|
|
|
|
|
Listening and Silent ReadingA Comparison Between Listening to Textand Silently Reading:Selected Features and Their Impacton Students’ ComprehensionChristine Burns-PiscitelliAnn MalinowskiLaura McDonnellDorothy Zelechowski
|
|
Introduction Educators strive to teach all children to read but instruction is frequently delivered as one size fits all rather than using differentiated instruction to meet the varied learning styles of students. The typical classroom has 20 students with a range of reading abilities and a multitude of learning styles. The responsibility is upon the teacher to meet the needs of his/her diverse students. Many teachers opt for a balanced approach to reading instruction rather than one single method. Teachers recognize that within the typical classroom of 20 learners, students’ learning styles fluctuate, which require adjustments to planning instructional methods. “Many studies have shown that, for children to become successful readers it is crucial that they be introduced to reading through their strongest perceptual strength and processing style” (Dunn & Honigsfeld 2006, p.72). Listening to text and reading text silently are two instructional methods that are addressed to meet the needs of the auditory learner and linguistic learner. Students comprehend reading material in several ways; listening to text is one common learning style. Today, the availability and accessibility of audio books in the classroom has increased significantly allowing students’ opportunities to develop and increase their listening skills to assist their comprehension. Teacher read aloud is another common auditory process in the classroom. It is noted that read alouds and think alouds are beneficial for students in terms of improving their comprehension and expanding their vocabulary. (Scharer, Pinnell, Lyons, & Fountas, 2005). Silent reading is another common classroom practice. Reading text silently provides students an opportunity to apply comprehension strategies to process text appropriately. For example, a good strategic reader makes connections, activates background knowledge, reads for meaning, and checks for understanding. While reading, students are aware of their meta-cognitive processes by selecting the appropriate strategies to expand their comprehension of text (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000). Through silent reading, students have a choice to draw from picture clues and/or focus on the printed text to aid in comprehension. We conducted a mixed method study to examine students’ comprehension performance. Specifically, we wanted to discover if students comprehend better listening to text or silently reading text. Although some research suggests that listening to the text assists students’ comprehension, other research contends that silently reading is just as effective in supporting comprehension. Diakidoy and Stylianou (2005) conclude, “both listening and reading comprehension depend on the same general comprehension process” (p. 57). As professional educators, we need to be aware of the individual student’s learning styles .We require our students to participate in reading activities that require listening to text and reading text silently. In this study, we compared the results of the Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI), which were administered as a listening comprehension assessment and a silent reading comprehension assessment. These measures of comprehension were given to second and fourth grade students.
Purpose The purpose of this research was to gain an understanding of students’ learning style and how that impacts comprehension levels in both listening to text and silent reading of text. As researchers, we used the Qualitative Reading Inventory as a measure of comprehension. In the past, educators have focused on instructing all children in the same way rather than differentiating instruction to meet their learning style. Researchers concluded that both reading comprehension and listening comprehension go hand in hand (Diakidoy & Stylianou, 2005, Lehto and Anttila, 2003, Yellin, Blake & DeVries, 2004). They also suggest that listening comprehension is an indicator of a student’s potential reading comprehension ability (Diakidoy & Stylianou, 2005). However, even though these two instructional methods are linked to one another, as professionals, we must keep in mind that each learner processes information differently. Therefore, we have decided to investigate the impact of using each approach, listening, and reading of text to validate which form of instruction will benefit the individual learner the most. This study examines whether students perform better having a narrative passage read aloud requiring them to use their auditory modality or whether silently reading a text utilizing their linguistic modality would lead to an enhanced comprehension performance. In this study, we investigated the following questions: 1) Do students comprehend better listening to text or silently reading of text? 2) Is there a correlation between students’ perceived learning style and their comprehension performance? 3) Is there a relationship between grade level and comprehension level? 4) How does gender effect student comprehension?
Definition of Terms The following is a list of terms that we have defined for this research study. Alliteracy: the refusal to use reading and writing skills that the individual possesses. Assessment: a method of evaluating student performance. Comprehension: interpretation or an understanding of a situation or of something that has been listen to or read. Condition: to cause to respond in a specific manner to a specific stimulus. Drop Everything and Read (DEAR): students put aside all other activities and read.
Developmental
Differentiate: make something different by modifying it to meet an individual need. Listening: a mental process that requires an active conversion of sound waves into meaningful information by the brain. Literature: a piece of published work of a particular subject, language, or culture. Metacognition: knowledge about your own thoughts and the factors that influence your thinking. Observation: a remark or comment on something that has been noticed while watching carefully.
Qualitative
a reading level for individual students. Reciprocal Teaching: an instructional method that fosters dialogue between teachers and students to ensure understanding of text. Schema: concepts or ideas that form in the readers’ mind through real or vicarious experiences.
Sustained Silent
LITERATURE REVIEW Educators have been interested in both listening comprehension and reading comprehension while at the same time is aware of the individual differences that students possess (Good, 2006). The information received from listening and reading must be converted by the brain into meaningful information. This suggests that that both listening and reading are active processes that involve thinking in order to gain meaning. The results obtained by Lehto and Anttila (2003) support the notion that reading and listening comprehension encompass similar underlying mental processes (p.142). Garner and Bochna (2004) also documented that reading comprehension tasks have a surface and structural alikeness to listening comprehension (p.70). In a comprehensive literacy program, all reading approaches are incorporated because “It truly is difficult to separate listening, speaking, reading, and writing” (Ediger, 1999, p.3). By realizing that students need to use these multiple strategies to become proficient readers, we as educators can construct a literacy program to meet the needs of all learners. Through our review of existing literature, we have discovered that educators often misunderstand the true definition of listening. Many educators assume that students who hear well are good listeners, yet listening and hearing are not the same. Hearing is a physical act of receiving sounds waves through the outer, middle, and inner ear while listening is a mental process that requires active conversions of sound waves into meaningful information by the brain. Listening depends on the brain more than the ear (Yellin, Blake, & DeVries, 2004). One element of incorporating listening into a comprehensive reading program is through reading aloud. It is noted that read alouds and think alouds are beneficial for students in terms of improving their comprehension and expanding their vocabulary (Scharer, Pinnell, Lyons, & Fountas, 2005). In addition, this instructional method allows students to develop comprehension skills by giving them the opportunities to ask and answer questions and discuss their individual responses to literature while using critical thinking skills. Isabell, Sobol, Lindauer, and Lowrance (2004) conducted a study that supports this theory. These researchers found that there was a considerable connection between reading aloud to preschoolers and their future reading achievement. It is through these read alouds and think alouds that children begin to acquire a foundation for which to build more complex reading comprehension skills. Furthermore, it is recognized, that by listening to stories read aloud, students will enhance their vocabulary knowledge by acquiring a familiarity with previously unknown words or terms (Beck, Farr, & Strickland, 2005). A comprehensive literacy program will acknowledge that vocabulary development coincides with both listening and speaking. It has been noted that an extremely effective course of action for expanding students’ vocabulary is through read alouds. This approach provides and cultivates the skills of reading, writing, and thinking, speaking, and listening for all students.
Another facet of the comprehension approach is the Think-Pair-Share
method, which was created by Professor Frank
Lyman at the Furthermore, books on tape have been proven an effective resource for developing students’ reading abilities. According to four case studies conducted by Reissner (1997), students became more motivated and their appreciation of literature increased while being exposed to audio and video versions of various texts. This, in turn, led to an improvement of their use of reading strategies. For example, Project Listen, a reading tutor computer program, listens to students read orally, gives a child feedback, provides them with scaffolding for comprehension by reading difficult sentences aloud, and asks questions to activate their metacognitive (Mostow, 2006). One advantage of using the auditory modality in daily instruction is that students will process information read to them because of the readers’ extra linguistic clues such as gestures, stress, and intonation (Diakidoy & Stylianou, 2005, p.56). Furthermore, reading and listening comprehension contain similar elements, however, they are each unique and separate entities (McCarthy, 2006). Some researchers disagree and believe that listening and reading comprehension are similar in many ways (Diakidoy & Stylianou, 2005). It is suggested, that teachers begin to allocate time for modeling appropriate listening skills because it is thought that these skills will enhance students’ performances on various comprehension tasks. (Lehto & Anttila, 2003). In the primary grades, educators focus on developing comprehension strategies through listening to text. As students proceed to intermediate grades, they transition to become readers that are more proficient and are capable of reading independently. Therefore, they commence utilizing self-monitoring strategies to decode and comprehend text (Beck, Farr, & Strickland, 2005; Kinnunen, Vauras, & Niemi, 1998). It is noted that the older a person is the more likely he or she will display the ability to monitor his or her reading comprehension. The strategic reader realizes that there are choices that they can make when processing text. While listening to gain comprehension may work for some students, others may find that reading silently allows them to comprehend better. One instructional activity that fosters a growth in developing independent reading skills is Sustained Silent Reading, (SSR), or Drop Everything and Read (DEAR) (Gardiner, 2001; Lee-Daniels & Murry, 2006).
These programs promote that students should read silently every day
without interruptions, select their own books, view the classroom
teacher exhibiting appropriate reading habits, and read solely for
pleasure, not for the purpose of being assessed (Caldwell & Gaine, 2000;
Gardiner, 2005).
Research indicates that SSR is just as if not more
effective than traditional teaching methods in aiding students to
achieve on standardized tests. This instructional activity allows them
to broaden their scope and schema. Therefore, educators need to be
receptive to the importance of establishing a consistent time for
Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) as noted in an action research project
completed by Jacqueline Henderson (2001). The ten to fifteen minutes
that an educator allocates from their language arts block has positive
benefits to increasing a student’s reading comprehension.
Not only does this program allow students to expand
their background knowledge, but it also causes their attitude towards
reading to escalate. There is a recognizable link between interest and
comprehension. “Both the cognitive and the affective side of the brain
have important roles to play as one develops” (Whitney, 2004, p.62).
An example, which demonstrates this concept,
are
the observations and assessment results that were noted during workshops
conducted in an elementary school in the state of Why do students face obstacles when trying to comprehend text? Some literacy researchers like Reutzel and Cooter (2004) have concluded some possible reasons for students’ difficulties with interpreting literature. Another limitation could be a students reading rate (Freeland, Skinner, Jackson, McDaniel & Smith, 2000). One challenge that students experience is an inability to utilize their schema properly, and therefore they do not understand the text. Another struggle that readers encounter is sometimes authors may not give enough clues for the reader to retrieve the appropriate schema. In addition, readers impulsively choose a schema for deciphering a text and realize later that the author’s message does not correspond with the information from their schema. Lastly, the reader’s background knowledge may affect their view when deciding a schema to interpret text. In turn, they may understand the information from the text but miss the author’s intended meaning.
Reading comprehension requires students to utilize strategies in order
to gain meaning from text. In the article,
“Comprehension Monitoring in Beginning Readers,”
Kinnunen, Vauras & Niemi (1998) mention that there are three basic
text-processing skills
which function at various levels while reading a text. These
cueing systems are lexical, syntactic, and semantic. In
As children develop, their cognitive skills form, but more importantly, their awareness of their metacognitive abilities is shaped. Metacognition is being aware of one’s thought process, which allows students to use strategies properly during reading (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000). Bishop, Reyes, and Pflaum (2006) suggest instructing students on how to utilize strategies and activate prior knowledge in order to become more capable at reading strategically. Reciprocal teaching is an instructional method that educators can implement into their literacy program that allows students to use their internal thought process to comprehend texts. Predicting, questioning, clarifying and summarizing all make up this extremely valuable approach to developing comprehension (Little & Richards, 2006). According to Reutzel and Cooter (2004), there are multiple stages a reader must experience in order to comprehend text. Searching, selecting, applying, evaluating, and composing make up the five- stage model for processing and comprehending text. First off, students must search within their own schema to gain meaning as they are reading. Secondly, students must select an appropriate schema that corresponds with information in the text. Next, they must apply their own background knowledge to decipher the author’s message. In addition, they must evaluate whether they have tapped into their schema correctly or if they should replace their original interpretation with another idea. Finally, they must compose and add to their prior knowledge so that they can continue to expand their schema. As the students transition to each stage, they are furthering their ability to comprehend text by using their metacognitive processes.
Caldwell and Gaine (2000)
indicate that students often do not choose to read independently or
recreationally. Alliteracy, the refusal to use reading and writing
skills, is plaguing the nation. According to their study involving fifth
graders throughout the
METHODOLOGY
Participant Our sample population consisted of 12 second grade and 12 fourth grade students from two suburban schools districts, who will be utilized for this mixed method investigation. The students that we selected are reading below, at, or above grade level goal based on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). None of these students participated in extra support services. Since our research was aligned with our curriculum, it was not necessary to obtain parental permission for this study. One limitation of this research is that the sample is a convenience sample based on similar schools. The chosen participants are that of a heterogeneous group that are currently reading at various reading levels. As a result, our findings drawn from this research should not be applied to other groups of students on different reading levels. However, the researchers conducting this study work closely with the participants on a regular basis and may be bias during the analysis preference correlated with their comprehension process.
Instrumentation
A teacher designed informal learning style survey was administered to participants to determine their preference of listening to text or silently reading text. In addition, the survey was used to reveal if the participants’ learning results in the area of listening or silently reading text. The instrument that was used for our investigation is the informal reading inventory, Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI). According to Scott G. Paris and Robert D. Carpenter (2003), in their article, “FAQs about IRIs”, this assessment is excellent, because it gives immediate results that are authentic and student-centered. It is a beneficial tool in documenting a student’s growth in reading comprehension. As researchers, we have chosen the QRI 4, because as a collective group, we have a familiarity with this test. Qualitative Reading Inventories have been proven as valid and reliable instrument for measuring reading skills. Initially, participants were directed to listen to a narrative passage from the Qualitative Reading Inventory 4, at their reading level based on their DRA as well as reading a passage silently. Upon completion of the QRI passages, we reviewed their comprehension ability and compared it to the participants’ learning style preference.
Procedures The following procedures were used in each of the two classrooms. Both researchers used the same material to guide students through this process. However, the level of the text was appropriately matched to the student’s reading ability. These materials consisted of grade levels one through four.
1. Initially, students were asked to complete a survey to indicate their learning style preference, either listening to text or silently reading. 2. Next, the researcher posed three to four concept questions to the student to assess background knowledge on that specific subject. 3. Students were required to make a prediction on the given passage. 4. To assess students’ silent comprehension skills, a narrative QRI passage was administered on their instructional reading level. 5. Students read the (QRI) passage silently. 6. Students retold the passage while the teacher scripted their response. 7. Next, students orally answered four implicit and explicit comprehension questions pertaining to the QRI passage. 8. In addition, students were required to listen to a narrative QRI passage appropriate to their reading ability. 9. To ensure the outcome of the listening and silent reading comprehension results were valid we administered the listening passage in the same format to keep our variables constant. 10. Steps numbers 3-7 previously stated were repeated to ensure continuity among testing procedures. 11. Upon completion of both silent reading and listening assessments, two researchers scored and recorded data from twenty-four participants in both second and fourth grade in order to compare comprehension results in both listening and silent reading assessments.
Figure Example 1 
Figure Example 2 
Figure Example 3 
Figure Example 4 
Figure Example 5 
Figure Example 6 
Figure Example 7 
Figure Example 8 
ANALYSIS OF DATA As researchers analyzed Figure 1, Second Grade Preference Survey, it was evident that three out of four (75%) above goal students preferred silent reading and one out of four students (25%) preferred listening to text. Similarly, four out of the five at goal students (80%) preferred listening to text and only one student (20%) preferred silent reading. In review of the below goal students’ results it was apparent that out of three students, two (66%), preferred listening and only one (33%) preferred silent reading. Upon examining Figure 2, Fourth Grade Preference Survey, it was indicated that out of four above goal students, two students preferred listening and the other two students preferred to silent read the text. Similarly, two out of four students, at goal, preferred silent reading while the other two students preferred listening to text. The learning style of the students below goal varied. Three students preferred silent reading (75%) and only one (25%) preferred listening to text. In review of Figure 3, entitled 2nd Grade Students Below Goal, it was evident that student ten preferred silent yet performed better in listening comprehension. Student number 11, a boy, preferred listening to text and matched his preference by performing better on listening to text versus silent reading of text. Student 12 preferred listening to text but performed better on the silent reading comprehension assessment. Therefore, one out of three students, being a girl, preferred silent reading but performed better on the listening to text. Representing one third of the below goal students, was a boy who preferred listening to text and performed better at listening comprehension. The last third of the below goal students was a girl who preferred listening to text but performed better on the comprehension silent reading of text. In reference to graph Figure 4, 2nd Grade Students At Goal, researchers noted student number one was able to match her preference of listening to text with her success of listening to text. Student number two preferred listening to text, but he performed better on silent reading text. Student number three performed better on silent reading, and matched his performance of silent reading of text. Student number four preferred listening, and performed better at listening versus silently reading of text. Student number five did not match his preference. He preferred listening to text; however, he performed better on silent reading of text. In analyzing this graph, it was noted that 40% of the students preferred listening to text and performed better on listening to text. It was noted, 40% of the second grade students preferred listening to text and performed better in comprehension while reading silently. Only 20% of the students preferred silent reading and their performance matched their comprehension of silent reading. In analyzing second grade students who read at the above goal level, it is evident in Figure 5, that student number six preferred listening to text, however, performed better on silent reading. Student number seven was able to match his preference of silent reading with his ability to better when reading silently. Student number eight preferred silent reading of text, however, performed better in listening comprehension. Student number nine preferred silent reading and matched his comprehension performance while reading silently. By analyzing the above goal students, the graph indicated that 50% of the students preferred silent reading and their comprehension performance matched their preference. Twenty-five percent of the students preferred listening to text and performed better on the silent reading comprehension passages. The last 25% of the students preferred silent reading of text but performed better on the listening comprehension passages. When analyzing the gender of fourth grade students in Figures 6 through Figure 8, the results were separated into below, at, and above goal students. According to graph Figure 6, two girls below goal did not perform at their reading preference. In fact, student number one preferred silent reading and comprehended better while listening to text. Student number three preferred listening yet performed better on comprehension silently reading the text. Only one out of the two boys, student number four preferred to silently text and was able to match his comprehension performance of silent reading. Although student number five preferred silent reading of text, it was evident that his strength was in listening comprehension. Therefore, it was proven 50% of the students’ preferred silent reading of text and performed better on listening comprehension. Twenty-five percent of the students preferred listening to text but performed better on silent reading comprehension. Twenty-five percent of the students preferred silent reading of text, and their preference matched their comprehension performance. Figure 7 examines the preference and performance of fourth students’ at goal reading ability. Student number two preferred to silent read text and performed better on her silent reading comprehension passage. Student number six preferred listening to text. However, he performed better on silent reading of text. Student number seven’s preference and performance results were identical to student number two’s preference and performance results. His preference also matched his performance. Student number eight preferred listening to text, which matched her comprehension performance in listening to text. It is noted, that 50% of the students at goal preferred silent reading and matched their comprehension performance while reading silently. Twenty-five percent of the students preferred listening, however, comprehended better while silently reading and 25% of the students preferred listening and performed better while listening to text. As researchers analyzed the fourth grade above goal students in Figure 8, it was proven that student nine preferred silent reading but was more successful in his listening comprehension skills. Student number ten’s preference of silent reading matched her performance. The other fourth grade above goal student, number 11, performance results were the opposite of student number nine’s results. Student number 12 preferred listening to text, which matched her performance on listening comprehension. Results also indicated that 25% of the students preferred silent reading, however, performed better on listening comprehension. Another 25% of the students were able to match their preference of silent reading with their comprehension performance. An additional 25% of the fourth grade students preferred listening to text; however, they performed better silently reading text. The last 25% of the students were successfully able to match their preference with their comprehension performance while listening to text.
RESULTS Learning Style As researchers, we noticed that the perceived learning style of 50% of the second and fourth grade students whether they were below, at or above goal matched their comprehension performance. Out of 50% of all those students that were able to match their preference with their performance, seven out of 12 (58%) preferred to silently read and comprehended better on the silent reading passage. Whereas, only five out of twelve (42%) students preferred to listen to text and comprehended better on the listening passage of the Qualitative Reading Inventory. Out of seven below goal second and fourth grade students, only two students were able to match their learning preference with their comprehension performance. While reviewing the at goal results, six out of nine students’ comprehension performance matched their preference. Interestingly, the comprehension performance among the above goal students, illustrated that four out eight students were able to identify their learning preference and comprehended better in that particular style of learning. These results correlated equally in that 50% of the students were able to match their preference with their performance of listening and silent reading. Overall, the researchers noted that the above goal and at goal students tended to be more in tune with their personal learning styles than the below goal student.
Grade Level Performance As we considered participants’ reading ability in second and fourth grade, we analyzed three homogeneous groups. These three groups consisted of students’ reading performance of below goal, at goal and above goal. Our findings indicated that in second grade, students reading below goal performed better on listening comprehension. The results showed that three out of five (60%) students reading at goal performed better on silent reading comprehension instead of listening to text. Similarly, three out of four (75%) students reading above grade level also performed better on silent reading comprehension versus listening comprehension. Unlike the second grade participants, the performance results of the fourth grade students at the below goal level were evenly distributed between listening and silent reading comprehension. The fourth grade students who are at goal performed better on silent reading versus listening to text, which is comparable to the second grade students at goal. It was also obvious among the fourth grade above goal students that 50% performed better in silent reading of text while 50% performed better in listening to text. These fourth grade comprehension results differ from those of the second grade above goal results, which indicated they performed better on silent reading comprehension. When viewing both grade level comprehension results we noticed that second grade students, reading at the below goal level, generally performed better on listening comprehension rather than on silent reading. The participants that are at goal performed better on silent comprehension instead of listening. Among the above goal participants, readers performed equally or better on silent reading comprehension. Therefore, as researchers, we confirmed that there is a relationship between grade level and comprehension level. It was evident in graphs A3-A8 that overall students performed better in silent reading comprehension, except for the second grade below goal readers. The second graders who read below goal, comprehended text better while listening to text as oppose to silently reading text.
Gender Through the analysis of our research regarding gender, we noted some interesting facts. It was evident that there was a significant difference in how second and fourth grade girls performed on the comprehension questions. The girls’ results favored listening in second grade and silent in fourth grade. More second grade girls performed better on listening comprehension than silent reading. However, the fourth grade girls did not perform as well on listening comprehension. They performed better on silent reading. In both second and fourth grade, boys preformed better in the silent reading comprehension. The number of boys was substantially low in the listening comprehension results. There were only one out of five second grade boys, and two out of five fourth grade boys who performed better on listening. A key area that was noted showed that only three out of ten (30%) boys were able to match their preferred learning style with their comprehension performance, whereas eight out of fourteen (57%) girls were able to match their preferred learning style with their performance. The girls’ results indicated that fifty percent performed better as they silently read, while the other fifty percent performed better on listening of text. In contrast to this, an over whelming number of boys (70%) did better while silently reading a text even though they were unaware of their learning style. In summary, the results strongly indicated that when considering gender influence on silent reading and listening comprehension, girls performed better on listening and boys performed better on silent reading comprehension.
DISCUSSION After completing our research study and analyzing the results, we found that there were variables present in our study. These variables were the complexity of the students’ preference of learning style, reading ability, grade level, and gender. Preference of learning styles was interesting since the two grades were opposite. In second grade, seven students preferred listening and five students preferred silent reading. In fourth grade, five students preferred listening and seven students preferred silent reading of text. We are not surprised of these results because we believe that developmentally the second grade students are still honing their decoding and comprehension skills. Two additional, significant variables that came into play were the variety of grade levels and the students’ reading ability in this study. The data charts displayed that the second grade comprehension results varied. In looking at the above goal students, they performed equally on their comprehension. After discussing the experience of conducting the research, we concluded that above goal students are fluent readers, their metacognitive skills are more developed, and therefore, they are able to perform well on comprehension tasks in either modality. We believe that the at goal students were given passages at their independent level and, consequently, were able to perform better on the silent reading comprehension passages, since they are relying less on their listening skills and are more proficient readers. Unlike the above goal and at goal students, the below goal level students generally performed better on listening comprehension rather than silent reading comprehension. We presume that these struggling students are more dependent on their listening skills, since they lack word attack skills, fluency, and vocabulary development. Similarly, we noticed a common pattern in the above goal and at goal fourth grade students’ comprehension results. The fourth grade above goal students performed equally well on both the listening and silent reading passages. Once more, we attribute this alikeness to their established skills as fluent and competent readers. The at goal students also performed better on the silent reading comprehension rather that listening. The reason for this result may be due to the fact that, as intermediate students, they are able to activate their schema properly and efficiently by searching, selecting and composing background knowledge to make accurate connections to text as stated in our literature review. The below goal results were evenly distributed among these specific students. They comprehended in either modality because of their chronological age, which has allowed them to have more instructional time to develop their decoding skills and activate their background knowledge. A common theme that we recognized throughout our action research study was that development and maturation affect a students’ comprehension performance in both listening to text and silent reading of text. We observed that there was a link between grade level and reading ability Another variable considered in our research project was gender. It was surprising to us as researchers that the majority of boys performed better on the silent reading comprehension passages. The media portrays boys as struggling readers and, therefore, we sometimes form biases about their ability to comprehend text in this format. As expected, the girls favored listening in second grade and silent reading in fourth grade because of their maturation. When they are younger, they tend to be more dependent on adult readers. As students mature, their metacognitive skills flourish and they become readers that are more independent. Overall, we concluded that students comprehend better when silently reading a text versus listening to text. We believe this is due to the fact that when reading silently students are more able to focus more on the text, monitor their comprehension, adjust their rate of reading, and apply before, during and after reading comprehension strategies independently. Therefore, our results led us to believe, a future research study among a larger sample of girls in fourth grade could be conducted related to gender influence on listening and silent reading comprehension levels in order to explore our findings further. In addition, results led us to believe that although students have a preference of their learning style it does not necessarily mean they will comprehend successfully in that style. Furthermore, it was noted that boys performed better on silent reading yet were not always aware of their learning style. Our findings confirm that it is essential that educators differentiate instruction to meet the needs of individual learners. Each student has a varied learning style and they process information differently. Therefore, reading instruction must offer a variety of flexible grouping to meet their auditory or linguistic needs. If this study were to be replicated in the future, we recommend that there be a larger number of participants sampled. Additional students may allow for a more comprehensive result. In addition, to clarify our comprehension results further, we suggest using expository passages as well as narrative passages to assess students listening or silent reading comprehension. We believe that more accurate results would be obtained if this study were to be conducted over a longer period to see if maturation continues to be a key variable. Another area of concern is participant selection. As there were only two grades available to us, the participants used for this research were from grades two and four. We would suggest that using a wider range of grade levels might change or help substantiate the results of this study. Students of the upper grade levels may present a very different outcome. Another area of consideration is professional development. Although two of the researchers in this study were knowledgeable of the QRI, it would be most beneficial that teachers less familiar with the QRI be trained in conducting this assessment properly. Our research supports the premise that listening to text versus silently reading of text is comparable. Nevertheless, students who are proficient readers apply their reading strategy skills regularly and therefore are more successful in comprehension. The preference of learning style of listening or silently reading of text enables students a choice; the educator must be aware to offer a balanced literature approach to ensure and improve the level of reading comprehension. As we immerse the students in good literature by listening or silently reading of text and model effective comprehension strategies, we will promote strategic readers and the love of learning.
APPENDIX A Student Preference Survey Student Number______ 1) How do you feel about reading a story?
3) Which style of reading do you prefer?
Please circle one Listening to a story Silently reading a story
REFERENCES Beck, I., Farr, R., & Strickland, D. (2005). Harcourt trophies: teacher's edition. Orlando: Harcourt. Bishop, P. A., Reyes, C., & Pflaum, S. (2006). Read smarter, not harder: global comprehension strategies [Electronic version]. The Reading Teacher, 60(1), 66-69. Caldwell, K., & Gaine, T. (2000, October). The phantom tollbooth and how the independent reading of good books improves student’s reading performance. Retrieved October17, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdoc2/content_storage_01/ 0000000b/80/24/97/28.pdf Diakidoy, I. N., Stylianou, P., Karefillidou, C., & Papageorgiou, P. (2005). The relationship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of text at increasing grade levels [Electronic version]. Reading Psychology, 26(1), 55-80. Dunn, R., & Honigsfeld, A. (2006). What if young children were grouped for reading with learning-style responsive approaches [Electronic version]. Reading Improvement, 43(2), 70-76. Ediger, M. (2000, August). Listening and reading in the elementary school. Retrieved October 22, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov.ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content _storage_01/0000000b/80/11/94/7c.pdf Freeland, J. T., Skinner, C. H., Jackson, B., McDaniel, C. E., & Smith, S. (2000). Measuring and increasing silent reading comprehension rates; empirically validating a repeated readings intervention [Electronic version]. Psychology in the Schools, 37(5), 415-428. Gardiner, S. (2005). A skill for life [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 67-70. Gardiner, S. (2001). Ten minutes a day for silent reading [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 59(2), 32 –35. Garner, J. K., & Bochna, C. (2004). Transfer of a listening comprehension strategy to independent reading in first-grade students [Electronic version]. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(2), 69-73. Good, M. E. (2006, May). Differentiated instruction: principles and techniques for the elementary grades. Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80 /33/17/b4.pdf Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers. Henderson, H. (2001, April). Incidental vocabulary acquisition: learning new vocabulary from reading silently and listening to stories read aloud. Retrieved October 14, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov./ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/ 0000000b/80/25/3f/f5.pdf Isbell, R., Sobol, J., Lindauer, L., & Lowrance, A. (2004). The effects of storytelling and story reading on the oral language complexity and story comprehension of young children [Electronic version]. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(3), 157-163. Keene, E., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Kinnunen, R., Vauras, M., & Niemi, P. (1998). Comprehension monitoring in beginning readers [Electronic version]. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(4), 354-369. Krashen S. (2006). Free reading [Electronic version]. The School Library Journal, 52(9), 42-45. Lee-Daniels, S., & Murray, B. (2001). Dear me: what does it take to get children reading [Electronic version]. Reading Teacher, 54(2), 154-156. Lehto, J. E., & Anttila, M. (2003). Listening comprehension in primary level grades two, four, and six [Electronic version]. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 133-143. Little, Q., & Richards, D. R. T. (2000). Teaching learners--learners teaching: using reciprocal teaching to improve comprehension strategies in challenged readers [Electronic version]. Reading Improvement, 37(4), 190-194. McCarthy, C. P. (1999). Reading theory as a microcosm of the four skills. The Internet TESL Journal, 5(5). Retrieved September 30, 2006, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/McCarthy-Reading.html Mostow, J. (2005, June). Project listen – a reading tutor that listens. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~listen Paris, S. G., & Carpenter, R. D. (2003). FAQs about IRIs [Electronic version]. Reading Teacher, 56(6), 578-580. Reissner, L. (1997, March). Using taped books with children at-risk: four case studies. Retrieved October 27, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/ content_storage_01/0000000b/80/25/c3/16.pdf Reutzel, D., & Cooter, R. (2004). Teaching children to read. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education. Richardson, J., & Morgan, R. (2003). Reading to learn in the content areas. Belmont: |
