Game Changers: Research That Shaped the Science of

The Article that Introduced the Simple View of Reading by David A. Kilpatrick

o clarify the role of decoding in reading and , a simple model of reading “Tis proposed, which holds that reading equals the product of decoding and [] comprehension. It follows that there must be three types of reading disability, resulting from an inability to decode, an inability to comprehend, or both.”

Thus began the 1986 game-changing arti- Their Proposal cle that proposed the Simple View of Read- Gough and Tunmer proposed that reading ing, written by two cognitive scientists, Philip was the product of two broad skills: the ability Gough and William Tunmer. to read the words off the page and the abili- This brief paper was just over 3 1/2 pages of ty to understand the oral language in which text, yet it has been a game changer in the fi eld the material was written. Both of these skills of reading research. It has been cited over 650 together were necessary for skilled reading times in the research . There have been comprehension—neither alone could result in over 150 scientifi c studies conducted to validate skilled reading. its premise across age levels (children to adults), reading skill levels, multiple , and a va- riety of educational disabilities. The Simple View It has been cited over 650 times of Reading proposed in this article is arguably the only overarching scientifi c theory of what is in the research literature. There required for skilled cut- have been over 150 scientifi c ting across all of the many subdisciplines within studies conducted to validate its the reading research fi eld. premise across age levels (children Their Purpose to adults), reading skill levels, Gough and Tunmer wrote this article to ad- multiple languages, and a variety dress the educational debate over the role of educational disabilities. that “decoding” played in skilled reading com- prehension. Their view was that decoding was central for skilled reading comprehension. Their notion of decoding covered all develop- Their Proof mental abilities, including the beginner’s ear- To demonstrate their point, they noted that ly ability to convert letters to sounds in order those with comprehended spoken to sound out new words, and also the more language very well, but they lacked reading mature reader’s developed skill of instantly comprehension because they were so poor recognizing words (). Gough at decoding the words. They also noted that & Tunmer’s work was a response to the view those with “” were good at decod- proposed by Ken Goodman and Frank Smith, ing the words, but they lacked reading com- who were the theorists that conceived of whole prehension because they had diffi culty with language and balanced . Goodman and language comprehension (which Gough & Smith believed that decoding was not central Tunmer called linguistic comprehension or to skilled reading comprehension, but at most simply comprehension as seen in the quote was something that developed as a side effect at the beginning of this article). They fi nal- of learning to read. ly noted there were some who were poor at

MAY JUNE 2020 13

13-14_RLJ_Column_Kilpatrick_AC1.indd 13 5/5/20 9:09 AM central to reading comprehension, but nei- The Simple View of Reading ther alone can produce skilled reading com- prehension. The Simple View of Reading real- realized Gough and Tunmer’s ized Gough and Tunmer’s purpose, which was purpose, which was to show that to show that decoding, along with linguistic decoding, along with linguistic comprehension, was central to reading com- prehension and not simply an unimportant comprehension, was central to side effect of learning to read. reading comprehension and In this issue, you will read articles that pro- not simply an unimportant side vide an update on the Simple View of Reading since Gough and Tunmer’s game-changing effect of learning to read. article. In today’s world of education, under- standing the Simple View and its implications for reading instruction and assessment holds both decoding and linguistic comprehension, the promise of improved reading outcomes for and such individuals were poor readers who our children. lacked reading comprehension. These cases, along with existing studies they cited in their References Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, article, showed that decoding can be separat- and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, ed from linguistic comprehension. Both were 7, 6–10.

David Kilpatrick

David A. Kilpatrick, PhD is a professor of psychology for the State University of New York College at Cortland. He is a New York State certifi ed school psychologist with 28 years experience in schools. He has been teaching courses in learning disabilities and educational psychology since 1994. David is a reading researcher and the author of two books on reading, Essentials of Assessing, Preventing, and Overcoming Reading Diffi culties, and Equipped for Reading Success, and is a co-editor of a third, Reading Development and Diffi culties: Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice.

14 The Reading League Journal

13-14_RLJ_Column_Kilpatrick_AC1.indd 14 5/5/20 9:09 AM