3. Is reading enough?

The concern here is that recreational reading is not enough to guarantee full competence and the acquisition of "academic" language. One must agree. Recreational reading, rather, is the bridge, the missing link that makes harder reading and more demanding input more comprehensible.

Should FVR be "supplemented"? Many think so, and the usual recipe is additional grammar study and writing. There are good reasons to doubt that this is effective. The study of grammar makes at best a small and peripheral contribution to competence; There are severe limits to how much grammar can be consciously learned and there are severe limits on its application (7). There is also no evidence that requiring students to write more has a positive effect on writing ability (8). Writing, however, makes a very different kind of contribution; it helps us solve problems and contributes to cognitive development (9).

Mason (10) confirmed this, finding no difference in gains when in-school free reading was supplemented with writing summaries in the L1 (Japanese), writing summaries in English, and writing summaries in English followed by correction and rewriting. In fact, the group that wrote summaries in Japanese acquired just as much English in a shorter total time devoted to English.

The kind of supplementation that will help, it is predicted, encourages more reading and makes reading more comprehensible. This includes the study of literature, i.e. exposing students to the options available to them and providing some background knowledge about books. Literature includes read- alouds, a powerful means of motivating reading and providing growth in literate language (11).

4. How will they do on tests?

In an age of testing hysteria, it is a strong temptation to drop reading and devote more time to test preparation, which in many people’s minds is skill- building activities, direct instruction in grammar, vocabulary, etc. The research cited earlier, however, shows that those in in-school reading programs do better on tests than those who follow the regular curriculum of direct instruction. They do better on tests of reading, writing, listening, vocabulary, and even grammar. I think readers do well on tests because they have no choice, because they have acquired, not learned, grammar, vocabulary, and the conventions of writing.

5. How robust is FVR?

We know enough to state the optimal conditions for a good reading program: They seem obvious but are rarely present: (1) A great deal of interesting, comprehensible reading material; (2) A time (and comfortable place) to read. (3) Minimum accountability (e.g. no required summaries or book reports). Also, to show effects, a program should also last for more than a few months.

Is it a waste of time to do free reading when conditions are not optimal? Lee (12) reported on a program in which few of these conditions were met. The students were not particularly motivated – they were second semester university students in Taiwan taking a required English class. The first semester had been a disaster, with students reporting that the teacher devoted most of the class- time to movies. Reading was done for only 14 weeks, and students read graded readers, which only 18.5% of the students found interesting. Students were also required to write summaries of what they read. On the positive side, the class included some explanation of the theory underlying free voluntary reading, along with research findings.

2