Text Complexity

Report
Instruction in Reading
USING DATA AND RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE
FOR GROWTH AND INSTRUCTION
What is Reading?
2
“Reading is an active and complex process that
involves
–
–
–
Understanding written text
Developing and interpreting meaning; and
Using meaning as appropriate to type of text, purpose, and
situation” (NAEP Framework, 2009)
Reading is the single most important educational skill students will
learn. As students move up in grade levels text demand
significantly increases.
2
Two important goals for improvement:
1. Increase the percentage of students reading “at
grade level” each year at each grade level from
kindergarten through tenth grade.
2. Decrease the percentage of students with serious
reading difficulties each year at each grade level.
Our most important measure of success in accomplishing
these goals is assessing student performance in reading
comprehension using an initial screening, mid-year
assessment, and outcome measure at the end of each
grade level.
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps
Between Students
7
8
Text complexity is the key to accelerating
student achievement in reading.
8
Text Complexity - ACT Study
9
 Purpose: Determine what distinguished the
reading performance of students likely to succeed
in college and not.
•
Process:
Set benchmark
score on the reading test shown
to be predictive of success in college (“21” on
ACT composite score)
Looked at results from a half million students.
Divided texts into three levels of complexity:
uncomplicated, more challenging, and
complex.
Performance on the ACT Reading Test by
Comprehension Level
(Averaged across Seven Forms)
10
Performance on the ACT Reading Test by
Textual Element
(Averaged across Seven Forms)
11
Text Complexity Matters
12
 Performance on complex texts is the clearest
differentiator in reading between students who are
more likely to be ready for college and those who
are less likely to be ready.
 Texts used in the ACT Reading Test reflect three
degrees of complexity: uncomplicated, more
challenging, and complex.
Performance on the ACT Reading Test by
Degree of Text Complexity
(Averaged across Seven Forms)
In this figure, performance on questions associated with uncomplicated and more
challenging texts both above and below the ACT College Readiness Benchmark for
Reading
13 follows a pattern similar to those in the previous analyses.
13
Improvement on each of the two kinds of questions is gradual and fairly uniform.
13
Recap of ACT Findings
14
Question type and level (main idea, word meanings, details) is
NOT the chief differentiator between student scoring above
and below the benchmark.
The degree of text complexity in the passages acted as the
“sorters” within ACT. The findings held true for both males and
females, all racial groups and was steady regardless of family
income level.
What students could read, in terms of its complexity--rather
than what they could do with what they read—is greatest
predictor of success. FCAT has complex passages and highly
cognitive demanding questions.
14
STUDENTS WHO ARRIVE BEHIND IN
READING OR CLOSE TO GRADE LEVEL
ARE OFTEN TAUGHT THROUGH COURSES
THAT DON’T DEMAND MUCH READING .
15
Many students are engaged in shallow reading,
skimming text for answers, focusing only on details and
failing to make inferences in order to integrate different
parts of the text. Years of reading in this superficial way
will cause a student’s reading ability to deteriorate.
For many students the decline of text demands in the
courses that they take has both an immediate and long
term impact on student achievement.
The Percent Of Students Who Have Previously
Scored A Level 3 Or Higher On FCAT Reading
2011 FCAT Results
Grade
Of Students Scoring Level 1
on the FCAT Reading, the
Percent who have previously
scored a Level 3 or higher in
Reading
Of Students Scoring Level 2 on
the FCAT Reading, the Percent
who have previously scored a
Level 3 or higher in Reading
4
21
53
5
29
67
6
36
76
7
31
72
8
43
85
9
46
87
10
58
16
90
16
What is FAIR?
17
 A K-2 assessment system administered to individual
students 3 times a year, with electronic scoring,
Adobe AIR version, and PMRN reports linked to
instructional resources.
 A 3-12 computer-based system where students take
the assessments 3 times a year. Several tasks are
adaptive. PMRN reports are available, linked to
instructional resources. Printed toolkit available.
© 2011 Florida Department of Education
The K-2 “Big Picture” Map
Broad Screen/Progress Monitoring Tool
(BS/PMT)
“All” students
• Letter Naming & Sounds
• Phonemic Awareness
• Word Reading
Broad Diagnostic Inventory
(BDI)
“All” students
“Some” students for vocabulary
• Listening Comprehension
• Reading Comprehension
• Vocabulary
• Spelling (2nd grade only)
Targeted Diagnostic Inventory
(TDI)
“Some” students; some tasks
• K = 9 tasks
• 1st = 8 tasks
• 2nd = 6 tasks
Ongoing Progress Monitoring
(OPM)
“Some” students
•K – 2 = TDI tasks
•1 – 2 = ORF
18
K-2 Targeted Diagnostic Inventory
(TDI) Map
Kindergarten
• Print Awareness
• Letter name and sound knowledge
• Phoneme Blending
• Phoneme Deletion Word Parts/Initial
• Letter Sound Connection Initial
• Letter Sound Connection Final
• Word Building –Initial Consonants
• Word Building –Final Consonants
• Word Building –Medial Vowels
First Grade
• Letter Sound Knowledge
• Phoneme Blending
• Phoneme Deletion Initial
• Phoneme Deletion Final
• Word Building –Consonants
• Word Building –Vowels
• Word Building –CVC /CVCe
• Word Building –Blends
Second Grade
• Phoneme Deletion Initial
• Phoneme Deletion Final
• Word Building –Consonants
• Word Building –CVC /CVCe
•Word Building –Blends & Vowels
• Multisyllabic Word Reading
19
The K – 2 “Score” Map
BS/PMT PRS = Probability of Reading Success
LC = Listening Comprehension
BDI
 Total questions correct (implicit/explicit)
RC = Reading Comprehension
 Total questions correct (implicit/explicit),
Fluency, Percent Accuracy
 Target Passage

VOC = Vocabulary
 Percentile Rank
SPL = Spelling
 Percentile Rank
TDI
ME = Meets Expectations
BE = Below Expectations
OPM
ORF = Adjusted Fluency
OPM TDI Tasks = ME or BE and Raw Score
20
Target RC Passages for Grades 1 and 2
(BDI)
Florida Center for Reading Research
21
Grade 1 PRS Chart (2010-2011)
22
AP1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PRS
0.11
0.14
0.20
0.27
0.36
0.46
0.56
0.66
0.75
0.82
0.86
AP2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PRS
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.17
0.28
0.44
0.61
0.76
0.86
AP3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PRS
.01
.02
.03
.06
.12
.20
.33
.49
.65
.79
.88
Student Score
Detail Box (K-2)
Excellent report
to include in a
student’s
cumulative folder
©2011 Florida Center for Reading Research
23
Just Read, Florida! along with staff from the Florida Center for
Reading Research reviewed FAIR data for 2nd graders from school
year 2009-10 who had a Probability of Reading Success (PRS) of
.85+. We followed this cohort into grade 3 to see how they
performed on FCAT Reading last school year, 2010-11.
Results
74% of students with a .85 PRS at the end of 2nd grade in SY 09-10
scored FCAT Reading Level 3 or above in 3rd grade SY 10-11.
15% of students with a .85 PRS at the end of 2nd grade in SY 09-10
scored FCAT Reading Level 1 in 3rd grade SY 1011.
11% of students who had .85 PRS at the end of 2nd grade in SY 09-10
scored FCAT Reading Level 2 in 3rd grade SY 10-11.
As we move into FCAT 2.0, the best way to reduce failures on Grade 3
FCAT is to target instruction earlier, in grades K-2. Waiting to address
reading difficulties in grade 3 is too late.
24
Grades 3-12 Assessments Model
25
Broad Screen/Progress
Monitoring Tool
Reading Comprehension Task
(3 Times a Year)
If necessary
Targeted Diagnostic
Inventory
Maze & Word Analysis Tasks
Diagnostic
Toolkit
(As Needed)
© 2011 Florida Department of Education
Ongoing
Progress
Monitoring
(As Needed)
Purpose of Each 3-12 Assessment
 RC Screen

Helps us identify students who may not be able to meet the
grade level literacy standards at the end of the year as
assessed by the FCAT without additional targeted literacy
instruction.
 Mazes

Helps us determine whether a student has more
fundamental problems in the area of text reading efficiency
and low level reading comprehension. Relevant for students
below a 6th grade reading level.
 Word Analysis

Helps us learn more about a student's fundamental literacy
skills--particularly those required to decode unfamiliar
words and read and write accurately.
26
How is the student placed into
the first passage/item?
Task
Placement Rules
Reading
Comprehension Adaptive
•The first passage the student receives is determined by:
• Grade level
Maze – Not
adaptive
Two predetermined passages based on grade level and assessment
period (AP).
WA - Adaptive
• AP 1-3 starts with predetermined set of 5 words based on grade level.
Student performance on this first set of 5 words determines the next
words the student receives.
• 5-30 words given at each assessment period based on ability.
27
How is the student placed into
subsequent passages?
28
 Based on the difficulty of the questions the student answers
correctly on the first passage, the student will then be given
a harder or easier passage for their next passage.

Difficulty of an item is determined using Item Response
Theory (IRT).
 Because of this feature, the raw score of 7/9 for Student A
and 7/9 for Student B, when reading the same passage,
does not mean they will have the same converted scores.
The 3-12 “Big Picture” Map
Type of Assessment
Name of Assessment
Broad Screen/Progress Monitoring
Tool (BS/PMT) –
Appropriate for ‘All’ students
• Reading Comprehension (RC)
Targeted Diagnostic Inventory
(TDI) – “Some” students
• Maze
• Word Analysis (WA)
Ongoing Progress Monitoring
(OPM) – “Some” students
• Maze
• ORF
• RC
Informal Diagnostic Toolkit
(Toolkit) – “Some” students
• Phonics Inventory
• Academic Word Inventory
• Lexiled Passages
• Scaffolded Discussion Templates
29
The 3-12 “Score” Map
Reading Comprehension BS/PMT

FCAT Success Probability (FSP)

Color- coded
Percentile
 Standard Score
 Lexile®
 Ability Score and Ability Range
 FCAT Reporting Categories

Maze - TDI

Percentile
 Standard Score
 Adjusted Maze Score
Word Analysis - TDI

OPM

Percentile
 Standard Score
 Ability Score (WAAS)
RC – Ability Score, Ability Range, Reporting Categories
 Maze – Adjusted Maze Score
 ORF (3rd – 5th) Adjusted Fluency Score
30
Lexile® Measure
 Two types of Lexile measures


Lexile reader measure
 Represents a person’s reading ability on the Lexile scale (this is
what you will see on your reports)
 Has nothing to do with the Lexile of the passage.
Lexile text measure
 Indicates the reading demand of the text in terms of word
frequency and sentence length.
 Range of uncapped Lexile Measures on FAIR: 225-2105
 Range around Lexile Measure = -100 and +50

(e.g., 600L, 500 – 650L)
31
Student
Score
Detail
Box-
3-12
32
Table 1: Correlations between the FCAT and both RC Screen and FSP
Fall
RC
Grade Screen
3
.64
4
.66
5
.69
6
.70
7
.71
8
.70
9
.69
10
.67
FSP
.62
.75
.78
.75
.75
.75
.73
.74
Winter
RC
Screen
.75
73
.75
.72
.72
.71
.69
.67
FSP
.73
.76
.78
.75
.75
.75
.73
.74
Spring
RC
Screen
.78
.76
.76
.74
.73
.72
.70
.67
FSP
.76
.77
.79
.75
.75
.75
.73
.74
33
Table 2: Screening Accuracy of the FAIR predicting FCAT success
Fall
Winter
Spring
FSP = FSP = FSP = FSP = FSP = FSP = % < Level 3
Grade 0.85 0.70 0.85 0.70 0.85 0.70
FCAT
3
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
28
4
.95
.97
.98
.97
.98
.96
31
5
.98
.95
.98
.94
.98
.94
33
6
.98
.95
.98
.96
.98
.95
40
7
.97
.92
.97
.92
.97
.92
38
8
.92
.82
.92
.82
.91
.81
51
9
.95
.88
.95
.87
.95
.87
59
10
.90
.80
.91
.81
.91
.80
69
34
The Common Core State Standards
Text Complexity
35
Common Core State Standards
Text Complexity
36
The Common Core State Standards places a strong
emphasis on the role of text complexity in evaluating
student readiness for college and careers.
“The Common Core
State Standards hinge on students
encountering appropriately
complex texts at each grade level in order to develop the
mature language skills and the conceptual knowledge they
need for success in school and life.” (p. 3)
Advantages to Common Core Standards
37
• A focus on college and career readiness
• Inclusion of the four strands of English Language Arts:
•
•
•
•
Reading
Writing
Listening and speaking
Language
• The benefits of an integrated literacy approach – all educators have a shared
responsibility for literacy instruction, regardless of discipline or content area.
• A focus on results rather than means – . . .“the Standards leave room for
teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how those goals should be
reached and what additional topics should be addressed.” (p. 4)
• Efficiencies of scale – common standards allow for greater collaboration among
states in the areas of:
• Professional development
• Resource development
• Teaching tools
Text Complexity
38
Included within the Standards is an enhanced focus on text
complexity.
Specifically, within reading standard #10:
Anchor Standard:
 R.CCR.10 Read and comprehend complex literary and
informational texts independently and proficiently.
Example Grade-level Standard (6th grade):
 RI.6.10 By the end of the year, read and comprehend
literary nonfiction in the grades 6-8 text complexity band
proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of
the range.
Guiding Questions
39
What do the Common Core Learning Standards mean by text
complexity?
What is a text complexity band?
and
How do we ensure the texts our students are reading are in the
appropriate text complexity band?
Overview of Text
Text Complexity
40
Text complexity is defined by:
Qualitative measures – levels of meaning,
structure, language conventionality and
clarity, and knowledge demands often best
measured by an attentive human reader.
Quantitative measures – readability and other
scores of text complexity often best measured
by computer software.
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.
Reader and Task
Common Core State Standards
Quantitative Measures Ranges for
Text Complexity Grade Bands
41
Common Core State Standards
Quantitative Measures Ranges for
Text Complexity Grade Bands
42
Text Complexity
Grade Bands
Suggested
Lexile Range
Suggested ATOS
Book Level Range**
2-3
450L – 790L
2.0 – 4.0
4-5
770L – 980L
3.0 – 5.7
6-8
955L – 1155L
4.0 – 8.0
9-10
1080L – 1305L
4.6 – 10.0
11-CCR
1215L – 1355L
4.8 – 12.0
K-1
Where do we find texts in the
appropriate text complexity band?
43
We could….
Choose an excerpt of
text from Appendix B as
a starting place:
Use available resources
to determine the text
complexity of other
materials on our own.
or…
Determining Text Complexity
44
A Four-step Process:
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.
Reader and Task
Step 1: Quantitative Measures
45
Quantitative Measures
Measures such as:
• Word length
• Word frequency
• Word difficulty
• Sentence length
• Text length
• Text cohesion
Step 1: Quantitative Measures
46
The Quantitative Measures
Ranges for Text Complexity:
This document outlines the
suggested ranges for each of the
text complexity bands using:
1.
Lexile Text Measures
---or---
2.
ATOS Book Levels
(Accelerated Reader)
Step 1: Quantitative Measures
47
Let’s imagine we want to see where a text falls on the quantitative
measures “leg” of the text complexity triangle, using either the
Lexile text measures or the ATOS book level (or both).
For illustrative purposes, let’s
choose the text, Narrative of the
Life of Fredrick Douglass.
Step 1: Quantitative Measures
48
Lexile Text Measure: 1080L
ATOS Book Level: 7.9
In which of the text complexity bands would this text fall?
Common Core Learning Standards
Quantitative Measures Ranges for
Text Complexity Grade Bands
49
Text Complexity
Grade Bands
Suggested
Lexile Range
Suggested ATOS
Book Level Range**
K-1
100L – 500L*
1.0 – 2.5
2-3
450L – 790L
2.0 – 4.0
4-5
770L – 980L
3.0 – 5.7
6-8
955L – 1155L
4.0 – 8.0
9-10
1080L – 1305L
4.6 – 10.0
11-CCR
1215L – 1355L
4.8 – 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
Step 1: Quantitative Measures
50
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.
Step 1: Quantitative Measures
51
Additional Resources
• Lexile Measures and the Common Core State Standards
http://www.lexile.com/using-lexile/lexile-measures-and-the-ccssi/
• Accelerated reader and the Common Core State Standards
http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R004572117GKC46B.pdf
• Coh-Metrix
http://cohmetrix.memphis.edu/cohmetrixpr/index.html
Coh-Metrix calculates the coherence of texts on a wide range of measures. It replaces common
readability formulas by applying the latest in computational linguistics and linking this to the
latest research in psycholinguistics.
Step 2: Qualitative Measures
52
Measures such as:
• Structure
• Language Demands and
Conventions
• Knowledge Demands
• Levels of
Meaning/Purpose
Common Core Standards
Qualitative Features of Text Complexity
53
Structure (could be story structure and/or form of piece)
Simple  Complex
Explicit  Implicit
Conventional Unconventional
Events related in chronological order  Events related out
of chronological order (chiefly literary texts)
 Traits of a common genre or subgenre  Traits specific to
a particular discipline (chiefly informational texts)
 Simple graphics  sophisticated graphics
 Graphics unnecessary or merely supplemental to
understanding the text  Graphics essential to
understanding the text and may provide information not
elsewhere provided




Common Core Standards
Qualitative Features of Text Complexity
54
Language Demands: Conventionality and Clarity
Literal  Figurative or ironic
Clear  Ambiguous or purposefully misleading
Contemporary, familiar  Archaic or otherwise unfamiliar
Conversational  General Academic and domain specific
Light vocabulary load: few unfamiliar or academic words Many
words unfamiliar and high academic vocabulary present
 Sentence structure straightforward Complex and varied sentence
structures
 Though vocabulary can be measured by quantifiable means, it is still
a feature for careful consideration when selecting texts
 Though sentence length is measured by quantifiable means,
sentence complexity is still a feature for careful consideration when
selecting texts





Common Core Standards
Qualitative Features of Text Complexity
55
Knowledge Demands: Life Experience
(literary texts)
 Simple theme  Complex or sophisticated themes
 Single theme  Multiple themes
 Common everyday experiences or clearly fantastical
situations  Experiences distinctly different from one’s
own
 Single perspective  Multiple perspectives
 Perspective(s) like one’s own  Perspective(s) unlike or in
opposition to one’s own
Common Core Standards
Qualitative Features of Text Complexity
56
Knowledge Demands: Cultural/Literary Knowledge
(chiefly literary texts)
 Everyday knowledge and familiarity with genre
conventions required  Cultural and literary
knowledge useful
 Low intertextuality (few if any references/allusions
to other texts)  High intertextuality (many
references/allusions to other texts
Common Core Standards
Qualitative Features of Text Complexity
57
Levels of Meaning (chiefly literary texts) or
purpose (chiefly informational texts)
 Single level of meaning Multiple levels of meaning
 Explicitly stated purpose  Implicit purpose, may be
hidden or obscure
Step 2: Qualitative Measures
58
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.
Step 2: Qualitative Measures
59
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 rubric.
Instead, six points along each continuum is identified: not suited to the
band, early-mid grade level, mid-end grade level, early-mid grade level,
mid-end grade level, not suited to band.
Step 2: Qualitative Measures
60
How is the rubric used?
And how would Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass fair when
analyzed through the lens of the Text Rubric?
Step 2: Qualitative Measures
61
Step 3: Reader and Task
62
Considerations such as:
• Motivation
• Knowledge and experience
• Purpose for reading
• Complexity of task assigned
regarding text
• Complexity of questions asked
regarding text
Step 3: Reader and Task
Ten Guiding Principles
63
1. Make close reading and rereading of texts central to
lessons.
2. Provide scaffolding that does not preempt or replace
text.
3. Ask text dependent questions from a range of
question types.
4. Emphasize students supporting answers based upon
evidence from the text.
5. Provide extensive research and writing opportunities
(claims and evidence).
Step 3: Reader and Task
Ten Guiding Principles
64
6. Offer regular opportunities for students to share
ideas, evidence and research.
7. Offer systematic instruction in vocabulary.
8. Ensure wide reading from complex text that varies in
length.
9. Provide explicit instruction in grammar and
conventions.
10. Cultivate students’ independence.
Text Complexity
Key to Student Reading Success
65
Text complexity matters because….
“making textbooks easier ultimately denies students
the very language, information, and modes of
thought they need most to move up and on.”
-Marilyn Jager Adams
Text Requirements
in Middle and High School
66
Many students are engaged in shallow reading,
skimming text for answers, focusing only on details and
failing to make inferences in order to integrate different
parts of the text. Years of reading in this superficial way
will cause a student’s reading ability to deteriorate.
For many students the decline of text demands in the
courses that they take has both an immediate and long
term impact on student achievement.
What Are We Doing To
Accelerate Success?
67
Just Read, Florida!
New Professional Development
68
The Comprehension Instructional Sequence
• An instructional model based upon research evidence
introduced this year to Florida’s teachers.
• The model assists teachers of students in grades 6-12
in implementing whole-class examination of difficult
texts and build students’ specialized knowledge.
• This sequence helps students grasp textual nuances
they would not understand on their own.
• It is a “text-dependent” approach, ensuring the close
examination of key text details and utilizes complex
text.
Teaching Students to Think as They Read
New: Next Generation Content Area
Reading Professional Development
69
 Facilitates the type of instruction needed to yield high outcomes
in literacy for all students.
 Uses close reading, text based questions, text based discussions,
and writing in response to reading to focus students on reading
text closely to draw evidence from the text.
 Emphasizes reading deeply in multiple disciplines.
 Comprehension strategies are taught in an integrated fashion
with instructional coherence and direct application.
 Fosters respect for the discipline and content while providing the
necessary scaffolds for students to extract the meaning with deep
understanding of the content being taught.
Additional Resources
70
 Appendix A - Qualitative Rubric for Text Complexity
 Appendix B - Common Core State Standards Text
Exemplars

similar documents