Comprehension and rate during silent reading: Why do some students do poorly?
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.
KeywordsSilent reading fluency Reading comprehension Oral reading fluency
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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/.
- 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
- Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York, NY: Macmillan.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.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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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. (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