Comment posted in response to: Daniel Willingham, "Should kids get time to read for pleasure during school?"
Posted at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/04/30/should-kids-get-time-to-read-for-pleasure-during-school/
Prof. Willingham appears to accept the conclusions of the National Reading Panel. In short, the panel missed many many studies, and misreported several others. In my first response to the panel, cited by Prof. Willingham (Kappan, 2001), I reported that sustained silent reading (SSR) was as effective or more effective than comparison groups in 50 out of 53 published comparisons, and in long-term studies, SSR was a consistent winner. Since then, quite a few more studies have been published supporting SSR in first and second language education.
Responses to the National Reading Panel:
Krashen, S. 2001. More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel Report on fluency. Phi Delta Kappan 83(2): 119-123.
Krashen, S. 2005. Is In-School Free Reading Good for Children? Why the National Reading Panel Report is (Still) Wrong. Phi Delta Kappan 86(6): 444-447.
More recent reviews of SSR research:
Nakanishi, T. 2014. A meta-analysis of extensive reading research. TESOL Quarterly 49(1), 6-37.
Cho, K.S. and Krashen, S. 2015. The cure for English fever? Stories and self-selected reading in English. KAERA Research Forum 1(4): 41-47. Available at: ttp://sdkrashen.com/articles.php?cat=2
Krashen, S. 2007. Extensive reading in English as a foreign language by adolescents and young adults: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3 (2), 23-29.
When SSR works, when it doesn't work:
Krashen, S. 2011. Nonengagement in sustained silent reading: How extensive is it? What can it teach us? Colorado Reading Council Journal 22: 5-10. Available at: ttp://sdkrashen.com/articles.php?cat=2 (scroll down)