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.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
3.
BarkerT. A.TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K. (1992). The role of orthographic processing skills on five different reading tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 34–45. doi:10.2307/747673
ChallJ. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
8.
ChallJ. S. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
9.
ChristT. J.SilberglittB. (2007). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: The standard error of measurement. School Psychology Review, 36, 30–146.
10.
de JongP. F.ShareD. L. (2007). Orthographic learning during oral and silent reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 55–71. doi:10.1080/10888430709336634
11.
DickensR. H.MeisingerE. B. (2015). Examining the effects of skill level and reading modality on reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 37, 318–337. doi:10.1080/02702711.2015.1055869
12.
DickensR. H.MeisingerE. B. (2017). Examining the effects of reading modality and passage genre on reading comprehension in middle school students. Reading Psychology, 38, 321–347. doi:10.1080/02702711.2016.1263701
13.
DuffD.TomblinJ. B.CattsH. (2015). The influence of reading on vocabulary growth: A case for a Matthew effect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58, 853–864. doi:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-13-0310
14.
DunbarS. B.WelchC. J.HooverH. D.FrisbieD. A. (2011). Iowa assessments, form E. Orlando, FL: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
15.
ElgartD. B. (1978). Oral reading, silent reading, and listening comprehension: A comparative study. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10, 203–207.
16.
FletcherJ.PumfreyP. D. (1988). Differences in text comprehension amongst 7-8 year old students. School Psychology International, 9, 133–145. doi:10.1177/0143034388092008
17.
FuchsL. S.MaxwellL. (1988). Interactive effects of reading mode, production format, and structural importance of text among LD pupils. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 97–105. doi:10.2307/1510987
18.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Available from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/
19.
HaleA. D.SkinnerC. H.WilliamsJ.HawkinsR. O.NeddenriepC. E.DizerJ. (2007). Comparing comprehension following silent and aloud reading across elementary and secondary students: Implications for curriculum-based measurement. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8, 9–23. doi:10.1037/h0100101
20.
HardyckC. D.PetrinovichL. F. (1970). Subvocal speech and comprehension level as a function of the difficulty level of reading material. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 9, 647–652. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80027-5
21.
HausbrouckJ.TindalG. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644. doi:10.1598/RT.59.7.3
22.
HiebertE. H.ReutzelD. R. (Eds.). (2010). Revisiting silent reading: New directions for teachers and researchers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
23.
HiebertE. H.SamuelsS. J.RasinskiT. (2012). Comprehension-based silent reading rates: What do we know? What do we need to know?Literacy Research and Instruction, 51, 110–124. doi:10.1080/19388071.2010.531887
24.
HiebertE. H.WilsonK. M.TraininG. (2010). Are students really reading in independent reading contexts? An examination of comprehension-based silent reading rate. In HiebertE. H.ReutzelD. R. (Eds.), Revisiting silent reading (pp. 151-167). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
25.
HooverW. A.GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160. doi:10.1007/BF00401799
26.
HoweK. B.ShinnM. M. (2002). Standard reading assessment passages (RAPs) for use in general outcome measurement: A manual describing development and technical features (Technical manual). Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
27.
KeenanJ. M.BetjemannR. S.OlsonR. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300. doi:10.1080/10888430802132279
28.
KimY.WagnerR. K.FosterE. (2011). Relations among oral reading fluency, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension: A latent variable study of first-grade readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 338–362. doi:10.1080/10888438.2010.493964
29.
KraglerS. (1995). The transition from oral to silent reading. Reading Psychology, 16, 395–408. doi:10.1080/0270271950160402
30.
KuhnM. R.SchwanenflugelP. J. (2007). Fluency in the classroom. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31.
KuhnM. R.SchwanenflugelP. J.MeisingerE. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 230–251. doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4
32.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2
33.
LeflyD. L.PenningtonB. F. (1991). Spelling errors and reading fluency in compensated adult dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 143–162. doi:10.1007/BF02648083
LundbergI. (1994). The teaching of reading. In ElleyW. B. (Ed.), The IEA study of reading literacy: Achievement and instruction in thirty-two school systems (pp. 149-192). Exeter, UK: Pergamon.
36.
LyonG. R.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9
37.
McCallumR. S.SharpS.BellS. M.GeorgeT. (2004). Silent versus oral reading comprehension and efficiency. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 241–246. doi:10.1002/pits.10152
38.
MeisingerE. B.BloomJ. S.HyndG. W. (2010). Reading fluency: Implications for the assessment of children with reading disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11881-009-0031-z
39.
MillerS. D.SmithD. E. (1985). Differences in literal and inferential comprehension after reading orally and silently. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 341–348. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.77.3.341
40.
MorrisR. D.StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M.ShaywitzS. E.LyonG. R.ShankweilerD. P.. . . ShaywitzB. A. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 347–373. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.347
41.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel. Washington, DC: Author.
42.
PerfettiC. A. (1977). Language comprehension and fast decoding: Some psycholinguistic prerequisites for skilled reading comprehension. In GuthrieJ. (Ed.), Cognition, curriculum and comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
43.
PerfettiC. A. (1984). Reading ability. In SternbergR. (Ed.), Human abilities: An information processing approach (pp. 59–81). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
44.
PikulskiJ. J.ChardD. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. International Reading Association, 58, 510–519. doi:10.1598/RT.58.6.2
45.
PriceK. W.MeisingerE. B.LouwerseM. M.D’MelloS. (2016). The contributions of oral and silent reading fluency to reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 37, 167–201. doi:10.1080/02702711.2015.1025118
46.
PriorS. M.FenwickK. D.SaundersK. S.OuelletteR.O’QuinnC.HarveyS. (2011). Comprehension after oral and silent reading: Does grade level matter?Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 183–194. doi:10.1080/19388071.2010.497202
47.
PriorS. M.WellingK. A. (2001). “Read in your head”: A Vygotskian analysis of the transition from oral to silent reading. Reading Psychology, 22, 1–15. doi:10.1080/02702710151130172
48.
ReedD. K.VaughnS. (2012). Retell as an indicator of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 187–217. doi:10.1080/10888438.2010.538780
49.
ReutzelD. R.FawsonP. C.SmithJ. A. (2008). Reconsidering silent sustained reading: An exploratory study of scaffolded silent reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 37–50. doi:10.3200/JOER.102.1.37-50
50.
SchmidtA. M.FlegeJ. E. (1995). Effects of speaking rate changes on native and nonnative speech production. Phonetica, 52(1), 41–54. doi:10.1159/000262028
51.
SchwanenflugelP. J.KnappN. F. (2016). The psychology of reading: Theory and applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
52.
SchwanenflugelP. J.RustonH. P. (2007). Becoming a fluent reader: From theory to practice. In KuhnM.SchwanenflugelP. J. (Eds.), Fluency in the classroom (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Guildford.
53.
ShareD. L. (2008). On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584–615. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584
54.
ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A.FulbrightR. K.SkudlarskiP.MenclW. E.ConstableR. T.. . . GoreJ. C. (2003). Neural systems for compensation and persistence: Young adult outcome of childhood reading disability. Biological Psychiatry, 54, 25–33. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01836-X
55.
ShinnM. M.ShinnM. R. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
56.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407. doi:10.1177/0022057409189001-204
57.
SweetA.SnowC. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
58.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
59.
TorgesenJ. K. (2005). Recent discoveries on remedial interventions for children. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 521–537). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
60.
UrbaniakG. C.PlousS. (2013). Research randomizer (Version 4.0) [Computer software]. Available from http://www.randomizer.org/
61.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (ColeM.John-SteinerV.ScribnerS.SoubermanE., Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
62.
WechslerD. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
