1. 11/10/12
TEACHING WITH COMPLEX TEXT
GREENWICH PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE
AUGUST 2012
CREATED BY JEN MITCHELL
PRESENTED BY JEN MITCHELL & KIM BECK
1
PART I.
DETERMINING TEXT COMPLEXITY
AUGUST 15, 2012
2
1
2. 11/10/12
OBJECTIVES
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
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 4
2
3. 11/10/12
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 Complexity5
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.”
6
CCSS Appendix A. p. 2
3
4. 11/10/12
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
7
CCSS INSTRUCTIONAL SHIFTS
§ All students must
be exposed to
grade level text
complexity
regardless of their
reading ability
8
CCSS, Appendix A
4
5. 11/10/12
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
9
THREE-PART MODEL FOR
MEASURING TEXT COMPLEXITY
Three Ways to Build Background Knowledge:
*Choose ONE or More…
A. Jigsaw – Hiebert Article
B. Video with Graphic Organizer to Generate Discussion
C. Jigsaw – Fisher & Frey Article
10
5
6. 11/10/12
Fisher & Frey
ACTIVITY C: PDF
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 11
THREE-PART MODEL 1-2-3 FOR
MEASURING TEXT COMPLEXITY
12
6
7. 11/10/12
TEXT COMPLEXITY MODEL
" Text complexity is defined by:
1. Quantitative measures – readability and
other scores of text complexity often best
measured by computer software.
13
Kansas Department of Education
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.
14
Kansas Department of Education
7
8. 11/10/12
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.
15
Kansas Department of Education
THREE-PART MODEL FOR
MEASURING TEXT COMPLEXITY
Determining Text Complexity of
Salvador, Late or Early
-Cisneros, S. (1992). Woman Hollering Creek. New York: Vintage
-distribute short text 16
8
9. 11/10/12
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.
Hand 17
out 3
A CLOSER LOOK
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
18
9
10. 11/10/12
STEP #1:
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
§ Sentence and word length
§ Frequency of unfamiliar words
§ Word frequency
§ Number of syllables in words
19
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
20
10
11. 11/10/12
TEXT COMPLEXITY CORRELATION CHART FOR
COMMON GPS SCALES
21
STEP #1: QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
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
11
12. 11/10/12
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?
23
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
24
12
13. 11/10/12
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.
25
Kansas State Department of Education
A CLOSER LOOK
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
26
13
14. 11/10/12
STEP #2: QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A. Levels of meaning or purpose
B. Structure
C. Language conventionality and clarity
D. Knowledge demands
27
Elfrieda H. Hiebert – The Common Core State Standards and Text Complexity
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.
Handouts 4 & 5
28
Kansas State Department of Education
14
15. 11/10/12
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
29
Kansas State Department of Education
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.
30
15
16. 11/10/12
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x 31
STEP 2: QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Salvadore, Late or Early (S. Cisneros)
Lexile Text
Measure: 960L
But after reflecting
upon the qualitative
measures, we
believed:
32
16
17. 11/10/12
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 section of
the text complexity PLACEMAT.
33
A CLOSER LOOK
READER AND TASK CONSIDERATIONS
34
17
18. 11/10/12
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
35
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 Handout 6
Consideration Handout
36
18
19. 11/10/12
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.
37
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. 38
19
20. 11/10/12
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 39
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.
40
20
21. 11/10/12
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.
41
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
42
21
