Abstract
AbstractThis study proposes and identifies two levels of word reading at which good comprehenders can obtain a similar understanding of written and spoken narrative texts: The oral-written matching functional and efficient thresholds. These thresholds are compared with the level of word reading over which a relationship between listening comprehension and reading comprehension is evident (a basic word recognition threshold) and with the level after which better word recognition does not result in improvements in reading comprehension (an upper word recognition threshold). The three first thresholds were calculated in a sample of 344 first to third-grade Spanish students who read and listened to two narrative texts of different difficulty and who were assessed on measures of comprehension and word recognition. Listening and reading comprehension were related when participants accurately read more than 73% of pseudowords in a list (basic word recognition threshold). For participants with good listening comprehension, reading comprehension performance matched listening comprehension once a moderate reading speed of ~ 66 decontextualized words per minute was achieved (oral-written matching functional threshold) or when the rate of reading the text was ~ 140 words per minute (oral-written matching efficient threshold). The value of the oral-written matching efficient threshold was, in this study, similar to the upper word recognition threshold identified by prior research. The thresholds calculated in this study delineate a sequence of increasingly challenges to the developing reader, allowing a nuanced description of the initial stages of reading development.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference44 articles.
1. Baer, J., Kutner, M., & Sabatini, J. P. (2009). Basic reading skills and the literacy of the America's least literate adults: Results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy (NAAL) supplemental studies (NCES 2006 - 488
2. Issue NCES 2006 - 488). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
3. Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.12.003.
4. Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047.
5. Cain, K., & Bignell, S. (2014). Reading and listening comprehension and their relation to inattention and hyperactivity. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12009.