Transcript Simplifying Text Complexity

Simplifying Text Complexity
Module 4
The Dilemma
The difficulty in transitioning from high school to
college and careers may be caused, in part, by a
substantial “gap” in text complexity between high
school and college and workforce materials.
(renlearn.com)
The Importance of Complex Text
“The Common Core 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. CCSS).
How the Standards Address Text Complexity
Read and comprehend complex
literary and informational texts
independently and proficiently.
R.CCR.10
Grade Band Expectations
Understanding the Dimensions of Text Complexity
Understanding Text Complexity
Understanding Text Complexity
6
Let’s Talk
Why is it important to examine the
three dimensions of text
complexity before implementing a
text in the classroom?
7
The Dimensions
Let’s take a closer look
Measures of Text Complexity
Complexity considers readability and
underlying concepts
 Quantitative measures
 Qualitative measures
 Reader and Task considerations
The Standards’ Model of Text Complexity
The 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.
Quantitative Measures
Quantitative Measures
• Word length
• Word frequency
• Word difficulty
• Sentence length
• Text length
• Text cohesion
Lexile® Framework
Lexile Analyzer Stretch Bands
14
Aligning Lexile© Ranges to Standards
Grade
Band
K–1
Current
Lexile Band
N/A
Appendix A
Lexile Band
N/A
2–3
450L–725L
450L–790L
420L-820L
4–5
645L–845L
770L–980L
740-1010L
6–8
860L–1010L
955L–1155L
925L-1185L
9-10
960L–1115L
1080L–1305L 1050L-1335L
11–CCR
New Ranges
N/A
1070L–1220L 1215L–1355L 1185L-1385L
Source: International Center for Leadership in Education 15
ATOS Quantitative Measures
Text-Complexity Grade Bands for Instructional Use
CCSS Grade Bands
Recommended ATOS Level Ranges
2nd to 3rd grade
2.75 to 5.14
4th to 5th grade
4.97 to 7.03
6th to 8th grade
7.00 to 9.98
9th to 10th grade
9.67 to 12.01
11th grade to CCR
11.20 to 14.10
Quantitative Measures Comparison
Qualitative Measures
Qualitative Measures
• Levels of meaning
• Levels of purpose
• Structure and Organization
• Language conventionality and Clarity
• Prior knowledge demands
Qualitative Measures
Qualitative Measures
Qualitative Measures
The Continuum
Low
Medium
High
Reader and Task Considerations
Reader and Task
• Motivation
• Knowledge and experience
• Purpose for reading
• Complexity of task assigned regarding text
• Complexity of questions asked regarding text
Recommend Level
Decide where text should be placed on grade band, based on the
three measures of complexity.
In Depth
A discussion about text complexity
28
Supporting Research
• Betts (1946) Theory of instructional levels
described how learning is optimized when
students read texts of appropriate difficulty.
However, this theory has been challenged over
the years.
• Powell’s (1960) findings indicate students learn
more from difficult texts because teaching
facilitates comprehension.
• This theory also gels well with Vygotsky’s (1978)
theory of social learning.
Shanahan on Complex Text
For further reading, visit:
Shanahan on Literacy
Let’s Talk
Select one topic Dr. Shanahan talks about to
discuss its implications for your classroom
with a table partner.
• CCSS for ELA/Literacy are intended to raise the
complexity level of texts students read at every
grade level in all content areas
• Teaching more complex text stretches a student’s
abilities
• Teachers need to use scaffolds that support
students in comprehending complex text
31
Rate informational text
SAMPLE PROCESS
PLC Collaborative Practice
Read the text complexity annotation for
The Grapes of Wrath, on page 14
Appendix A
Step 4: Recommended
Placement
34
Benchmark Texts
Literary Text Analysis
www.textproject.org
Scaffolding Instruction to Support All Students
CCSS and English Language Learners
“Effectively educating these students requires
diagnosing each student instructionally, adjusting
instruction accordingly, and closely monitoring
student progress.”
Source: CCSS Application of the Standards with English Language Learners (page 1)
37
Supporting Research ELLs
Oral proficiency in English (including oral vocabulary, grammar, and listening
comprehension) is critical for ELs to develop proficiency in text‐level English
reading comprehension: word identification skills are necessary but not sufficient
Instruction in the components of reading foundational skills—such as
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension
(NICHD, 2000)—benefits ELs.
ELs’ native language literacy skills can help them learn English foundational
literacy skills.
Source: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/documents/sbeapdaliteracy.pdf
Breaking the Barrier
Helping English Language Learners
Lily Wong Fillmore: Text
Complexity, Common Core,
and ELLs
A Comprehensive Evaluation Process for
English Learners (CEP---EL)
SLPath
40
 Address foundational skills
 Apply appropriate scaffolds for
instruction
English Language Learners  Provide access to a rigorous academic
Support for students’ needs
curriculum
 Provide a balance of complex and
instructional level text
CCSS Application to Students with Disabilities
 Provide supports and
accommodations in instructional
strategies and multiple
demonstrations of learning.
Students with disabilities
 Practice Universal Design
Support for students’ needs
 Align IEP goals with grade level
academic CCSS
“Universal design is the design of
products and environments to be usable by all people, to the
greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or
specialized design.”
– Ron Mace
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING
Universally designed instruction and Assessments
• Sensitive
• Flexibility
• Accessible
Scaffolding Instruction
Identify the reading needs of all students.
Share the responsibility for providing explicit targeted
instruction.
Variety of instructional methods
Variety of student response methods
Cooperative Grouping
Communication
47
The 4Cs
1.
2.
3.
4.
Communication
Collaboration
Critical Thinking
Creativity
Importance of the 4 Cs
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Betts
Powell
Vygotsky (1978). Mind in Society.
CCSS.org
Hiebert
Lexile
Renassaince Learning (ATOS)
Three Dimensions
of Text Complexity
Susan Pimentel
http://mediasite.k12.hi.us/HIDOE/Viewe
r/?peid=1d2454866ec44a769623b25c
287efe691d
52
53
Meeting the Needs of English
Learners
Challenges
Meeting Student Needs
The language and literacy demands of
the CCSS are high
Address the full foundation of language
skills and English Language Development
(ELD) needed by ELs
Currently many ELs are not achieving
proficiency on the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT)
Strengthen and focus on high quality
ELD and scaffolding strategies across the
curriculum
The narrowing of the curriculum has
resulted in weak content knowledge in
social studies and science
Provide a full rigorous academic curriculum
Many ELs have only engaged with
simplified texts which offers them little or
no examples of academic language
Engage ELs with a balance of rigorous and
scaffolded text
54
Meeting the Needs of Students
With Disabilities
Challenges
Meeting Student Needs
Lack of meaningful access to
certain standards in both instruction
and assessment based on their
communication and academic
needs.
Provide supports and
accommodations to ensure that
students receive multiple means of
learning and opportunities to
demonstrate knowledge
Lack of access to general education
curriculum
Instructional supports for learning―
based on the principles of Universal
Design for Learning (UDL)―which
foster student engagement by
presenting information in multiple
ways and allowing for diverse
avenues of action and expression
Lack of rigorous, standards-based
goals on an Individualized
Education Plans (IEPs)
An IEP that includes annual goals
aligned with and chosen to facilitate
their attainment of grade-level
academic standards
55