Inclusion Interventions

As reading inequality continues to be an issue that disproportionally affects minority students, the authors investigated if the active view of reading (AVR) could provide a view of reading that accounts for social justice in ways that the simple view of reading (SVR) cannot.

Deciphering the Main Components of Word Recognition

The SVR has two main components: word recognition (decoding) and language comprehension. The SVR may have limited utility for social justice initiatives. For example, research on the SVR with emerging bilingual students who were learning to read in English resulted in mixed results in which listening comprehension predicted reading comprehension, but decoding did not. Some studies have indicated that knowledge from one’s own cultural experiences predicted reading beyond the effects of decoding and language comprehension or vocabulary. Interventions that addressed cultural or content knowledge positively impacted

reading as well. 

Statistically Significant Results Seen in Emerging Readers

The study examined the active view of reading by computing effect sizes from 333 studies. The meta-analysis reviewed AVR domains, such as self-regulation, word recognition, and bridging processes. The AVR component terms included some of the following; executive function, strategy, phonological awareness,and alphabetic principle, 

Interventions that targeted word recognition and language comprehension had statistically significant effects for striving readers, and interventions that targeted active self-regulation and bridging processes had medium-to-large median effects on reading. There was a large effect for interventions for striving readers that focused on text structure, verbal reasoning, and vocabulary, and moderate effects for fluency, language structure, motivation, and phonics. The components unique to the AVR added significant variance in reading.

More Research Is Needed on the Array of Reading Theories in Their Entirety

This is just the first study to examine the AVR, and additional research is needed, including comparing the AVR to other theories such as DIER (Direct and Indirect Effects Model of Reading) and CVR (Complete View of Reading). 

There is a lack of meta-analyses surrounding reading interventions in marginalized groups. The AVR’s unique domains (bridging processes and active self-regulation) can shed light on some of the structural inequities that contribute to unequal reading outcomes because it is not only confined to the SVR view that includes only word recognition and language comprehension.

Interventions that addressed bridging processes had the strongest effect on reading among striving readers in the present study, but children from lower socioeconomic status families and communities and from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups are provided with fewer opportunities to develop these bridging processes. It has been found that low-socioeconomic status (SES) districts when compared to high-SES school districts, provided fewer opportunities for children to engage in self-regulated learning for reading and writing, which potentially contributed to inequities in reading outcomes.

Notable Quotes: 

“The ability to read is one of the single best predictors of adaptive skills in adulthood.”

“These findings suggest that a reading intervention should take bridging processes and active self-regulation (particularly motivation and strategy use) into account, as they have the potential to help close literacy achievement gaps more effectively than just word recognition and language comprehension interventions alone.”

“Most concerning from a social justice perspective was the lack of research regarding cultural and content knowledge/”

Personal Takeaway: 

This article was helpful to me as an educator as it introduced me to the AVR. This article provided a reminder that reading is a critical part of social justice. The 18 specific components of the AVR were particularly useful as they provide areas of intervention that some students may need.—Matt Browne

Burns, M. K., Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2023). Evaluating components of the active view of reading as intervention targets: Implications for social justice. School Psychology, 38(1), 30.