The simple view of second language reading throughout the primary grades

Abstract

In the Simple View of Reading proposed by Hoover and Gough (1990), reading comprehension is conceived as the product of word decoding and listening comprehension. It is claimed that listening comprehension or the linguistic processes involved in the comprehension of oral language strongly constrain the process of reading comprehension. In several studies, evidence for this theoretical framework has been provided for first language learners. In the present study, an attempt was made to find empirical evidence for the same view underlying second language reading. Therefore, the word decoding and listening comprehension skills of samples of 1,293 first language (L1) learners and 394 second language (L2) learners of Dutch were related to their reading comprehension abilities throughout the primary grades. It was found that the levels of word decoding were more or less equal in the two groups of learners, whereas the L2 learners stayed behind their first L1 peers in both listening, and reading comprehension. The relationships between word decoding, listening comprehension and reading comprehension turned out to be highly comparable. A longitudinal analysis of data showed the Simple View of Reading to be equally valid for L1 and L2 learners. With progression of grade, the impact of word decoding on reading comprehension decreased, whereas the impact of listening comprehension showed an increase to the same extent in the two groups of learners. However, the reciprocity of the relationship between listening comprehension and reading comprehension tended to be less prominent in the group of L2 learners.

Growth and predictors of change in English language learners' reading comprehension

“…However, in subsequent years, as word‐level reading skills become established, language skills become stronger and more reliable predictors of reading comprehension (e.g., Catts, Fey, Zhang & Tomblin, ; Cutting & Scarborough, ; Francis et al, ; Storch & Whitehurst, ). This general observation is supported in L2‐based studies as well (Geva & Farnia, ; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, ).…”

“…Support for the SVR model comes from studies of monolingual children (e.g., Cain, Oakhill & Bryant, ; Joshi & Aaron, ; Kendeou, Savage & van den Broek, ; Parrila, Kirby & McQuarrie, ). Although L2‐based studies converge in documenting that L2 reading comprehension is an area of weakness for L2 learners in comparison with their monolingual peers, they confirm that the SVR model is also supported with L2 learners (e.g., Carlisle, Beeman, Davis & Spharim, ; Geva & Farnia, ; Hutchinson, Whiteley, Smith & Connors, ; Nakamoto, Lindsey & Manis, ; Pasquarella, Gottardo & Grant, ; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, ). Regardless of the research methodology used (cross‐sectional, auto‐regressive models or multiple measurement point growth analysis), the studies conducted to date point to the merit of an SVR model augmented with cognitive processes.…”

Cross‐Lagged Relations Among Linguistic Skills in European Portuguese: A Longitudinal Study

“…The contribution of word‐reading skills, oral reading fluency, and listening comprehension to reading comprehension performance has been well established (Berninger, Abbott, Vermeulen, & Fulton, ; Cadime et al., ; Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, ; Goff, Pratt, & Ong, ; Kim, ; Kim, Wagner, & Foster, ; Tilstra, McMaster, van den Broek, Kendeou, & Rapp, ), but the existence of bidirectional relations among those skills has been studied less frequently (Berninger & Abbott, ; Berninger et al., ; Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, ; Kim, ; Little et al., ; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, , ). For research and intervention purposes, it is of the utmost importance to study the directionality of these relations and whether they change throughout elementary school grades.…”

Suggestions for Vocabulary Focused Reading Lessons for Mainstream Classrooms Addressing Both L1 and L2 Learners

“…As international research has shown, L2 learners, while frequently not having problems in decoding, often have specific problems in reading comprehension (Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg 2013;Verhoeven and Leeuwe 2012). Researchers explain this specific comprehension deficit largely in terms of deficits in vocabulary knowledge (Hutchinson et al 2003;Verhoeven 2011).…”