Daily 5 and Table Showing Minutes Read and Words Exposed to in a Year
This is the 2d entry in the Didactics Leader'due south Guide to Reading Growth, a vii-part serial about the human relationship betwixt reading do, reading growth, and overall student accomplishment.
In our concluding post, nosotros examined how reading do characteristics differ betwixt persistently struggling students and students who start out struggling simply end upwards succeeding—and how strong reading skills are linked to loftier school graduation rates and college enrollment rates.
However, it'south not just struggling readers who could benefit from more reading practice. A written report of the reading practices of more 9.ix one thousand thousand students over the 2015–2016 school yr found that more than half of the students read less than 15 minutes per twenty-four hours on boilerplate.one
Fewer than ane in 5 students averaged a half-hour or more of reading per day, and fewer than one in 3 read between 15 and 29 minutes on a daily footing.
The problem is that 15 minutes seems to be the "magic number" at which students showtime seeing substantial positive gains in reading accomplishment, nevertheless less than half of our students are reading for that amount of fourth dimension.
15 minutes seems to be the "magic number" at which students commencement seeing substantial positive gains in reading achievement; students who read merely over a one-half-hour to an hr per twenty-four hour period see the greatest gains of all.
An analysis comparison the engaged reading time and reading scores of more than ii.ii meg students found that students who read less than 5 minutes per 24-hour interval saw the lowest levels of growth, well below the national average.2 Fifty-fifty students who read 5–14 minutes per day saw sluggish gains that were below the national average.
Only students who read 15 minutes or more a twenty-four hour period saw accelerated reading gains—that is, gains college than the national average—and students who read just over a half-60 minutes to an hour per day saw the greatest gains of all.
Although many other factors—such as quality of instruction, equitable admission to reading materials, and family background—as well play a role in accomplishment, the consistent connection between time spent reading per day and reading growth cannot be ignored.
Moreover, if reading practice is linked to reading growth and achievement, so information technology follows that low levels of reading practice should correlate to depression levels of reading performance and high levels of reading practice should connect to high levels of reading performance. This pattern is precisely what nosotros see in student exam data.
Strong connections between reading practise and accomplishment
An assay of more than than 174,000 students' Plan for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores revealed that connexion between reading date and reading functioning was "moderately strong and meaningful" in all 32 countries examined, including the United states of america.three On average, students who spent more fourth dimension reading, read more than various texts, and saw reading as a valuable activity scored college on the PISA's combined reading literacy scale.
The study also constitute a student's level of reading appointment was more highly correlated with their reading accomplishment than their socioeconomic status, gender, family structure, or time spent on homework. In fact, students with the everyman socioeconomic groundwork simply loftier reading date scored better than students with the highest socioeconomic background merely low reading engagement.
Overall, students with high reading engagement scored significantly above the international boilerplate on the combined reading literacy scale, regardless of their family background. The contrary was besides true, with students with low reading appointment scoring significantly below the international average, no matter their socioeconomic condition.
The authors suggested that reading practice can play an "important role" in endmost accomplishment gaps between different socioeconomic groups. Frequent loftier-quality reading practice may help children compensate for—and fifty-fifty overcome—the challenges of being socially or economically disadvantaged, while a lack of reading practise may erase or potentially opposite the advantages of a more privileged background. In short, reading do matters for kids from all walks of life.
For students inside the United States, reading practise may not but be more important than socioeconomic status—information technology may also be more important than many school factors.
Looking at only American students' PISA scores, we see that reading engagement had a higher correlation with reading literacy achievement than time spent on homework, relationships with teachers, a sense of belonging, classroom environment, or fifty-fifty pressure to achieve (which had a negative correlation). In add-on, a regression analysis showed accomplishment went upwards across all measures of reading literacy operation when reading engagement increased.
Although the PISA merely assesses 15-year-olds, like patterns can exist seen in both younger and older American students. In 2013, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) compared students' National Cess of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scores with their reading habits.4 For all age groups, they constitute a clear correlation betwixt the frequency with which students read for fun and their average NAEP scores: The more frequently students read, the higher their scores were.
What is especially interesting about the NAEP results is that the correlation between reading frequency and reading scores was true for all age groups and the score gaps increased across the years. Amidst 9-year-olds, there was only an 18-point difference between children who reported reading "never or hardly ever" and those who read "about every day." Past age 13, the gap widened to 27 points. At age 17, information technology further increased to 30 points.
This seems to run contrary to the commonly held wisdom that reading exercise is most important when children are learning how to read but less essential once key reading skills have been caused. Indeed, nosotros might fifty-fifty hypothesize the opposite—that reading practise may grow more important as students move from course to grade and encounter more challenging reading tasks. Until more inquiry either confirms or disproves this possible explanation, it is nothing more than than a judge, but an interesting one to consider however.
However, what is articulate is that reading practice is decreasing amidst all age groups, with the most dramatic decreases among the very students who may need information technology the most.
Troubling declines in reading do
Over the terminal three decades, reading rates have dramatically declined in the Usa. In 1984, NAEP results showed the vast majority of 9-twelvemonth-olds read for fun in one case or more per week, with more than than half reporting reading almost every day. Only one in five reported reading ii or fewer times per month. Past 2012, 25% of all nine-year-olds were reading for pleasure fewer than 25 days per year.5
For older students, the drib is even more abrupt. In 1984, 35% of thirteen-year-olds read for fun near every 24-hour interval, and some other 35% read one or two times per calendar week—in total, more than two-thirds of 13-twelvemonth-olds reported reading at least in one case a week. In 2012, about half read less than once a week.
Among 17-year-olds, the per centum reading most every day dropped from 31% in 1984 to only 19% in 2012, while the per centum who read for fun less than one time a week rose from 36% to 61%. The number of 17-year-olds reporting reading "never or hardly e'er" actually tripled.
And the decline in reading is not due to students spending more time on homework in 2012 than in 1984. During the aforementioned fourth dimension period, the percentage of students who reported spending more than an hour on homework really declined.
In 1984, 19% of 9-year-olds, 38% of xiii-year-olds, and 40% of 17-year-olds reported spending an hr or more on homework the day prior to the NAEP. In 2012, those numbers had dropped to 17% for 9-year-olds, 30% for 13-yr-olds, and 36% for 17-twelvemonth-olds.
Why are we seeing the greatest gaps and the greatest declines in the oldest students? Although many different factors are likely at play, i of them might be that the effects of reading do are cumulative over a student'south schooling, especially when it comes to vocabulary.
The long-term effects of reading practice
What'due south the difference between kids who read more than 30 minutes per day and those who read less than 15 minutes per day?
Twelve million.
Between kindergarten and 12th grade, students with an boilerplate daily reading time of 30+ minutes are projected to encounter 13.7 million words. At graduation, their peers who averaged less than fifteen minutes of reading per 24-hour interval are probable to be exposed to merely 1.five million words. The difference is more than than 12 million words. Children in between, who read 15–29 minutes per day, will encounter an average of v.7 million words—less than half of the high-reading group just nearly four times that of the low-reading group.one
Some researchers estimate students acquire 1 new word of vocabulary for every thousand words read.6 Using this ratio, a educatee who reads only 1.five million words would acquire only one,500 new vocabulary words from reading, while a student who reads xiii.seven million words would acquire 13,700 new vocabulary terms—more than nine times the amount of vocabulary growth.
This is peculiarly important when nosotros consider that students tin can learn far more words from reading than from direct educational activity: Even an aggressive schedule of 20 new words taught each week volition issue in but 520 new words past the end of the typical 36-calendar week school yr. This does not hateful that reading practice is "better" than direct instruction for building vocabulary—direction didactics is key, just teachers can only practice and so much of it. Instead, we ask educators to imagine the potential for vocabulary growth if direct pedagogy, structural analysis strategies, and reading practice are all used to reinforce one another.
Vocabulary plays a disquisitional role in reading achievement. Enquiry has shown that more than half the variance in students' reading comprehension scores can be explained by the depth and breadth of their vocabulary knowledge—and these ii vocabulary factors tin can even be used to predict a student'due south reading operation.7
Nosotros tin can see the relationship between vocabulary and reading accomplishment clearly in NAEP scores, where the students who had the highest boilerplate vocabulary scores were the students performing in the top quarter (above the 75th percentile) of reading comprehension. Similarly, students with the everyman vocabulary scores were those who were in the lesser quarter (at or below the 25th percentile) in reading comprehension.8 This means those additional 12 million words could potentially have a huge affect on student success.
And then what are we to do, when reading exercise is then clearly continued to both vocabulary exposure and reading achievement, but not enough students are getting enough reading practise to bulldoze substantial growth?
The reply seems clear. We need to make increasing reading practice a top priority for all students in all schools. Making reading practise a system-broad objective may be 1 of the most of import things nosotros can do for our students' long-term outcomes, especially when we combine it with high-quality instruction and constructive reading curricula. It is time to put as much focus on reading practice every bit we practice on schoolhouse culture, student-educator relationships, and socioeconomic factors.
However, non all reading practice is built the aforementioned. Quantity matters, just so does quality. In the next post in this series, we explore how you tin can ensure your students are getting the most out of every minute of reading practice.
To read the adjacent post in this series, click the banner below.
References
one Renaissance Learning. (2016). What kids are reading: And how they grow. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
two Renaissance Learning. (2015). The research foundation for Accelerated Reader 360. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
3 Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., Lafontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., & Monseur, C. (2002). Reading for change: Functioning and date across countries: Results from PISA 2000. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-functioning and Development (OECD).
iv National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation's study card: Trends in academic progress 2012 (NCES 2013 456). Washington, DC: U.S. Section of Education Establish of Education Sciences.
5 National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Tabular array 221.30: Average National Cess of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale score and percentage distribution of students, by age, corporeality of reading for school and for fun, and time spent on homework and watching TV/video: Selected years, 1984 through 2012. Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.South. Section of Education Institute of Didactics Sciences. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_221.thirty.asp
6 Stonemason, J.Yard., Stahl, S. A. , Au, Yard. H. , & Herman, P. A. (2003). Reading: Children's developing knowledge of words. In J. Overflowing, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. One thousand. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English arts (2nd ed., pp. 914-930). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
vii Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the Relationship Between Vocabulary Knowledge and Academic Reading Performance: An Assessment Perspective. Linguistic communication Learning, 52(3), 513-536.
8 National Eye for Education Statistics. (2013). 2013 Vocabulary study. 2013 Reading assessment. Washington, DC: U.South. Department of Didactics Found of Educational activity Sciences.
Source: https://www.renaissance.com/2018/01/23/blog-magic-15-minutes-reading-practice-reading-growth/
0 Response to "Daily 5 and Table Showing Minutes Read and Words Exposed to in a Year"
إرسال تعليق