Silent versus Oral Reading Comprehension and Efficiency
Saved in:
| Title: | Silent versus Oral Reading Comprehension and Efficiency |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | McCallum, R. Steve, Sharp, Shannon, Bell, Sherry Mee, George, Thomas |
| Source: | Psychology in the Schools. Feb 2004 41(2):241-246. |
| Availability: | John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Subscription Department, 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774. Tel: 800-825-7550; Tel: 201-748-6645; Fax: 201-748-6021; e-mail: subinfo@wiley.com; Web site: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/browse/?type=JOURNAL |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 6 |
| Publication Date: | 2004 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Elementary Education Middle Schools |
| Descriptors: | Silent Reading, Reading Ability, Oral Reading, Multivariate Analysis, Reading Comprehension, Efficiency, Measures (Individuals), Comparative Analysis, Reading Tests, Rural Areas, Elementary School Students, Middle School Students, Dyslexia |
| Geographic Terms: | Tennessee |
| DOI: | 10.1002/pits.10152 |
| ISSN: | 0033-3085 |
| 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 MANCOVA showed a significant combined effect (p less than 0.05); however, a comparison of mean reading comprehension scores showed no significant difference between silent readers and oral readers (p greater than 0.05). On the other hand, with reading ability controlled, silent readers took significantly less time to complete passages compared to those who read orally (p less than 0.02). 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. (Contains 1 table.) |
| Abstractor: | Author |
| Number of References: | 18 |
| Entry Date: | 2007 |
| Accession Number: | EJ761728 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| 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 MANCOVA showed a significant combined effect (p less than 0.05); however, a comparison of mean reading comprehension scores showed no significant difference between silent readers and oral readers (p greater than 0.05). On the other hand, with reading ability controlled, silent readers took significantly less time to complete passages compared to those who read orally (p less than 0.02). 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. (Contains 1 table.) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0033-3085 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/pits.10152 |
