1. 1

2. 2

3. August 15, 2012 (Part 1)  Provide ADMINISTRATORS with EXPERIENCE & MATERIALS to “turnkey” workshops and informations in your buildings.  Understand the three part model of text complexity and the final step of placing texts in grade bands. Future Leadership Meeting (Part 2)  Apply close reading strategies to scaffold complex text. 3

4.  Complexity of texts students are expected to read is way below what is required to achieve college and career readiness:  High school textbooks have declined in all subject areas over several decades  Average length of sentences in K-8 textbooks has declined from 20 to 14 words Council of Chief State School Officers: Text Complexity 4

5.  Vocabulary demands have declined, e.g., 8 th grade textbooks = former 5 th grade texts; 12 th grade anthologies = former 7 th grade texts  Too many students are reading at too low a level (<50% of graduates can read sufficiently complex texts) CCSSO Text Complexity 5

6.  The most important implication of the study: “What students could read, in terms of its complexity, was at least as important as what they could do with what they read.” CCSS Appendix A. p. 2 6

7.  Building knowledge through content-rich nonfiction and informational texts  Reading and writing grounded in evidence from text  Regular practice and instruction with complex texts and its academic vocabulary 7

8.  All students must be exposed to grade level text complexity regardless of their reading ability CCSS, Appendix A 8

9.  Interactive Read - Alouds  Independent Reading (95% accuracy & comprehension)  Shared Reading  Close Reading of a passage  Multiple exposures  Reading for different purposes  Reading for extended periods of time across content-areas 9

10. Three Ways to Build Background Knowledge: *Choose ONE or More… A.Jigsaw – Hiebert Article B.Video with Graphic Organizer to Generate Discussion A.Jigsaw – Fisher & Frey Article 10

11. Count off by “fours” and find your “like” numbers to form a “group”; you can sub-divide if groups still too large!  All – Introduction (p. 2 to top of p. 3)  Group 1 – Quantitative (p. 3)  Group 2 – Qualitative (pgs. 3 – 4)  Group 3 – The Reader (pgs. 4 – 7)  Group 4 – The Task (pgs. 7 – 8)  All – If time, Skim Conclusions and Appendixes (p.11…) In your “Like Number Group” discuss your section and in no more than 2-3 sentences, summarize your section. 1 person will report their summarization to the larger group Fisher & Frey PDF 11

12. 12

13. Text complexity is defined by: 1. Quantitative measures – readability and other scores of text complexity often best measured by computer software. Kansas Department of Education 13

14. Text complexity is defined by: 2. Qualitative measures – levels of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands often best measured by an attentive human reader. Kansas Department of Education 14

15. Text complexity is defined by: 3. 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. Kansas Department of Education 15

16. Determining Text Complexity of Salvador, Late or Early - Cisneros, S. (1992). Woman Hollering Creek. New York: Vintag e -distribute short text 16

17.  Fill in blank PLACEMAT graphic organizer as we go…  GOAL: After reflecting upon all three legs of the text complexity model educators can make a final recommendation of placement of a text in particular grade-band. Then we begin to document our thinking for future reference. Hand out 3 17

18. A CLOSER LOOK 18

19.  Sentence and word length  Frequency of unfamiliar words  Word frequency  Number of syllables in words 19

20. Common Core Bands: Text Analyzer Tools DRPFKLexile 2 nd - 3 rd 42 - 541.98 - 5.34420 - 820 4 th – 5 th 52 - 604.51 - 7.73740 - 1010 6 th – 8 th 57 - 676.51 – 10.34925 - 1185 9 th – 10 th 62 - 728.32 – 12.121050 - 1335 11 th - CCR67 - 7410.34 – 14.21185 - 1385 20

21. 21

22. LET’S TRY IT OUT!!! Consider:  Sentence and word length  Frequency of unfamiliar words  Word frequency  Number of syllables in words Salvador, Late or Early (S. Cisneros)  Sentence length and vocabulary/word frequency  Reread Paragraph 1; consider sentence length!  Vocabulary/Word Frequency  Name of main character appears frequently  Challenging vocabulary words…identify…  vague  nub  Scuttles  Lexile= 960  F & P = Z 22

23. General Rule :  Use any one of the quantitative analyzer tools to place text into a complexity band level.  In which of the text complexity bands would Salvador, Late or Early fall ? 23

24. Common Core Bands: Text Analyzer Tools DRPFKLexile 2 nd - 3 rd 42 - 541.98 - 5.34420 - 820 4 th – 5 th 52 - 604.51 - 7.73740 - 1010 6 th – 8 th 57 - 676.51 – 10.34925 - 1185 9 th – 10 th 62 - 728.32 – 12.121050 - 1335 11 th - CCR67 - 7410.34 – 14.21185 - 1385 24

25.  Remember, however, that the quantitative measure is only the first of three “legs” of the text complexity model.  Our final recommendation may be validated, influenced, or even over-ruled by our examination of qualitative measures and the reader and task considerations.  Fill out the QUANTITATIVE MEASURE portion of the PLACEMAT- Handout #3. Kansas State Department of Education 25

26. A CLOSER LOOK 26

27. A. Levels of meaning or purpose B. Structure C. Language conventionality and clarity D. Knowledge demands Elfrieda H. Hiebert – The Common Core State Standards and Text Complexity 27

28. The Qualitative Measures Rubrics for Literary and Informational Text  These rubrics 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. Kansas State Department of Education Handouts 4 & 5 28

29.  Because 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.  Since these factors represent continua rather than discrete stages or levels, numeric values are not associated with these rubrics. Instead, four points along each continuum are identified: high, middle high, middle low, and low.  Pull out LITERARY rubric – Handout #5 Kansas State Department of Education 29

30.  So…LET’S TRY IT OUT! How is the rubric used?  Read the descriptive factors. How would Salvador, Late or Early rate when analyzed through the lens of the Literary Text Rubric?  Work together to discuss and MARK the rubric accordingly. 30

31. x x x x x x x x 31

32. Lexile Text Measure: 960L But after reflecting upon the qualitative measures, we believed: Salvadore, Late or Early (S. Cisneros) 32

33. 33

34. A CLOSER LOOK 34

35. Considerations such as: Motivation, knowledge and experience Purpose for reading Complexity of task assigned regarding text Complexity of questions asked regarding text 35

36. Questions for Professional Reflection on Reader and Task Considerations :  The questions provided in this resource are meant to guide teacher thought and reflection upon the text, students, and any tasks associated with the text.  Distribute Reader & Task Consideration Handout Handout 6 36

37.  The questions included here are largely open- ended questions without single, correct answers, but help educators to think through the implications of using a particular text in the classroom. 37

38.  Review Salvador, Late or Early ; discuss the guiding questions on HANDOUT #6 in a small group.  Complete the Considerations for READER and TASK section of the PLACEMAT.  Based upon our examination of the Reader and Task Considerations, we have completed the third leg of the text complexity model and are now ready to recommend a final placement within a text complexity band. 38

39.  After reflecting upon all three legs of the text complexity model, we can make a final recommendation of placement of the text in a particular grade-band. Now, begin to document our thinking for future reference.  Complete the “Recommended Placement” section of the PLACEMAT. Handout 3 39

40.  In grade-level teams, develop a pool of annotated texts that exemplify and help benchmark the process of evaluating text complexity, using both quantitative and qualitative measures and the professional judgment of teachers -- complex text playlists!  The texts and the annotations accompanying them will provide educators with a deeper, more multidimensional picture of text complexity that they can use to help them select materials. 40

41.  Based on levels of complexity, current instructional materials will need to be supplemented, enhanced or moved to a different grade. Some of this work will be represented in the curriculum (units of study- suggested materials) and some can be done within our schools at grade-level or, course-specific, planning meetings. 41

42.  Connecticut State Department of Education : http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/site/default.asp http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/site/default.asp  Council of Chief State School Officers : http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Digital_Resources/Commo n_Core_Implementation_Video_Series.html http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Digital_Resources/Commo n_Core_Implementation_Video_Series.html  Kansas State Department of Education : http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4778#TextRes http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4778#TextRes  Lexile Analyzer : www.lexile.com/findabookwww.lexile.com/findabook  Maine Department of Education : http://www.maine.gov/education/lres/commoncore/ http://www.maine.gov/education/lres/commoncore/  National PTA : http://www.pta.org/common_core_state_standards.asp http://www.pta.org/common_core_state_standards.asp  The Hunt Institute (video series): http://www.youtube.com/user/TheHuntInstitute#g/u http://www.youtube.com/user/TheHuntInstitute#g/u 42