Understanding

Reading
CompRehension
Processes and Practices

00_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Prelims.indd 1 8/28/2014 6:41:07 PM

 Education at SAGE
SAGE is a leading international publisher of journals,
books, and electronic media for academic, educational,
and professional markets.
Our education publishing includes:
• accessible and comprehensive texts for aspiring education
professionals and practitioners looking to further their
careers through continuing professional development
• inspirational advice and guidance for the classroom
• authoritative state of the art reference from the leading
authors in the field.

Find out more at: www.sagepub.co.uk/education

00_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Prelims.indd 2 8/28/2014 6:41:07 PM

 Understanding
Reading
CompRehension
Processes and Practices
Wayne TennenT

00_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Prelims.indd 3 8/28/2014 6:41:07 PM

 SAGE Publications Ltd © Wayne Tennent 2015
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road First published 2015
London EC1Y 1SP
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or
SAGE Publications Inc. private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the
2455 Teller Road Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by
any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction,
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the
Mathura Road Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning
New Delhi 110 044 reproduction outside those terms should be sent to
the publishers.
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014935448

Editor: James Clark
Assistant editor: Rachael Plant
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
Production editor: Imogen Roome
Copyeditor: Elaine Leek
A catalogue record for this book is available from
Proofreader: Leigh C. Timmins
the British Library
Marketing manager: Dilhara Attygalle
Cover design: Naomi Robinson
Typeset by: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd, Chennai, India
Printed in India at Replika Press Pvt Ltd

ISBN 978–1–4462–7317–3
ISBN 978–1–4462–7318–0 (pbk)

At SAGE we take sustainability seriously. Most of our products are printed in the UK using FSC papers and boards.
When we print overseas we ensure sustainable papers are used as measured by the Egmont grading system.
We undertake an annual audit to monitor our sustainability.

00_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Prelims.indd 4 8/28/2014 6:41:07 PM

 For George

00_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Prelims.indd 5 8/28/2014 6:41:07 PM

00_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Prelims.indd 6 8/28/2014 6:41:07 PM
 CONTENTS

About the Author viii

Acknowledgements ix

1 Locating reading 1
2 Locating comprehension 19

SECTION 1: PROCESSES 35

3 Knowledge: of life and language 37

4 Memory and monitoring 52
5 Inference making: definition and difficulties 68
6 Coherence inferences 85
7 Interrogative inferences 101
8 Text comprehension: uniting the separate components 115

SECTION 2: PRACTICES 135

9 Selecting texts 137

10 Teaching comprehension: pedagogical principles 154
11 Teaching comprehension: pedagogy in practice 173

Conclusion 192
References 195
Index 206

00_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Prelims.indd 7 8/28/2014 6:41:08 PM

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Wayne Tennent is a Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of East London.

He worked for a number of years as a class teacher in London. He also spent
some time working away from the UK, teaching in Greece, Brunei and New
Zealand. He has completed a PhD that investigated ways to develop children’s
comprehension in group reading contexts.

00_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Prelims.indd 8 8/28/2014 6:41:08 PM

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to family and friends, particularly June, Mary, Don, Nigel, John, Jim,
Jonesy, Nikki, Venessa and Brian.
Thanks to colleagues, particularly Jane Hurry, Helen Mitchell, Paula Bosanquet
and David Reedy.
Thanks to friends, colleagues and children in the following organisations
and schools: The United Kingdom Literacy Association; Gants Hill School
Improvement Learning Community; the Rochford and Rayleigh reading project
schools; the Barking & Dagenham reading project schools; Hamilton Primary
School, Colchester, Essex LA; and Earlham Primary School, Newham LA.
Particular thanks to the teachers and educators whose work informs the Practices
section of this book: Ian Casey, Cranbrook Primary School, Redbridge LA; James
Grant, Lauriston Primary School, Hackney LA; Pippa Couch, art educator; Sophia
Morley and Fran Norris, Hamilton Primary School, Colchester, Essex LA; and Ben
Meyjes, Highlands Primary School, Redbridge, LA. It has been a privilege to work
with you, and see the impact you have had on children’s reading.
Special thanks to Gaye Byars.
SAGE would like to thank the following reviewers whose comments helped to
shape this book in its early stages:

Julie Bowtell, University of Hertfordshire

Dr Cathy Burnett, Sheffield Hallam University
Howard Cotton, Plymouth University
Naomi Flynn, University of Winchester
Louise Lambert, University of Northampton
Elaine Matchett, Birmingham City University

00_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Prelims.indd 9 8/28/2014 6:41:08 PM

00_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Prelims.indd 10 8/28/2014 6:41:08 PM
 CHAPTER 1

LOCATING READING

Chapter Overview
This chapter aims to locate reading comprehension within the wider construct of
‘reading’. It argues that any conception of what comprehension is, or might be,
will relate to a wider conception of reading. The simple view of reading (Gough
and Tunmer, 1986) has become a prominent conceptual framework for the
teaching of reading. The manner in which this view conceives reading is exam-
ined. Research findings related to the simple view that inform the teacher of
reading are presented. Following this, a number of issues are raised that are
perhaps not made obvious by the simple view, including how it might be inter-
preted and the fact that comprehension itself is comprised of component parts.
It is suggested that to support children’s comprehension of text, other perspec-
tives on reading need to be considered.

CAN BABOONS READ?

To consider what is meant by ‘reading comprehension’ it is useful to consider

what is meant by reading in the first place. An interesting article appeared in The
Independent newspaper in 2012 under the headline:

‘Literate’ baboons can tell genuine words from nonsense

In the article, John Von Radowitz outlined a research study conducted by French
scientists that investigated the ability of baboons to discriminate between real words
and nonsense words. These baboons were presented with ‘dozens’ of genuine

01_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Ch 01.indd 1 8/28/2014 6:41:11 PM

 2 UNDERSTANDING READING COMPREHENSION

English words and more than 7,000 nonwords. The baboons were able to recog-
nise the real words with an accuracy rate of nearly 75% (Von Radowitz, 2012).
This study raises a number of questions. For example, why on earth would
anyone fund such a study? Also, the baboons had to engage with in excess of
7,000 words: is this a good use of their time? What could they possibly have learnt
from this? Actually, these are not flippant questions, though they may appear so.

Reading is not a natural act

One point to consider relates to the fact that we are not ‘hard-wired’ to read; and
by read in this context we mean to decode and interpret writing systems (whether
they are alphabetic and map sounds to letters, or logographic and map syllables
to symbols, as in Chinese). As a species we have adapted our visual and aural
perceptions which once would have kept us clear of predators and helped us
track prey, to the task of developing writing systems, and then learning how to
read them (Wolf, 2008). The word ‘learn’ is used advisedly. Our early evolutionary
ancestor would have had to learn to ‘read’ the tracks of a possible predator to see
if they were fresh, and to listen to see if the predator was still in the vicinity. They
would perhaps have used some sort of language to communicate this information
to nearby fellow humans. Clearly, they didn’t think, ‘Oh look! Those are the tracks
of our most dangerous predator’, and then just stand there. If they had, they might
possibly have been eaten and the species would have died out. Instead, our
ancestors would have had to comprehend the situation from the given ‘text’ (the
footprints). They would have had to analyse, evaluate and respond – probably by
running away. Wolf (2008) notes how through neuroscience we know that the
same parts of the brain that deal with visual and aural information are centrally
active when we have to decode written text, and that other parts of the brain that
deal with understanding and interpreting are also activated as we try to make
sense of it. Indeed, there is no part of the brain that is designed specifically to
deal with written text.
What the baboon study does, and as Von Radowitz outlines in his article, is pro-
vide some evidence to suggest that the ability to adapt these skills may pre-date
humankind. The study also suggests that the ability to adapt these ‘hard-wired’
skills to the task of recognising a writing system may not be unique to humans.
Interesting perhaps, but what relevance does it have for you as a teacher of read-
ing? The key point to note here is that this study reminds us that reading is not
a ‘natural’ act; if it was we would all be able to do it effortlessly. It would be like
breathing. But it is not. It needs to be taught.

Reading may mean different things to different people

A second point to consider relates to the description of the baboons as being
‘literate’. Von Radowitz may have been using some journalistic licence, and not a
little irony, to make the story appear more interesting, but it does make us exam-
ine what we consider ‘literate’ to mean. Barton (2007) has traced the etymology

01_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Ch 01.indd 2 8/28/2014 6:41:11 PM

 LOCATING READING 3

of ‘literate’ and cites the Oxford English Dictionary as noting a reference to the
word from 1432. At this time it meant to be educated and in holy orders. From
1924 the term came to be more clearly defined as being able to read and write.
This definition would describe literacy as a set of reading and writing skills that
simply need to be learnt; being ‘literate’ would mean that the task of learning
these skills has been achieved. This view of being literate was dominant in educa-
tion until about the 1980s (Pahl and Rowsell, 2011), although Au (2004) would
argue that this definition is still the one that is generally accepted.
Reflecting upon these definitions, you may wonder whether ‘literate’ is the cor-
rect term to use when applied to our baboons. The 1432 definition requires us to
consider the term ‘holy orders’; and also to consider what it means to be educated.
In Western Europe at this pre-industrial time, reading would largely have taken
place in monasteries and entailed the study of holy texts. This type of study would
have been conducted by monks who were likely to have been born into wealthy
families (Beare, 2000). Clearly this part of the definition would not apply to our
baboons. But are they educated? In all likelihood the response to this would be
‘no’. One rationale for this response would probably state that though they might
have been able to differentiate between (some) words and nonwords, they have
no understanding of what these words mean. Turning to the 1924 definition, a
similar point might be made. We could say that they have developed some literacy
skill in that they are able to recognise (some) words. However, it might be argued
that because they are unable to comprehend the word, they cannot be described
as literate. The point for you as a teacher of reading is to consider what actually
constitutes reading.

Dialogue Point
Defining terms
Through dialogue with colleagues, consider the following questions:

• What does it mean to be educated?

• What does it mean to be literate?
• What is reading?

At this stage, taking a line of argument that considers the relationship between
the recognition of words and the ability to understand them is a pertinent one.
In the course of studying the teaching of reading it is likely that the term ‘read-
ing wars’ (Stanovich and Stanovich, 1999) will be encountered. This refers to
a time (apparently) when there was a polarised debate as to how reading –
particularly early reading – should be taught; whether there should be an
exclusive focus on developing a knowledge of letters and sounds (phonetic knowl-
edge) before engaging with the meaning of texts, or whether children should

01_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Ch 01.indd 3 8/28/2014 6:41:11 PM

 4 UNDERSTANDING READING COMPREHENSION

be immersed in the meaning of texts at all times without necessarily focusing

on phonetic knowledge. As Levy (2011) points out, very few educators assumed
these polarised positions; and indeed there is general agreement that for chil-
dren to become skilled readers they need to develop a phonetic knowledge of
written texts as well as the ability to make meaning of (or comprehend) them
(Snow et al., 1998).
It is perhaps not surprising then that the conceptual framework for reading
described as the ‘The simple view of reading’ (Gough and Tunmer, 1986) has
come to prominence, as it defines reading in relation to these two components
specifically.

THE SIMPLE VIEW OF READING

The simple view of reading is a psychologically-based framework which suggests

that, in its simplest form, reading is composed of two key over-arching compo-
nents: word recognition and linguistic comprehension.
Gough et al. (1996) capture this in the following hypothetical ‘formula’:

Reading = decoding x comprehension

By decoding, Gough and colleagues mean context-free word recognition; the

ability to recognise written text effortlessly. It does not relate to any kind of under-
standing of what that written text might mean. This relates to the spoken language
comprehension part of the equation, by which the authors mean the interpreta-
tion of words, sentences and discourse.
The description of this as a hypothetical ‘formula’ is apt. A formula of this
nature suggests numbers can be used to represent decoding and spoken language
comprehension, which in turn will provide an overall score for reading. This is
not the case here. This is emphasised by the use of the multiplication symbol to
describe the relationship between decoding and comprehension. A reader may
be unable to decode a text, but may have some level of language comprehen-
sion. They would score a hypothetical ‘zero’ for decoding and score positively for
comprehension:

Reading = decoding x comprehension

0x1

If these two scores were added together, the reader would achieve a positive
score for reading, when clearly they have read nothing. A multiplicative rela-
tionship means a zero score for decoding would mean a zero score for reading
overall.
The same is true if the situation is reversed. It may be possible to decode the
text, but if the reader has no comprehension of the language then the score for
reading would also be zero.

01_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Ch 01.indd 4 8/28/2014 6:41:12 PM

 LOCATING READING 5

Reading = decoding x comprehension

1x0

The rationale for presenting this as a formula is to show that if we want to say
someone is reading, they need to be able to demonstrate both decoding ability
and a comprehension of the text.

The simple view of reading: both decoding

ability and comprehension are required
A worked example

1. I don’t know the code but I can use my spoken language comprehension

The following text is an actual English sentence; it uses the exact spellings of
English words but it uses the font Wingdings 3.
See if you can work out what the sentence says. (To begin with, can you work
out what the first word says?):

Th goalkeepe punche th bal.

In trying to make sense of this you probably used a number of strategies. You
applied your knowledge of English sentence
structure and probably decided that the
first word is ‘The’. Without probably even
thinking about it, you decided that the sec-
ond word is a noun and that the third word
is a verb. You were probably hoping that
the fourth word is also ‘the’, but it appears
to have different orthography (or letter
pattern) from the first word in the sentence
(but remember, capital letters have a differ-
ent shape to lower case letters). You might
have also noted the spelling pattern in the
last word, which ends in a double letter.
Throughout this activity you are certainly
trying to discern some sort of alphabetic
principle. However, because you do not
recognise the orthography of the letters it
is very difficult to make sense of it. It is also
very time-consuming.
A visual image might help, however.
State in one sentence what is happening
here, in the picture on the right: © isitsharp/istockphoto

01_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Ch 01.indd 5 8/28/2014 6:41:12 PM

 6 UNDERSTANDING READING COMPREHENSION

Providing a visual image means that the need to decode the written text has
been removed. Wyse et al. (2013: 135) would describe this as using ‘visual image
interpretation’, and you can probably make a statement that shows your com-
prehension of the picture.
And indeed,

Th goalkeepe punche th bal

does translate into

The  goalkeeper  punched  the  ball.

You comprehended the visual image by applying what you know about football.
The player allowed to use their hands (or fists) is called a goalkeeper and some-
times they might punch the ball rather than catch it. So you were probably able
to state something that approximates in meaning to the ‘Wingdings 3’ sentence.
Of course, approximating is not actually good enough because while the reader
may get the gist of the text this may not reflect the exact wording. This still leaves
room for a misconception.
The key point here is that you were able to apply your spoken language com-
prehension in relation to the visual image and make sense of what was happen-
ing. It is highly unlikely that you were able to access the written text. As such,
according to the simple view, you were not reading.
The simple view of reading notes that readers need to know ‘the code’ of the
language to be able to read written text.

2. I know the code but I can’t apply my spoken language

comprehension
But what if you do know ‘the code’? Does this mean reading has taken place?
See if you can decode the following text and work out its meaning:

Ron im illy bashtruf. Ini vasby ti desh pinskehmough.

Ini vasby ti poosh football.

In common with our friends the baboons (perhaps), you probably recognised two
of the words in these sentences: Ron (probably someone’s name) and football.
You were probably able to decode every word (although you may have been
uncertain as to the pronunciation of ‘pinskehmough’: ‘ow’ as in ‘plough’; ‘o’ as
in ‘though’; ‘uff’ as in ‘tough’; ‘ock’ as in ‘lough’, ‘off’ as in ‘cough’ ...?), but your
reading rate probably slowed down to ensure the accurate decoding of unknown

01_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Ch 01.indd 6 8/28/2014 6:41:12 PM

 LOCATING READING 7

spelling patterns. Again you probably attempted to apply your knowledge of

grammar to mark such things as nouns and verbs. In this situation you were
applying your knowledge of the alphabetic principle, but because you did not
recognise the words you could not assign meaning to the text (and perhaps you
did not even try). In effect you were ‘barking’ at the text. By this we mean being
able to decode written text with ease and fluency while making no attempt to
understand it.
Again, this is not reading, and decoding without comprehension is not
enough.

RESEARCH BASED ON THE SIMPLE VIEW OF READING:

SOME FINDINGS

A number of research studies have investigated the relationship between decod-

ing and spoken language comprehension and these have uncovered findings that
have relevance to you as a teacher of reading.

Decoding text is more difficult for younger children

Gough et al. (1996) investigated the relationship between word recognition,
reading comprehension and listening comprehension. They did this by way of
a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis involves sifting through completed studies that
fit the criteria being investigated (in this case, studies that have focused on the
relationship between word recognition, reading comprehension and listening
comprehension), noting the findings in the data and then reanalysing them to
find common trends. In all, they looked at seventeen studies that focused on
monolingual speakers and separated their analysis into four age-related
groups: Grades 1/2 (6–8-year-olds), Grades 3/4 (8–10-year-olds), Grades 5/6
(10–12-year-olds), and college age. They found a strong correlation existed
between word recognition and reading comprehension in younger children.
This correlation became less strong the older the children were. This means
that for younger children the ability to comprehend written text is more
dependent on word recognition ability than for older children.
Catts et al. (2005) had similar findings. In a longitudinal study they tracked
604 children in their second (7–8-year-olds), fourth (9–10-year-olds) and eighth
(13–14-year-olds) grades of schooling to test their language reading and cognitive
abilities. Using a number of tests (which again included word recognition, listen-
ing comprehension and reading comprehension), they found that difficulties with
reading comprehension could be explained by word recognition difficulties for

01_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Ch 01.indd 7 8/28/2014 6:41:12 PM

 8 UNDERSTANDING READING COMPREHENSION

a number of the younger children. Word recognition issues were less likely to
explain comprehension difficulties for older children.
This probably comes as no surprise. For younger readers, particularly begin-
ning readers, decoding is a more effortful task because they are still learning
that each letter (or cluster of letters) relates to a particular sound (grapheme–
phoneme correspondence). Perfetti et al. (1996) describe this as a ‘decoding
bottleneck’ (see Box below) because the task of attending to the words in text
consumes the majority of the child’s processing capacity. As they encounter
the words more regularly in text this skill becomes more automatic and takes
less effort. Frith (1985) describes this as moving from the alphabetic stage,
where children develop an awareness of letter/sound relationships and begin
to segment words into syllables and sounds, as with c – at or c – a – t, to the
orthographic stage, where they no longer need to sound out words on a regular
basis, and are able to recognise a large number of words instantly and auto-
matically. The majority of children get better and quicker at decoding text as
they get older and therefore have more cognitive resources to spend on making
sense of it. So teachers should be aware of the importance of getting the words
off the page.

Perfetti et al.’s (1996) ‘decoding bottleneck’

When children (and adults as well) attempt to read written text they do so with
limited processing capacity. This means that we all have limited cognitive
resources we can apply to the task.
This can be demonstrated by looking at the bottles in shown below. Imagine
these bottles show all the space two people have in their head when they are
reading a written text, and that the water in the bottle shows how much of their
limited processing capacity they have to spend on decoding the text.

Comprehension
Comprehension

Decoding
Decoding

For the first person it takes a lot of effort to decode the text and as a result they
have less ‘space’ (or processing capacity) to spend on trying to make sense of
it. This is what Perfetti et al. mean by a ‘decoding bottleneck’. For the second
person, decoding the text has been a relatively easy task and they have more
available resources to comprehend it.

01_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Ch 01.indd 8 8/28/2014 6:41:13 PM

 LOCATING READING 9

There are specific processes required to comprehend written text,

which are different from those required for decoding
An inter-dependent relationship clearly exists between the two processes of
decoding and comprehension because they are both necessary for reading. The
simple view provides an understanding that both these linguistic processes need
to be applied fluently and efficiently (Snowling and Hume, 2005) for written text
to be understood. The worked examples above highlight the fact that the com-
plete absence of either one of these two components means that reading cannot
take place.
Gough et al. (1996), however, suggest these components can be also disassoci-
ated. This probably comes as no surprise. The worked example above showed
that both decoding and comprehension were needed to read and are thus inter-
dependent; but it also showed that the two can be separated. You comprehended
the picture that supported the undecodable text and you decoded the nonsense
text without making any sense of it.
Indeed, studies have actively attempted to separate the components of word
recognition and comprehension. The Catts et al. (2005) study is one. Another is
the Aaron et al. (1999) study that analysed the performance of 139 children in
Grades 3 (8–9-year-olds), 4 (9–10-year-olds) and 6 (11–12-year-olds) on a range
of tests including reading comprehension, listening comprehension, nonword
and irregular word reading, vocabulary and tests of word reading speed. Sixteen
children were noted to have some kind of reading difficulty. For most of these chil-
dren the source of the difficulty tended to be specific to either word recognition
ability or comprehension, not both.
This finding suggests that for effective reading to occur there must be pro-
cesses taking place that are specific to either word recognition or comprehen-
sion. Comprehension is different from word recognition and will therefore
require different teaching approaches.

Specific reading difficulties can be located

Disassociating the two components also provides the opportunity to locate where
children might be having specific difficulties with reading. Again, in the Aaron et al.
(1999) study the authors investigated whether there were identifiable subgroups
of poor readers within the group of 16 children they had identified. They
described this subgroup of children as having some kind of reading disability.
They found that two of these children had reading profiles that showed a defi-
ciency in decoding skill alone, and a further two were deficient in listening com-
prehension alone. Three children showed weaknesses in all areas, suggesting
a third subgroup with a mixed reading disorder. Thus, they were also able to
identify specific areas of reading deficit.
In this way, the simple view may help to provide a clearer outline of children’s
reading profiles. For example, a child with good spoken language comprehen-
sion but poor word recognition might be considered dyslexic. Proponents of

01_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Ch 01.indd 9 8/28/2014 6:41:13 PM

 10 UNDERSTANDING READING COMPREHENSION

the simple view would suggest this informs the teacher as to types of teaching
strategies they might use.

There is a link between reading comprehension and listening

comprehension
One further finding of interest suggests there is a link between reading compre-
hension and listening comprehension. In the same meta-analysis, Gough et al.
(1996) found a general trend in their data which suggested that the older the
subjects, the stronger the relationship between reading comprehension and listen-
ing comprehension. Once again, this is supported by Catts et al. (2005), who
found that older children who were having reading comprehension difficulties
were likely to have listening comprehension difficulties too, rather than any
associated difficulty with word recognition.
Gough et al. explain this link by noting that reading and listening comprehen-
sion require access to similar linguistic processes; the only difference is the point
of access. Written text is accessed via the eye; listening requires access via the ear.
As Cain (2010) notes, listening comprehension and reading comprehension are
not exactly the same thing. Nonetheless, the link between the two has implica-
tions for us as teachers; if we want to support children’s reading comprehension
then there might be a call also to support their listening skills.

INTERPRETING THE SIMPLE VIEW – READING AS A LINEAR

PROGRESSION

The simple view of reading has had a significant impact – whether implicitly or
explicitly – on how reading is taught in many parts of the world, including the
United States (Davis, 2006), Australia and New Zealand (Wilkinson et al., 2000)
and Ireland (Concannon-Gibney and Murphy, 2010). In England, the Independent
Review of the Teaching of Early Reading: Final Report (Rose, 2006) recommended
that the simple view of reading should be adopted as the conceptual framework
for the teaching of reading in all state primary schools in England (pupils aged
4–11 years).
Yet what is interesting here is the manner in which this simple view has been
interpreted. We have already noted by analysing the ‘formula’ that for reading to take
place both decoding and comprehension are required. Alongside this, it was also
noted that various studies have disassociated the components of word recognition
and comprehension and treated them as separate entities. While this has clarified the
fact that these components make different, discrete demands upon readers, it might
be argued that this separation has led to the simple view being interpreted (explicitly
in some contexts, less so in others) in a linear manner; that the decoding aspects of
reading need to be addressed first before comprehension can be looked at.
Indeed, advocates of the simple view do seem to support this. Gough et al.
(1996) state that for beginning readers the texts they read by themselves in these

01_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Ch 01.indd 10 8/28/2014 6:41:13 PM

 LOCATING READING 11

earliest stages will for the most part not be particularly challenging to their
language comprehension system: the problem that early readers have is to gain
access to this system from the print. They argue that for ‘reading’ to take place in
these early years the emphasis will have to be on developing decoding skills –
children need most at this point to develop visual word recognition processes.
As children get older they will develop a mastery of decoding skills. The emphasis
will then begin to switch away from decoding and the focus of reading will turn
towards comprehension. This suggests that as reading skill develops, the associ-
ated language processes become more important than the ability to decode.
Perfetti et al. (2005) also argue that the need to establish appropriate word rec-
ognition skills should take priority over the development of metacognitive skills.
Indeed, they suggest that attempting to develop metacognitive skills alongside
word recognition skills is detrimental to the latter. Presumably they are referring
to the ‘decoding bottleneck’ outlined earlier in this chapter, where limited pro-
cessing capacity means that the greater amount of cognitive resources spent on
decoding text leaves less cognitive resources available to spend on comprehending
the text.

The linear view manifested in classroom practice: addressing the

decoding component
How this has become manifested in classrooms is perhaps best captured in the
phrase ‘learning to read, reading to learn’. This phrase (which has become a man-
tra in some circles) surfaced in an article by Chall et al. (1990) which proposed
that from Kindergarten to Grade 3 (4–8-year-olds) the focus of reading should be
on ‘learning to read’, by which they mean decoding – getting the words off the
page. Following this, from Grade 4 onwards the focus should then shift to ‘read-
ing to learn’, by which they mean comprehension broadly. This equates to what
van den Broek et al. (2005) describe as the ‘the commonly-held view’ of teaching
reading, and is based on the premise that once decoding ability is in place,
comprehension should more easily follow.
A consequence of this is that there has been a foregrounding on the word
recognition component, most clearly evidenced by the movement towards the
implementation of phonics instruction across the English-speaking world. Strauss
and Altwerger (2007) note that The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(2001) – otherwise known as ‘No Child Left Behind’ – has made phonics the only
legal approach to the teaching of early reading in the United States. In Australia,
the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy: Teaching Reading (Department
of Education, Science and Training, 2005) stated that ‘an early and systematic
emphasis on the explicit teaching of phonics’ (p. 9) was a feature of successful
reading instruction, and this is now embedded in the Australian Curriculum (2011).
In New Zealand, phonics has not been incorporated into policy – possibly because
of a strong historical link to the whole language approach (Soler and Openshaw,
2007). However, Blaiklock and Haddow (2007) outline a study where a systematic
phonics programme was implemented successfully alongside the whole language

01_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Ch 01.indd 11 8/28/2014 6:41:13 PM

 12 UNDERSTANDING READING COMPREHENSION

approach, leading the authors to call for its wider adoption – something Patel
(2010) also calls for. In England the Independent Review of the Teaching of Early
Reading: Final Report (Rose, 2006) stated that reading accuracy is most effectively
supported through the systematic (planned and regular) teaching of phonics and
cites the meta-analyses completed by Torgerson et al. (2006) in support of this.
Rose advocated the exclusive use of synthetic phonics, which emphasises relat-
ing phonemes to graphemes and blending them together to make words, rather
than analytic phonics where children are taught to recognise phonemes in whole
words and segment them. Wyse and Styles (2007) note that Torgerson et al. (2006)
did not comment on the specific type of phonics instruction; they only stated that
the instruction should be systematic. Regardless, as a result of this review, syn-
thetic phonics programmes have become an everyday feature in English primary
classrooms and the pre-eminence of synthetic phonics is enshrined in the new
curriculum (Department for Education (DfE), 2014).
So the impact of the simple view on the word-recognition aspect of reading has
been substantial in terms of what should be taught, and in some instances also
how it should be taught.

TURNING TOWARDS COMPREHENSION

The ability of children to comprehend text is proving to be an issue internation-

ally. Here are some examples to show this:

• In England, it is estimated that one in every ten children is likely to have a

specific reading comprehension difficulty that will cause them to perform
below expected levels (Nation and Snowling, 1997).
• In the United States, Kamil et al. (2008) analysed the results of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in Reading (2007) report, and
found that 69% of Eighth Graders (13–14-year-olds) were unable to compre-
hend text to a level appropriate to their grade.
• In Australia, Woolley (2007) states that Year 3 (8–9-year-olds) is a recognised
point at which comprehension difficulties are likely to surface for a signifi-
cant number of Australian children, which leads to a stagnation in reading
development.

In the previous section we saw how attempts to address the decoding component
described in the simple view of reading led to a focus on phonics. Given these
three scenarios it would make sense to look to the research relating to the com-
prehension component. And at this point things start to become more complex.
It was noted earlier that one of the findings from research suggested that the
process of comprehension was different from that of decoding. Evidence from the
Aaron et al. (1999) study was cited to support this. However, what is not made
clear in the Aaron et al. study is what exactly the process of comprehension

01_Tennent_BAB1406B0098_Ch 01.indd 12 8/28/2014 6:41:13 PM