Reading Fiction Can Be Fun, But It Isn't Enough To Boost Achievement

Teenagers who read a lot of fiction do better on international reading tests, according to a recent study. But that doesn't mean we can boost achievement just by encouraging kids to read more fiction.

It's well established that kids who read a lot generally do better in school. But there hasn't been much research on whether it matters what they're reading. A recent study, drawing on data from over 250,000 15-year-olds in 35 industrialized countries, claims to have found a "fiction effect." After controlling for a range of factors, the researchers found that students who read a lot of fiction for pleasure did significantly better on a standardized reading test than their peers who frequently read newspapers, magazines, nonfiction, or comic books. The test included not only passages drawn from fiction but also some nonfiction. The researchers speculated that the experience of reading novels develops students' ability to sustain attention, allowing for reflection and deep thought rather than superficial skimming.

On the surface, the findings appear to support a widespread belief among teachers that just getting kids to spend time reading books of their own choice, often fiction, is the key to boosting reading ability and overall achievement. This is essentially the theory that undergirds our prevailing approach to reading instruction, with a couple of modifications. (One is that students need to be practicing comprehension "skills" and strategies while reading books of their choice. The other is that their choices must be restricted to books they're presumed to be able to read easily on their own.) It's certainly an alluring concept: learning can be not only effortless but totally pleasurable. Unfortunately, as evidenced by declining reading scores and a widening gap between higher- and lower-performers, the theory is seriously flawed.

As the authors of the recent study acknowledge, their data shows only correlation, not causation. Maybe teenagers who are avid fiction readers already have a greater capacity for sustained attention than their peers, and that explains why they're able to lose themselves in a novel-and score higher on reading tests.

But let's assume there is a "fiction effect." Speaking as a former teenager who read a lot of novels, I would say kids in that category find reading largely effortless. The kids who don't choose to read much fiction-or anything else except maybe comic books-probably find reading a struggle. Maybe they never got a chance to master the foundational reading skills that would enable them to read fluently and sound out unfamiliar words quickly. Maybe they haven't had a chance to acquire the sophisticated general knowledge and vocabulary that would allow them to understand the words and concepts used in many novels. Maybe both.

That calls into question the researchers' recommendation that we simply encourage young people to read fiction-especially "boys from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds," who they say are least likely to read it. To be sure, all students should have an opportunity to read books of their choice, including fiction. But it's going to be hard to convince those who struggle with reading to engage in that activity for "pleasure." And even if they're required to read a lot of books independently at school, it's unlikely to significantly boost their reading ability. If kids read only simple text, they never get the chance to become familiar with the sophisticated vocabulary, syntax, and concepts that could enable them to understand increasingly complex text-no matter how much they read.

There's one possible way around this problem: have struggling readers listen to more complex novels being read aloud by expert readers-like teachers. One small-scale recent study found that this approach enabled readers who were a year or more behind to make enormous progress. After just 12 weeks of listening to two novels being read at a fairly fast pace, those students made 16 months of progress on a comprehension test that included both fiction and nonfiction passages. (It made no difference, by the way, whether their teachers were trained in comprehension strategies.)

The key factor may be that listening to an experienced reader enables struggling readers to avoid obstacles that can make independent reading an unpleasant experience. In some classes, teachers had the students take turns doing the reading themselves. This approach, the researchers found, "supported neither fluency nor comprehension." Students were so worried about the mechanics they couldn't focus on meaning. In one class, the following exchange occurred after a student read a paragraph aloud.

Teacher: "Well read, Zak."

Zak: "I didn't understand what I was reading."

It's clear from this study that students became avid fiction listeners, if not readers-and eventually that experience could lead them to read fiction independently, for pleasure. There's also evidence, from both neuroscience and psychology, that stories are easier to understand and more engaging than other kinds of text. That engagement could enable students to remember more of the vocabulary they've heard or read, and to become familiar with conventions that appear in written language generally. Perhaps that explains why reading fiction can increase comprehension of nonfiction as well.

But there are two more problems with the idea that fiction alone is all that's needed to boost achievement. One is that fiction can't be relied on to build the kind of knowledge students need to do well in school and in life. For that, they need systematic exposure to topics in history, science, and the arts, through a coherent curriculum that begins in the early grades.

The good news is that the particular power stories have isn't confined to fiction. It's true of any narrative that incorporates what cognitive psychologist Daniel Willingham has called the four Cs: causality, conflict, complications, and character. That means teachers can harness the power of narrative to teach historical and scientific content through biographies of significant individuals, or simply by telling stories about events that incorporate the four Cs-especially conflict. (One stellar example of this approach is Joy Hakim's series, A History of US.)

The other problem is that reading or listening to narratives-even those that convey a lot of information about the world-won't necessarily prepare students for the challenges of reading expository text. One study of children's literature found that the vocabulary in narrative text barely overlaps with that used in expository text. The words in narratives, researchers found, relate primarily to the concrete-human characteristics, settings-while those in expository texts are more specialized and abstract. Students are more likely to acquire vocabulary from reading narratives, because it's easier to understand, but that vocabulary won't equip them to understand expository text. What can be done? One highly effective approach, not mentioned in the study, is to explicitly teach students how to write expository text about what they're learning. Once they can write it, they're better equipped to read and understand it.

Effortless "pleasure" reading has its place, the authors of the vocabulary study concluded, but "very few individuals make a living by reading stories for pleasure." Instead, "we are often required to negotiate complicated ideas, information, and instructions." And in a democracy, citizens also need to be able to do those things to make informed decisions and cast responsible votes-especially in the age of the internet, when the ability to distinguish reliable from unreliable information is crucial.

So whether or not there's a "fiction effect," we need to do more than encourage struggling readers to pick up a novel. We need to introduce them to the pleasures of reading by enabling them to listen to stories they can't yet read easily on their own. We need to use the power of narrative to expand their knowledge of the world. And we need to prepare them to wrest meaning from text that doesn't provide a storyline. Yes, that will involve effort. But that's what real learning generally requires.