Jump to content

Simple view of reading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smilingpolitely (talk | contribs) at 05:11, 29 December 2019 (→First publication). 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 of reading comprehension, originally described by psychologists Philip Gough and William Tunmer in 1986[1] and modified by Wesley Hoover and Philip Gough in 1990.[2] The simple view proposes that reading comprehension is the product of decoding ability (word recognition processes) and language understanding (oral language comprehension processes).[3] This can be expressed as the equation R = D x LC where R is reading comprehension, D is decoding and LC is language 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 question of the connection between decoding skill and reading ability.”[4] They define decoding as “the ability to read isolated words quickly, accurately, and silently” - a skill which they view as “fundamentally dependent on knowledge of letter-sound correspondence rules” in an alphabetic language.[5]

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, had downplayed the role of decoding in skilled reading, viewing it as only one of several cues used by proficient readers in a “psycholinguistic guessing game.”[6] Decoding had been viewed as “at most an epiphenomenon” of skilled reading and not, as Gough and Tunmer maintained, as “at the core of reading ability”.[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 in anglophone countries during the twentieth century. In proposing the simple view, Gough and Tunmer aimed to resolve the debate about the connection between decoding and comprehension through the application of the scientific method: “The issue is surely an empirical one, and it should be settled by experiment, not polemic... Our intent here is to try to state our case more clearly, in the hope that its truth or falsity might be decisively settled by future research.“[8]

Apart from providing a focus for the debate over decoding, the authors see the “more interesting implication of the simple view” in its insights into reading disability.[9] 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

Since first publication, the theory "has been directly tested in over 100 studies with children, adults, typical learners, and learners with various disabilities in English and in other languages."[11]

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."[12] Further, they note studies showing that "Measures of decoding and of linguistic comprehension each predict reading comprehension and its development, and together the two components account for almost all the variance in this ability."[12]

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:[13][14]

  • 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.[15] 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.

In education

Psychologist David A. Kilpatrick writes that "the simple view of reading is not just for researchers. School psychologists, teachers, and curriculum coordinators will also find it to be a practical and insightful framework for understanding the reading process, pinpointing the source of reading difficulties, and guiding lesson planning."[16]

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 framework informing early reading instruction in the United Kingdom: "We believe that the simple view of reading provides a valid conceptual framework that is useful to practitioners and researchers alike."[17] The review recommended that the Simple View be used to "reconstruct" the searchlights (or cueing) model that had informed the 1998 UK National Literacy Strategy: "The searchlights model should be reconstructed to take full account of word recognition and language comprehension as distinct processes related one to the other."[18]

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.[12]

See also

Further reading

  • 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.
  • Oakhill, Jane; Cain, Kate; Elbro, Carsten (2015). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension : a handbook. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 9780415698313.
  • Sabatini, John P.; Sawaki, Yasuyo; Shore, Jane R.; Scarborough, Hollis S. (23 February 2010). "Relationships Among Reading Skills of Adults With Low Literacy". Journal of Learning Disabilities. 43 (2): 122–138. doi:10.1177/0022219409359343. PMC 3269070. PMID 20179307.
  • 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.
  • Ricketts, Jessie (November 2011). "Research Review: Reading comprehension in developmental disorders of language and communication" (PDF). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 52 (11): 1111–1123. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02438.x. PMID 21762147.
  • Ripoll Salceda, Juan C.; Aguado Alonso, Gerardo; Castilla-Earls, Anny Patricia (January 2014). "The simple view of reading in elementary school: A systematic review". Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología. 34 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1016/j.rlfa.2013.04.006.

References

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ 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.
  6. ^ Goodman, Kenneth S. (May 1967). "Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game". Journal of the Reading Specialist. 6 (4): 126. doi:10.1080/19388076709556976.
  7. ^ 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.
  8. ^ 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.
  9. ^ 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.
  10. ^ 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.
  11. ^ Kilpatrick, David (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. New Jersey: Wiley. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-118-84524-0.
  12. ^ 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.
  13. ^ 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.
  14. ^ 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.
  15. ^ 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.
  16. ^ Kilpatrick, David (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. New Jersey: Wiley. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-118-84524-0.
  17. ^ Rose, Jim. "Independent review of the Teaching of Early Reading" (PDF). Department for Education and Skills. p. 77. Retrieved 26 November 2019.
  18. ^ 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Simple_view_of_reading&oldid=932959072"