Round robin reading (RRR) has been a classroom staple for over 200 years and an activity that over half of K–8 teachers report using in one of its many forms, such as popcorn reading. RRR’s popularity endures despite the evidence that the practice is ineffective for its stated purpose: enhancing fluency, word decoding, and comprehension. Cecile Somme makes a good point in Popcorn Reading: The Need to Encourage Reflective Practice: “Popcorn reading is one of the sure-fire ways to get kids who are already hesitant about reading to really hate reading.”

Facts About Round Robin Reading

In RRR, students read orally from a common text, one child after another, while the other students follow along in their copies of the text. Several variations on the technique offer negligible advantages over RRR, if any. They simply differ in how the reading transition occurs:

Popcorn Reading: A student reads orally for a time, and then calls out “popcorn” before selecting another student in class to read.

A student reads orally for a time, and then calls out “popcorn” before selecting another student in class to read. Combat Reading: A kid nominates a classmate to read in an attempt to catch the peer off task, explain Gwynne Ash and Melanie Kuhn in their chapter in Fluency Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices.

A kid nominates a classmate to read in an attempt to catch the peer off task, explain Gwynne Ash and Melanie Kuhn in their chapter in Fluency Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices. Popsicle Stick Reading: Student names are written on Popsicle sticks and placed in a can. The learner whose name is drawn reads next.

Student names are written on Popsicle sticks and placed in a can. The learner whose name is drawn reads next. Touch Go Reading: As described by Somme, the instructor taps a child when it’s his or her turn to read.

Of the 30-odd studies and articles I’ve consumed on the subject, only one graduate research paper claimed a benefit to RRR or its variations, stating tepidly that perhaps RRR isn’t as awful as everyone says. Katherine Hilden and Jennifer Jones’ criticism is unmitigated: “We know of no research evidence that supports the claim that RRR actually contributes to students becoming better readers, either in terms of their fluency or comprehension.” (PDF)

Why all the harshitude? Because RRR:

Stigmatizes poor readers. Imagine the terror that English language learners and struggling readers face when made to read in front of an entire class.

Imagine the terror that English language learners and struggling readers face when made to read in front of an entire class. Weakens comprehension. Listening to a peer orally read too slowly, too fast, or too haltingly weakens learners’ comprehension—a problem exacerbated by turn-taking interruptions.

Listening to a peer orally read too slowly, too fast, or too haltingly weakens learners’ comprehension—a problem exacerbated by turn-taking interruptions. Sabotages fluency and pronunciation. Struggling readers model poor fluency skills and pronunciation. When instructors correct errors, fluency is further compromised.

To be clear, oral reading in other formats does improve students’ fluency, comprehension, and word recognition, though silent or independent reading should occur far more frequently as students advance into the later grades. Fortunately, other oral reading activities offer significant advantages over RRR and its cousins. As you’ll see in the list below, many of them share similar features.