The Decline of Comprehension‐Based Silent Reading Efficiency in the United States: A Comparison of Current Data With Performance in 1960

Abstract

The present study measured the comprehension‐based silent reading efficiency of U.S. students in grades 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Students read standardized grade‐level passages while an eye movement recording system was used to measure reading rate, fixations (eye stops) per word, fixation durations, and regressions (right‐to‐left eye movements) per word. Eye movement recordings were regarded as valid only if students demonstrated a comprehension level of at least 70% after reading a passage and answering a series of true/false questions. Reading rates increased over grades, with two exceptions: (a) between grades 6 and 8, growth in reading rate appeared to plateau; and (b) between grades 10 and 12, reading rate increases were seen only among students in the upper two quartiles. Changes in the other three efficiency measures reflected similar patterns of reading efficiency development over grades. The reading efficiency of students in this study was also compared with that of a sample of students from 1960, using norms reported by Taylor (1965) and validated by Carver (1989). Comprehension‐based silent reading rates in grade 2 were comparable across the 50‐year span, but the cross‐grade growth trajectory was much shallower in the present study than it was in 1960. These results suggest that present‐day students may not achieve the same level of word‐reading automaticity as did their 1960 counterparts.

How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate

“…As can be seen, Taylor's (1965) finding of an increase in reading rate in primary and secondary education was confirmed. However, reading rates were substantially lower in Spichtig et al (2016) for all but grade 2. In addition, the participants did not have 70% correct on the yes/no questions in almost one third of the recordings.…”

“…In addition, the participants did not have 70% correct on the yes/no questions in almost one third of the recordings. Spichtig et al (2016) interpreted these findings as evidence for a strong decline in word recognition automaticity in the USA between 1960 and 2010. A comparison with Figure 2 puts this conclusion somewhat in perspective.…”

“…Taylor (1965) did not mention the length of the texts, but given the equipment he used, these cannot have been longer than one paragraph. In Spichtig, Hiebert, Vorstius, Pascoe, Pearson, and Radach (2016), the materials were described as five paragraphs of 100 words each.…”

The Inefficiency of Vocabulary Instruction

“…The reading-only condition read three 400-word stories. Since no treatment time was reported for this condition, I began with the average 4 th grade silent reading rate, which is estimated to be around 150 wpm (Carver, 1989;Spichtig, Hiebert, Vorstius, C., Pascoe, J., Pearson, P. D., & Radach, R., 2016). However, because students knew they were going to be quizzed on the content of the passages, I lowered the reading rate to 100 wpm, as students who know they are to be tested tend to read more slowly (Carver, 1990).…”

“…Efficiency calculations for incidental vocabulary acquisition depend in part on the reader's reading rate. The most recent large-scale study of reading rates was a partial replication of Taylor (1965) by Spichtig et al (2016). Like Taylor, Spichtig and colleagues measured reading rate along with comprehension and eye movements for a large sample (N= 2,203) of students, but limited their study to grades 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 12.…”