Lately, I have encountered several essays that examine possible connections between the claims that “few people, including students, read books anymore” and “the declining percentage of individuals moving through our educational systems who are competent readers” (see links to several of these articles included at the end of this post). To attract a general audience, this decline in reading proficiency is often framed as a concern for future international economic competitiveness. What caught my attention in this unexpected batch of essays was the claim that researchers had failed to provide evidence that differences in time spent reading, and more specifically in reading lengthy works, resulted in improved reading skills and related intellectual benefits. In several of these articles, it was claimed that such relationships had not been proven. I had to move beyond these secondary sources to primary sources to understand the bases for these claims, and then to explore further on my own to determine whether I agreed. Is the lack of interest in books a serious problem?
The low rate of reading proficiency in the U.S.
Reading skills are declining and this trend has been ongoing for years. This decline is evident in multiple tests used to assess reading skills, with the most attention likely given to the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), which compares the performance of U.S. students with that of students from other nations. Implications for economic productivity and international competitiveness are sure to catch the attention of the general public and politicians.
The pattern of decline among U.S. students is notable: over the years, the less proficient have declined year by year, whereas the most skilled have not shown this trend and score at roughly the same level on the tests used to track reading skill. Among other issues, this means that the range of competence educators must address within a single grade level is increasing, thereby complicating instruction. Multiple factors potentially associated with this trend have been identified and such claims have provided ideas for remediation. Most of you have likely heard of the “science of reading” controversy, which in recent years has prompted greater emphasis on phonics. Screen time is often cited as a culprit in many areas, including reading. Recently, absenteeism has risen at an alarming rate and it seems logical that missing school for many days means students miss instruction. There are likely multiple causes for a general academic trend and these causes interact in ways that defy simple solutions.
Recent changes in reading proficiency broken down by initial level of functioning.
Reading Skill and Reading Activity
Daniel Willingham, an educational expert I often cite, proposes a more straightforward explanation in claiming that the “main differentiating factor” between strong and weak readers is “the volume of reading they do,” because that’s how they build both reading skills and a rich background knowledge. The mention here of background knowledge should not be overlooked and requires a little more detail. Studies that differentiate background knowledge from reading skill demonstrate that background knowledge is more critical in predicting differences in what readers understand from what they read. Put another way if good and poor readers are also differentiated by what they already know about a topic (e.g., good readers with poor existing knowledge, poor readers with good existing knowledge), the difference in background knowledge is the better predictor of understanding and retention. So, what Willingham argues is that the amount of reading has a unique importance, possibly ignored in other discussions of the development not just reading skill, but the more general impact of reading as a component of learning more generally.
It is not that time spent reading and its relationship has been ignored (see Allington & McGill-Franzen). Attempts to track the amount of reading students and adults spend have been recorded with great diligence. How many minutes, how many books, whether the reading is on a digital device or paper, how many books are available in the home, how frequently does an individual visit a library, does a family subscribe to a newspaper, and similar variables have been quantified and related to reading skill and potential moderating variables such as family income. These variables consistently relate to measures of reading skill, and because these measures of activity seem to be in decline, have been argued as possible causes of poorer reading skills.
Causal Relationship Between Activity and Performance
Allington and his colleague raise an interesting point as have other scholars I have recently read about why the amount of reading has not received more attention. Allington makes an observation that blames reading researchers, which I find interesting. He claims that researchers have difficulty explaining the observed relationship between time spent reading and reading skill, because this relationship has seldom been tested experimentally. This position should be presented to mean that the observed relationships are correlational. How can it be known if more reading alone builds reading skill when the data could also be interpreted to argue that more capable readers enjoy reading and read more? Why might this matter? Allington notes that elementary school reading instruction focuses far more time on skill development than on extended reading. Extended reading, often called free reading, allows students to use school time to read independently and would include basal reader time and library books.
Just to be clear, there are many topics of interest to scientists in other fields that involve limited “manipulative” research. When investigating factors we believe have negative consequences, scholars seldom create the unfavorable circumstances to determine whether those harmful consequences follow. Sometimes, potential causal relationships are analyzed through correlational techniques because the causes cannot be manipulated or would be extremely expensive to manipulate.
Allington does provide two counterexamples to the claim that the amount of reading, and in these examples, the reading of books, cannot be manipulated. The first example involves the gifting of books to randomly selected children through existing programs (e.g., the Dolly Parton Imagination Library) and the subsequent administration of follow-up assessments. The second employed a similar approach, focusing on the “summer slide” in reading performance among children from low-income families. Again, in selecting participants at random and comparing the selected group with non-selected individuals based on a gifted home library for the summer on a follow-up assessment. In both cases, greater access to books was associated with higher reading proficiency scores. The random assignment of access to the gifted books allows for a more persuasive argument for causality.
Voluntary vs Required, Intensive vs Extensive
The topic I have presented here has a number of subtopics that are relevant, but examining these issues should probably be pursued in other posts. The voluntary vs required distinction relates to reading set in a formal education setting or pursued without direction outside of the classroom. Voluntary reading at any age has consequences. The difference between intensive and extensive reading is relevant to a variety of issues that relate to reading for different purposes (research papers, technical manuals vs books) differ in potential benefits. When it comes to the amount read, does a number of shorter pieces generate the same impact as a book, or are there unique skills involved when persistence is required, and relevant pieces necessary for understanding are spaced over greater units of time? This issue is relevant to the different type of reading most of us might do online.
Resources
Academic sources:
Allington, R. & McGill-Franzen, A. (2021). Reading volume and reading achievement: A review of recent research. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S231-S238.
Abdurakhmonova, Z., & Pardayeva, R. (2025). Exploring intensive and extensive reading. International Conference on Culture & History. 1(3), 34-38.
Gioia, D. (2008). To read or not to read: A question of national consequence. Diane Publishing.
Willingham, D. T. (2017). The reading mind: A cognitive approach to understanding how the mind reads. John Wiley & Sons.
News sources addressing the decline in the popularity of reading books
Kids Rarely Read Whole Books Anymore
Whole books or excerpts: Which does the most to promote reading ability –
Novels vs. excerpts: What to know about a big reading debate
