Elgart 203

LOBAN, WALTER. The Language of Elementary School Children. NCTE Research Report
No. 1, National Council of Teachers of English, Champaign, 111., 1963.
MORROW, LESLEY MANDEL. An analysis of syntax in the language of elementary school
children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1975.
RUDDELL, R. B. The effect of oral and written patterns of language structure on reading
comprehension. Reading Teacher, 1965, 18, 270-275.
STRICKLAND, RUTH. The Language of Elementary School: Its Relationship to the
Language of Reading Textbooks and the Quality of Selected Children. Bloomington
Indiana: Bureau of Educational Studies and Testing, Bureau of Education, 1972.
TATHAM, SUSAN M. Reading comprehension of materials written with selected oral
language patterns: A study at grades two and four. Beading Research Quarterly,
1970, 5. 402-426.

ORAL READING, SILENT READING, AND LISTENING

COMPREHENSION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Denise B. Elgart a , b
Pennsylvania State University

Abstract. Comprehension is achieved through three different modes of

reception — oral reading, silent reading, and listening. The relative
effectiveness of each of the three modes has been examined, but has yielded
conflicting results due to intersubject variation and difference in degree of
reading materials. The purpose of this study was to use a research design
which eliminated those two sources of error as they affect a comparison of
the three modes of reception — oral reading, silent reading, listening on
comprehension. Forty-five third-grade students were selected. The pupils
read orally, read silently, and listened to selections taken from the
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test-Primary C, Form 2. An
Analysis of Variance using a Latin Square Design with repeated measures
was used. Results indicated that there was a significant difference between
the three modes of reception with oral reading significantly more effective
than silent reading in comprehending material.

Goodman (1970) points out that the main purpose of reading is not simply emitting
sounds and naming words, but rather the comprehension or acquisition of meaning.
Comprehension is achieved through three different modes of reception — oral reading,
silent reading, and listening (Ashlock, Gryzynkowicz, & Dervin, 1969). Although studies
have compared the relative efficacy of two of the modes of reception on comprehension,
only Swalm (1972) simultaneously compared all three modes of reception.
Results of studies comparing silent reading and listening comprehension vary.
Hampleman (1958) and Durrell (1969) found that listening comprehension was superior to
silent reading comprehension up to the sixth grade. Durrell reported, however, that by the

a
Reprints may be requested from the author, Continuing Education, Pennsylvania State
University, 649 South Henderson Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
b
Thanks to Saul Axelrod for his help in preparing this manuscript.
 204 Journal of Reading Behavior X, 2

eighth grade silent reading and listening comprehension are equivalent. To the contrary.
Many (1965) found that with sixth graders, silent reading was superior to listening
comprehension.
Duker (1965) claimed that the variability of results was due to the difference between
the learning materials presented, the diversity of characteristics among subjects, and the
different testing procedures used in the investigations. Swalm (1974), on the other hand,
attributed the disagreement in results to the interaction between the pupils' reading ability
and the level of difficulty of the reading material presented. Swalm reported that when
second, third, and fourth grade subjects were analyzed according to their reading ability,
listening was significantly more effective than silent reading for below-average readers.
Silent reading, however, appeared statistically more effective for average and
above-average readers at the second and fourth grades. Swalm claimed that when the
material presented is above the student's reading level, comprehension is facilitated
through listening.
Not only has research comparing silent reading and listening yielded conflicting
results, but so have studies examining oral and silent reading on comprehension. Collins
(1961) and Rowell (1976) both reported the superiority of oral reading comprehension over
silent reading, whereas, Rogers (1937) found no significant differences between the two
modes.
The research cited up to this point has dealt with only two receptive modes at a time.
Swalm (1972) compared all three modes in terms of comprehension effectiveness. When all
second, third, and fourth grade subjects, regardless of reading ability, were analyzed
together, the group reading orally scored significantly higher than both silent and listening
groups only at the second grade. When the scores were analyzed according to reading
ability, it was found that above-average students comprehended more when they read
silently and aloud, rather than listened to the material. Results also showed that average
readers comprehended about the same amount with all three modes. Listening was most
effective for the below-average reader, followed by oral reading and silent reading.
Duker claims that the conflicting results are due to sources of error, the variation
between groups of subjects, and the difficulty of the reading material. The purpose of this
study was to use a research design which eliminated the problems of intersubject variation
and differences in degree of difficulty in reading materials as they affect a comparison of
the three modes of reception — oral reading, silent reading, listening on comprehension.

METHOD
Sample

The sample consisted of 45 third-grade students. All students were tested for
instruction in High and Wide (Johnson, et al., 1968) 31 basal reader. The 45 students were
randomly assigned to one of three groups — of 15 children each.

Material and Procedure

Each of the three groups read orally, read silently, and listened to a series of
selections taken from the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test-Primary C, Form
2 (Teachers College Press, 1964). The 24 paragrphs from the test were divided into three
groups of approximately equal difficulty. This was done by first dividing the consecutive
test paragraphs into groups of three (paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 made up the first group; 4, 5,
and 6 made up the second group, etc.). One member from each group was then randomly
assigned to one of the three selections for testing purposes. The groups were as follows:
 Elgart 205

Selections A: #1, 5, 9,12, 15,18, 20, 22

Selections B: #3, 6, 7, 11,13,17, 21, 23
Selections C: HZ, 4, 8, 10, 14, 16, 19, 24

Each selection in the Gates-MacGinite Reading Comprehension Test is followed by two

multiple choice questions designed to measure comprehension.
The oral reading tests were given individually. The student received a selection card
which he/she read aloud. After completing the selection, the student returned the card to
the tester and proceeded to read the two comprehension questions. The student circled the
the answer believed to be correct. When the student was finished answering the
questions, the next selection card was given.
The silent reading comprehension tests were given to no more than six students at a
time. After reading each selection card silently, each student answered the two
comprehension questions on the seperate answer sheet. After completing the questions,
the administrator handed out the next selection card.
During the listening test the author read each selection card once. The pupils did not
receive a copy of the selection. Each student answered the comprehension questions on
the answer sheet.
In summary, each test consisted of eight passages or selections which were read
orally, read silently, or listened to by any one group. Each test consisted of 16 questions —
two for each passage. The tests were graded on the number correct.

Design

As expressed in Table 1, Group I read Selections A silently, listened to Selections B,

and Read Selections C orally. Group II read Selection B silently, listened to Selections C,
and read Selections A orally. The table also shows which selections were read or listened
to by Group III.

TABLE 1
Summary of Reading Selections by Group
Group Silent Reading Listening Oral Reading
I A B C
normal
pupils II B C A
in C A B

The independent variable was the mode of reception — oral reading, silent reading
and listening. The dependent variable was the score of number of correct responses
received on each comprehension test. The score achieved was a function of the mode of
reception employed.
Differences between subjects were controlled by selection and randomization of
pupils who were all reading at the same instructional level. Since all three groups of
students received the material by all three modes, the relative effectiveness of the modes
of reception was not confounded by differences between the groups of subjects.
206 Journal of Reading Behavior X, 2

Results

An Analysis of Variance using a Latin Square Design with repeated measures {Winer,
1962, pp. 538-543) was performed to determine differences in comprehension scores. The
analysis (summarized in Table 2) reports that there were no significant differences
between groups of subjects tested (F< 1.0). There was a significant effect for Selection (F
= 10.95,p<.001) and Mode (F = 6.37, p<.003). The interaction between Selection and
Mode is reported as the Residual from the Latin Square (Winer, 1962, p. 543).
TABLE 2
Analysis of Variance for Modes of Reception
on Comprehension Scores
Source SS DF MS F P
Between Group 7.526 3 3.763 <1
Error 471.467 42 11.225
Selection 76.637 2 38.319 10.952 .001
Mode 44.548 2 22.274 6.367 .003
Residual .282 2 .141 <1
Error 293.867 84 6.997

Mean comprehension scores for the three modes of reception for each of the three
groups are depicted in Table 3. A Scheffe post hoc analysis indicated that the mean
comprehension score for oral reading (11.6) was significantly higher than the mean silent
reading comprehension scores (10.2). There was no significant difference between oral
reading comprehension scores and listening comprehension scores (mean 10.8). There
was also no significant difference between listening and silent reading mean
comprehension scores.

TABLE 3
Mean Comprehension Scores for the Three Modes of Reception
Mode Group I Group II Group III Total Mode Means
Silent Reading 10.867 10.933 8.3000 10.2
Oral Reading 10.533 12.467 11.800 11.6
Listening 11.133 10.067 11.133 10.778
Total Group 10.844 11.156 10.578
Means

Results of the analysis also showed that there was a difference between the three
series of selections. However, the research design eliminated the problem of difference in
difficulty by having all three groups receive the three series of selections. The analysis
also showed that there were no significant differences between the groups of subjects.

Discussion
Results showed that oral reading was significantly more effective than silent reading
in comprehending material. A possible explanation for the superiority of oral reading over
 Elgart 207

silent reading is that by reading orally a student is forced to pay closer attention to the
words. The reader not only see the word but hears the word when it is read aloud (Swalm,
1972.) Therefore, oral reading involves two senses while silent reading and listening
involve only one at a time.
The results of this investigation have direct implications for classroom instruction. A
teacher could capitalize on oral reading when presenting new material since that mode
was significantly more effective than silent reading. A converse interpretation is that
direct instruction should be provided in silent reading in order to increase its effectiveness
in comprehension of material.
Results of this study suggest that future research might be conducted to compare the
relative effectiveness of the three modes of reception on comprehension for above and
below-average readers as well as students with particular reading difficulties. The
subject matter or content areas included in the material to be comprehended might also be
examined. Future research in this area would add to the knowledge of comprehending
material as a function of the three modes of reception — oral reading, silent reading,
and listening.

REFERENCES

ASHLOCK, P., GRZYNKOWICZ, W.M. & DERVIN, R.L. Teaching reading to individuals
with learning difficulties. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas-Publisher, 1969.
COLLINS, R. The comprehension of prose materials by college freshmen when read
silently and when read aloud. Journal of Education Research, 1961, 55, 79-82.
DUKER, S. Listening and reading. Elementary School Journal, 1965, 321-329.
DURRELL, D.D. Listening comprehension versus reading comprehension. Journal of
Reading, 1969, 12, 455-460.
GATES-MACGINITIE READING TESTS, Primary C, Form 2. New York: Teachers College
Press, 1964.
GOODMAN, K.S. Comprehension centered reading. Claremont Reading Conference, 1970.
HAMPLEMAN, R.S. Comparison of listening and reading comprehension ability of fourth
and sixth grade pupils, Elementary English, 1958, 35, 49-53.
JOHNSON, M.S., KRESS, R.A., McNEILL, J.D., & HUTCHINS, P.J. High and Wide, New
York: American Book Company, 1968.
MANY, W.A. Is there really any difference — reading vs. listening? Reading Teacher,
1965, 19, 110-113.
ROGERS, M.V. Comprehension in oral and silent reading. Journal of General Psychology,
1937, 17, 394-397.
ROWELL, E.H. Do elementary students read better orally or silently? Reading Teacher,
1976, 367-370.
SWALM, J.E. A comparison of oral reading, silent reading, and listening comprehension.
Education, 1973, 92, 111-115.
SWALM, J.E. Is listening really more effective for learning in the early grades? Elementary
English, 1974, 51, 1110-1113.
WINER, B.J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
1962.