The study investigated whether reading comprehension differs between oral and silent reading. Sixty undergraduate students were randomly assigned to read a passage either silently or aloud. Both groups then answered 10 multiple choice questions testing their understanding of the passage. The mean comprehension scores for the silent and oral reading groups did not significantly differ. The hypothesis that reading aloud would increase comprehension was not supported. The results are consistent with previous research finding no advantage to reading comprehension between oral and silent reading.

1. Running head: ORAL AND SILENT READING COMPREHENSION 1
Investigation of the Difference in Reading Comprehension between Oral and Silent Reading
Michael Finch, Phillip Martin, Jonathan Schmid, and Aliya Sunderman
Washington & Jefferson College
Psychology 475
Instructor: Dr. Timothy Klitz
11 May 2013

2. ORAL AND SILENT READING COMPREHENSION 2
Abstract
The present study looked at the effect of reading silently and reading aloud on reading
comprehension. A group of 60 undergraduate students participated in this study and were divided
equally into 2 different conditions. The participants in Condition 1 read the passage silently
while the participants in Condition 2 read the passage aloud. We predicted that there would be a
significant difference in comprehension between the 2 conditions; namely, that reading aloud
would increase comprehension. It was found, however, that the mean comprehension scores for
the 2 groups did not differ significantly at p < .05. It seems, therefore, that reading aloud versus
reading silently does not have a significant effect on level of comprehension and our hypothesis
has not been validated.

3. ORAL AND SILENT READING COMPREHENSION 3
Investigation of the Difference in Reading Comprehension between Oral and Silent Reading
Reading is almost always included in the things we do every day. We read roadway signs
as we drive to the drug store to pick up our prescriptions, where we read the store and pharmacy-
section sign, as well as the prescription instructions. It is vital that we are able to read and
comprehend what we are reading in order to succeed in daily life. According to research by The
National Education Association – National Endowment for the Arts, literary reading has
increased for the first time in 26 years. After a steady 20-year dip in literary reading, in 2008 it
began to increase, going from 46.7% to 50.2% (National Endowment for the Arts & National
Education Association, 2009). From a young age we are reading and studying material for school
and leisure that needs to be comprehended.
As students ourselves, we study the difference between reading orally and silently for
comprehension with an understanding that any increase in reading comprehension would be a
huge advantage. Our research directly affects study techniques and reading in general for
students, professors, adults and our youth. Pintner and Gilliland (1916) found that as we grow
from a child to an adult, our silent reading becomes strikingly quicker to complete than oral
reading. Further, in 1915, Mead found that of the 112 sixth-grade students reading for speed and
comprehension, 80 of them performed better silently than orally. However, Miller and Smith
(1985) failed to find silent reading as a better alternative to oral reading. In 2004, McCallum,
Sharp, Bell, and George found similar results, giving no indication that there is any advantage
reading orally or silently for comprehension.
Everyone who is able to read is directly affected by this research and we set out to clarify
the mixed research on this topic. Although it is clear that silent reading can be done more quickly
than oral reading, the question remains regarding whether the reader can comprehend as much

4. ORAL AND SILENT READING COMPREHENSION 4
information if he or she reads the same passage aloud. We test strictly for the difference in
comprehension between oral and silent reading without any time constraints, with the objective
of proving or disproving past research and coming to a helpful conclusion that could have
advantageous effects for reading and studying in the future.
Based on previous research stated above and our recollections in previous comprehension
efforts during our own reading, we predict that reading out loud will result in increased
comprehension scores as compared to reading silently. This hypothesis is based on the idea that
when we read material orally we are not only seeing it, but are also forced to vocalize and listen
to the same material. This increase in exposure to the material should increase the
comprehension scores and lead us to conclude that reading orally is more advantageous for
comprehension than reading silently.
Method
Participants
The participants that elected to take place in the study were 60 undergraduate students
from Washington & Jefferson College. Students chose to participate for the provided
refreshments or possible class credit. The 60 participants were broken into two conditions of 30
participants each. Participants in this research were treated in accordance with the “Ethical
Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (American Psychological Association, 2002).
Apparatus
A two page informational passage on the stinkbug, a trailer for the film “Life in a Day,”
and a brief questionnaire were used in this research study. The passage was selected from

5. ORAL AND SILENT READING COMPREHENSION 5
www.englishforeveryone.org, where it was rated as eleventh-grade-level reading material. The
researchers found this suitable for the study because it provided a small challenge without being
too difficult. The film trailer was used as a distractor to ensure that anything remembered from
the passage was comprehended and not memorized. It was chosen for its short running time and
can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT_UmBHMYzg. The questionnaire
contained 10 multiple choice questions that were created by the researchers and that tested the
participants on the information they read in the passage.
Procedure
The 60 participants in the study were randomly selected to be in one of two conditions,
giving each condition 30 participants. As students entered the room, they were asked to read and
sign the consent form. After this, they were placed alone in a well-lit, sound proof-room. The
doors to the rooms had a small window that allowed the experimenters to observe the
participants. Furthermore, while the participants could not hear anyone in the other rooms, the
researchers could hear the participants through the doors to the rooms and so could verify if they
were reading aloud.
Once the participant was in the testing room, he or she was handed the passage. The
experimenter then said, “Please read the instructions carefully. Once you are finished, turn the
passage over and leave the room so we can tell you what to do next.” If the participant was in the
silent condition (Condition 1), the instructions told them to read the passage silently, and if they
were in the oral condition (Condition 2), the instructions said to read the passage aloud. Once the
participant was finished, he or she was lead to a separate room containing a computer with
speakers to watch the film trailer. The participant was instructed to view the trailer in its entirety
and then exit the room when finished. The participant was then left alone to watch the video.

6. ORAL AND SILENT READING COMPREHENSION 6
After the participant had completed the film trailer and had exited the room, he or she was once
again lead to the original testing room and was handed the questionnaire. The experimenter
instructed the participant to finish it to the best of his or her ability, without looking back at the
passage, and to exit the room with the questionnaire when finished. Once the quiz was finished,
the participant was given a debriefing form and offered pizza and/or soda as a thank you for his
or her participation.
Results
Analysis focused on participants’ mean comprehension scores in both conditions. Figure
1 shows the mean comprehension score for Condition 1 as well as the mean comprehension
score for Condition 2. An independent two-sample t-test was used to test the statistical
significance between the means of the two conditions, the results of which can be seen in
Appendix A. When the results for Condition 1 (M = 7.9) and the results for Condition 2 (M =
7.87) were analyzed using an independent two-sample t-test, they were found not to differ
significantly, t(58) = .093, p > .05.
Discussion
A comparison of Condition 1 and Condition 2 showed no significant difference,
suggesting that there is no significant difference in mean comprehension score if text is read
silently versus aloud. Our hypothesis that reading aloud would increase comprehension score has
therefore not been validated. Recent research in this area has concluded that there is no
significant difference in comprehension between text that is read aloud and text that is read
silently (Hale et al 2011; McCallum, Sharp, Bell & George 2004). The results of the present
study correspond with this research. Alternatively, early research in this field set a time limit for
participants when they read and concluded that silent reading increased comprehension (Pintner

7. ORAL AND SILENT READING COMPREHENSION 7
and Gilliland 1913; Mead 1915). This, however, seems to be due to the fact that more
information could be read silently in the time allotted than could be read aloud, not necessarily
because reading silently increases comprehension. Because the present study did not set a time
limit for participants, it did not find reading silently to be superior in terms of comprehension,
but in fact found that there is no statistically significant difference between reading aloud and
reading silently.
Changes to future experiments could be done to see if the hypothesis could be validated.
There were a few participants who appeared to not take the experiment seriously, and therefore
may have paid less attention to the material and scored lower than they would have normally.
These participants occurred so infrequently, however, that there is no way it could have affected
the results. There were no other problems with the method that would have changed the results.
The experiment occurred as expected, and the sound-proof rooms allowed multiple participants
to work simultaneously with no distractions from others. Participants had no issue with the
instructions as they understood them fully and completed the experiment without any errors or
questions. Every participant finished the experiment; there were no drop outs. Nevertheless, a
larger sample size could possibly change the outcome of the study by providing a more diverse
population, thereby increasing the likelihood of a significant result. However, because the means
in the two conditions were so similar, and the standard deviations in both conditions were fairly
large, it seems safe to assume that the result would be the same even with a larger sample size.

8. ORAL AND SILENT READING COMPREHENSION 8
References
Gioia, D., National Endowment for the Arts, & National Education Association (2009).
Reading on the Rise - A New Chapter in American History, 1-11. Retrieved from
http://www.nea.gov/research/readingonrise.pdf
Hale, A. D., Hawkins, R. O., Sheeley, W., Reynolds, J. R., Jenkins, S., Schmitt, A. J., & Martin,
D. A. (2011). An investigation of silent versus aloud reading comprehension of
elementary students using Maze assessment procedures. Psychology In The Schools,
48(1), 4-13. doi:10.1002/pits.20543
McCallum, R., Sharp, S., Bell, S., & George, T. (2004). Silent versus oral reading
comprehension and efficiency. Psychology In The Schools, 41(2), 241-246.
Mead, C. D. (1915). Silent versus oral reading with one hundred sixth-grade children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(6), 345-348. doi:10.1037/h0071709
Miller, D. S., Smith, E. P. D. (1985). Differences in Literal and Inferential Comprehension After
Reading Orally and Silently. Journal of Educational Psychology. 77(3), 341-348.
Pintner, R. (1913). Oral and silent reading of fourth grade pupils. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 4(6), 333-337. doi:10.1037/h0072491
Pintner, R., & Gilliland, A. R. (1916). Oral and silent reading. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 7(4), 201-212. doi:10.1037/h0072173

9. ORAL AND SILENT READING COMPREHENSION 9
Appendix A
Group Statistics
Condition N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Score
s 30 7.9000 1.32222 .24140
a 30 7.8667 1.45586 .26580
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
Score
Equal variances assumed 1.456 .232 .093 58
Equal variances not
assumed
.093 57.470
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Score
Equal variances assumed .926 .03333 .35906 -.68541
Equal variances not assumed .926 .03333 .35906 -.68555
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Upper
Score
Equal variances assumed .75208
Equal variances not assumed .75222

10. ORAL AND SILENT READING COMPREHENSION 10
Figure 1. Mean score on the questionnaire out of 10 for Condition 1 (silent) and Condition 2 (out
loud).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean Score
Reading Condition
Silent
Out Loud