gets them in the habit of reading, some note that SSR alone may not be enough to increase student reading comprehension and fluency rates. One recurring theme in professional critiques of SSR is the prevalence of "fake reading". One study, published in 2010, noted after observing one classroom during SSR that roughly 77% of the class was off-task during SSR time. Additionally, there was a 71% correlation between students who viewed reading favorably and students who were reading during SSR and vice versa. These statistics suggest that most students who like reading stay on task during SSR, and most students who do not share their enthusiasm are off-task. There was no evidence to suggest that SSR was helping to create new readers in the classroom. While some proponents of SSR believe that its detractors are simply against free reading time for students, many critiques of SSR involve supplementing SSR with other reading activities. In 2002, J.C. Marshall posited that SSR, in addition to read-alouds, writing exercises, and increased overall reading time, made for an environment much more conducive to a positive reading atmosphere. Similarly, Reutzel et al. proposed that Scaffolded Silent Reading (ScSR) and Guided Repeated Oral Reading (GROR) are much more effective methods of independent reading. ScSR and GROR share many commonalities with SSR, but additionally feature a more hands-on approach from instructors, who actively play a part in book selection, encourage the reading of diverse texts, monitor student progress, hold book conferences, provide feedback, and hold their students accountable. When implemented in the classroom, students utilizing ScSR and GROR both committed fewer reading errors, demonstrated more expressive reading qualities, and increased their idea unit recall over a year. National Reading Panel analysis of sustained silent reading studies While much of the criticism of SSR has come from independent research, there has also been some exception taken with the National Reading Panel (NRP) and their research into SSR. In 2000, the NRP meta-analyzed all quasi-experimental and experimental studies of SSR and found their effects to be positive. Some have challenged this claim. The panel also noted that the absence of quantitative evidence was not evidenced against the practice in itself. They recommended further study of SSR. Jim Trelease, educator and author of The Read-Aloud Handbook, is one of many reading advocates who have disputed the impartiality of these findings. He points out that the NRP included only 14 research