View in EDS PDF Full Text

Silent versus oral reading comprehension and efficiency.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Silent versus oral reading comprehension and efficiency.
Authors: McCallum, R. Steve, Sharp, Shannon, Bell, Sherry Mee, George, Thomas
Source: Psychology in the Schools. Feb2004, Vol. 41 Issue 2, p241-246. 6p. 1 Chart.
Subjects: Reading comprehension, Students, Silent reading, Oral reading, Multivariate analysis, Analysis of covariance
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 < .05); however, a comparison of mean reading comprehension scores showed no significant difference between silent readers and oral readers ( p > .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 < .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. Psychol Schs 41: 241–246, 2004. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Psychology in the Schools is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Description
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 < .05); however, a comparison of mean reading comprehension scores showed no significant difference between silent readers and oral readers ( p > .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 < .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. Psychol Schs 41: 241–246, 2004. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:00333085
DOI:10.1002/pits.10152