People learn and communicate through a combination of three modalities in varying intensities: visual, auditory, and/or kinesthetic (tactile). How we take in information and process it is a function of degrees in one or more of those methods. Some people learn better by listening. My boss is almost solely visual, and can barely comprehend something that's read aloud to her. In thirty+ years of teaching both kids and adults, I've always striven to use all three methods in everything I teach to ensure maximum comprehension, retention and application. Just did a senior-level workshop at my company about this very topic to improve some communication miscues.

My students with learning disabilities that affect their ability to read text are given audio devices and downloaded texts; they listen and follow along with their eyes and fingers. That way they can access grade level content that they can't read yet. Some of them may never be able to read those texts. They also have devices with text to speech and speech to text functions to use as needed. For these people, it's not cheating.

For my students who can read, I expect them to read. They aren't adults yet; they are still developing reading skills. A parent just asked me this a couple of days ago" "Can he use an audio book?" My answer: "Your son doesn't need it, so, no. We're still working on reading skills in 6th grade."

That said, there are certainly times audio books are useful, and not cheating. For informational text that requires multiple readings, an audio version while jogging or hiking or as a passenger in a car is useful. It reinforces the reading and annotating done with the text. Audio and visual text can support and reinforce each other in this context. A few decades ago, as a college student, I used to take careful notes of lectures, and then read my notes into a cassette recorder and play it in my car while driving. As long as I understood the content already, that hearing the information in my own voice repeatedly helped me prepare for exams. Sometimes, when a very dry passage in a text book left me "reading" pages while my brain wandered, I'd read into my recorder and play that back, as well.

Finally, our brains simply don't process information exactly the same way. For example, I'm a very visual person. If I see it, I'll remember it faster. If I hear it, I'll forget it, unless I've heard it over and over. Some people are the opposite; they remember what they hear better than what they see. Seeing AND hearing supports us all. (And, of course, there are other ways of processing information, as well.)

I find that when reading I take in the information slowly and can pause to let my mind roam. Audiobooks don't allow time to imagine. Starting and stopping the tape doesn't work. Slow reading brings up memories, most needing insight and processing.

Example, when reading Einstein's Dreams, I had several moments of euphoria. When I was about half way through, I got too busy and found the audio book. I started again at the beginning and had nowhere near the good experience as I did with the reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_Dreams

Another example, I tried to read Piaget's The Child's Construction of Reality several times and always got stuck on the first page. My mind was overwhelmed with thoughts. Fun times!

I bookmarked the article for later.

The answer depends on what is being tested. If you're still learning the things that the calculator can do (e.g., graphing) then it is cheating. If not, then it's just a tool.

So the question here is whether the student is still developing reading comprehension. If so, then the audiobook is cheating. If it's only the content of the book that matters, then consume the content however you prefer (assuming it's unabridged). In some cases (e.g., Shakespeare) it could be preferred.

I have students who listen to their readings in class. They can't decode. But the goal is to get them to pass a test over the content of the book--generalities, like who did what to whom? What's the characterization of the hero, who's the antagonist. They don't read the book at home, and they get what they need to pass the test.

They rather like it, because they don't really have to focus much.

Some have problems because when they listen and pass over the text they don't go back. It's hard to find the right section, it takes time, it's more awkward. So they don't. Or they listen with half an ear and get it muddled, and to unmuddle it they rely on the teacher, word of mouth, or they guess. Too hard to find the key portions on tape so resolve their own confusion.

This is called "student centered" but notice that the students wind up unable to be in charge of their learning, to figure out what they did wrong and fix it. It does improve test grades, and since that's what passes for real learning for many educationists and even professors, hey. It works. Principals like it.

But when they get to a science class, all that excellent reading they think they've done is useless. "The temperature of the 100 C seawater gradually decreases 50 C. This takes 25 minutes." Then find the rate of heat loss, etc., etc. And they quickly read through and have no idea what any details are. They don't reread, because they're not used to it. They get it wrong because they can't perform close reading of a non-fiction text. And, in fact, when it comes to research later in the year they struggle, because they need to find examples and justify their interpretations. But all they've done is listen for the gist, for the big picture, and then they're asked to look at the nitty-gritty details and can't.

They conclude they're just bad a science, because they're grade-A readers (literally), even if they really haven't read much. They're cheated.

It's even worse when they run into some other kinds of readings. Something that's deeply satirical they completely miss. They need somebody to interpret it for them, to provide intonation and phrasing, because they don't catch the hints, the clues, that something's amiss.

It helps the poor students graduate; it cheats the poor students the most, though.

Listening to an audio book instead of reading is not cheating. I tutored dyslexic students who had to "read" all their books that way. Blind students also "read" most of their books that way.

The problem is that kids are always doing something else, like playing video games, and miss a good 75% of the book.

Back in the bad old days before radio and TV, families used to sit together in the evening with one member reading aloud to the rest. It was a great way to get through great literature (War and Peace, I'm looking at you) without being put to sleep.

I've done both and I find reading to be much quicker. Listening is more satisfactory when I'm spinning, knitting, weaving, or doing other eye-hand coordination activities. For those times, I tune in to old radio plays online.

I would recommend both at different and same times. Depending on the kid. My son learned to read books with tapes recorded with the words. This was when he was 5 yrs old. But then he had been looking at books since he was a year old. And I read books to him from age 2 or three, every night. Also later on I read a book that was in handwriting script rather than print and he read along with me. It taught him that he could read script as well as print and he was happy with that. I would say do both but mix it up.

The more sensory processing that engages the brain in the task of information acquisition, the more of that information is committed to long term memory. Since more brain power is needed to read than to listen, reading is more beneficial. Even more so, reading aloud is even more beneficial than silent reading for retention. Writing something down after reading it is also a productive retention task.

But I'm no professional cognitive scientist. Just an armchair aficionado of the subject. That said, the jury is still out on this one. Willingham makes a good argument for each method is of equal benefit, so is not cheating. I disagree that the benefits are equal because the brain is more susceptible to distraction and mind-wandering with listening only, but my opinion is based on personal experience of an ADD brain!

You're much too thoughtful to be expelled!

Thank you spell check, I misspelled learned. I am dyslexic and listening is the only way I can learn. I nearly failed 3rd grade and finished 517 in a class of 535 in high school. I now have 3 masters because they discovered dyslexia, not in me but I mean discovered, as in, first figured it out, when I was a senior in college. Reading speeds range from not at all to 2000 wpm. During college I was sent to speed reading classes. Of course, it never helped. Hearing is just as valid as reading.