Silent versus oral reading comprehension and efficiency

Abstract

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...

The Effects of Choice on Reading Engagement and Comprehension for Second- and Third-Grade Students: An Action Research Report

“…Previous studies showed neutral results in testing the variability between reading silently versus aloud (Hawkins et al, 2011;McCallum et al, 2004); however, this study's findings also suggest that silent reading is optimal (Sanden, 2014). Data collected from students from both high-and low-income schools were used, and the results regarding the effects of choice and silent reading on reading comprehension were the same.…”

“…The outcomes of studies of both SSR and reading aloud are conflicting or neutral (Hawkins, Hale, Sheeley, & Ling, 2011;McCallum, Sharp, Bell, & George, 2004). Because it is not clear which type of reading has a more positive effect on children's reading comprehension, both variables need further study.…”

Assessing reading fluency in Kenya: Oral or silent assessment?

“…The results of such comparisons are mixed. Lynn Fuchs, Douglas Fuchs and Linn Maxwell (1988) found that when the reading levels of oral and silent passages were equated, the correlation between comprehension scores was generally high, a finding echoed in more recent studies (Hale et al 2011;McCallum et al 2004). However, among middle-school students (i.e., grades 6-8 or ages 11-14), Carolyn Denton et al (2011) found that ORF was more strongly related to reading comprehension than to scores on a silent task, results similar to those of a number of other studies (Ardoin et al 2004;Hale et al 2007;Jenkins and Jewell 1993).…”

“…The matter is not settled in Kenya or sub-Saharan Africa as, to our knowledge, no published peer-reviewed studies present data on this issue from the continent. As discussed above, the discrepancies in findings may indeed be due to differences in measures and samples across studies (McCallum et al 2004). However, the literature clearly demonstrates that it is important to consider the age and grade level of the students being tested, as well as the relative focus on oral and silent reading in the curriculum and the practice of a child's school (Berninger et al 2010).…”

“…To read out loud, one must also form and speak the words, adding a series of steps to the reading task. Therefore, the words-per-minute rate a student can produce orally will likely be lower than his or her silent words-per-minute rate (McCallum et al 2004). In a latent variable analysis, Young-Suk Kim and her colleagues (2012) demonstrated that silent and oral fluency are indeed dissociablealbeit related -constructs.…”