The Simple View of Reading, explained

What is the Simple View of Reading?

It is a model proposed by Philip Gough and William Tunmer in 1986 and tested by Wesley Hoover and Gough in 1990. It splits reading comprehension into two parts. Decoding is reading the printed words accurately and quickly. Language comprehension is understanding the same words and sentences if they were spoken aloud.

The model is written as a multiplication: R = D × C. Each part is scored from 0 to 1. Multiplication matters here. A student with perfect language comprehension and zero decoding scores zero, not half. The same is true the other way round.

Why multiply instead of add?

Because neither part can make up for the other. Picture a student who speaks English fluently and knows a lot about dinosaurs but cannot decode. Hand them a dinosaur book and they get nothing from the page. Now picture a student who decodes Spanish perfectly but speaks no Spanish. They can read the words aloud and understand none of it.

Adding the two would say each of these students is halfway there. Multiplying says what any teacher sees: both are stuck. Hoover and Gough found the product of the two scores predicted reading comprehension better than their sum.

What are the four reader profiles?

Cross the two parts and you get four kinds of reader. The grid is the most useful thing about the model, because each box points to different teaching.

The weak decoder box is where most students with dyslexia sit. The weak language box often holds English learners, students with developmental language disorder, and students who decode well but have had little exposure to books and topics. These students are easy to miss in the early grades, because early texts ask little of language.

How do you find out which part is weak?

Test the two parts separately. For decoding, have the student read a list of real words and a list of made-up words aloud, with no context. Made-up words such as "vop" or "shent" show whether they can apply the code, since they cannot have memorized them.

For language comprehension, read a passage aloud to the student and ask questions about it. If they understand it when they hear it but not when they read it, decoding is the block. If they miss it both ways, language is part of the problem.

Compare the two answers. A student who explains the read-aloud story well, then stumbles on the words of the second, is showing you a decoding gap.

Does the balance change as students get older?

Yes. In kindergarten and first grade, decoding explains most of the difference between readers, because texts use words every student knows. A student who can read the words understands them.

By about grade 4, most students decode accurately and texts get harder in language. Now language comprehension explains more of the difference. This is why a student who did fine in second grade can seem to hit a wall in fourth. Sometimes that wall was always there and the early texts hid it.

What does the model leave out?

It is meant to be simple. It does not include fluency as its own part, though decoding speed is folded in. It leaves out motivation, attention, executive function and the reader's purpose. Later models, such as the active view of reading proposed by Nell Duke and Kelly Cartwright in 2021, add bridging skills and self-regulation.

Those additions are useful. But for deciding what to teach a struggling reader on Monday, the two-part split is still the fastest tool there is. Start with it, then look further when the picture does not fit.

How do you use it in planning?

1. Screen word reading and listening comprehension separately for any student who struggles.
2. Place the student in one of the four boxes.
3. For a decoding gap, find the exact phonics patterns missing and teach them in order.
4. For a language gap, plan vocabulary and knowledge-building around read-alouds and discussion.
5. Recheck in six to eight weeks. A student can move boxes as one part improves.

The model also helps when talking with parents. "Your child understands stories well when they hear them. The words on the page are the hard part, so that's what we're working on." That sentence is clear, accurate and hopeful.