney, V., 3 , 30 , 57 , 63 , 81 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 102 , 116 , 166 , 167
Greene, J., 148 , 167
Gribbons, B., 10 , 173
Griswald, D., 91 , 142 , 160
Guice, S., 72 , 73 , 75 , 157
Guofang (cited in Norton 2003), 124
Gupta, A., 148 , 167

Haertel, E., 144 , 187

Haertel, G., 144 , 187
Hafiz, F., 3 , 43 , 167 , 185
Hafner, L., 114 , 115 , 167
Haggan, M., 25 , 167
Haight, P., 144 , 180
Hamilton-Pennell, C., 66 , 171 , 172 , 180
Hammill, D., 27 , 54 , 167
Hanania, E., 10 , 11 , 166
Harris, C., 166
Harris, J., 41 , 174
Harrison, M., 35 , 183
Hartl, B., 95 , 167
Haugaard, K., 104 , 105 , 106 , 112 , 167
Hayes (cited in Trelease 2001), 107
Hayes, D., 103 , 143 , 167
Healy, A., 41 , 167
Hegarty, M., 57 , 63 , 86 , 87 , 167
Heisler, F., 102 , 167
Hemphill, H., 25 , 26 , 62 , 134 , 183
Herbert, S., 34 , 167
Herda, R., 86 , 167
Herman, P., 13 , 14 , 19 , 51 , 168 , 176
Hermann, F., 15 , 168
Hernandez-Ramos, P., 71 , 180
Heyns, B., 60 , 168
Hillocks, G., Jr., 27 , 135 , 168
Himmelweit, H., 141 , 142 , 168
Hinchman, K., 174 , 188
Hiramatsu, M., 15 , 162
Hollingshead, A., 16 , 169
Hollingsworth, P., 40 , 179
Holt, S., 40 , 43 , 168
Hopkins, K., 40 , 41 , 181
Hornby, M., 71 , 180
Horst, M., 15 , 46 , 47 , 168
Houle, R., 59 , 168
Hoult, T., 94 , 168
Hudson, E., 79 , 182
Hughes, J., 25 , 168
Hunnicutt, C., 171
Hunting, R., 135 , 168
Huser, M., 40 , 168

Inge, M.Thomas, 93 , 107 , 168

Ingham, J., 168
Iverson, W., 171
Ivey, G., 30 , 83 , 118 , 169

Jacobs, G., 41 , 44 , 173 , 179

Jacoby, L., 16 , 169
Janopoulos, M., 10 , 132 , 169
Jenkins, L., 132 , 135 , 157
Jenkins, M., 41 , 169
Johnson, R., 32 , 41 , 169
Johnson, S., 115 , 116 , 183
Jönsson, A., 145 , 169

Kaestle, C., 184

Kaplan, J., 10 , 132 , 169
Kartchner, J., 9 , 184
Kear, D., 96 , 175
Kerr, W., 54 , 185
Kim, H., 83 , 169
Kim, J., 9 , 12 , 57 , 60 , 83 , 169 , 186
Kincaid, G., 135 , 163
Kinzer, C., 174 , 188
Kippax, S., 153 , 176
Kita, B., 79 , 165
Kitao, K., 127 , 169
Kitao, S.K., 127 , 169
Konopak, B., 51 , 169
Krashen, Daniel, 123
Krashen, Stephen D., 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 27 , 28 , 33 ,
34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 45 , 46 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 60 , 62 , 66 , 68 , 71
, 72 , 74 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 102 , 113 , 119 , 120 , 123 , 125 ,
 126 , 130 , 132 , 135 , 139 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 152 , 160 , 161 , 163 ,
165 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 182 ,
184 , 185 , 186
Kretke, G., 41 , 42 , 161
Kuerbitz, I., 79 , 186
Kyte, G., 24 , 171

LaBrant, L., 116 , 171

Lai, F.K., 171
Lamb, H., 28 , 41 , 164
Lamme, L., 86 , 171
Lancaster, T., 171
Lance, K., 66 , 71 , 72 , 171 , 172 , 180
Langer, J., 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 138 , 139 , 157 , 172
Langford, J., 172
Lao, C.Y., 51 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 77 , 84 , 172
Larsen, S., 27 , 54 , 167
Laufer, B., 49 , 50 , 172
Lawson, E., 79 , 182
Lawson, H., 41 , 172
Lee, S.Y., 9 , 10 , 12 , 36 , 89 , 132 , 135 , 161 , 172
Lee, Y.O., 10 , 173
LeFebre, J., 79 , 182
LeMoine, N., 72 , 173
Leonhardt, M., 173
Leu, D., 174 , 188
Leung, C., 78 , 173
Lewin (cited in Witty and Sizemore 1955), 94
Li, S., 72 , 73 , 75 , 157
Liberman, M., 143 , 173
Lituanas, P., 41 , 173
Lokke, V., 135 , 173
Lomax, C., 77 , 173
Lorge, I., 19 , 173
Lowrey, L., 90 , 173
Lucas, J., 33 , 41 , 162
Lyle, J., 141 , 153 , 181
Lyness, P., 93 , 173

Maccoby, E., 141 , 173

MacDonald, H., 96 , 174
Mangubhai, F., 4 , 41 , 65 , 90 , 132 , 164
Mann, J., 41 , 174
Manning, G., 41 , 42 , 89 , 174
Manning, M., 41 , 42 , 89 , 174
Marshall, J., 139 , 174
Martinez, M., 78 , 174
Mason, Beniko, 6 , 7 , 40 , 41 , 135 , 136 , 174
Mason, G., 79 , 174
Massimini, F., 29 , 174
Mathabane, Mark, 106 , 174
Mathis, D., 174
Maynes, F., 174
McCaslin, E., 15 , 158
McClelland, J.V., 40 , 184
McCormick, S., 173 , 175 , 183
McCracken, M., 85 , 174
McCracken, R., 85 , 174
McDonald, M., 41 , 174
McEvoy, G., 141 , 175
McKenna, M., 96 , 175
McKeown, M., 15 , 158 , 176
McKool, S., 61 , 188
McLoyd, V., 117 , 121 , 175
McNeil (cited in Fader 1976), 4 , 132
McNutt, G., 27 , 54 , 167
McQuillan, Jeff, 12 , 31 , 52 , 57 , 59 , 66 , 67 , 70 , 72 , 119 , 125 , 149 ,
170 , 173 , 175 , 180 , 185
McSeveney, D., 141 , 159
Meara, P., 15 , 46 , 47 , 168
Medrich, E., 140 , 175
Meister, G., 14 , 181
Mellon, C., 175
Michaelson, N., 72 , 73 , 75 , 157
Mikulecky, L., 40 , 187
Miller, F., 95 , 175
Miller, G., 19 , 176
Miller, M., 75 , 176
Minton, M., 34 , 176
Mitchell, H., 12 , 35 , 186
Monteith, M., 99 , 176
Montmarquette, C., 59 , 168
Moore, A., 95 , 176
Moorman, M., 73 , 96 , 188
Morrow, L., 57 , 58 , 63 , 77 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 90 , 176
Moyle, D., 167
Mullis, I., 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 157
Muñoz, H., 76 , 176
Murray, J., 153 , 176 , 180

Nagy, W., 13 , 14 , 19 , 51 , 168 , 176

Nation, P., 14 , 181
National Council on Writing, 134 , 176
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), 42 ,
45 , 177
NCES, 177
Necochea, Juan, 109 , 161
Nell, V., 29 , 31 , 32 , 177
Neuman, S., 57 , 68 , 70 , 72 , 77 , 85 , 86 , 103 , 141 , 142 , 144 , 145 , 146
, 177
Newell, G., 139 , 177
Ng, S.M., 173
Niles, J., 166
Nisbet, S., 16 , 51 , 177
Norton, B., 100 , 124 , 177

O’Brian, B., 72 , 173

O’Brian, I., 52 , 177
Oliver, M., 33 , 40 , 177
Oller, D.K., 148 , 177
Omura, C, 15 , 162
Oppenheim, A., 141 , 142 , 168
Ormrod, J., 51 , 178
O’Tuel, F., 40 , 43 , 168
Overstreet, R., 182

Pack, S., 63 , 178

Paik, H., 140 , 144 , 161
Palhinda, E., 10 , 132 , 169
Palmer, B., 115 , 167
Pappas, C., 78 , 164
Paribakht, T.S., 49 , 186
Parker, E., 141 , 153 , 181
Parrish, B., 46 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 178
Pasta, D., 75 , 149 , 179
Pavonetti, L., 121 , 178
Pearson, P.D., 51 , 168
Pellegrini, A., 78 , 159
Petersen, L., 171
Petre, B., 32 , 178
Pfau, D., 3 , 81 , 178
Pikulski, J., 78 , 173
Pilgreen, J., 2 , 33 , 81 , 85 , 178
Pitts, M., 15 , 178
Pitts, S., 78 , 178
Polak, J., 9 , 178
Postlethwaite, T., 8 , 179
Postman, N., 142 , 178
Potter, W., 145 , 179
Pucci, S., 75 , 149 , 154 , 179
Pulido, D., 15 , 179

Rajan, B.R. S., 44 , 179

Ramey, D., 75 , 149 , 179
Ramirez, D., 75 , 149 , 179
Ramos, F., 60 , 86 , 167 , 179
Ravitch, D., 35 , 179
Reed, C., 91 , 179
Rehder, L., 51 , 179
Renandya, W., 41 , 44 , 173 , 179
Reutzel, R., 40 , 179
Rice, E., 114 , 134 , 180
Rice, J., 26 , 53 , 180
Rice, M., 144 , 180
Richard, A., 77 , 180
Richards, A., 24 , 180
Richek, M., 78 , 183
Roberts, D., 71 , 180
Robinson, J., 32 , 141 , 154 , 180
Rodney, M., 171 , 180
Rodrigo, V., 12 , 31 , 175 , 180
Rodriguez-Brown, F., 188
Roizen, A., 140 , 175
Rosenthal, N., 97 , 180
Roser, N., 78 , 174
Ross, K.N., 8 , 179
Ross, P., 91 , 180
Roth, G., 101 , 124 , 158
Rubin, V., 140 , 175
Rubinstein, E., 180
Rucker, B., 113 , 114 , 181

Sadowski, M., 33 , 181

Salyer, M., 10 , 132 , 181
San Diego County, 41 , 181
Saragi, Y., 14 , 181
Sartain, H., 40 , 41 , 181
Sato, I., 29 , 181
Schafer, C., 36 , 181
Schatz, E., 50 , 181
Schmid, J., 135 , 163
Schon, I., 40 , 41 , 181
Schoolboys of Barbiana, 39 , 40 , 181
Schoonover, R., 116
Schramm, W., 141 , 153 , 181
Schulze (cited in Monteith 1980), 99
Seashore, R., 19 , 182
Segal, J., 22 , 23 , 182
Sellars, S., 41 , 159
Senechal, M., 79 , 182
Shanahan, T., 42 , 182 , 188
Sherrill, A., 88 , 140 , 160
Shimatani, H., 127 , 169
Shin, F., 7 , 40 , 81 , 88 , 89 , 182
Shontz, M., 75 , 176
Shooter, Jim, 92 , 182
Simonton, D., 36 , 54 , 182
Singer, D., 141 , 153 , 188
Singer, J., 141 , 153 , 188
Sitter, C., 171
Sizemore, R., 93 , 94 , 123 , 187
Slater, W., 55 , 166 , 187
Slover, V., 93 , 182
SmartGirl Internette, Inc., 182
Smith, C., 68 , 71 , 72 , 182
Smith, E., 182
Smith, F.H., 91 , 123 , 142 , 160
Smith, Frank, 18 , 19 , 37 , 116 , 117 , 125 , 130 , 131 , 133 , 136 , 137 , 147
, 150 , 152 , 182 , 183
Smith, M., 55 , 143 , 183
Smith, R., 20 , 183
Snow, C., 25 , 26 , 62 , 134 , 183
Sommers, N., 131 , 183
Southgate, V., 115 , 116 , 183
Sperzl, E., 40 , 101 , 105 , 183
Stahl, S., 78 , 183
Stanley, J., 160
Stanovich, Keith, 9 , 11 , 12 , 35 , 157 , 161 , 162 , 183 , 186
Stedman, L., 184
Stokes, J., 9 , 184
Strecker, S., 78 , 174
Summers, E., 40 , 184
Supanich, G., 20 , 183
Sutton, R., 112 , 184
Swain, E., 102 , 184
Swanborn, M., 48 , 184
Swanton, S., 184

Takakei, M., 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 186

Tannen, D., 170
Thompson, M., 33 , 184
Thompson, R., 25 , 27 , 184
Thorndike, R., 97 , 98 , 115 , 184
Topping, K., 125 , 126 , 185
Towner, J., 40 , 164
Trelease, Jim, 77 , 80 , 82 , 91 , 107 , 108 , 146 , 184
Tsang, W-K., 43 , 45 , 184
Tse, L., 12 , 70 , 81 , 148 , 163 , 170 , 172 , 175 , 184 , 185
Tudor, I., 3 , 43 , 167 , 185
Tullos, S., 115 , 167
Turner, M., 73 , 96 , 188
Twadell, F., 49 , 185

Ujiie, J., 83 , 84 , 102 , 185

Ulanoff, S., 154 , 179
Urquart, A., 164

Van der Voort, T., 142 , 144 , 145 , 158

Van Ijzendoorn, M., 78 , 159
Van Zelst, R., 54 , 185
Vandevier, R., 78 , 183
Varble, M., 135 , 185
Veatch, J., 41 , 158
Vernon, P.E., 186
Vince, P., 141 , 142 , 168
Vincent, C., 141 , 175
Vojir, C., 40 , 41 , 181
Vollands, S., 125 , 126 , 185
Von Sprecken, D., 34 , 54 , 83 , 85 , 185 , 186

Walberg, H., 144 , 187

Walker, G., 79 , 186
Wallas, G., 54 , 186
Waring, R., 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 186
Wayne, R., 123 , 186
Weiner, S., 95 , 186
Weinstein, C., 58 , 77 , 176
Welborn, L., 66 , 172
Wells, G., 79 , 186
Wendelin, K., 90 , 91 , 142 , 186
Wertham, F., 93 , 97 , 123 , 186
Wesche, M., 49 , 186
West, J., 78 , 162
West, R., 9 , 12 , 35 , 183 , 186
Wheldall, K., 84 , 186
White, H., 15 , 53 , 178
White, T., 55 , 187
Wilde, R., 141 , 159
Wilde, S., 27 , 187
Williams, P., 65 , 96 , 144 , 153 , 187
Williams, T., 146 , 162
Williams, T.M., 162 , 187
Willig, A., 148 , 187
Willingham, D., 48 , 187
Wilson, D., 36 , 162
Wilson, P., 8 , 46 , 97 , 102 , 157
Winograd, P., 139 , 177
Witty, P., 93 , 94 , 101 , 102 , 123 , 187
Wolf, A., 40 , 187
Worthy, J., 61 , 73 , 78 , 90 , 96 , 118 , 174 , 187 , 188
Wright, G., 98 , 188
Wright, Richard, 20 , 21 , 22 , 188
Wykoff, G., 135 , 173
Wyllie, M., 28 , 41 , 164

Xu, J., 37 , 130 , 165

Yamamoto, M., 127 , 169

Yeok, S.P., 148 , 167
Yoon, J-C., 34 , 188
Yuen, S., 75 , 149 , 179

Zinck, R., 90 , 91 , 142 , 186

Zuckerman, D., 141 , 153 , 188
Zutell, J., 173 , 175 , 183
Index
Accelerated Reader, 119 – 122 , 125 – 127
Access to reading, 57 – 77
classroom, 58 , 71 , 74
during SSR, 85
at home, 57 – 58 , 68
public libraries, 60 – 61 , 68 , 69 , 70
school libraries, 58 – 59 , 72 , 73
Animorphs, 83
Archie, 100
Assigned reading, 51 – 52 , 150
Author recognition test, 11 – 13 , 121

Bedtime reading, 31 – 32
Bilingual education, 148
Book display, 90
Book reports, 127 – 128
Bookstores, 68 – 69
Bush, Laura, 76

Captain Underpants, 83 , 84
Carson, Ben, 87
Charlotte’s Web, 83
Chinese, 9 , 132 – 133
Comfort and quiet, 63
Complexity argument, 18 , 133
Comprehensible input, 37
Context, 15 , 50 – 51 , 123 – 125
Club membership, 131 , 152
Comic books, 46 , 83 , 91 – 110
classic comics, 101 , 123
comic book reading and behavior, 94 – 95 , 107
conduit to heavier reading, 103 – 110
effect on language development, 97 – 103
and heritage language development, 148 – 149
history of, 93 – 96
pictures, 123 – 125
texts, 97 – 100
Computer use and reading, 154

Desmond Tutu, 107

Direct encouragement of reading, 86 – 89
Direct instruction, limitations, 18 – 19 , 25 – 28 , 70 , 131 – 132
Direct instruction as testing, 38

El-Shabbazz, El-Haijj Malik (Malcolm X), 21 – 22

Error correction, 18 , 22

Fantastic Four, 99 , 106

Free voluntary reading,
defined, ix , 1
evidence for, 1 – 17
reported, 8
enjoyable, 28 – 34 , 54
Flow, 28

Garfield, 82
Goosebumps, 73 , 74 , 88
Glasser, Deborah, 100
Grammar, 3 , 4 , 5 , 131 – 132
Graphic novels, 95

Harry Potter, 117

Home run books, 82 – 84
Hooked on Books (Fader), 4 , 91

Incentives for reading (rewards), 116 – 122

Kofiko, 79 – 80
Krashen, Daniel, 123

Landers, Ann, 138

Lee, Stan, 94
Libraries, 63 – 77
classroom, 58 , 71 , 74
funding, 75 – 77
public, 60 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70
school, 58 – 59 , 65 – 66 , 72 , 73
and second language acquirers, 74 – 75
Librarians, 66 , 72 , 122
Library latch-key kids, 63
Light reading, 92 – 116
Listening comprehension, 5
Literacy crisis, ix
Literature circles, 89 – 90

Magazines, 113
Manga, 96
Mathabane, Mark, 106
Models, 84 , 85
Movies and reading, 153

National Reading Panel, 42 – 43 , 45 – 46

Oral/aural language ability, 3

Paperbacks, 90 – 91
Peer pressure, 90
Poverty, 67 , 68 – 77 , 79 , 122 , 139 – 140
Phonics, ix , 123
Popular literature, 51 – 52
Punctuation, 129

Radio listening and reading, 153

Reading aloud, 77 – 81 , 125 , 141 – 142
Reading and cognitive development, 35 – 36 , 54 – 55
Read and test studies, 13 – 16 , 51
Reading and writing apprehension, 36
Reading comprehension, 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 , 87
Reading experience, 81 – 82
Reading hypothesis, 17
Reading management programs, 119 – 122
Reading speed, 8
Regular daily writing, 152 – 153
Reluctant readers, 61 – 62

Schoolboys of Barbiana, 39 – 40
Second language acquirers, 74 , 109 , 113 , 146 – 149
Secret readers, 52
Selective reading, 55
Self-selected reading, 2 , 87 – 88 , 116
Shooter, Jim, 92
Spanish subjunctive and reading, 9 – 10
Spelling demons, 129
Spelling development, 3 , 9 , 16 – 17 , 51 , 87
Spelling growth without instruction, 24 – 27 , 54
Skill-building, 18
Summer reading, 7 , 9 , 88 – 89
Sustained silent reading
defined, 2
reactions to, 45
reading during, 85
research, 40 – 43
studies using comic books, 101
Sweet Valley High, 111 , 112

Teen romances, 46 , 110 – 113

Television
and reading, 137 – 142 , 153
and language development, 144 – 146
language of 142 – 144
Time to read, 85 – 86
TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language), 10
Trelease, Jim, 77 , 80 , 107

Vocabulary
development, 3 , 4 , 8 , 13 – 15 , 20 , 46 – 50 , 87
size, 19 , 46 , 55

Wright, Richard, 20 – 21
Writing, 3 , 4 , 7 , 20 , 21 , 132 – 139 , 152 – 153
and thinking, 137 – 139 , 152
Writing apprehension, 36
About the Author
STEPHEN D.KRASHEN is Emeritus Professor of Education at the
University of Southern California. He is best known for his work in
establishing a general theory of second language acquisition, as the
cofounder of the Natural Approach, and as the inventor of sheltered subject
matter teaching. He is the author of numerous books.