This experimental study aimed to influence reading comprehension skills through the development of one or both components of the Simple View of Reading (decoding and listening comprehension), by using a differentiated instruction approach. Reading comprehension skill gains were compared in an intervention group versus a control, after the delivery of a program designed to target one or both of such components. Fifty-four children from two 1st grade classrooms in a public school in Mexico were screened for difficulties in decoding and listening comprehension at the end of the school year. At the beginning of 2nd grade, 27 students identified with difficulties were randomly assigned to either an intervention (n = 14) or a control group (n = 13). Students selected for the targeted intervention attended the sessions aimed at their specific needs: five students with poor decoding only received the Phonological and Orthographic Awareness sessions of the intervention (9 sessions); seven students with poor listening comprehension only attended the Oral Vocabulary sessions (5 sessions); two students with mixed difficulties attended the full program (14 sessions). A 2 × 2 mixed analysis of variance showed that the interaction between the Time and Group variables had a significant effect, i.e. students in the intervention group had significantly higher scores in the post-test evaluation with respect to their baseline and compared to the growth observed in the control group. Results are discussed concerning their implications for teaching practices and for the use of strategies that target reading specific difficulties in students using both oral and written language.
BackhoffE (2011) La inequidad educativa en Mexico: Diferencias en el aprendizaje de la comprension lectora en educacion basica [Educational inequity in Mexico: Differences in the learning of reading comprehension in basic education]. Profesorado. Revista de curriculum y formacion del profesorado15: 87–102.
2.
BastugM (2014) The structural relationship of reading attitude, reading comprehension and academic achievement. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education4: 931–46.
3.
BorzoneAMMarderS (2015a) Leamos juntos: Programa para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de la lectura y la escritura: Guía del docente [Let’s read together: Reading and writing teaching and learning syllabus: A teacher’s guide]. Buenos Aires: Paidos.
4.
BorzoneAMMarderS (2015b) Programa de respuesta a la intervención en lectura y escritura ‘Leamos juntos’ [Response program to the intervention in reading and writing ‘Let’s read together’]. In: BriolottiAColanziIMartínezASoriaL (eds) V Congreso Internacional de Investigación de la Facultad de Psicología de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata, pp. 42–54. Available at http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/52278 (accessed October 2020).
5.
Bowyer-CraneCSnowlingMJDuffFJ, et al (2008) Improving early language and literacy skills: Differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry49: 422–32.
6.
BuchmannCHannumE (2001) Education and stratification in developing countries: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology27: 77–102.
7.
BusAGVan IjzendoornMHPellegriniAD (1995) Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research65: 1–21.
8.
CainKHoganTPLomaxRG (2015) Learning to read: Should we keep things simple?Reading Research Quarterly50: 151–69.
9.
CattsHWAdlofSMWeismerSE (2006) Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research49: 278–93.
10.
CattsHWHerreraSNielsenDCBridgesMS (2015) Early prediction of reading comprehension within the simple view framework. Reading and Writing28: 1407–25.
ConnorCMMorrisonFJSlominskiL (2006) Preschool instruction and children’s emergent literacy growth. Journal of Educational Psychology98: 665–89.
13.
ConnorCMPiastaSBFishmanB, et al (2009) Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child× instruction interactions on first Graders’ literacy development. Child Development80: 77–100.
14.
DefiorSFonsecaLGottheilB, et al (2006) Test de Lectura y Escritura en Español [Reading and writing test in Spanish]. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
15.
De JongPFVan der LeijA (2002) Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading6: 51–77.
16.
DowdallNMelendez-TorresGJMurrayL, et al (2019) Shared picture book reading interventions for child language development: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Development91: e383–e399.
17.
EhriLCNunesSRStahlSAWillowsDM (2001a) Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research71: 393–447.
18.
EhriLCNunesSRWillowsDM, et al (2001b) Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly36: 250–87.
19.
EllemanAMLindoEJMorphyPComptonDL (2009) The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness2: 1–44.
20.
EllisNCNatsumeMStavropoulouK, et al (2004) The effects of orthographic depth on learning to read alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic scripts. Reading Research Quarterly39: 438–68.
21.
FieldA (2013) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 4th edition.London: Sage.
22.
FloritECainK (2011) The Simple View of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?Educational Psychology Review23: 553–76.
23.
GoughPBHooverWAPetersonCL (1996) Some observations on a simple view of reading. In: CornoldiCOakhillJ (eds) Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and interventions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1–13.
24.
GoughPTunmerW (1986) Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education7: 6–10.
25.
HooverWAGoughPB (1990) The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing2: 127–60.
26.
IBM Corporation (2016) IBM SPSS statistics for Windows: Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.
27.
INEE (Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación) (2016) Data from: Base de datos completa 2016 [Complete database 2016; dataset] [Digital repository]. Mexico City: Government of Mexico. Available at: http://planea.sep.gob.mx/ba/base_de_datos_2016 (accessed October 2020).
28.
InfanteM (2006) Las dificultades especificas de aprendizaje en lectura y su relacion con habilidades linguisticas en contextos socioeconomicos diversos [Specific learning difficulties in reading and their relationship with language skills in diverse socioeconomic contexts]. Revista Chilena de Fonoaudiologia7: 29–44.
29.
InfanteMColomaCJHimmelE (2012) Comprension lectora, comprension oral y decodificacion en escolares de 2o y 4o basico de escuelas municipales [Reading comprehension, oral comprehension and decoding in 2nd and 4th grade schoolchildren of municipal schools]. Estudios Pedagogicos (Valdivia)38: 149–160.
30.
JusticeLMEzellHK (2002) Use of storybook reading to increase print awareness in at-risk children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology11: 17–29.
31.
KatzLFrostR (1992) The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In: FowlerCA (ed) Haskins Laboratories status report on speech research July–December 1992. New Haven, CN: Haskins Laboratories, pp. 121–34.
32.
KendeouPPapadopoulosTCKotzapoulouM (2013) Evidence for the early emergence of the simple view of reading in a transparent orthography. Reading and Writing26: 189–204.
33.
KirbyJRSavageRS (2008) Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading?Literacy42: 75–82.
34.
KoratOShamirA (2007) Electronic books versus adult readers: Effects on children emergent literacy as a function of social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning23: 248–59.
35.
LevyH (2008) Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas81: 161–64.
36.
LRRC (Language and Reading Research Consortium) (2015) Learning to read: Should we keep things simple?Reading Research Quarterly50: 151–69.
37.
McCandlissBBeckILSandakRPerfettiC (2003) Focusing attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design and preliminary tests of the word building intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading7: 75–104.
38.
Mesa MelgarejoGTirado MaraverMJSaldaña SageD (2013) Language delay and poor reading comprehension: Exploring the simple view of reading. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatria y Audiologia33: 136–45.
39.
MolSEBusAGDe JongMTSmeetsDJ (2008) Added value of dialogic parent–child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development19: 7–26.
40.
MonttG (2011) Cross-national differences in educational achievement inequality. Sociology of Education84: 49–68.
41.
MuterVHulmeCSnowlingMJStevensonJ (2004) Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology40: 665–81.
42.
NationKClarkePMarshallCMDurandM (2004) Hidden language impairments in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research47: 199–211.
43.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2016) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA): Results from PISA 2015. Country Note: Mexico. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-Mexico.pdf (accessed October 2020).
44.
ProctorCPAugustDCarloMSSnowC (2006) The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology98: 159–69.
45.
Romero-ContrerasS (2010) Lectura compartida en la escuela con el programa de Entrenamiento en Lectura Escolar (ELE) [Reading shared at school with the School Reading Training program]. San Luis Potosi: Editorial Universitaria Potosina.
46.
Romero-ContrerasS (2011) Identificación y análisis de prácticas familiares, prácticas escolares y de habilidades de alumnos de preescolar en las áreas de lengua oral y escrita: Reseñas de Investigación en Educación Básica: Convocatoria 2006 [Identification and analysis of family practices, school practices and skills of preschool students in the areas of oral and written language: Reviews of Research in Basic Education: Call 2006]. Mexico City: Secretaría de Educación Pública.
47.
SamuelsSWuYC (2001) How the amount of time spent on independent reading affects reading achievement: A response to the National Reading Panel. Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.539.9906 (accessed October 2020).
48.
SavageRBurgosGWoodEPiquetteN (2015) The Simple View of Reading as a framework for national literacy initiatives: A hierarchical model of pupil-level and classroom-level factors. British Educational Research Journal41: 820–44.
49.
SemelEMWiigEHSecordWLangdonHW (2006) CELF 4: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4. Spanish edition. San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp.
SerranoFDefiorS (2008) Speed problems in dyslexia in a transparent orthography. Annals of Dyslexia58: 81–95.
53.
SerravalloJ (2010) Teaching reading in small groups: Differentiated instruction for building strategic, independent readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
54.
SeymourPHKAroMErskineJM (2003) Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology94: 143–74.
55.
Silva-MacedaGRomero-ContrerasS (2017) Leer rapido no siempre es igual a comprender: Cuando la velocidad no apoya la comprension [Reading fast is not always the same as understanding: When speed does not support understanding]. Revista Costarricense de Psicologia36: 123–44.
56.
SwansonEVaughnSWanzekJ, et al (2011) A synthesis of read-aloud interventions on early reading outcomes among preschool through third graders at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities44: 258–75.
57.
TrevinoEPedrozaHPerezG, et al (2007) Practicas docentes para el desarrollo de la comprension lectora en primaria [Teaching practices for the development of reading comprehension in primary]. Ciudad de Mexico: Instituto Nacional para la Evaluacion de la Educacion.
58.
VerhoevenLVan LeeuweJ (2008) Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology22: 407–23.
59.
WhitehurstGJFalcoFLLoniganCJ, et al (1988) Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology24: 552–59.
60.
WillmsJD (2002) Standards of care: Investments to improve children’s educational outcomes in Latin America. In: YoungME (ed) From early child development to human development: Investing in our children’s future. Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp. 81–122.
61.
WillmsJD (2018) Learning divides: Using data to inform educational policy: Information paper No. 54. Montreal, QC: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
62.
WillmsJDSomerMA (2001) Family, classroom, and school effects on children’s educational outcomes in Latin America. International Journal of School Effectiveness and School Improvement12: 409–45.
