1. ELA/Literacy Session 2: Selecting Quality Text 1

2. 2 Session Goals Develop reviewers’ ability to evaluate the complexity, quality and scope of texts selected for instructional materials. As reviewers learn to evaluate texts, they will be able to determine the ability of the text to: Support teaching specific Common Core State Standards (CCSS) — emphasis of evidence within text [Dimension I, Criterion 1] Support a clear and explicit purpose for instruction [Dimension I, Criterion 2] Meet grade-level measures of complexity and demonstrate sufficient quality and scope for instruction [Dimension I, Criterion 3] Be the central focus of a common lesson [Dimension II, Criterion 1] Facilitate rich and rigorous evidence-based discussions [Dimension II, Criterion 3]

3. 3 Texts Worthy of Close Attention Are Central to CCSS Texts are the foundation for preparing students for the knowledge and linguistic rigors they will face in college and the workplace. The CCSS call for: Concrete evidence that texts align with the complexity requirements outlined in standard 10 and the supplement to Appendix A Certain balances of literature and informational texts Works of exceptional craft that span eras, cultures and genres Texts that are a rich repository of ideas and information

4. 4 Analyzing Text Complexity: Quantitative Measures Quantitative readability measures are used to represent semantic and syntactic complexity: Word difficulty (frequency, length) Sentence length and syntax Some widely used measuring systems include: —ATOS: ATOS® (Renaissance Learning) —DRP: Degrees of Reading Power® (Questar) —FK: Flesch Kincaid® —Lexile: Lexile Framework® (MetaMetrics) —SR: Source Rater © (Educational Testing Service) —RM: Pearson Reading Maturity Metric © (Pearson Education)

5. 5 Research: Quantitative Measures All the metrics were reliably, and often highly, correlated with how students performed with texts on tests (no measure was better than any other in predicting text difficulty for students) All measures were equally good when situating informational texts on the scale (less so with respect to narrative fiction) No readability measure can yet rate drama and poetry Six readability measures now share a common scale of text complexity that aligns to college and career readiness A number of quantitative tools are now valid, transparent, user-friendly and reliable to use Source: Supplement for Appendix A, New Research on Text Complexity

6. 6 Quantitative Measures: Common Scale Source: Supplement for Appendix A, New Research on Text Complexity

7. 7 Analyzing Text Complexity: Qualitative Measures Where in grade band does this text belong? What factor(s) weighed most heavily? Text structure (simple/complex; explicit/implicit; conventional/unconventional) Language and convention demands (vocabulary and sentence structure) Knowledge demands (life, content, cultural/literary) Levels of meaning/purpose (single/multiple levels; explicit/implicit) Source: Appendix A, CCSS

8. 8 Measures Are Complementary Quantitative and qualitative measures are at once useful and imperfect Quantitative measures are less valid for certain kinds of texts (poetry, drama, K–1 texts) but for all others can place most texts in a complexity band reliably Qualitative measures are on a continuum (not grade/band specific) and are most useful working in conjunction with quantitative measures to make finer distinctions

9. 9 Implications for Educators Use any one of the quantitative analyzer tools to place a text into a complexity band level Then use qualitative measures to place a text in a specific grade (or the upper, lower or middle of a band) At times, qualitative measures will trump the quantitative measures For drama and poetry, only qualitative measures can be used A critical step in writing lessons is to do a close reading of the targeted text(s) Conducting a qualitative analysis is a baseline activity for the lesson-writing process — determining the likelihood that a text will support evidence-based items

10. Steps for Reviewing Texts in Instructional Materials Step 1. Review Materials Scan the lesson/unit to identify the targeted standards and instructional purpose Identify the text(s) that serves as the centerpiece for the lesson/unit Read the text to be evaluated Step 2. Record Important Information about the Text Record the title, author, source, genre and other relevant information Record the quantitative measure of the text Identify any cross-curriculum connections and/or background knowledge considerations that are evident after reading the text Record other passages students are expected to read in the lesson/unit Step 3. Analyze Text Suitability for CCSS R.1, R.2 and R.3 Use evidence from the text to outline the main idea or theme of a texts and its supporting details Respond Y or N to the clarifying questions for this set of standards 10

11. Steps for Reviewing Texts in Instructional Materials Step 4. Analyze Text Suitability for CCSS for R.4, R.5 and R.6 Use evidence from the text to outline vocabulary appropriate for study, the organization or structure of the text, and its point of view and/or purpose Respond Y or N to the clarifying questions for this set of standards Step 5. Analyze Text Suitability for CCSS for R.7, R.8 and R.9 Use evidence from the text to describe important illustrations or multimedia components, delineate the argument the text makes, and compare the text to others in the sequence (note: comparisons can only be done if two texts in a sequence have been evaluated) Respond Y or N to the clarifying questions for this set of standards Step 6. Provide Recommendations and Summary Comments Recommend the types of instructional tasks for which the text is most appropriate Recommend the CCSS for reading that the text best supports Write summary comments explaining your recommendations, highlighting important findings from the careful evaluation of the text 11

12. Steps for Reviewing Texts in Instructional Materials Step 7. Compare Recommendations and Summary Comments Compare recommendations and summary comments, including elements of the texts that are particularly noteworthy for developers/teachers as they use the text as an instructional resource 12

13. 13 EXAMPLE: Step 1. Review Materials Grade 8 — “Making Evidence-Based Claims” Targeted Standards: RI.8.1 and W.8.9b (cite strong and thorough evidence to support analysis of explicit and inferential textual meaning) Addressed During Text Analysis: RI.8.2 and RI.8.6 (determine a central idea and analyze its development over the course of a text; determine an author’s point of view and analyze how an author responds to conflicting evidence and viewpoints) Students are asked to read three texts: “Ain’t I a Woman,” Sojourner Truth “Equal Rights for Women,” Shirley Chisholm “Wimbledon Has Sent Me a Message,” Venus Williams Text to be reviewed: “Ain’t I a Woman,” Sojourner Truth

14. EXAMPLE: Step 2. Record Important Information about the Text. 14

15. 15 EXAMPLE: Step 3. Analyze Text Suitability for CCSS R.1, R.2 and R.3

16. 16 EXAMPLE: Step 3. Analyze Text Suitability for CCSS R.1, R.2 and R.3

17. 17 EXAMPLE: Step 4. Analyze Text Suitability for CCSS for R.4, R.5 and R.6

18. 18 EXAMPLE: Step 4. Analyze Text Suitability for CCSS for R.4, R.5 and R.6

19. 19 EXAMPLE: Step 5. Analyze Text Suitability for CCSS for R.7, R.8 and R.9

20. 20 EXAMPLE: Step 5. Analyze Text Suitability for CCSS for R.7, R.8 and R.9

21. 21 EXAMPLE: Step 6. Provide Recommendations and Summary Comments

22. Step 7. Compare Recommendations and Summary Comments Compare recommendations and summary comments. Include elements of the texts that are particularly noteworthy for developers/teachers as they use the text as an instructional resource. Reviewers may finalize recommendations and summary comments after discussion. 22

23. 23 Reflect on the Process How does this process compare with how texts are typically vetted to be included in instructional materials? What does this process help to clarify that simply reading the text does not? Are there any parts of the process that need clarification or further explanation? How does reviewing texts for suitability inform the thinking about the alignment of instructional materials in English language arts/literacy?

24. 24