Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explore the Simple View of Reading (SVR) in this third post to celebrate Book Week. The original post can be found on the AARE Blog at: https://blog.aare.edu.au/reading-part-three-what-is-the-simple-view/
The Simple View of Reading describes reading at a single point in time: decoding x listening / linguistic comprehension = reading comprehension (D x LC = RC).
The SVR presumes that, once printed matter is decoded, a reader can “apply to the text exactly the same mechanisms which he or she would bring to bear on its spoken equivalent” (Gough & Tunmer, 1986, p. 9). It is not a theory or model of how to teach reading. The SVR is not suggesting that reading is a simple process. These researchers were providing a simple explanation of why some readers experience reading difficulties.
However, some advocates have used the SVR as the justification for an emphasis on phonics and decoding first (and fast) and this has led to the idea that listening comprehension and reading comprehension happen after decoding. There also seems to be a misunderstanding, in the minds of some, that decoding guarantees that a reader will identify each individual word in isolation and then be able to bring these words together and understand what has been read.
However, the opaque nature of the English language makes this impossible. In many cases the meaning of a word (in context) determines the pronunciation on the word, rather than the other way around – e.g. I read on the train in the mornings. I read my book on the train yesterday.
There are many homonyms in the English language (e.g. ‘plane’ could be 1) a straight line joining two points; 2) a level of existence; 3) a level surface; 4) an aeroplane; 5) an open area of land; or 6) a wood working tool.
Correct pronunciation does not guarantee meaning.
Despite this, the SVR is often cited as the justification for the use of Synthetic Phonics programs in the early years of school, and a focus on decoding as the most important problem-solving approach to an unknown word across all grades.
Building on the Simple View of Reading
The SVR has formed the basis for more complex understandings of reading. For example, Scarborough (2001) used a Reading Rope diagram (Figure 1) to expand the three elements of the SVR and explain the complexity of skilled reading.
Scarborough also identified ‘decoding’ as a subcomponent of ‘word recognition’ and explained that that decoding would not automatically lead to comprehension. Scarborough stated, “even if the pronunciation of all the letter strings in a passage are correctly decoded, the text will not be well comprehended if the child;
(1) does not know the words in their spoken form,
(2) cannot parse the syntactic and semantic relationships among the words, or
(3) lacks critical background knowledge or inferential skills to interpret the text appropriately and ‘read between the lines’ “(Scarborough, 2001, p. 98).
The Reading Rope is often used in teacher professional learning sessions, although the language comprehension elements are not always given the same emphasis as the word recognition elements. As a result, word recognition or decoding instruction is often prioritized despite the fact that Reading Comprehension requires Language Comprehension which is made up of background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures (syntax and semantics), verbal reasoning and literacy knowledge. Word recognition should be taught in conjunction with Language Comprehension if Reading Comprehension is the goal. In a later publication, Cutting and Scarborough (2012) also discuss executive function and its role in comprehension.
In more recent times Tunmer has collaborated with Hoover. They suggest that there is ‘much more to understand about reading than what is represented in the SVR’ (Hoover & Tunmer, 2020) and have shared the Cognitive Foundations of Reading Framework (CFRF).
Figure 2
The Cognitive Foundations of Reading Framework (Hoover & Tunmer, 2020, p. 86)
In the CFRF (Figure 2), “each cognitive component represents an independent, but not necessarily elemental, knowledge-skill set that is an essential, hierarchically positioned, building block in reading and learning to read” (Hoover & Tunmer, 2020).
This framework includes ‘background knowledge’ and ‘inferencing skills’ as well as ‘phonological, syntactic and semantic knowledge’. The CFRF also demonstrates the complexity of the reading process.
Numerous other models have been developed from the SVR including the Active View of Reading (AVR) (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). The AVR highlights the ‘key self-regulation skills’ required to manage all aspects of reading. Motivation and engagement are identified as key self-regulatory skills. These are overlooked in some other reading models, but other researchers have identified the importance of seeing reading as not just a technical activity but one that needs to engage hearts and minds (see Leather & Uden, 2021).
The SVR does not suggest that reading is a simple process and it is not a model of reading instruction. In the next post we will explore the Science of Reading (SoR) and unpick some of the confusions associated with the SoR.
References
Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S25-S44.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.
Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (2020). The Cognitive Foundations of Reading. In (pp. 23-39). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Leather, S., and Uden, J. (2021). Extensive Reading: The Role of Motivation. Routledge.
Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (Vol. 1, pp. 97-110). Guilford Press.