Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Decline of Comprehension‐Based Silent Reading Efficiency in the United States: A Comparison of Current Data With Performance in 1960

2016; Wiley; Volume: 51; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/rrq.137

1936-2722

Alexandra Spichtig, Elfrieda H. Hiebert, Christian Vorstius, Jeffrey P. Pascoe, P. David Pearson, Ralph Radach,

Reading and Literacy Development

The present study measured the comprehension-based silent reading efficiency of U.S. students in grades 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Students read standardized grade-level passages while an eye movement recording system was used to measure reading rate, fixations (eye stops) per word, fixation durations, and regressions (right-to-left eye movements) per word. Eye movement recordings were regarded as valid only if students demonstrated a comprehension level of at least 70% after reading a passage and answering a series of true/false questions. Reading rates increased over grades, with two exceptions: (a) between grades 6 and 8, growth in reading rate appeared to plateau; and (b) between grades 10 and 12, reading rate increases were seen only among students in the upper two quartiles. Changes in the other three efficiency measures reflected similar patterns of reading efficiency development over grades. The reading efficiency of students in this study was also compared with that of a sample of students from 1960, using norms reported by Taylor (1965) and validated by Carver (1989). Comprehension-based silent reading rates in grade 2 were comparable across the 50-year span, but the cross-grade growth trajectory was much shallower in the present study than it was in 1960. These results suggest that present-day students may not achieve the same level of word-reading automaticity as did their 1960 counterparts. 本研究旨在测定美国 2、4、6、8、10 和12 年级学生在理解基础上的默读效率。学生阅读标准化等级水平的短文时,眼动记录系统便会测量阅读速度、每个字的注视点(眼动停止)次数、注视时间、以及每个字的回归 (右向左的眼动) 次数。只有学生阅读一篇短文后,回答一系列的真伪问题时,能表现出至少70%的阅读理解水平的情况下,眼动记录才被视为有效。所有年级均有阅读速度的增加,但有两个例外的情况: 一、6和8年级之间,阅读速度的增长似乎出现高原停滞期;二、10和12年级之间,只有那些属于两个上四分位程度的学生才有阅读速度的增长。其他三个阅读效率的测量结果,也反映出所有年级均有类似的阅读效率增长模式。本文作者以泰勒(1965年)所报告和卡弗(1989年)所验证的规范,把本研究的学生阅读效率结果,与一个来自1960年研究的学生样本作了比较。在以理解为基础的默读速度方面来说,本研究的2年级学生可以比得上50年前的学生,但就跨年级的增长轨迹方面而言,本研究的学生成绩却比不上1960的学生成绩。这些结果显示,现今的学生未必能达到1960的相对学生所能达到的字词阅读自动化的程度。 Este estudio midió la eficacia de la comprensión al leer en voz baja de estudiantes estadounidenses en los grados, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 y 12. Los estudiantes leían pasajes estandarizados a su nivel mientras un sistema de grabación del movimiento ocular medía el índice de lectura, fijación (ojo detenido) por palabra, la duración de la fijación, y regresiones (movimiento ocular de derecha a izquierda) por palabra. Se consideraron válidos únicamente los movimientos oculares que resultaban en una comprensión de por lo menos 70% al contestar preguntas de cierto y falso después de la lectura de un pasaje. El índice de lectura mejoró a través de los grados con dos excepciones: (a) entre los grados 6 y 8, el mejoramiento parece haberse estancado; y (b) entre los grados 10 y 12, se vio un mejoramiento del índice solamente en los dos cuartiles superiores. Los cambios en las otras tres medidas de eficacia reflejaron patrones similares en el desarrollo de la eficacia lectora a través de los grados. La eficacia lectora de los estudiantes en este estudio también fue comparada con una muestra de estudiantes de 1960, usando normas reportadas por Taylor (1965) y convalidadas por Carver (1989). Los índices de lectura basadas en la comprensión al leer en voz baja en el segundo grado eran comparables en el espacio de estos 50 años, pero la trayectoria de mejoramiento a través de los grados fue mucho más superficial en el presente estudio que en 1960. Estos resultados sugieren que es posible que los estudiantes de hoy día no puedan lograr el mismo nivel de automatismo en la lectura de palabras que sus homólogos. قاست هذه الدراسة المبنية على كفاءة فهم القراءة الصامتة للطلبة الأميركيين في الصفوف 2 و4 و6 و8 و10 و12. قرء الطلاب مقاطع موحدة على مستوى الصف في حين تم استخدام نظام تسجيل حركة العين لقياس سرعة القراءة، وثبوت العين (وقوف العين) لكل كلمة، ومدة الثبات وعودة العين (حركة العين من اليمين إلى اليسار) عند كل كلمة. واعتبرت تسجيلات حركة العين صالحة فقط إذا أبدى الطلاب مستوى فهم لا يقل عن 70٪ بعد قراءة فقرة والإجابة على سلسلة من الأسئلة صواب أو خطأ. ارتفعت معدلات القراءة مع السنين الدراسية، باستثناء حالتين: (أ) ما بين الصف 6 و8، النمو في معدل القراءة يبدو أنه كان ثابتا، وكذلك (ب) بين الصف 10 و12، وزيادة معدل القراءة لوحظ فقط بين طلاب في أخر ربعين. التغييرات في تدابير الكفاءة الثلاثة الاخرى عكست أنماط مماثلة من تنمية كفاءة القراءة عبر السنوات الدراسية. كفاءة قراءة الطلاب في هذه الدراسة قورنت أيضا مع عينة من الطلاب من العام 1960، باستخدام المعايير التي أبلغ عنها تايلور (1965) والمصادق عليها من قبل كارفر (1989). وكانت معدلات القراءة الصامتة القائمة على الفهم في الصف 2 متماثلة عبر فترة 50 عاما، لكن مسار النمو عبر الصفوف الدراسية كان أكثر ضحالة في هذه الدراسة عما كان عليه في عام 1960. وتشير هذه النتائج أن الطلاب الوقت الحاضر قد لا يحققوا نفس المستوى من قراءة الكلمة التلقائي التي حققها نظرائهم في عام. 1960. Эффeктивнocть чтeния пpo ceбя, opиeнтиpoвaннoгo нa пoнимaниe пpoчитaннoгo, былa иccлeдoвaнa в CШA вo 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 и 12 клaccax. Учaщимcя пpeдлoжили cтaндapтныe тeкcты, cooтвeтcтвyющиe кaждoй вoзpacтнoй гpyппe, a cиcтeмa зaпиcи движeния глaз иcпoльзoвaлacь, чтoбы oпpeдeлить cкopocть чтeния, кoличecтвo фикcaций (ocтaнoвoк глaзa) нa cлoвo, пpoдoлжитeльнocть фикcaций и кoличecтвo вoзвpaщeний (движeний глaз cпpaвa нaлeвo) нa cлoвo. Зaпиcь движeния глaз pacцeнивaлacь кaк вaлиднaя, тoлькo ecли yчaщиecя дeмoнcтpиpoвaли кaк минимyм 70-пpoцeнтный ypoвeнь пoнимaния, oтвeтив нa cepию вoпpocoв c oтвeтoм "вepнo/нeвepнo". Cкopocть чтeния oт клacca к клaccy pacтeт, нo выявлeны двa иcключeния: (a) мeждy 6 и 8 клaccoм pocт cмeняeтcя плaтo; и (б) мeждy 10 и 12 клaccaми, cкopocть чтeния pacтeт тoлькo cpeди yчaщиxcя в вepxниx двyx квapтиляx. Cxoднaя динaмикa в paзныx вoзpacтныx гpyппax пpocлeживaeтcя и пo тpём дpyгим пapaмeтpaм. B paмкax иccлeдoвaния тaкжe cpaвнивaлacь эффeктивнocть чтeния coвpeмeнныx дeтeй и иx cвepcтникoв в 1960 гoдy – пo зaмepaм Tэйлopa (Taylor, 1965) и Кapвepa (Carver, 1989). Зa пocлeдниe 50 лeт эффeктивнocть чтeния пpo ceбя, opиeнтиpoвaннoгo нa пoнимaниe пpoчитaннoгo, мaлo измeнилacь cpeди втopoклaccникoв. Oднaкo гpaфик ee дaльнeйшeгo pocтa oт клacca к клaccy ceйчac выглядит бoлee пoлoгим, чeм в 1960 гoдy. To ecть, coвpeмeнныe yчaщиecя, вoзмoжнo, нe дocтигaют пpи чтeнии тoгo ypoвня aвтoмaтизмa, кaкoй дeмoнcтpиpoвaли иx poвecники в 1960 гoдy. La recherche présentée ici mesure l'efficacité de la compréhension en lecture silencieuse d'élèves américains de classes de 2e, 4e, 6e, 8e, 10e et 12e année. Les élèves ont lu des passages de textes standardisés pour leur niveau scolaire tandis qu' un système d'enregistrement des mouvements oculaires était utilize pour mesurer la vitesse de lecture, le nombre de fixations par mot, la durée des fixations et les regressions (mouvements de l'oeil de droite à gauche) par mot. Nous avons considéré que les enregistrements des mouvements oculaires étaient valides uniquement si les élèves présentaient un taux de compréhension au moins égal à 70% après avoir lu un passage et répondu à une série de questions vrai / faux. La vitesse de lecture augmente suivant le niveau de scolarité, à deux exceptions près: a) entre la 6e et la 8e année où l'on observe un plateau dans la progression; b) entre la 10e et la 12e année où une progression n'apparaît que pour les élèves des deux quartiles supérieurs. Les changements observés avec les trois autres indicateurs d'efficacité présentent des structures d'efficacité semblables en lecture d'un niveau de scolarité à l'autre. Nous avons également comparé l'efficacité en lecture des élèves de cette recherché avec celle d'un échantillon d'élèves de 1960, en utilisant des normes rapportées par Taylor (1965) et validées par Carver (1989). Les vitesses de compréhension en lecture silencieuse en 2e année sont comparables à 50 ans de distance, mais la progression selon le niveau scolaire est de beaucoup inférieure dans cette étude à celle de 1960. Ces résultats suggèrent que les élèves aujourd'hui ne parviennent pas au même niveau d'automatisation de leur lecture que leurs prédécesseurs. Through the early 19th century, reading pedagogy in the Western world was dominated by the readily observable oral recitation of letter sounds, syllables, words, and passages, largely learned by rote and with religious intent (Smith, 1965). Silent reading of secular material became an increasingly popular pastime during the latter part of the 19th century (Smith, 1965). Yet, despite prominent critics, reading instruction remained firmly rooted in an oral tradition at least until the 1920s (Pearson & Goodin, 2010). Over a century ago, Huey (1908) voiced concerns that reading in school was too often an exercise in speaking at the expense of "thought-getting" (p. 359; i.e., grasping the ideas and meanings in the text), which he argued could only be achieved through silent reading practice in the service of the reader's own purposes (i.e., with an intent to comprehend). Thorndike (1917) reached a similar conclusion after finding that many students he tested were fluent oral readers but did not understand what they read. More recently, Samuels (2007) expressed concerns that reading fluency in schools was too often being operationalized as reading aloud at a good rate ("barking at print"), while disregarding the ability to construct meaning from text. Although there appears to be broad agreement on the importance of proficient silent reading with good comprehension, there is far less agreement on how we can help students attain that goal and, specifically, on the relative value of devoting instructional time to oral and silent reading fluency at different grade and ability levels (for an in-depth overview, see Pearson & Goodin, 2010). A key development in these deliberations was the report of the National Reading Panel (NRP; National Institute of Child Health & Human Development [NICHD], 2000), which included an evaluation of selected research addressing the efficacy of devoting instructional time to guided, repeated oral reading and/or sustained silent reading. The NRP concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the efficacy of the former, but not the latter, to the effect that devoting class time to silent reading could not be recommended as an evidence-based approach. This conclusion was followed, during the era of the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), by a shift in emphasis in U.S. education toward oral reading and the use of oral reading fluency assessments. Yet, our best available evidence suggests a declining association between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension as students advance to higher grades (e.g., Denton et al., 2011; O'Brien, Wallot, Haussmann, & Kloos, 2014). The NRP report (NICHD, 2000) also led to the reexamination of silent reading practices. Concern was expressed that many students were using their silent reading time poorly (Griffith & Rasinski, 2004) and that measures of student accountability and comprehension were often lacking (Reutzel, Fawson, & Smith, 2008). Reutzel et al. also showed that scaffolded silent reading practice with active monitoring was as effective as guided or repeated oral reading in promoting the development of fluency and comprehension in grade 3 students. The Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGA Center & CCSSO], 2010a) mark another major development in reading policy. The Common Core makes explicit the expectation that students develop the capacity to construct meaning in response to increasingly challenging texts, echoing the same goal of reading instruction espoused by Huey (1908) and Thorndike (1917): proficient silent reading with good comprehension. A primary plank of the Common Core is the need for students to have increased exposure to complex texts at every grade level. Hiebert and Mesmer (2013) argued that the new standards are going to be exceedingly challenging for a significant portion of U.S. students who have shown a lack of fluency with texts at current levels of difficulty (Daane, Campbell, Grigg, Goodman, & Oranje, 2005). The present study sought to evaluate the rates at which 21st-century U.S. students read grade-level text silently with good comprehension—a construct that Hiebert, Wilson, and Trainin (2010) labeled comprehension-based silent reading rates. Previous comprehensive studies on silent reading rates are few, and certainly no contemporary studies exist to document the course of comprehension-based silent reading efficiency development from the early elementary grades through high school. Historically, Taylor's (1965; Taylor, Frackenpohl, & Pettee, 1960) work has provided the most robust data on silent reading efficiency. In the 1960 study, approximately 12,000 students from first grade through college were assessed on silent reading rate and comprehension. In addition, eye movement data (fixations per word, fixation durations, and regressions per word) were gathered as students read grade-level passages and responded to true/false comprehension questions. Students had to achieve a standard of 70% correct on the comprehension assessment in order for their efficiency data to be included in the analysis. In Carver's (1989) review of research on the silent reading efficiency of U.S. students, Taylor et al.'s 1960 results were compared with those of three other projects: (a) a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) study (Gallo, 1972), (b) rates that Carver interpolated from norms reported for grades 9–16 on the Nelson–Denny Reading Test (Nelson, Brown, & Denny, 1960), and (c) Carver's (1983) own work on the flexibility of reading rate. In the NAEP study, students at ages 9, 13, and 17 and young adults read two passages, each followed by five multiple-choice comprehension questions. Median reading rates at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles were reported in words per minute (wpm) for each age group but without taking comprehension into account. Also reported were the percentages of students who fell into four broad rate bands ( 300 wpm) and the percentages of students in each rate band who correctly answered at least four of the five comprehension questions. Carver (1983) studied the reading rates of students in grades 4–12 as they read texts of varying difficulty (i.e., texts meant for grades 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16). Text assignments were based on students' performance on a standardized reading test (National Reading Standards; Carver, 1977). Carver therefore assumed that students read the study passages with good comprehension, but comprehension was not assessed. Carver's (1989) review concluded that the data in Taylor's (1965) publication provided the most useful standard for national norms because the study involved a national sample with a wide range of grades, used grade-leveled texts, assessed comprehension, and reported comprehension-based silent reading rates (i.e., rates achieved when students demonstrated at least 70% comprehension). Although comprehension-based silent reading rate provides a useful measure of reading efficiency, more detailed and valuable insights into the hidden processes of reading can be gained by recording eye movement activity during reading. The observable behavior associated with continuous reading includes a well-coordinated pattern of fast eye movements (referred to as saccades) that are interrupted by fixations (periods of relative stability) during which visual information is acquired. This visuomotor behavior reflects the mental workload associated with various aspects of information processing and is therefore closely related to word processing, levels of fluency, comprehension, and individual reading strategies (for overviews, see Radach & Kennedy, 2013; Rayner, 2009). Fixation durations are typically in the range of 200–250 ms in adult readers and 300–350 ms in children. As text difficulty increases, readers make more fixations, longer fixations, and more regressive eye movements back to regions in the text that had been processed previously. Short-range regressions are frequently the result of either positioning errors in oculomotor control (e.g., the eyes might have overshot the intended saccade target) or problems with lexical processing, typically when the meaning of a word is not accessed immediately. Larger regressions are much less frequent and often indicate processing difficulty on the level of local syntax or semantics or a breakdown in comprehension on a more global level (Inhoff, Weger, & Radach, 2005; Vorstius, Radach, & Lonigan, 2014). The percentage of regressions is often regarded as a key indicator of reading difficulty; in fluent adult readers of English, 10–15% of all eye movements during sentence reading are regressions. In contrast, developing readers' regression rates are more in the order of 30% (e.g., McConkie et al., 1991). There have been many studies of the eye movements of efficient adult readers but only a few tracking the development of children's eye movements across the course of schooling (for a review, see Blythe & Joseph, 2011). The existing work suggests that younger readers make shorter saccades, more and longer fixations, and more frequent regressions than efficient, adult readers do (e.g., Huestegge, Radach, Corbic, & Huestegge, 2009; McConkie et al., 1991; Taylor, 1965) and that struggling readers of all ages exhibit similar patterns to those of developing readers (Ashby, Rayner, & Clifton, 2005). McConkie et al.'s study is noteworthy in that it was the first extensive developmental study of elementary students (grades 1–5) that utilized eye movement recording technology with letter-level accuracy of measurement. More recently, Vorstius et al. (2014) reported a very detailed analysis of eye movements in a cross-sectional sample of students in grades 1–5 reading identical sentences during oral and silent reading. As of this writing, however, only Taylor has provided comprehension-based silent reading efficiency data that span the elementary through high school grades. The focus of the present study was to update information on the comprehension-based silent reading efficiency of U.S. students and compare their performance to that of a cohort from a half-century ago (Taylor, 1965). Four efficiency measures were examined: (a) comprehension-based silent reading rate (time required to read a passage with at least 70% comprehension, converted to wpm), (b) fixation count (average number of fixations per word), (c) fixation duration (measured in ms), and (d) regression count (average number of regressions per word). The methodology described in this study closely followed the tasks and procedures of Taylor (1965; Taylor, personal communication, July 28, 2009; Taylor et al., 1960). Comparison data on rates, fixations, fixation durations, and regressions were also derived from these sources. The current study took place during the 2010–2011 school year. It involved 2,203 students in 34 public schools located in 16 states representing all regions of the United States. Students in the sample were distributed across six grades as follows: grade 2: 414, grade 4: 451, grade 6: 316, grade 8: 519, grade10: 265, and grade 12: 238. The racial and ethnic distribution of the sample was 60% white, 20% Hispanic, 16% black, 3% Asian, and 1% other. By comparison, the U.S. Census Bureau (2011) reported the population distribution of young Americans in 2011 as 54% white, 23% Hispanic, 14% black, 4% Asian, and 5% other. Data on free and reduced-price lunch were available for 93% of the schools in the sample. Overall, 49% of the students in the study were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, as compared with the National Center for Education Statistics (2013a) estimate of 48.1% for the 2010–2011 cohort of U.S. students. Performance data on state reading/language arts assessments were obtained from 93% of the schools. These data showed that an average of 69.7% of students attained proficiency as defined by their various state standards. Each participating school selected at least 30 students who had performed at below-average, average, and above-average levels on their 2010 state assessment. English learners and special education students were not included in this study. Gender information, available for 94% of the students, showed an approximately equal distribution of males and females in each grade. Data from Taylor et al.'s (1960) study were originally collected by associate investigators recruited from 39 colleges and universities located in 19 states, also representing all regions of the United States. As in our 2011 study, school personnel selected students for participation in Taylor et al.'s study. The criteria for selecting participating schools were that (a) the students represent the "average socio-economic level for the area" (Taylor et al., 1960, p. 5), and (b) no more than 10% could be private or parochial schools. It was also specified that participating classrooms represented students of mixed-ability levels and a balance of females and males. Beyond this, no demographic or aptitude information were reported in the original study. Reference to the 1960 census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 1960) shows that the states included in the 1960 study provided a fairly representative sample of the U.S. population at the time: 89.7% white (vs. 88.6% nationally), 9.1% African American (vs. 10.5% nationally), 1.2% other (vs. 0.9% nationally), and 23.3% low income (vs. 21.4% nationally). The data from Taylor et al.'s (1960) study, used for historical comparisons, included grades 2, 4, 6, 8, and 11 (n = 6,429). The 1960 study did not collect data on students in grades 10 and 12; instead, reported values were extrapolated from adjacent grades. Consequently, data for grade 11 students in Taylor et al.'s study were compared with data for grade 12 students in the 2011 sample, and no historical comparisons were made with grade 10 students. Data on comprehension-based silent reading rate and visual activity were gathered with the Visagraph Eye Movement Recording System (Taylor, 2009), a portable unit commonly used for this purpose. The Visagraph uses infrared emitters and sensors in a goggle-style apparatus to measure binocular eye movements (corneal reflections) during reading at a sampling rate of 60 Hz. Figure 1a shows a student wearing Visagraph goggles. Spichtig, Vorstius, Greene, and Radach (2009) demonstrated that, with respect to the measures reported within this article, the Visagraph produces data comparable to more sophisticated eye movement recording systems. Eye movement data in Taylor et al.'s (1960) study were collected using a Reading Eye camera1 (see Figure 1b), a device designed for binocular corneal reflection eye movement photography. In both studies, measures collected while students read 100-word passages included (a) comprehension-based silent reading rate (measured in wpm), (b) fixation count, (c) fixation duration (measured in ms), and (d) number of regressions. Because of limitations of the recording system, the fixation durations reported in this article include saccade time (i.e., eye movements between fixations). Inclusion of saccade time lengthens fixation duration, but this measure remains a valid indicator of processing workload (Vonk & Cozijn, 2003) in that saccades are generally short (20–40 ms) and processing continues during saccades (Irwin, 1998). Importantly, the fixation durations reported in the 1960 study (Taylor, 1965) also included saccade times, so data from the two studies are comparable. Also in keeping with the 1960 study, the regression data reported in this article reflect only short-range regressions (up to three words in length). Participants read five 100-word passages, all of which had been used in the 1960 study (Taylor, 1965). The first passage was two levels below students' designated grade and served as an introduction, and the remaining four passages were at students' grade level. Taylor et al. (1960) used several readability formulas to verify the grade-level status of passages. In the current study, two of the four passages remained unchanged from their original form (Taylor et al., 1960). These original passages were presented first, ensuring comparable procedures to those of the 1960 study. The other two passages were slightly revised if necessary to comply with the accelerated Lexile (L) levels of the Common Core (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010b).2 Table 1 provides an overview of the Lexile measures of passages on each grade level and presents the mean word length (in letters) and variability across these passages. Figure 2 shows a passage at readability level 5. Each reading selection was followed by 10 true/false comprehension questions (see Figure 3). These questions were the same as those used in 1960, with the exception of minor wording changes to some questions used with the revised accelerated passages. To maintain a comparable standard with the 1960 study, reading performances were only considered to be successful if a student demonstrated at least 70% comprehension.3 Two teachers at each school were trained to conduct recordings using Visagraphs provided for the study. They participated in either a regional on-site training or a two-part webinar in which they learned how to gather recordings with consistency and fidelity. The teachers were provided with a step-by-step recording script to ensure consistency regarding student directions and Visagraph administration. Students first completed a passage as a practice trial. They were then presented two original passages and two accelerated passages, each followed by the associated comprehension questions. To ensure that all recordings represented first exposures, teachers were instructed to never repeat a passage and to move on to the next passage if any problems occurred during the recording process. Recordings were analyzed automatically by the system and reviewed by members of the research team to ensure their adequacy. In addition, research personnel were sometimes present at recording sessions to assess fidelity of implementation. All recordings were collected between January and March of 2011. In Taylor et al.'s (1960) study, associate researchers were recruited at participating colleges and universities. They received Reading Eye cameras, instructional materials, and training from representatives of Educational Development Laboratories. The associates then collected data at schools between February and March of 1959. As in the present study, students first completed a practice trial. They were then presented with a single passage and comprehension questions. If comprehension was below 70%, a second passage was presented. The associates analyzed the recordings and returned the filmstrips and results to the lead investigators. The research team selected a random sample of 50% of the recordings to check accuracy. Both studies (1960 and 2011) used identical coding procedures. Each passage for grades 4 and up contained 12 lines and about 120 words. However, the first and last lines were excluded from the analysis to avoid any potential atypical behaviors at the start or completion of a passage. The grade 2 passages only contained seven middle lines (50 words), and the performance scores were doubled to simulate a 100-word reading. Visagraph software automatically calculated the performance measures reported in the present study, whereas in the 1960 study, these calculations were completed manually. Focusing first on the 2011 data, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to evaluate increases in comprehension-based silent reading rate and efficiency measures across grades for the original and the accelerated texts. Levene's test was used to test for homogeneity of variance. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used when variances were not homogeneous. Post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni or Games–Howell adjustment were used as appropriate. Taylor et al. (1960) reported only means and the number of observations for each grade group; no individual data sets or measures of variability were available. To use the 1960 data in the comparison analyses, a data matrix was constructed using the mixedDesign function in the R environment for statistical computing (R Core Team, 2014), following a procedure based on Kliegl (2014). For this purpose, standard deviations for the 1960 data set were estimated on the basis of the 2011 data at each grade level. Due to the much larger sample size of the 1960 data, this estimation can be viewed as conservative (i.e., likely to overestimate the 1960 variability). To evaluate differences in the development of comprehension-based silent reading rate and efficiency across years (1960 vs. 2011) and grades (2, 4, 6, 8, and 11/12), as well as interactions between these factors, data were analyzed with linear models. The models were fitted using generalized least squares, allowing errors to be correlated and/or have unequal variances. This was achieved using the gls function in combination with the varIdent function from the nlme package (Pinheiro & Bates, 2000) in R. In the models, YEAR (1960 vs. 2011) and GRADE (2, 4, 6, 8, and 11/12) were specified as fixed factors, and successive difference contrasts (Venables & Ripley, 2002) were used to evaluate differences in reading efficiency development from grade to grade and between years. In the model utilized, the varIdent function allows different variances, one for each level of a factor, safeguarding against violations of homogeneity of variance. All of the comparisons were orthogonal, a priori, and within the allowable degrees of freedom offered by the design. The inferential statistics reported are based on the actual results from the analysis. Because differences between 2011 and 1960 at each grade level (2, 4, 6, 8, and 11/12) were not directly tested in the model, a second model was fitted using contrasts specifying these differences. The Benjamini–Hochberg procedure was use