1. Reading Coach Meeting January 27, 2012 Michael D. Robinson Language Arts/ Reading

2. Agenda Items  Words as Tools: Learning Academic Vocabulary as Language Acquisition  A Guide to Creating Close Reading Exemplars  Pedal-to-the-Metal Time: Instructional Foci – K-2; 3-5; 6-10  What Does an Interactive Teaching Model for Comprehensive CCSS Instruction Look Like? A sequential approach to teaching deeper  Text Complexity Terminology and Concept Disambiguation – A Primer  Common Core State Standards – The WHOLE Truth  Third-Grade Portfolio 2

3. Read the Abstract to the Review of Research… …Words as Tools: Learning academic vocabulary as Language Acquisition by William Nagy and Dianna Townsend 3

4. Divide into 3 Groups  Group 1: What is Academic Language? Defining Academic Language (pages 92-95 [STOP at Academic Vocabulary Qua Vocabulary])  Group 2: Academic Vocabulary Qua Vocabulary (page 96- 97 [STOP at Review of Selected Academic Vocabulary Interventions])  Group 3: What We Still Need to Know (pages 101- 105 [STOP at Conclusion]) 4

5. Read your assigned section…  Be prepared to share-out in 15 minutes 5

6. 6

7. As we consider Academic Vocabulary…  What specific strategies should we be considering as we move forward?  Do we have specific “vocabulary interventions” available? Should we?  Is there a clear connection to be made between academic vocabulary & complex text? How can we help teachers make this connection?  Considering our students’ needs, where do we go from here? 7

8. Questions, Comments, Concerns? 8

9. Efferent Questioning vs. Afferent Questioning  Efferent questions are those that refer to factual data rather than personal reactions to information. Example efferent questions: “What was the main idea?” or “What did the author mean by a particular statement or action within a passage?” Efferent discussions, in which Questioning the Author is used, are the only discussions in which the approach is designed specifically to help students grapple with the meaning of informational text (Wilkinson, 2010). 9

10. Efferent Questioning vs. Afferent Questioning Louise Rosenblatt differentiates two separate modes in the experience of reading: the efferent and the aesthetic/afferent. 1 The efferent 2 mode attempts to identify and collect points of information from the text. The afferent mode appraises the rhetorical techniques and qualitative experience presented in the text. The crux of Rosenblatt's argument is that the act of reading demands a participatory response from the reader. 3 In efferent reading, the reader must identify data in the text and create a referential structure in order to internalize that information as knowledge. In aesthetic reading, the reader contemplates the totality of the text as a communication with form and significance and attempts to understand the experience recounted in the text. The difference between texts that strongly emphasize one of these modes over the other may be illustrated with the example of a history review, in which the presentation of dates and events dictates an efferent reading, and a novel, in which the description and development of characters require an aesthetic or afferent reading. Naturally, many texts, such as a historical novel, will oblige a balance of both modes of reading. 4 Fact checking represents a meta-mode of reading, in which the reader attempts to identify assertations of fact for later evaluation. This is a technical mode of reading that is similar to efferent reading but creates a set of questions that are referenced to other data. Notes: 1 The Reader, the Text, the Poem (1978). 2 She coined this term from either the original Latin (verb, "effere") or the physiological term efferent, which is used to describe any duct or nerve that carries impulses away from a more important organ. 3 Referred to as "Reader-Response Theory" or "Transactional Reading" in the pedagogical literature. 4 Discussions with noders after the posting of this WU suggest that there exists a third mode of reading, concerned with technical issues in the writing 5 : proofreading and copyediting. 10

11. Remember: CCSS expects and requires efferent questioning…  Efferent questions often expect a certain (limited) amount of background knowledge and/or prior knowledge.  (i.e. [Grade 8] There could be a biographical article about Louis Braille, the test would expect the reader to already know that Braille is the system of raised dots used by blind to read text…  Take a moment to re-read the complex text you brought with you  Look at the blue handout entitled, A Guide for Creating Questions for Close Reading Exemplars of Complex Text 11

12. A Guide for Creating Questions for Close Reading Exemplars of Complex Text  Consider numbers 1, 3, 4, and 6  What is the enduring understanding you want student to take away from reading this selection?  What question(s) might you ask after the initial reading that would lead students to developing this understanding?  What academic vocabulary is necessary to understand the text?  ****NEW IDEA****  Rather than pre-teaching this vocabulary, what questions could be asked that would lead students to an understanding of the academic vocabulary?  Why does the author use the word/ phrase ______ to describe ________? 12

13. A Guide for Creating Questions for Close Reading Exemplars of Complex Text  What standards(s) are addressed with the questions you have created? Are these standards the only standards with which the students need additional practice? Does the text lend itself to asking other questions?  How might the author of this text differ with author of ____?  What texts did/would the author of this text probably want to read before writing this text?  What part of the structure of this text makes it particularly difficult? Syntax, density, prior knowledge demands, etc.?  ****NEW IDEA****  Rather than pre-teaching this structure, what questions could be asked that would lead students to an understanding of the syntax and how it contributes to the mood/theme/tone/intent/ perspective…? 13

14. Another way to think about this… Key Design Questions Design Considerations Filters (Design Criteria) What the Final Design Should Accomplish 1. What is worthy and requiring of understanding? CCSS - AND Regional topic opportunities. Teacher expertise and interest. Enduring ideas. Opportunities for authentic, multi- discipline-based work. Engagement. Study framed around enduring understandings and essential questions that are based on standards 2. What is evidence of understanding? Continuum of assessment types Valid. Reliable. Sufficient. Authentic. FEASIBLE. Study anchored in credible and educationally vital evidence of the desired understandings 3. What learning experiences and teaching promote understanding, interest, and evidence? Research-based repertoire of learning and teaching strategies. Essential and enabling knowledge and skill. Where is this going? Hook the students. Explore & equip. Rethink & revise. Exhibit, discuss, evaluate. Coherent learning experiences that evoke and develop the desired understandings, promote interest, and make excellent performance more likely 14

15. Questions, Comments, Concerns? 15

16. As we approach a time of high-stakes testing…  What should be the instructional foci of:  Grades K-2?  Grades 3-5?  Grades 6-10? Take out the yellow handout… 16

17. It seems to me…  …students need to be able to decode efficiently as early as possible…  …students need to be reading more without interruption from instructors giving what has previously been considered necessary background and vocabulary instruction…  …if we could get all students to read more and talk with each other about what they are reading, things might improve… 17

18. If that is the case… How do we do this? Does it take Superman? 18

19. Questions, Comments, Concerns? 19

20. A way of (maybe) putting everything together… 20

21. ? 21

22. Questions, Comments, Concerns? 22

23. Let’s all speak the same language…  Take a look at the pink handout:  Definitions from the Common Core State Standards  This handout can be used as your “quick & dirty” for all terminology pertaining to Range, Quality, & Complexity of Text  Range = Genres and descriptions of both types of literature (stories, dramas, & poetry) and informational texts (literary nonfiction, historical, scientific, and technical texts) with the “limits”  Quantitative & Qualitative measures for complexity 23

24. Look at pages 8 & 9  This figure (Figure 4) shows the progression of Standard 10  Carefully read the progression.  Actively engage in group reading activities … With prompting and support, read…. …read and comprehend …read and comprehend […] with scaffolding as needed at the high end […]  How do you suppose this progression was determined? 24

25. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) The WHOLE Truth 25

26. CCSS  The following slides come directly from Timothy Shanahan – The chairman of the CCSS development team from the University of Illinois at Chicago Common Core State Standards 26

27. Common core State Standards 45 states and DC have adopted common core state standards (about 85% of teachers and students in the U.S.) These standards cover English Language Arts and Math In 2014-2015, current state tests will be replaced by one of two exams that will be taken by students in about half the states – (including Florida) The purpose of the standards: (1) to foster higher achievement of U.S. kids; (2) to allow U.S. kids to compete better with students around the world; (3) to make educational opportunity more equal. 27

28. Standards changes are hard, but they are especially hard in this case…  These standards are at a higher level than previous standards  These standards have a different style and organizational structure that makes them more challenging for schools to work with  Common core standards are based on different theories (reading comprehension, writing, differentiated instruction) than past standards, so they are qualitatively different in several ways 28

29. The 10 Major Forces that impacted the development of CCSS 1. “ Backmapping” of skills from College/Career to kindergarten 2. A “coordinated structure” that includes a close examination of how oral language, written language, and reading all “fit together” 3. The importance of “challenging text” 4. The common knowledge that reading in the content areas differs from the reading of literature known as “disciplinary literacy” 5. A stronger emphasis on “informational text” 6. A greater emphasis on “close reading” of text 29

30. The 10 Major Forces that impacted the development of CCSS (continued) 7. The use of “multiple texts” and multiple formats to present ideas i.e. poetry tied through topic to information text – Think of “When I Heard The Learn'd Astronomer” by Walt Whitman tied to an informational article about the Hubble Telescope… 8. “Writing about text” - the use of widely available background knowledge – Think “academic vocabulary” 9. “Argumentation”- developing sound arguments based on multiple sources – position papers/persuasive writing/debating skills 10. Technology – The use of internet resources (reliability & validity), word processing, presentation software and how it can influence readers 30

31. 1. Backmapping Traditional standards have started with kindergarten and then added years of work on top of those Past standards have focused heavily on existing curricula and notions of development The common standards began with college and career readiness standards and then backmapped from there This means that the standards demand growth designed to ensure that students reach graduation targets (rather than depending so heavily on what we have done in the past) This means that these standards are more challenging 31

32. 1. Backmapping Implications: The common core standards are markedly harder than past standards since they are designed to ensure that students reach graduation targets (rather than depending so heavily on what we have done in the past) Larger percentages of students likely to fail to meet these standards 32

33. 2. Coordinated structure Standards are usually somewhat random lists of skills, knowledge, and strategies The common core state standards have very strong progressions and an organization that requires attention Reading comprehension is divided into 2 and 4 lists of standards (each list has 10 standards and these standards are analogous, meaning that it is worthwhile to consider all of the #1s, #2s, etc. Strong connections across comprehension, oral language, and writing Progressions that require careful study 33

34. 2. Coordinated structure Implications: Do not divide standards by grade level for professional development (teachers need to study the progressions) Do not try to divide the standards by report card marking for instructional focus (they need to be coordinated—text is more important) 34

35. 3. Challenging Text Theory of standards in the past: schools needed to focus on cognitive skills and text was largely irrelevant or uncontrolled Theory of the common core: Text difficulty is central and all cognitive skills have to be executed within texts of a specified difficulty range Item #10 in all of the reading comprehension lists focus on text difficulty and specify the Lexile range that has to be the target 35

36. 3. Challenging Text Implications: Students will likely be taught from texts that are more challenging in the past Emphasis on stretching students to meet the demands of reading harder text (rather than on placing students in the leveled reader according to instructional level or in using low readability textbooks) Need to learn how to scaffold challenging reading (without reading it to students or telling them what it says) 36

37. 4. Disciplinary literacy Past standards have not made a big deal out of reading in history/social studies or science Past emphasis was on learning how to read (and the idea was that students could apply these skills to content area textbooks) However, research is revealing unique reading demands of the various disciplines (reading history is not the same thing as reading literature, etc.) The common core state standards requires specialized reading emphasis for history/social studies and science/technical subjects 37

38. 4. Disciplinary literacy Implications The ELA standards should be shared by the science and history departments It is essential that science and history include texts in their instructional routines Content teachers will need to emphasize aspects of literacy that they have not in the past (these are disciplinary standards, not content area reading standards—the idea is not how to apply reading skills and strategies to content subjects but rather, how to teach the unique uses of literacy required by the disciplines) 38

39. 5. Informational text Past standards have usually emphasized both literary and informational texts However, this emphasis left the distribution of this emphasis to the teachers The common core standards requires the teaching of comprehension within both informational and literary texts These new standards emphasize informational texts equally with literary texts (in Grades K-5) and literature falls to 25% after that 39

40. 5. Informational text Implications Text selections are going to need to shift greatly (textbooks and leveled books) Primary grade teachers are going to need to raise their comfort level for working with informational text (informational text will get a great emphasis in upper grades, too, but this is not as big a change for these grades) Need to guard against informational text being taken over by literary treatments of factual information (such as biography) 40

41. 6. Close Reading Past standards have been based largely upon theories of reading comprehension drawn from cognitive science These theories have emphasized procedures or strategies that readers could use to guide their reading (e.g., summarization, questioning, monitoring, visualizing) The common core standards are also based upon theory, but literary theory not psychological theory These standards depend heavily upon “New Criticism” 41

42. 6. Close Reading (cont.) Implications Students will need to engage to a greater extent in deep analysis of the text and its meaning and implications Less emphasis on background information, comprehension strategies, picture walks, etc. (though these still can be brought in by teachers) Greater emphasis on careful reading of a text, weighing of author’s diction, grammar, and organization to make sense of the text Rereading will play a greater role in teaching reading 42

43. 7. Multiple texts Past standards have emphasized the reading of single texts: students had to learn how to make sense of a story, article or book (with perhaps an occasional emphasis on multiple texts) The common core state standards emphasize the interpretation of multiple texts throughout (at all grade levels, and in reading, writing, and oral language) Students will still have to be able to interpret single texts, but much more extensive emphasis on reading and using multiple texts (about 10% of the ELA standards mention multiple texts) 43

44. 7. Multiple Texts (cont.) Implications There will be a greater need for combinations of texts that can be used together Need for greater emphasis on text synthesis (how to combine the information from multiple sources into one’s own text or presentation) Need for greater emphasis on comparative evaluation and analysis Need for a consideration of non-text sources (e.g., video, experiments) 44

45. 8. Writing about text Past standards have emphasized writing as a free-standing subject or skill Students have been expected to be able to write texts requiring low information (or only the use of widely available background knowledge) The common core puts greater emphasis on the use of evidence in writing Thus, the major emphasis shifts from writing stories or opinion pieces to writing about the ideas in text 45

46. 8. Writing about Text (cont.) Implications Writing will need to be more closely integrated with reading comprehension instruction The amount of writing about what students read will need to increase Greater emphasis on synthesis of information and critical essays than in the past 46

47. 9. Argumentation Past standards have tended to treat text as being just a form of neutral information The common core state standards begin with the theoretical premise that texts (and other forms of language) are a form of argument Given the emphasis on argument, critical reading (and writing) take center stage in the new common core standards 47

48. 9. Argumentation Implications Teachers will be expected to teach students to discern the arguments underlying a text or presentation Need for a greater emphasis on trying to figure out author perspective, tone, position Much greater emphasis on the use of evidence Greater emphasis on making one’s own arguments (persuasion is only one aspect of this) 48

49. 10. Technology The emphasis on technology has been minimal in past English language arts standards Again, the idea has been that students would learn generalizable reading and writing skills and then they could apply these within any context or technology The common core state standards reflect a much heavier emphasis on how to take advantage of the affordances provided by technology 49

50. 10. Technology Implications Students are going to need to know how to search, read, and use information drawn from the Internet Students are going to need to know how to use word processors and other technological supports in their writing Students are going to need to know how to use presentation software in their oral presentations Students are going to need to know how to use various online references 50

51. Conclusion The common core state standards are based upon very different theories and conceptions of teaching than our current standards are Teacher preparation and textbook design are largely based upon theories and approaches that are (somewhat) inconsistent with those supporting the common core standards Changing instructional practices to better support the standards will require a major professional development and materials transformation 51

52. Questions, Comments, Concerns? 52

53. For the good of the cause…  PLEASE NOTE:  Intervention – Failure Free Reading  What works? What doesn’t? How can we get this into a cohesive plan for the CRRP?  Intensive Reading vs. Intensive Reading+  Those who can decode and are fairly fluent but fail measures of comprehension vs. Those who CAN’T decode  Program? Toolkit? What are we doing now?  Project CRISS – Where are we with this?  If you are sending logs from the PMRN to me (and you should because it is much easier for me to document and keep records for audit purposes), please be sure to write your name on the top of the printout… There is no way for me to identify you unless I can recognize a specific activity I know is novel to your school…  NEXT MEETING… 53