Whole Books or Excerpts? Which Does the Most to Promote Reading Ability

Number 5 - great conclusion.

I would like to add that ensuring at least some whole books are read - both individually, by choice, and as a class - allows students to see the type of depth and range of character and plot development that can’t be accomplished in 1,500 words.

Show me a short story with the emotional resonance of Bridge to Terebithia, or the irony of Remigius’s final act in The Name of the Rose. What short text can stun the reader like The Watsons Go to Birmingham—1963?

These roller coasters activate the affective network of the brain, and tie young people to literature in ways that no minilesson can accomplish. And having a teacher guide the discussion and understanding for at least some of these texts each school year ensures the students have access to the ideas and characters, so they can fall in love with them and sometimes have their hearts broken.

So much to say. For starters, this piece ignores the study recently reported in EdWeek by Sarah Schwartz, which did show better outcomes for book-reading vs short-form content: "A 2020 study of more than 2,500 Finnish students found that children who read more books in their leisure time had stronger reading comprehension, but that the same relationship didn’t hold between magazine reading and reading ability. Notably, digital reading was negatively correlated with reading comprehension."

More importantly, it ignores the vast body of research on volume of reading, for starters. Does anyone think passage popcorn programs are *operationally and practically* designed to maximize volume of reading in classrooms? There is a cost, in time and working memory, when teachers shift from passage A to passage B. Isn't it obvious that the better move is to design curricula around longer texts?

Saying "we don't have a lot of research pitting books against passages in reading instruction" is like my 13YO saying "there isn't a lot of research proving that the ice cream diet is worse than your meals, Mom." There's a reason that some things aren't studied: we can know in practical terms what is better or worse for us. God help us if we need to do a bunch of head-to-head books vs passages research to prove that books belong in ELA classrooms.

Overall, this post wants us to live in a world where schools can build skills with short-form content and kids will go off and maximize volume of reading in their spare time. It’s magical thinking. We are slipping further and further from that world every year. Every bit of research about kids and reading time says as much. We cannot believe we can ignore volume of reading in ELA and kids will get it elsewhere.

If we want kids to jump to do more independent reading: I AM persuaded by the voices of teachers and librarians in districts that use whole book curricula: turning kids on to book reading in ELA sparks library checkout activity. The Knowledge Matters Campaign has done enough district visits with its School Tour to confirm this finding in the field. Perhaps that field research needs to be bottled somewhere. It certainly endorses whole book curriculum as a catalyst for more whole book reading.

This post seems to be a defense of curricula like Wonders, for which you are an author. Well, we're completely lacking evidence that Wonders works better than anything else. If we're going to spend the morning talking about evidence, that also needs to be in the mix.

Karen--

Oh so much to reply to here. Why aren't I crediting that Finnish study? I would suggest that you read the study and you'll see that it is not convincing evidence at all. Too many differences between the conditions to attribute the outcomes to one variable.

You are correct that I am the author of a program that uses excerpts. That doesn't change what the research findings are (or in this case, the lack of research). Beyond that badly flawed study, you mention no evidence for what you are claiming than your belief and the beliefs of people that you have spoken too. I guess I could say many people use Wonders and programs like Wonders. They do that because they believe them to be effective. You don't see me claiming that proves that excerpts are better than books. (In fact, reread the blog and I'll see that I made no such claim).

Your claim that using books instead of excerpts requires more reading on the part of kids would be true if there was a book for each excerpt -- but that obviously isn't the case. Kids read many excerpts, short stories, essays, etc. in the time that students read several chapters from those books.

The notion that no one has studied this because the findings are so obvious and therefore you can make any claims that you want to is really silly. You're a much smarter person than that. Why not just admit that you don't have any evidence but that you want people to teach the way you want them to, and when doing that, be specific... how many books each year should kids read as part of their reading instruction? Which books/authors/genres should be represented each year? Given the books that are used to teach reading, how do you handle the reading of science, history, the arts, etc.? I know there is no research on what the best answers to those questions may be, but since this is about your vision, your opinions, then get it all out there, so everyone can see what will be excluded from reading instruction.

tim

I think there absolutely needs to be a balance of reading volume and explicit instruction in the classroom. That being said, excerpts are better for explicit instruction. Direct instruction of vocabulary, morphology, syntax, cohesion lends itself better to short excerpts. The students are closer to the text, where they can study a particular sentence or paragraph in depth accompanied by discussion and rereading. Vocabulary instruction is more effective with complex excerpts, one, because there are more novel words in complex text and students benefit from the multiple exposures through rereading. Students can read more complex texts in small excerpts than they can through whole novels. If the goal is to expose children to complex texts, it makes sense to challenge them with many complex excerpts that can be dissected, discussed and read in depth.

Another goal of a reading program, in my opinion, is reading volume. Reading a great deal builds facility with what Freddie Heibert refers to as core vocabulary. Time spent reading builds automaticity with these highly frequent words. For this purpose, reading groups or book clubs seem ideal as a supplement to core reading instruction. Students can be assigned texts to read at home and given time in school for book club discussions.

Challenging students with complex excerpts and allotting time for voluminous reading experiences, in my opinion, both have a place in high quality ELA programs.

As a teacher, I've always been in favor of more whole books than short passages. Yes, I agree that it's good for students to be introduced to a variety of writers. But in my observation, there is a lot to be gained by reading a whole book. 1) Students become familiar with a writer's vocabulary, and therefore become more fluent and more comfortable as the book progresses. 2) Students learn how to hang in there for a whole book, and see how the plot deepens and surprises. 3) When students leave the classroom, they are much more likely to pick up a whole book than some segment, and therefore they should learn the skills that it takes to read the whole book. 4) Finally, as a child, I was much more taken in by the whole plot than by little passages. Too bad the research isn't there.

As always, your emphasis on research or lack thereof is informative; however, what's missing from my perspective, as a former high school English teacher, and current middle school Reading Specialist, is the fact that reading novels is about so much more than teaching stamina or vocabulary. What about the empathy that children develop by following characters like Ralph or Piggy through an entire novel? The critical thinking skills kids develop from considering important concepts like leadership or authoritarianism or the importance of law and order in a society? Sure these concepts show up in short stories - but the reader isn't living with them via lifelike characters inside their heads and hearts for an extended period of time. Have you ever met students who loved any short story as much as my middle school kids rave about reading Wonder in elementary school or the Outsiders in 7th grade? For many students, these are the books that make them understand that reading can be enjoyable and worth the time. Is our only goal to help kids develop "skills" or to become thoughtful, empathetic human beings? What really is the point of great literature?

Interesting post , as usual. Let's not forget the readaloud, where for a few minutes daily, teachers take students along with them into a special book, e.g. Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, or The Mixed-up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler (these were two of the novels I read aloud to my fifth graders when I was a classroom teacher.) Thank you for your great work!

I'm a parent of two elementary aged children in a school that uses HMH Into Reading, and I read this post with a sinking heart. I have a few points to make:

1) However you interpret the evidence that's out there about whole book reading (which I think is more persuasive than you're stating), what is pretty clear is that whole book reading is not *detrimental* if we're measuring outcomes on standardized tests. It is not worse than reading exclusively excerpts. We've got great curricula like Bookworms and CKLA and Wit and Wisdom that feature tons of whole books and perform either much better than, or at least as well as, curricula that are centered on excerpts. So: it definitely doesn't hurt test scores, and maybe helps. If we've got that established, then that allows us to think about all the amazing things reading whole books does for students that maybe aren't easily measured by a test, which of course is a super long list.

2) I think assessment is a useful tool. I'm not against standardized tests. But really they are primarily an indicator of when things are going wrong. They can also allow us to compare different pedagogical approaches and tools. But saying that there's no evidence that reading books does way better than excerpts in studies is kind of like saying there's no evidence that playing Bach makes you a lot better at playing scales than playing scales, so let's just play scales all the time. It really strikes me as pretty backwards. The whole point of practicing scales is to play beautiful compositions by composers like Bach. The point of education is not just to get good scores on a standardized tests. I want my kids to do well on state tests, but primarily I want them to be educated. A big part of being educated is reading wonderful books.

3) Do you know anyone who loves reading, but reads exclusively short stories? I don't. I do know plenty of people who identify as readers but currently only mostly have time for short form reading, like news articles. Every single one of those people would lament that they are not reading enough. They don't mean they're not reading enough words - they're reading plenty of words. But it doesn't register as the kind of reading that counts for them emotionally. We need to give kids reading experiences that resonate: opportunities to be swept away into new worlds. As a parent, I find it so daunting to realize that it's all on me. No one in our public school is going to help my family give my kids those experiences. Honestly, it just makes me sad. It was not my experience in school. We read so many books as a class, in a totally standard not rich public school in small town New York - some as read-alouds, some as a class, some in small groups. I loved school, and my kids just tolerate it.

At least I have the confidence and knowledge to give my kids great reading experiences, but so many kids don't have that. It's just ... depressing.

In our classroom, we use whole-book studies to drive our reading instruction. Students engage deeply with one book which allows us to build comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, and real world experiences in a meaningful context.

We read in a variety of ways to support all learners — I read aloud to model fluent reading, we read paragraphs together, students participate in partner and dyad reading, and sometimes I pause for students to supply key words as I read. These approaches help students stay engaged and develop confidence as readers. If students are struggling with the text, I group several with a teacher- while others are partner reading in their place of choice throughout the room.

Each student is given a reading booklet that they complete throughout our book study. Before reading each day, we review key vocabulary or morphemes they may encounter, or we begin with a brief discussion to build background knowledge and review from the previous day.

After reading, students complete a different task each day—this might include creating a character map, answering a comprehension question and finding supporting text evidence, problem/solutions, cause/effect, identifying figurative language, or writing a summary. These activities help students actively engage with the text and demonstrate their understanding as we move through the book.

We also incorporate non-fiction texts related to our novel to help students gain a deeper understanding of the topics, themes, and contexts we encounter in our reading.

We also integrate our reading with science, art, and writing to make learning meaningful and engaging. For example, when we read Call It Courage, we take our students outdoors to bring the story to life. Students rotate through hands-on stations—cutting open a coconut, art, practicing descriptive writing, and canoeing. During the canoeing station, students canoe upstream. Our school Field Instructor tethers the canoes together and uses an oar to guide the floating classroom of canoes downstream. He explains “show vs. tell” while the students about what they observe and connect physical experience with expressive language.

Throughout the year, we weave in themes from our readings—such as “I can do hard things,”,"having grit," and "accepting others,"—to encourage perseverance, confidence, and a growth mindset in every aspect of learning throughout the year.

This approach is designed to build a love of reading while strengthening the foundational literacy skills students need for lifelong success. It also supports students who may struggle with more challenging books by giving them opportunities to experience success and grow as confident readers.


What I Have Learned after 27 years of teaching....

I love teaching through whole-book studies. This approach allows students to experience the richness of an entire text rather than isolated excerpts. To be effective, teachers must have a strong understanding of the core standards and know where and how to integrate them throughout the book.

Teaching this way requires intentional preparation—planning lessons, activities, and discussions ahead of time—rather than simply following an instructional manual or pre-written prompts. It is a more engaging learning experience for students.

Students are highly engaged, develop reading stamina, and connect more deeply with characters, themes, and ideas. Over time, this approach not only builds a love of reading but also leads to strong academic outcomes—our end-of-year test scores consistently exceed the state average.

How can we effectively balance the use of excerpts for skill-building and whole books for enjoyment and depth, especially in standardized-test-driven environments?
I’m curious about practical strategies that teachers are using to maintain this balance without sacrificing either literacy skills or student engagement.

I recently listened to a podcast featuring Dough Lemov and team promoting the idea that teaching novels is better than teaching with excerpts. Then, followed it up with your podcast on the same subject. Interesting to see the level of controversy this subject provokes!

I am an avid reader and have been since childhood; I absolutely love books and try to foster the same love of reading in my 7 year old. However....I think there can be room for both novels and excerpts in the classroom.

Big box curriculum often use a variety of shorter texts and excerpts to address the many genres and text structures required by state standards. Novel studies are not necessarily going to be able to meet all those standards in the same way and programs would be required to incorporate other types of text anyway. These companies also have to contend with wrath of public opinion when it comes to selecting "appropriate" novels for students at all levels - this being an even bigger minefield when we consider books bans and who's knowledge or ideas should be prioritized in classroom texts. In my classroom experience, these programs do often provide suggestions for novel studies through book clubs, small group, etc. However, I personally believe if you work in a school with an adopted curriculum, there should be some flexibility within fidelity to said program to incorporate novel studies throughout the school year (whether or not administration allows that is another concern).

I also find it interesting how many people rely on anecdotal evidence to say that the benefits of novels far exceed that of excerpts. Just because it worked for you or your child, or that it is "so obviously true," does not mean is should decide instruction for all students in all classrooms. While it seems these days data can be found to support any position, I do still have to believe that relying on GOOD research and evidence is the best way to design instructional materials.

Finally, teachers are tasked with teaching students how to read and comprehend text. That is their job. While getting children to love reading can certainly be a fantastic outcome, love of reading is not the primary goal. I can't think of a time when people so vehemently expressed that the primary goal of math teachers was to get students to love math. The goal is that students learn to work with an understand math.

The elephant in the room for me is poetry .I am not an English teacher but it is sad , poetry doesn't feature anymore as it did in traditional classrooms. Even at the elementary level , surely a few longer poems should be read even if just by the teacher. When I was at school way back with dinosaurs we learnt poems off by heart for homework then recited them orally to adults , or as practice in public speaking to the class. Good for strengthening memory as well. At secondary school of course we learned off sections of Shakespeare like the "Quality of Mercy " and read the book of Job , although it was a public school. Then there is the 'Rime of the Ancient Mariner' and TS Eliots 'Old Possums Book of Practical Cats' . Great works of all genres of literature are so important for children to be introduced to . Somehow progressive education has cancelled this out. How did that happen?

Gaynor--
Poetry is another of those short form pieces that should have a place along with novellas in an English class (along with essays, short stories, plays, and excerpts from more extensive works).

tim

Your post seems to be conflating two reasons for favouring shorter reading extracts for instructional purposes. Firstly; such passages are highly useful for teaching / honing specific skills - decoding, comprehension, analysis etc. Secondly; realistically, they enable a far greater exposure to different significant authors than otherwise occurs. From my experience of teaching over 35 years, this seriously underestimates the value of a well-selected, coherent whole-books program in any school. It does seem to be uniquely American to discourage this, but surely the two approaches, well delivered, are completely compatible.

The following is technically accurate and also incomplete and misleading: "There is no research showing that books are superior to excerpts or that excerpts are superior to books when it comes to developing reading ability." There is no research assessment that evaluates the ability to analyze longer works like novels and plays, for the same reason that there is scant research* on the long-term life outcomes of having stronger teachers in fifth grade. To exclude those purposes of instruction from your universe of discussion is non-responsive.

How much of "Red Badge of Courage" is needed to know whether the focal character learns anything?
How much of "The Invisible Man" do you need to read to understand the viewpoint character's arc?
How much of Medea do you need to read to be shocked by the deus ex machina at the end?