Seventy-four students read passages from an individually administered test of reading comprehension (a subtest from the Test of Dyslexia, a test of reading and related abilities currently in development; McCallum & Bell, 2001), and then answered literal and inferential questions. Students were randomly assigned to one of two conditions; 39 students read the passages silently and 35 read orally, with time recorded for each passage read. Comprehension and time were dependent measures for a Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) and two follow-up Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA). After controlling for reading ability, results from the MAN-COVA showed a significant combined effect ( p Ͻ .05); however, a comparison of mean reading comprehension scores showed no significant difference between silent readers and oral readers ( p Ͼ .05). On the other hand, with reading ability controlled, silent readers took significantly less time to complete passages compared to those who read orally ( p Ͻ .02). In fact, students took 30% longer to read orally than silently, on average. When test directions do not specify either oral or silent reading and error analysis is not a goal, testing will be more efficient via silent responding with no loss of comprehension. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Efficacy of silent versus oral reading has been the focus of a number of investigations with inconclusive results, due perhaps to different sample characteristics, test conditions, and dependent measures across studies. This study was designed to determine whether differences occur in performance and efficiency for a sample of elementary students as a function of reading individually administered test passages silently versus orally.Several researchers in the 1970s found oral reading to produce superior comprehension under some conditions. For example, Swalm (1972) and Elgart (1978) found that young readers (second and third graders, respectively) comprehended better after reading orally. More recently, Fletcher and Pumfrey (1988) found that oral reading led to greater comprehension than silent reading for 7-and 8-year-olds. Passages and comprehension questions were taken from an individually administered standardized reading instrument, typically requiring oral reading of text and oral responding to comprehension questions; two passages were completed for each of the three reading modes. The passages were not presented as a part of a complete test administration. Test format was not specified, i.e., the authors did not indicate whether passages were presented in a one-to-one versus group administration.In contrast, Rowell (1976) and Miller and Smith (1985) found mixed results. Specifically, Rowell found comprehension to be higher under an oral reading condition for urban/suburban fifth graders and for males but not for rural fifth graders and females. In a study of 94 second through fifth graders, Miller and Smith (1985) asked students to read one passage silently and one passage orally. After each passage, the students answered both...

No abstract

No abstract

This grounded theory study explores how bystander digital video distributed via social media documents perceived injustice and serves as an emancipatory technology. Using 30 examples, the study provides insight into how bystander videos impact perceived social injustice with potential visual evidence and how bystander videos ultimately shape larger social movements. We find that potential evidentiary video events break down into eight theoretical areas: instigation, target, place, perceived injustice, tools, witness, potential evidence, and outcomes. We find that while bystander video spread through social media can indeed serve as an emancipatory technology with substantial positive outcomes, care must be taken to avoid oversaturation that could result in desensitization and lower efficacy.

Benner, George, and Cagle present the concept of teacher education admission boards, particularly as defined by and established at the University of Ten nessee. The boards, comprised of prac titioners in the field, content area special ists, advanced students, and program area faculty interview students, review data available on the students and make final admission decisions. Further, once a student is admitted, he or she is as signed to a mentoring team that pro vides ongoing evaluation throughout the program. While the subjectivity and deficiencies of the board process are ob vious, the concept of admission boards is offered to the profession as an alterna tive to relying on quantitative measures alone.