This article was downloaded by: [University of Aberdeen]On: 15 November 2014, At: 14:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Childhood EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uced20

Understanding and Teaching Complex TextsDouglas Fishera & Nancy Freya

a Teacher Education, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.Published online: 27 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Douglas Fisher & Nancy Frey (2014) Understanding and Teaching Complex Texts, Childhood Education, 90:4,306-313, DOI: 10.1080/00094056.2014.937290

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2014.937290

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

306 \ Childhood Education

Understandingand Teaching Complex Texts

by Douglas Fisher and Nancy FreyDouglas Fisher and Nancy Frey are Professors, Teacher

Education, San Diego State University,San Diego, California.

© S

Cre

ativ

a/sh

utt

erst

ock

Teachers in today’s classrooms struggle every day to design

instructional interventions that would build students’ reading skills and strategies in order to ensure their comprehension of complex texts. Text complexity

can be determined in both qualitative and quantitative

ways. In this article, the authors describe various innovative professional development efforts and collaborative

conversations around the use of qualitative measures for

determining text complexity. Such innovative approaches can enhance teachers’ ability to plan for their instruction

more effectively and take on the roles of decision-maker and

collaborator.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 1

4:49

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

July/August 2014 / 307

“I think about all of the hours I spent leveling my library,” recalls 3rd-

grade teacher Emily Armenta. “I put colored stickers on every book I had. The result was that students could

generally find a book they could read, but it didn’t really help me figure out

what they still needed to learn.”

Teachers “level” their librar-ies in order to match students with appropriate texts, hop-ing to make a difference in students’ learning (Glasswell & Ford, 2011). Yet these quan-

titative measures failed to yield instructional interventions to help students read increas-ingly complex texts. Innovative teachers today focus on the qualitative aspects of text complexity to determine what makes a given text difficult so that they can design appro-priate instruction around the text, and build students’ skills and strategies in reading.

Understanding Text ComplexityThere are both quantitative and qualitative ways to examine text complexity (Gunning, 2003). In general, quantitative measures focus on aspects of the text that a computer algorithm can count, including words per sentence, the number of syllables, and whether or not the words appear on a given list such as the Dale-Chall. A number of dif-ferent proprietary formulas are used to deter-mine the quantitative difficulty level. Two of the most common are Lexile by Metametrics and SourceRater by Educational Testing Service. Both of these systems, like the 100 or so other formulas, yield a number that is de-signed to indicate how difficult a given text is. These formulas are reasonably effective in determining whether or not a student who reads at the given level will understand the text. For example, Tuck, Everlasting (Babbit, 1975) has a Lexile of 770, suggesting that most students at the 4th-grade level should understand the text. Of course, disagreement exists about what 4th-grade (or any grade) readers should be able to do. However, that is not a problem with the quantitative tools themselves, but rather with expectations for reading ability.

Yet these quantitative tools do not provide information about what made the text com-plex. This requires a more nuanced examina-tion of the text by a human reader evaluating the text difficulty qualitatively to determine which aspects of the text contribute to its complexity and then determine which of these aspects need to be taught. Some educators worry that qualitative measures of text complexity are too subjec-tive to be of use. After all, ratings may differ based on the rater and his or her knowledge of a specific group of students. Through professional development and collaborative conversations, this variation among raters using qualitative measures can be reduced. Although some differences will remain, when teachers have the opportunity to meet and discuss the texts they might use, their evaluations are more alike than different. The same concern can be leveled against quantitative measures, which also may result in mismatched texts and readers. Although quantitative measures are reasonably accu-rate in guiding the selection of appropriate texts, there are exceptions. For example, the Lexile Scale score assigned to The Hunger Games (Collins, 2008) is 810, which means that it would be of appropriate reading dif-ficulty for students in 4th or 5th grade. But a qualitative analysis of The Hunger Games is likely to result in the book being reserved for much older students. Similarly, a text gradi-ent analysis of Ernest Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea would place it at a 6th-grade reading level, yet most students of this age would have difficulty understanding the message of this book. It is fair to say that both quantitative and qualitative measures of text complexity have the potential to be wrong if applied too rigid-ly, or to the exclusion of other considerations. When teachers set out to analyze a text, espe-cially when they do so collaboratively, they are more likely to find appropriate texts to use and to know what they need to teach to ensure that students understand the content.

Collaborative Teams ExploringText ComplexityIn the United States, the Common Core State Standards in English language arts identify four factors that can qualitatively contribute to text complexity: levels of meaning and purpose, structure, language conventional-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 1

4:49

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

308 \ Childhood Education

Qualitative Measures of Text Complexity Texts That Would Stretch a Reader and/or Require Instruction

Texts That Require Grade-appropriate Skills

Texts That Are Comfortable and/or Build Background, Fluency, and Skills

Levels of Meaning and PurposeDensity and Complexity

Significant density and complexity, with multiple levels of meaning; meanings may be more ambiguous

Single, but more complex or abstract level of meaning; some meanings are stated, while others are left to the reader to identify

Single and literal levels of meaning; meaning is explicitly stated

Figurative Language

Figurative language plays a significant role in identifying the meaning of the text; more sophisticated figurative language is used (irony and satire, allusions, archaic or less familiar symbolism); the reader is left to interpret these meanings

Figurative language, such as imagery, metaphors, symbolism, and personification, is used to make connections within the text to more explicit information, and readers are supported in understanding these language devices through examples and explanations

Limited use of symbolism, metaphors, and poetic language that allude to other unstated concepts; language is explicit and relies on literal interpretations

Purpose Purpose is deliberately withheld from the reader, who must use other interpretative skills to identify it

Purpose is implied but is easily identified based on title or context

Purpose or main idea is directly and explicitly stated at the beginning of the reading

StructureGenre Genre is unfamiliar or bends and

expands the rules for the genreGenre is either unfamiliar but is a reasonable example of it OR it is a familiar genre that bends and expands the rules for the genre

Genre is familiar and the text is consistent with the elements of that genre

Organization Organization distorts time or sequence in a deliberate effort to delay the reader’s full understanding of the plot, process, or set of concepts; may include significant flashbacks, foreshadowing, or shifting perspectives

Organization adheres to most conventions, but digresses on occasion to temporarily shift the reader’s focus to another point of view, event, time, or place, before returning to the main idea or topic

Organization is conventional, sequential, or chronological, with clear signals and transitions to lead the reader through a story, process, or set of concepts

Narration Unreliable narrator provides a distorted or limited view to the reader; the reader must use other clues to deduce the truth; multiple narrators provide conflicting information; shifting points of view keep the reader guessing

Third-person limited or first person narration provides accurate, but limited, perspectives or viewpoints

Third-person omniscient narration or an authoritative and credible voice provides an appropriate level of detail and keeps little hidden from the view of the reader

Text Features and Graphics

Limited use of text features to organize information and guide the reader; information in the graphics are not repeated in the main part of the text, but are essential for understanding the text

Wider array of text features includes margin notes, diagrams, graphs, font changes, and other devices that compete for the reader’s attention; graphics and visuals are used to augment and illustrate information in the main part of the text

Text features (e.g., bold and italicized words, headings and subheadings) organize information explicitly and guide the reader; graphics or illustrations may be present but are not necessary to understand the main part of the text

Language Conventionality and ClarityStandard English and Variations

The text includes significant and multiple styles of English and its variations, and these are unfamiliar to the reader

Some distance exists between the reader’s linguistic base and the language conventions used in the text; the vernacular used is unfamiliar to the reader

Language closely adheres to the reader’s linguistic base

Register Archaic, formal, domain-specific, or scholarly register

Register is consultative or formal, and may be academic but acknowledges the developmental level of the reader

Register is casual and familiar

Figure 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 1

4:49

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

July/August 2014 / 309

Knowledge DemandsBackground Knowledge

The text places demands on the reader that extend far beyond one’s experiences, and provides little in the way of explanation of these divergent experiences

There is distance between the reader’s experiences and those in the text, but there is acknowledgment of these divergent experiences, and sufficient explanation to bridge these gaps

The text contains content that closely matches the reader’s life experiences

Prior Knowledge

Specialized or technical content knowledge is presumed and little in the way of review or explanation of these concepts is present in the text

Subject-specific knowledge is required, but the text augments this with review or summary of this information

Prior knowledge needed to understand the text is familiar, and draws on a solid foundation of practical, general, and academic learning

Cultural Knowledge

Text relies on extensive or unfamiliar intertextuality, and uses artifacts and symbols that reference archaic or historical cultures

Text primarily references contemporary and popular culture to anchor explanations for new knowledge; intertextuality is used more extensively but is mostly familiar to the reader

The reader uses familiar cultural templates to understand the text; limited or familiar intertextuality

Vocabulary Knowledge

Vocabulary demand is extensive, domain-specific, and representative of complex ideas; the text offers little in the way of context clues to support the reader

Vocabulary draws on domain-specific, general academic, and multiple meaning words, with text supports to guide the reader’s correct interpretations of their meanings; the vocabulary used represents familiar concepts and ideas

Vocabulary is controlled and uses the most commonly held meanings; multiple meaning words are used in a limited fashion

Source: Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2012). Text complexity: Raising rigor in reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Used with permission.

Figure 1, continued

ity and clarity, and knowledge demands. Each of these factors can be analyzed using their component parts. For example, levels of meaning might include the density of the ideas within the text, the use of figurative language, and the purpose of the text and whether or not the purpose is explicitly stated. Using the rubric in Figure 1, which expands on these four categories (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2012), teachers with-in the Bonita School District, in California, analyzed texts for their complexity and determined what they needed to teach their students. The teachers who participated in this professional learning experience served on their school instruc-tional leadership team. They spent five days together over the course of the year engaged in professional development, with the expectation that they would lead professional learning back at their school sites. The information for this article comes from the lead-ership team working sessions. They had engaged in independent reading and group learning about text complexity. When they had finished their text analy-ses, they discussed information about close reading and planned instruction accordingly. As one of the participants noted,

I used to be one of those “captives of the script,” as they say. I literally read from the teacher’s edition, as-

suming that the text was appropriate for my students and that the questions they provided were the right ones. Now, I read every piece of text and then talk with my grade level team about what makes it complex and what our teaching points should be. I’m way happier as a teacher, and I think I’m doing a better job for my students.

The rubric expands 13 factors across a continuum of complexity. Texts that are comfortable for students rely on literal levels of meaning, simple organization, existing background knowledge, and familiar lan-guage registers. Texts that require grade-level skills offer more in the way of figurative language, and limit narrative perspectives so that students must infer more often. In addition, knowledge demands may coincide with current domain-specific instruc-tion. Those that are the most complex have denser text, and draw on unfamiliar genres or organiza-tional structures. The language variations used dif-fer significantly from the reader’s own, and require extensive background and cultural knowledge, as well as prior experiences. However, texts rarely fall into a single category. The 13 factors listed should be viewed as an instructional map. Factors that score at the comfortable level do not need to be explicitly taught. Those that require grade-appropriate skills

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 1

4:49

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

310 \ Childhood Education

may need more attention, especially when used in collaborative learning with peers. Those factors identified as being the most complex should be reserved for explicit in-struction through close reading (Fisher & Frey, 2012), teacher modeling, and guided instruction. As an example, a group of kindergarten teachers analyzed the wordless book The Snowman (Briggs, 1978) for possible use in the beginning of the year. They discussed the level of meaning, noting that the text was fairly complex. The complexity became apparent when they disagreed about the content. Some members of the group be-lieved that it was a magical tale and others thought it was a dream the boy was having. They looked at individual pictures again and again, trying to decide. They ended up not making a decision and instead making the uncertainty a focal point of the instruc-tion. They noted that the other aspects of the text were fairly straightforward and would not present much challenge for stu-dents, especially the structure and language conventions. They did discuss the role of background knowledge. As one member of the group said, “I’m not sure my students have ever seen enough snow to make a snowman.” Another said, “But with TV, the Internet, and the amazing pictures, I’m not sure that we really need to worry about that.” The first teacher added, “I’m not sug-gesting that we pre-teach about snowmen; that’s really not the point of the text. I’m just thinking that they might not know that it has to stay really cold for the snowman and the second to the last page shows a lot of light through the windows. We may need to make sure to ask some really good questions about that so that we can draw their attention to the details.” The team agreed that they could use this text for multiple re-readings with different purposes so that students could develop a deeper understanding of the text. They also, as another member added, “could focus on story grammar. This is a great text for focusing students on the beginning, mid-dle, and end of a story.” A group of 3rd-grade teachers analyzed the text Amos and Boris (Steig, 1971). They noted that the structure of the text would not likely pose a challenge for students. They also determined that the language conventionality and clarity was appropriate

for their students. In their discussion, they focused on the density and complexity of the text, noting multiple levels of meaning that students might miss without careful instruc-tion. As one team member said, “There’s a lot going on here. I’ve read this twice just now to make sure that I really got the levels of meaning. I think this is a good choice for a close reading because of the levels of mean-ing. It’s not a surface level book and read-ing it a few times, with some good thinking questions, would be very good for our students.” They also noted that the purpose of the text was not clear, but as one of them said, “I don’t think that this is a problem because they can use their interpretive skills to get to the main message after they’ve read the whole text and they talk about it in their groups.” Finally, they focused on the vocabulary of the book. As one of the teach-ers commented, “There are a lot of words that will be a challenge for our students. I’ve started a list for us to consider: breakers, back-washes, navigation, sextant, iodine, immensely, mackerel.” Another added, “I agree. But I’m thinking that the first read could be for the general understanding. Then we could talk about different words and how they can figure out the meaning. I know that we used to pre-teach all of the vocabulary, but in this case I don’t think we need to because we can use the context clues and students’ interest to get to those meanings.” A third teacher added, “I agree. I’ve taught this book before and I really like it. But I used to teach them a bunch of stuff upfront and then we’d read the text once. I did most of the work. I’d like to try having students read and re-read this text with different purposes so that they do the work and really learn something along the way.”

Teaching With Complex Texts—Close ReadingsTeaching with complex texts assumes that the teacher has read the text in advance of teaching it. When teachers analyze the text in collaborative planning groups, they read each piece of text several times to become very familiar with it and be ready to teach it. As noted in the conversations above, they are aware of specific factors that contribute to the difficulty of the text and can plan for instruc-tion related to those factors. Complex texts require instruction. Raising

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 1

4:49

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

July/August 2014 / 311

expectations in reading does not mean that teachers should simply assign more difficult texts; rather, they should teach students how to read those texts. Another innova-tion related to complex texts is close read-ing, which is not yet a common practice in elementary school classrooms. Innovative elementary school teachers, however, have borrowed this practice from their high school and college colleagues and adapted it for younger students. Five aspects of close reading deserve attention in elementary school classrooms.

1. Short selections. Students need time to read, re-read, and think about the text. Innovative teachers chunk texts so that students can really interrogate the ideas contained within the text and compare those ideas with their own understanding. In the case of The Snowman, the teachers focused on two pages that would help their students draw conclusions about whether it was magic or a dream. They analyzed the visuals at the beginning of the story and compared them to the end. The boy is portrayed both sleeping in bed and wide awake, which allowed the children to ex-amine the ambiguity of the story. The 3rd-graders who read Amos and Boris focused on locating examples of reciprocity, a neces-sary component of friendship, as evidenced in words, illustrations, and plot points.

2. Repeated reading. To really develop a deep understanding of a text, readers re-read (Hedin & Conderman, 2010). In a close reading, students are invited to re-read the text several times, often to find evidence for their responses. Each succes-sive reading of the text allows students to use their background knowledge and thus assume more responsibility for learning. The kindergartners revisited The Snowman during shared readings by first silently reading the wordless text to themselves, then listening to their teacher read it aloud to them in her own words. As she asked questions, students had multiple oppor-tunities to re-read in search of evidence within the text, as well as to retell portions of the story in their own words. The 3rd-graders similarly read the text to them-selves, then discussed portions of it as a class. The teacher’s use of text-dependent questions, as well as modeling and think-

ing aloud, led students to re-read. 3. Limit frontloading or pre-teaching.

Because students will be re-reading the text several times, frontloading is not as neces-sary. Frontloading should be limited to information necessary for understanding and should not reduce the need to actu-ally read the text. While analyzing the text for complexity, the need for background knowledge development or vocabulary work can be discussed. Since the kinder-garten teachers agreed that they needed to determine if southern California students understood that a snowman melts when it gets too warm, they chose to revisit a two-minute video from their science curriculum on water changing to ice and then melt-ing. The 3rd-grade teachers felt that little needed to be pre-taught before their text reading, and chose to simply introduce the text and the purpose of the lesson before instructing students to engage in an initial independent reading.

4. Text-dependent questions. The majority of questions that teachers ask about a text should require students to have read the text rather than respond from their per-sonal experiences or general ideas about the world. This practice helps in repeated reading, as students develop the habit of searching for evidence. Text-dependent questions should not be wholly recall and recitation, but rather should challenge students to carefully analyze the text, espe-cially for what is implied and not directly stated. Figure 2 contains a brainstormed list of text-dependent questions, organized into six categories, created during the discussion by the kindergarten teachers for their close readings of The Snowman (Briggs, 1978). The questions developed by the 3rd-grade teachers for Amos and Boris (Steig, 1971) appear in Figure 3. In both cases, the teachers did not ask students all of these questions, but the team wanted to generate a bank of questions to have ready for possible use as the discussions progressed.

The intent of this framework for text-dependent questions is to purposefully deepen students’ comprehension by mov-ing from part to whole across the text (word, sentence, paragraph), and from literal to inferential levels of meaning. The initial general understanding and key

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 1

4:49

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

312 \ Childhood Education

detail questions are at the literal level of meaning, and primarily concern themselves with the story arc. Vocabulary and structure questions bridge the text-explicit and text-implicit elements of the story, focusing on denotative and connotative meanings, text features, and point of view. Author’s purpose questions challenge students to adopt the view-point of the writer or illustrator to understand his or her perspective. Inferential questions require students to examine unstated concepts and thereby deepen their understanding, especially as it con-tributes to the themes of the entire story. Only after they have acquired a reasonable level of under-standing of the story are they asked to offer opin-ions and make connections to other texts. In this way, their opinions and connections are predicated on a foundation of knowledge about the text.

5. Annotation. During a close reading, students need to take notes about the text. It’s easiest if this can be done right on the text itself. Since this is not always possible, students may need to take notes using bookmarks, sticky notes, or graphic organiz-ers. Students in kindergarten and 1st grade can use wikki stix (small bendable sticks of many col-ors; www.wikkistix.com) on big books. Through interactive writing, which is a collaborative form of writing between students and teacher in which the teacher “shares the pen” with the students, a message can be written for all to see. Elementary

students will likely need instruction in annotation skills, such as underlining key points or ideas, cir-cling areas of confusion, and writing margin notes. Teachers can model each of these components of annotation and facilitate students’ practice with them. Annotation facilitates repeated readings and students’ use of evidence in their responses to text-dependent questions. For example, the kin-dergarten students engaged in group composition of a summary of the story during their first lesson. Using an interactive writing approach (McCarrier, Pinnell, & Fountas, 2000), the students used the words “beginning,” “middle,” and “end” in their description. The 3rd-grade students created two foldables (Zike, 2009) during the course of their lessons. The first was a two-part fold where they listed words and phrases they did not know, and questions they had about parts of the story that confused them. They used these during a discus-sion, and listed definitions and answers as they were addressed. The second foldable they created was a Venn diagram where they listed attributes that made each character unique (e.g., Amos is small and Boris is large), as well as attributes the characters shared (e.g., loyalty).

ConclusionDetermining what makes a text complex and then planning instruction that addresses that complexity

Text-dependent Questions for The Snowman (Briggs, 1978)Type Questions Your Team Developed

General Understandings

Retell the story using the words “beginning,” “middle,” and “end.”What is the boy thinking and feeling at the end of the book?

Key Details What was the weather like when the boy built the snowman?What are some of the adventures the snowman had while inside the boy’s house?What are some of the adventures the boy and the snowman had outside?How does the weather differ at the beginning of the book and at the end?

Vocabulary and Text Structure

What naming words would you expect the author to use?What action words would you expect the author to use?What describing words would you expect the author to use?How can we tell if this story is told in time order?

Author’s Purpose Who tells the story? The boy, the snowman, or someone else?Is this fiction or non-fiction? How do you know?

Inferences On the first page, why is the boy in a hurry?Why did the boy build a snowman?Why did the snowman melt?

Opinions, Arguments, Intertextual Connections

Is the boy dreaming or did the author make the snowman magical? What evidence do you have?How does the look of the snowman compare with the snowman on our video?

Figure 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 1

4:49

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

July/August 2014 / 313

places the teacher in the role of decision-maker and collaborator. When teams of teachers engage in this process, they are less likely to be simply implemen-tors of others’ ideas about curriculum and instruc-tion. The kindergarten and 3rd-grade teams profiled in this article assumed increased responsibility for their curriculum and instruction and they became much more knowledgeable about the texts they selected to teach. As one of the 3rd-grade teachers commented,

When we focused exclusively on the quantitative as-pects of text difficulty, I was never really sure what to teach so I trusted the teacher’s edition. Now, I think about the text, what makes it complex, and what my students need to learn. That’s not to say that the quan-titative information isn’t useful, it just doesn’t help me plan instruction.

ReferencesBabbit, N. (1975). Tuck, everlasting. New York, NY: Square

Fish. Briggs, R. (1978). The snowman. New York, NY: Random

House.Collins, S. (2008). The hunger games. New York, NY:

Scholastic. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Close reading in elementary

schools. The Reading Teacher, 66, 179-188.Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2012). Text complexity:

Raising rigor in reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Glasswell, K., & Ford, M. (2011). Let’s start leveling about leveling. Language Arts, 88(3), 208-216.

Gunning, T. G. (2003). The role of readability in today’s classrooms. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 175-189.

Hedin, L. R., & Conderman, G. (2010). Teaching students to comprehend informational text through rereading. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 556-565.

McCarrier, A., Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (2000). Interac-tive writing: How language and literacy come together, K-2. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Steig, W. (1971). Amos and Boris. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Zike, D. (2009). Foldables and VKVs for pho-nics, spelling, and vocabulary pre-K-3. San Antonio, TX: DynaMite.

Text-dependent Questions for Amos and Boris (Steig, 1971)Type Questions Your Team Developed

General Understandings

Describe a theme and provide three examples as evidence from the text.What was one problem in the story and how was it solved? What is the main theme of the story?What is happening on these two pages? [Mouse on whale’s back, seen in background]

Key Details How did Amos end up lost at sea?What are the events that lead up to Amos and Boris meeting?Why did Amos build the boat?How long did it take for them to reach Amos’s home?What did they admire about each other?How are Amos and Boris alike and different?

Vocabulary and Text Structure

Choose an unfamiliar word and explain how the author helped you to understand its meaning.How does the author help us understand what “immense” means?What words did the author use to show the friends admired one another?

Author’s Purpose Why did the author write this story?What is the lesson the author wanted you to take away from this story?What does the author want us to know about unlikely friendships?

Inferences How did the first problem affect the outcome of the second problem?What clues from the story help you understand the characters’ friendship?How do you know the characters like each other?When Boris needed help, how do we know that Amos will help him?

Opinions, Arguments, Intertextual Connections

Do you think they will be friends forever? Support your answer with evidence. [After reading a news article on a beached whale] How is the second problem in Amos and Boris similar to and different from the one in the news article? How does this story compare to Aesop’s The Lion and the Mouse?Which character do you like best, and why?

Figure 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 1

4:49

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14