Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explore the Simple View of Reading (SVR) in this third post to celebrate Book Week. This describes reading at a single point in time: decoding x listening/ linguistic comprehension = reading comprehension (D x LC = RC).
What we’ve covered so far:
One: How to find your way through the reading jungle
Two: What really works for readers and when
The SVR presumes that, once printed matter is decoded, a reader can “apply to the text exactly the same mechanisms which he or she would bring to bear on its spoken equivalent”. It is not a theory or model of how to teach reading. The SVR is not suggesting that reading is a simple process. These researchers were providing a simple explanation of why some readers experience reading difficulties.
Some advocates have used the SVR as the justification for an emphasis on phonics and decoding first (and fast). This has led to the idea that listening comprehension and reading comprehension happen after decoding. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that decoding guarantees a reader will identify each word in isolation. And then, that reader will be able to bring these words together and understand what has been read.
The opaque nature of the English language makes this almost impossible.
In many cases the meaning of a word (in context) determines the pronunciation of the word, rather than the other way around, e.g. I read on the train in the mornings. I read my book on the train yesterday.
Correct pronunciation does not guarantee meaning
There are many homonyms in the English language. For example, ‘plane’ could be a straight line joining two points OR a level of existence. It could also be a level surface OR an aeroplane. It could also be an open area of land OR a wood working tool.
Despite this, the SVR is often cited as the justification for the use of synthetic phonics programs in the early years of school, and a focus on decoding as the most important problem-solving approach to an unknown word across all grades.
Building on the Simple View of Reading
The SVR has formed the basis for more complex understandings of reading. For example, The Reading Rope diagram (Figure 1) expands the three elements of the SVR and explains the complexity of skilled reading.
‘Decoding’ is described as a subcomponent of ‘word recognition’ and does not automatically lead to comprehension. “Even if the pronunciation of all the letter strings in a passage are correctly decoded, the text will not be well comprehended if the child:
(1) does not know the words in their spoken form,
(2) cannot parse the syntactic and semantic relationships among the words, or
(3) lacks critical background knowledge or inferential skills to interpret the text appropriately and ‘read between the lines’”
The Reading Rope is often used in teacher professional learning sessions, although the language comprehension elements are not always given the same emphasis as the word recognition elements. As a result, word recognition or decoding instruction is often prioritised. That’s despite the fact that reading comprehension requires language comprehension which is made up of background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures (syntax and semantics), verbal reasoning and literacy knowledge. Word recognition should be taught in conjunction with language comprehension if reading comprehension is the goal.
Much more to understand
One of the original developers of the SVR, Tumner, agrees that there is ‘much more to understand about reading than what is represented in the SVR’ and has more recently co-developed with Hoover the Cognitive Foundations of Reading Framework (CFRF).
Figure two: The Cognitive Foundations of Reading Framework (Hoover & Tunmer, 2020)
This framework includes ‘background knowledge’ and ‘inferencing skills’ as well as ‘phonological, syntactic and semantic knowledge’. The CFRF also demonstrates the complexity of the reading process.
Numerous other models have been developed from the SVR including the Active View of Reading (AVR). The AVR highlights the ‘key self-regulation skills’ required to manage all aspects of reading. Motivation and engagement are identified as key self-regulatory skills. These are overlooked in some other reading models, but other researchers have identified the importance of seeing reading as not just a technical activity but one that needs to engage hearts and minds.
The SVR does not suggest that reading is a simple process and it is not a model of reading instruction. In the next post we will explore the Science of Reading (SoR) and unpick some of the confusions associated with it.
Noella Mackenzie is an adjunct associate professor at Charles Sturt University. Her areas of research and expertise include the teaching and learning of literacy. Martina Tassone is a senior lecturer in teacher education at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include literacy teaching, learning and assessment in the early years of schooling.
Thankyou for the focus this week. It is heartening to read another view of literacy learning other than the rampant one-size-fits-all view being espoused by cognitive scientists and speech pathologists. I hope my experience may open the eyes of newly trained teachers who are at risk of being caught up in the so-called benefits of packaged instruction. Of course principals need to understand and support the value of experienced based learning. My principal, Jim Dalton, at the school below was perfect for the times.
.
During the 70’s I had the good fortune to teach with a remarkable educator, Lorraine Wilson, who influenced the lives of teachers and students for over 60 years. I had the good fortune to work with Lorraine during the seventies. This was a pivotal time for me as a young teacher and Lorraine’s ideas influenced the way I taught for the next thirty-five years.
Lorraine moved from the Victorian Curriculum Branch during the early seventies and was appointed Assistant Principal at Helen St Primary School in Northcote where she introduced a Language Experience approach to literacy which was a radical departure from the norm. Junior school staff were invited to rethink the way we worked with early learners. Demonstration, discussion, shared ideas, team planning, parent information sessions and classroom support were critical to the embrace of the program by teachers as well as the wider community.
Helen St Primary school had an annual suburban rail ticket which meant any day of the week a class could travel from nearby Northcote station for a shared meaningful experience. Preston market, three stops away, was a popular destination. These experiences provided the foundation for language development. Cooking, writing, drawing, photography, and bookmaking were an intrinsic part of the program and students loved to talk and write about their experiences. Whole-of-class reports, recipes, retellings, and narratives provided structured opportunities for reading, word study, phonics, punctuation and spelling. These class-generated ‘wall stories’ were displayed and read constantly on any given day as children learned to search for words they wished to use in their own writing. The junior school building had a central room which was set up as a play area with balance beams, climbing frames, a puppet theatre and building blocks of all sizes. Students were encouraged to write signs if they wished to leave constructions in place.
It was during this time Lorraine created the widely read ‘City Kids’ series. She wrote and edited the books with individual students to make sure the language was theirs. One aim was to demonstrate to students as well as teachers how simple yet profound it was to write about meaningful everyday experiences. The City Kids books, and later Country Kids and Footy Kids, were loved by young readers and hundreds of Victorian children were inspired to write about their own experiences. At Helen St PS a book-making machine made it possible for all children to have their own writing published to read and share.
Lorraine used the Helen St Primary School experience for her book, ‘Write Me a Sign’, which was published in 1979. This was a brilliant practical resource for teachers wishing to introduce a Language Experience approach, and beginning teachers today would find it an invaluable resource for getting started in a primary classroom.
Students were given responsibility and encouraged to problem solve. I fell in love with multi-age classes, which gave students an opportunity to progress at their own rate as prep, one and two classes were combined. It also meant cooperative learning, caring and mentoring were part of every classroom. Needless to say the school was abuzz with activity and Helen St Primary School was a very happy place. The original City Kids books tell the true story of a place where kids’ experiences were valued, and kids wanted to be.
Lorraine moved from Helen St Primary School into consultancy work where she demonstrated classroom teaching strategies and assisted with the development of reading and writing programs in schools. She continued to write books about her experiences which resonate with classroom teachers today – ‘Writing to Live: How to teach Writing for Today’s World’(2002) and ‘Write me a Poem: reading, writing and performing poetry’ are two good examples.
Lorraine was in demand at international literacy conferences where she presented with every international literacy expert of note, including in the USA. She was highly regarded by them all, especially as she had a wealth of practical classroom experience and impeccable records as evidence of a successful approach.
Lorraine enjoyed socializing and loved bringing practising teachers and literacy experts together. She continued to do this until her late seventies so she had the pleasure of knowing her ideas were enduring. Language Experience wasn’t a fad. The process was sound and clearly structured. It was engaging and easily adapted to suit the needs of every individual. I went on to teach all levels of primary school in a range of government schools and found a Language Experience approach to reading and writing was suitable for every age and stage of development.
I would encourage all new teachers and those working in education policy to revisit Lorraine Wilson’s literacy work. Reading is a complex process but when children are engaged in meaningful reading and writing effective instruction can be remarkably simple. It is about timing intervention so children never lose sight of the main aim – to make sense of print.
Susan Mahar ,primary classroom teacher with qualifications in Early Years’ learning (TITC) as well as a Graduate Diploma of Literacy. I was a classroom teacher in city and country schools for forty years.
Thank you Susan for the wonderful account of Lorraine Wilson’s teaching career and her amazing work in teaching literacy. I too taught at Helen Street Primary in Northcote (although many years after Lorraine’s time, I was there from 1998-2000) The whole school approach to multi age learning, and the student friendships and connections across the entire school is not something any other school I have seen has ever come close to.
I loved using the “City Kids/Country Kids/Footy Kids” books (when teaching in Bendigo and Mildura, and later in Northcote) and distinctly remember using them when I taught at Helen St- although I did not know until today that the school was where the books had started, so it was delightful to learn this today, thank you!
Thank you Dianne.
Wow – thank you for this very in-depth response Susan. We are glad that you are finding the blog of interest. I also came from an Early Childhood background before studying primary education, and taught all grades from K/P to Year 6. I enjoyed using the Country Kids and City kids books in my early years of teaching. You provide a thorough overview of Lorraine Wilson’s rich and well respected career. I am sure Lorraine would be pleased to know how much her work had impacted your career.
Thanks, Noella and Martina, for the discussions. However, I must point out that neither Figure 1 nor Figure 2 present a process for reading, which could be confusing because people might interpret these figures as a method. I’m not sure if that’s the intent, but it’s something to consider. Including the process might necessitate changes to the elements in these figures, so it’s important to ensure that these terms do not become fixed or be treated as such.
Additionally, to address the confusion you’ve raised regarding the concept of reading, I suggest we differentiate between “sounding out” words, which we can refer to as “Sounding out,” and broader comprehension skills, which could be referred to as “literacy.” Our current vocabulary carries a lot of connotations, so we should aim for more precise wording to avoid misunderstandings.
Kind regrads
Ania Lian
CDU
Thank you for your thoughtful comment Ania, We appreciate you taking the time to respond. The two figures were included as a way to show expanded explanations of the Simple View of Reading, not as proposed methods of how to teach reading. The intent was to demonstrate the complexity of reading using these frameworks in a very limited space. Sounding out is a way of using letter sound relationships to help decode an unknown word, whereas comprehension is about understanding the text and is the goal of reading. We tried to demonstrate that difference in our post – “word recognition or decoding instruction is often prioritised. That’s despite the fact that reading comprehension requires language comprehension which is made up of background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures (syntax and semantics), verbal reasoning and literacy knowledge. Word recognition should be taught in conjunction with language comprehension if reading comprehension is the goal.”
I agree that some of the language used can be confusing. In post 4 we endeavour to tease out some of the terms, further expanding in posts 5 and 6. I hope they will be of interest.
Thank you, Noella and Martina for the terrific overview of the Simple View of Reading. As a Teacher of the Deaf one of the tricky issues we face is to explain to teachers- and parents – is that correct pronunciation and decoding is not reading for meaning and does not lead to comprehension! I carry around a 1 page comprehension activity from Twinkl in 3 versions – English, Italian and German – to try and demonstrate that although I can “read” the text in Italian and German, and make a fair effort at pronouncing all the words ( even though I only studied Italian once a week for 3 months years ago, and my 3 years of German at high school was a very, very long time ago!) I can actually only understand about a half dozen words in either version of the text – so I am unable to answer any of the comprehension questions about it.
Many of our Deaf/Hard of Hearing students (our Visting Teacher team support over 300 primary and secondary students across our region) have big gaps in their vocabulary/life experience (background knowledge)/literacy knowledge etc. – particularly those who are EAL learners/newly arrived migrants/have late diagnosed hearing loss etc. Without prior understanding and vocab, our D/HoH students are unable to “join the dots” and gain understanding.
And of course, there is also the issue that without hearing aids/ Cochlear Implant they cannot hear letter sounds in order to learn phonemic awareness!
Consider a late diagnosed high frequency hearing loss – a student who has never heard the higher frequency /s/ /t/ sounds for example will usually have difficulties with pronouns (not able to hear the final /s/ his, hers, theirs etc.); and past tense – where the “-ed” on the end of many words sound like a /t/ eg. walked, jumped – which the teacher will often mention as an issue with the student’s writing or speech, without making the connection and understanding that for that particular student, those sounds simply do not exist! To quote Dr Carol Flexer, (USA Paediatric Audiologist) ” The brain can only work with the information it receives”.
I do wonder too, with the school focus on student pronouncing individual letters and blends – are teachers aware of the developmental ages of speech sound development ? Or the fact that many students ( 1/3 of any class in prep/1/2) have fluctuating conductive hearing loss due to colds. blocked noses & ears, which might go on for months and result in student not hearing/mis hearing many speech sounds? When I talk to classroom teachers about my students, and I am not often told how they are going in reading, but shown a chart of letters and told “they don’t know these sounds yet”!
Thank you Dianne. Your comments bring a different perspective to our understandings of reading – both teaching and learning. I love the quote you have used from Dr Flexer. Thank you for sharing that – it makes so much sense.
I have wondered how children who are deaf learn to read. You have prompted me to do some follow up reading on this topic.
I can remember as a young teacher being told by my supervisor to have young children blow their nose at the start of class. Initially I didn’t understand why, but it made a difference to some of my students. I was also aware of finding out which children had grommets. Hearing is in some ways a hidden disability.