The Simple View of Reading and the CI/ADI Classroom

As you know from previous blog posts, topics about about which I can talk forever (besides CI/ADI instruction and theory) are Star Wars and the Brady Bunch. However, in the past 12 months, I have become a HUGE fan of the podcast series Sold a Story, which details the effect of teaching students to "read" (more like "to guess") using the faulty balanced literacy/three cueing approach and how educators have neglected the science of reading. As a result of this, I have been very interested in this one question: what role (if any) does structured literacy (an alternate name for the science of reading) play in second language acquisition if as Krashen states:

Our reading ability, our ability to write in an acceptable writing style, our spelling ability, vocabulary knowledge, and our ability to handle complex syntax is the result of reading.

In a previous blog post, The Necessity of Background Language Knowledge for Reading in the CI/ADI Classroom, I wrote about the need for background language knowledge in reading in the target language. I discussed Hoover and Gough's hypothesis which addresses the importance of both word recognition and language comprehension when reading:

If one can do both of those processes when reading, then reading comprehension occurs. But if one lacks one (or both) of these processes when encountering a word, then comprehension cannot take place.

Gough is also known for his Simple View of Reading hypothesis (which is essentially the same as the above hypothesis). Essentially, it entails the same concepts as above but uses the term decoding (instead of word recognition) and presents it as a math equation. With Tumner (1986), Gough's Simple View of Reading is:

Decoding (D) x Language Comprehension (LC) = Reading Comprehension (RC)

In a nutshell, both skills are needed when reading. If a student is able to decode words (i.e., translate written words into spoken language through the mapping of sounds which those letters represent), the decoding score is 1.0. However, if the student does not know what those words mean, the language comprehension score is a 0. Therefore, 1 x 0 = 0, and no reading comprehension has occurred.

The inverse is true too. If a student possesses a huge background knowledge of language (primarily gained through listening), the language comprehension score is 1.0, but if the student cannot decode the word itself when reading, the decoding score is a 0. Therefore, 0 x 1.0 = 0, and no reading comprehension has occurred.

Notice that the reading comprehension score is NOT an average but a product. According to the Reading Rockets webpage, "When one variable is strong, [reading comprehension] will be equal to the weaker variable."

• 1.0 (D) x 0.5 (LC) = 0.5 (RC)   

In addition, "When BOTH decoding and language comprehension are less than strong, reading comprehension will be lower than either decoding or language comprehension."

• 0.5 (D) x 0.5 (LC) = 0.25 (RC)

Here is a video which does a great job of explaining the Simple View of Reading:

So What?

Whether or not you agree with the science of reading and structured literacy, you cannot deny that when students experience difficulty in reading comprehension of the target language, we usually chalk it up to a lack of language understanding, whether it be vocabulary or structures. I have already discussed this in The Necessity of Background Language Knowledge for Reading in the CI/ADI Classroom.

However, how much does decoding play a part in our students' struggle to read? What if their reading issues are with decoding target language words and not with language comprehension itself ? I think that we as world language teachers immediately project our students' current English reading level onto their target language reading level and assume that it is a 1:1. In reality, it is not. We must remember that our students are novice-level learners in the target language (babies/toddlers, if you will, in terms of their target language development). Therefore when students are learning to read the target language, their brains immediately and subconsciously will flip to their native language decoding system (assuming that they know how to read in their native language) and apply this pronunciation system to the target language. 

For example, it is difficult for me to read French, because I do not know the French system of pronunciation, letter sounds, vowel sounds, etc. So to me, the French which I know from hearing looks nothing like the French which I see when written - I cannot decode French when I read it. Hence, my reading comprehension score of reading French words which I know solely from hearing would be a 0, because my decoding score is a 0. When I read French, my first instinct is to apply English pronunciation rules to it. Even if I were to apply Latin pronunciation to French, it is incorrect. For example, the French word for bird is pronounced "wuh-ZOH." If I were to hear that word, I know for sure that it means "bird." Yet, in French it is spelled oiseau - to me, that word is pronounced "OY-sue." I have no idea why those letters and vowels when put together make a "wuh-ZOH" sound, because I do not know the French system of phonemes. Therefore, I certainly would not recognize the word when reading/decoding it.

Now I am not saying that we as World Language teachers need to do full-on target language phonics lessons in our classrooms and to drill individual phonemes/sounds in our students or that we should be explicitly correcting students' pronunciation - I do not even agree with the "I say the word and you repeat after me" drills which goes on in many classes. But how can we as CI/ADI teachers teach students target language phonemes necessary for decoding when reading without going overboard and yet still remain true to CI/ADI philosophy? The answer is that most likely we are already doing a number of these strategies but just need to tweak them a bit.

Stay tuned - that will be a future blog post.