Advertisement

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

  • Elfrieda H. Hiebert
  • Mark Daniel
Article
  • 17 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Silent reading fluency Reading comprehension Oral reading fluency 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Carver, R. P. (1982). Optimal rate of reading prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(1), 56–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carver, R. P. (1983). Is reading rate constant or flexible? Reading Research Quarterly, 19(2), 190–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., & Cummings, K. (2011). DIBELS next. Dallas, TX: Cambium Learning Group.Google Scholar
  9. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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/.
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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/.
  23. MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2007). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
  24. Mather, N., Hammill, D. D., Allen, E. A., & Roberts, R. (2004). Test of silent word reading fluency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pearson. (2015). aimswebPlus Technical Manual. Bloomington, MN: Author. Retrieved November 15, 2018 from https://www.aimsweb.com/resources.
  31. Pearson. (2016). aimswebPlus Development Manual. Bloomington, MN: Author. Retrieved November 15, 2018 from https://www.aimsweb.com/resources.
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor, S. E. (1965). Eye movements in reading: Facts and fallacies. American Educational Research Journal, 2(4), 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Williams, K. T. (2001). Group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TextProjectSanta CruzUSA
  2. 2.PearsonBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations