No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
What Literary Scholars Can Learn from the “Simple View of Reading”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 October 2020
Extract
According to what educational psychologists call the “simple view of reading,” learning to read requires two sets of skills: decoding (translating “graphic shapes into linguistic form”) and linguistic comprehension (Hoover and Gough 128). The possession of these best predicts success in reading, even beyond such factors as students' gender and socioeconomic status (Kendeou, Savage, and van den Broek; Juel). For humanists who thrive on the complexity of reading, the simple view may look not just simple but crude. But it looks so only if it is supposed to account for every aspect of learning to read rather than for the skills that explain the most variance in students' performance. Understood in the latter sense, it helps teachers know where to focus their efforts in teaching reading. It provides three predictions about why students might have trouble: problems with decoding, problems with understanding, or both. In this light, the model's reductiveness is less a weakness than an achievement in clarifying preconditions for literacy.
- Type
- Theories and Methodologies
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2015
References
Works Cited
Barton, Stephen B., and Sanford, Anthony J. “A Case Study of Anomaly Detection: Shallow Semantic Processing and Cohesion Establishment.” Memory and Cognition 21.4 (1993): 477–87. Print.Google Scholar
Bowers, Alex J., and Berland, Matthew. “Does Recreational Computer Use Affect High School Achievement?” Educational Technology Research and Development 61.1 (2013): 51–69. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Kate, Oakhill, Jane, and Bryant, Peter. “Children's Reading Comprehension Ability: Concurrent Prediction by Working Memory, Verbal Ability, and Component Skills.” Journal of Educational Psychology 96.1 (2004): 31–42. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda, Bailey, Karl G. D., and Ferraro, Vittoria. “Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 11.1 (2002): 11–15. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, Varner, Kathleen R., and Faust, Mark E. “Investigating Differences in General Comprehension Skill.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16.3 (1990): 430–45. Print.Google Scholar
Hoover, Wesley A., and Gough, Philip B. “The Simple View of Reading.” Reading and Writing 2.2 (1990): 127–60. Print.Google Scholar
Juel, Connie. “Learning to Read and Write: A Longitudinal Study of Fifty-Four Children from First through Fourth Grades.” Journal of Educational Psychology 80.4 (1988): 437–47. Print.Google Scholar
Kendeou, Panayiota, Savage, Robert, and van den Broek, Paul. “Revisiting the Simple View of Reading.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 79.2 (2009): 353–70. Print.Google Scholar
Magliano, Joseph P., Loschky, Lester C., Clinton, James A., and Larson, Adam M. “Is Reading the Same as Viewing? An Exploration of the Similarities and Differences between Processing Text- and Visually-Based Narratives.” Unraveling Reading Comprehension: Behavioral, Neurobiological, and Genetic Components. Ed. Miller, Brett, Cutting, Laurie E., and McCardle, Peggy. Baltimore: Brookes, 2013. 78–90. Print.Google Scholar
Rapp, David N., van den Broek, Paul, McMaster, Kristen L., Kendeou, Panayiota, and Espin, Christine A. “Higher-Order Comprehension Processes in Struggling Readers: A Perspective for Research and Intervention.” Scientific Studies of Reading 11.4 (2007): 289–312. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Broek, Paul, Lorch, Elizabeth Pugzles, and Thurlow, Richard. “Children's and Adults' Memory for Television Stories: The Role of Causal Factors, Story-Grammar Categories, and Hierarchical Level.” Child Development 67.6 (1996): 3010–28. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar