Accommodating Reading Comprehension with Listening: Good Idea?
-
listening comprehension reading comprehension accommodations 
01 March, 2025
62 Comments
Parent question: My son is 11 years old, and he suffers from dyslexia. I’ve been told you oppose accommodations for dyslexic children. That is irresponsible. I don’t think you understand how these children suffer.
RELATED: Eight Ways to Help Kids Read Complex Text
Shanahan responds:
I do oppose some – though not all — accommodations for students with dyslexia.
The purpose of accommodations is to enable people with disabilities to access and participate in activities, jobs, and learning. An accommodation is an alteration to an environment that increases individual access.
Examples of accommodations that I fully support are modifications to curbs to allow those who depend upon wheelchairs to get where they want to go. Or the provision of large print texts to those with vision problems that can be overcome or minimized by such text. Basically, if access or learning can be enhanced through some alteration of the environment I’m all for it.
But as your letter suggests, there are “accommodations” that I do consider problematic. I often hear from teachers (and sometimes parents) who hope I will endorse replacing reading with listening for kids who struggle with decoding.
I get their thinking: Why should we hurt kids’ feelings by asking them to try to read a science or social studies text when we know they find reading itself to be hard?
Obviously, our purpose is not to make these kids feel bad. But it is – or at least should be – to teach students to read. Accommodations that prevent or limit learning are a bad idea.
There is no question that providing audio versions of text will make those texts more accessible to many students with reading disabilities.
What such an accommodation cannot do is help these students read any better. Comprehending while reading is a different game than comprehending while listening. They both have value, but they are not the same thing. One should not be allowed to take the place of the other.
Accommodations are protections. They protect kids from being excluded or penalized due to disabilities. As such, accommodations have a role to play in schools and in society generally.
But reducing reading instruction is not an accommodation. Just the opposite. It is an act of exclusion. Replacing reading with listening may seem protective, but it is protecting kids against learning.
These days I hear from teachers who love the idea of replacing reading instruction or reading assignments with products like Audible. They usually aren’t focused on kids with disabilities, just garden variety struggling and reluctant readers.
These teachers often seem to assume that reading and listening are interchangeable, that gains in one generalize to the other.
These beliefs are not supported by research, however.
First, there are a slew of studies that find big differences between reading and listening. These studies suggest that these abilities have only about 40% shared variance (e.g., Silinkas, et al., 2024; Wolf, et al, 2019). That’s not nothing, but it suggests the unlikelihood that the teaching of one will automatically transfer to the other.
(I’m not satisfied with this 40% figure. To my way of thinking, the major outcome of such studies has been an increased appreciation of the complexity inherent in trying to measure oral and written comprehension in analogous ways. It has turned out to be a very complicated problem).
Even if we accept that figure, it is important to remember that is a correlational estimate (a squared correlation in fact). The way to think about that 40% is: “IF there is a causal relationship between these variables, then 40% is an estimate of how much effect one of these may have on the other.” In other words, knowing that two variables are related does not prove that teaching one will have an impact on the other.
For that, we turn to experimental studies – studies in which listening comprehension is taught, with the impact being measured through reading comprehension. It turns out that there are few such studies and even fewer that report any cross over benefits (e.g., van den Bos, et al., 1998; van Zeijts, et al., 2023).
Teaching listening comprehension should have a place in our schools. Replacing reading instruction and practice with listening comprehension is a bad idea, however.
I appreciate that many folks who seek reading accommodations for their kids are thinking more about testing situations than instructional ones.
Is it okay to replace reading with listening when we are evaluating reading comprehension, such as on state tests?
Given the important differences between reading and listening noted above, that elementary students usually have better listening than reading comprehension (that eventually shifts for most of us), and that those tests are meant to identify how well our kids can read with comprehension, I would argue against that testing modification.
However, replacing reading with listening is not the only possible accommodation in such testing situations.
Research has found that allowing – or encouraging – these students to read test texts aloud rather than silently improves their performance significantly (Giuisto & Ehri, 2019).
One thing that I like about that approach is that it is an accommodation that is under the control of the student rather than the adults. That means that it does more than take away an impediment to performance. It empowers students to minimize or solve the problem.
Another thing I like about it that it is something that any reader could do in any real reading situation – reading a textbook in a dorm room or doing a work task in one’s cubicle.
Let’s not replace reading comprehension instruction with listening comprehension, and let’s use reading centered accommodations when we are testing reading comprehension.
READ MORE: Shanahan on Literacy Blogs
References
Giusto, M., & Ehri, L. C. (2019). Effectiveness of a partial read-aloud test accommodation to assess reading comprehension in students with a reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(3), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418789377
Silinskas, G., Gedutiene, R., Torppa, M., & Raiziene, S. (2024). Simple view of reading across the transition from kindergarten to grade 1 in a transparent orthography. Scientific Studies of Reading, 28(1), 60-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2023.2220848
Wolf, M. C., Muijselaar, M. M. L., Boonstra, A. M., & de Bree, E. H. (2019). The relationship between reading and listening comprehension: Shared and modality-specific components. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32(7), 1747-1767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9924-8
van den Bos, Kees P., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Aarnoutse, C. A. J. (1998). Text comprehension strategy instruction with poor readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10(6), 471-498. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007976225000
van Zeijts, Brechtje E. J., Ganushchak, L. Y., de Koning, B. B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2023). Stimulating inference-making in second grade children when reading and listening to narrative texts. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10463-x
LISTEN TO MORE: Shanahan On Literacy Podcast
I appreciate the argument that audiobooks can’t teach reading comprehension—completely agree there. But I think the way this debate is framed often sets up a false dichotomy: either we teach reading or we accommodate. In reality, we can—and often should—do both.
It all depends on purpose. If the purpose of reading instruction is to improve decoding and comprehension, then yes—students need to engage with text directly. But if the purpose is access to content knowledge, class discussion, or demonstrating understanding in other subjects, then listening might be the only viable option for now.
Let’s return to the analogy of the wheelchair ramp. A ramp doesn’t teach someone to walk. But it lets them access what’s at the top—whether that’s school, work, or community life. If the purpose is to reach the destination, the ramp is essential. If the purpose is to teach walking, then physiotherapy is required. These aren’t mutually exclusive. You don’t deny someone a ramp while they’re doing rehab. You offer both. And maybe, one day, the ramp isn’t needed. Maybe crutches are the interim step.
This is particularly relevant for students who, despite years of structured, high-quality reading intervention, still cannot decode fluently enough to access the curriculum. At what point do we say: “Let’s keep working on reading—but also make sure this student can learn, participate, and succeed now”? That’s not giving up. That’s equity.
And finally, I was uneasy with the suggestion that accommodations are just about “hurt feelings.” That trivialises the lived experience of students who are being shut out of content, assessments, and opportunities because we’re focused on a single narrow goal. The consequences aren’t just emotional—they’re academic and social. No one thrives if they’re locked out while working hard and waiting and waiting to be taught to read.
Jane-
You are correct that there is shared variance between reading and listening comprehension. What we lack are studies showing that teaching listening improves reading comprehension. And, then there is those big differences in text and utterance (written and oral language) -- different, but overlapping, vocabularies, syntax, cohesion, discourse structure -- all of which alter the role that memory plays. So far, no one has found that teaching listening improves reading. You can assume that it must but that puts a lot of kids' reading ability (and its subsequent impact on social participation) at risk. I'd teach reading comprehension at least until we know how to teach listening comprehension in a way that enables reading comprehension.
tim
I respectfully disagree. I also encourage dyslexic children to read and comprehend as much as possible. Where I disagree is when considering the fact that dyslexic children typically are unable to keep up with their peers in the amount of content reading due to the slower rate. If this accommodation is not used, the students are at a risk of learning less of this content. This is a life-altering disadvantage. Stating that this accommodation should not be used as an accommodation for students with dyslexia has the potential of causing them irreparable harm.
I am just beginning to truly study the dyslexic population and reading accommodations. I know others may disagree with your statements and I understand their concern; however it my observation that the disagreement may be an emotional response rather than a reality response. In contemplating your statements, I agree in many ways with what you are saying, but again still understanding the arguments. My mission is to address the issue. My current position as Education Director at Vooks gives me an opportunity to perhaps make accommodations available to dyslexic readers that address all concerns.
As an educator, I have long followed your work and it is greatly influenced my teaching - thank you!??. I am wondering if you might take a look at Vooks at https://www.vooks.com/ and let me know what you think. I am just entering into research partnering with Eric Theissen at Carnegie Mellon to use Vooks in a school with dyslexic students to evaluate the efficacy of Vooks for that population. I would be honored to know your opinion.
Thanks for all you do for the education of our children.
Patty Duncan
What Are your thoughts?
Leave me a comment and I would like to have a discussion with you!
Copyright © 2025 Shanahan on Literacy. All rights reserved. Web Development by Dog and Rooster, Inc.
Comments
See what others have to say about this topic.