USING DATA AND RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE FOR GROWTH AND INSTRUCTION Instruction in Reading

USING DATA AND RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE FOR GROWTH AND

INSTRUCTION

Instruction in Reading

What is Reading?

“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

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

7

Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps Between Students

Text complexity is the key to accelerating student achievement

in reading.

8

8

Text Complexity - ACT Study

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.

9

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

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.

12

13 13

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 morechallenging texts both above and below the ACT College Readiness Benchmark forReading follows a pattern similar to those in the previous analyses. Improvement on each of the two kinds of questions is gradual and fairly uniform.

13

Recap of ACT Findings

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

14

STUDENTS WHO ARRIVE BEHIND IN READING OR CLOSE TO GRADE LEVEL ARE OFTEN TAUGHT THROUGH COURSES THAT DON’T DEMAND MUCH READING.

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.

15

16

The Percent Of Students Who Have Previously Scored A Level 3 Or Higher On

FCAT Reading 2011 FCAT ResultsGrade 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 9016

What is FAIR?

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

17

18

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

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” MapBS/PMT PRS = Probability of Reading Success

BDI LC = Listening Comprehension 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 ExpectationsBE = Below Expectations

OPM ORF = Adjusted FluencyOPM TDI Tasks = ME or BE and Raw Score 20

21

Target RC Passages for Grades 1 and 2 (BDI)

Florida Center for Reading Research

Grade 1 PRS Chart (2010-2011)

AP1 PRS AP2 PRS AP3 PRS0 0.11 0 0.01 0 .011 0.14 1 0.02 1 .022 0.20 2 0.03 2 .033 0.27 3 0.05 3 .064 0.36 4 0.09 4 .125 0.46 5 0.17 5 .206 0.56 6 0.28 6 .337 0.66 7 0.44 7 .498 0.75 8 0.61 8 .659 0.82 9 0.76 9 .79

10 0.86 10 0.86 10 .88

22

Student Score Detail

Box (K-2)

©2011 Florida Center for Reading Research

Excellent report to include in a student’s cumulative folder

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 09-10scored FCAT Reading Level 1 in 3rd grade SY 1011.

11% of students who had .85 PRS at the end of 2nd grade in SY 09-10scored 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

© 2011 Florida Department of Education

25

Broad Screen/Progress Monitoring Tool

Reading Comprehension Task

(3 Times a Year)

Targeted Diagnostic Inventory

Maze & Word Analysis TasksDiagnostic

Toolkit(As Needed)

OngoingProgress

Monitoring(As Needed)

If necessary

Grades 3-12 Assessments Model

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. 

Purpose of Each 3-12 Assessment

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?

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.

28

29

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

30

The 3-12 “Score” MapReading 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 Percentile Standard Score Ability Score (WAAS)

OPM RC – Ability Score, Ability Range, Reporting Categories Maze – Adjusted Maze Score ORF (3rd – 5th) Adjusted Fluency Score

31

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)

Student Score Detail Box-

3-12

32

Fall Winter Spring

GradeRC

Screen FSPRC

Screen FSPRC

Screen FSP3 .64 .62 .75 .73 .78 .764 .66 .75 73 .76 .76 .775 .69 .78 .75 .78 .76 .796 .70 .75 .72 .75 .74 .757 .71 .75 .72 .75 .73 .758 .70 .75 .71 .75 .72 .759 .69 .73 .69 .73 .70 .73

10 .67 .74 .67 .74 .67 .74

Table 1: Correlations between the FCAT and both RC Screen and FSP

33

Fall Winter Spring

GradeFSP = 0.85

FSP = 0.70

FSP = 0.85

FSP = 0.70

FSP = 0.85

FSP = 0.70

% < Level 3 FCAT

3 .99 .99 .99 .99 .99 .99 284 .95 .97 .98 .97 .98 .96 315 .98 .95 .98 .94 .98 .94 336 .98 .95 .98 .96 .98 .95 407 .97 .92 .97 .92 .97 .92 388 .92 .82 .92 .82 .91 .81 519 .95 .88 .95 .87 .95 .87 59

10 .90 .80 .91 .81 .91 .80 69

Table 2: Screening Accuracy of the FAIR predicting FCAT success

34

The Common Core State StandardsText Complexity

35

Common Core State Standards Text Complexity

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)

36

Advantages to Common Core Standards

• 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

37

Text Complexity

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.

38

Guiding Questions

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?

39

Overview of Text Text Complexity

Text complexity is defined by:

Qua

litat

ive

Qualitative measures – levels of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands often best measured by an attentive human reader. Q

uantitative

Quantitative measures – readability and other scores of text complexity often best measured by computer software.

Reader and Task

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.

40

Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity Grade Bands

Common Core State Standards

41

Text Complexity Grade Bands

Suggested Lexile Range

Suggested ATOS Book Level Range**

K-1

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

Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity Grade Bands

Common Core State Standards

42

Where do we find texts in the appropriate text complexity band?

Choose an excerpt of text from Appendix B as a starting place:

We could….

or…

Use available resources to determine the text complexity of other materials on our own.

43

Determining Text Complexity

A Four-step Process:

QuantitativeQ

ualit

ativ

e

Reader and Task

4. Recommend placement in the appropriate text complexity band.

3. Reflect upon the reader and task

considerations.

2. Analyze the qualitative measures of the text.

1. Determine the quantitative measures of the text.

44

Step 1: Quantitative Measures

Measures such as:• Word length• Word frequency• Word difficulty• Sentence length• Text length• Text cohesion

Quantitative Measures

45

Step 1: Quantitative Measures

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)

46

Step 1: Quantitative Measures

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.

47

Step 1: Quantitative Measures

Lexile Text Measure:

ATOS Book Level:

1080L

7.9

In which of the text complexity bands would this text fall?

48

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

Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity Grade Bands

Common Core Learning Standards

* 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

49

Step 1: Quantitative Measures

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.

50

Step 1: Quantitative Measures

Additional Resources

• Lexile Measures and the Common Core State Standardshttp://www.lexile.com/using-lexile/lexile-measures-and-the-ccssi/

• Accelerated reader and the Common Core State Standardshttp://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R004572117GKC46B.pdf

• Coh-Metrixhttp://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.

51

Step 2: Qualitative Measures

Measures such as:• Structure• Language Demands and

Conventions• Knowledge Demands• Levels of

Meaning/Purpose

52

Common Core StandardsQualitative Features of Text Complexity

Structure (could be story structure and/or form of piece)

Simple ComplexExplicit ImplicitConventional UnconventionalEvents 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 graphicsGraphics unnecessary or merely supplemental to

understanding the text Graphics essential to understanding the text and may provide information not elsewhere provided

53

Common Core StandardsQualitative Features of Text Complexity

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

54

Common Core StandardsQualitative Features of Text Complexity

Knowledge Demands: Life Experience (literary texts)

Simple theme Complex or sophisticated themesSingle theme Multiple themesCommon everyday experiences or clearly

fantastical situations Experiences distinctly different from one’s own

Single perspective Multiple perspectivesPerspective(s) like one’s own Perspective(s)

unlike or in opposition to one’s own

55

Common Core StandardsQualitative Features of Text Complexity

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

56

Common Core StandardsQualitative Features of Text Complexity

Levels of Meaning (chiefly literary texts) orpurpose (chiefly informational texts)

Single level of meaning Multiple levels of meaning

Explicitly stated purpose Implicit purpose, may be hidden or obscure

57

Step 2: Qualitative Measures

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.

58

Step 2: Qualitative Measures

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.

59

Step 2: Qualitative Measures

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?

60

Step 2: Qualitative Measures

61

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

62

Step 3: Reader and TaskTen Guiding Principles

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).

63

Step 3: Reader and TaskTen Guiding Principles

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.

64

Text ComplexityKey to Student Reading Success

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

65

Text Requirements in Middle and High School

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.

66

What Are We Doing To Accelerate Success?

67

Just Read, Florida! New Professional Development

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

68

New: Next Generation Content Area Reading Professional Development

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.

69

Additional Resources

Appendix A - Qualitative Rubric for Text Complexity

Appendix B - Common Core State Standards Text Exemplars

70