Simple View of Reading Update

Moderators: Debbie Hepplewhite, maizie, Lesley Drake, Susan Godsland

Post Reply
MarleneG
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 1:20 pm

Simple View of Reading Update

Post by MarleneG » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:40 pm

The Simple View of Reading put forward by Gough and Tumner in 1986 has been updated by Gough and Hoover 2012.

It is now an A frame, with one leg of the ‘A’ representing ‘decoding’ and the other leg representing ‘language comprehension’, with the apex representing reading comprehension.

http://www.sedl.org/reading/framework/overview.html

The formula R = D X C has obviously gone.

Each leg of the A Frame has several components. each one is described as a 'cognitve element'.

http://www.sedl.org/reading/framework/elements.html

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

Re: Simple View of Reading Update

Post by Susan Godsland » Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:30 pm

Thank you for flagging that up Marlene.
Where did you see the 2012 date?

You can download the whole publication as a free pdf here:

http://www.sedl.org/reading/framework/framework.pdf
p9.
The graphical representation of
the framework resembles the capital letter A, in which two legs come together to form an apex.
Analogously, reading comprehension is supported by two equally important “legs”—decoding
and language comprehension (or as researchers put it, R=D X C
The “Simple View” of reading comprehension, as it was
coined by Philip Gough, has been widely supported by research.
The Simple View holds that a person’s capacity for reading comprehension
(R) is determined by that person’s ability to decode
text (D) and that person’s ability to comprehend spoken language
(C). In shorthand, then, it is said that R=D X C, where D and C
can range in values from 0 to 1. To see this formula working,
imagine a child who has absolutely no difficulty understanding
spoken language—that child would have a perfect language
comprehension score of 1. However, imagine that same child can
not decode text at all—hat child would have a decoding score of
0. If you multiply those two numbers together, you get R=1 X 0,
which is 0. This hypothetical scenario makes sense intuitively
because if the child is not able to decode text, the child can not
possibly read and comprehend text. The same is true of the
reverse scenario—if D=1 and C=0, then R still equals 0.
Children must be able to both decode text and comprehend language
in order to comprehend text.

chew8
Posts: 4187
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Simple View of Reading Update

Post by chew8 » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:07 pm

One little point: it was MarlENE rather than MarlYNNE who flagged this up.

Jenny C.

MarleneG
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 1:20 pm

Re: Simple View of Reading Update

Post by MarleneG » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:55 pm

I posted a link to this on 17 February 2012, and it was not there then. If it had been there on that date, everyone would have seen it.

User avatar
palisadesk
Posts: 549
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:11 pm

Re: Simple View of Reading Update

Post by palisadesk » Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:01 pm

That A-frame graphic is not at all new -- it has been around for a decade at least. I have it from a staff training in around 2003, and it has been on the SEDL site and referenced by others, like the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network over that time. Our own Ministry of Education adverts to it.

Perhaps Gough et alia have published something about it recently?

I like the graphical representation of some of the components -- syntax, for example -- because after a point, reading comprehension goes beyond comprehension of spoken language to underastanding of more complex and abstract language (with its more convoluted grammatical and sentence structures) which is rarely or never encountered in everyday converation, even among the intelligentsia. That doesn't need to concern us with young beginners, but it does contribute to reading development with older students.

Susan S.
,

User avatar
Debbie Hepplewhite
Administrator
Posts: 3663
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Simple View of Reading Update

Post by Debbie Hepplewhite » Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:37 am

I don't think the A frame diagram/model is a replacement for the Simple View of Reading which is a cross-shape - I think it is another useful model showing more information than the cross diagram.

I think they are both useful.

The cross shape (see link below) allows for considering broad profiles of people's reading capacity - or stage.

It allows a simple understanding of the main processes of reading without getting bogged down in the detail. This is good not only for teacher-training but also for informing parents - and encouraging them to chatter hugely to their children and to develop their knowledge of books and knowledge and understanding of the world to support their 'language comprehension'.

The cross diagram has the simplicity and space (the four spaces) to plot pupils as individuals, as groups and as whole classes - and to plot them over time - focusing on the explanations of why certain pupils would be placed in the segments at any given time. It allows for teachers to consider why they are there, and what type of intervention may be needed.

You could also use the A frame to consider in more depth the profile of pupils, but my immediate response is not to discard the simpler cross which, I suggest, can still serve a range of people very well at the simple level.

http://www.phonicsinternational.com/The ... _model.pdf

I encourage teachers to share this diagram with parents - it is neither patronising nor going into too much detail.

MarleneG
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 1:20 pm

Re: Simple View of Reading Update

Post by MarleneG » Sat Jan 26, 2013 10:20 am

There does seem to be somewhat of a mystery here.

The link Susan gave is to an updated website of 2013, from which one can download a pdf dated 2001 with no reference to Hoover and Gough.

The link I gave goes to a website dated 2012, a page clearly attributed to Hoover and Gough.

Strange ....................

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Re: Simple View of Reading Update

Post by maizie » Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:08 am

This is the 'Overview' page with Hoover & Gough as the named authors. I got to it by clicking the links beside the 'full' version linked by Marlene. Goodness knows which version of the website it is from!

I didn't see any reference to the 'A' model replacing the SVR.

http://www.sedl.org/reading/framework/overview.html

User avatar
Debbie Hepplewhite
Administrator
Posts: 3663
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Simple View of Reading Update

Post by Debbie Hepplewhite » Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:18 am

I didn't see any reference to the 'A' model replacing the SVR.
That's good then! :grin:

MarleneG
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 1:20 pm

Re: Simple View of Reading Update

Post by MarleneG » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:42 pm

This article by Tumner and Chapman concludes that the components of the SVR are not completely independent.

[url] [http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/45/5/453.full.pdf/url]
In conclusion, the findings of our study suggest that although the fundamental two-component structure of the SVR model should remain unchanged, the independent components assumption of the SVR model may need to be relaxed somewhat, as C appears to influence R not only directly but also indirectly through D. These findings have both theoretical and practical implications. Regarding theoretical issues, the findings of the current study combined with those reported by Tunmer and Chapman (2011) provide the basis for resolving differences between the lexical quality (Perfetti, 2007) and phonological processing (Shankweiler, 1999) accounts of reading acquisition and reading disabilities by specifying linkages among the development of oral vocabulary knowledge, phonological processing skills, and word recognition ability. Regarding implications for educational practice, the findings suggest
that prevention programs for children at risk of reading failure should focus on improving these children’s oral language skills, especially vocabulary knowledge, as well as their phonological and alphabetic coding skills (Tunmer & Greaney, 2010).

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Re: Simple View of Reading Update

Post by maizie » Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:05 pm

Regarding implications for educational practice, the findings suggest that prevention programs for children at risk of reading failure should focus on improving these children’s oral language skills, especially vocabulary knowledge, as well as their phonological and alphabetic coding skills (Tunmer & Greaney, 2010).
Isn't that what the RRF and others have been saying for quite some time now?

User avatar
Debbie Hepplewhite
Administrator
Posts: 3663
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Simple View of Reading Update

Post by Debbie Hepplewhite » Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:46 am

Isn't that what the RRF and others have been saying for quite some time now?
Yes - which is why I like the Simple View of Reading diagram.

I do suggest, however, that schools may use 'intervention programmes' which endeavour to do phonics and comprehension - and perhaps do justice to neither!

If children (or older learners) need accelerated/rigorous alphabetic code knowledge and skills, a watered-down version won't do!

JIM CURRAN
Posts: 3536
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:18 am

Re: Simple View of Reading Update

Post by JIM CURRAN » Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:52 am

Debbie said: If children (or older learners) need accelerated/rigorous alphabetic code knowledge and skills, a watered-down version won't do!

I totally agree.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 40 guests