The Influence of Oral Versus Silent Reading on Reading Comprehension in Students With Reading Disabilities

Abstract

This study examined the effects of reading modality (oral vs. silent) on comprehension in elementary school students with a specific learning disability in reading ( N = 77). A 2 (development-level) × 2 (reading modality) × 2 (time) mixed factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the influence of these variables on comprehension. Significant main effects were found for reading modality and time on comprehension, but the main effect for developmental level was not significant. Students understood more of what was read orally than silently and showed improved comprehension across the year. The development-level by modality interaction was significant. Early elementary students benefited from oral reading in terms of comprehension, whereas equivalent comprehension was observed for late elementary students across modalities. No other two- or three-way interactions were significant. Results from this study suggest that reading modality is an important variable to consider for researchers and educators who are interested in the construct of reading comprehension.

Meaningful Learning Model: The Impact on Students’ Reading Comprehension

“…Students as readers can enrich the meaning of the text depending on past knowledge, upper-level linguistic processes and context knowledge during this process (Bastug & Demirtas, 2016). This statement infers that there is correlation between students' reading fluency and their comprehension of the text which is in line with Robinson, Meisinger, & Joyner (2019) who state that reading fluency supports reading comprehension. Reading fluency is considered to be a powerful predictor of reading comprehension (Bastug & Demirtas, 2016).…”

Reading Instruction for Students with and At Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: A Synthesis of Observation Research

“…However, we are unable to determine whether teachers employed this instructional method in an effort to manage student behavior, limit their experience of stress, or because they believed it to be an effective method for improving reading performance. Regardless, we would like to note that independent silent reading may limit the amount of time students receive explicit, teacher-directed instruction, which is critical to the development of reading skills (Robinson, Meisinger, and Joyner 2019). It should also be noted that concerns with the use of independent silent reading were expressed by the National Reading Panel (2000; e.g., need for additional research to determine effects).…”

Reading aloud improves proofreading (but using Sans Forgetica font does not).

“…Such processes may also aid in the detection of noncontextual errors (e.g., if a typo is nonpronounceable, saying it aloud might help identify the error). Reading aloud has also long been reported to improve text comprehension (e.g., Collins, 1961; Elgart, 1978; Robinson et al, 2019), which would also aid in the detection of errors (perhaps through increased attention). This possibility could be assessed in future studies by testing comprehension of texts after proofreading aloud versus silently.…”

“…The most frequent tip was to proofread aloud. As reviewed below, reading aloud improves the encoding of text (Ozubko et al, 2012; Robinson et al, 2019). We investigated whether this simple strategy also improves the complex skill of proofreading.…”