P. G. Aaron

THE COMPONENT MODEL OF READING: SIMPLE VIEW OF READING MADE A LITTLE MORE COMPLEX

The “Simple View of Reading” proposes that reading comprehension could be predicted by the product of decoding and linguistic comprehension. A somewhat modified version of this model suggests that the relationship between decoding and linguistic comprehension should be additive rather than multiplicative. This research is comprised of two studies. The first study compared the efficacy of the two formulas: (a) Reading Comprehension = Decoding ◊ Listening Comprehension, and (b) Reading Comprehension = Decoding + Listening Comprehension. The second study reported here explored whether adding another factor, speed of processing, to the Simple View of Reading formula improves its ability to predict reading comprehension. Forty third-grade children were administered word-attack and listening comprehension subtests from the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery; the reading comprehension subtest from the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests; and a list of 40 letters to measure speed of processing. The results showed that Decoding and Listening Comprehension, whether multiplied with each other or added to each other, did not significantly alter the outcome. Furthermore, while 48% of the variance for Reading Comprehension could be explained by Decoding and Listening Comprehension, speed of naming the letters added another 10%. A modified model of reading is proposed which can be expressed by the formula, R = D ◊ C + S.The “Simple View of Reading” proposes that reading comprehension could be predicted by the product of decoding and linguistic comprehension. A somewhat modified version of this model suggests that the relationship between decoding and linguistic comprehension should be additive rather than multiplicative. This research is comprised of two studies. The first study compared the efficacy of the two formulas: (a) Reading Comprehension = Decoding × Listening Comprehension, and (b) Reading Comprehension = Decoding + Listening Comprehension. The second study reported here explored whether adding another factor, speed of processing, to the Simple View of Reading formula improves its ability to predict reading comprehension. Forty third-grade children were administered word-attack and listening comprehension subtests from the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery; the reading comprehension subtest from the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests; and a list of 40 letters to measure speed of processing. The results showed that Decoding and Listening Comprehension, whether multiplied with each other or added to each other, did not significantly alter the outcome. Furthermore, while 48% of the variance for Reading Comprehension could be explained by Decoding and Listening Comprehension, speed of naming the letters added another 10%. A modified model of reading is proposed which can be expressed by the formula, R = D × C + S.

Handbook of orthography and literacy

Contents: Introduction to the Volume. Part I: Literacy Acquisition in Different Writing Systems. J. Pind, Evolution of an Alphabetic Writing System: The Case of Icelandic. B.E. Hagtvet, T. Helland, S-A.H. Lyster, Literacy Acquisition in Norwegian. C. Elbro, Literacy Acquisition in Danish: A Deep Orthography in Cross-Linguistic Light. H. Lyytinen, M. Aro, L. Holopainen, M. Leiwo, P. Lyytinen, A. Tolvanen, Childrens Language Development and Reading Acquisition in a Highly Transparent Orthography. A. Lehtonen, Sources of Information Children Use in Learning to Spell: The Case of Finnish Geminates. J. Jaffre, M. Fayol, Orthography and Literacy in French. R. Job, F. Peressotti, C. Mulatti, The Acquisition of Literacy in Italian. K. Landerl, V. Thaler, Reading and Spelling Acquisition and Dyslexia in German. A.M.T. Bosman, S. de Graaff, M.A.R. Gijsel, Double Dutch: The Dutch Spelling System and Learning to Spell in Dutch. J.S. Sainz, Literacy Acquisition in Spanish. C. Cardoso-Martins, Beginning Reading Acquisition in Brazilian Portuguese. C.D. Porpodas, Literacy Acquisition in Greek: Research Review of the Role of Phonological and Cognitive Factors. T. Nunes, A. Aidinis, P. Bryant, The Acquisition of Written Morphology in Greek. A.Y. Durgunoglu, How Language Characteristics Influence Turkish Literacy Development. V. Csepe, Literacy Acquisition and Dyslexia in Hungarian. A.A. Reid, Developmental Dyslexia: Evidence From Polish. A. Janyan, E. Andonova, Word Reading in Bulgarian Children and Adults. I. Sprugevica, I. Paunina, T. Hoien, Early Phonological Skill as a Predictor of Reading Acquisition in Latvian. E.L. Grigorenko, If John Were Ivan, Would He Fail in Reading? S. Abu-Rabia, H. Taha, Reading in Arabic Orthography: Characteristics, Research Findings, and Assessment. D. Ravid, Hebrew Orthography and Literacy. B. Baluch, Persian Orthography and Its Relation to Literacy. J. Kim, C. Davis, Literacy Acquisition in Korean Hangul: Investigating the Perceptual and Phonological Processing of Good and Poor Readers. P. Karanth, The Kagunita of Kannada--Learning to Read and Write an Indian Alphasyllabary. K.J. Alcock, Literacy in Kishwahili. H. Cheung, C. McBride-Chang, B. Wing-Yin Chow, Reading Chinese. Part II: Literacy Acquisition From Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. P.H.K. Seymour, Theoretical Framework for Beginning Reading in Different Orthographies. U. Goswami, Orthography, Phonology, and Reading Development: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. N. Akamatsu, Literacy Acquisition in Japanese-English Bilinguals. M. Caravolas, Learning to Spell in Different Languages: How Orthographic Variables Might Affect Early Literacy. K. Landerl, Reading Acquisition in Different Orthographies: Evidence From Direct Comparisons. M. Aro, Learning to Read: The Effect of Orthography. P.G. Aaron, R.M. Joshi, Learning to Spell From Print and Learning to Spell From Speech: A Study of Spelling of Children Who Speak Tamil, a Dravidian Language. R.M. Joshi, T. Hoien, X. Feng, R. Chengappa, R. Boulware-Gooden, Learning to Spell by Ear and by Eye: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Part III: Literacy Acquisition: Instructional Perspectives. R. Treiman, Knowledge About Letters as a Foundation for Reading and Spelling. P. Bryant, H. Deacon, T. Nunes, Morphology and Spelling: What Have Morphemes to Do With Spelling? W.E. Tunmer, J.W. Chapman, Metalinguistic Abilities, Phonological Recoding Skill, and the Use of Context in Beginning Reading Development: A Longitudinal Study. T. Nicholson, G.L. Ng, The Case for Teaching Phonemic Awareness and Simple Phonics to Preschoolers. L.C. Ehri, Alphabetics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read. R.S. Johnston, J.E. Watson, The Effectiveness of Synthetic Phonics Teaching in Developing Reading and Spelling Skills in English-Speaking Boys and Girls. R.K. Olson, Genetic?? and Environmental Influences on the Development of Reading and Related Cognitive Skills. D. Aram, O. Korat, I. Levin, Maternal Mediation in a Young Childs Writing Activity: A Sociocultural Perspective. R.L. Venezky, Foundations for Studying Basic Processes in Reading.

Reading and writing disorders in different orthographic systems

1. Developmental Dyslexia: A Cognitive Developmental Perspective..- 2. Decoding Instruction Based on Word Structure and Origin..- 3. Orthographic Memory and Learning to Read..- 4. Relationship between Cognitive Development, Decoding Skill, and Reading Comprehension in Learning-Disabled Dutch Children..- 5. Cerebral Laterality in a Group of Danish Dyslexic Children..- 6. Dyslexia in the German Language..- 7. Developmental Dyslexia in French Language..- 8. The Italian Language: Developmental Reading and Writing Problems..- 9. Reading Errors in Spanish..- 10. The Phonological Factor in Reading and Spelling of Greek..- 11. A Linguistic Study of Reading and Writing Disorders in Turkish, an Agglutinative Language..- 12. Orthography and Reading of the Arabic Language..- 13. Hebrew Orthography and Dyslexia-A Note..- 14. Language Representation and Reading in Kannada - A South Indian Language..- 15. Linguistic Parameters in the Diagnosis of Dyslexia in Japanese and Chinese..- 16. Reading and Reading Difficulties in a Morphemic Script..- 17. Lexical Access Viewed from the Information Processing Approach: Reading and Writing (Data from Pathology)..- 18. A Model of the Spelling Process: Evidence from Cognitively Impaired Subjects..- 19. Working Memory and Learning to Read..- 20. A Neuropsychological Model for the Role of Articulation in Verbal Short-term Memory and in Reading Comprehension..- 21. Mirror-Writing..- 22. Orthographic Systems and Developmental Dyslexia: A Reformulation of the Syndrome..

Cognitive Component of Componential Model of Reading Applied to Different Orthographies

Whether the simple view of reading (SVR) as incorporated in the componential model of reading (CMR) is applicable to other orthographies than English was explored in this study. Spanish, with transparent orthography and Chinese, with opaque orthography were selected because of their diverse characteristics. The first part reports a study of students from grades 2 and 3, whose home language and medium of instruction was Spanish, and were administered tests of decoding, listening, and reading comprehension. A comparison group of 49 children from Grade 2, 54 children from Grade 3, and 55 children from Grade 4, whose home language and instruction was English, were also administered tests of decoding, listening, and reading comprehension. Multiple regression analysis showed that approximately 60% of the variance in reading comprehension of Spanish participants and 50% of the variance in reading comprehension of English participants were explained by decoding and listening comprehension. Furthermore, the performance of third grade Spanish participants resembled that of fourth grade English-speaking participants. In the second study, 102 Chinese students from Grade 2 and 106 students from Grade 4 were administered tasks of Chinese character recognition, reading fluency, listening, and reading comprehension. Multiple regression analyses showed character recognition and listening comprehension accounted for 25% and 42% of the variance in Chinese reading comprehension at Grades 2 and 4 respectively. These results indicate that the simple view of reading is applicable to writing systems other than that of English.

Decoding and sight-word naming: Are they independent components of word recognition skill?

Word recognition skill is the foundation of the reading process. Word recognition could be accomplished by two major strategies: phonological decoding and sight-word reading, the latter being a marker for proficient reading. There is, however, a controversy regarding the relationship between decoding and sight-word reading, whether the two are independent or the latter is built on the foundations of the former. A related controversy about instructional strategy could be whether to use whole-word method to improve word recognition skills, or to first build decoding skills and then introduce sight words. Five goals were set up to address these issues: (a) developing a criterion that can be used easily by classroom teachers to assess sight-word reading ability, (b) examining this relationship between decoding and sight-word reading, (c) identifying the mechanism that can explain the relationship, (d) examining factors that facilitate sight-word reading, and (e) discussing potential instructional implications of these findings. In order to accomplish these goals, naming time and word-naming accuracy of three groups of subjects (elementary school children, children identified as having reading disability, and college students) were studied by using a variety of verbal materials. The over-all conclusions are that the difference in naming time of letters and words can be used as a metric for assessing sight-word reading skill. Sight-word reading appears to be intimately related to decoding. Sight-word reading is accomplished by parallel processing of constituent letters of words and is influenced also by the semantic nature of words. It is conjectured that sight-word reading instruction is likely to be successful if decoding skills are firmly established first.

Spelling without Phonology: A Study of Deaf and Hearing Children.

To what extent does phonology play a role in spelling English words? The written responses of deaf students and groups of hearing children to five tasks were subjected to quantitative and qualitative analyses. The first three tasks were used to see if deaf students utilized phonology when they generated their own words and to compare their spelling performance with that of hearing subjects. The fourth and fifth tasks were designed to compare the spelling performance of deaf and hearing subjects when they were required to reproduce visually presented common words. Results showed that deaf students, who were chronologically much older, were not better spellers than hearing children from the fifth grade. Analysis of data revealed little evidence that the deaf students involved in the present study utilize phonology in spelling. Nor did word-specific visual memory for entire words appears to play a role in spelling by deaf students. Rote visual memory for letter patterns and sequences of letters within words, however, appears to play a role in the spelling by deaf students. It is concluded that sensitivity to the stochastic-dependent probabilities of letter sequences may aid spelling up to certain point but phonology is essential for spelling words whose structure is morphophonemically complex.

Qualitative and quantitative differences among dyslexic, normal, and nondyslexic poor readers

This study tested the hypothesis that when a stringent criterion of normal IQ is applied in the selection of dyslexic readers, and when dyslexics, nondyslexic poor readers, and normal readers are matched on reading comprehension — rather than word reading — significant differences among these groups can be demonstrated. Two groups of poor readers from primary grades, one with normal IQ (dyslexics) and the other with below-average IQ (nonspecific reading disabled, NSRD) were matched for reading comprehension with a group of younger normal readers. The dyslexic group was found to be inferior to the other two groups in tests of decoding and spelling. The dyslexic readers were more context-dependent for word recognition than the other two groups. The NSRD group did not differ from the normal readers in these aspects but had the worst performance on a test of inferential comprehension. It was concluded that dyslexics differ from normal readers and low-IQ poor readers in word and nonword reading skills and context-dependency for reading. A group of six adult dyslexics were also found to be deficient in decoding skills. A lack of unanimity in the use of certain terminology, a substantial age difference between low-IQ poor readers and normals, and the difference in the criteria used for matching the different groups could be factors that can explain the disagreements seen between the findings of the present study and those reported by some other studies. Potential problems associated with reading-age matched experimental design are discussed.

Componential Model of Reading (CMR): Validation Studies

The three current models of identifying learning disabilities: discrepancy model, RtI, and Componential Model of reading are discussed in terms of their utility.

Developmental Reading and Spelling Disabilities: Are these Dissociable?

Studies of developmental dyslexia in children suggest that poor spelling is an inevitable concomitant of poor reading (Cook, 1981; Gerber, 1984; Nelson and Warrington, 1976). This should come as no surprise since it appears that spelling-sound relational rules are used in both reading and spelling (Baron et al., 1980) and that many dyslexic subjects are deficient in these grapheme-phoneme conversion skills (Aaron, 1989; Aaron et al., 1984; Perfetti and Hogaboam, 1975; Snowling, 1980). A recent study by (1985), which specifically examined the question whether children use similar processes to read and spell words, found that third grade children, regardless of their ability level, used spelling-sound correspondences in both reading and spelling. Conversely, studies of spelling ability also have shown that poor spellers are deficient in decoding skills (Spache, 1940) and that acquisition of spelling involves progressive inter- nalization of orthographic rules (Beers, 1980). These observations are further buttressed by the classical neurology doctrine that writing disorders do not exist in isolation but occur simultaneously and equally often with disorders of speech and the reason why this view has persisted so long is that it is supported by the bulk of clinical experience (Margolin, 1984).

Dissociation between Comprehension and Pronunciation in Dyslexic and Hyperlexic Children.

Findings from an analysis of the reading performances of three reading-disabled children provide a tentative answer to the controversial issue whether reading-disabled children have a language comprehension deficit or not. Of the three reading-disabled children studied, two were poor in language comprehension but had much better word-reading skill.In this paper, phrases such as \ldword reading\rd, \ldpronunciation\rd, and \rdreading aloud\rd are used interchangeably to refer to the ability to read aloud the written word. The term \lddecoding\rd is used when reading aloud is accomplished by applying spelling-to-sound rules. The third disabled reader had superior listening comprehension but was poor in word-reading skill. The two good word-readers appear to use two different strategies, viz., grapheme—sound association and whole word-pronunciation asssociation to pronounce the written word. It is concluded that pronunciation and comprehension skills are two dissociable components of the reading process and that they follow separate courses of development. Case studies presented in this paper suggest that these two components can be affected independent of each other resulting in different types of reading disabilities. It is concluded that answer to the question whether poor readers are also deficient in language comprehension depends on the type of disabled readers investigated even though educational experience and severity of the reading problem can act as confounding factors.