Learning to read: Should we keep things simple?

Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). Learning to read: Should we keep things simple? Reading Research Quarterly, 50(2), 151-169.


Reading is a complex process. Researchers have been seeking to better understand that process for many years now, and for those of us who have spent our career lives as literacy educators, the fascination with reading and how it actually “works” is ongoing and intense. Some of these researchers have proposed various models of reading; one that has been influential in recent years, the “simple view of reading” promulgated by Gough and his colleagues, proposes that reading achievement can be predicted by looking at two variables: the ability to decode words accurately and rapidly, and the ability to listen to and comprehend a text that is read aloud. This study supports that model, but maintains that the reading process goes beyond that “simple” definition.

For me, part of the beauty of the process is its complexity, though admittedly the sheer complexity of reading is a challenge for researchers. This article illustrates some of the challenges involved when we try to tease out the variables that comprise reading. In some ways, at least in my view, separating the variables is an exercise in futility, because when readers actually engage in reading, all of these variables are probably operating simultaneously. How can you really separate word recognition from comprehension? How can you separate fluency from word recognition and comprehension?

Nevertheless, these researchers did attempt to isolate some of the component variables of reading, and to look at some of the relationships among those variables. They used multiple measures of the variables they studied: word reading accuracy, word reading fluency, listening comprehension, reading comprehension, and vocabulary. They looked at the results of these measures for a sample of children across Grades 1, 2, and 3. Measuring the variables across several ages was important because the researchers hypothesized that relationships between variables would change as a function of age. Previous research has indicated that word recognition is a stronger variable for the youngest readers, but listening comprehension is stronger than word recognition for older readers.

Here’s what they reported as findings:

First, the data basically supported the “simple” model of reading, with both word recognition and listening comprehension strongly related to reading comprehension. However, the researchers propose that the simple model does not tell enough; there is more going on in reading than that. The researchers found evidence that supported the previous research showing that word recognition becomes less strongly related to reading comprehension as readers grow older, and listening comprehension becomes more strongly related. Age is definitely a factor in how the reading process works. One of the most important contributions of this cross-sectional study was that the researchers were able to pinpoint the age at which this shift in variable relationships occurs: at about Grade 2, which is earlier than some researchers had previously suggested.

A third finding concerned whether word reading accuracy and word reading fluency were separate variables having separate relationships with reading comprehension, and the answer seems to be yes. Furthermore, those relationships also varied by age, with word reading accuracy being more strongly related to reading comprehension for Grade 1 readers, with the relationship between word reading fluency and reading comprehension becoming stronger after Grade 1. By Grade 3, word recognition fluency was the only variable of the two that was still related to reading comprehension. Again, this is evidence of the developmental trajectory that learning to read seems to take in the early elementary grades.

Finally, the researchers looked at the relationships among vocabulary, word recognition, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension. Vocabulary was related directly to word recognition and listening comprehension, and through those two factors, vocabulary was indirectly related to reading comprehension.

The study was fascinating to me simply because I am interested in the workings of reading, but I am still working on what the practical applications of these findings are. As I noted earlier, the actual act of reading is messier and more complex than research findings like this might indicate. There is a lot more going on at once when people read than we probably can ever completely understand. This research does offer developmental insights about readers at various ages, and tells me that different kinds of assessments are definitely needed at various grade levels. This study points to major differences between how we should assess reading in first grade versus in second or third grade. We definitely need to help teachers better understand the range of developmental differences across grade levels in order to assess (and teach) in developmentally appropriate ways.

Postscript: My only real concern here was the lengthy battery of assessments these young study participants were asked to participate in. I counted 13 different measures. The researchers state that these took between five and six hours to administer. Of course, they were not all done in a single session, and parental consent had been obtained, so I assume there was full disclosure, and the study was almost certainly approved by a human experimentation board. Still, I cringed when I thought of 373 children ages about 6-9 being subjected to all of this testing. Yes, multiple measures are good, but this seemed a bit excessive to me. I’m not sure how much testing it is ethical to subject young children to, even in the name of research. One of the sites in the study is just down the road from me, and I have relatives in that school system, so I may do a little inquiring about this study, just to ease my own mind about this issue.