Reading Time, Rewards and Logs: What the Research Says

Read-a-thons borrow their credibility from reading research, but no study we found has tested a read-a-thon itself. What the research does offer is solid guidance on the design choices you control: how long the reading period runs, what you reward, and how you ask families to log minutes. This page summarizes 11 studies and surveys, what each can and cannot tell you, and how to apply it.

For the full event plan, see our read-a-thon planning guide. This page owns the evidence.

Why this matters for organizers

Parents, teachers and principals will ask whether a read-a-thon does anything for reading. A credible answer helps you win support, and it also keeps you from promising results the evidence can't back. The research below also shapes three practical decisions: whether to reward minutes or money, what kind of prizes to offer, and how heavy to make the reading log.

Evidence gap We found no controlled study of read-a-thons as an intervention. Everything below is about reading time, motivation or logs in other settings. We apply it by reasoning, not by direct proof.

Reading time and reading growth

Anderson, Wilson and Fielding (1986): how children spend time outside school

What it studied. Fact 155 fifth graders in two Illinois schools kept daily logs of their out-of-school activities (Technical Report No. 389).

What it found. Fact The median child read books for 4.6 minutes a day (the mean was 10.1). Minutes of book reading was the best predictor of reading growth from second to fifth grade among the activities measured. Children at the 90th percentile read about five times as many minutes as the median child and more than 200 times as many as children at the 10th percentile.

Fact The study's Table 3 estimated that a child at the 90th percentile read books for 21.2 minutes a day, about 1,823,000 words a year, while the median child read 4.6 minutes a day, about 282,000 words a year. The authors call these words-per-year estimates unstable (Table 3). This table, rounded, is where the widely shared "20 minutes a day = 1.8 million words" graphic comes from.

Limits. Small, from the 1980s, and correlational. The authors themselves say the causal case falls short of conclusive. The table describes how much children who already read a lot were reading; it does not show that adding minutes causes growth.

For your read-a-thon. The gap between light and heavy readers is huge, so a goal that suits avid readers will be out of reach for many others. Arithmetic Using the mean of 10.1 minutes a day, a two-week event at that pace would total about 141 minutes per child (10.1 × 14). Set goals per reader, not one number for all.

Mol and Bus (2011): print exposure from infancy to early adulthood

What it studied. Fact A meta-analysis of 99 studies with 7,669 participants on the relationship between how much people read and how well they read (Psychological Bulletin).

What it found. Fact Print exposure explained 12% of the variation in oral language skills in preschool and kindergarten, rising to 13% in primary school, 19% in middle school, 30% in high school and 34% in college. It was also moderately to strongly correlated with reading comprehension, word reading and spelling.

Limits. Correlational, and the relationship runs both ways: better readers read more, and reading more helps people read better.

For your read-a-thon. The link between reading volume and skill grows stronger with age. That gives a sound reason to keep older students in the event rather than limiting read-a-thons to the youngest grades. Ideas for that age group are on our page on middle and high school read-a-thons.

Kim and Quinn (2013): summer reading programs

What it studied. Fact A meta-analysis of 35 studies covering 41 summer reading interventions from 1998 to 2011, for children from kindergarten to grade 8 (Review of Educational Research).

What it found. Fact Overall effect on total reading was small (d = .10). Effects were larger for comprehension (d = .23) and for fluency and decoding (d = .24). There was no effect on vocabulary. Benefits were larger for children from low-income families.

Limits. These were structured programs, often with book access and teacher guidance, running across a summer. A read-a-thon is shorter and lighter.

For your read-a-thon. Access matters. If some readers have few books at home, pair the event with library visits, book swaps or classroom libraries they can borrow from. Even well-designed reading programs produce modest effects, so describe your event's goals modestly too.

Reading trends: scores and reading for fun

These figures are context for why schools and libraries care about reading. They are descriptive and say nothing about read-a-thons.

NAEP 2024 reading

Fact In the 2024 Nation's Report Card, average reading scores for grades 4 and 8 were each down 2 points from 2022 (National Assessment Governing Board). In grade 8, about a third of students scored below Basic, the largest share ever recorded (National Assessment Governing Board). In grade 4, 31% scored at or above Proficient (Nation's Report Card). The 2026 results are expected in early 2027 (NCES).

For your read-a-thon. These numbers explain the urgency many schools feel. Do not connect them to your event's results.

NAEP Long-Term Trend: reading for fun

Fact In 2023, 14% of 13-year-olds said they read for fun almost every day, down from 17% in 2020 and 27% in 2012 (NAEP Long-Term Trend 2023). For 9-year-olds the share fell from 53% in 2012 to 42% in 2020 and 39% in 2022, as summarized by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The 2025 Long-Term Trend results, released in June 2026, showed average reading scores for 9-year-olds up 4 points from 2022, with no significant change for 13-year-olds from 2023 (NAEP LTT 2025).

Arithmetic 27% − 14% = 13 percentage points; the share of 13-year-olds reading for fun almost daily roughly halved between 2012 and 2023.

Limits. Self-reported answers to a survey question.

Fact Students' own reports in the NAEP long-term trend survey. Age 13: NAEP 2023 highlights; age 9: National Endowment for the Arts summary of NAEP data. The two ages were surveyed in different years (2022 for age 9, 2023 for age 13). Self-reported and descriptive: it shows a trend, not a cause.

Show the data as a table

Age	2012	2020	Most recent
9	53%	42%	39% (2022)
13	27%	17%	14% (2023)

Scholastic Kids and Family Reading Report, 8th edition (2023)

Fact A survey of 1,724 parents and children found that the share reading for fun five or more days a week was 46% at ages 6–8, 32% at 9–11, 21% at 12–14 and 15% at 15–17. Reading enjoyment was 70% at ages 6–8 and 46% at 12–17 (Scholastic press release).

Limits. A survey sponsored by a children's book publisher.

For your read-a-thon. The drop in frequent reading starts well before middle school. Choice of material, including graphic novels, magazines and audiobooks, is one of the few levers you control for older readers.

National Literacy Trust (UK), 2026

Fact Among 125,375 respondents aged 5–18 from 479 schools, reading enjoyment rose to 36.1% from 32.7%, the first rise since 2021. Daily reading among 8- to 18-year-olds rose to 20.3% from 18.7% (National Literacy Trust).

Limits. Schools opted in, and the data are from the UK.

For your read-a-thon. Large-scale declines are not fixed. That is not evidence that any single event helps, but it is a fair reason for optimism.

Rewards and motivation

Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999): rewards and intrinsic motivation

What it studied. Fact A meta-analysis of 128 experiments on how rewards affect people's motivation to keep doing an activity on their own (Psychological Bulletin).

What it found. Fact Expected tangible rewards reduced free-choice intrinsic motivation (d = −0.36 across all ages), and the harm was greater for children than for college students. Unexpected rewards had roughly no effect. Verbal praise increased interest overall (d = +0.33), though for children alone the effect was small and not significant.

Limits. Mostly short laboratory tasks, not reading programs.

For your read-a-thon. Keep any announced tiers small and reading-related (books, reading privileges), make the biggest reward a shared celebration, and add unannounced surprises. Use specific praise and recognize effort.

Marinak and Gambrell (2008): what sustains young readers

What it studied. Fact Third graders given a book as a reward, a token reward or no reward (ERIC).

What it found. Fact Children who received a book or no reward showed more persistence in reading than those given a token reward. How closely the reward relates to reading mattered. In a 2016 interview, the authors argued that rewards such as a principal on the roof are too removed from reading (Education Week).

Limits. One age group, a short study.

For your read-a-thon. Books, extra reading time, author visits and library privileges fit the evidence better than trinkets. Several schools in our documented read-a-thon examples used staff stunts; if you keep one, make it a whole-school celebration of reading, not a payment for minutes.

Flora and Flora (1999): a counterweight

What it studied. Fact College students' recollections of being rewarded for reading as children, including a pizza program and money from parents (Psychological Record).

What it found. Fact No detectable harm to their adult reading habits or intrinsic motivation.

Limits. Retrospective memories from one sample.

For your read-a-thon. Modest rewards are unlikely to ruin a child's love of reading. That does not make them the best choice. Read alongside Deci and Marinak, the safest design keeps rewards small, close to reading, and not the main point. Our guide to read-a-thon prizes and incentives applies this.

Reading logs

Pak and Weseley (2012): mandatory logs

What it studied. Fact Second and third graders assigned mandatory reading logs compared with those given voluntary logs (Reading Rockets summary).

What it found. Fact Mandatory logs reduced students' interest in recreational reading compared with voluntary ones.

Limits. One study, two months long, in one suburban setting.

For your read-a-thon. Make the log light, quick and celebratory. One line a day with minutes and a grown-up's initials is enough. Our reading log page has a two-week log built that way.

What this means for your read-a-thon

1. Reward reading, not dollars. Recognize minutes, streaks and participation. Never rank children by money raised.
2. Keep tangible rewards small and close to reading. Books and reading privileges over trinkets. Keep any tiers announced at the kickoff small, and make the biggest reward a shared celebration.
3. Use praise and surprise. Specific praise and unannounced surprises carry less motivational risk than promised prizes.
4. Make the log light. One line a day, minutes plus initials. No book reports or summaries.
5. Set goals per reader. Reading volume varies hugely between children. Personal or class goals let everyone succeed.
6. Count every kind of reading. Listening to audiobooks, being read to and reading in any language all count. See how on our every-reader-counts page.
7. Widen access. Pair the event with library visits or book swaps for readers with few books at home.

Claims to avoid

What you can say with confidence: children who read more tend to read better, the link grows with age, and your event is designed to make reading time visible and enjoyable. Our read-a-thon research hub explains how we sort facts, arithmetic and examples.

Sources

1. Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school (Technical Report No. 389). ideals.illinois.edu (accessed October 19, 2026)
2. National Assessment Governing Board, The Nation's Report Card Shows Declines in Reading, Some Progress in 4th Grade Math. nagb.gov (accessed October 19, 2026)
3. The Nation's Report Card, Explore Results for the 2024 NAEP Reading Assessment. nationsreportcard.gov (accessed October 19, 2026)
4. National Center for Education Statistics, What's on the horizon for the 2026 Nation's Report Card. nces.ed.gov (accessed October 19, 2026)
5. The Nation's Report Card, Scores decline again for 13-year-old students in reading and mathematics (NAEP Long-Term Trend 2023). nationsreportcard.gov (accessed October 19, 2026)
6. National Endowment for the Arts, Federal data on reading for pleasure: all signs show a slump. arts.gov (accessed October 19, 2026)
7. The Nation's Report Card, NAEP Long-Term Trend 2025. nationsreportcard.gov (accessed October 19, 2026)
8. Scholastic, New Data from the Scholastic Kids & Family Reading Report Finds Kids are Reading Less as They Age (8th edition press release, Sep 11, 2023). scholastic.com (accessed October 19, 2026)
9. National Literacy Trust, Children and young people's reading in 2026. literacytrust.org.uk (accessed October 19, 2026)
10. Kim & Quinn, via Policy Analysis for California Education, The effects of summer reading on low-income children's literacy achievement from kindergarten to grade 8: A meta-analysis of classroom and home interventions (Review of Educational Research, 2013). edpolicyinca.org (accessed October 19, 2026)
11. Mol & Bus, American Psychological Association, To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood (Psychological Bulletin, 2011). doi.org (accessed October 19, 2026)
12. Deci, Koestner & Ryan, A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999), Psychological Bulletin 125(6). depts.washington.edu (accessed October 19, 2026)
13. Marinak & Gambrell, via ERIC, Intrinsic motivation and rewards: What sustains young children's engagement with text? (Literacy Research and Instruction, 2008). eric.ed.gov (accessed October 19, 2026)
14. Education Week, 'No More Reading For Junk': An Interview With Barbara Marinak & Linda Gambrell. edweek.org (accessed October 19, 2026)
15. Flora & Flora, Springer, Effects of extrinsic reinforcement for reading during childhood on reported reading habits of college students (Flora & Flora, 1999), The Psychological Record 49. link.springer.com (accessed October 19, 2026)
16. Reading Rockets, The effect of mandatory reading logs on children's motivation to read (summary). readingrockets.org (accessed October 19, 2026)