How the Reading for Understanding Initiative’s Research Complicates the Simple View of Reading Invoked in the Science of Reading

Cervetti, Gina N.; Pearson, P. David; Palincsar, Annemarie Sullivan; Afflerbach, Peter; Kendeou, Panayiota; Biancarosa, Gina; Higgs, Jennifer; Fitzgerald, Miranda S.; Berman, Amy I.

doi:10.1002/rrq.343

Cited by 74 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A substantial body of emerging scientific findings, including our own, suggests that the SVR' s elegant simplicity may mask contributions to reading comprehension that could-and should-inform research, practice, and ultimately, the science of reading (for reviews, see Cervetti et al, 2020;Snowling & Hulme, 2012). In particular, the original independent, two-factor SVR model, and its typical implementation in practice, disallows commonalities between D and LC and, occasionally, neglects scientific findings that LC contributes directly to D-and to reading comprehension through D-partially explaining the substantial shared variance between these constructs (e.g., Cartwright, Lee, et al, 2020;Tunmer & Chapman, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the Simple View of Reading: The Role of Executive Functions in Emergent Bilinguals’ and English Monolinguals’ Reading Comprehension

Barber¹,

Cartwright²,

Hancock³

et al. 2021

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The simple view of reading describes reading as the product of decoding (D) and listening comprehension (LC). However, the simple view of reading has been challenged, and evidence has proved it to be too simple to explain the complexities of reading comprehension in the elementary school years. Hypotheses have been advanced that there are cognitive-linguistic factors that underlie the common variance between D and LC, which are malleable, although there is no clarity at this point regarding what these are. We propose that one such group of malleable cognitive factors is executive function (EF) skills. Further, we posit that EF skills play equally strong roles in explaining reading comprehension variance in emergent bilinguals and English monolinguals. We used multigroup structural equation modeling to determine the contribution of these constructs (D, LC, and EF) to reading comprehension in 425 emergent bilinguals and 302 English monolinguals in grades 2-4. The shared variance between D and LC was explained by direct and indirect effects in the models tested, with strong indirect effects for the EFs of cognitive flexibility and working memory through D and LC, respectively, for both language groups. The indirect effect of cognitive flexibility through LC on reading comprehension was considerably larger for emergent bilinguals than for English monolinguals. Considerations for a more nuanced view of the simple view of reading and its implications for practice are discussed. P ublic discourse surrounding the science of reading has emphasized the simple view of reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer, 1986) as a guiding framework for research under the Reading for Understanding initiative in the last decade (e.g.,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the Simple View of Reading: The Role of Executive Functions in Emergent Bilinguals’ and English Monolinguals’ Reading Comprehension

Barber¹,

Cartwright²,

Hancock³

et al. 2021

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When readers have well-developed vocabulary and language proficiency, higher-level skills appear to be the main source of variability in reading comprehension in differentiating groups. Foundational oral language skills such as vocabulary and grammatical knowledge underlie higher-level skills such as making inferences and comprehension monitoring, which in turn, are necessary for reading comprehension success (Cervetti et al, 2020;Kim, 2017). Comprehension of conjunctions can enhance reading comprehension and has also been found to predict reading comprehension in ELLs ( (Crosson & Lesaux, 2013;Crosson, Lesaux, & Martiniello, 2008); Droop & Verhoeven, 2003;(Geva, 2007;Geva & Ryan, 1993;Welie, Schoonen, Kuiken, & van den Bergh, 2017)).…”

Section: Higher-level Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring sources of poor reading comprehension in English language learners

Geva

D’Angelo

et al. 2021

Ann. of Dyslexia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the sources of reading comprehension difficulties in English language learners (ELLs). The characteristics of ELL poor comprehenders were compared to their English as a first language (EL1) peers. Participants included 124 ELLs who spoke Chinese as an L1 and 79 EL1 students. Using a regression technique based on age, non-verbal reasoning, word reading accuracy, and word reading fluency, three types of comprehenders (poor, average, and good) were identified within each language group. The groups were then compared on measures of oral language skills (vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth, and listening comprehension), metalinguistic skills (morphological awareness and syntactic awareness), working memory, and higher-level processing skills (inference, conjunction use, and comprehension monitoring). ELL poor comprehenders had significantly lower scores than ELL average and good comprehenders on vocabulary breadth, listening comprehension, and morphological awareness, whereas there were no significant differences between the average and good comprehender groups on these skills. Additionally, both ELL poor and average comprehenders had lower scores than ELL good comprehenders on all three higher-level skills. Finally, results showed that ELL poor comprehenders scored lower than EL1 poor comprehenders on vocabulary breadth, listening comprehension, and morphological awareness, but the two groups did not differ on higher-level skills. Theoretical and educational implications for the identification and instruction of ELL poor comprehenders are discussed.

show abstract

“…This gen eral model gives equal weight to decoding and compre hension and predicts that children with deficits in either domain will have reading problems. There is a wide body of research that has supported and expanded the simple view of reading (Cervetti et al, 2020), emphasizing the need for both decoding and linguistic comprehension skills and questioning whether the two strands are distinct in the early years (Dickinson, Nesbitt, & Hofer, 2019). Significantly, this newer research has shown that pre school oral language development predicts reading com prehension at grade 3 (Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu, 2018) and that reading comprehen sion and decoding do not emerge as distinctly measurable constructs until grade 3 (Lonigan & Burgess, 2017).…”

Section: History and Models Of Early Reading Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Play Experiences in Early Literacy: Expanding the Science of Reading

Rand¹,

Morrow²

2021

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children's experiences in preschool and kindergarten influence their future literacy learning. Although emergent literacy has traditionally been supported by play-based experiences, there has been a decline in play opportunities in recent years. Media publications citing the science of reading have called for more focus on systematic, direct instruction of skills in phonics and phonemic awareness. However, from the perspective of the simple view of reading, the process of learning to read involves developing both decoding and linguistic comprehension skills. In this article, we review the research that has linked play experiences to three areas: (1) the development of language skills necessary for linguistic comprehension, including vocabulary, decontextualized language, and oral narrative competence; (2) opportunities for functional literacy behaviors, including emergent reading and writing behaviors; and (3) skills related to decoding, including print awareness, phonological awareness, word recognition, and reading fluency. The research also has demonstrated the value of adult guidance during play experiences in optimizing literacy learning. This review of the literature linking play and literacy in early childhood expands the scope of the science of reading to include a wider range of skills that support reading development. Children's literacy behaviors in early childhood can predict their successful reading performance in later years (Suggate, Schaugh ency, McAnally, & Reese, 2018). It is imperative, therefore, to examine the science of reading to understand how preschool and kin dergarten practices ensure literacy achievement. Planned time for play has traditionally been considered important for young children. In spite of the research that has shown the benefits of play as it relates to literacy development, the time allotted for play has been reduced and often replaced by teacher directed, skill based lessons (Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, 2016; Miller & Almon, 2009). Emergent literacy methods have been challenged in the media by advocates of more direct instruction of decoding skills (Hanford, 2018;Hood, 2019). They have pointed to the findings of the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) that included support for the importance of teaching phonics and phonemic awareness in a systematic sequence for young children. However, these critics have ignored other findings of the panel that included the importance of fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Since this report, the consensus among researchers has been that a nar row focus on decoding skills discounts the complexity of the science of reading and other important skills (Cabell & Hwang, 2020; Language and Reading Research Consortium, 2015).

show abstract

How the Reading for Understanding Initiative’s Research Complicates the Simple View of Reading Invoked in the Science of Reading

Cited by 74 publications

References 68 publications

Beyond the Simple View of Reading: The Role of Executive Functions in Emergent Bilinguals’ and English Monolinguals’ Reading Comprehension

Beyond the Simple View of Reading: The Role of Executive Functions in Emergent Bilinguals’ and English Monolinguals’ Reading Comprehension

Exploring sources of poor reading comprehension in English language learners

The Contribution of Play Experiences in Early Literacy: Expanding the Science of Reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About