What works and does not work in two popular literacy practices used to transition students toward more independent reading: Insights from five fifth-grade, second-generation L2 students on silent reading and reader response practices

Preparedness for independent reading is crucial for all urban students transitioning from the intermediate to the middle grades. Greater demands are made on students, who may or may not be fluent readers, to read and comprehend large amounts of diverse texts independently. Two practices are popularly used in intermediate grades to promote increased fluency, the richer vocabulary needed to succeed academically, the general knowledge that may be assumed in subject matter areas, and the motivation to read. These practices include Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) and reader response practice.; This study examined what worked and did not work in the use of SSR and reader response practices in one classroom. It describes the implementation of those practices and how five second-generation L2 students experienced them. Second-generation students appear native born so their L2 status is not readily recognizable. They are at high risk for school failure and come from a rapidly growing segment of the national school population.; The SSR practice was most successful for the students without retention histories and who had access to a literacy program that balanced direct instruction with SSR. SSR was least successful for older students. The SSR practice was under-utilized in some respect for all five second-generation youth, failing to provide at least one condition necessary to promote independent reading: access to manageable books of interest; guidance in locating or discerning good choices from bad choices; an adequate range of diverse reading materials; and structures to build the social motivation to read. Additionally, social dynamics limited success for latecomers to the cohort in a school with high mobility. This evidence may explain partially why the National Reading Panel (2002) found no experimental evidence that SSR works.; The reader response journals had limited benefit because students responded to books they did not fully comprehend; high teacher control inhibited student ownership of the response process; and the cognitive load overwhelmed students.; Both studies used observational data, interview transcripts, questionnaires, and artifacts collected over four months. These data were analyzed within and across case for a student-sided view of selecting, reading, and responding to books.