1

TEACHING WITH COMPLEX TEXTS

GREENWICH PUBLIC SCHOOLS LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE

AUGUST 2012

2

PART I.

DETERMINING TEXT COMPLEXITY

AUGUST 15, 2012

3

OBJECTIVESAugust 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.

4

THE “CRISIS” OF TEXT COMPLEXITY

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

5

IS THIS REALLY A CRISIS?

Vocabulary demands have declined, e.g., 8th grade textbooks = former 5th grade texts; 12th grade anthologies = former 7th grade texts

Too many students are reading at too low a level (<50% of graduates can read sufficiently complex texts)

CCSSO Text Complexity

6

ACT, INC., “READING BETWEEN THE LINES REPORT” (2006)

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

7

CCSS INSTRUCTIONAL SHIFTS

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

8

CCSS INSTRUCTIONAL SHIFTS

All students must be exposed to grade level text complexity regardless of their reading ability

CCSS, Appendix A

9

WHAT DOES “EXPOSED” TO GRADE LEVEL TEXT COMPLEXITY MEAN ?

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

10

THREE-PART MODEL FOR MEASURING TEXT COMPLEXITY

Three Ways to Build Background Knowledge:*Choose ONE or More…

A. Jigsaw – Hiebert ArticleB.Video with Graphic Organizer to Generate

Discussion

C.Jigsaw – Fisher & Frey Article

11

ACTIVITY C: FISHER & FREY ARTICLE JIGSAW (15 MINUTES)

(DISTRIBUTE)

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

12

THREE-PART MODEL 1-2-3 FOR MEASURING TEXT COMPLEXITY

13

TEXT COMPLEXITY MODEL

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

14

TEXT COMPLEXITY MODEL

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

15

TEXT COMPLEXITY MODEL

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

16

THREE-PART MODEL FOR MEASURING TEXT COMPLEXITY

Determining Text Complexity ofSalvador, Late or Early -Cisneros, S. (1992). Woman Hollering Creek. New York: Vintage

-distribute short text

17

With the End in Mind…Recommended Placement

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.

Handout 3

18

A CLOSER LOOK

QUANTITATIVE MEASURES

19

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

STEP #1:QUANTITATIVE MEASURES

20

PROPOSED COMMON CORE SCALE BANDS

Common Core Bands:

Text Analyzer Tools

DRP FK Lexile

2nd - 3rd 42 - 54 1.98 - 5.34 420 - 820

4th – 5th 52 - 60 4.51 - 7.73 740 - 1010

6th – 8th 57 - 67 6.51 – 10.34 925 - 1185

9th – 10th 62 - 72 8.32 – 12.12 1050 - 1335

11th - CCR 67 - 74 10.34 – 14.2 1185 - 1385

21

TEXT COMPLEXITY CORRELATION CHART FOR COMMON GPS SCALES

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

STEP #1: QUANTITATIVE MEASURES

Turn & Talk with

someone next to you…

23

STEP #1: IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATORS

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?

24

STEP #1: COMMON CORE SCALE BANDS FOR SALVADOR, LATE OR EARLY

Common Core Bands:

Text Analyzer Tools

DRP FK Lexile

2nd - 3rd 42 - 54 1.98 - 5.34 420 - 820

4th – 5th 52 - 60 4.51 - 7.73 740 - 1010

6th – 8th 57 - 67 6.51 – 10.34 925 - 1185

9th – 10th 62 - 72 8.32 – 12.12 1050 - 1335

11th - CCR 67 - 74 10.34 – 14.2 1185 - 1385

25

STEP 1: QUANTITATIVE MEASURES 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

26

A CLOSER LOOK

QUALITATIVE MEASURES

27

A.Levels of meaning or purpose B.StructureC.Language conventionality and

clarity D.Knowledge demands

STEP #2: QUALITATIVE MEASURES

Elfrieda H. Hiebert – The Common Core State Standards and Text Complexity

28

STEP 2: QUALITATIVE MEASURES

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

29

STEP 2: QUALITATIVE MEASURES 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

30

STEP 2: QUALITATIVE MEASURES

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.

31

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

32

STEP 2: QUALITATIVE MEASURES

Lexile Text Measure: 960L

But after reflecting upon the qualitative measures, we

believed:

Salvadore, Late or Early (S. Cisneros)

33

STEP 2: QUALITATIVE MEASURES

PROCESS:1. Our initial placement of Salvador, Late or Early into

a text complexity band changed (between 4-5 and 6-8) when we examined the qualitative measures ( to the grade 6-8 band).

2. Remember, however, we have completed only the first two legs of the text complexity model.

3. The reader and task considerations still remain.

4. Complete the QUALITATIVE MEASURES section of the text complexity PLACEMAT.

34

A CLOSER LOOK

READER AND TASK CONSIDERATIONS

35

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

36

STEP #3: READER AND TASK

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

37

STEP 3: READER AND TASK

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.

38

STEP 3: READER AND TASK

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.

39

Final Step: Recommended Placement 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

40

NEXT STEPS

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.

41

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

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.

42

USEFUL WEBSITES

Connecticut State Department of Education: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/site/default.asp

Council of Chief State School Officers: http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Digital_Resources/Common_Core_Implementation_Video_Series.html

Kansas State Department of Education: http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4778#TextRes

Lexile Analyzer: www.lexile.com/findabook Maine Department of Education: http://www.maine.gov

/education/lres/commoncore/ National PTA: http://www.pta.org/

common_core_state_standards.asp The Hunt Institute (video series): http://www.youtube.com

/user/TheHuntInstitute#g/u