Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comprehension and rate during silent reading: Why do some students do poorly?

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This exploratory study was designed to evaluate the interplay of students’ rate and comprehension in independent silent reading of accessible text, within the frameworks of the Simple View of Reading and the RAND Reading Study Group. In the first phase, 61 sixth graders were given a reading test (GRADE), a motivation questionnaire, and an on-screen measure of comprehension-based silent reading rate (SRF-O, adapted from aimswebPlus SRF) with on-grade and below-grade text. Two-thirds of students had perfect or near-perfect SRF-O comprehension, but the other one-third had moderate to poor comprehension. These weaker SRF-O comprehenders had relatively low GRADE scores, but others with comparable GRADE scores comprehended well on SRF-O. The poorest SRF-O comprehenders read with increasing rate and decreasing comprehension across the SRF-O texts. In the second phase, the 21 students with weaker SRF-O comprehension took an oral reading fluency (ORF) test and a paper form of the silent reading rate measure (SRF-P) in a one-on-one setting. All students comprehended well on SRF-P and their SRF-P rates correlated highly with GRADE and ORF. Results support the view that poor comprehension in independent silent reading of accessible text may be due to factors other than reading ability (such as assessment context) and that, when students read with comprehension, their rate is a good indicator of their reading ability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amendum, S. J., Conradi, K., & Hiebert, E. (2017). Does text complexity matter in the elementary grades? A research synthesis of text difficulty and elementary students’ reading fluency and comprehension. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9398-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, D., Hiebert, E. H., & Tompkins, R. (2009). How much and what are third graders reading? In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 118–140). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, R. P. (1982). Optimal rate of reading prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(1), 56–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, R. P. (1983). Is reading rate constant or flexible? Reading Research Quarterly, 19(2), 190–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deane, P., Sheehan, K. M., Sabatini, J., Futagi, Y., & Kostin, I. (2006). Differences in text structure and its implications for assessment of struggling readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denton, C. A., Barth, A. E., Fletcher, J. M., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., et al. (2011). The relations among oral and silent reading fluency and comprehension in middle school: Implications for identification and instruction of students with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(2), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888431003623546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2005). Competence and motivation—Competence at the core of achievement motivation. In A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 3–12). New York: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., & Cummings, K. (2011). DIBELS next. Dallas, TX: Cambium Learning Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 282–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N. M., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 232–246. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.4.232-246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (Technical Report No. 1702). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Retrieved August 16, 2018 from www.brtprojects.org/publications/technical-reports/.

  • Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.7.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532698Sep4102_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, E. H., Samuels, S. J., & Rasinski, T. (2012). Comprehension-based silent reading rates: What do we know? What do we need to know? Literacy Research and Instruction, 51, 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2010.531887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, E. H., Wilson, K. M., & Trainin, G. (2010). Are students really reading in independent reading contexts? An examination of comprehension-based silent reading rate. In E. H. Hiebert & D. R. Reutzel (Eds.), Revisiting silent reading: New directions for teachers and readers (pp. 151–167). Newark, DE: IRA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, T., & Way, D. (2012). Improving text complexity measurement through the Reading Maturity Metric. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education.

  • Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2007 (NCES 2007-496). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lexile Framework for Reading. (2018). Matching Lexile measures to grade ranges. Retrieved July 8, 2018 from https://lexile.com/educators/measuring-growth-with-lexile/lexile-measures-grade-equivalents/.

  • MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2007). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather, N., Hammill, D. D., Allen, E. A., & Roberts, R. (2004). Test of silent word reading fluency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Reading Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/reading/2009-reading-framework.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2018.

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). The Nation’s report card: 2017 mathematics and reading assessments (NCES 2018-037). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2018.

  • Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 554. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D. (1974). The effects of grammatical complexity on children’s comprehension, recall, and conception of certain semantic relations. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 155–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson. (2015). aimswebPlus Technical Manual. Bloomington, MN: Author. Retrieved November 15, 2018 from https://www.aimsweb.com/resources.

  • Pearson. (2016). aimswebPlus Development Manual. Bloomington, MN: Author. Retrieved November 15, 2018 from https://www.aimsweb.com/resources.

  • Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, K. W., Meisinger, E. B., D’Mello, S. K., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Silent reading fluency using underlining: Evidence for an alternative method of assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 49(6), 606–618. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasinski, T. V., Reutzel, C. D. R., Chard, D., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2011). Reading fluency. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 286–319). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reschly, A. L., Busch, T. W., Betts, J., Deno, S. L., & Long, J. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47(6), 427–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shinn, M. M., & Shinn, M. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of Educational Research, 87, 1007–1041. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317722961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved August 15, 2018 from www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1465.pdf.

  • Spichtig, A. N., Hiebert, E. H., Vorstius, C., Pascoe, J. P., Pearson, P. D., & Radach, R. (2016). The decline of comprehension-based silent reading efficiency in the United States: A comparison of current data with performance in 1960. Reading Research Quarterly, 51, 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, E., Wanzek, J., McCulley, L., Stillman-Spisak, S., Vaughn, S., Simmons, D., et al. (2016). Literacy and text reading in middle and high school social studies and English language arts classrooms. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32(3), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2014.910718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E. (1965). Eye movements in reading: Facts and fallacies. American Educational Research Journal, 2(4), 187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trainin, G., Hiebert, E. H., & Wilson, K. M. (2015). A comparison of reading rates, comprehension, and stamina in oral and silent reading of fourth-grade students. Reading Psychology, 36, 595–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2014.966183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Boer, M., van Bergen, E., & de Jong, P. (2014). Underlying skills of oral and silent reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 128, 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (2010). Test of silent reading efficiency and comprehension. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. T. (2001). Group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TextProject, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    Elfrieda H. Hiebert

  2. Pearson, Bloomington, MN, USA

    Mark Daniel

Authors
  1. Elfrieda H. Hiebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Daniel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elfrieda H. Hiebert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hiebert, E.H., Daniel, M. Comprehension and rate during silent reading: Why do some students do poorly?. Read Writ 32, 1795–1818 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9917-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9917-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation