Inferential and Literal Comprehension After Oral and Silent Reading (Modality, Automaticity, Interference).

Responses on reading tests are measured by literal and inferential questions. If the kind of question is controlled, are there differences in comprehension due to modality (i. e., silent, oral or listening)? Do such differences exist for good and poor readers? Eighty-three children in grades 3-5 read orally and silently and listened to grade appropriate passages from the Analytic Reading Inventory (Woods and Moe, 1977). They were then given questions which were classified as literal or inferential. As predicted, a repeated measures ANOVA revealed two significant two-way interactions (Question-Type x Level of Competence and Modality x Level of Competence). For poor readers, oral reading was equal to listening and both were superior to silent reading. For average readers, silent reading was equal to listening and both were superior to oral reading. For the good readers, oral and silent reading abilities were equal and both were superior to listening. Additionally, while no differences were found for poor and average readers' performances on literal and inferential questions, good readers answered literal questions more successfully than they answered inferential questions. Thus, results fail to support common assumptions regarding the greater ease of silent over oral reading or of literal over inferential comprehension for poor readers. However, findings do support a learning stage process within the transition from oral to silent reading and they are congruent with contentions of deficits in automaticity and attentional focus for poor readers.PhDEducational psychologyUniversity of Michiganhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/160567/1/8512471.pd