Page 1

The Simple View of Reading: Implications for Reading Instruction Dr. Richard L. Sparks The Reading League May 10, 2018


Goals of Session ●  ●  ●  ● 

●  ● 

Explain the origin and meaning of the Simple View of Reading model (SVR) Explore the implications of “reading equals the product of decoding and comprehension” (D x C = R) Clarify the role of decoding and (oral) language comprehension in reading and reading disability Define three types of reading disability: inability to decode (dyslexia), inability to comprehend (hyperlexia), or both (garden variety, or mixed) Expand view of reading comprehension in SVR model Apply SVR model to foreign (second) language reading


Outline of Session ● 

I. Simple View of Reading

● 

II. Expanding the Simple View of Reading

● 

III. Applying the Simple View of Reading to Foreign (Second) Language Reading

● 

IV. Summary and Questions


I. Simple View of Reading


Introduction ● 

In 1986, the role of decoding in reading was controversial! Anyone remember why?

● 

Learning to read was thought to be “natural”, unknown words read from context, meaning first

● 

Many educators maintained that decoding is a “byproduct” of reading and that instruction in decoding would impede learning to read

● 

Gough & Tunmer (1986) addressed the “great debate” with empirical evidence and introduced the Simple View of Reading model


The SVR Equation ●  ●  ●  ●  ● 

Reading equals the product of decoding and language (listening) comprehension R = D x C where each of the three variables ranges from 0 (nothing) to 1 (perfection). C = Language (linguistic, listening) comprehension, not reading comprehension Decoding is necessary but not sufficient for reading—what does that mean? Likewise, linguistic comprehension is necessary but not sufficient for reading


Key Facts about Decoding ●  ● 

●  ● 

Skilled decoder can read isolated words (contextfree) quickly, accurately, and silently Word recognition skill is fundamentally dependent on knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, or the orthographic cipher (phonics) But, knowledge of the cipher is not sufficient for word recognition (bead-bread-steak-area) Purest measure of decoding is the ability to read pseudowords (clard, phim, stenk, bufty, tadding, wubfambiffy, gnouthe)


Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) Fluency

Decoding

Phonemic Awareness

Pseudoword Decoding (Phonics)

x

Language Comprehension

Vocabulary

Text Comprehension


SVR Implications (1) ● 

Proponents of decoding concede that if there is little or no language comprehension, then reading is not taking place

● 

So, the fact that someone can decode but fail to read a language is consistent with the Simple View of Reading; that is, it is exactly what the model would predict

● 

Decoding is not sufficient; comprehension is also necessary


SVR Implications (2) ● 

At the same time, the converse holds true as well

● 

Comprehension is not sufficient; decoding is also necessary

● 

Knowing (comprehending) a language does not suffice to make one literate—the average 5-yearold is living proof

● 

Children have been comprehending language successfully for many years prior to learning to read

● 

If R = D x C and D = 0, then R = 0 whatever the value of C


SVR: What Other Implications or Questions Occur to You? Fluency

Decoding

Phonemic Awareness

Pseudoword Decoding (Phonics)

x

Language Comprehension

Vocabulary

Text Comprehension


SVR Implications (3): Useful for Assessment of Reading Skills ● 

The Simple View model clearly asserts that reading ability should be predictable from a measure of decoding ability (pseudowords) and a measure of listening comprehension

● 

There is abundant evidence that decoding and listening comprehension make independent contributions to reading ability

● 

See Kim (2017), Catts (in press), Joshi et al. (2015) for reviews


SVR: Useful for Assessment of Reading Skills ● 

● 

● 

Likewise, there is abundant evidence that word decoding explains largest amount of variance in: a) explaining the acquisition of reading in early grades, and b) explaining the variance in children’s reading comprehension skills But, as child learns to decode words, language (listening) comprehension explains more and more of the variability in reading comprehension In most cases, this shift occurs around 3rd-4th grade for typically developing readers (Language and Reading Research Consortium, 2015)


SVR Implications (4): Subtypes of Reading Disability ● 

Good reading can only result from D x C.

● 

But, reading disability could result from three different problems: inability to decode, inability to comprehend, or both

● 

Inability to decode = dyslexia

● 

Inability to comprehend = hyperlexia

● 

Inability to decode or comprehend = garden variety, or mixed


Dyslexia ● 

Common denominator in every case of dyslexia is the inability to decode

● 

Every dyslexic is a poor decoder, but has good oral language (listening) comprehension

● 

Vellutino’s studies (1979)—6th grade dyslexics did not know simplest letter-sound correspondences

● 

What are the reasons they lack decoding skill? Phonemic awareness and phonics (letter-sound correspondences) skills


Dyslexia Fluency

Decoding

Phonemic Awareness

Pseudoword Decoding (Phonics)

x

Language Comprehension

Vocabulary

Text Comprehension


Hyperlexia ● 

Good decoding skills, poor oral language (listening) comprehension

● 

In SVR, term is used with less specificity than with true hyperlexics

● 

Three characteristics of true hyperlexics ●  ●  ● 

Acquire word reading skill < age 5 Extraordinary decoding skill, far superior to IQ Severe deficits in oral language (listening) comprehension

(Silberberg & Silberberg, 1967; Healy, 1982; Grigorenko, 2012; Sparks, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2004)


Hyperlexia Fluency

Decoding

Phonemic Awareness

Pseudoword Decoding (Phonics)

x

Language Comprehension

Vocabulary

Text Comprehension


“Garden Variety” (Mixed) Reading Disability ● 

Poor decoding accompanied by poor oral language comprehension (majority of poor readers)

● 

But, the existence of dyslexia and hyperlexia shows that skill in language (listening) comprehension need not be accompanied by skill in decoding, and vice versa

● 

Dyslexia and hyperlexia are “exceptions to the rule” that good decoding is accompanied by good listening comprehension, and vice versa


Garden Variety (Mixed) Reading Disability Fluency

Decoding

Phonemic Awareness

Pseudoword Decoding (Phonics)

x

Language Comprehension

Vocabulary

Text Comprehension


4 Types of Readers in SVR Model Reader Type

DECODING

LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION

X

=

READING

Good

1

X

1

=

1

Mixed (GV)

0

X

0

=

0

Hyperlexic

1

X

0

=

0

Dyslexic

0

X

1

=

0


4 Types of Readers in SVR Model Reader Type

DECODING

LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION

X

=

READING

Good

.8

X

.9

=

.72

Mixed (GV)

.2

X

.2

=

.04

Hyperlexic

.9

X

.3

=

.27

Dyslexic

.3

X

.9

=

.27


Testing the Theory? ● 

The Simple View asserts that decoding and language comprehension are both essential to reading

● 

But, are there individuals who can: a) decode and comprehend language but not read well? b) decode, but not comprehend language, and read well? c) neither decode nor comprehend language, yet still read well?

● 

Such individuals would falsify the Simple View

● 

What do you think?


SVR Implications (5): What about Reading Instruction/Intervention? ●  ● 

●  ● 

The SVR model asserts that reading skill will improve only by improving the weak skill(s) The model shows where to target instruction/ intervention for improving the deficient skill(s) of the three types of poor readers Let’s think about the 3 types of poor readers— mixed (GV), hyperlexic, and dyslexic Which skill(s) need to be improved in each type of reader? (next slide)


4 Types of Readers in SVR Model Reader Type

DECODING

LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION

X

=

READING

Good

1

X

1

=

1

Mixed (GV)

0

X

0

=

0

Hyperlexic

1

X

0

=

0

Dyslexic

0

X

1

=

0


What about Reading Instruction/Intervention? ● 

All components should be addressed in the majority of cases because majority of poor readers are weak in both decoding and language comprehension

● 

Multi-component programs get better results than single-component programs

● 

Some students will benefit from a specific emphasis on decoding or language comprehension (Aaron & Joshi, 2008); decision should be based on data


Question Why is this model helpful (in my view, almost perfect) for teachers? 1. _______________________ 2. _______________________ 3. _______________________


Answers 1. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s simple (and evidence-based)!

2. It identifies the locus of studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reading problem 3. It tells the teacher where to target instruction for improving reading 4. Other benefits of SVR model for explaining reading problems and targeting instruction?


Support for the SVR Model ● 

Numerous studies have supported the premises of the SVR model with English-speaking learners. Aouad & Savage, 2009; Catts & Weismer, 2006; Joshi & Aaron, 2000; Savage, 2001, Catts, in press; Kim, 2017

● 

Results have found that decoding and language comprehension make separate and independent contributions to reading comprehension.

● 

That is, the skills that predict decoding are not directly related to language comprehension, and vice versa


Separate and independent contributions to reading skill? Fluency

Decoding

Phonemic Awareness

Pseudoword Decoding

x

Language Comprehension

Vocabulary

=

Reading

Text Comprehension


Support for the SVR Model ● 

In addition, a number of studies in other alphabetic languages have supported the model: ●  ●  ●  ●  ● 

Norwegian (Hoein-Tengesdal & Hoein, 2012) Swedish (Hoein-Tengesdal, 2010) French (Megherbi, Seigneuric, & Ehrlich, 2006) Hebrew (Joshi et al, 2015 in recent issue of SSSR) Dutch (Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2012)


Support for SVR model ● 

● 

● 

Other studies have found that the SVR model explains reading development in ELL children, i.e., both L2 language comprehension and L2 word decoding make independent contributions to English reading (Nakamoto, Lindsey, & Manis, 2008; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2012) Additional studies with language minority children have found that word decoding and language comprehension explained all of the variance in students’ English reading skills (Kim, 2017) Other studies with ELLs have found that listening (oral language) comprehension is the most powerful predictor of reading comprehension (Bonifacci & Tobia, 2017)


Challenges to the SVR Model ● 

● 

● 

● 

Some researchers have hypothesized that as text becomes increasingly demanding, even good word decoding and good listening comprehension skills may not allow for good reading comprehension One hypothesis is that fluency can explain unique variance in reading comprehension after the variance explained by decoding is partialed (D x C x F =R) Others have investigated and found that fluency provides little or no unique variance in predicting reading skill, that is, fluency is “connected” to both D and C Whether fluency explains unique variance in reading skills is still an open question


Challenges to the SVR Model ● 

In a recent study with English-speaking students, Tunmer and Chapman (2012) hypothesized that word decoding and language comprehension may not make independent contributions to reading comprehension because vocabulary may directly contribute to variance in decoding

● 

Their findings showed that although the component model (D x C = R) remained intact, vocabulary made an independent contribution beyond that of word decoding and language comprehension (D x C x V = R)

● 

Other research has yielded similar findings about the contribution of vocabulary to reading skill


II. Expanding the Simple View of Reading


Simple View May not be Simplistic More recently, Catts and others, e.g., Kim, have proposed that the “Simple View is not simplistic” ●  The SVR suggests that decoding (D) and language (listening) comprehension (C) are equal in complexity and malleability ●  They propose that the SVR may have made reading “too simple” because language comprehension (C) is very complex ● 


Simple View May not be Simplistic Poor comprehenders display oral language difficulties (Catts, et al., 2006, Nation, et al. 2010) ●  However, poor comprehenders’ problems with reading comprehension go beyond oral language comprehension issues ●  For example, researchers have found that poor comprehenders also have difficulties with working memory, inferencing, and background knowledge ● 


Simple View May not be Simplistic ●  ● 

● 

But, the SVR model does not identify explicitly the several subcomponents of reading comprehension For example, it is well-known (and wellresearched) that vocabulary is strongly related to reading comprehension skill Recall the SVR model displayed earlier and the studies by Tunmer and Chapman showing that vocabulary makes a contribution to comprehension (next slide)


Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) Fluency

Decoding

Phonemic Awareness

Pseudoword Decoding (Phonics)

x

Language Comprehension

Vocabulary

Text Comprehension


Expanding the Simple View ● 

●  ●  ● 

● 

There are ongoing attempts to further identify subcomponents (specific parts) of language and reading comprehension (e.g., Language and Reading Research Consortium, 2017) Fluency (equivocal results) Vocabulary (unique contribution) More research necessary because “reading comprehension is not unidimensional” (Catts, in press) Comprehension is multidimensional (many components)


Expanding the Simple View One way to look at the components of reading comprehension is Scarborough’s Reading Rope (next slide) ●  The “rope” depicts the components of both decoding and comprehension ●  Comprehension includes several subcomponents: -- Vocabulary -- Background knowledge -- Language structures (syntax, semantics) -- Verbal reasoning (inferences, metaphors) -- Literacy knowledge (genre, print concepts) ● 


Scarborough’s “Rope” Model

Reading is a multifaceted skill, gradually acquired over years of instruction and practice.


Expanding the Simple View Another way to conceptualize the components of reading comprehension that has been proposed by researchers is the situation model ●  Situation model is a “mental representation of meaning as it is expressed by the [oral or written] text” (Kintsch & Rawson, 2005) ●  Three levels of mental representation that require different skills: -- Surface code (lowest level) -- Textbase representation -- Situation model (highest level, reading and writing) ● 


Expanding the Simple View (Kim, 2017)


Situation Model Surface Code (Foundational language and cognitive skills necessary for all tasks)

Textbase (Higher order Cognitive Skills)

•  Inference (from vocabulary & •  •  Vocabulary •  Background Knowledge background knowledge, infer from characters & author’s •  Grammatical •  purpose) Knowledge •  Theory of Mind (ability to infer •  Working Memory •  others’ perspectives) •  Comprehension Monitoring •  •  Attentional Control (evaluate adequacy of •  Necessary, but not propositions compared to sufficient for other parts of text and to own comprehension background knowledge)

Situation Model (Deep understanding of the text) Discourse comprehension Reading and listening comprehension Discourse production Writing


Kim, 2017 in Scientific Studies of Reading ●  “ Word reading and listening comprehension

are upper-level skills that are built on multiple language and cognitive component skills..” (p. 1)

●  Her comment is depicted on the next slide


Expanding the Simple View (Landscape Report, 2016)


Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) Fluency

Decoding

Phonemic Awareness

Pseudoword Decoding (Phonics)

x

Language Comprehension

Vocabulary

Text Comprehension


Enhanced Simple View of Reading Model Fluency

Decoding

x

Language Comprehension Surface Code

Phonological Awareness

Pseudoword Decoding (Phonics)

=

Text Base

Vocabulary

Inference

Background Knowledge

Theory of Mind

Working Memory Grammar Knowledge Attentional Control Motivation

Perspective Taking Comprehension Monitoring Genre (text structure)

Reading

Situation Model Discourse Comprehension and ProductionReading and Writing


Question Why are language comprehension and reading comprehension more difficult than we think? 1. _______________________ 2. _______________________ 3. _______________________


Answers 1. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a multi-component skill (not

unidimensional)

2. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hard to distinguish which skill (subcomponent) is deficient in a poor reader 3. Other reasons?


III. The Simple View of Reading and Foreign (Second) Language Learning


Foreign Language Reading--The Simple View ●  ●  ●  ●  ● 

In alphabetic languages, SVR asserts that R = D x C Reading equals the product of decoding (D) and listening (language) comprehension (C) Decoding (D) is necessary but not sufficient for reading Listening (language) comprehension (C) is necessary but not sufficient for reading My recent studies have investigated whether the SVR can be applied to U.S. students learning foreign languages, in this case, Spanish


Sparks, Foreign Language Annals, 2015


Sparks & Patton, Hispania, 2016


Foreign Language Annals, 2017


Sparks & Luebbers, J. of Learning Disabilities, 2018


Sparks et al. Hispania, in press


FL Reading—The Simple View ●  ●  ●  ●  ●  ●  ● 

Random sample of U.S. students completing 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year Spanish courses in high school (n = 307) Spanish I (n = 293), Spanish II (n = 268), Spanish III (n = 51) 50% males and 50% females Middle SES public, suburban district, 4 high schools All monolingual English speakers, no students on IEPs/504s 5 days per week, 180 days per year, 165 total hours Part of a larger study where all students were administered a large battery of L1 tests, a FL aptitude test, Spanish achievement and proficiency tests


FL Reading—The Simple View ●  ●  ●  ●  ●  ●  ● 

L1 word decoding, vocabulary, reading comprehension, writing, language analysis L1 PSTM L1 Working Memory L1 Metacognitive knowledge FL Aptitude-Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) Administered at beginning of Spanish I L2 (Spanish) phoneme awareness, administered at end of Spanish I


FL Reading—The Simple View ●  ●  ●  ●  ●  ●  ● 

Instrument-Bateria III Woodcock-Munoz Pruebas de aprovechamiento standardized on native Spanish speakers Measures of Spanish achievement administered at end of each year of Spanish I, II, and III Spanish word decoding Spanish pseudoword decoding Spanish reading comprehension Spanish vocabulary and listening comprehension Spanish spelling, writing, oral proficiency (OPI)


FL Reading—The Simple View ● 

Why compare U.S students to native Spanish speakers?

●  ●  ● 

Comparison to other U.S. students reveals little about how well a student has learned Spanish For example, FL grades of A tell student (parent) only that s/he did better than others who made lower grades Scoring 95th percentile on the National Spanish Exam just compares U.S. students to other U.S. students


FL Reading—The Simple View ● 

But, is it fair to compare U.S. monolingual English speakers to native Spanish speakers?

1. Native speakers of other languages are routinely compared to native English speakers on standardized tests ●  2. Comparisons can establish functional benchmarks for U.S students enrolled in Spanish courses ●  3. There have been NO studies that have compared U.S. students to native Spanish speakers on standardized tests ● 


Simple View of Reading Model Fluency

Decoding

Phonemic Awareness

Pseudoword decoding (Phonics)

x

Language Comprehension

Vocabulary

Text Comprehension


Premises of SVR for Foreign Language (FL) Reading ● 

1. Both decoding and language comprehension are necessary for skilled reading (D x C = R)

● 

2. Decoding and listening (language) comprehension make separate and independent contributions to reading skill

● 

3. There will be different types of FL readers, depending on their FL decoding and FL language comprehension skills


Types of FL Readers Proposed by the SVR Model Decoding

Language (Listening) Comprehension

Good

Poor

Poor

Good

Dyslexia

Good

Specific decoding deficit

No deficits

Garden Variety(Mixed)

Hyperlexia

Decoding and comprehension deficits

Specific language comprehension deficit


Defining Types of FL Readers Type of Reader Good

Garden Variety

Dyslexic

Hyperlexic

Decoding SS > 85

SS < 85

-----------

-----------

Comprehension

Difference

SS > 85

<1.5 SD between Decoding and Comprehension

SS < 85

<1.5 SD between Decoding and Comprehension

-------------

Decoding < Comprehension by at least 1.5 SD

-------------

Decoding > Comprehension by at least 1.5 SD


Standard Scores

Below average range XXXXXXXXXXXXX Above average range

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Average range Standard Score SD Percentile Ranks

70 -2 2

85 -1 15

100

Average Range 50

115

130

+1

+2

85

98


Good Reader

Language Comprehension Decoding Standard Score SD

70 -2

85 -1

100

Average Range

115

130

+1

+2


Mixed Reader

Language Comprehension Decoding Standard Score SD

70 -2

85 -1

100

Average Range

115

130

+1

+2


Hyperlexic Reader

Language Comprehension Decoding Standard Score SD

70 -2

85 -1

100

Average Range

115

130

+1

+2


Dyslexic Reader

Language Comprehension Decoding Standard Score SD

70 -2

85 -1

100

Average Range

115

130

+1

+2


FL Reading—The Simple View Research Questions: Would U.S. FL Learners…… ● 1. Exhibit good or poor Spanish word decoding and reading comprehension skills? ● 2. Meet criteria for types of FL reading “disability” according to SVR model? ● 3. Display variability in their reading profiles proposed by the SVR model?


Research Question #1 Would U.S. FL learners exhibit good or poor Spanish word decoding and reading comprehension skills?


M, SD on Spanish measures for US high school students completing Spanish II compared to native Spanish speakers (M = 100, SD = 15) Spanish subtest

9th grade

6th grade

3rd grade

1st grade

Word decoding

65.3

84.7

103.9

127.7

Reading Comprehension

6.8

28.6

50.5

79.8

Listening Comprehension

27.2

31.2

38.5

56.1

Vocabulary

13.1

14.3

14.4

18.3


9th Grade Norms

X Reading Comp X Listen Comp X Vocabulary

Word Decoding

X

Standard Score

70

85

SD

-2

-1

100

Average Range

115

130

+1

+2


6th Grade Norms

X Vocabulary Reading Comp X Listen Comp X Word Decoding Standard Score SD

X 70 -2

85 -1

100

Average Range

115

130

+1

+2


3rd Grade Norms

Vocabulary X X Reading Comp X Listen Comp Word Decoding

X

Standard Score

70

85

SD

-2

-1

100

Average Range

115

130

+1

+2


1st Grade Norms

Vocabulary X Reading Comp Listen Comp Word Decoding

X

X X

Standard Score

70

85

SD

-2

-1

100

Average Range

115 +1

130 +2


Research Question #2 Would U.S. FL learners meet criteria for types of FL reading â&#x20AC;&#x153;disabilityâ&#x20AC;? according to SVR model?


Differences in Spanish word decoding and Spanish reading comprehension scores Spanish subtest Word decoding

9th grade 6th grade

3rd grade

1st grade

65.3

84.7

103.9

127.7

Reading Comprehension

6.8 (-58.5) (3.9 SD)

28.6 (-56.1) (3.7 SD)

50.5 (-53.4) (3.6 SD)

79.8 (-47.9) (3.2 SD)

Listening Comprehension

27.2

31.2

38.5

56.1

Vocabulary

13.1

14.3

14.4

18.3


Differences in Spanish word decoding and Spanish listening comprehension scores Spanish subtest Word decoding

9th grade 6th grade

3rd grade

1st grade

65.3

84.7

103.9

127.7

Reading Comprehension

6.8

28.6

50.5

79.8

Listening Comprehension

27.2 (-38.1) (2.6 SD)

31.2 (-53.5) (3.6 SD)

38.5 (-65.4) (4.4 SD)

56.1 (-71.1) (4.8 SD)

13.1

14.3

14.4

18.3

Vocabulary


Correlations between Spanish reading comprehension, Spanish listening comprehension, and Spanish vocabulary Measures Spanish reading comprehension and Spanish listening comprehension Spanish reading comprehension and Spanish vocabulary Spanish listening comprehension and Spanish vocabulary

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

.40

.56

.78

.31

.46

.71

.43

.53

.70


Types of Readers in SVR at End of Spanish I (n = 293) Grade

Good

Garden Variety

Dyslexic

Hyperlexic

9

0

25

0

268

8

0

20

0

273

7

0

11

0

282

6

0

41

0

252

5

0

62

0

231

4

0

70

0

223

3

0

45

0

248

2

0

18

0

275

1

2

22

0

269


Types of Readers in SVR at End of Spanish II (n = 268) Grade

Good

Garden Variety

Dyslexic

Hyperlexic

10

0

8

0

260

9

0

14

0

254

8

0

9

0

259

7

0

9

0

259

6

0

12

0

256

5

0

25

0

243

4

0

33

0

235

3

0

15

0

253

2

11

48

0

209

1

2

9

0

257


Types of Readers in SVR at End of Spanish III (n = 51) Grade

Good

Garden Variety

Dyslexic

Hyperlexic

10

0

0

0

51

9

0

0

0

51

8

0

0

0

51

7

0

0

0

51

6

0

0

0

51

5

0

0

0

51

4

0

0

0

51

3

0

0

0

51

2

7

0

0

44

1

40

0

0

11


Hyperlexic Reader

Language Comprehension Decoding Standard Score SD

70 -2

85 -1

100

Average Range

115

130

+1

+2


Research Question #3 Would U. S. FL learners display variability in their reading profiles proposed by the SVR model?


Variability in FL Reader Profiles? 1. No, they were mostly hyperlexics with a few mixed (GV) profiles ●  2. Good decoding, poor comprehension ●  3. Poor decoding, poor comprehension ●  4. No good FL readers until U.S. high school students in Spanish I, II, and III were compared to native Spanish speakers in 1st grade (6-7 year olds) ● 


Implications for FL Reading Just like L1 reading research, SVR provides a coherent explanation for FL reading skills--and FL reader types-- in an alphabetic writing system ●  FL reading comprehension dependent on both word decoding and language comprehension ●  Word decoding and language comprehension make separate, independent contributions to FL reading skill ●  Reading and listening comprehension strongly correlated, correlations increase over time ● 


Implications for FL Reading ●  How many U.S. students have a FL reading

“disability”?

●  Using SVR model, ALL U.S. students have a FL

reading “disability (hyperlexia, garden variety) when compared to native Spanish speakers


IV. Summary/Wrap up


Summary of SVR Model ●  D x C = R ●  Decoding is necessary, but not sufficient for reading ●  Language Comprehension is necessary, but not

sufficient for reading ●  SVR is useful for assessment of reading skills ●  SVR identifies subtypes of good and poor readers ●  Good, Mixed, Hyperlexic, Dyslexic


Summary of SVR Model SVR is useful for planning instruction for poor readers ●  Reading skill will not improve unless the weak skill is remediated ●  SVR may not be simplistic ●  SVR model can be expanded to accommodate subcomponents of language comprehension ●  SVR model applicable to alphabetic orthographies ●  SVR explains reading skills of U.S. foreign language readers ● 


Thank you!!

Reading League Live Event May 2018 Dr. Richard Sparks Simple View of Reading  

The Simple View of Reading - connections to the complexity of reading comprehension and second language learning

Reading League Live Event May 2018 Dr. Richard Sparks Simple View of Reading  

The Simple View of Reading - connections to the complexity of reading comprehension and second language learning