1. Turn in your vocabulary quiz.
Session 3 – Comprehension and Practicum NGCARPD- Cohort 2 January 11, 2012
Welcome back.
Please sign in.
Turn in your vocabulary quiz.
Focus on Four Strands (reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language)
The benefits of an integrated literacy approach (both in terms of reaching out to content areas beyond ELA and also in terms of research and media skills being integrated into the four strands)
A focus on results rather than means (“the Standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how those goals should be reached and what additional topics should be addressed” (p. 4).)

2. Today’s Agenda
This morning: -SSS and Common Core Correlation -Text Complexity This afternoon: -Review of CIS Model -Discussion/Sharing of Your Lessons -Overview and Requirements of Practicum

3. Correlation Between Sunshine State Standards and Common Core Standards
Today’s Focus: Informational Text

4. Comparing FCAT 2.0 and Common Core
Highlight references to informational text throughout the Sunshine State Standards for Reading.
Highlight references to informational text throughout the CCSS for English Language Arts/Science standards. Note the cluster areas for Reading Standards for Informational Text:
Key Ideas and Details
Craft and Structure
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas
Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity

5. Comparing FCAT 2.0 and Common Core
Use chart paper (top half – SSS; bottom half – Common Core) and marker to create a graphic that represents the informational standards for your assigned grade level. (See sample)
Discuss differences. Identify a speaker to share your findings.
Post your chart paper on the wall in the appropriate sequence.
Share findings. (3 minutes each).

6. Module 3: Comprehension
Text Complexity

7. Text Complexity Key to Student Reading Success
Text complexity matters because….
“making textbooks easier ultimately denies students the very language, information, and modes of thought they need most to move up and on.”
-Marilyn Jager Adams

8. Text Complexity - ACT Study
Purpose: Determine what distinguished the reading performance of students likely to succeed in college and not.
Process:
Set benchmark score on the reading test shown to be predictive of success in college (“21” on ACT composite score).
Looked at results from a half million students.
Divided texts into three levels of complexity: uncomplicated, more challenging, and complex.

9. Performance on the ACT Reading Test by Comprehension Level
(Averaged across Seven Forms)
In Reading: Between the Lines, ACT demonstrates that student performance cannot be differentiated in any meaningful way by question type. Students do not perform differently if they are answering literal recall items or inferential items.

10. Performance on the ACT Reading Test by Textual Element
(Averaged across Seven Forms)
ACT demonstrates that student performance cannot be differentiated in any meaningful way by question type. Students do not perform differently if they are answering vocabulary items or main idea.

11. Text Complexity Matters
Performance on complex texts is the clearest differentiator in reading between students who are more likely to be ready for college and those who are less likely to be ready.
Texts used in the ACT Reading Test reflect three degrees of complexity: uncomplicated, more challenging, and complex.

12. Performance on the ACT Reading Test by Degree of Text Complexity
(Averaged across Seven Forms)
Test performance, according to ACT, is driven by text rather than questions. Thus, if students are asked to read a hard passage, they may only answer a few questions correctly, no matter what types of questions they may be. On the other hand, with an easy enough text, students may answer almost any questions right, again with no differences by question type.
In this figure, performance on questions associated with uncomplicated and more
challenging texts both above and below the ACT College Readiness Benchmark for
Reading follows a pattern similar to those in the previous analyses.
Improvement on each of the two kinds of questions is gradual and fairly uniform. 12 12

13. Recap of ACT Findings
Question type and level (main idea, word meanings, details) is NOT the chief differentiator between student scoring above and below the benchmark. The degree of text complexity in the passages acted as the “sorters” within ACT. The findings held true for both males and females, all racial groups and was steady regardless of family income level. What students could read, in terms of its complexity--rather than what they could do with what they read—is greatest predictor of success. FCAT has complex passages and highly cognitive demanding questions.
The ACT report goes on to describe features that made some texts harder to understand, including the complexity of the relationships among characters and ideas, amount and sophistication of the information detailed in the text, how the information is organized, the author’s style and tone, the vocabulary, and the author purpose. ACT concluded that based on these data, “performance on complex texts is the clearest differentiator in reading between students who are likely to be ready for college and those who are not”
FCAT is made up of complex passages and high cognitive demand questions.

14. Text Requirements in Middle and High School
Many students are engaged in shallow reading, skimming text for answers, focusing only on details and failing to make inferences in order to integrate different parts of the text. Years of reading in this superficial way will cause a student’s reading ability to deteriorate.
For many students the decline of text demands in the courses that they take has both an immediate and long term impact on student achievement.

15. Guiding Questions
What do the Common Core Learning Standards mean by text complexity? What is a text complexity band? and How do we ensure the texts our students are reading are in the appropriate text complexity band?
This presentation seeks to answer these questions.

16. Overview o Text Complexity
Text complexity is defined by:
Qualitative
Qualitative measures – levels of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands often best measured by an attentive human reader.
Quantitative
Quantitative measures – readability and other scores of text complexity often best measured by computer software.
Reader and Task
Reader and Task considerations – background knowledge of reader, motivation, interests, and complexity generated by tasks assigned often best made by educators employing their professional judgment.

17. Determining Text Complexity
A Four-step Process:
Determine the quantitative measures of the text.
Qualitative
Quantitative
Analyze the qualitative measures of the text.
Reflect upon the reader and task considerations.
Reader and Task
Overview of the protocol
Recommend placement in the appropriate text complexity band.

18. Step 1: Quantitative Measures
Measures such as:
Word length
Word frequency
Word difficulty
Sentence length
Text length
Text cohesion

19. Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity Grade Bands
Common Core State Standards
Quantitative Measures Ranges for
Text Complexity Grade Bands
What is a text complexity band?

20. Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity Grade Bands
Common Core State Standards
Quantitative Measures Ranges for
Text Complexity Grade Bands
Text Complexity
Grade Bands
Suggested
Lexile Range
Suggested ATOS
Book Level Range**
K-1
2-3
450L – 790L
2.0 – 4.0
4-5
770L – 980L
3.0 – 5.7
6-8
955L – 1155L
4.0 – 8.0
9-10
1080L – 1305L
4.6 – 10.0
11-CCR
1215L – 1355L
4.8 – 12.0
What is a text complexity band?

21. Quantitative Measures
The Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity:
This document outlines the suggested ranges for each of the text complexity bands using Lexile Measures.

22. Quantitative Measures
Let’s imagine we want to see where a text falls on the quantitative measures “leg” of the text complexity triangle, using the Lexile text measure.
For illustrative purposes, let’s use, “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell.
Take a few minutes to read the story and estimate the appropriate grade level for instructional purposes.

23. Quantitative Measures
Lexile Text Measure:
1180
Flesch-Kincaid in Word: Grade Level 7.3
In which of the text complexity bands would this text fall?

24. Quantitative Measures
Read and discuss the article entitled “Lexile-to-Grade Correspondence.” As you read, consider the following questions:
What is the purpose of Lexile Measures?
For what purposes should teachers NOT use Lexile Measures?
What is IQR? What function does it serve?
What is a stretch text?
What other considerations exist for text selection in a classroom?
Based on the information provided in the article, what is the best placement for “Shooting an Elephant”?

25. Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity Grade Bands
Common Core Learning Standards
Quantitative Measures Ranges for
Text Complexity Grade Bands
Text Complexity
Grade Bands
Suggested
Lexile Range
Suggested ATOS
Book Level Range**
K-1
100L – 500L*
1.0 – 2.5
2-3
450L – 790L
2.0 – 4.0
4-5
770L – 980L
3.0 – 5.7
6-8
955L – 1155L
4.0 – 8.0
9-10
1080L – 1305L
4.6 – 10.0
11-CCR
1215L – 1355L
4.8 – 12.0
What is a text complexity band?
* The K-1 suggested Lexile range was not identified by the Common Core State Standards and was added by Kansas.
** Taken from Accelerated Reader and the Common Core State Standards, available at the following URL:

26. Quantitative Measures
Remember, however, that the quantitative measures is only the first of three “legs” of the text complexity triangle.
Our final recommendation may be validated, influenced, or even over-ruled by our examination of qualitative measures and the reader and task considerations.

27. Quantitative Measures
Additional Resources
Lexile Measures and the Common Core State Standards
Accelerated reader and the Common Core State Standards
Coh-Metrix
Coh-Metrix calculates the coherence of texts on a wide range of measures. It replaces common readability formulas by applying the latest in computational linguistics and linking this to the latest research in psycholinguistics.

28. Step 2: Qualitative Measures
Measures such as:
Structure
Language Demands and Conventions
Knowledge Demands
Levels of Meaning/Purpose

29. Common Core Standards Qualitative Features of Text Complexity
Structure (could be story structure and/or form of piece)
Simple  Complex
Explicit  Implicit
Conventional Unconventional
Events related in chronological order  Events related out of chronological order (chiefly literary texts)
Traits of a common genre or subgenre  Traits specific to a particular discipline (chiefly informational texts)
Simple graphics  sophisticated graphics
Graphics unnecessary or merely supplemental to understanding the text  Graphics essential to understanding the text and may provide information not elsewhere provided

30. Qualitative Features of Text Complexity: Text Structure
At your tables, complete the structure chart. Be prepared to share with the rest of the group.

31. Qualitative Features of Text Complexity: Language Demands
Language Demands: Conventionality and Clarity
Literal  Figurative or ironic
Clear  Ambiguous or purposefully misleading
Contemporary, familiar  Archaic or otherwise unfamiliar
Conversational  General Academic and domain specific
Light vocabulary load: few unfamiliar or academic words Many words unfamiliar and high academic vocabulary present
Sentence structure straightforward Complex and varied sentence structures
Though vocabulary can be measured by quantifiable means, it is still a feature for careful consideration when selecting texts
Though sentence length is measured by quantifiable means, sentence complexity is still a feature for careful consideration when selecting texts

32. Qualitative Features of Text Complexity: Language Demands
At your tables, complete the “language demands” chart. Be prepared to share with the rest of the group.

33. Qualitative Features of Text Complexity: Knowledge Demands
Knowledge Demands: Life Experience
(literary texts)
Simple theme  Complex or sophisticated themes
Single theme  Multiple themes
Common everyday experiences or clearly fantastical situations  Experiences distinctly different from one’s own
Single perspective  Multiple perspectives
Perspective(s) like one’s own  Perspective(s) unlike or in opposition to one’s own

34. Common Core Standards Qualitative Features of Text Complexity
Knowledge Demands: Cultural/Literary Knowledge (chiefly literary texts)
Everyday knowledge and familiarity with genre conventions required  Cultural and literary knowledge useful
Low intertextuality (few if any references/allusions to other texts)  High intertextuality (many references/allusions to other texts

35. Qualitative Features of Text Complexity: Knowledge Demands
At your tables, complete the “knowledge demands” chart. Be prepared to share with the rest of the group.

36. Common Core Standards Qualitative Features of Text Complexity
Levels of Meaning (chiefly literary texts) or
purpose (chiefly informational texts)
Single level of meaning Multiple levels of meaning
Explicitly stated purpose  Implicit purpose, may be hidden or obscure

37. Qualitative Features of Text Complexity: Levels of Meaning/Purpose
At your tables, complete the “levels of meaning/purpose” chart. As a group, discuss the three questions at the bottom of the levels of meaning/purpose handout. Be prepared to share.

38. Text Complexity: Qualitative Measures
The Qualitative Measures Rubrics
for Literary and Informational Text:
The rubric for literary text and the rubric for informational text allow educators to evaluate the important elements of text that are often missed by computer software that tends to focus on more easily measured factors.

39. Text Complexity: Qualitative Measures
Because the factors for literary texts are different from informational texts, these two rubrics contain different content. However, the formatting of each document is exactly the same.
And because these factors represent continua rather than discrete stages or levels, numeric values are not associated with these rubric. Instead, six points along each continuum is identified: not suited to the band, early-mid grade level, mid-end grade level, early-mid grade level, mid-end grade level, not suited to band.

40. Text Complexity: Qualitative Measures
How is the rubric used?
And how would “Shooting an Elephant” fair when analyzed through the lens of the Text Rubric?

41. Step 3: Reader and Task Considerations such as: Motivation
Knowledge and experience
Purpose for reading
Complexity of task assigned regarding text
Complexity of questions asked regarding text

42. Evaluate complexity of “Shooting an Elephant.”
Based on the quantitative features (Lexile), qualitative analysis, and reader/task considerations, at what grade level would you teach this text?
Discuss at your table and be prepared to share.

43. Determining Text Complexity
A Four-step Process:
Determine the quantitative measures of the text.
Qualitative
Quantitative
Analyze the qualitative measures of the text.
Reflect upon the reader and task considerations.
Reader and Task
Overview of the protocol
Recommend placement in the appropriate text complexity band.

44. Where do we find texts in the appropriate text complexity band?
We could….
Choose an excerpt of text from Appendix B as a starting place:
Use available resources to determine the text complexity of other materials on our own.
or…
(Even choosing excerpts from Appendix B is less effective because it removes the reader and task considerations from the equation.)

45. Common Core Lesson Plans by Grade
Common Core Curriculum Maps

46. Activity: Text Complexity
Review the texts for your particular grade and subject. See CCSS Appendix Table of Contents.
Discuss with your colleagues the appropriateness of documents in the Appendix for your standards and students. Also discuss the question: “How can we ensure that the documents we use in our classes are appropriately complex?”
Be prepared to share with the group.

47. Lunch Time

48. Review of the CIS Model
Teacher presents a Hook Question for discussion.
Students conduct predictive writing in response to an essential question.
The teacher introduces Vocabulary – word parts, context, academic words, general vocabulary
The Teacher READs text ALOUD/Students Mark Text using codes.
Students discuss text marking and write in response to question.
Students read text a second time and take notes on graphic organizer.
Students may write in response to note-taking.
Students read text a third time. The teacher models question generation. Students generate questions on text.
Students write in response to essential question.
Student revise written response after the teacher shares the rubric.

49. Table Talk: Making the CIS Model Work for You
Review the CIS model and discuss modifications you would make to facilitate its use in your classroom. Remember to protect the research-based strategies which are needed to get results with your students.

50. Developing the CIS Model for your Classroom
At your table, share the CIS lesson you developed. Select one CIS model to be shared with the entire group.

51. NGCARPD Practicum Requirements
Narrative detailing the growth of two students over a nine-week period
Reflection log for four meetings
Submission of two CIS lessons with supporting documents, i.e. student work samples, rubrics, lesson texts, etc. (Although you are required to complete three, you will only submit two of them.)
Video of CIS lesson submitted to Secondary Reading office.

52. Practicum Requirement Issues
We meet February 1, February 15, and March 7.
You need to develop, implement, and document one CIS lesson to bring to one of our meetings. Do you want it to be February 1 or February 15?
April 1 is the deadline for completion of all requirements.