Learning to Read: Should We Keep Things Simple?

Abstract

The simple view of reading describes reading comprehension as the product of decoding and listening comprehension and the relative contribution of each to reading comprehension across development. We present a cross‐sectional analysis of first, second, and third graders (N = 123–125 in each grade) to assess the adequacy of the basic model. Participants completed multiple measures to inform latent constructs of word reading accuracy, word reading fluency, listening comprehension, reading comprehension, and vocabulary. In line with previous research, structural equation models confirmed that the influence of decoding skill decreased with increasing grade and that the influence of listening comprehension increased. However, several additional findings indicate that reading development is not that simple and support an elaboration of the basic model: A strong influence of listening comprehension on reading comprehension was apparent by grade 2, decoding skill was best measured by word and nonword reading accuracy in the early grades and word reading fluency in grade 3, and vocabulary skills indirectly affected reading comprehension through both decoding skill and listening comprehension. This new elaborated model, which provides a more comprehensive view of critical influences on reading in the early grades, has diagnostic and instructional ramifications for improving reading pedagogy.

What Does the CBM-Maze Test Measure?

“…To obtain parameter estimates, full information maximum likelihood estimation was used. Model fit was evaluated with the chi-square goodness-of-fit test statistic, the root mean square error of approximation, and the comparative fit index (Kline, 2011). A nonsignificant chisquare value (p > .05) indicated exact model fit (Hayduck, 1996).…”

“…Comparative fit index values greater than .90 were considered acceptable, and values greater than .95 were taken as good incremental model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Differences between the fit of any two nested models were tested with the chi-square difference test (Kline, 2011).…”

Making Sense of Science Texts: A Mixed‐Methods Examination of Predictors and Processes of Multiple‐Text Comprehension

“…From a schema-theoretic perspective, prior knowledge is thought to provide an ideational scaffold for the reader, resulting in superior comprehension and learning of information that fits the knowledge structures already in place (Anderson, Spiro, & Anderson, 1978). Similarly, in Kintsch's (2004) construction-integration model, prior knowledge is needed to supplement information provided by the text in order for the reader to construct a situation model-a mental representation of the propositions in a text integrated with outside knowledge.…”

“…These two processes (intertextual integration and credibility monitoring) are central features of the documents model Perfetti, Rouet, & Britt, 1999). The documents model extends Kintsch's (2004) constructionintegration model of single-text comprehension and has informed much of the recent work on multiple-text comprehension. This work highlights the need for readers to attend to textual metadata-information about the authors, their credentials, and potential biases and areas of expertise-to form an integrated mental model of the issue discussed across multiple texts.…”

“…However, the prominence of self-explanation varied across participants, and with the exception of readers H and J, self-explanation was generally subordinate to paraphrasing or repeating text information in the readers' interactions with the texts (summarized in Table 8). Nonetheless, we interpret the relative prevalence of selfexplanation as an indication that readers were constructing situational understandings of the texts that extended beyond the textbase representations (Kintsch, 2004) made evident in their paraphrasing of content.…”