Jump to content

Simple view of reading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Citation bot (talk | contribs) at 05:04, 3 February 2021 (Misc citation tidying. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Suggested by Abductive | Category:Dyslexia | via #UCB_Category 7/69). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Reading
Learning to read
Scientific theories and models
Cognitive processes
Reading instruction
Reading rate
Readability
Reading differences and disabilities
Language
Literacy

The simple view of reading is a scientific theory that a student's ability to understand written words depends on how well they sound out (decode) the words and understand the meaning of those words. Specifically, their reading comprehension can be predicted by multiplying their skill in decoding the written words by their ability to understand the meaning of those words. It is expressed in this equation:

Decoding (D) x (Oral) Language Comprehension (LC)= Reading Comprehension (RC) [1]

The parts of the equation are:

(D) Decoding: the ability of the student to sound-out or decode the written words using the principles of phonics (e.g. /k - æ - t/= cat).
(LC) language (listening) comprehension: the ability of the student to understand the meaning of the words (as if they had been spoken out loud).
(RC) Reading comprehension: the ability of the student to understand the meaning of the written words.

To be clear, all of this can be done while doing silent reading.

The equation tells us the following:

  • If students can decode (i.e. sound-out) the words accurately (so they make sense) and understand the meaning of those words, they will be able to understand the written words (i.e. reading comprehension).
  • If students can decode the words accurately, but do not understand the meaning of the words, they will not have reading comprehension. (e.g. A reader who can decode the word “etymology” but does not know what it means, will not achieve reading comprehension.)
  • If students cannot decode the words accurately, yet understands the meaning of those words, they will not have reading comprehension. (e.g. A reader who knows what a tyrannosaurus rex is, but cannot decode the words, will not achieve reading comprehension.)
  • To ensure their students are able to comprehend what they read, teachers and tutors need to be sure their students can decode the words and understand the meaning of those words.

It is important to note that the equation has a multiplication sign not an addition sign, so reading comprehension (RC) is not the sum of the decoding ability (D) plus the language comprehension ability (LC). Instead, when one element is strong a weak result in the other area will significantly reduce the reading comprehension score (e.g. .25 (D) x 1.00 (LC)= .25 (RC)). And, if that same student improves in that weak area, it will result in an equivalent improvement in the reading comprehension score (e.g. .50 (D) x 1.00 (LC)= .50 (RC).[2]

Researchers tell us that, while the equation may be simple, learning to read is not so simple. Beginning readers can already understand spoken language. The task, then, is to gain the same understanding from print. This requires decoding skills and language comprehension. For many students, learning to efficiently decode is only achievable with proper instruction, feedback and practice in phonics; and language comprehension is a “multidimensional cognitive activity” that requires adequate content knowledge.[3][4]

The simple view of reading was originally described by psychologists Philip Gough and William Tunmer in 1986 [5] and modified by Wesley Hoover and Philip Gough in 1990;[6] and has led to significant advancements in our understanding of reading comprehension.

Research basis

First publication

The simple view was first described by Gough and Tunmer in the feature article of the first 1986 issue of the journal Remedial and Special Education. Their aim was to set out a falsifiable theory that would settle the debate about the relationship between decoding skill and reading ability.[7] They define decoding as the ability to read isolated words “quickly, accurately, and silently” and dependent fundamentally on the knowledge of the correspondence between letters and their sounds.[8]

In setting out the simple view, Gough and Tunmer were responding to an ongoing dispute among psychologists, researchers and educationalists about the contribution of decoding to reading comprehension. Some, such as Ken Goodman (credited with creating the theory of Whole Language) had downplayed the role of decoding in skilled reading. He believed it was only one of several cues used by proficient readers in a “psycholinguistic guessing game.” He viewed decoding as, at best, a by-product of skilled reading and not at the core of skilled reading as maintained by Gough and Tunmer.[9][7]

This dispute was one front of what came to be known as the reading wars, a protracted and often heated series of debates about aspects of reading research, instruction and policy during the twentieth century. In proposing the simple view, Gough and Tunmer hoped that the use of the scientific method would resolve the debate about the connection between decoding and comprehension.[7]

Apart from providing a focus for the debate over decoding, the authors felt the simple view had important insights into reading disability.[8] If reading ability results only from the product of decoding and listening comprehension, reading disability could result in three different ways: an inability to decode (dyslexia), an inability to comprehend (hyperlexia), or both (which they term “garden variety reading disability”).[10]

Empirical support

The original empirical support for the simple view came from multiple regression studies showing the independent contributions of decoding and linguistic comprehension to silent reading comprehension.[10][11][12] Since first publication, the theory has been tested in over 100 studies in several languages with learners having various disabilities.[13]

In their 2018 review of the science of learning to read, psychologists Anne Castles, Kathleen Rastle and Kate Nation write that "The logical case for the Simple View is clear and compelling: Decoding and linguistic comprehension are both necessary, and neither is sufficient alone. A child who can decode print but cannot comprehend is not reading; likewise, regardless of the level of linguistic comprehension, reading cannot happen without decoding."[14] Further, studies show that decoding and linguistic comprehension together account for almost all the variance in reading comprehension and its development.[14]

Visualizations

The Simple View of Reading proposes four broad categories of developing readers: typical readers; poor readers; dyslexics; and hyperlexics.

Quadrants

By placing the two cognitive processes on intersecting axes, the theory predicts four categories of readers:[15][16]

  • Readers with poor decoding skills but relatively preserved listening comprehension skills would be considered 'poor decoders', or dyslexic;
  • Readers with poor listening comprehension skills are referred to as 'poor comprehenders';
  • Readers with poor decoding skills and poor listening comprehension skills are considered 'poor readers', or sometimes referred to as 'garden-variety poor readers'; and
  • Readers who have good decoding and listening comprehension skills are considered 'typical readers'.

The reading rope

The reading rope is a visualization of the simple view published by psychologist Hollis Scarborough in 2001, showing the interactivity of decoding and language comprehension (and their sub-components) in producing fluent reading comprehension.[17] By depicting strands winding together to form 'the rope' of skilled reading, the visualization expands the simple view to include the cognitive sub-components as integral to the process of skilled reading.[18]

In education

Psychologist David A. Kilpatrick writes that the simple view of reading is not just for researchers. It is also helpful to school psychologists, teachers, and curriculum coordinators in understanding the reading process, identifying the source of reading difficulties, and developing lesson plans."[19] Others have noted that, by distinguishing the two components of reading comprehension, the simple view assists teachers by showing that their students may differ in their abilities in the two components and therefore require different teaching strategies to support their reading development.[20]

United Kingdom

In 2006, the Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading (the Rose Report) recommended that the simple view be adopted as the underlying conceptual framework informing early reading instruction in the United Kingdom for practitioners and researchers."[21] The review recommended that the Simple View be used to "reconstruct" the searchlights (or cueing) model [22] that had informed the 1998 UK National Literacy Strategy, saying it should incorporate both word recognition and language comprehension as "distinct processes related one to the other."[23]

Limitations

In 2018, Castles, Rastle and Nation noted the following limitations of the simple view of reading:

Although the Simple View is a useful framework, it can only take us so far. First, it is not a model: It does not tell us how decoding and linguistic comprehension operate or how they develop. Second, in testing predictions of the Simple View, the field has been inconsistent in how the key constructs are defined and measured. In relation to decoding, as Gough and Tunmer (1986) themselves noted, it can refer to the overt “sounding out” of a word or to skilled word recognition, and measures vary accordingly. In relation to linguistic comprehension, measures used have ranged from vocabulary to story retell, inference making, and verbal short-term memory. To fully understand reading development, we need more precise models that detail the cognitive processes operating within the decoding and linguistic comprehension components of the Simple View.[14]

See also

Further reading

Books

  • Kilpatrick, David (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. New Jersey: Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-84524-0.
  • Oakhill, Jane; Cain, Kate; Elbro, Carsten (2015). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension : a handbook. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 9780415698313.
  • Seidenberg, Mark (2017). Language at the speed of sight : how we read, why so many can't, and what can be done about it. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 9780465019328.

Journal articles

References

  1. ^ Kendeou, Panayiota; Savage, Robert; Broek, Paul (June 2009). "Revisiting the simple view of reading". British Journal of Educational Psychology. 79 (2): 353–370. doi:10.1348/978185408X369020. PMID 19091164.
  2. ^ "Simple view of reading, Reading rockets".
  3. ^ "The Simple View of Reading: Advancements and false impressions, Hugh W. Catts, Ph.D."
  4. ^ Seidenberg, Mark (2017). Language at the speed of sight, p. 126. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1715-5.
  5. ^ Gough, Philip B.; Tunmer, William E. (18 August 2016). "Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability". Remedial and Special Education. 7 (1): 6–10. doi:10.1177/074193258600700104. S2CID 145093377.
  6. ^ Hoover, Wesley A.; Gough, Philip B. (1 June 1990). "The simple view of reading". Reading and Writing. 2 (2): 127–160. doi:10.1007/BF00401799. ISSN 1573-0905. S2CID 144342092.
  7. ^ a b c Gough, Philip B.; Tunmer, William E. (1 January 1986). "Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability". Remedial and Special Education. 7 (1): 6. doi:10.1177/074193258600700104. S2CID 145093377.
  8. ^ a b Gough, Philip B.; Tunmer, William E. (1 January 1986). "Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability". Remedial and Special Education. 7 (1): 7. doi:10.1177/074193258600700104. S2CID 145093377.
  9. ^ Goodman, Kenneth S. (May 1967). "Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game". Journal of the Reading Specialist. 6 (4): 126. doi:10.1080/19388076709556976.
  10. ^ a b Gough, Philip B.; Tunmer, William E. (1 January 1986). "Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability". Remedial and Special Education. 7 (1): 8. doi:10.1177/074193258600700104. S2CID 145093377.
  11. ^ Curtis, Mary E. (October 1980). "Development of components of reading skill". Journal of Educational Psychology. 72 (5): 656–669. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.656.
  12. ^ Stanovich, Keith E.; Cunningham, Anne E.; Feeman, Dorothy J. (1984). "Intelligence, Cognitive Skills, and Early Reading Progress". Reading Research Quarterly. 19 (3): 278. doi:10.2307/747822. JSTOR 747822. S2CID 53066103.
  13. ^ Kilpatrick, David (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. New Jersey: Wiley. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-118-84524-0.
  14. ^ a b c Castles, Anne; Rastle, Kathleen; Nation, Kate (11 June 2018). "Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 19 (1): 27. doi:10.1177/1529100618772271. PMID 29890888.
  15. ^ Catts, Hugh W.; Hogan, Tiffany P.; Fey, Marc E. (18 August 2016). "Subgrouping Poor Readers on the Basis of Individual Differences in Reading-Related Abilities". Journal of Learning Disabilities. 36 (2): 151–164. doi:10.1177/002221940303600208. PMC 2848965. PMID 15493430.
  16. ^ Catts, Hugh W.; Adlof, Suzanne M.; Weismer, Susan Ellis (April 2006). "Language Deficits in Poor Comprehenders: A Case for the Simple View of Reading". Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 49 (2): 278–293. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023). PMID 16671844. S2CID 12238016.
  17. ^ Scarborough, Hollis (2001). "Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice". In Neuman, Susan B (ed.). Handbook of early literacy research. Guilford Press. pp. 23–39. ISBN 1-57230-653-X.
  18. ^ "Scarborough's Reading Rope: A Groundbreaking Infographic, International Dyslexia Association".
  19. ^ Kilpatrick, David (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. New Jersey: Wiley. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-118-84524-0.
  20. ^ Kendeou, Panayiota; Savage, Robert; Broek, Paul (June 2009). "Revisiting the simple view of reading". British Journal of Educational Psychology. 79 (2): 353–70. doi:10.1348/978185408X369020. PMID 19091164.
  21. ^ Rose, Jim. "Independent review of the Teaching of Early Reading" (PDF). Department for Education and Skills. p. 77. Retrieved 26 November 2019.
  22. ^ "Searchlights: Reading strategies, The Lancashire county council, UK" (PDF).
  23. ^ Rose, Jim. "Independent review of the Teaching of Early Reading" (PDF). Department for Education and Skills. p. 70. Retrieved 26 November 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simple_view_of_reading&oldid=1004556856"