A Different View on the Simple View of Reading

Abstract

The simple view of reading (SVR) framework has been used for decades to explain two general component skills considered to contribute to reading comprehension: decoding and linguistic comprehension. In the past, researchers have assessed the linguistic comprehension component using a wide range of language and/or listening comprehension measures that differed from each other. Many of those tasks did not align with the concept of linguistic comprehension originally proposed. Regardless, the studies’ outcomes were similar: The SVR model adequately represents the process of reading comprehension. In this article, I propose a common thread that links those diverse measurement tasks; all the tasks measured students’ metalinguistic skills. In fact, the findings from these studies mirror those found from investigations directly measuring the influence of language awareness abilities on reading comprehension. I conclude the article with the theoretical and educational implications of taking a different view of the second component of the SVR model.

A Methodological Review on Dynamic Assessment of Reading Comprehension: An Appraisal of the Construct, Consequential and Social Validity

“…This is reflected in the fact that researchers who measure comprehension rarely give information on why they chose the particular test that they used. (Keenan et al, 2008, p.294) METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW ON DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT Gough and Tunmer (1986) Simple View of Reading framework has greatly contributed for decades to explain and describe the involvement of two main components of RC, e.g., word identification and linguistic comprehension (Apel, 2021;Catts, 2018;Cervetti et al, 2020). It has also been associated with the development of numerous tests designed to separately assess these two components (Apel, 2021;Nation, 2005;Sabatini & O'Reilly, 2013).…”

“…(Keenan et al, 2008, p.294) METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW ON DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT Gough and Tunmer (1986) Simple View of Reading framework has greatly contributed for decades to explain and describe the involvement of two main components of RC, e.g., word identification and linguistic comprehension (Apel, 2021;Catts, 2018;Cervetti et al, 2020). It has also been associated with the development of numerous tests designed to separately assess these two components (Apel, 2021;Nation, 2005;Sabatini & O'Reilly, 2013). For instance, word identification mechanisms are often tested using pseudo-word or word lists (Massonnié et al, 2018).…”

“…As for linguistic comprehension, some tasks may require students to identify the meaning of a sentence with illustrations, to complete a sentence by filling in a missing word, to answer questions about short texts or passages, to recall a story in their own words, etc. (Apel, 2021;Massonnié et al, 2018). However, Apel (2021) argues that the wide range of measures that have been developed to assess comprehension may not be aligned with the concept initially proposed by Gough and Tunmer (1986).…”

“…(Apel, 2021;Massonnié et al, 2018). However, Apel (2021) argues that the wide range of measures that have been developed to assess comprehension may not be aligned with the concept initially proposed by Gough and Tunmer (1986). Although word identification measures tend to correlate very highly with one another, comprehension measures tend to correlate poorly, suggesting that most popular RC tests may not measure the same construct (Keenan et al, 2008).…”

“…Outcome-based measures also tend to set aside students' metacognitive and self-regulation strategies, which are essential to improve in RC (Massey & Miller, 2017;Navarro & Mora, 2003). Consequently, it is difficult to conceptualize RC as a developmental process that is related to readers' experiences, prior instruction, emotional and cognitive development (Apel, 2021;Sweet, 2005). Some authors argue that conventional outcome-based measures lead to conceptualizing teaching, learning and assessment as isolated concepts (Haywood and Lidz, 2007;Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2002).…”