Computer-Guided Oral Reading versus Independent Practice: Comparison of Sustained Silent Reading to an Automated Reading Tutor That Listens
Mostow, Jack; Nelson-Taylor, Jessica; Beck, Joseph E. (2013). Journal of Educational Computing Research, v49 n2 p249-276. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1076364
-
examining178Students, grades1-4
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS) |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
57.70 |
59.87 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test: Total Reading Composite Score |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
480.01 |
471.49 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test: Basic Skills Composite Score |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
477.80 |
463.25 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words subtest |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
15.73 |
14.57 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Elision subtest |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
12.92 |
12.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Written Spelling |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
11.89 |
11.01 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Rapid Letter Naming subtest |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
46.81 |
48.65 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test: Word Identification subtest |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
468.89 |
439.18 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test: Word Attack subtest |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
486.72 |
487.32 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test: Reading Comprehension Cluster Score |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
482.22 |
479.72 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test: Word Comprehension subtest |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
484.90 |
481.99 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test: Passage Comprehension subtest |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
479.53 |
477.46 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral reading fluency |
Project LISTEN's Reading Tutor vs. Sustained silent reading |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
62.78 |
58.20 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
Suburban
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in two elementary schools in the same affluent suburban school district. Both schools were identified as Blue Ribbon National Schools of Excellence.
Study sample
The study included students in grades 1–4. Among the 193 students who were randomly assigned to conditions, 178 students contributed to the findings. Approximately 30% of the students were identified as receiving individual services. Reading specialists at each school decided which students would participate, and the selection rules differed across schools and grades. For example, one school’s entire grade 1 class participated, while in other grades reading specialists selected students with lower reading skills. Students with the lowest reading levels were excluded from the study because they were meeting with reading specialists during the study intervention time.
Intervention Group
Project LISTEN’s Reading Tutor is a computer program that uses speech recognition to listen as students read aloud and then helps the students with words and sentences. The program was designed to give students individualized oral reading practice. Students read stories aloud while the program provided spoken or visual help when students asked for help, paused, got stuck, skipped a word, or misread a word. Students engaged with the Reading Tutor in approximately 20-minute sessions in a supervised computer lab for an average of 19 hours total over the course of the 7-month study period. Students used the Reading Tutor in a supervised computer lab during the time when they otherwise would have participated in sustained silent reading.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition participated in sustained silent reading in their classrooms during a daily 20- to 25-minute period. During this time, students independently read books they selected themselves. In some grade 1 and grade 2 classrooms, teachers read aloud to students who were not ready to read independently. Sustained silent reading was already used at both schools before the study.
Support for implementation
The Reading Tutor included tutorials that introduced students to how to use the program. A school-provided monitor supervised students in the computer lab. The study did not describe training or professional development for teachers or lab monitors to support implementation.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).