DOCSLIB.ORG

Readability of the Common Core Standards 11-Ccr Text Exemplars: a Text Sequence Reference Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Readability of the Common Core Standards 11-Ccr Text Exemplars: a Text Sequence Reference Guide READABILITY OF THE COMMON CORE STANDARDS 11-CCR TEXT EXEMPLARS: A TEXT SEQUENCE REFERENCE GUIDE by Jenell A. Carapella A Master’s Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Education Department of Curriculum and Instruction State University of New York University at Fredonia Fredonia, New York August 2012 Abstract For a smooth transition, secondary students must be equipped with the skills to navigate and comprehend texts associated with college and career readiness. Educators are concerned that a gap in text complexity may cause some students’ lack in readiness. Although many factors play a part in students’ comprehension of a text (e.g. readability, the purpose for reading, and motivation), readability statistics may predict comprehensibility. This research used the Flesch- Kincaid and SMOG readability formulas to evaluate the readability grade levels of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) 11-CCR text exemplars. Results indicate that CCSS texts were, on average, within the expected grade level band, informational texts are more complex than literary texts, and the Flesch-Kincaid readability formula evaluates the texts as less complex, on average, than the SMOG formula. The results informed the development of the Text Sequence Reference Guide that rank orders all 34 CCSS 11-CCR grade level texts according to their relative complexity. This reference guide may prove useful when developing an English Language Arts curriculum that aligns with the new standards. Keywords: readability, Flesch-Kincaid, SMOG, Common Core State Standards ii Table of Contents Project Certification Page………………………………………………………………………….i Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………ii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………iii Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………..….…10 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………......31 Results……………………………………………………………………………………...…….48 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………….….63 References……………………………………………………………………………...……...…81 Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………….…...87 iii READABILITY OF THE COMMON CORE 1 Readability of the Common Core State Standards Grades 11-CCR Text Exemplars: A Text Sequence Reference Guide In order to effectively prepare the United States of America’s next generation to be well equipped with the knowledge and skills to compete at the global level, the educational standards in every state must be equally rigorous. The education provided to our students must meet the evolving needs of each individual as well as prepare all students to be college and career-ready. Whether planning to attend post-secondary education, beginning a career in the United States Military, or entering the workforce, the education all students receive throughout their years in school must prepare them for the challenges they will inevitably face. In an effort to standardize the education in the United States as well as increase the level of rigor within public education curricula, the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS) was developed and adopted by many states. Prior to the Common Core State Standards, each state developed its own standards and assessments. Currently, the New York State Education Department utilizes the Board of Regents, a group of 17 professionals who work within of sub-committees and work groups to oversee all educational activities in the state including the New York State Learning Standards and Regents Examinations. The current chancellor of the Board of Regents is Merrill H. Tisch and the vice chancellor is Anthony S. Bottar. Because each state created and adopted its own set of standards as well as assessments, there is a wide variety in what students are expected to learn as well as little common ground for best practice development between state lines. The Common Core Standards provide teachers as well as parents a common understanding of what students need to learn in order to be college and career ready. Ideally, the standards may help to open a READABILITY OF THE COMMON CORE 2 dialogue about curricula and best practices as well as create opportunities for states to pool resources and collaborate on supporting materials and assessments. The Common Core State Standards Initiative was coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), The National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) has allowed teachers the opportunity to provide specific, constructive feedback on the standards as well (“Common Core State,” 2012). Furthermore, the standards were developed with the help of teachers, school administrators, and other experts, to provide a consistent framework to prepare students for the demands associated with post-secondary education, the military, and the world of work (“NYLearns.org,” 2012). The Common Core State Standards Initiative was established in 2007 in order to promote “content-rich liberal arts education in America’s K–12 schools” (“NYLearns.org,” 2012). Essentially, “the standards” were created with the goal that all students will be college or career ready by the end of grade 12. The group of educators and other professionals responsible for the standards seek to create curriculum tools and also “promote programs, policies, and initiatives at the local, state, and federal levels that provide students with challenging, rigorous instruction in the full range of liberal arts and sciences” (“NYLearns.org,” 2012). Ultimately, the standards represent another push to improve public education of the United States in order to create a workforce that is to complete in a global society. Both the CCSSO and the NGA Center required that the standards possess the following four qualities: a) All standards must be research and evidence-based, b) they are aligned with the expectations found at the college and career levels, c) they are rigorous in nature, as well as d) READABILITY OF THE COMMON CORE 3 internationally benchmarked. It is important to mention that these standards are not static and are subject to change according to emerging research and other evidence-based practices. The CCSSO, NGA Center, as well as the active body of professionals who created the standards assert that achieving mastery of the standards will indicate that a student is college and career ready in a “twenty first century, globally competitive society” (“NYLearns.org,” 2012). This information was enough to convince the New York State officials as well as other states’ officials that the standards were the best option for meeting the educational needs of our students. In April 2009, New York State Governor David Paterson and former Education Commissioner Richard P. Mills signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) along with forty- nine states and territories to develop these standards (“History,” 2008). On September 21st, 2009, the NGA Center and CCSSO released the first official draft of the college- and career- readiness standards and asked for a period of public feedback ending on October 21st, 2009. The Board of Regents discussed New York’s involvement in the Common Core State Standards Initiative process and the impact on New York State at their October 13th, 2009 full board meeting (“History of,” 2008). By the 2012-2013 school year, it is expect that all English Language Arts and Mathematics instruction be aligned to the new Common Core State Standards (“Common Core,” 2012). At the present, this may be a major shift in instructional practices for some teachers while other teachers may already be teaching according to the Common Core State Standards. The Common Core™ Curriculum Mapping Project was developed by teacher and for teachers in order to effectively meet some newly emerging curriculum development needs. This proprietary curriculum mapping service can be found online at: www.commoncore.org/maps. It is operated by the Common Core, Inc. and is funded in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. READABILITY OF THE COMMON CORE 4 Changes from Previous Framework Porter, McMaken, Hwang, and Yang (2011) inform that the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) was not directly involved in creating the standards; however, developing and adopting a common set of standards is included among the criteria in the scoring rubric used to grant awards in the Race to the Top competition. In addition, the USDE recently awarded three hundred and thirty million dollars in Race to the Top funds to two consortia, representing the majority of states, to help develop assessments aligned with the common standards. The SMARTER Balanced Assessment Coalition, representing 31 states, received one hundred and sixty million dollars, and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, representing 26 states, received one hundred and seventy million dollars (12 states are members of both consortia). These researchers set out the measure how much change will take place between the current framework and the Common Core standards as well as describing the nature of the changes. One conclusion drawn from this research indicates that "the new standards represent substantial change from what states are currently requiring in their standards as well as what they are testing. The standards are marginally more focused in mathematics but this pattern is not present in the English
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reading Inventory Technical Guide
    Technical Guide Using a Valid and Reliable Assessment of College and Career Readiness Across Grades K–12 Technical Guide Excepting those parts intended for classroom use, no part of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher. For information regarding permission, write to Scholastic Inc., 557 Broadway, New York, NY 10012. Scholastic Inc. grants teachers who have purchased SRI College & Career permission to reproduce from this book those pages intended for use in their classrooms. Notice of copyright must appear on all copies of copyrighted materials. Portions previously published in: Scholastic Reading Inventory Target Success With the Lexile Framework for Reading, copyright © 2005, 2003, 1999; Scholastic Reading Inventory Using the Lexile Framework, Technical Manual Forms A and B, copyright © 1999; Scholastic Reading Inventory Technical Guide, copyright © 2007, 2001, 1999; Lexiles: A System for Measuring Reader Ability and Text Difficulty, A Guide for Educators, copyright © 2008; iRead Screener Technical Guide by Richard K. Wagner, copyright © 2014; Scholastic Inc. Copyright © 2014, 2008, 2007, 1999 by Scholastic Inc. All rights reserved. Published by Scholastic Inc. ISBN-13: 978-0-545-79638-5 ISBN-10: 0-545-79638-5 SCHOLASTIC, READ 180, SCHOLASTIC READING COUNTS!, and associated logos are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Scholastic Inc. LEXILE and LEXILE FRAMEWORK are registered trademarks of MetaMetrics, Inc. Other company names, brand names, and product names are the property and/or trademarks of their respective owners.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Reading Proficiency at the Secondary Level
    BUILDING INTRODUCTION READING PROFICIENCY AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL A Guide to Resources Cynthia L. Peterson, Ph.D. David C. Caverly, Ph.D. Sheila A. Nicholson, M.S.Ed. Sharon O’Neal, Ph.D. Susen Cusenbary, M.Ed. Southwest Texas State University Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East 7th Street Austin, TX 78701 ©Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2000. This guide is produced in whole or in part with funds from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract #RJ96006801. The con- tent herein does not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Education, any other agency of the U.S. Govern- ment or any other source. You are welcome to reproduce Building Reading Proficiency at the Secondary Level and may distribute copies at no cost to recipients; please credit the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory as publisher. SEDL is an Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer and is committed to affording equal employment opportunities to all individuals in all employ- ment matters. Available in alternative formats. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv INTRODUCTION 1 • How to Use the Guide 2 • How Resources Were Selected 3 PART I: PERSPECTIVES 6 • Struggling Secondary Readers: A Closer Look 6 • Informal Assessment 7 • Building Reading Proficiency at the Secondary Level 9 • Principles of Effective Reading Instruction 17 • Principles of Effective Professional Development 19 PART II: RESOURCES 22 • Five Questions Organize the Programs and Strategies 22 • Programs 23 • Strategies 23 • Definitions of Terms 70 PART III: PROCEDURES FOR COMPILING THE GUIDE 133 BIBLIOGRAPHY 136 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS his project was sponsored by South- • Dr. Shernaz García, The University of west Educational Development Lab- Texas at Austin oratory and prepared by a team of • Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Special Education Students with System 44™
    Foundation Paper Supporting Special Education Students with System 44™ System 44 is a foundational reading program designed for the most challenged struggling readers in Grades 3-12. Intentionally metacognitive, System 44 helps students understand that the English language is a finite system of 44 sounds and 26 letters that can be mastered. System 44 was designed for students in Grades 3-12 reading at a BR-400 Lexile ® level, including Special Education students and English-Language learners. OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM 44 PROGRAM System 44 is designed so that the teacher, technology, and texts work together to deliver highly engaging, comprehensive, research-based instructional content to the older struggling reader. Through a combination of teacher-led and software-based instruction, the System 44 student is guided along a systematic path from phonemic awareness to fluent reading. System 44 includes research-based features designed for the most challenged older readers: Computer-Based Screening and Placement The Scholastic Phonics Inventory (SPI) collects data on students’ decoding accuracy as well as fluency. This helps to identify students whose lack of decoding proficiency impedes comprehension. The SPI uses real, as well as nonsense words, which assess students’ ability to apply decoding skills to unfamiliar words. Adaptive Software The System 44 adaptive software delivers, direct, systematic, research-based phonics instruction to students. Multiple points of entry allow students to work at the appropriate level based on their performance on the SPI. Independent Reading Beginning readers will always have something to read with the System 44 program. The Decodable Digest includes two passages for every sound-spelling correspondence taught in the program.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Paper
    Research-Based Vocabulary WORDLY WISE 3000® 3rd Edition Books K–12 Kenneth Hodkinson and Sandra Adams (Books 2–12), Cheryl Dressler (Books K–1) By Lee Mountain For young children, one of the most effective ways to learn new words is to listen to read- alouds. Older children, on the other hand, learn many new words through independent reading. Whether children are pre-readers or already reading independently, there is a growing consensus among educators regarding the need for direct teaching of academic vocabulary in a systematic program. In fact, recent research has shown not only that it is important, but that it is important much earlier than was previously thought. This is especially true for children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom enter school knowing far fewer words than their middle class peers. The words in the Wordly Wise 3000® series will expand the vocabularies and minds of today’s students. The Third Edition, which extends from kindergarten through high school, Wordly Wise 3000® is a kindergarten provides teachers with effective research-based lessons for direct instruction in vocabulary. through grade 12 vocabulary series that includes reproducible tests and Today’s educators are becoming increasingly aware of the benefits of a structured vocabulary curriculum. Thomas Gunning, author of Creating Literacy Instruction for All an online test generator. The entire Children, calls a planned program of vocabulary development “highly advisable,” and he program introduces over 3,000 suggests that a certain amount of time be set aside each week for vocabulary instruction: words, and exercises become more “A planned approach ensures that vocabulary instruction is given the attention it deserves.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Teaching Phonics and Phonemic Awareness Training To
    The Effect of Teaching Phonics and Phonemic Awareness Training to Adolescent Struggling Readers by Stephanie Hardesty Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Education December 2013 Goucher College Graduate Programs in Education Table of Contents List of Tables i Abstract ii I. Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Hypothesis 3 Operational Definitions 3 II. Literature Review 6 Phonemic Awareness Training and Phonics 6 Reading Instruction in the High School Setting 7 Reading Remediation 10 Summary 13 III. Methods 14 Participants 14 Instrument 15 Procedure 16 IV. Results 19 V. Discussion 20 Implications 20 Threats to Validity 21 Comparison to Previous Studies 22 Suggestions for Future Research 24 References 25 List of Tables 1. Pre- and Post-SRI Test Results 19 i Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of teaching phonics and phonemic awareness training to adolescent struggling readers. The measurement tool was the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI). This study involved the use of a pretest/posttest design to compare data prior to the implementation of the reading intervention, System 44, to data after the intervention was complete (one to two years). Achievement gains were not significant, though results could be attributable to a number of intervening factors. Research in the area of high school reading remediation should continue given the continued disagreement over best practices and the new standards that must be met per the Common Core. ii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Advanced or proficient reading abilities are one of the primary yet essential skills that should be mastered by every student.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lexile Framework: Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful
    The Lexile Framework: Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful Stephen Krashen CSLA (California School Library Association) Journal 24(2): 25-26, 2001 The Lexile Framework attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It is a readability formula that "stands firmly in the tradition of classic readability formulas" (Stenner, 1996, p. 23) that assigns reading levels to texts based on word frequency and sentence length. The Lexile Framework is intended to help teachers and librarians recommend supplementary reading that is at the right reading level: "For example, an eighth-grade girl who is interested in sports but is not reading at grade level might be able to handle a biography of a famous athlete. The teacher may not know, however, whether that biography is too difficult or too easy for the student. " All the teacher has to do is use the Lexile Framework on the text and the student and select a book at the right level. Then, "as the reader improves, new titles with higher text measures can be chosen to match the growing person (sic) measure, thus keeping the comprehension rate at the chosen level." (Stenner, 1996, p. 22). Not Necessary None of this is necessary, and it is probably harmful. There is a much easier way for readers to select texts: Are they comprehensible and interesting? It doesn't take long for a reader to determine this: All it takes is sampling a little of the text (reading it). Our eighth grader simply needs to have a look at a few biographies. Teachers and librarians can certainly help in text selection and they do this all the time, with great success.
    [Show full text]
  • Ela Best Standards
    Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Standards Map ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Progression of Foundations Benchmarks .................................................................................................... 11 Spiraled Standards in a Vertical Progression .............................................................................................. 13 Kindergarten ........................................................................................................................................... 26 Foundational Skills ............................................................................................................................. 26 Reading ............................................................................................................................................... 27 Communication ................................................................................................................................... 29 Vocabulary .......................................................................................................................................... 32 Sample texts by
    [Show full text]
  • The Research Foundation for Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA)
    The Research Foundation for Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) The Core Knowledge Foundation Revised September, 2016 Anita S. McGinty, CCC-SLP, Ph.D ASEC Advisory, Founder Linda Bevilacqua Core Knowledge Foundation, President Executive Summary Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) Program: Links to Research on Learning and Teaching The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) establish an ambitious vision for the K–12 education system. The standards demand that educational experiences, at every point along the developmental continuum, transparently and intentionally point children toward becoming “college and career ready.” Embedded within the language arts standards is a shift in how to approach reading and writing as developmental processes. The standards move away from reading and writing as discrete skills and toward reading and writing as language-based, lifelong developments that are tightly interwoven with children’s growing knowledge. Indeed, language arts in the context of the CCSS puts knowledge first, with a call for curricula that is “intentionally and coherently structured to develop rich content knowledge within and across grades (NGA Center for Best Practices and CCSS, 2010, p. 10, as quoted in Cervetti & Hiebert, 2015). A major shift within the CCSS is the emphasis on “developing knowledge for and through reading” (Cervetti & Hiebert, 2015). This makes the content of texts as important as other more traditional factors considered within the ELA blocks of young children, such as text levels or decodability. Although the CCSS establish a common focus on the integration of language arts instruction and knowledge building, common standards are not a guarantee that each effort at implementation will be equally effective.
    [Show full text]
  • T E CH N IC AL M an U AL— G R AD E S 3–12 9V.5.0
    TECHNICAL MANUAL—GRADES 3–12 REV. JULY. 24, 2019v.5.0 for READING ASSESSMENT PRESCRIPTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL DATA INSTRUCTIONAL PRESCRIPTIVE LEXIA® RAPIDTM ASSESSMENT Technical Manual for RAPID Version 5.0: Grades 3-12 © 2019 Lexia Learning, a Rosetta Stone Company. Lexia®, RAPID™, and other trademarks, names, and logos used herein are the property of Rosetta Stone Ltd. and/or its subsidiaries, and are registered and/or used in the United States and other countries. METAMETRICS® and LEXILE® are trademarks of MetaMetrics, Inc., and are registered in the United States and abroad. Additional trademarks included herein are the property of their respective owners. Information in this document is subject to change without notice and does not represent a commitment on the part of Lexia Learning Systems LLC. The software described in this document is furnished under a license agreement or non-disclosure agreement. The software may be used only in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It is against the law to copy the software on any medium except as specifically allowed in the license or non-disclosure agreement. No part of this manual may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, for any purpose without the express written permission of Lexia Learning Systems LLC. www.lexialearning.com 300 Baker Avenue • Suite 320 • Concord, MA 01742 TECHNICAL MANUAL FOR RAPID V5.0: GRADES 3-12 tel: 800-435-3942 / 978-405-6200 fax: 978-287-0062 Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Language: Readers, Readability, and the Grading of Texts
    Smart Language Readers, Readability, and the Grading of Text William H. DuBay Impact Information Costa Mesa, California Copyright Smart Language: Readers, Readability, and the Grading of Text 25 January 2007 2007 William H. DuBay. All Rights Reserved. AbstraCt Smart Language gives a brief introduCtion to the adult literaCy surveys and the researCh on readaBility and the readaBility formulas. Readers' Comments Please send all Comments and suggestions regarding this doCument to: William DuBay Email: [email protected] WeBsite: http://www.impaCt-information.Com ISBN: 1-4196-5439-X To George R. Klare 1922—2006 Teacher, writer, sCientist, and friend Contents IntroduCtion ............................................................................................................... 1 Writing for the Right AudienCe ................................................................ 1 Writing for the Wrong AudienCe ............................................................. 2 What Is a Reading Grade Level? .............................................................. 4 What is ReadaBility? ................................................................................... 4 The ReadaBility Formulas ......................................................................... 6 How This Book is Organized .................................................................... 7 Part 1 How People Read ........................................................................................ 10 Chapter 1 The Adult LiteraCy Surveys ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 133-2012: Dickens Vs. Hemingway: Text Analysis And
    SAS Global Forum 2012 Data Mining and Text Analytics Paper 133-2012 Dickens vs. Hemingway: Text Analysis and Readability Statistics in Base SAS® Jessica Hampton, Cigna Corporation, Bloomfield, CT ABSTRACT Although SAS® provides a specific product for text mining (SAS Text Miner), you may be surprised how much text analy- sis you can readily perform using just Base SAS. The author introduces the topic with some background on widely-used readability statistics and tests in addition to a brief comparison of Hemingway and Dickens. After selecting two appropri- ate readability tests and texts of similar length, she describes data preparation challenges, including how to deal with punctuation, case, common abbreviations, and sentence segmentation. Using a few simple calculated macro variables, she develops a program which can be re-used to calculate readability tests on any sample input text file. Finally, she vali- dates her SAS output using published readability statistics from sources such as Amazon and searchlit.org. INTRODUCTION Charles Dickens and Ernest Hemingway represent two very different writing styles. Dickens (1812 - 1870), a popular Vic- torian novelist whose writing often included social reform themes, was paid by the word. Hemingway (1899 – 1961), war correspondent-turned-author of American literary classics, was known for his brevity and simplicity of style. These differ- ences can be quantified using common readability statistics and appropriate readability tests. Readability statistics allow those in various fields (education, healthcare, publishing, military/government, technical docu- mentation) to predict the reading difficulty of a given text or texts. Common readability statistics include the following: total character count, total word count, total sentence count, total paragraph count, average word length, average sentence length, average paragraph length, passive sentence ratio, and distinct word count.
    [Show full text]
  • The Readability of Two Grade 4 Natural Sciences Textbooks for South African Schools
    Lucy Sibanda The readability of two Grade 4 natural sciences textbooks for South African schools Abstract This paper, deriving from a larger study, evaluates the readability of two Grade 4 natural sciences textbooks used by learners who speak English as an additional language in two South African schools. The study is set within the context of the reading-related transitional challenges faced by English second language learners when they move from the foundation phase to the intermediate phase. Text readability is critical for educational achievement during this transition. The case study was conducted by means of a qualitative content analysis of factors that are not accommodated in the readability formulae which were used to investigate the textbooks. While the findings from the two instruments were ambivalent for Book 1, with the content analysis showing the book to be largely readable, but the readability calculator indicating it to be beyond the learners’ reading level, both instruments indicated poor readability for Book 2. The study recommends a close consideration of text readability by both authors and teachers. Keywords: readability, readability formulae, reading levels, content analysis, graphics Lucy Sibanda, Rhodes University. Email: [email protected]. South African Journal of Childhood Education | 2014 4(2): 154-175 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ Sibanda – The readability of two Grade 4 natural sciences textbooks Introduction An understanding of mathematics, science and technology is a prerequisite to meaningful participation in
    [Show full text]