The Simple View, Instructional Level, and the Plight of Struggling Fifth-/Sixth-Grade Readers

Morris, Darrell; Meyer, Carla K.; Trathen, Woodrow; McGee, Jennifer; Vines, Nora; Stewart, Trevor Thomas; Gill, Tom; Schlagal, Robert

doi:10.1080/10573569.2016.1203272

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple studies have identified students with decoding and listening comprehension at grade‐appropriate levels who nevertheless exhibit reading difficulties (Aaron, Joshi, & Williams, 1999; Catts, Hogan, & Adlof, 2005; Catts, Hogan, & Fey, 2003; Ebert & Scott, 2016; Hock et al, 2009; Morris et al, 2017; see Table 1). Instructional practice guided by the SVR leaves educators ill prepared to understand or identify instructional targets for poor comprehenders with grade‐appropriate decoding and listening comprehension, because no source for such difficulties is evident in the SVR.…”

Section: Reading Difficulties Have Many Causes Within and Beyond Word Recognition And Language Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading

Duke¹,

Cartwright²

2021

Reading Research Quarterly

163

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The simple view of reading is commonly presented to educators in professional development about the science of reading. The simple view is a useful tool for conveying the undeniable importance—in fact, the necessity—of both decoding and linguistic comprehension for reading. Research in the 35 years since the theory was proposed has revealed additional understandings about reading. In this article, we synthesize research documenting three of these advances: (1) Reading difficulties have a number of causes, not all of which fall under decoding and/or listening comprehension as posited in the simple view; (2) rather than influencing reading solely independently, as conceived in the simple view, decoding and listening comprehension (or in terms more commonly used in reference to the simple view today, word recognition and language comprehension) overlap in important ways; and (3) there are many contributors to reading not named in the simple view, such as active, self‐regulatory processes, that play a substantial role in reading. We point to research showing that instruction aligned with these advances can improve students’ reading. We present a theory, which we call the active view of reading, that is an expansion of the simple view and can be used to convey these important advances to current and future educators. We discuss the need to lift up updated theories and models to guide practitioners’ work in supporting students’ reading development in classrooms and interventions.

show abstract

Section: Reading Difficulties Have Many Causes Within and Beyond Word Recognition And Language Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading

Duke¹,

Cartwright²

2021

Reading Research Quarterly

163

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gough and Tunmer (1986) argued that the identification of a group of readers who exhibit reading comprehension difficulties in the absence of decoding and language comprehension difficulties would falsify their hypothesis. Nevertheless, previous SVR classification studies have identified a group of children who exhibit reading comprehension difficulties that were not explained by decoding and/or language comprehension deficits (Aaron et al, 1999;Catts et al, 2003;Ebert & Scott, 2016;Morris et al, 2017). Catts et al (2003) hypothesized that the identification of this group may be due to one of three reasons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This limitation can be mitigated by including participants who are similar in age or by reporting results for separate age groups when working with participants that span a wide age range. Morris et al (2017) included children who were performing below the 50th percentile on an end-of-year reading test. This means that at least some of the children included in their study were typically achieving readers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Children who have reading difficulties are not a homogeneous group (Aaron et al, 1999; Catts et al, 2003; Ebert & Scott, 2016; Morris et al, 2017). Researchers have attempted to capture variation in reading difficulties through the use of classification approaches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Aaron et al (1999) screened 139 children to identify 16 poor readers. The three other classification studies took steps to overcome this challenge (Catts et al, 2003; Ebert & Scott, 2016; Morris et al, 2017). Ebert and Scott (2016) selected participants who had been referred for speech‐language assessments, and Catts et al (2003) selected participants who were taking part in a longitudinal study on language impairments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The identification and classification of struggling readers based on the simple view of reading

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The simple view of reading (SVR) predicts that reading difficulties can result from decoding difficulties, language comprehension difficulties, or a combination of these difficulties. However, classification studies have identified a fourth group of children whose reading difficulties are unexplained by the model. This may be due to the type of classification model used. The current research included 209 children in Grades 3–5 (8–10 years of age) from New Zealand. Children were classified using the traditional approach and a cluster analysis. In contrast to the traditional classification model, the cluster analysis approach eliminated the unexplained reading difficulties group, suggesting that poor readers can be accurately assigned to one of three groups, which are consistent with those predicted by the SVR. The second set of analyses compared the three poor reader groups across 14 measures of reading comprehension, decoding, language comprehension, phonological awareness, and rapid naming. All three groups demonstrated reading comprehension difficulties, but the dyslexia group showed particular weaknesses in word processing and phonological areas, the SCD group showed problems deriving meaning from oral language, and the mixed group showed general deficits in most measures. The findings suggest that the SVR does have the potential to determine reading profiles and differential intervention methods.

show abstract

Examining the Learning Hierarchy with Accuracy and Rate Scores for Reading Fluency Among Second- and Third-Grade Students

Burns

2023

J Behav Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Simple View, Instructional Level, and the Plight of Struggling Fifth-/Sixth-Grade Readers

Cited by 12 publications

References 19 publications

The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading

The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading

The identification and classification of struggling readers based on the simple view of reading

Examining the Learning Hierarchy with Accuracy and Rate Scores for Reading Fluency Among Second- and Third-Grade Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About