2. SUPPORTING DISTRICTS WITH DETERMINING TEXT COMPLEXITY

3.  Understand the three part model of text complexity and the final step of placing texts in grade bands.  Discuss how this understanding can be shared in a district/school to facilitate the placement and shifts of texts.

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 CCSSO Text Complexity

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

6.  The chief difference between students who succeed and students who struggle in introductory college courses is NOT:  Question type (main idea, word meanings, details)  Question level (higher order vs. lower order; literal vs. inferential) The complexity of what students can read is greatest predictor of success in college (ACT study)

7.  In 2006, ACT, Inc., released a report called Reading Between the Lines that showed which skills differentiated those students who equaled or exceeded the benchmark score (21 out of 36) in the reading section of the ACT college admissions

8.  The most important implication of this 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

9.  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

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

11.  Read - Alouds  Independent Reading  Shared Reading  Close reading of a passage  Multiple exposures  Reading for different purposes  Reading for extended periods of time

12.  All – Introduction (p.1)  Group 1 – Text Complexity and the CCSS (p. 2-3)  Group 2 – Quantitative Information (p. 3 & 4)  Group 3 – Qualitative Measures (p. 4 & 5)  Group 4 – Readers and Tasks (p.5)  All – How To Use The Three Forms Of Information: The Text Complexity Multi-index (p.5 & 6)  All – Conclusions and Recommendations (p.7) Handout 1

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. A CLOSER LOOK

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

19.  Sentence length and vocabulary/word frequency  Fire Cat – names of characters appear frequently, challenging words are minimal  Sarah Plain and Tall - challenging words appear once or twice in a chapter Elfrieda H. Hiebert – The Common Core State Standards and Text Complexity

20. Joe took Pickles to the Chief, who was sitting at his desk. “Oh!” said the Chief. “I know this young cat. He is the one who chases little cats.” “How do you know?” asked Joe. The Chief answered, “A Fire Chief knows many things.” Just then the telephone began to ring. Elfrieda H. Hiebert – The Common Core State Standards and Text Complexity

21. “Every-single-day,” I told him for the second time this week. For the twentieth time this month. The hundredth time this year? And the past few years? Elfrieda H. Hiebert – The Common Core State Standards and Text Complexity

22. 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

23. General Rule :  Use any one of the quantitative analyzer tools to place text into a complexity band level.  For decisions about whether to place a text at the upper, lower, or middle of a band, use qualitative analysis. (For drama and poetry, use qualitative measures.)

24. A CLOSER LOOK

25. 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

26. A. Levels of meaning or purpose  Stage 1: Single level of meaning (often supported by illustrations); explicitly stated purpose  Stage 3: More than one level of meaning  Stage 5: Multiple levels require drawing extensively on reading/experiences from other sources; implicit purpose, may be hidden or obscure Elfrieda H. Hiebert – The Common Core State Standards and Text Complexity

27. B. Structure  Stage 1: Texts follow structure of common genres (simple narrative)  Stage 3: Texts include less common genres (e.g., autobiography, cause-effect expository)  Stage 5: Traits specific to a content-area discipline or use of unique chronologies/perspectives Elfrieda H. Hiebert – The Common Core State Standards and Text Complexity

28. C. Language conventionality and clarity  Stage 1: Literal  Stage 3: Figurative; some irony/sarcasm  Stage 5: Literary: high level of figurative, metaphorical language (e.g., Hemingway) Elfrieda H. Hiebert – The Common Core State Standards and Text Complexity

29. There were mists over the river and clouds on the mountain and the trucks splashed mud on the road and the troops were muddy and wet in their capes; their rifles were wet and under their capes the two leather cartridge-boxes on the front of the belts, gray leather boxes heavy with the packs of clips of thin, long 6.5 mm. cartridges, bulged forward under the capes so that the men, passing on the road, marched as though they were six months gone with child. CCSS, Appendix B, p. 150

30. D. Knowledge demands (literary text)  Stage 1: Simple theme; everyday knowledge and familiarity with genre conventions required; low intertextuality (few if any references/allusions to other texts)  Stage 3: Complex ideas interwoven  Stage 5: Interconnected theme; cultural and literary knowledge useful; high intertextuality (many references/allusions to other texts) Elfrieda H. Hiebert – The Common Core State Standards and Text Complexity; CCSS, Appendix A

31. In our building there are two dogs: the whippet belonging to the Meurisses who looks like a skeleton covered over with beige leather hide, and a ginger cocker spaniel who belongs to Diane Badoise, an anorexic blond woman who wears Burberry raincoats and who is the daughter of a very la-di-da lawyer. The Whippet is called Athena and the cocker Neptune. Just in case you don’t yet understand what sort of place I live in…

32. D. Knowledge demands (chiefly informational texts)  Stage 1: Everyday knowledge and familiarity with genre conventions required; low intertextuality (few if any references to/citations of other texts)  Stage 3: Complex knowledge and familiarity with genre conventions  Stage 5: Extensive, perhaps specialized discipline- specific content knowledge required; high intertextuality (many references to/citations of other texts) Elfrieda H. Hiebert – The Common Core State Standards and Text Complexity; CCSS, Appendix A

33. A CLOSER LOOK

34.  Reasoning skills/strategic planning  Motivation and engagement  Knowledge and experience  Purpose for reading  Complexity of associated tasks  Skills and strategies

35.  Complexity of task assigned regarding text  Complexity of questions asked regarding text  Differences between literary texts and informational texts

36. A CLOSER LOOK

37. Lexile Text Measure: 870L ATOS Book Level: 5.6 In which of the text complexity bands would this novel fall? Kansas State Department of Education

38. Text Complexity Grade Bands Suggested Lexile Range Suggested ATOS Book Level Range** K-1100L – 500L*1.0 – 2.5 2-3450L – 790L2.0 – 4.0 4-5770L – 980L3.0 – 5.7 6-8955L – 1155L4.0 – 8.0 9-101080L – 1305L4.6 – 10.0 11-CCR1215L – 1355L4.8 – 12.0 * 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: http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R004572117GKC46B.pdf Kansas State Department of Education

39.  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. Kansas State Department of Education

40.  Measures such as: Levels of meaning Levels of purpose Structure Organization Language conventionality Language clarity Prior knowledge demands Kansas State Department of Education

41.  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. Kansas State Department of Education

42.  Because the factors for literary texts are different from information 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 rubrics. Instead, four points along each continuum are identified: high, middle high, middle low, and low. Kansas State Department of Education

43.  So… How is the rubric used?  And how would To Kill a Mockingbird fair when analyzed through the lens of the Literary Text Rubric?

44. x x x x x x x x x

45. Lexile Text Measure: 870L ATOS Book Level: 5.6 But after reflecting upon the qualitative measures, we believed:

46.  Our initial placement of To Kill a Mockingbird into a text complexity band changed when we examined the qualitative measures.  Remember, however, that we have completed only the first two legs of the text complexity triangle.  The reader and task considerations still remain.

47.  Considerations such as: Motivation Knowledge and experience Purpose for reading Complexity of task assigned regarding text Complexity of questions asked regarding text

48.  Questions for Professional Reflection on Reader and Task Considerations:  The questions provided in this resource are meant to spur teacher thought and reflection upon the text, students, and any tasks associated with the text.

49.  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.

50.  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.

51.  After reflecting upon all three legs of the text complexity model we can make a final recommendation of placement within a text and begin to document our thinking for future reference. Handout 2

52. 1. Determine the quantitative measures of the text. 2. Analyze the qualitative measures of the text. 3. Reflect upon the reader and task considerations. 4. Recommend placement in the appropriate text complexity band. Handouts 3-6

53. 1. Determine the quantitative measures of the text. 2. Analyze the qualitative measures of the text. 3. Reflect upon the reader and task considerations. 4. Recommend placement in the appropriate text complexity band.

54. 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

55.  Text Complexity: Qualitative Measures Rubric  Informational Texts  Text Complexity: Qualitative Measures Rubric  Literary Texts Handouts 4 & 5

56.  Reader and Task Considerations (Guiding Questions)  Questions are meant to spur teacher reflection upon the text, students, and any tasks associated with the texts. Handout 6

57.  After reflecting upon all three components of the text complexity model, the text is recommended for placement within a certain text complexity band.  Next, begin to reflect upon other texts and their placement and purpose.

58.  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.  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!

59.  Current instructional materials will need to be supplemented, enhanced or moved to a different grade.

60.  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